The Spirit Says: Inspiration and Interpretation in Israelite, Jewish, and Early Christian Texts 9783110689297, 9783110688214, 9783110689310, 2021937513

Citation preview

The Spirit Says

Ekstasis

Religious Experience From Antiquity to the Middle Ages Edited by John R. Levison Editorial Board David Aune, Jan Bremmer, John Collins, Dyan Elliott, Amy Hollywood, Sarah Iles Johnston, Gabor Klaniczay, Paulo Nogueira, Christopher Rowland, and Elliot R. Wolfson

Volume 8

The Spirit Says

Inspiration and Interpretation in Israelite, Jewish, and Early Christian Texts Edited by Ronald Herms, John R. Levison, and Archie T. Wright

ISBN 978-3-11-068821-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-068929-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-068931-0 ISSN 1865-8792 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021937513 Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; Detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

For Jimmy and Meta Dunn May their memory be a blessing

Acknowledgments Some books begin as solitary endeavors, others as collaborative efforts. The Spirit Says represents the latter, with origins in the Institute for Biblical Research Annual Conference research session, “A Pneumatic Hermeneutic: Scholarly Analysis of the Role of the Holy Spirit in Biblical Scholarship,” which ran from 2012 until 2018. Initiated by Archie Wright and Kevin Spawn, then continued under the direction of Ron Herms and Archie Wright, the essential question of this session was both straightforward and intractable: “Does the spirit have a role in the interpretive process of hermeneutics?” Others, especially Lutheran and Catholic charismatics, had attempted to answer this question, though the locus of those conversations tended on the whole to be ecclesiastical rather than scholarly. Organizers of the Institute for Biblical Research, Mark Boda in particular, championed the effort to situate this conversation in the academy. Jack Levison, whom Ron and Archie had invited to read a paper in the IBR session, joined them as volume editor. He saw that The Spirit Says could have a home in the Walter De Gruyter series, Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. The chemistry among the three editors proved to be entirely agreeable; they are friends, after all, and they regard one another with respect and affection. Our colleagues at Walter De Gruyter Publishing Group are the ultimate professionals, who have combined patience with efficiency. Albrecht Doehnert offered sustained and unqualified support for this project. Aaron Sanborn-Overby and Sabina Dabrowski labored meticulously to bring this volume to fruition. If we kept records, we might be able to say with utter certainty rather than anecdotally that we never waited more than twenty-four hours for a response from them. This is not perfunctory praise; Sabina and Aaron have been exemplary professionals, and we are grateful to them.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-001

Abbreviations ATANT ANTC AB ABD AYBRL AYBC ANE ATR BECNT BDAG

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries Ancient Near East Australasian Theological Review Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 1999. BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientische und biblische Rechtsgeschicte BCBC Believers Church Bible Commentary Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth and H. W. Wolff BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries BTCB Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible CTJ Canadian Journal of Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testment Series CSHJ Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CrStHB Critical Studies in Hebrew Bible CurBR Currents in Biblical Research DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary ExpTim Expository Times FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Foundations OR FIJET Foundations: An International Journal of Evangelical Theology HUCM Hebrew Union College Monographs HTKNT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology ICC International Critical Commentary IECOT International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament IJST International Journal of Systematic Theology https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-002

X

IBC Int JBQ JPS JPrea JSSR JSJ JSNT JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JPSTC JBL JJS JPT JPTSS JPsyTh JR JSJSup JTI LHBOTS LNTS LSJ LBS LCL NET NETS NIBCNT NIBCOT NICNT NICOT NIGNT NIVAC NJPS NTL NTM NTS NT NovTSup OTL OBO PM PTMS Pneuma

Abbreviations

Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching Interpretation Jewish Biblical Quarterly Jewish Publication Society Journal for Preachers Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JPS Torah Commentary Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series Journal of Psychology & Theology Journal of Religion Supplements to Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for Theological Interpretation The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Library of New Testament Studies Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Linguistic Biblical Studies Loeb Classical Library New English Translation Bible New English Translation of the Septuagint New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament New International Commentaries on the New Testament New International Commentaries on the Old Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV Application Commentary New Jewish Publication Society New Testament Library New Testament Message New Testament Studies Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum Old Testament Library Orbis biblicus et orientalis Pentecostal Manifestos Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series Pneuma: Journal for the Society of Pentecostal Studies

Abbreviations

PVTG RBS ResQ RB SBLDS SBLEJL SBLSP SBLSymS SNTSMS SPCK SCM StOr SST SVTQ Them Theol TDNT

TVZ ThTo THNTC TynBul VT VTSup WUNT ZAW

XI

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graeci Resources for Biblical Study Restoration Quarterly Revue biblique Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge SCM Press (Student Christian Mission) Studies in Oriental Religion Studies in Systematic Theology St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly Themelios Theologica Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964 – 1976. Theologischer Verlag Zurich Theology Today Two Horizons New Testament Commentary Tyndale Bulletin Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Table of Contents John R. (Jack) Levison 1 Introduction

Part I Methodology of Spiritual Interpretation Andrew T. Lincoln Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit, and the Gospel of John

9

Blaine Charette Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark: Spirit and 21 Suffering as the Way of Insight in Mark’s Gospel Beth M. Stovell Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion in the Book of the Twelve and the New Testament 39 Anthony C. Thiselton The Holy Spirit, Reason, and the Interpretation of Scripture

61

Mark L. Strauss Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

73

Part II Jewish Scriptures and Cognate Literature Jonathan D. Parker Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

91

Richard S. Briggs Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel: Joseph, Daniel, and the Spirit in Dream Interpretation 113 Mark J. Boda Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom 131 Literature

XIV

Table of Contents

Benjamin G. Wright III “With a Spirit of Understanding” (Sir 39:6): Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira 149

Part III Early Christian Literature Cornelis Bennema The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

169

Craig G. Bartholomew The Spirit of Truth in John’s Gospel and Biblical Hermeneutics

189

Marianne Meye Thompson “The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”: Spirit-Inspired Interpretation in the Gospel and Epistles of John 201 Loren T. Stuckenbruck The Spirit and Imitatio Christi in 1 John

219

Holly Beers Who Carries the Mission Forward? The Unnamed and Overlooked Characters 231 in Acts Ben C. Blackwell The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

251

John R. (Jack) Levison The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, the Writings of 271 Philo Judaeus, and the Letter to the Hebrews Blaine Charette Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3): The Realization of an Old Testament Covenantal Hope 293 Lisa Bowens Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23 Robert Wall “Every Scripture is God-breathed”

331

311

Table of Contents

J. Gordon McConville “Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine 351 Ronald Herms, John R. (Jack) Levison, Archie T. Wright Epilogue 367 Bibliography Subject Index Scripture Index

373 395 403

XV

John R. (Jack) Levison

Introduction

He hid himself from the Romans for two days. When tribunes came to offer him safe passage, he rebuffed them, refusing because he could not imagine that someone who had done so much damage to the Romans would be let off the hook. So Roman general—one day to be emperor—Vespasian sent yet a third tribune, an old friend, to Josephus to compel him to come. Nicanor explained that the Romans are kind to conquered peoples and that Josephus was admired by the Romans for his courage, so Vespasian would keep him safe from harm. The self-congratulatory tenor of this account is stifling. Josephus had brought such harm to the Romans. The Romans admired Josephus. Vespasian wanted to preserve a man of his courage. This narrative is so self-promoting as to be specious, so self-aggrandizing as to be suspect. Even still, by his own account, the Jewish general resisted, so the Roman soldiery wanted to burn down his hiding-place. Nicanor would not allow it and pressed Josephus further, prompting him to recall “those nightly dreams, in which God had foretold to him the impending fate of the Jews and the destinies of the Roman sovereigns. He was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books. At that hour he was inspired [to read their meaning], and, recalling the dreadful images of his recent dreams, he offered up a silent prayer to God.”¹ What Nicanor could not do through entreaty, Josephus’ memory of dreams and his aptitude at the inspired interpretation of scripture did. With that recollection the deal is sealed, the die is cast, or—an expression more remote and apt—Josephus has crossed his Rubicon. It is now off to the Romans, though not until Josephus acknowledges in prayer that good fortune—τυχή is a favorite word of his—has gone over to the Romans. He is, thanks to dreams and the prophecies of scripture, on the right side of history. His decision, claimed Josephus, stemmed less from the pragmatic vagaries of Roman power than from direct revelation. He had a steady diet of nightly dreams that prepared him for this moment of capitulation. Like his namesake, an interpreter of dreams, Josephus would serve in the lavish courts of the Flavians. Josephus had also mastered the ability to interpret ambiguous oracles—

 B.J. 3.352– 53. Translation from the Loeb Classical Library, brackets added. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-003

2

John R. (Jack) Levison

prophecies embedded in the sacred books. Inspired, he was able to fathom, at just the right moment, their meaning. The glimpse of bias, this peek at questionable motivations, at debatable incentives, offers apt entrée to this volume on the inspired interpretation of scripture. Josephus’ claim two millennia past unlocks some of the serious questions that will surface in this book. The first, of course, is the role of revelation in the interpretation of scripture. Few readers of this book would eschew study of the languages in which ancient authors wrote, the cultures in which ancient authors were reared, the literary conventions ancient authors used, the oral traditions ancient authors would transform into literature, and the communities that would collate and canonize what those ancient authors wrote. But what else is needed? Is virtue necessary to exceptional exegesis? Is inspiration—a conscious reliance upon the Holy Spirit, needed in order, with Josephus, to wrest clarity from ambiguous oracles? Or is the better linguist the better exegete, the better anthropologist the better student of ancient culture? To put this matter another way, few of us have burned the vaunted volumes of our Theological Dictionary of the New Testament because Gerhard Kittel, its editor, was an acknowledged champion of National Socialism. We rely on the erudition, even if we do so with a blush of shame and a flush of Schadenfreude. No single answer to this question will emerge from the pages of this volume, but there will be pointers, a wink and a nod to inspiration. Or perhaps a better image of our task is Abel’s blood crying out from the ground; we discover inspiration sunk below the surface by the sweat of our brows, as we pluck the thorns and uproot the thistles in order to find fresh green shoots of inspiration in the gardens of Antiquity. Not Eden, for sure, but perhaps fertile enough soil to support an occasional glimpse of what inspired interpretation might look like—or at least what ancient authors believed inspiration means. Josephus’ experience raises a second question: what it might look like to be inspired. He cannily adopts an ambiguous term, ἔνθους γενόμενος, to describe his experience. These words may well indicate a heightening of human ability, such as when Vespasian, “like one inspired,” evoked extraordinary courage and resolve in his soldiers (B.J. 4.33), or when Saul, inspired, dismissed citizens of Jabis with a promise to come to their aid (Ant. 6.76), or when Elijah kept pace with Ahab’s chariot (Ant. 8.346). In each of these instances, each moment when someone was ἔνθους, native abilities were heightened ordinately. Yet the expression, ἔνθους γενόμενος, can refer as well to a loss of mental control, such as when Elisha, under the influence of a harp, prophesied, ordering certain kings to dig pits in a stream (Ant. 9.35 – 36), or when Saul, becoming inspired, ἔνθους, prophesied in an assembly of prophets (Ant. 6.56). Could ancient partisans of

Introduction

3

prophecy have read Josephus’ Antiquities without discovering in Israel’s annals, as Josephus retold them, ecstasy akin to Delphic enthusiasm or the sibyls? The ambiguity of Josephus’ description draws attention to a central issue in the inspired interpretation of scripture. Does it look more like rapture or intellectual rigor? The dichotomy, of course, is a false one. The answer lies somewhere on a spectrum, but a somewhere scholars have not yet located with any degree of certainty, and for good reason. The difference between a surfeit of adrenaline and a surge of the Spirit can look awfully like one another. A false dichotomy, perhaps, but one that is alive and kicking. Take Exodus 28:3, in which inspired artisans are selected to create magnificent clothing for Aaron the high priest. The text reads, ‫ואתה תדבר אל־כל־חכמי־לב אשר מלאתתיו רוח‬ ‫חכמה‬, literally, “now speak to all the wise-of-heart whom I have filled with spirit-of-wisdom.” Brevard Childs translates this, “Next you shall speak with all who are skillful, whom I have endowed with talent.”² Pentecostal Roger Stronstad comments, “The first concentrated outburst of charismatic activity is associated with the founding of the nation of Israel in the wilderness … The workers who are charged with the preparation of Aaron’s priestly garments or the building of the Tabernacle are endowed with craftsmanship skills through being filled with the Spirit of God.”³ What does inspiration look like? Skills well-honed or a burst of charismatic activity? Yes, it may be a false dichotomy, but not one that has skulked away. Nor should it, given its significance. Hence, this book by a spirited band of scholars unabashed by the ambiguity of it all. Josephus’ claim introduces a third question: what motivates a claim to the inspired interpretation of scripture? Josephus’ motivation is, at least in part, self-preservation. His nightly diet of dreams, his aptitude at dissolving the opacity of prophecies, are, he knows now, omens of Rome’s ascendance and the inevitability of Jewish defeat. They serve, in short, to save Josephus from suicide and offer him a future of Flavian benefaction. Antiquity is peppered with claims to inspiration that served to bolster the convictions of a particular community or the status of a particular interpreter. Ben Sira praised the inspired scribe in a thinly veiled description of none other than himself (Sir 39:6 – 8). The poet of the Qumran hymns claimed to have unlocked mysteries because he listened loyally to God’s Holy Spirit (1QH 20.11– 12). Philo Judaeus made audacious claims to inspiration as the source of his allegorical interpretation: floating on the winds of knowledge in heavenly  Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 516.  Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of Saint Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 15.

4

John R. (Jack) Levison

ascent (Spec. 3.1– 6); coming to his writing-desk empty-headed, only to receive a flurry of inspiration so powerful that it rendered him nearly unconscious (Cher. 27– 29); and receiving words of instruction, intelligible teaching, from his customary friend, the divine spirit (Somn. 2.252). The apostle Paul saw himself as a teacher and an interpreter of mysteries because of his inspired vocation; in 2 Corinthians 3, he offers a skilled—he would say inspired—interpretation of Moses’ bright face that supports, at the expense of others, the status of his own community of followers of Jesus. Time and again in the book of Acts, Jesus’ followers deliver powerful speeches by dint of inspiration, such as when Peter, standing before the Sanhedrin, offers a brief sermon anchored in Ps 118:22—a cherished text in the early church—when he is filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:8 – 12). His point is made, his opponents not just impressed but flabbergasted.⁴ We would be remiss not to ask the question of whether claims to inspiration culled from Antiquity are self-serving, either a community’s convictions or an individual’s standing. Are there examples to the contrary, to inspired interpretation that leads not to safety but to insecurity, not to embrace but to exclusion? There are. There is a nearly forgotten Zechariah, son of the priest Jehoiada, who, when the Spirit clothed him, as it had Gideon, accused the people, who responded by stoning him, according to 2 Chronicles 24:20 – 21. The deacon Stephen, too, having delivered a diatribe that undercut commitment to temple and land, found himself filled with the Spirit but brutally stoned, too, according to Acts 7:1– 60. These examples to the contrary function to heighten the chiaroscuro of Antiquity with respect to status and to raise afresh the question of the legitimacy of claims to inspiration when they serve tidily to support the position and pedigree of those who stake those claims. This question leads inevitably to a fourth raised by Josephus’ defence of his dubious decision with an appeal to inspiration. Who is inspired to interpret scripture? Josephus claims to know the meaning of ambiguous oracles because he is not just a priest but of priestly descent. Twice-said, his pedigree is so unassailable that he can tinge his boasting with a light touch of litotes: he was not ignorant (οὐκ ἠγνόει) of prophecies in the sacred books. Yet the situation he finds himself in, in which transferring his allegiance to the Romans is a more palatable alternative than suicide, calls into question the legitimacy of his claim to inspiration. Yes, he has the pedigree, but has he interpreted the texts in a solipsistic way—all in the guise of inspiration?

 A thorough interpretation is available in John R. Levison, Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 125 – 84.

Introduction

5

Social anthropologist I. M. Lewis, in his Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession, distinguishes central from peripheral contexts of ecstasy.⁵ Ecstasy in what Lewis identifies as central contexts—where clear social hierarchies dominate—lends divine support to the status quo. This is Josephus’ world. Ecstasy in peripheral contexts, which may look like an illness at first, ultimately enhances the marginal status of the ecstatic. Female ecstatic mediums, for example, tend to function in peripheral social contexts because they can speak directly as a conduit of the divine, free of the constraints of the status quo. Lewis’ dichotomy is not universally accepted, but it does pose the question well. Are the ancient authors in this book—representatives on the whole of central contexts—an adequate representation of the inspired interpretation of scripture? What would the answer to our questions look like had someone recorded the words of female Corinthian prophets, whose head coverings allowed them to speak as women of God’s glory rather than as mouthpieces for the glory of their husbands (1 Cor 11:2– 16)?⁶ That final question is not meant to undermine the worth of this book. We have to begin somewhere, and we have chosen to begin with an exceptional array of scholars and an exemplary collection of ancient texts. Still, we have only just begun.

 I. M. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession, 2nd ed. (London/ New York: Routledge, 1989).  Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 59 – 113, 170 – 71, especially 62– 64, 90 – 113.

Andrew T. Lincoln

Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit, and the Gospel of John 1 Introduction The claim that spiritual interpretation of Scripture involves the divine Spirit is uncontroversial. Debate and disagreement begin with attempts to describe what that involvement entails and how it relates to the obviously human activity of reading and interpreting texts. This essay moves towards some brief reflections on that issue through discussion of two prior areas that, it is hoped, may help to shed light. Each of these is a major research area in its own right and so the treatment will inevitably be highly selective. The first sets the context by asking what is in view in talk of the spiritual interpretation of Scripture, in which it is claimed the Spirit is involved. The second begins to probe more closely the role of the Spirit in this sort of spiritual reading by examining what is said specifically about this role in one particular spiritual reading of Scripture found within Scripture itself, that of the Fourth Gospel’s interpretation of its Jewish Scriptures. These discussions then become the springboard for the concluding comments on the relation between human and divine interpretative activities.

2 Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture The term “spiritual” in the phrase “spiritual interpretation of Scripture” is still frequently taken as simply describing a devotional approach to Scripture, whatever the particular tradition of devotion one might have in view, from lectio divina to a daily “quiet time.” Such practices, however, need to be seen in relation to spirituality in its broader sense. Although the broader phenomenon of spirituality can be hard to define, there is now a body of literature on it that is in agreement about its main characteristics. Most helpful in this analysis, in my view, is to work with dual definitions—a more generic one and then traditionspecific ones. One leading writer on both spirituality generally and spirituality and the Bible in particular who takes a similar approach has been Sandra Schneiders, the Catholic New Testament scholar, and her definitions have been influential. She proposes that “spirituality as lived experience can be defined as conscious involvement in the project of life integration through self-transcendence toward the ultimate value one perceives.” When Schneiders moves https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-004

10

Andrew T. Lincoln

from the general to the particular, she makes clear that, for the Christian tradition, “when the horizon of ultimate value is the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ and communicated through his Holy Spirit, and the project of self-transcendence is the living of the paschal mystery within the context of the church community, the spirituality is specifically Christian and involves the person with God, others and all reality according to the understanding of these realities that is characteristic of Christian faith.”¹ Less abstract in its analysis of the generic type of spirituality and how it functions in a predominantly secular culture is the work of Charles Taylor, who talks of the spiritual as the aspiration for a full and flourishing life, which can also be experienced negatively through its absence or loss. His shorthand term for such aspirations is “fullness.” In his own words: Somewhere, in some activity, or condition, lies a fullness, a richness; that is, in that place (activity or condition), life is fuller, richer, deeper, more worthwhile, more admirable, more what it should be … Perhaps this sense of fullness is something we just catch glimpses of from afar off; we have the powerful intuition of what fullness would be, were we to be in that condition, e. g., of peace or wholeness; or able to act on that level, of integrity or generosity or abandonment or self-forgetfulness. But sometimes there will be moments of experienced fullness, of joy and fulfilment, where we feel ourselves there.²

There are two main competing narratives about such spirituality in our culture— that which holds a transcendent dimension to be necessary for its aspiration to be met and that which operates within a closed immanent worldview where having a transcendent goal is deemed to undermine a fully satisfying human life. On Taylor’s analysis, both spiritualities have similar pressure points, where the possibility of dialogue between them opens up—dilemmas and tensions in relation to such areas as dealing with violence, the role of erotic desire, justice, humanitarian solidarity, living with suffering and evil.³ As the longing for life in its fullness is experienced more specifically in Christian traditions this, of course, entails not simply an openness to some transcendent dimension to life but a transformative relation to the God, who is revealed in Jesus Christ and commu-

 Sandra M. Schneiders, “Christian Spirituality: Definition, Methods and Types,” in The New SCM Dictionary of Christian Spirituality, ed. Philip Sheldrake (London: SCM, 2005), 1; cf. also Sandra M. Schneiders, “Biblical Spirituality: Text and Transformation,” in The Bible and Spirituality. Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually, ed. Andrew T. Lincoln, J. Gordon McConville and Lloyd K. Pietersen (Eugene, OR.: Cascade), 128 – 30.  Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA. and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 5.  Taylor, Secular Age, 602– 726.

Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit, and the Gospel of John

11

nicated through the Spirit.⁴ Since it is shaped by the good news of Christ’s death and resurrection, this is a spirituality in which, paradoxically, fullness may come through emptying, as the self becomes de-centred and drawn into relationship with God, with others and with the created world. This spirituality does not simply leave the secular as secular. It enables created reality to be seen as sacramental, shot through with signs of God’s gracious presence; it is lived out in the world in the context of the church and its practices in particular times and places; and, because it takes seriously the conditions that are necessary for human and planetary flourishing, it strives for freedom and justice. On this account of spirituality, to interpret Scripture spiritually is to explore how its texts witness to the lived experience of flourishing within the context of the triune God’s relation to the world and invitation to participate in the divine life. From the stance of Christian faith seeking understanding, it employs all the appropriate methods for reading ancient texts and exercises a critical openness to being transformed by the reality to which the texts witness. In this way, to interpret Scripture spiritually overlaps extensively with interpreting it theologically and, if it differs at all, then it is probably in its more sustained focus on lived experience and transformation. As Sandra Schneiders has emphasized, not least in her exploration of theopoetics,⁵ one of the most prominent features of a spiritual reading is its use of the imagination, an imagination that operates primarily analogically as it perceives how the spiritual reality to which the past texts witness can come to appropriate expression in the very different settings and cultures of later readers. It is the analogical component of the encounter with Scripture that opens up the possibility of a fuller meaning of its texts, whether in terms of Christological and ecclesial readings of the OT within the NT or in terms of reading both testaments for their significance for a fully human life in later times and places. In this way, reading for fullness of life requires reading for fullness of meaning, a sensus plenior. ⁶ The imagination is not, of course, some free-floating entity. The agents exercising imagination are embodied. Two consequences of this are that the imagi-

 The magisterial work by Kees Waaijman, Spirituality: Forms, Foundations, Methods (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), e. g. 6, 312, 424, emphasizes transformation as the characteristic feature of spirituality as lived experience and sees the study of spirituality as a multi-disciplinary enterprise that has as its object “the divine-human relational process as transformation.”  Schneiders, “Biblical Spirituality,” esp. 138 – 39.  For theology itself as the journey towards fuller meaning by use of the analogical imagination in response to God’s grace disclosed in the Christ event, see David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination. Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981), esp. 405 – 56.

12

Andrew T. Lincoln

nation is shaped by readers’ dispositions, relationships, culture and practices and that it is also part of a much broader social imaginary. In encountering a scriptural text in the expectation of its illuminating and transforming readers in a different situation, the analogical imagination inevitably takes up the reading methods and approaches to classic or sacred texts of its own day. In our time, such readings are informed by our historical consciousness but, under the influence of the linguistic and literary turn, recognise the significant role readers play in producing meaning in the first place. Such readings also recognise the potential of texts for multiple meanings and figural interpretations. As we have noted, the imagination is both embodied and socially shaped, and therefore spiritual interpretation is not carried out by isolated individuals but in relation to others and in the context of the church, through which Scripture is in any case mediated. That means there is a dialectical relationship in which the Scriptural witnesses have played into and shape our tradition of spirituality but at the same time the present experience of our particular community and its practices, such as its liturgy, catechesis, communal care, hospitality to others, shape the imagination we bring to a spiritual reading. Communities whose spirituality is characterised by participation in the mission of God for human flourishing—in worship and prayer, in exposing injustices, in confronting the exploitation of the earth and the planet, in practising peace-making, in sharing economic resources with the needy—inevitably find that such practices also inform how Scripture is interpreted for its fuller meaning. The imagination formed through the Christian community is at the same time embedded in a social imaginary, which, following Charles Taylor again, refers to the taken for granted assumptions of a culture about the world, our place within it and what is necessary for a full and virtuous life.⁷ Operative in our context are assumptions about spirituality as a holistic rather than dualistic experience of flourishing and about twenty–first century knowledge of science, biology, psychology, sexuality or cosmology. These contribute hugely to our perception of the text’s vision of spirituality and provide the set of possibilities in the midst of which we discover its fuller meaning in the performance aspect of interpretation. And it is because spiritual interpretations are always embedded in particular social imaginaries, while at the same time reconfiguring them, that they are of course partial and provisional and have their strengths and weaknesses. The same holds for the biblical spiritualities that are being interpreted and is why trust, humility, participation and obedience are not the only dispositions re-

 Taylor, Secular Age, 171– 76. He sees these assumptions as most frequently expressed not in theoretical terms but carried in images, stories and symbols.

Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit, and the Gospel of John

13

quired but there need also to be elements of suspicion and critique about some of the taken-for-granted assumptions they embody in relation to e. g. patriarchy, construals of gender, ancient cosmology and biology, and violence and how these may have distorted the spiritual visions of the texts. Openness to transformation by Scripture entails self-critical dialogue with its texts and has elements of both judgment and appropriation.

3 The Spirit as Interpreter in the Gospel of John If this is something of what spiritual interpretation entails, then in what way is the divine Spirit active in it? Here it is worth stepping back and reflecting on how the Gospel of John talks about this relationship between interpretation and the work of the Spirit. It is not surprising that when Clement and Origen called this Gospel the “spiritual gospel,” part of what they had in view was the way it interpreted not only the Synoptics but also the Old Testament with a fuller Christological and spiritual meaning.⁸ This section of the essay will for the most part need to presuppose what the Gospel actually does in its spiritual reading of the Jewish Scriptures. There is a steadily growing mass of literature that explores this topic.⁹ The emphasis here will be on what the Gospel says about what it does. Yet, in order to draw out the significance of the statements about the interpretative activity of which the Gospel is a product, a very cursory overview of some features of that activity will be supplied by way of reminder. What is clear is that the imagination has been at work in the Gospel’s construal of the life of Jesus, finding analogies to his deeds and words in the Jewish Scriptures and then further analogies to the post-Easter setting of the evangelist and his readers in both the Scriptures and the Jesus tradition. A major example

 For Clement’s initial use of the term, see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.1.14 and for the fuller discussion of its force by his pupil, Origen, see his Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.6.  Among many recent contributions, see e. g. Jaime Clark-Soles, Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Susan Hylen, Allusion and Meaning in John 6 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005); Catrin Williams, “Isaiah in John’s Gospel,” in Isaiah in the New Testament, ed. Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 101– 16; Alicia D. Myers, Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2012); Ruth Sheridan, Retelling Scripture: “The Jews” and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19 – 12:15 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Beth M. Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Gospel of John: John’s Eternal King (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Alicia D. Myers and Bruce G. Schuchard, eds. Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John (Atlanta: SBL, 2015); Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), 281– 345.

14

Andrew T. Lincoln

can be found in the evangelist’s use of LXX Isaiah 40 – 55. In his Scriptures, the courtroom scenes in Deutero-Isaiah with God and Israel and God and the nations depict God as both judge and defendant. In them Israel is called to act as a witness to God as “I Am” and is represented by the servant who both suffers and is lifted up. The language of these depictions is taken up and its motifs are reconfigured as the evangelist sees analogies that now shape his presentation of Jesus’s and his followers’ mission through the metaphor of a cosmic trial. Jesus is portrayed as the divinely authorised judge whose judgment is meant to bring life and as taking the role of the servant-witness who is lifted up in death. The trial is extended into the life of Jesus’ followers, who are to continue his role as servants and witnesses and who will be accompanied by the Spirit as Advocate. By means of the evangelist’s analogical imagination, the narrative became for its readers a means of reaffirming the identity of the God they believed to have been revealed decisively in Jesus, despite the persecution and marginalisation this belief had entailed for them. It served to give God’s verdict on the perceived miscarriages of justice in the case not only of Jesus but also of their own community, to reassure them that life, well-being, and security were to be found in their relationship with Jesus rather than any other source, and to strengthen their resolve to continue in their own witness.¹⁰ The reconfiguring interpretations of Scripture involved are “spiritual” in the sense described earlier because the new narrative world that they shape invites readers to experience life in its fullness through the reality to which it witnesses. The Gospel’s statement of purpose underlines this—it is to produce the sort of trust in Jesus that will mean life in his name (20:31). Those who oppose Jesus have the right goal in their interpretation of Scripture—“you search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life”—yet they miss out because they refuse to see that these Scriptures witness to the one who is the bringer of life (5:39,40). The evangelist’s analogical imagination with its Christological focus employs a variety of sources and reading methods. There is general agreement, for example, that the primary form of the text being interpreted is not the Hebrew Bible but the Old Greek or LXX, a translation that is already an interpretation. From this source the evangelist cites specific passages in direct quotations, weaves particular phrases or sentences into his narrative discourse, and refers and alludes to major characters, events, or symbols. When it comes to citing specific texts, the memory that does so can sometimes be notoriously imprecise. It is

 For a detailed treatment of this use of Isaiah 40 – 55 and its application to Jesus, the disciples and the Gospel’s readers, see Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Gospel of John (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019).

Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit, and the Gospel of John

15

not always obvious which text is being cited when several texts have similar wording or whether there has been a deliberate merging of sources or interplay between them (cf. e. g. 6:31; 19:36). Sometimes no particular text is a match for what has been introduced as a Scriptural citation (cf. e. g. 7:38, 39). This Gospel’s spiritual interpretation reads the various forms of Scriptural material using prominent techniques of its time and culture. Just one striking example is the way in which the bread of life discourse reflects features of a synagogue homily with its midrashic commentary on a text from Torah (Exodus 16) into which are woven references to a passage from the Prophets (Isa. 54:9 – 55:5).¹¹ As indicated earlier, the point in rehearsing briefly even a few features of John’s spiritual interpretation is to underline that, according to the Gospel itself, they can all be somehow attributed to the Spirit’s agency. What the Gospel says about remembering begins to provide the basis for this assertion. As early as the account of the temple incident in 2:13 – 22 the narrator states that the disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me” (2:17). So here remembering for the disciples involves adapting a Scripture (Ps. 69:9) that helps to interpret Jesus’s act. Later in this same passage the narrator again asserts, “After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken” (2:22). This time it is made clear that both Scripture and a saying of Jesus (“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”) are remembered and interpreted in the light of the resurrection. The narrator’s comments only make explicit what is implicit in much of the narrative, namely, that its telling of Jesus’s story is a remembering that combines three interpenetrating levels —Scripture, traditions about Jesus’ earthly mission, and the post-Easter faith and experience of the evangelist and his community. This creative merging of perspectives is explicitly attributed to the Spirit. The disciples are told later in the narrative that the Paraclete “will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (14:26). The function of the Spirit/ Paraclete is to bring to the disciples’ interpretative remembrance all that Jesus had said in the light of its background in Scripture and its foreground in resurrection faith. In this way, the spiritual reading of Scripture can be seen as both a remembering by Jesus’s believing followers and a reminding or bringing to remembrance by the Spirit. Although they overlap extensively, remembering and reminding are not exactly the same activity, because reminding introduces a different agent, here the Paraclete, who provides comprehensive teaching of

 For an exposition of how this works, see Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2005), 221– 41.

16

Andrew T. Lincoln

the disciples through triggering and owning their remembering. The two agents engaged in the same memory process are not simply identical, but the content of the remembering now belongs to both. If one wants to know how the Spirit interprets or reads, then one has to look at the human activity the Spirit co-opts.¹² This inter-subjectivity between the human agent and the divine Spirit characterises other activities in the Fourth Gospel. So, for example, in 15:26, 27 Jesus tells the disciples that the Spirit of truth will testify and that they will testify. These are depicted as accompanying activities but again they are not simply distinct. The Spirit’s witness is primarily in and through that of the disciples. If one wants to know how and what the Spirit testifies, then one has to look at the particular witness of the disciples. The mutuality and intimacy of the relation between the divine Spirit and the human spirit should not be surprising. After all, the reception of the Spirit by the disciples is depicted as a breathing into them (20:22). The verb, ἐμφυσάω, often translated as breathing on, can just as well be rendered as breathing in/ into, and probably should be here, given the clear echo of the creation story and the use of the same verb in that context in LXX Gen 2:7; Wis 15:11. And in any case, the promise to the disciples is that the Paraclete will be the divine agent who is not only with but also in the human agent (14:17), so that, as we have suggested in terms of remembering, the two agents are intertwined. As recent memory studies also indicate, the remembering being done by this double agency is about far more than accurate recall of the past but always includes perceiving past events or texts in the light of their present significance. In addition, memories shared by communities help to establish a group identity and then are subject to adaptation as they validate developing and changing identities.¹³ In the case of Scriptural texts, the Spirit’s work of bringing to remembrance, then, does not have as its goal simply retrieving precise past meaning. At its best, memory is in any case frequently content with gist. Indeed, as we have noted, remembering may not even recall a specific scriptural source or the exact wording of sources that are recalled. As the mediator between past and present and the interpreter of the future, the Spirit is suited to the task of perceiving anal-

 Stephen E. Fowl, Engaging Scripture (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 97– 127, in a chapter entitled “How the Spirit Reads and How to Read the Spirit” makes a similar point about the Spirit as reader on the basis of the Johannine texts but goes on to explore its implications in relation to Acts 15.  For one proposal about the relation between the Spirit and social memory in relation to John’s Gospel, see Tom Thatcher, Why John Wrote a Gospel. Jesus-Memory-History (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), esp. 51– 102.

Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit, and the Gospel of John

17

ogies. Yet through taking up human remembering to do so, the Spirit does not bypass the complexities, ambiguities and messiness of the memory process.

4 The Divine Spirit and Spiritual Interpretation There would be little disagreement that the Spirit is operative at both ends of the hermeneutical spectrum. The Spirit has been at work in the text of Scripture, setting apart the words of human finite fallible witnesses to play their part in God’s life-giving purposes accomplished in Christ. The Spirit is also at work in the world of readers, restoring them to right functioning, including in their interpreting, and shaping them in the virtues necessary for responsible reading, such as those depicted elsewhere as the fruit of the Spirit. Much more disputed is the role of the Spirit in the act of interpretation that takes place between text and readers. Are there two separate activities, one of which is done by humans and the other only by the Spirit? That view is frequently expressed in a two-stage model where humans discover the meaning of a text and the Spirit illuminates and applies that meaning. A recent manifestation of or variation on this view is in Craig Keener’s book about the Spirit and hermeneutics.¹⁴ For Keener, there is a complementarity of Word and Spirit, where believers need to do exegesis of the Word in its contexts and from its results discover principles, and then what the Spirit does is to help them apply the principles to their present situation. There is, of course, a whole debate to be had about the popular two-step hermeneutic, with its goal of obtaining a normative historical meaning that can then be applied, about whether Scripture is the type of document from which readers are meant to extract principles, and about how far readers’ present interpretative performances of texts are in any case part of the meaning potential of the text, its sensus plenior. The main issue, however, for the purposes of this essay, is the tendency to view the Spirit’s engagement in spiritual interpretation as needing to be different from human engagement in such a way that a separate space has to be carved out for the Spirit’s activity. The presentation in John’s Gospel encourages a re-thinking of that basic model. In taking up the disciples’ remembering, the Spirit also owns the whole process. The Spirit reads and interprets in precisely the ways that have produced the Gospel’s narrative, working with both the reading methods of its writers’ particular culture and with their analogical imaginations to which such methods are subservient. It is not that the

 Craig S. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016).

18

Andrew T. Lincoln

Spirit’s role in interpretation begins only when ordinary human modes of reading have been exhausted. This also makes sense in terms of recent discussions in theological anthropology about the relation both of the divine Spirit to the human spirit and of the animating breath of the Spirit in creation to the re-animating breath of the Spirit in new creation. In relation to the topic of this essay, the most significant aspect of such discussions is the recognition that the relation between the divine Spirit’s activity and human activity, including the activity of interpretation, is a non-competitive one.¹⁵ It is not the case that, in order to ensure the human spirit retains its freedom and the divine Spirit can be identified as a distinct and uncontaminated super-human power, interpretation has to be carved up into two separate activities. Rather radical divine transcendence is not jeopardized by immanence. The qualitative difference between Creator and creation enables the transcendent Spirit to be also the immanent Spirit whose intimacy and close identification with human creatures nevertheless keeps their human agency and its integrity intact. If this is so, then, in terms of spirituality as human flourishing, the Spirit is the divine influence who, by providing the freedom for created life to take shape, moves us to become fully the human beings we were created to be. When the divine Spirit meets the human spirit, then the human is fully alive and is being drawn into the divine life that is characterised by a mutuality of love. Spiritual interpretation of Scripture takes part in this dynamic. The Spirit enables humans to be open to transformation through Scripture. But all the activities entailed in actual engagement with Scripture’s texts are also the Spirit’s work. These include the learning of ancient languages, the study of ancient cultures, acquiring the skills of exegesis, employing the most appropriate contemporary reading practices, listening to Scripture’s message in awareness of one’s own cultural setting and its pressing issues, practising discernment in robust debate with others about what sort of interpretation promotes the heart of the gospel, exercising an-

 For a thorough re-examination of Israelite, Jewish and Early Christian literature that calls into question clear-cut distinctions between divine and human spirits, see John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). For an extended theological discussion of the working of the Spirit from this perspective, see Kathryn Tanner, Christ the Key (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 274– 301. For Tanner, Christ is the key to such an understanding of the Spirit, because in the incarnation “God works in Christ as the Spirit works in us: in and through the human” (279). “Rather than try to short-circuit the messy course of human history in a rush for certainty …, we can therefore continue in such human processes, however painful and disheartening they may be, with patience and without anxiety, in the confidence that, even in our ignorance of it, God’s Spirit is making its way in and through them” (299).

Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, the Spirit, and the Gospel of John

19

alogical imagination in prayerful reflection to allow Scripture to become a word on target for one’s own day. All such human activities can be owned by the Spirit as the work of the Spirit in a spiritual reading. Through a fully human reading, the Spirit brings about both the goal of the communicative act, which is God’s speaking through texts, and the goal of interpretation of those texts, namely, transformative participation in the divine life.

Blaine Charette

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark: Spirit and Suffering as the Way of Insight in Mark’s Gospel 1 Introduction This study will examine the way in which the Holy Spirit and the negative “unclean” spirits are presented in Mark’s Gospel and will argue that insight or a heightened understanding is a characteristic or property of “spiritual” influence. Early in the Gospel, the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus, at which point he begins to operate with power and authority. An important aspect of Jesus’ spiritual authority to which Mark in particular draws attention is his wisdom and insight. Related to this, it is noteworthy that, apart from Jesus, the characters within the narrative who show the greatest perception are those with an unclean spirit. This suggests that for Mark there is something essential to the nature of spirit, whether it be the “holy” Spirit of God or the “unclean” spirits adversarial to God’s purpose, that grants insight and understanding to humans. It is widely recognized that in Mark’s Gospel the disciples of Jesus are depicted as imperceptive, slow to understand, and even obdurate in their following of Jesus. Yet, the author of the Gospel, whose perspective reflects a developed state of discipleship, offers a sophisticated and nuanced interpretation of Jesus and of the good news centered in his mission. The Gospel narrative gives no specific account of how disciples move from a condition of ignorance to one of understanding. However, a careful reading of the narrative points to the work of the Holy Spirit as essential to this transformation of the disciple. Also germane to this discussion are other characters within the narrative who are not included among the disciples and yet whose interactions with Jesus reveal a deep level of awareness and perception. What these characters have in common is an experience of suffering which, it will be argued, provides an important key for explaining the nature of this spiritual transformation from ignorance to insight. The hermeneutical implication of this reading of Mark’s Gospel, is that the ignorance of the disciples is ultimately overcome by the transformative work of the Spirit in their lives, the same Spirit that is operative in Jesus’ own ministry. The insight and wisdom evident in the composition of the Gospel narrative is the result of the author’s own experience of the Spirit. Moreover, the narrative strategy employed by the author emphasizes that Jesus and the good news revealed https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-005

22

Blaine Charette

in and through him are incomprehensible at the level of mere human understanding and thus encourages the reader to seek the understanding available through the Spirit and made possible by means of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

2 Spirit and Understanding in Jesus’ Ministry As the narrative of Mark opens, those elements essential to the beginning of the gospel are quickly set in place. John the Baptist, the prophesied messenger who prepares the way of the Lord, appears. He makes the people ready by proclaiming a baptism of repentance and subsequently baptizing them in the Jordan river as they confess their sins. He further proclaims the coming of a mightier one who will effect an even greater baptism, a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Directly following this announcement, Jesus comes from Nazareth of Galilee and is baptized by John in the Jordan. The baptism of Jesus is described in a brief and yet remarkable manner. As he comes up out of the water, the heavens “split apart” (1:10: σχίζω), and the Spirit descends on him. The splitting of the heavens creates an opening between heaven and earth that allows for the descent of the Spirit. Yet this striking imagery is additionally suggestive of the Spirit breaking into the present age. Jesus now becomes the mightier one of John’s description inasmuch as the Spirit that will empower his extraordinary redemptive activity has come upon him. The descriptions of the descent of the Spirit in Matthew (3:16) and Luke (3:22) refer to the Spirit coming “upon” Jesus (ἐπ’ αὐτόν). Mark, consistent with his more dramatic description of the event, strikingly depicts the Spirit as coming “into” Jesus (1:10: εἰς αὐτόν). This use of the preposition εἰς lends further emphasis to the overpowering nature of the experience.¹ The Spirit of God which breaks forth from heaven or, alternatively, from the future into the present, now profoundly enters into Jesus. Moreover, the preposition expresses an interior dimension to the work of the Spirit in transforming and endowing Jesus so he can effectively carry

 In view of Mark’s penchant for dynamic expression, it seems best to read the construction more forcefully, notwithstanding the argument of Joel Marcus that in Koine Greek εἰς with the accusative can be equivalent to ἐπι with the accusative; see Mark 1 – 8, ABC 27 (Doubleday: New York, 2000), 160. This does not, however, require interpreting Mark’s language as echoing a common mythological topos and portending Jesus as a divine being; see Edward P. Dixon, “Descending Spirit and Descending Gods: A ‘Greek’ Interpretation of the Spirit’s ‘Descent as a Dove’ in Mark 1:10,” JBL 128 (2009): 759 – 780.

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

23

out his messianic task. Through the power of the Spirit Jesus is now prepared to act as the powerful eschatological agent who will accomplish God’s purpose. Following the baptism of Jesus, Mark provides many demonstrations of the authority and power that are present in Jesus’ ministry as a result of his experience of the Spirit. He teaches with authority and wisdom (1:22; 6:2), he exercises authority over unclean spirits and demons (1:23 – 27; 1:32– 34; 1:39; 3:11; 5:2– 13; 7:28 – 30; 9:25 – 27), and even has authority to forgive sins (2:10). When Jesus rebukes the wind and calms the sea of Galilee, his disciples are moved to exclaim that even the wind and the sea obey him (4:41). Jesus frequently demonstrates his power to heal (1:30 – 34; 1:40 – 42; 2:3 – 12; 3:1– 5; 3:10; 5:25 – 34; 6:2, 5; 7:32– 35; 8:22– 26; 10:46 – 52) and even to raise the dead (5:38 – 43). The connection between these presentations of authority and power and Jesus’ experience of the Spirit is confirmed in Mk. 6:1– 6. Jesus returns to his hometown and teaches in the synagogue on the Sabbath. The response of those who hear him is astonishment and they are moved to exclaim: “Whence did this man get these things? What is this wisdom given to him? And how is it that such powers are done through his hands?” They know Jesus merely as the carpenter who had once lived there and whose family continues to reside among them. It is revealing that they ask regarding the source of his wisdom and power. Clearly the Jesus they now see is remarkably different from the Jesus they had known prior to his baptism. The difference, of course, is that the Spirit is now operating through him in a way that had not been the case earlier. They do not understand this but rather take offense at him. As a consequence of their unbelief, the power of Jesus is constrained, and he is able to heal only a few sick people in the community. This account of Jesus’ visit to his hometown draws attention to the powers at work through him but also refers to the wisdom given him. This aspect of Jesus’ ministry is of particular interest to the present discussion. He is powerful as one given wisdom and who thus conducts himself with great understanding and perception. Early in the Gospel, in the context of healing a paralyzed man (2:1– 12), Jesus is shown to have insight into what others are thinking. When he announces that the sins of the paralytic are forgiven, certain scribes who witness this begin to question in their hearts (ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν) whether Jesus is guilty of blasphemy since only God has the authority to forgive sins. Mark notes that Jesus immediately perceived (ἐπιγινώσκω) in his spirit (τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ) that they were thinking in this manner and thus challenges them to consider the implications of the healing to the question of forgiveness. In the parallel accounts of Matthew and Luke, Jesus is described as “knowing” their thoughts or questionings, yet only Mark observes that Jesus perceived “in his spirit” that they were

24

Blaine Charette

thus reasoning among themselves.² This is the first of two references to Jesus’ spirit in Mark’s Gospel. Later, at 8:11– 12, Jesus is described as sighing deeply (ἀναστενάζω) “in his spirit” when the Pharisees test him (πειράζω) by asking for a sign from heaven.³ It is significant that on both occasions Jesus is challenged by opponents yet at the same time discerns their hostile intentions. Jesus often faces opposition and misunderstanding in Mark’s Gospel and when he does so he is fully aware of the nature of the situation. This capacity would appear to be another characteristic of the Spirit operating within him. It is best, therefore, to interpret these scenes Mark describes in the sense of the Holy Spirit heightening the understanding of Jesus’ own spirit so that he is able to discern the negative questioning of his opponents. The healing of the woman with a bleeding disorder (5:25 – 34) provides a further example of Jesus’s ability to discern the more profound realities of what is occurring around him. When the woman touched Jesus’ garment, she knew immediately that she had been healed. Likewise, Jesus immediately “perceived in himself” (ἐπιγνοὺς ἐν ἑαυτῷ) that power had gone out from him (5:30). Matthew has no parallel to this observation, although Luke (8:46) does state that Jesus knew (γινώσκω) that power had gone out from him. Mark alone emphasizes that Jesus perceives in himself that something unusual has happened.⁴ Once again there is an interest on the part of Mark to accentuate this interior aspect of Jesus’ character. He possesses a keen awareness of those around him and of the circumstances in which he moves. A further remarkable way in which Jesus’ perception is displayed is the proficiency and wisdom with which he responds to questioners. Mark includes several encounters wherein Jesus is questioned by others either out of a genuine interest in the reasons for his actions or with the intention to entrap him. What is most noteworthy in each case is the acuity with which Jesus responds. The nar-

 In Mark greater emphasis is placed on the internalization of the thought processes. In Matthew (9:3) the scribes are initially described as simply “speaking among themselves” (εἶπαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς), and in Luke (5:21) the scribes and Pharisees “state” (λέγοντες) that Jesus is speaking blasphemy. Only in Mark are the scribes described as questioning “in their hearts.” Matthew (9:4) does describe Jesus as knowing their thoughts (ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν), but in Luke (5:22) he merely perceives (ἐπιγινώσκω) their questionings. Only in Mark does one find the parallel statements of the scribes questioning “in their hearts” and Jesus perceiving their thoughts “in his spirit.”  Outside of the temptation narrative, πειράξω is used elsewhere in Mark only for the attempts of the opponents of Jesus to undermine him (cf. 8:11; 10:2; 12:15). In the parallel to the request for a sign in Matthew Jesus is described as simply answering them.  The perception of the woman is also emphasized in the passage; more on this will be noted in the later section treating the perception and understanding of other characters in Mark.

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

25

rative of Mark is structured in such a way that the public ministry of Jesus is bracketed by two sets of questions. Early in the Gospel, following an introduction to Jesus as exorcist and healer, there is a series of three scenes (2:15 – 17; 2:18 – 22; 2:23 – 28) in which various groups of people question Jesus on a range of topics. First, the scribes of the Pharisees ask Jesus’ disciples why he eats with tax collectors; Jesus responds by observing that it is not the well who need a physician but the sick. Next, certain people ask Jesus why his disciples, unlike those of John or of the Pharisees, do not fast; he observes that guests at a wedding do not fast while the bridegroom is present among them. Finally, Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples, who had been plucking grain in the fields, do what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath; he answers by noting the case of David eating the bread of the Presence when he and his men were hungry. In each exchange Jesus not only answers the question but issues a pronouncement that dramatically defines his role and authority: “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners”; “The days will come when the bridegroom is taken from them, then they will fast”; “The Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath”. This series of questions and answers explains why many are astounded at his teaching (cf. 1:22) and provides an impressive introduction to Jesus as a teacher of profound wisdom and authority. In a similar fashion, the close of the public ministry of Jesus, now set in Jerusalem rather than Galilee, is marked by a series of three scenes (12:13 – 17; 12:18 – 27; 12:28 – 34) in which Jewish leaders question Jesus. The temple authorities, hoping to entrap Jesus, send Pharisees and Herodians to ask him if it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. When shown the coin with Caesar’s image and inscription, Jesus responds that one should give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. This incisive answer causes his questioners to be amazed at him. Following this some Sadducees challenge Jesus with a highly casuistic question about marriage in the resurrection. He responds by addressing their faulty assumptions and affirming that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is God not of the dead but of the living. Finally, a scribe approaches Jesus and asks which commandment has priority over all others. Jesus responds by quoting the Shema (Deut. 6:4), “Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One Lord and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength,” attaching a second command, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18), and remarking that no commandment is greater than these two. The scribe endorses this response, and Jesus, impressed by the wisdom of the scribe, declares that he is not far from the kingdom of God. The exchange concludes with the observation that after this no one dared to ask Jesus any further questions. By enclosing much of Jesus’ ministry between these two sets of ques-

26

Blaine Charette

tions, Mark identifies Jesus’ wisdom as a defining characteristic of his messianic activity. Throughout the narrative, Jesus consistently operates at a level of understanding well beyond that of other characters. Inasmuch as this wisdom and understanding proceed from his experience of the Spirit at his baptism, Jesus epitomizes one who is baptized in the Spirit.

3 The Perception of Unclean Spirits A distinctive feature of Mark’s narrative is the perception and insight shown by those possessed by unclean spirits. They do not function at the same level of understanding as Jesus but nonetheless show a much greater awareness than is the case with other characters in the narrative. Mark describes the spiritual entities that negatively affect and influence humans as “demons” (δαιμόνια) or more characteristically as “unclean spirits” (πνεῦμα modified by ἀκάθαρτος).⁵ Those possessed by such spirits can be described as “demonized” (δαιμονίζομαι; 1:32; 5:15, 16, 18) or as “having” (ἔχω) an unclean spirit (7:25; cf. 3:30; 9:17). Of particular interest, and unique to Mark, is the description used twice of a person being “in an unclean spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ). This language is used both for the man at the synagogue in Capernaum (1:23) and of the Gerasene demoniac (5:2). Such a depiction is quite evocative and reveals an important feature of Mark’s understanding of demonic possession. The prepositional phrase “in an unclean spirit” indicates that the unclean spirit is the sphere or reality in which the person exists, and which now influences and directs them.⁶ They are not only possessed by the spirit but function within the structures of the unclean spirit. It is noteworthy that this description of demonized people closely parallels two references to the Holy Spirit in Mark. John the Baptist at 1:8 refers to the coming one who will baptize “in the Holy Spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ); later at 12:36 Jesus describes David as being “in the Holy Spirit” (ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ) when he speaks the words of Psalm 110:1. In these contexts, the one who is baptized in the Spirit and the one who makes a

 The two terms each occur 11 times in Mark and can be seen as essentially synonymous since at times they are used in parallel fashion; see 6:7 and 6:13 with reference to the authority granted the disciples, and 7:25 – 26 describing the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman; note also 5:1– 18, describing the Gerasene demoniac. Both terms are also used by Matthew and Luke, yet Mark is distinctive in his frequent use of “unclean spirits”.  M. Eugene Boring observes that, to Mark’s Hellenistic audience, the phrase “would suggest that the man is actually engulfed in the demonic power of evil”; see Mark: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2006), 62.

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

27

penetrating declaration by means of the Spirit operate within the sphere of the Spirit. The one who is baptized in the Spirit functions to a significant degree under the direction of the Spirit just as David’s words are not merely his own but are given to him by the Spirit. In the case of those who are demon possessed, although they are the ones who speak, it is evident that the insights they declare are due to the influence of the unclean spirits. The perception they show is a product of their possession by the demonic in whose sphere they live. In this respect, Jesus’ instruction to his disciples at 13:11 is also noteworthy. Looking to the future and anticipating a time when they will have been baptized in the Spirit, he counsels them that when brought to trial they are not to worry about what to say since it will be given to them. In reality they will speak as those influenced and informed by the Holy Spirit. The first example of a possessed person showing remarkable insight is found in the first miracle of Jesus described in Mark. At 1:21– 28 Jesus is teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum when confronted by a man “in an unclean spirit.” Prior to Jesus’ rebuking, silencing, and expelling the spirits, the man identifies the extreme dissimilarity between his reality and that of Jesus (“What is there between us and you”),⁷ asks if Jesus has come to destroy “us”, and confesses that he knows Jesus to be “the holy one of God”.⁸ The man clearly has an understanding of who Jesus is as well as an appreciation of at least one aspect of his mission, i. e., to defeat and eliminate evil. To this extent, the man has an understanding that goes well beyond that of most other characters in the narrative, not only here in the early stages of the Gospel, but for the story as a whole. One of the ironies of Mark, a Gospel so focused on investigating the identity of Jesus, is that those possessed by unclean spirits are the earliest and most consistent in making truthful confessions regarding Jesus. Typical of such cases, however, Jesus rebukes and silences the man. Although the confession of the man is accurate, Jesus does not allow testimony regarding his identity to come from such sources. This pattern repeats itself on other occasions in the narrative. Later that evening, the people of Capernaum bring to Jesus those who were sick and possessed

 The speech of the man alternates between the plural “us” and the singular “I” which underscores the reality that, although he speaks, his words reveal his condition of possession. With respect to the plural, Boring (Mark, 64) notes that “in this initial paradigmatic event Jesus encounters the whole demonic world”; according to Morna D. Hooker the plural “suggest that the demon speaks in the name of all demons”; see Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, BTNC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 64.  This recognition of Jesus as “the holy one of God” (ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ) identifies him with the “holy” Spirit who had entered him at his baptism.

28

Blaine Charette

by demons. Jesus heals the sick and casts out demons but will not permit the demons to speak (1:32– 34). The reason is that the demons “know” (οἶδα) him. The language here echoes the earlier statement of the possessed man at 1:24, “I know (οἶδα) who you are, the holy one of God.” Likewise, in a later description of Jesus’ healing activity in Galilee at 3:7– 12, Mark observes that whenever the unclean spirits saw Jesus they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God!” Jesus, however, strictly rebukes them ordering them not to make him known. One other important passage concerns the Gerasene demoniac at 5:1– 20. Like the first possessed man, he is described as being “in an unclean spirit”, and his declaration before Jesus is similar to that of the earlier encounter. He too draws attention to the disparity between himself and Jesus, confesses his knowledge of Jesus as “the son of the most high God”, and pleads with Jesus not to torment him.⁹ Jesus does not silence the man on this occasion, possibly because of the predominantly Gentile region where the exorcism occurs, and allows the spirits to enter the herd of swine. In each one of these scenes, those possessed by unclean spirits demonstrate a significant understanding of Jesus’ identity. In the first case, Jesus is acknowledged as someone intimately associated with God; he is the holy one (ὁ ἅγιος) of God, yet the description further draws attention to his experience of the “holy” Spirit at his baptism. The unclean spirits for this reason react strongly to Jesus recognizing the great divide between him and themselves and fearing the consequences of his presence. The spirits at 3:11 and the possessed man at 5:7 declare Jesus to be the “son of God” or “the son of the most high God”. These confessions echo the title “son of God”, used to describe Jesus at the opening of Mark’s Gospel (1:1) and are indicative of his kingly status. It is fitting that in both of these scenes the confessions are preceded by the possessed either “falling down” (3:11; προσπίπτω) or “doing obeisance” (5:6; προσκυνέω) before Jesus.¹⁰ These confessions additionally preview the next and last time “son of God” appears in Mark when the centurion who witnesses the manner in which Jesus dies declares him to be son of God. Jesus does silence the demonic voices. Yet, the reason is not because their testimony about him is incorrect. Rather, it is

 With respect to the punishment of the spirits, in the first scene the man asks if Jesus has come to destroy (ἀπόλλυμι) them (1:24); in the latter scene the man pleads that Jesus not torment (βασανίξω) him (5:7). The discourse of the demoniacs in both passages displays a fluidity between the use of the singular and the plural underscoring that the possessed do themselves speak but under the influence and direction of the spirits.  The one other time Mark uses προσκυνέω is at 15:19 in the context of the soldiers dressing Jesus in a purple cloak with a crown of thorns, hailing him as “King of the Jews”, and paying mock tribute to him.

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

29

because the confessions, coming as they do from sources antithetical to the character of God, do not truly comprehend the nature of Jesus’ identity or of his mission.¹¹ They know in part the identity and mission of Jesus, especially as it relates to the demonic, but cannot fully appreciate his purpose in coming. Nonetheless, the possessed in Mark stand out as persons of insight to the extent that, well beyond other characters in the narrative, they recognize the kingly identity of Jesus to which they draw attention, both through their words and actions.

4 Lack of Understanding of the Disciples Throughout Mark’s narrative, the disciples of Jesus are often portrayed as lacking perception and understanding. This is not immediately evident since early in the narrative they are depicted quite favorably. They respond positively to Jesus’ call to follow him and leave behind family and employment. They continue with Jesus and witness his teaching and works of power. A remarkable validation of the disciples is made near the beginning of the parable discourse of Mark 4. Jesus draws a distinction between those who are close to him who have been given the secret or mystery of the kingdom of God, and those on the outside (ἔξω) for whom everything comes in parables (4:11). The close proximity of the disciples to Jesus grants them access to the revelation that is essentially closed to others. Furthermore, the insider position of the disciples gives them an advantage over those on the outside, to whom the words of Isaiah 6:9 – 10 apply: “so that seeing they might see and not perceive and hearing they might hear and not understand, lest they might turn again and be forgiven.” (4:12). To the outsider, the activity and teaching of Jesus remains parabolic in the sense that though they might see and hear they do not perceive or understand. As a consequence of this failure, they do not turn and find forgiveness. The disciples, however, acquire understanding of what God is doing through this activity of Jesus. Yet, ironically, it is in the parable discourse where it also becomes clear that the disciples do not themselves understand as they should. Immediately following the Isaiah quotation, Jesus rebukes his disciples, the ostensible insiders, for their failure to understand the parable of the sower. His penetrating questions at 4:13 (“Do you not understand (οἶδα) this parable? How then will you understand  It is important in this respect to note that in the parable of the soils, and especially its interpretation, which is very much about understanding (4:1– 20), Satan is depicted as taking away the word containing the secret of the kingdom that is sown (v. 15). This indicates that the demonic, although it cannot help but acknowledge the appearance of God’s rule represented in Jesus, is nonetheless set in opposition to the advancement of God’s purpose.

30

Blaine Charette

(γινώσκω) all the parables?”) in effect identify the disciples with those described in the Isaiah quotation. They also see but do not perceive, they also hear but do not understand. Jesus who had earlier characterized them as holding an advantage now reproaches them for their lack of knowledge. These questions of Jesus raise the question of whether the disciples are truly “insiders”, or do they also remain “outsiders” in many respects. The condition of the disciples would appear to be ambiguous. The ensuing narrative underscores this ambiguity. In the very next scene, immediately following the parable discourse, recounting the stilling of the storm on the sea, Jesus finds it necessary to rebuke his disciples further due to their fear and lack of faith (4:35 – 41). Only Mark introduces the story by noting that it occurred “on that day” (v. 35), indicating the same day in which he had delivered his teaching on parables. By means of the reference to time, this second rebuke of the disciples is brought into close association with the previous rebuke directed at their failure to understand and suggests that fear and lack of faith are symptomatic of that failure. The fear of the disciples is also accentuated later in the narrative. They are terrified (ταράσσω) when they later witness Jesus walking on the sea (6:50) and when they witness Jesus’ transfiguration (9:6; ἔκφοβος).¹² Of particular interest is the connection drawn later in the narrative between the fear of the disciples and their failure to understand the passion predictions of Jesus (9:30 – 32; 10:32– 34). The inability of the disciples to understand fully the truth concerning Jesus results in fear and makes it difficult for them to exercise proper faith. In the meantime, Jesus sends out his disciples with authority over unclean spirits (6:7) and they are indeed able to cast out demons and heal many who are sick (6:13). When the disciples return, they inform Jesus of all they had done and taught (6:30), and yet the very next scene, the feeding of the five thousand (6:32 – 44), discloses that they do not yet understand the nature of this authority as well as they should. In response to Jesus’ command to give the crowd something to eat, the disciples respond by asking how they might be able to purchase enough to feed the crowd. In the subsequent scene, where the disciples see Jesus walking on the sea (6:45 – 52), their lack of understanding at the feeding is explicitly noted. When Jesus appears to them on the sea and joins them in the boat, they are both afraid and amazed.¹³ The reason Mark gives for this powerful  Fear in the presence of the numinous is also in view when the women followers of Jesus are afraid when they hear the announcement of the resurrection (16:8).  In the Matthean parallel (14:22– 33), the initial fear of the disciples is noted, yet the scene progresses to one in which the disciples come to a recognition of who Jesus is and are moved to worship and confession.

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

31

reaction is that the disciples did not understand (συνίημι) about the loaves but rather their hearts were hardened (6:52). They continue to witness the power and authority of Jesus, are even able to participate in that authority, and yet fail to grasp the full meaning of Jesus’ actions. The next reference to the disciples’ failure to understand appears in the context of Jesus’ teaching on defilement (7:1– 23). When the Pharisees and some of the scribes from Jerusalem observe Jesus’ disciples eating with unwashed hands, they ask Jesus why his disciples do not live according to the traditions of the elders. Jesus responds by pointing out their hypocrisy in paying mere lip service to God since they are willing to subvert the commandment of God for the sake of their own traditions. Following this rejoinder, Jesus summons the crowd and challenges them to “hear” and “understand” a parable: it is not what goes into a person from the outside that defiles but rather what comes out of a person (vv. 14– 15). Later, when the disciples are alone with Jesus, they ask about the parable. This question elicits the criticism, “Are you then also without understanding (ἀσύνετος)?”, followed by an explanation of the parable which is introduced by the words, “Do you not understand (οὐ νοεῖτε)?” (v. 18). The disciples once again reveal their incapacity to understand the parabolic teaching of Jesus. Mark includes a second feeding miracle, this time involving four thousand people (8:1– 10), in which the disciples once again demonstrate little understanding of how such a multitude could be fed. As in the earlier account, Jesus takes charge of the situation by feeding the crowd and postponing the rebuke of the disciples until later when they are together in the boat (8:14– 21). Ironically, the disciples had forgotten to bring bread with them and had only one loaf. Jesus enigmatically cautions them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. The disciples, discussing this with one another, mistakenly assume he is referring to their lack of bread. The response of Jesus to their confused reasoning contains the most extensive rebuke of the disciples in Mark, “Why are you discussing that you do not have bread? Do you not yet perceive (νοέω) or understand (συνίημι)? Have your hearts been hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear?” (vv. 17– 18). He continues by reminding them of the details of the two feedings and concludes with the pointed question, “Do you not yet understand (συνίημι)?” (v. 21). The earlier reproaches of Jesus culminate in this volley of questions that profoundly identifies the disciples’ lack of awareness and recognition. This reaction of Jesus to his disciples is remarkable on many levels. He twice uses the temporal adverb “not yet” (οὔπω), indicating his intense exasperation

32

Blaine Charette

with the disciples.¹⁴ He speaks of their hardness of heart, which echoes the narrative assessment of why the disciples did not understand the nature of the first feeding miracle (6:52).¹⁵ But perhaps the most distressing aspect of the rebuke is the allusion to Isa. 6:9 – 10 (regarding their failure to see or to hear), which Jesus had quoted earlier at the occasion of his first rebuke of the disciples (4:12– 13). The disciples, although continuing to witness multiple instances of Jesus’ authority and power and although receiving the benefit of his personal attention and instruction, do not see with perception or hear with understanding. They continue to respond to situations in ways more consistent with “outsiders” than “insiders.” The disciples fail to understand Jesus both with respect to his teaching and his power. As such, they show far less understanding than certain marginal characters of the narrative. Although the disciples follow Jesus, they do so without proper knowledge. They lack the perception needed to truly “follow” Jesus. This problem, so pronounced in the narrative of Mark, provokes the question of how and when the disciples will finally come to understand. An additional feature of the portrayal of the disciples in Mark is their self-interest and personal ambition, which is frequently associated with their failure to understand the words or actions of Jesus. A well-known structural feature of the narrative which lends to the story a profound dramatic tension are the three passion predictions of Jesus in which he summarizes the rejection and sufferings that lie in his future. These predictions, which begin near the midpoint of the Gospel, set the tone for the journey of Jesus and his disciples to Jerusalem, where the events of the passion will take place. What gives a poignant dimension to these passion predictions is their juxtaposition with scenes that reveal the ignorance, self-regard, and ambition of the disciples. They are insensible to what Jesus seeks to communicate, preferring instead to indulge in a mistaken understanding of what his messiahship entails and what that might mean for their own status and position. The first passion prediction follows Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ (8:29 – 31), which represents the high point of the first half of the Gospel. Jesus responds to the confession by first cautioning his disciples to tell no one about him. He most probably reacts in this manner because he recognizes that Peter and the other disciples do not understand the meaning of his messiahship and thus can only extend their misunderstanding if they share this information  Mark had earlier used the adverb οὔπω in Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples following the storm on the sea: “Do you not yet have faith?” (4:40).  It is significant that only in Mark are the disciples described as hard of heart. This assessment of the disciples’ condition is particularly ominous in view of the fact that elsewhere in the narrative it is the opponents of Jesus whose hearts are hard (cf. 3:5).

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

33

with others. Following this warning, Jesus teaches them plainly that the Son of Man must suffer many things. Peter, unable to make sense of this statement, rebukes Jesus and in turn receives a more severe rebuke in which he is identified as Satan and informed that he is thinking (φρονέω) in a very human way and not as God would have him think (8:32– 33). Attached to the passage is a statement by Jesus directed at both the disciples and the crowd concerning the full implications of following after him, including self-denial and cross-bearing (8:34– 38). It is crucial that the disciples not only understand what Jesus’ messianic task entails; they must also willingly embrace the deprivations and hardships that are integral to following him. When Jesus issues the second passion prediction, which takes place as he and his disciples are traveling through Galilee, the disciples fail to understand (ἀγνοέω) what he is saying and are afraid (φοβέω) to ask what the saying means (9:30 – 32). In the very next scene (9:33 – 37), Jesus asks the disciples what they were discussing on the way, that is, what they were concerned with at the time he was speaking about his fate. The disciples remain silent because they had been discussing with one another who was the greatest. Jesus responds by noting that the one who would be first must be last and the servant of all. He reinforces the teaching by placing a child in their midst. The dual scenes further confirm the unease and insensitivity of the disciples but add an additional element in suggesting that their fear and lack of understanding may be related to their preoccupation with status and dignity. The third and final passion prediction (10:32– 34) begins with the notice that, as Jesus walked before his disciples, they were amazed (θαμβέω), while those following were afraid (φοβέω). Jesus then delivers the most comprehensive of the three predictions informing the disciples of all that will happen to him when they reach Jerusalem. Immediately following this prediction, James and John approach Jesus and request seats at his right and left side in his glory (10:35 – 45). Jesus responds by observing that they do not know what they are asking; he enigmatically asks them if they are able to drink the cup he drinks and to be baptized with the baptism with which he is baptized. Most probably the metaphors of the cup and the baptism refer to the sufferings of which he had just spoken that await him in Jerusalem. Jesus must once again remind his disciples that, if they would genuinely follow after him, they must come to regard their own lives and destinies as inextricably linked to his own. These scenes, in which Jesus discloses to his disciples the afflictions that are intrinsic to his messianic mission, are of key importance to the narrative. They elucidate the full meaning of Jesus’ messianic identity. Moreover, these scenes present in sharp relief how ill-prepared the disciples are to understand these realities or to embrace the implications of following such a messiah. It is clear that the disci-

34

Blaine Charette

ples, although literally following Jesus, do so without a clear understanding of what such following entails.

5 The Perception of Characters Familiar with Suffering Although most characters, including the disciples, do not understand much about Jesus, there are a few individuals who demonstrate a greater awareness and who thus become examples of meaningful perception. There are two characters in particular who play a distinctive role in this respect: the woman with the bleeding disorder and blind Bartimaeus.¹⁶ As noted earlier, the healing of the woman is an important scene (5:25 – 34), emphasizing Jesus’ awareness and discernment. Yet the passage also accentuates the perception of the woman. She asserts in 5:28 that, if only she might touch Jesus’ garment, she would be saved. Then, at the instant of touching him, she knows she has been healed (5:29, 33). Following her healing, Jesus declares that her faith has saved her. It is significant that her affliction is twice described as a “scourge” (μάστιξ in 5:29, 34), especially in view of the third passion prediction, in which Jesus states that the Son of Man will be scourged (10:34; μαστιγόω). It is noteworthy that this woman, one of the few people in Mark who demonstrate faith, is someone familiar with suffering. It is likely that Mark wishes to note a connection between suffering and understanding. It is directly following the extended scene attached to the third passion prediction, in which James and John request positions of authority and Jesus must inform them that his way is one of service and sacrifice, that Mark places the story of the blind man Bartimaeus (10:46 – 52). When the blind man hears that Jesus of Nazareth is passing through Jericho he insistently cries out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”, even as the crowd orders him to be silent. Bartimaeus is the only person in Mark to use this title, and, in thus identifying Jesus as the expected Davidic messiah, he exhibits profound insight.¹⁷ At the be The scribe who asks Jesus about the greatest commandment is commended for his wise answer (12:34). Likewise, Jesus is so impressed by the response of the Syrophoenician woman, regarding the dogs and the children’s crumbs, that he grants her request and casts the demon out of her daughter (7:24– 30). These characters, though positive, are not as key to the Markan narrative as the woman with the bleeding disorder and Bartimaeus.  The only other time “Son of David” appears in Mark is at 12:35 – 37, where Jesus argues that, since David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, describes this messianic figure as his own Lord (in Ps 110:1), the “son of David” is therefore greater than David himself.

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

35

ginning of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is identified with the kingly titles, “Christ” and “Son of God” (1:1). Yet, central to the irony of the narrative is that few recognize Jesus as a king.¹⁸ Peter, of course, confesses Jesus as Christ (8:29), but it is soon evident he does not fully understand what the title means once Jesus begins to associate his messianic identity with suffering (8:31– 33). It would appear that this blind man, as a result of his own suffering, has a greater understanding than others of the true nature of Jesus’ kingship. Insight gained through suffering links Bartimaeus to the woman with the bleeding disorder, as does Jesus’ declaration to him, “Your faith has saved you.” They are distinguished as the only two people in Mark who receive this praise from Jesus which suggests that their faith is linked to their insight and trust in the midst of suffering. As such, they stand in marked contrast to the disciples whose lack of understanding is linked to a reluctance to accept suffering as a central feature of Jesus’ messianic mission and as an important aspect of their own discipleship. Their disinclination to embrace suffering but rather to seek their own status and security prevents full insight into Jesus’ character and purpose and reveals they are not yet influenced by the same Spirit that inspires and directs him.

6 Spirit, Suffering, and Insight in Mark Suffering is key to understanding Jesus ministry and is presented in the Gospel of Mark as essential to authentic discipleship. The association of self-denial and cross-bearing with the following of Jesus is first presented in the context of the first passion prediction (8:34). Those serious about following Jesus must not only accept that Jesus’ destiny involves suffering but must also be willing to embrace for themselves the same privations and adversities. This earlier challenge finds a complement in Jesus’ question to James and John in the context of the third and final passion prediction. There, in response to their request to be granted positions of authority at his right and left hand, he asks them if they are able to drink (πίνω) the cup (ποτήριον) that he drinks and to be baptized with the baptism with which he is baptized (10:36 – 40). As noted earlier, it is probable that the metaphors of “cup” and “baptism” refer to the sufferings that await Jesus in Jerusalem. With respect to the cup metaphor there are two subsequent passages in Mark that link the cup to Jesus’ death. In the context of Jesus’ final Passover

 The confession of Bartimaeus does, however, associate him with those possessed by unclean spirits who identify Jesus as the son of God.

36

Blaine Charette

meal with his disciples, he takes a cup (ποτήριον) and after giving thanks he gives it to his disciples and they all drink (πίνω) from it (14:23). As they drink, Jesus identifies the cup as his blood of the covenant poured out for many.¹⁹ The cup is thus representative of Jesus’ death that will soon be accomplished. A short time after the meal, Jesus goes with his disciples to Gethsemane where he asks the Father to remove “this cup” (τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο) from him (14:36). The context does not indicate what the cup represents, but, in view of the distress and sorrow Jesus experiences at the time, it clearly points to his imminent death. Thus, when Jesus asks James and John if they are able to drink the cup that he drinks and then further states that they will indeed drink his cup, his words suggest that they must fully participate in and actualize for themselves the meaning of his death. They are not only to be beneficiaries of the consequences of his death but, as followers who take up their cross and who lose their lives for his sake, they are to participate with him in suffering and death. The metaphor of baptism, unlike that of the cup, does not appear again in the passion narrative, yet this too should be interpreted as an allusion to his passion.²⁰ The idea of immersion contained in the metaphor of baptism is a fitting description of comprehensive involvement in suffering and death. Thus, when Jesus speaks of James and John being baptized with his baptism he refers once again to their participation in the realities of his own passion. For the disciples of Jesus to fully appreciate the meaning of Jesus, they must embrace the significance of his suffering and death.²¹ They too need to be immersed into a baptism similar to what Jesus himself experienced. Disciples are to be baptized with the same baptism and to drink the same cup to fulfill in their own lives the self-denial and willingness to sacrifice that characterize Jesus. The strongest association of insight with suffering in Mark is found in the confession of the centurion at the cross. When he sees the way in which Jesus dies, he is moved to proclaim, “Truly this man was the son of God” (15:39).

 The phrase “poured out for many (ὑπὲρ πολλῶν)” may contain an echo of 10:45, where shortly after his question to James and John about drinking the cup Jesus refers to his future action of giving his life as a ransom for many (ἀντὶ πολλῶν). It is perhaps significant that, whereas in Matthew and Luke Jesus invites his disciples to drink at the Last Supper, only Mark describes them as all drinking from the cup, particularly in view of Jesus’ words to James and John at 10:39 that they will drink of his cup.  The closest parallel to Jesus’ words at Mark 10:38, concerning the baptism with which he is to be baptized, is the enigmatic declaration of Jesus at Luke 12:50, “I have a baptism with which to be baptized and how pressed upon I am until it is completed.”  For Adela Yarbro Collins, the statement of Jesus means that the disciples will share in the meaning of Jesus’ death, albeit in a limited way; see A. Y. Collins, Mark, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 497.

Insight as a Characteristic of S/spirit in the Gospel of Mark

37

This confession echoes one of the two titles ascribed to Jesus at the opening of Mark (1:1, along with “Christ”) and as such represents an ironic counterpart to Peter’s confession at 8:29. Whereas Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ is declared without full understanding and thus necessitates Jesus’ teaching on his passion, the centurion’s confession is given in the context of the passion and thus reflects greater understanding of Jesus’ identity which can be known only through his suffering and death. Mark demonstrates that proper understanding of Jesus and of his messianic task is possible only through personal participation in and appropriation of his suffering. Moreover, Mark suggests that such understanding is mediated through the Spirit. It is perhaps significant that when the Spirit descends at Jesus’ baptism it appears in the form of a dove, a bird associated with ideas of sacrifice (cf. Lev 5:7; 12:6). The Spirit accordingly grants Jesus insight to carry out his messianic work as well as to understand the central role of suffering to that work. The disciples consistently fail to understand this as well as other aspects of the messianic mission, since they are not yet ready to embrace a following of Jesus that involves suffering. However, others in the narrative who are familiar with suffering reveal a more profound understanding.²² It is only when the disciples drink the cup Jesus drinks and are baptized with the baptism with which he is baptized that they are ready to understand. The language of baptism is highly relevant, since it is as they fully embrace the meaning of Jesus’ suffering and death by willingly sharing in that experience that Jesus now baptizes them in the Spirit as John had earlier prophesied. It is then that they begin to understand what true discipleship means.

7 The Hermeneutical Implications of This Study There are important questions, relevant to this study, that are raised by the narrative of the Gospel of Mark, but not explicitly answered: What is the baptism in the Holy Spirit that Jesus effects? When is this baptism in the Spirit granted to those to whom it is promised? And, is this baptism in the Spirit the corrective to the lack of insight that characterizes the disciples of Jesus throughout the narrative? The interpretation of Mark developed in this paper points to how these questions are best answered.  The insight of those possessed by unclean spirits may be due in part to their own suffering. It is noteworthy that the unclean spirits not only inflict suffering but are troubled at the prospect of their own inevitable suffering. In this respect, the desolation that defines their reality is the obverse of the redemptive suffering present in the life and activity of the “holy” Spirit.

38

Blaine Charette

The baptism in the Holy Spirit, although a concept encompassing a broad range of theological meaning, certainly in Mark indicates the heightening of a person’s insight and understanding as a result of “immersion” into the life of the Spirit. Jesus, as a consequence of his own experience of the Spirit, is presented in the Gospel as a person of extraordinary perception. The description of those possessed by unclean spirits provides a remarkable counterpart to Jesus’ understanding and reinforces the idea that such insight is a “spiritual” property. This baptism in the Spirit is only available to others after Jesus has himself undergone the baptism with which he is baptized (10:38), that is, only as a consequence of his suffering and death. As a result of Jesus’ death, his disciples receive this experience of the Spirit, which assists them to participate in his sufferings and thus come to a profound understanding of his messianic mission and of their own role in the continuation of that mission. By means of the narrative strategy of repeatedly demonstrating the lack of understanding of those closest to Jesus, with the attendant results of fear and ineffectiveness, the Gospel of Mark draws the reader’s attention to the connection between proper insight and authentic discipleship. The text lays bare the deficiencies of the disciples, which preclude a true following of Jesus, but it also points to the resolution of this undesirable condition. In the Gospel Jesus challenges his disciples regarding the difficult way of discipleship; however, these challenges are always expressed against the backdrop of the opening promise that Jesus will baptize them, as well as others, in the Holy Spirit. For the first disciples, the answer to their problem is found outside the narrative frame of Mark’s Gospel, since it concludes with the announcement of Jesus’ resurrection. However, the answer is implicit in the way the story is told. It is the Spirit, received after Jesus’ death and resurrection, who makes possible the self-denial and acceptance of suffering essential to discipleship, and who thus makes possible a true following of Jesus. The Gospel invites the reader to experience, through immersion in the life of the Spirit, the insight which results in true discipleship.

Beth M. Stovell

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion in the Book of the Twelve and the New Testament 1 Introduction Pneumatic hermeneutics is a burgeoning field in biblical studies. Yet, within this field, few scholars have explored the relationship of the spirit¹ and kingship in inner-biblical allusion and its impact on pneumatic hermeneutics. Even fewer have used cognitive conceptual theories as their methodology, as this chapter will do. Publications like Kenneth Archer’s A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century and Jacqueline Grey’s Three’s a Crowd: Pentecostalism, Hermeneutics, and the Old Testament approach pneumatic hermeneutics by focusing specifically on how Pentecostals interpret Scripture in light of their conceptions of the spirit’s active work. Archer’s examination traces the history of hermeneutics in Pentecostal circles, including engagement with and questions concerning critical approaches to Scripture. This history catalogues the social and theological influences on Pentecostalism, the “shifting paradigms” as Pentecostalism develops from its early to current stages.² He highlights the interrelationship between the practices of engaging the Holy Spirit in the midst of Pentecostal community and the impact on biblical hermeneutics.³ Jacqueline Grey adds to the wider discussions on pneumatic hermeneutics, which have frequently focused on the New Testament, by examining the underrepresented field of Old Testament hermeneutics. Using Isaiah as “a prism,” Grey uses a two-fold approach of Pentecostal academic readings of Isaiah alongside the use of Isaiah in Pentecostal liturgy, specifically sermons and songs. In doing this, Grey amplifies “the voice” of Pentecostal pneumatic hermeneutics

 In this chapter, the word “spirit” is in lowercase with two exceptions: 1. If the word is being used with a capital in a quotation by another scholar. 2. If the word is being used alongside the word “Holy” and seems to indicate a proper noun who is traditionally described as the third person of the Trinity in Christian theology. The choice to use capitalization in this second situation is to be consistent with naming functions such as Father and Son and Holy Spirit in Christian theology.  Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture, and Community (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 9–155.  Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century, 156 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-006

40

Beth M. Stovell

in their readings of the Old Testament, and, like Archer, shows the vital role of community in Pentecostal pneumatic hermeneutics.⁴ Another Pentecostal scholar, Amos Yong, provides a different hermeneutical approach equally Pentecostal but with a lens that reflects Yong’s theological training in Spirit-Word-Community. ⁵ While Yong shares a focus on the impact of the community on hermeneutics with Archer and Grey, Yong explores this by way of theological doctrines. His theological hermeneutics are expressly Trinitarian in their conception; they compare the three-fold roles of “Spirit, Word, and Community” to the Triune nature of God.⁶ Whereas Archer and Grey ask questions within the purview of biblical hermeneutics, such as the relationship between biblical authority and communal interpretation, and the impact of praxis on biblical interpretation, Yong’s work delves into philosophical and theological areas, such as metaphysics, ontology, pneumatology, Trinitarian theology, and epistemology.⁷ In doing so, Yong demonstrates the value of systematic theology working alongside biblical studies in exploration of pneumatic hermeneutics. These three scholars represent a wider trajectory among Pentecostals to explore how their view of the spirit impacts their hermeneutical views, processes, and outcomes, as well as how these hermeneutical moves impact their religious community.⁸ While a strength of these approaches is their awareness of how their particular religious context informs their hermeneutics, these works at times provide a narrow focus on the view of the spirit within the Pentecostal tradition specifically.⁹ These approaches also tend to maintain the disciplinary di Jacqueline Grey, Three’s a Crowd: Pentecostalism, Hermeneutics, and the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 8 – 9.  Amos Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001).  Yong develops a “trialectic” theological hermeneutics of Spirit-Word-Community. See Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 219 – 310.  In Part I, Yong has chapters that cover each of these topics or some integration of these topics. Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 25 – 118. Part II focuses more extensively on epistemology. See Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 119 – 218.  This trajectory is part of the larger move within Pentecostalism to contribute to scholarly fields of biblical studies and theology. This is further evidenced by Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies, and the Society for Pentecostal Studies itself.  However, it is valuable to note that while Grey’s work uses the language of “Pentecostal,” she explicitly points to the broader renewal tradition of charismatics outside of classical Pentecostalism as part of her examination. See Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 32– 35. Similarly, while Yong is himself Pentecostal, he frames his book with an intent to create a constructive Trinitarian theological hermeneutics that is not only for Pentecostals, but for all people. See Yong, Spirit-WordCommunity, 1– 24.

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

41

visions between Old and New Testament without extensive discussion of the impact of inner-biblical allusion on conceptions of the spirit. While these scholars may be interdisciplinary in their work (e. g., Yong’s philosophical and theological bent and Grey’s “ethno-methodological approach”), these scholars do not provide interdisciplinary engagement with linguistic theories such as cognitive linguistic theories to explore the conceptions of the spirit. Alongside these works, scholars in the broader renewal tradition have explored various forms of pneumatic hermeneutics.¹⁰ In their edited volume, Spirit and Scripture, Kevin Spawn and Archie Wright examine the developments of pneumatic hermeneutics within the broader renewal tradition.¹¹ Their volume focuses on three core questions: “(1) How does the Holy Spirit mediate meaning from the text? (2) How is Scripture both divine and human discourse? (3) How do the experiences of both the charismata of the Spirit and related supernatural occurrences shape the hermeneutics lens of the biblical scholar?”¹² An advantage of this volume is its global scope and breadth of scholars exploring the conceptions of the spirit and Scripture. Additionally, its engagement with scholars outside of the renewal tradition provides insight into questions that arise with such forms of pneumatic hermeneutics. However, this volume tends to follow the usual disciplinary divides between the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and the New Testament in its chapters and does not include any focused study on the relationship between conceptualizations of the spirit and inner-biblical allusion. Craig Keener’s Spirit Hermeneutics explores some of the same questions raised by Spawn and Wright’s work, as he develops a two-stage approach to biblical hermeneutics “in light of Pentecost.” Keener argues for a first stage of responsible exegesis and a second stage of openness to how God’s spirit will apply the biblical text to the lives and communities of Christian believers.¹³ Keener’s work adds to the broader conversation of pneumatic hermeneutics by

 The renewal tradition is commonly categorized by scholars such as Stanley M. Burgess as the three movements, or waves, of global charismatic renewal. The first wave is classical Pentecostalism, the second wave is charismatics in the historic mainline churches, and the third wave includes non-Pentecostals, non-charismatics, mainstream church renewal and neo-charismatic movements. See Stanley M. Burgess, “Neocharismatics,” in New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 928.  Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright, Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2012).  Spawn and Wright, Spirit and Scripture, xviii.  See Craig Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016).

42

Beth M. Stovell

engaging the broader charismatic/Pentecostal traditions, by pointing to the necessity of multiple voices in hermeneutics, and by championing a Pentecostal hermeneutic for all Christians. Keener moves from the Old to the New Testament, exploring “Intrabiblical Models for Reading Scripture.”¹⁴ In this way, Keener’s work offers a pathway that is closest to the inner-biblical one explored in this chapter. Yet Keener’s work does not focus on kingship and the spirit as a particular theme in a sustained fashion. While these studies have provided helpful insight into pneumatic hermeneutics generally, additional work on how the conception of the spirit developments across the biblical canon would add to these prior discussions. Further, these works on pneumatic hermeneutics have not typically focused on the relationship between God’s spirit and God’s kingship and have not used cognitive linguistic approaches to delineate the contours of the conceptions of God’s spirit. This chapter will begin by providing a brief definition of terms associated with the methodology of this chapter. It will then explore how depictions of God’s spirit and kingship in Exodus impact depictions of these topics in the Book of the Twelve. Then it will examine how these depictions of God’s spirit and kingship in the Twelve are used and developed in the New Testament by focusing on two examples of this in the use of Joel 2– 4 in Acts 2 and the use of Zech 9 – 12 in John 12 and 19.¹⁵ The goal of this examination will be to demonstrate how conceptions of God’s spirit and kingship are developed through inner-biblical allusion. Such an approach will lead to the initial development of a kingdom pneumatic hermeneutic.

 Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 205 – 262.  At times scholars have explored the use of divine spirit and divine presence in the Twelve, but none have explored the relationship between divine spirit and presence and kingship as a specific focus of their approach. Examples include Larry R. McQueen, Joel and the Spirit: The Cry of a Prophetic Hermeneutic, JPTSup 8 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995); Norberto Saracco, “I Will Pour out My Spirit on All People: A Pastoral Reading of Joel 2:28 – 30 from Latin America,” CTJ 46 (2011): 268 – 277; Mordecai Schreiber, “‘I Will Pour Out My Spirit on All Flesh’ (Joel 3:1),” JBQ 41 (2013): 123 – 129; Erika Moore, “Joel’s Promise of the Spirit,” in Presence, Power and Promise, eds. David Firth and Paul Wegner (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 245 – 56; Mark Boda, “Word and Spirit, Scribe and Prophet in Old Testament Hermeneutics,” in Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic, eds. Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright (New York: T & T Clark International, 2012), 25 – 45.

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

43

2 Methodology This chapter is based on two key forms of analysis: inner-biblical allusion and cognitive linguistic approaches to biblical metaphor. First, the chapter focuses on inner-biblical allusion. While definitions of what constitutes an allusion vary among biblical scholars, this chapter follows the work of Stanley E. Porter, who has established parameters around allusion in relation to quotation, paraphrase, and echo. In his 2006 article “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” Porter argues for a spectrum with five categories of citation moving from explicit to non-explicit citation as follows: (1) formulaic quotation, (2) direct quotation, (3) paraphrase, (4) allusion, and (5) echo.¹⁶ However, Porter modifies these distinctions in his subsequent 2008 article, “Allusions and Echoes.” In this second article, Porter provides the following defining features of allusions: (1) “Intentionality appears to be necessary, but not sufficient means by which one can distinguish an allusion.” (2) “Allusion draws upon a common pool of shared knowledge.” (3) “The purpose of allusion, in order to avoid being merely ornamentation (or even possibly plagiarism), is to draw the earlier text, person, event into the present text as means of addressing a particularly literary problem.”¹⁷ While allusions can be less explicit than direct quotation or even paraphrase, an author may utilize any level of citation for allusive purposes. The chief characteristic of allusion is not the level of citation, but rather its purpose in drawing upon an “earlier text, person, event into the present text” as Porter describes. This chapter also builds on the methodological foundations of cognitive linguistics, exploring the conceptualization of the spirit in relation to kingship based on conceptual theories of metaphor by linguists such as Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner. While these influences will be more implicit than explicit in this chapter, the language of “conceptual blending,” “deixis,” and “metaphori-

 Stanley E. Porter, “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice, eds. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis Ronald MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter, NTM 16 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 107.  Stanley E. Porter, “Allusions and Echoes,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley, SBLSS 50 (Boston: Brill, 2008), 35 – 36. Scholars such as Richard Hays have also used the language of “allusion” and “echoes” as categories for intertextual use and forms of citation. However, Porter and Hays would approach these terms in slightly different ways. See Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1993); Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2017).

44

Beth M. Stovell

cal entailments” draws on the vocabulary of such conceptual linguistic theories.¹⁸ According to Fauconnier and Turner, conceptual blending is the central process by which meaning construction occurs as two concepts are blended with one another. A key element of conceptual blending is “mental spaces.” Mental spaces are “small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk, for purposes of local understanding and action.”¹⁹ These mental spaces contain partial elements from conceptual domains and from the given context.²⁰ These partial elements are sometimes called “metaphorical entailments.” “Deixis” is a linguistic and literary term used to discuss how time, space, and relationship are described in relation to a given speaker.²¹ These terms are used throughout this chapter to highlight the linguistic grounding for the study that follows.

3 Depictions of God’s Spirit and Kingship in Exodus Conceptions of God’s spirit and presence in the Twelve often have their roots in Pentateuchal themes.²² This includes the use of key conceptions of God’s spirit

 See Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, “Mental Spaces: Conceptual Integration Networks,” in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Dirk Geeraerts, Cognitive Linguistics Research 34 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 312. For a fuller explanation of these theories, see Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities (New York: Basic Books, 2002).  Fauconnier and Turner, “Mental Spaces,” 307– 08.  Fauconnier and Turner, “Mental Spaces,” 331. For a more detailed discussion of the definition, use, and impact of “mental spaces,” see Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser, Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996); Fauconnier, Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language (Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1985); Fauconnier, Mappings in Thought and Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).  Rolf A. Jacobsen, Many Are Saying: The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 21.  While not all conceptions of God’s spirit and presence are directly linked to the Pentateuch, the frequency of these connections are quite high. Studies of the uses of the Exodus narrative in the Book of the Twelve include discussions of Hosea and Exodus in Steven L. McKenzie, “Exodus Typology in Hosea,” ResQ 22 (1979): 100 – 108; Nahum and Exodus in Paul L. Redditt, “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research,” SBLSP 40 (2001): 58 – 80. See also discussions of Joel and Exodus in Jörg Jeremias, “The Function of the Book of Joel for Reading the Twelve, “ in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations,

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

45

and presence in Exodus found in the Twelve. Thus, prior to exploring the Twelve’s depictions of God’s spirit and presence, it is helpful to demonstrate first how Exodus develops these themes.

3.1 God’s Spirit and Presence in Exodus The Exodus story provides a series of theophanic moments and describes encounters with the divine presence with a variety of related terms.²³ Common terms describing God’s presence include: glory and splendor (shown to Moses, but also hid from Moses and affirming God’s presence in the tabernacle in Exod 24:15 – 18, 32:18 – 23, and 40:34– 38),²⁴ God’s goodness (Exod 34:6 – 7), and radiance (echoed in Moses’ face (Exod 32– 34).²⁵ God’s presence provides peace to Moses (33:14) using the term ‫ ָפּ ִ֣נים‬panim for God’s presence, a term Widmer notes is found extensively throughout Exodus.²⁶ God’s presence is associated with its manifestation in the form of cloud and fire with the people (Exod 13:21; 14:19 – 24; 16:10; 19: 9, 16; 25:15, 16, 18, etc.; at times this is a consuming fire, see Exod 24:17)²⁷ and becomes a sign of God’s presence in the tabernacle (Exod 40:34– 38).²⁸ In the establishment of the tabernacle, God’s presence is depicted as having a home (Exod 34:26), a dwelling place, and this space is also referred

Redactional Processes, Historical Insights, eds. Rainer Albertz, James Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 43 – 47.  This analysis of Exodus is found elsewhere in my article, Beth M. Stovell, “Metaphors of Presence: Divine Presence and Divine Spirit in the Book of the Twelve,” in Performance, Voicing and Metaphor in Poetic Prophesy, eds. Carol Dempsey, Elizabeth R. Hayes, and Beth M. Stovell, LHBOTS (New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, forthcoming). A similar analysis of Exodus is also found in Beth M. Stovell, “Jesus Is God with Us: Applying Porter’s Criteria for the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament to the Theme of Divine Presence,” in The Language and Literature of the New Testament: Essays in Honour of Stanley E. Porter’s 60th birthday, eds. Craig A Evans, Lois Katharine Dow and Andrew Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 746 – 49.  Ralph W. Klein, “Back to the Future: The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus,” Int 50 (1996): 272.  John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, Volume Three: Israel’s Life (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 142– 43.  Widmer discusses the implications of this peace in more detail. See Michael Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32 – 34 and Numbers 13 – 14 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 151– 56.  Levison argues the centrality of the pillars of fire and cloud in Exodus as the groundwork for Hag 2:4– 5 and Isa 63:7– 14. See Jack Levison, A Boundless God (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 139 – 155.  Klein, “Back to the Future,” 271– 72.

46

Beth M. Stovell

to as a meeting place. Each description depicts different aspects of God’s interaction with the people of Israel.²⁹ The location of the experience of God’s presence is both in the temple and on the mountain in the Exodus account and thus references to God’s mountain or God’s holy mountain often relate to God’s presence (Exod 4:27, 15:17, 19:18 – 20, 20:18, 24:15 – 18). God’s presence is also associated with particular forms of spatial and relational deixis. Spatial, relational (or personal), and temporal deixis form a triad of forms of deixis commonly studied. As Rolf Jacobsen explains in his analysis of deixis in the Psalms: “deixis refers to the change in personal, temporal, spatial, or hierarchical perspective that is reflected when a different person is speaking.”³⁰ In the case of spatial deixis, the focus is on words that contextually point to movement from one space to another or indicate a perception of relative spatial distance. Meanwhile, relational deixis focuses on words that demonstrate the relative relationship between the speaker and another person or thing. In Exodus, such spatial and relational deixis include depictions of nearness through prepositional forms (e. g., God “with you,” being before God’s face as a depiction of presence (Exod 33:14– 15) ‫ ָפּ ֶ֙ניָ֙ך‬and “face to face” (Exod 33:8) ‫ֶאל־ ָפּ ִ֔נים ָפּ ִ֣נים‬, etc.).³¹ The language of “my presence” and “with you”/ “your presence” and “with us” in Exod 33:14– 15 moves from spatial to relational deixis indicating a perception of relationship related to spatial promixity. The shifting movement in this passage back and forth from Moses’ face to Yahweh’s face/Moses’ presence to Yahweh’s presence further emphasizes this emphasis on spatial proximity of the divine presence with relational linking. Widmer provides a survey of the uses of the term ‫ ָפּ ִ֣נים‬panim for God’s presence, noting the variety of ways this term is used both of God’s presence and Moses’ interaction with God’s presence.³² Widmer concludes that these diverse references to God’s presence “imply a spiritual and spatial closeness of Moses to God,” yet distinctions are made between being in God’s presence and God’s presence passing by.³³ Widmer suggests that this depiction of God’s presence demonstrates “a balance of two fundamental aspects of the Hebrew understanding of God. He is seen and yet he is

 See John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, Volume One: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 392– 401.  See Jacobsen, Many Are Saying, 21.  While work on spatial deixis and God’s presence has been limited in biblical studies, such work has been done in English literature studying depictions of God’s presence in John Milton and John Donne. See Heather Dubrow, Deixis in the Early Modern English Lyric: Unsettling Spatial Anchors Like “Here,” “This,” “Come” (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015).  Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 162– 68.  Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 166.

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

47

not seen. He is a holy and consuming fire, yet he is gracious and merciful.”³⁴ Thus, the divine presence is depicted as both near and accessible as well as dangerous and inaccessible. Regarding the Exodus and the conception of God’s spirit, the Exodus account uses the language of God’s ruach to speak of God’s power in driving back the waters of the Red Sea as he brought the people out of Egypt via Moses. This occurrence of ruach certainly is translated better as “wind” or “breath” rather than as “spirit.” Nonetheless, this ruach language in Exod 14:21 as the Lord drives a strong east wind to turn the water into dry land is then pictured metaphorically in Exod 15:8 and 10 as God as Divine Warrior uses the ruach of his nostrils to blow the waters into a heap (Exod 15:8), causing the waters to stand like a wall. Then, when the enemy boasts against the Lord and his people, the Lord blows with his ruach and covers the enemy with the sea so that they sink like lead into the mighty waters (Exod 15:10).³⁵ Subsequently, this language of ruach in Exodus explicitly links the creation of the tabernacle with God’s spirit (ruach). Such language is found in Exod 15:13 and 17, where God’s salvation by his ruach leads the people to God’s dwelling place, his sanctuary, his mountain (a collocation of three words often associated with places of God’s presence). Richard Hess demonstrates that the creation of the wilderness temple in Exod 25 – 31 and 35 – 40 depicts a series of different factors associated with God’s spirit, such as God’s spirit in the creativity of the tabernacle and God’s intentionality of giving his spirit for the means of creating a building for his presence.³⁶ In Exod 31:3, the Lord tells Moses of how the Lord has filled Bezalel with the spirit of God related to wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, associated with skills for production of the tabernacle. The story of this filling by God’s spirit, in turn, Moses echoes to the Israelites in Exod 35:31. Hess argues that in Exod 28:3, “God gives his spirit (ruach) to each of those engaged with the construction of the tabernacle.” Hess appears to base

 Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer, 167. It is worth noting that this is a specifically Christian way of reading the attributes of God in the Hebrew Bible. Widmer acknowledges this in his work, describing himself as engaged in the Old Testament as a “confessional Christian discipline” (65 – 70). Such a viewpoint has been helpfully engaged and countered by Jewish scholars, offering a Jewish theological hermeneutic in response. See Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Hebrew Bible Theology: A Jewish Descriptive Approach,” JR 96 (2016): 165 – 184.  Scholars have demonstrated links between the Divine Warrior motif in the Song of the Sea with its links to Canaanite myths to conceptions of divine presence. See Thomas Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: A Typology of Exaltation (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1977), 123 – 43.  Richard S. Hess, “Bezalel and Oholiab: Spirit and Creativity, “ in Presence, Power and Promise, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2011), 161– 75.

48

Beth M. Stovell

this reading on the combination of the verb “fill” with “spirit.” However, such a reading needs to be balanced with the awareness that Exod 28:3 has neither the suffix “my” nor the addition of “of the Lord” (Elohim) to indicate that this ruach is attached to God other than coming from the Lord’s filling. Similarly, the “spirit of willingness” of the people, while using ruach, is not necessarily pointing to a divine spirit among the people, but rather the character of the people’s spirits.³⁷ Similarly in his discussion of Bezalel and Oholiab, John Levison argues that the filling of these two figures with God’s spirit echoes the filling of the tabernacle with God’s presence. This filling of the spirit brings God’s presence into every area of the lives of these two men. This filling in turn extends to the rest of the artisans on the project.³⁸ In this way, the place of God’s presence is associated with God’s spirit-filling of the artists creating this space. Yet, this does not mean that one can simply collapse God’s spirit and presence in these passages. Instead, the filling with God’s spirit becomes the means of creating a space for God’s presence to dwell. Conceptual metaphor theory helps to delineate how this conception of the spirit works. Depictions of the metaphor of God’s spirit include repeated associations or metaphorical entailments. The metaphorical entailments of the spirit include wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, this connection between God’s spirit and wisdom, knowledge, and understanding is also present as entailments of God’s spirit or a spirit with which the Lord fills his people. For example, in Gen 41:38 – 39, Joseph is distinguished by the Pharaoh as one in whom is the spirit of God (ruach elohim) (v. 38) and this spirit of God in Joseph is distinguished due to his discerning and wisdom.³⁹ In Deut 34:9, Joshua, son of Nun, like the artisans of the tabernacle in Exod 28:3, is described as being “filled with the spirit of wisdom” because of Moses’ hands laid upon him. In Isa 11:2, the spirit of the Lord will rest upon the “shoot/Branch” figure that derives from Jesse and with the Lord’s spirit comes the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, and the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. These depictions of the spirit that is upon this shoot/ Branch figure appears to create a parallelism between the spirit of the Lord and traits of the spirit.⁴⁰

 Hess agrees with this point, but connects it to the larger construct of the use of the term ruach elsewhere in the passage. See Hess, “Bezalel and Oholiab,” 164– 65.  See John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 52– 58, 60 – 67.  See Hilary Marlow, “The Spirit of Yahweh in Isaiah 11:1– 9,” in Presence, Power and Promise, eds. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 226.  It is valuable to note that, while both are translated “Spirit of the Lord,” in Exodus this phrase is ruach elohim, while in Isa 11:2 the phrase is ruach yhwh. For more discussion on the

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

49

Thus, as one describes the semantic domains associated with the Lord’s spirit, the language of filling appears to be a common verbal association with the Lord’s spirit. Language associated with wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and might also appear to be common associations with the Lord’s spirit in the passages under review. The Lord’s spirit may be described as ruach elohim or ruach yhwh or simply by the use of ruach along with the concept of the Lord as agent filling an individual with this ruach. When one speaks of the metaphorical depiction of the Lord’s spirit, the above terms are considered. In addition, the ruach may be directly linked to God as Divine Warrior, particularly in his actions in the Exodus event as demonstrated in the Song of the Sea.

4 God’s Spirit, Presence, and Kingship in the Twelve In the Twelve, God’s kingship frequently becomes a conceptual blending point to God’s spirit and presence. At times this is through other depictions of God’s character, nature, or agency. These blends can also take place with depictions of the temple, which joins God’s temple/palace with God’s presence via his spirit in the temple. At other times, this conceptual blending comes through God’s kingly role in his covenant making with Israel, which comes alongside his presence with them and his spirit’s anointing upon his chosen ones. We will look now at these developments in Joel 2 – 4 and its subsequent use in Acts 2 and in Zech 9 – 12 and its subsequent use in John 12 and 19.

4.1 Divine Warrior-King, the God Who Dwells in Zion, and the Spirit in the Twelve and Acts Joel uses aspects of the Exodus account using both the book of Exodus itself and Num 11 to characterize God’s relationship with his people in terms of his abiding presence with them and his spirit poured out upon them. In Joel, the presence of God among his people is linked to his kingship in Zion. For example, in both Joel 2:27 and 3:17, 21 ET// 4:17, 21 MT the identity of God and his actions for the nation of Israel are linked to God being “in their midst” and dwelling in Zion. The picture of the Lord who heads his army in Joel 2:11 further demonstrates a link to the implications of this passage, in relation to larger themes of presence and spirit, see Marlow, “Spirit of Yahweh.”

50

Beth M. Stovell

Lord’s role as Divine Warrior and king. Scholars have shown links between Divine Warrior and king in the ancient world in Ugaritic texts such as the Baal Cycle⁴¹ and in Egyptian texts.⁴² Such links can also be found alongside the use of God’s dwelling place in Zion in the Psalms, which may be linked to Joel’s use here.⁴³ In this way, the temple space becomes a locale for God’s kingship to be manifested through his presence and spirit. The reference to the cloud and smoke of Exodus in Joel along with the glory demonstrate the links made to the Exodus event as does explicit reference to Exod 34. The Divine Warrior motif links with Exod 15, but it also draws a link throughout the passage from God as king in Zion to God as Divine Warrior who as king will judge his people and the nations. Joel 2 and 4 demonstrate how God’s revelation is revealed through God’s spirit, identifying God as king to his people. The pouring out of God’s spirit in 2:28 – 29 ET//3:1– 2 MT becomes the means for messages from God in visions and dreams and is represented through language in 2:30 – 32 ET//3:3 – 5 MT that resembles God’s presence in the wilderness. This language builds on the giving of God’s spirit and the experiences of prophesy in Numbers 11 and Moses’ statement “Would that all the LORD’S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit on them!”⁴⁴ This experience of God’s spirit and presence in Joel then draws the people to a renewed awareness of the Lord and, via this awareness, salvation by the great king in his temple-palace Zion (2:32 ET// 3:5 MT). Joel’s depiction of God also links his place in Zion as king with his depiction as lion roaring and emphasizes God’s voice to the people.⁴⁵ Like the repeated use of trumpet calls in Zion, this aural reference has the rhetorical force of drawing the reader to hear in new ways, but it additionally focuses on the quality and power of God’s speaking to the people, which is strong enough to shake the

 Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 157– 160.  Sa-Moon Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, BZAW 177 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 91– 95.  Compare Ps 76, 99.  Levison discusses the spirit as “passed on” and “poured out” exploring first passages like Numbers 11 and then passages like Joel 2– 3, which build upon Num 11. See Levison, A Boundless God, 73 – 103. McComiskey argues for Joel 2– 3’s dependence on Num 11. See Thomas Edward McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 294.  See in Joel 4:17 links between God’s holy mountain and his dwelling in Zion. God as lion roars in Zion, which in turn relates to the blowing of the trumpet in Zion (2:1 and 15) via the noises coming from Zion.

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

51

heavens and the earth (3:16 ET//4:16 MT). The power of God’s voice and the experience of God’s revelation are then in part conditioned by a memory of God’s spirit and presence with the people in their Exodus journey. In Joel, this revelation brings salvation and extends to all people (2:28, 29 ET//3:1– 2 MT). Joel’s depiction of God in this way depicts the spirit as linked to God who is ruler and king of all creation, such that his voice shakes creation from top to bottom and his spirit poured out impacts all people.⁴⁶ Building on Joel and the Psalter, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 builds a connection between Father, Son, and Spirit that links God’s kingship and God’s spirit. Notably, the theme of fire and cloud in the Exodus event, present in Joel, are also found in Acts 2.⁴⁷ God’s voice to the nations via God’s spirit is also found as a continuity between these texts. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 links these themes to the larger themes of God’s reign and rule via the spirit as a means of revelation among his people as we will see below; God’s spirit reveals the nature of the God who both saves and judges his people and the nations. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 connects Joel 2– 3’s depiction of God’s giving of his spirit with the patriarchal figure of King David via extended innerbiblical allusions. As Peter continues his message, he emphasizes the link between the pouring out of God’s spirit and the kingship of Jesus who comes from the Father. He does this by using the figure of David to point to Jesus’ kingship, which exceeds David’s kingship. As Acts 2:32– 36 states: God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

In Acts 2, Jesus, who is king, Lord and Messiah, experiences first the anointing by the Holy Spirit promised by the Father. Then God’s people also experience this “pouring out,” causing them to “see and hear.” The language of “poured out,”  Some scholars have described this passage as having egalitarian tendencies. For example, Bruce Birch notes Joel’s egalitarian spirit and its impact on Paul and Acts. See Bruce C. Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos, WC (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 3. For further discussion of the outpouring on all people, see Erika Moore, “Joel’s Promise of the Spirit,” in Presence, Power and Promise, eds. David Firth and Paul Wegner (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2011), 251– 255.  Barton points out the connection between the Exodus event and this language. See John Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 98.

52

Beth M. Stovell

and “see and hear” in v. 33 cause Peter’s words to point back to Joel’s words even as Peter draws Jesus’ kingship near to the Holy Spirit’s anointing, which outpours on Jesus and on God’s people.⁴⁸ Unlike David, whose kingship was limited compared to Jesus’ kingship and who never ascended to heaven, Jesus in his kingship surpasses David’s kingship as “both Lord and Messiah” and this baptismal event functions as forerunner of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.⁴⁹ Thus, the author of Acts in the speeches of Peter demonstrates a linking of kingship and spirit. Jesus’ kingship and the Father’s creational power characterize the experience of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on God’s people. Through the use of inner-biblical allusion to Joel and the Psalter, God’s spirit is understood in light of God’s ultimate purposes, not only to provide universal access to the spirit upon the people, but also to declare the nature of God’s kingship through Christ, crucified and resurrected, raised to the Father’s right hand, enthroned with God the Father.

4.3 Divine Warrior, Shepherd-King, and Spirit-Filling in the Twelve and John’s Gospel Besides these metaphors associated with the spirit and kingship via inner-biblical allusion in Joel, a recurring metaphor in the Book of the Twelve is the role of human and divine kings to shepherd their people using the title “shepherd.” Micah and Zechariah represent examples of this use of kingship in association with shepherding in ways that allow for new explorations of the spirit in relationship to kingship in the Twelve. The uses of shepherd-king metaphors are shaped in Micah and Zechariah by inner-biblical allusion. Micah appears to base his depiction on a similar tradition as Isa 40:10 – 12,⁵⁰ while Zechariah

 Finley identifies several links between Peter’s sermon, the events in Acts 2, and Joel. See Thomas J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah: An Exegetical Commentary (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 73 – 77.  Jaroslav Pelikan follows Luke Timothy Johnson in arguing that Acts links Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist as forerunner to the giving of the Holy Spirit to all people. See Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts, BTCB (Grand Rapids, IL: Brazos Press, 2005), 209.  Some of the research for this section on Micah was previously presented in my SBL paper in 2010. See Beth Stovell, “The Arm of the Lord Gathers the Lambs: The Metaphors of Shepherd and Divine Warrior in the Book of the Twelve Prophets,” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA, November 2010).

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

53

bases his depiction on Ezek 34, which in turn make links to Davidic psalms and narratives of David for their shaping, adapting and reshaping as it goes.⁵¹ This section will explore how Zech 9 – 12 develops pictures of God as shepherd-king and Divine Warrior-king in relation to God’s spirit and presence in Zechariah and then explore the impact of this understanding on the later inner-biblical allusion as John’s Gospel receives and re-interprets these traditions. While notions of kingship in relation to God’s spirit do not begin in Zech 9 – 12, they are presented extensively in this section of Zechariah. Earlier sections of Zechariah also describe an interplay between God’s spirit, his anointing, and the tension between human kingship and God as the great king. For example, Zech 4 provides a picture of two “sons of oil” linking the anointing of oil with the anointing of God’s spirit. The passage then provides a prophetic word to the human king Zerubbabel that questions the power and might of human kingship, instead placing this power in the hands of God’s spirit as the ultimate source and pointing to God’s kingship as ultimate king. This theme is similar to how human kingship is depicted in other post-exilic books including the Psalter and the end of Zechariah. Zech 4:6 may be an intertextual link with Ps 33:16.⁵² Zechariah 9 – 12 presents an example in the Twelve of the relationship between shepherds, kingship, and God’s spirit and presence with the people. Interestingly, these connections are drawn through the linking of Divine Warrior with these other metaphors. Zechariah’s approach to shepherds builds on Ezek 34 where God is the ultimate shepherd who will care for his people despite the wicked shepherds of Ezekiel’s time.⁵³ Zechariah 9 – 11 grounds the picture of God as king in three key metaphors: God who fights for his people as Divine Warrior, cares for his flock as shepherd, and reigns over his people as the great king. All three of these conceptions of God can be seen as blended metaphors that centre on the conception of “God as King.” As noted previously, in the ancient Near East, divine and human kings were associated with their actions as warriors

 The diachronic tracing of this statement may become messy in so far as it is difficult to substantiate claims on relative dating for Historical books and the Psalter in relation to the prophetic literature at times. Here I am not suggesting that Ezekiel and Isaiah had all Psalms or Historical books available in their completed form at the time of their writing, but rather that the oral traditions existed in a substantial enough form that such allusions could be made.  Stead argues for the inner-biblical allusion in Zech 4:6 of Ps 33:16 and the implications for undermining human power and might compared to God’s provision via his Spirit. See Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1 – 8. (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 176.  Young Sam Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and the Gospel of Matthew, WUNT 216 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 76 – 90, esp. 79 – 82.

54

Beth M. Stovell

and with their care as shepherds.⁵⁴ Thus, Zech 9 depicts God as Divine Warrior, who encamps at his house (i. e., the temple) as guard (v. 8), uses his people as his weaponry as he fights for his people (vv. 12– 15). The chapter conceptualizes God as shepherd describing his care for his flock (Zech 9:9 – 10).⁵⁵ Both Zech 9 and 10 focus on God’s presence; in Zech 9, God demonstrates his presence by fighting and saving his people and in Zech 10, he does this by shepherding his people well and judging the shepherd-kings who have not shepherded them well. Like Zech 9, Zech 10 picks up the imagery of God as Divine Warrior, shepherd, and king. In Zech 10:1, the Lord is the creator who has the power to bring down showers when he is called upon and he is also the Lord who makes the storm clouds (a common theme related to God as Divine Warrior). The theme of God as shepherd-king in 9:16 also recurs here in 10:2. The Lord is the great shepherd who is angered by the inferior shepherds who have allowed the people (the flock) to wander for lack of a shepherd (v. 2). As in Ezek 34, in Zech 10:3 the Lord will judge and punish the shepherds and leaders of Israel, while showing his care for the flock. In a surprising metaphorical turn, the Lord turns his cared-for flock into a proud warhorse. Here the theme of God as Divine Warrior, begun with reference to the storm clouds in v. 1, becomes the Divine Warrior blended with shepherd who uses his flock as weapons. Zechariah 10:5 links these actions with God’s presence as “the Lord…with them.” Thus, in Zech 10, God’s presence with the people is directly connected to his role as Divine Warrior and shepherd-king. Zechariah 11 provides a picture of destructive shepherds that in some ways undercuts and reverses its use of Ezek 34. While Zech 11 includes an interplay between God as shepherd and human shepherds similar to Ezek 34, Zech 11 takes this a step further. Whereas in Ezekiel 34, God’s shepherding in comparison to the wicked shepherds is not only just, but also brings peace and return to the

 Klingbeil and Longman point to the links between God as Divine Warrior and as king in Martin Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography, OBO (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 72– 3 and Tremper Longman III, “The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif,” WTJ 44 (1982): 294. While Rudman argues for links between depictions of David as shepherd and king, which are based on larger conceptions of kings as shepherd. Rudman points to the scholarly consensus that “the inclusion of a shepherding background for David is intended to increase the significance of Yahweh’s act in bringing him to the throne.” See Dominic Rudman, “The Commissioning Stories of Saul and David as Theological Allegory,” VT 50 (2000): 520. For further discussion of Zechariah 9 – 10, kingship, and Divine Warrior metaphors, see Beth M. Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King, LBS 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 127– 32.  Young Sam Chae, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd, 76 – 90, esp. 79 – 82.

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

55

people, in Zech 11, God’s shepherding breaks the two staffs that lead the people: favor and union; undoing God’s covenant and breaking the bonds between Judah and Israel.⁵⁶ In doing so, Zechariah retells Israel’s story from united to divided monarchy, setting up the need for God’s spirit in Zech 12. Zechariah 12’s entry of the spirit and Davidic promise demonstrates that all hope is not lost in Zechariah’s tale of God’s relationship between shepherd-kings and Israel. Zechariah 12 provides a picture of return as Jerusalem again becomes the center of God’s favor and God’s protection. Unlike Zech 11, which in its destructive emphasis did not speak of God’s spirit or presence, Zech 12 not only promises hope for David’s house, re-establishing the eternal covenant of kingship for David’s offspring, but also speaks of a “spirit of grace and supplication” that the Lord will “pour out on the house of David” (v. 10). Here David’s kingship is again anointed by the pouring out of God’s spirit, but this time in the form of grace and supplication specifically. Zechariah 12 not only speaks of God’s spirit poured upon David’s house, but also frames this discussion in light of God as creator king. Zechariah 12:1 points to the Lord’s role as the one “who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit (ruach adam) within a person.” Here we find another intertextual link between Zech 12:1 and Gen 2:7. This intertextual link may lead readers to connect God’s act of creation of the human spirit by his breath (ruach)⁵⁷ and his activity with Jerusalem and with the house of David by God’s spirit (ruach). Not only does this blend God’s creation with God’s power as king, found in the royal nuances of Gen 1– 2, but also reminds readers of the spirit’s role in creation in Gen 1– 2 as God’s spirit/breath stirs over the waters and breathes life into human beings. One could argue then that reading Zech 12:1 and 10 in light of one another builds on two depictions of God’s spirit previously seen in other parts of the Old Testament: 1. the spirit as a liquid that can be “poured out” in some cases like water and in others like oil; and 2. the spirit as breath or wind breathed over, into, and on people and creation. In Zech 12, God’s creative breath in its power enables the protection of David’s lasting kingdom and God’s spirit poured out provides grace and supplication for David’s house. Thus, Zech 12 demonstrates the crucial links between royal and pneumatic themes crucial to Zechariah’s overall message. Zechariah 9 – 12 demonstrates a link between the experience of God’s presence and spirit, the expectation of God’s kingship as shepherd and his place Mark J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 651.  See Andrew E. Hill and Richard D. Patterson, Minor Prophets: Hosea through Malachi. Cornerstone Bible Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 589; Paul L. Redditt, Zechariah 9 – 14, IECOT (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Vertag, 2012).

56

Beth M. Stovell

ment of human kings as shepherds, with God’s role as creator and Divine Warrior. All of this comes as God’s word to his people and his word against the oppression of his people. John’s Gospel repeatedly builds on Zech 9 – 12 using inner-biblical allusion for its depiction of God’s spirit and its depiction of Jesus as anointed king. This analysis also demonstrates how John’s Gospel uses the unique characteristics of Zech 9 – 12 to emphasize key points about the work of the Holy Spirit and of Jesus as king. John 12 builds on Zech 9 – 10’s depiction of a coming king who will bring hope to Israel and conquer their fearful oppression, while also subtly building in the picture of Jesus’ anointing with oil as an echo of the broader themes of anointing in Zech 9 – 12. John 12 begins with the story of Jesus’ anointing at Bethany in vv. 1– 11. Many scholars have noted the relationship between John 12’s anointing at Bethany and pneumatic imagery elsewhere in John’s Gospel.⁵⁸ The anointing of Jesus at Bethany in John 12 plays into the symbolic connection between the spirit as oil and the notion of the Messiah as an “anointed one” who is designated as king via his anointing. This leads into the triumphal entry scene in John 12 where Jesus enters the city as triumphal (or atriumphal) king. First, Jesus is anointed, then he is praised as king using the fanfare common for incoming triumphant kings and warriors.⁵⁹ John 12 then moves from the anointing of Jesus to a focus on Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as anointed king. Building on Zech 9 – 10, the linking of the human king with God’s divine kingship creates a pattern that allows for the later links between the Son’s kingship and his Father’s kingship (a common theme

 Burge explores this in his book, The Anointed Community, and his John commentary. See Gary M. Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987). See Gary M. Burge, John, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).  There is a tension noted by many scholars between the triumphal expectations for such an entry and the lack of this triumphal stance in John’s Gospel. Scholars thus sometimes call Jesus’ entry into the city “the atriumphal entry” while others point to the use of Divine Warrior imagery present in this passage and in the other Gospels. See Menken, “Quotations from Zech 9,9 in Mt 21,5 and in Jn 12,15,” in John and the Synoptics, ed. A. Denaux (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 575. In a more recent article, Menken has reasserted this position. See Menken, “The Minor Prophets in John’s Gospel,” in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament, ed. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise, LNTS 377 (New York: T & T Clark, 2012), 79 – 85; Boda and Porter, “Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zechariah 9 – 14 and the Passion of Christ,” in Traduire La Bible Hebraique, ed. R. David et M. Jinbachian (Montreal: Mediaspaul, 2005), 244; Paul Brooks Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,” JBL 111 (1992): 55 – 71. Marianne Meye Thompson discusses the implications for this atriumphal entry in the depiction of God in John’s Gospel. See Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 211– 213.

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

57

throughout John’s Gospel). John 12:15 directly cites Zech 9:9 and it does so alongside Zeph 3:14 and Ps 118. Through this use of inner-biblical allusion: The Davidic king who was saved by Yahweh becomes the triumphant king who is praised like Yahweh and who saves as Yahweh saves. Through this shift, the Davidic king becomes an active participant in the act of salvation. In John 12:15, Jesus becomes this Davidic king, who is in the midst of his enemies who are plotting to take his life and this king will be saved by the power of Yahweh, yet this king is also a saviour for the people and identified with the power and authority of the Divine Warrior-King himself.⁶⁰

Thus, reading John 12 in its entirety joins pneumatic imagery of anointing similar to the language of the spirit poured out in Zech 12 with the imagery of Davidic kingship present in Zech 9 – 10 and 12. Whereas John 12 uses the pneumatic imagery of the spirit like oil poured out, John 19 plays into a different, but related conception of the spirit: the spirit poured out like water. Such a conception is found in other parts of John’s Gospel including John 3 and 7.⁶¹ In John 19, this “pouring out” is depicted by the water and blood that come from Jesus’ side (19:34). John draws this otherwise loose and only imagistic connection to the spirit in two ways. First, John 19:35 adds to this potential of reading the pouring out of water as pneumatically symbolic with its language of testimony, truth, and witness. This collocation of language is found elsewhere in Johannine literature where the spirit is explicitly named in 1 John 5:6 – 8. This passage states: “This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” John 19:34 speaks of water and blood that pours from Jesus’ side, while John 19:35 speaks of the one who testifies to what has happened in truth. If read with 1 John 5, the spirit then both testifies and is aligned with the water and the blood as part of the testimony of who Jesus is.⁶²

 Beth M. Stovell, Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel, 271.  For more on this theme, see Beth M. Stovell, “Rivers, Springs, and Wells of Living Water: Metaphorical Transformation in the Johannine Corpus,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Stanley Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 461– 491.  This is substantial debate among Johannine scholars whether the blood and water are physical testaments verifying Jesus’ physical death or if they are intended as symbolic of the outpouring of the spirit. My approach is not intended to remove the possibility of the first reading, but to suggest that the second reading should be given a second look based not only on 1 John 5, but also on Zechariah 12. For more on this debate, see Urban Von Wahlde, “The First Letter of John,”

58

Beth M. Stovell

Second, John 19:37 describes the outpouring of blood and water as fulfilment of Zech 12:10. In doing so, John 19 may not be referring to the fulfillment of only Zech 12:10, but to the larger prophecy in Zech 12, where a spirit of grace and supplication is poured out on the house of David when they see the one whom they pierced.⁶³ This broader notion of spirit-outpouring in Zech 12 then provides a way of joining the interpretation of 1 John 5 with Zech 12’s prophecy: the spirit is poured out, but moreover, for John, this pouring out functions as a testimony to who Jesus is. Yet it is not sufficient only to point to the role of the spirit as poured out when the water and blood are poured out in order to understand how John depicts Zech 12 as fulfilled. It is also necessary to see the interplay between pictures of kingship, divine and human, in Zech 12 and John 19 and how in John’s Gospel the spirit’s outpouring has the purpose of testifying to Jesus, the true King of Israel who is aligned in his suffering with God’s suffering. A central theme in John 18 – 19 is the kingship of Jesus. Scholars like Tom Thatcher have demonstrated how this theme of Jesus’ kingship is questioned by political leaders, mocked, but ultimately reaffirmed by John’s use of quotation and allusion throughout the passage.⁶⁴ Carnazzo argues that the use of Zech 12 in John 19 is part of a larger narrative use of Zech 12– 14 building “a narrative anticipation of the post-resurrection event described in John 20:19 – 23.”⁶⁵ As scholars have frequently noted, John’s depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion is interwoven with an expectation of the resurrection and throughout this depiction Jesus’ role as true king anointed by God is central. In Jesus’ great moment of “raising up” on the cross in John 19 as he is crowned as “king of Israel,” John proleptically anticipates his enthronement as part of his future resurrection and ascension. John 19 also aligns this depiction with the spirit’s testimony to these very events using Zech 12 as an intertextual linking point. According to John, in Jesus, the house of David finally has their long-awaited king and experiences the spirit’s outpouring of grace and supplication as they look upon the one whom they

in The Gospel and the Letters of John: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, 3 vols. ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 186.  Such an approach coheres with other scholars who have read the whole context of Zech 12 as essential for understanding John 19. For example, Carnazzo emphasizes both the purifying aspects of this symbolism alongside the pneumatic aspects. See Sebastian Carnazzo, Seeing Blood and Water: A Narrative-Critical Study of John 19:34 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012), 67– 75.  Tom Thatcher, Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009).  Carnazzo, Seeing Water and Blood, 74.

Spirit, Kingship, and Inner-Biblical Allusion

59

have pierced. Thus, in John 19, the Holy Spirit acts as witness to Jesus’ kingship and as indicative that the anticipated days of the prophets have arrived in Christ. Thus, both John 12 and 19 use subtle pneumatic imagery alongside more prominent royal imagery developed from Zechariah. In John 12, the spirit anoints Jesus like oil, echoing the imagery of David’s anointing with oil and spirit elsewhere in the Old Testament, while John’s use of and development on Zech 9 joins this act of anointing with Jesus’ entry into the city as the true king. In John 19, the spirit testifies to Jesus’ kingship in his death on the cross and in his resurrection. John 19 uses Zech 12 to join the outpouring of the spirit on the house of David to the piercing of God’s chosen one as a form of prophetic fulfillment.

5 Conclusion This chapter has explored how conceptions of God’s spirit and presence join with conceptions of God’s kingship in the Twelve and continue into the New Testament by using inner-biblical allusion. A few key insights have developed through this analysis. First, the depictions of the spirit as water and the spirit as oil serve key roles in joining the depictions of God’s spirit in Joel and Zechariah to their interpretations in Acts and John. The notion of the spirit “poured out” in both Joel and Zechariah is closely aligned by New Testament authors with the anointing of Jesus as king and Messiah and then associated with the anointing of God’s people, receivers of the spirit. In the use of Joel in Acts 2, God’s spirit is poured out first on Jesus to designate his role as anointed king and then upon God’s people, who are also God’s anointed ones. Similarly, in John’s use of Zech 9 and 12, God’s spirit is poured out. Yet in the case of John’s depiction, the spirit comes in Jesus’ crucifixion and this depiction of the spirit plays into the larger complex in John of Jesus’ spirit as the spirit of God given to the people after Jesus’ death on the cross (which is also configured as his exaltation as king proleptically joining Jesus’ death and resurrection). Second, the conceptual understanding of the spirit in relation to God’s kingship is based repeatedly on iterations of inner-biblical allusion. Such allusion may come in the form of direct or indirect citation, but the purpose is to draw the hearer back to earlier events and experiences of spirit that shed light on the conceptualizations of the spirit and kingship. Joel and Zechariah do not come to their understandings of God’s spirit and kingship entirely on their own, but are grounded in their predecessors’ conceptions of God’s spirit and kingship. Joel uses the Exodus account to draw links between the spirit’s revelation given to all peoples with the experience of God as Divine Warrior-king who calls out from Zion. Joel’s linking of God as king and the spirit’s outpouring upon

60

Beth M. Stovell

the people are picked up in the New Testament by Acts to illustrate the actions of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and to Jesus the Son who is Lord and Messiah, the anointed king. Besides this Divine Warrior-king metaphor linked with the spirit in the Twelve, the shepherd-king metaphor is also linked with depictions of God’s spirit and presence in the Twelve in passages such as Zech 9 – 12. Building on allusions to the Psalter and Ezekiel, Zech 9 – 12 depicts God’s recurring presence to protect and fight for his people as their king and the spirit’s outpouring on David’s house. The interplay of spirit and kingship of these texts enables John the Evangelist as a New Testament author to incorporate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as oil and as water into depictions of Jesus’ kingship in John 12 and 19. Such interplay of kingship and the spirit suggests that one could explore further the notion of a kingdom pneumatic hermeneutic. This hermeneutic would argue that, based on biblical exegesis, kingdom and spirit are frequently linked concepts that are joined together with reverberating meaning throughout the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. This chapter provides only an initial step into the deeper richness that a kingdom pneumatic hermeneutic might have on understanding the spirit’s depiction in relationship to kingship as the New Testament builds upon the Hebrew Bible.

Anthony C. Thiselton

The Holy Spirit, Reason, and the Interpretation of Scripture 1 Introduction Reason and its role in the interpretation of Scripture is complex, especially in relation to the Holy Spirit. Illumination through the Holy Spirit and human reason do not represent competing or rival sources or channels of insight and wisdom. The Giver of wisdom and understanding remains none other than the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the Spirit usually works through human reason, not in spite of it or independently of it. Among those communities who are rightly concerned with honouring and hearing the Holy Spirit, too often reason may be neglected or underrated, and too often treated as an independent or competing source and channel. This is not to defend the rationalism of the predominantly secular Enlightenment, in which reason is often elevated into a self-sufficient resource for understanding the Bible. If Scripture is inspired by the Spirit, the same Holy Spirit also guides us in its understanding and application to life. These are not two independent instruments of understanding. An analogy may clarify this. In some circles, the Spirit’s gifts of healing may appear to exclude medicine and science. The Holy Spirit does not depend on these, but he usually does not bypass them, except in exceptional circumstances. He usually and most often works through them. The alternative view implies a false dualism, or “two-decker” view of the world, as Walter Hollenweger and many others point out.¹ When such a dualism is applied to the use of reason, somehow priority can come to be given to “spontaneity” in preaching and speaking. By implication, if both “reading “and “intention” are complex, we should expect that some complexity would characterize the work of the Holy Spirit. In this respect, prayer and seeking the wisdom and the power of the Holy Spirit ought to begin the entire process of seeking to understand. The Holy Spirit’s gifts are multitude and without limit. As Jesus declared, the Spirit, like the wind, “blows where it chooses” (John 3:8). The Holy Spirit is beyond us and transcendent, as well as immanent within believers. One writer has rightly expressed it: “the Holy Spirit is

 Walter J. Hollenweger, Der 1 Korintherbrief. Eine Arbeitshilfe zur Bibelwoche (Kingmünster: Volks-missinarisches Amt der Pfälizischen Landeskirche, 1964), 71– 79. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-007

62

Anthony C. Thiselton

the Beyond, who is within.” The Holy Spirit is active in the coming-to-speech of the Word of God and the burden of its author, as well as in the reverencing of the Word of God, and in the effects of the Word on our lives. Some writers describe this triple operation as “behind” the text, “within” or “through” the text, and “in front of” the text.² All three aspects are under the control and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

2 The Holy Spirit and Human Reason in Relation to the Biblical Writings An appeal to the proper use of reason has nothing to do with rationalism. In “Spirit Hermeneutics”, as Craig Keener calls our subject, this does not bypass an approach to Scripture which regards it in historical, literary, linguistic and social terms. But this approach does not regard it in these terms alone. Leading biblical critics seemed to propose this narrower approach after the Enlightenment. Admittedly we may understand why J. S. Semler (1725 – 1791) argued that critics should take account of strictly historical factors alone, (i. e. not theological ones) to pre-empt conclusions. He wished in the first instance to make biblical studies thoroughly independent of church dogma, and to stand on its own feet. But this mistakenly went too far. As Christian scholars in the tradition of B. F. Westcott (1825 – 1901) and J. B. Lightfoot (1828 – 89 well demonstrated, the integrity of careful biblical studies inevitably interpenetrates theology, because above all this work remains a matter of hearing God speak and seeking God’s presence. This includes the wider context of what God in Christ has done for the world. Again, in his book Spirit Hermeneutics, Keener writes, “The Spirit can be active … on the level of exegesis, most often through the clear functioning of our cognitive faculties in exploring and embracing the text.”³ Keener is right. These “cognitive faculties” are a genuine gift from God; but they can be undervalued, either because they appeal to the reality and consequences of sin and the fall, or because they may appeal to misunderstandings of Paul and Luther on the subject of “fallen reason.” Paul and Luther certainly perceive the devastating effects of the fall. However, the gift of reason and mind for Christians who are being renewed by the Holy Spirit is another matter. Paul

 Anthony C. Thiselton, “‘Behind’ and ‘In Front of’ the Text,” in After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al. (Paternoster Press, 2001), 97– 120.  Craig S. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 12.

The Holy Spirit, Reason, and the Interpretation of Scripture

63

prays, for example, that the Thessalonian Christians should come to their right mind (Greek, nous; 1 Thess 5:12, 14; 2 Thess 3:15). This is most striking in Galatians, where Paul’s converts are holding a logically self-contradictory view of the Holy Spirit and the law. He asks the legalist Christians, “Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish?” (Gal 3:2– 3). He uses a powerful metaphor to describe their lapse into irrationality: “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? (Gal 3:1). In his classic lexicon, Frederick Danker (with W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich) rendered ἀνόητοι as “unintelligent, foolish, dull-witted,” and βασκαίνω as “to exert an evil influence through the eye [i. e. the evil eye], bewitch.”⁴ The Galatians, Paul says, are not thinking logically, as if some irrational spell had been cast on them. He prays that God will guard not only the hearts but also the minds of the Christians in Philippi (Phil 4:13), even though his revealed truth surpasses all understanding. Again, strikingly, Paul prays that the Christians in Rome may be “transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2). Similarly, Paul prays that the Christians at Ephesus may be “renewed in the spirit of your minds” (Eph 4:23). He tells the Corinthians: “I will pray with the spirit [Spirit?], but I will pray with the mind also” (1 Cor 14:15). He would rather speak five words with his mind than speak in a multitude of tongues (14:19), and concludes his chapters on gifts of the Holy Spirit with the words, “[Christian] brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking … In thinking be adults” (14:20). We may note that virtually every congregation of Paul’s Christian converts is instructed to use their minds for logical coherence, for guidance, for seeking the word of God, and for becoming mature Christians. This in no way implies less attention to the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul enjoins both, not one or the other. How often, when someone seeks to understand God’s will for their lives, they are encouraged to wait upon the Holy Spirit in prayer, which is utterly right. But, by contrast, Paul also asks, “Have you thought this through thoroughly?” “Have you reflected on all the possible consequences for you and for others of this or that decision?” Paul’s emphasis on reason is confirmed by numerous theological scholars. The most notable among them include Günther Bornkamm, Robert Jewett, Wolfhart Pannenberg⁵ and Stanley K. Stowers; each will be discussed below. Born-

 Frederick W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 84 and 171.  Wolfhart Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 2 (London: SCM, 1971), 28 – 64.

64

Anthony C. Thiselton

kamm in his essay “Faith and Reason in Paul,” insists that “the wisdom of the world” has been destroyed “through the cross” (1 Cor 1:18 – 25); but this wisdom is not identical to every use of reason.⁶ Bornkamm states, “He (Paul) makes very powerful use of reasoned arguments in his letters.”⁷ He does not simply say, “Thus says the Lord.” Nor does he follow the “propaganda-literature of the Hellenistic synagogue.”⁸ In fact, Paul appeals to the use of reason for several purposes. One of these is “in order to convict the hearer of his guilt before God.”⁹ More important is “to be able to understand the word spoken in worship.”¹⁰ It is also important that “The motif of reason also plays a not insignificant role in the ethical directives of the apostle.”¹¹ Bornkamm concludes, “Our reflections have shown that for Paul there is an emphasis, for a long time insufficiently considered … on his (man’s) becoming rational and remaining rational.”¹² Reason applies especially to how Christians understand the word and will of God. Robert Jewett has demonstrated how modern research on Paul’s use of reason varied.¹³ He traces this from F. C. Baur to Rudolf Bultmann, W. D. Stacey and John A. T. Robinson. For his part, Jewett traces the use of the mind in Paul to varied contexts which show the positions of his opponents. Thus, with respect to 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Galatians, he compares Paul on reason with “enthusiasts” and “legalists.” The so-called enthusiasts neglect reason to stress the work of the Spirit exclusively, and argue that the return of Christ has already occurred. So, he urges them to use rational reflection to see for themselves that Christ has not yet returned finally. The End is not yet here. By using their minds, they should recall that they received the Holy Spirit precisely not through obedience to the law (Gal 3:2– 3). In 1 Corinthians, Jewett argues, nous (mind) occurs seven times, and its importance is greater than in any other Pauline epistle. He begins with a prayer that the converts in Corinth should all be “of the same mind” (1 Cor 1:10), while he also refers to “the mind of the Lord” (2:16), which Jewett relates to Divine wisdom, or to God’s purposes through the cross as “a constellation of thoughts

 Günther Bornkamm, “Faith and Reason in Paul,” in Early Christian Experience, ed. Günther Bornkamm (London: SCM, 1969), 29 – 46.  Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 30.  Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 31.  Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 35.  Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 39 (Bornkamm’s italics).  Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 40.  Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 41.  Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 367– 75

The Holy Spirit, Reason, and the Interpretation of Scripture

65

which is given in the gospel.¹⁴ Here he argues that the “anti-enthusiastic” intention of mind is “unmistakable”; he stresses, “It is the agent of rationality.”¹⁵ Later in the epistle, the so-called “anti-enthusiast” theme is clear in chapters 12– 14: “I will pray with the spirit [Spirit], but I will pray with the mind also” (14:15). In Romans, mind takes central place in directing appropriate, ethical behaviour for Christians (Rom 12:2), and in the formation of godly attitudes, judgements and purposes (7:16, 22). Stanley K. Stowers has provided a powerful, thoughtful and convincing argument on the role of reason in Paul in his essay, “Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason.”¹⁶ In particular, he addresses the true and false use of reason in the respective positions in Corinth of the “strong” and the “weak,” and has demonstrated in their attitudes (i. e. possibly the socially over-confident and socially vulnerable) to wisdom and knowledge (Greek, γνῶσις) in 1 Cor. 8:1– 3, and more broadly in 1 Corinthians 8 – 10.¹⁷ He also elaborates the kind of points made by Bornkamm, Jewett, and Pannenberg. There is no need to explore other biblical authors and passages. We may note, however, how often Jesus said, “Consider (Greek, κατανοέω) the ravens …” (Luke 12:24), or “Consider the lilies …” (12:27). Danker translates κατανοέω as “to look at in a reflective manner” or “to think carefully about.”¹⁸ The verb κατανοέω occurs fourteen times in the New Testament. Hebrews uses the same verb: “Consider how to provoke one another to love” (Heb 10:24). For one to consider, it requires active thinking and reflection.

3 Human Reason and the Spirit in Twentieth-Century Thought Wolfhart Pannenberg helpfully spells out the theme that the Holy Spirit and the human mind are not competing or rival avenues of understanding. He explicitly writes: “Argumentation and the operation of the Spirit are not in competition

 Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 377– 78.  Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 379.  Stanley K. Stowers, “Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason,” in Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. T. L. Belch, E. Ferguson and W. A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 253 – 86.  Stowers, “Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason,” 283; see also Clarence E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy (Leiden Brill, 1995), 58 – 60, and 195 – 235.  Danker, BDAG, 523.

66

Anthony C. Thiselton

with each other. In trusting in the Spirit, Paul in no way spared himself thinking and arguing.”¹⁹ He expresses this differently when he says, “An otherwise unconvincing message cannot have the power to convince simply by appealing to the Holy Spirit.”²⁰ Pannenberg is concerned not only with the community of the believing Church, but with the public face of Christian proclamation in the University and among unbelievers in the secular world. Alvin Plantinga (b.1932) has a substantial section on rationality in his book Warranted Christian Belief. ²¹ He studied under William Alston (1921– 2009), many of whose ideas he shares. He argues that Christian belief is not irrational or unwarranted. Like Nicholas Wolterstorff, he argues for justified, reasonable, belief. He has a world-wide reputation as a first-class Christian theologian and philosopher, and his committed Christian credentials are seen in his close relation with Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Reformed Theology, and Christian apologetics. T. F. Torrance (1921– 2009) defended, not value-neutral reason, but reason which accords with the Being and nature of God. He argued this at length in his book Theological Science (1969), and, especially in relation to the Holy Spirit, in God and Rationality. ²² He entitled the fourth chapter of the latter, “Word and Spirit,” and devotes section six of the book to “The Epistemological Relevance of the Spirit.” He commented, “He (The Spirit) does not bear witness to Himself but bears witness to Christ as God and Saviour. He does not show us himself, but shows us the face of the Father in the face of the Son.”²³ He added, “Knowledge of God takes place not only within the rational structures but also within the personal and social structures of human life, where the Spirit is at work as personalising Spirit. As the living presence of God …. (He) addresses us in his Word, opens us out toward Himself, and calls from us the response of faith and love.”²⁴ In God and Rationality, Torrance says as much about the Holy Spirit as about rationality. He comments, for example, “It is in fact under the Lordship of the Spirit that we learn what objectivity in knowledge really is.”²⁵ The Holy Spirit, he says, communicates God’s eternal Being, which is “wholly and inseparably involved in His Word, and His Word is backed up by, and filled with, his

 Pannenberg, Basic Questions, 35.  Pannenberg, Basic Questions, 34.  Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University, 2000), 108 – 66.  Thomas F. Torrance, God and Rationality (London: Oxford University, 1971); see Torrance, Theological Science (London: Oxford University, 1969).  Torrance, God and Rationality, 167.  Torrance, God and Rationality, 188 (his italics).  Torrance, God and Rationality, 176.

The Holy Spirit, Reason, and the Interpretation of Scripture

67

Being.”²⁶ He appeals to Calvin’s doctrine of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, as a speaking within the heart by the Holy Spirit of the one eternal Word. Kant’s self-revelation is “Precisely where the activity of the Holy Spirit comes in, and his proprietary (sic) to the Word of God, for He is at work in all His divine inevitability and transparency … Apart from this work of the Holy Spirit all the forms of revelation remain dark and opaque, but in and through his presence they become translucent and transparent.”²⁷ The Spirit uses concepts which are not irrational. In his earlier book, Theological Science, he considered knowledge of God more widely. Only the Holy Spirit, he argues, provides “unbiased and disinterested truth.”²⁸ Torrance has admirably demonstrated that there is no conflict between respect for reason among Christian believers and being open to the decisive work of the Holy Spirit; each demands the other. The final stage of the argument to note is Kevin Vanhoozer’s valid attack on indeterminacy on the postmodernism of Derrida and the later Barthes. Vanhoozer describes indeterminacy in Derrida as “Undoing Interpretation” and “Undoing the Author.”²⁹ He insists that an “emphasis on God’s presence” in no way diminishes “regard for the written word.”³⁰ He fully acknowledges the role of the Holy Spirit in determining the effects of the biblical text on the understanding and conduct of the readers, and the whole process of the communicative act of reading Scripture in the light of God’s presence. In conclusion, the pivotal primacy of the pivotal operation of the Holy Spirit often works through human reason (not as some independent rival), and in the case of many biblical passages (but not all) works through understanding the intention of the author.

4 The Foundational Role of the Holy Spirit Probably the major and most distinctive part of a “spiritual” reading of Scripture is reading the Bible in the presence of God and hearing it as God’s address to us. To restrict this to the Holy Spirit, in contrast to God as Trinity, may narrow our focus on God and his providence, and neglect the oneness of the work of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. In his providential care as Father, God the Father does not passively “delegate” tasks to Christ and the Spirit. Some speak, for example,

 Torrance, God and Rationality, 179.  Torrance, God and Rationality, 185.  T. F. Torrance, Theological Science, 75.  Kevin J Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Plurality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 37– 42 and 43 – 97.  Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning?, 87.

68

Anthony C. Thiselton

of Christ’s work on the cross in terms that imply a lack of involvement on the part of God the Father in purposing it and somehow sharing in Christ’s suffering. This may apply to some older, more traditional, Pentecostal hermeneutic, in which many writers may be right in what they affirm, but also questionable in what they appear to exclude. Many of today’s more creative Pentecostal theologians, by contrast, are at pains to show how the Holy Spirit operates in Trinitarian terms, and in the closest possible relation to the Word of God. Craig Keener insists that Pentecostalism does not possess a monopoly of claims to listen to the Holy Spirit in studying and applying Scripture.³¹ In Lee Roy Martin’s Pentecostal Hermeneutics, for example, two themes, among others, predominate. First, Pentecostal hermeneutics vary enormously even among Pentecostals. Second, three terms constantly are repeated in Pentecostal accounts of hermeneutics: “lens,” “supernatural,” and “experience.”³² The notion that the Spirit provides a “lens” may derive from Calvin’s analogy of the Spirit’s providing spectacles for a clearer vision of Scripture’s meaning, together with “pre-understanding” in hermeneutics. By contrast, a different or non-Pentecostal way of reading is regularly disparaged as too “academic,” “objective,” and “rational.” This description is used as if to imply that these two sets of approval terms and disapproval terms exclude each other as opposites. We whole-heartedly agree that this can often happen, and has all-too-often happened. In the wake of the Enlightenment, such scholars as Semler formally chose this “secular” approach to biblical criticism. Today, we can find influential examples in which the presence of God seems to be relegated to a historical, rather than contemporary, phenomenon. One major example is the six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary, which compares unfavourably with the four-volume The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Exceptions can be found on both sides in both sets of volumes.³³ The former set of volumes constitute an excellent guide to the history and geography of the Bible and biblical world. But they sometimes seem reluctant to engage fully with its theology or with God. Another example of disappointing theological emphasis and absence of “spiritual” reading, in general, is John H. Hayes (ed.) Dictionary of Biblical In-

 Craig Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997).  Lee Roy Martin, ed., Pentecostal Hermeneutics (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 5, 12, 33, 109, 132, 142, 168, etc., on “experience”; and 6, 67, 96, 131, 132, 141, etc., on “supernatural;” Kenneth Archer and very many others use “lens” endlessly.  David Noel Freedman, ed., et al, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), and Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006 – 09).

The Holy Spirit, Reason, and the Interpretation of Scripture

69

terpretation. ³⁴ Admittedly, this is a huge generalization, mainly based on reading particular articles. Nevertheless, while this mainly applies to most German biblical studies, and to some American ones, Britain has always maintained a minority tradition of scholars who follow Westcott, Lightfoot, and Hort. William Baird describes this “Cambridge Triumvirate” as being “not like grasshoppers, but giants in their own right – equal in stature to the tallest of the Germans … servants of the Church, dedicated to the relevance of the Bible for faith and life.”³⁵ All three were fully proficient in “academic” New Testament scholarship and textual criticism, but their books breathe intimacy with the Spirit of God—and constant interaction with Christian theology and the Christian church. Today such eminent scholars as Richard Bauckham, N. T. Wright, and Walter Moberly reflect the same tradition. In the twentieth century, C. E. B. Cranfield of Durham, F.F. Bruce of Manchester, and C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge, represented this tradition, and many others could be mentioned. Among explicitly “charismatic” or Pentecostal writers, Craig Keener and Kenneth Archer have written extensively on Pentecostal or Spiritual hermeneutics. Archer writes, “What is at stake in the present hermeneutical debate is not whether Pentecostals have correctly exegeted (sic) the Lucan corpus … but the essence of Pentecostalism is its persistent emphasis upon the supernatural within the community.”³⁶ We have already mentioned Walter Hollenweger’s concerns about the term supernatural. He writes, “‘Supernatural’ is in my view biblically and scientifically untenable. Biblically – the list of charismata in the New Testament includes ‘extraordinary gifts’ … and the so-called ‘ordinary gifts’ (management, teaching, giving money to the poor …).”³⁷ Must we exclude the work of the Holy Spirit from “ordinary” life? Hollenweger is not alone among Pentecostals. Donald Miller, Tetsunao Yamamori, and Amos Yong share his concern. Miller and Yamamori write that Pentecostals are often “dualists at heart, separating body and mind, heaven and hell, good and evil.”³⁸  John H. Hayes, ed., Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 2 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999).  William Baird, History of New Testament Research, 3 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 2.83.  Kenneth Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics, ed. Lee Roy Martin (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 131 (my italics); see 131– 48.  Walter J. Hollenweger, “Rethinking Spirit Baptism,” in Pentecostals after a Century: Global Pentecostalism, ed. Allan H. Anderson and Walter J. Hollenweger (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 169 – 70; see 164– 96.  Donald Miller and Tetsunao Yamamori, Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement (Berkeley: University of California, 2007), 217.

70

Anthony C. Thiselton

The use of the term “experience” corresponds in some contexts broadly to the term “subjective.” This theme cannot be wrong because the biblical interpreter must focus thoughts and attitudes upon God or God in Christ, and in order to do so must have received some kind of experience of God. But only in this sense can it constitute an interpretive key. One problem, however, is that “experience” does not cancel out an appeal both to the objective (the integrity of textual enquiry) and the subjective (an appropriate “pre-understanding”). It would also be wrong, however, to insist that those outside the Pentecostal movement have no “experience” to contribute. Very clearly two of the greatest exponents of hermeneutics must not be swept aside. Paul Ricoeur is well aware of the need for critical appraisal. But he also calls for “post-critical naïveté.”³⁹ Even Hans-Georg Gadamer, who made no explicit Christian commitment, urges careful “listening” to the text. He writes that “hermeneutics is above all a practice … In it what one has to exercise above all is the ear.”⁴⁰ A number of Pentecostals use other approvalterms. These include, for example, narrative, presupposition, apocalyptic horizon, praxis, prophetic, community, and miraculous. As with so much in Pentecostalism, what is intended is constructive and right. But the way in which the terms are used very often carries unhelpful baggage. Thus, not all narrative functions as historical report to be replicated. Even the Evangelists use “narrative time” with deliberate variations of speed, and flashbacks, which make them different from purely literal reports. Presuppositions seem to suggest non-negotiable sticking points, in contrast to horizon, which suggests starting-points which may be expanded. Praxis strictly entails both theory and practice. Miraculous suggests all the implied dualism and exclusivism of supernatural. This tends to limit God’s chosen mode and scope of action in the world. The work of Craig Keener and Amos Yong, among others, emphasizes the truth that lies behind all these terms, without excluding their opposites. One major theme is that, in spite of a right emphasis on the power and illumination of the Holy Spirit and intimacy with God, Pentecostals do not hold a monopoly of these two things. Among godly readers of Scripture, including Luther, Keener writes, “Reading the Bible properly included prayer and meditation. Calvin likewise insisted that people could understand God’s Word only through the Spirit’s enlightenment.”⁴¹ He declares, “The Spirit can be active even on the level of ex-

 Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University, 1970), 24– 26.  Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Reflections on my Philosophical Journey,” in The Philosophy of HansGeorg Gadamer, ed. Lewis Hahn (Chicago: Open Court, 1997), 17; see 3 – 63.  Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 13.

The Holy Spirit, Reason, and the Interpretation of Scripture

71

egesis … (and in) our cognitive faculties.”⁴² More controversially Keener writes, “The narrower title ‘Pentecostal hermeneutics,’ accurate as it would be, could mislead potential readers [i. e. as the title of a book], since I conclude that … a good Pentecostal hermeneutic … should characterize any truly Christian and Spirit-led hermeneutic.”⁴³ Within this broader frame, he rightly urges that hermeneutics functions as a special sort of epistemology. Most recent and creative Pentecostals would agree with this. Keener goes further to develop a “Christocentric epistemology” by citing the work of the Holy Spirit in John 16:7 and in 14– 16 as a whole.⁴⁴ He also notes that the Spirit directs the believer’s response to apostolic preaching in 1 Thess 2:13, when preaching was perceived and understood as the Word of God.⁴⁵ Amos Yong, together with Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and others, represents the new era of creative, broader, and more relaxed and ecumenical Pentecostals. Amos Yong underlines the reciprocal unity of The Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the wider Church in Spirit-Word-Community. ⁴⁶ He writes as a Pentecostal with evangelical commitments and a close, positive, relation with Eastern Orthodoxy. He acknowledges indebtedness to Frank Macchia, Stanley Grenz, Clark Pinnock, Kevin Vanhoozer, Francis Watson and Hans Frei. He advocates a hermeneutic “sufficiently wide-ranging so as to be indistinguishable from a viable theological method.”⁴⁷ Within a Trinitarian frame, he intentionally focuses on “theological hermeneutics. He also argues for “a Pneumatological framework that might be said to derive from a pneumatic intuition.”⁴⁸ He also values the Reception Theory of the literary critic Hans Robert Jauss and his interaction with the Catholic Ormond Rush. His stance is generous, and greatly concerned with listening to the Holy Spirit. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen is similar in many respects, especially in his Holy Spirit and Salvation, and The Spirit in the World. ⁴⁹ The Holy Spirit and Salvation surveys teaching on the Holy Spirit among Patristic, mediaeval, Reformation, and modern writers, and then discusses testimonies from various parts of the  Kenner, Spirit Hermeneutics, 12.  Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 3.  Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 157.  Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 158.  Amos Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2002).  Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 2.  Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 7.  Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, ed., Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2010), and Kärkkäinen, The Spirit in the World: Emerging Pentecostal Theologies in Global Contexts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).

72

Anthony C. Thiselton

world. The second book majors on Global Pentecostalism. Frank Macchia also brings wider perspectives, but insists on the Pentecostal interpretation of “baptism in the Spirit. All of these authors, especially Keener, insist on the Spirit’s work in glorifying Christ, shedding light upon the Scriptures, and empowering and directing apostolic ministry.

5 Conclusions In conclusion, the Holy Spirit works not only through how we may feel, but also through how we think. This is especially the case in Biblical interpretation. In the early years of the twentieth century examples of the Holy Spirit’s working in Biblical interpretation became transparent in the exegetical work of Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort. They demonstrated that applications of the Biblical text to the human heart operated through careful thought about historical context and Christian theology. More recently, F. F. Bruce, N.T. Wright, and Francis Watson, among others, have maintained this tradition. They have given us numerous examples of how the Holy Spirit operates actively in Biblical interpretation.

Mark L. Strauss

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective 1 Epistemology and the Spirit in First John The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines epistemology as “the study of knowledge and justified belief.”¹ Epistemology asks the fundamental questions, How do we know what we know? and What is the basis and foundation for truth claims? The early Christian letter known as First John makes a striking epistemological claim. The author affirms for the readers that “you have an anointing from the Holy One and all of you know”² [ὑμεῖς χρῖσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ οἴδατε πάντες] (1 John 2:20). With no direct object, the end of the sentence is clipped and so puzzling. All of you know what? ³ The likely answer comes in the following sentences, where this “anointing” (χρῖσμα) is mentioned again: As for you, the anointing [τὸ χρῖσμα] that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you, but as his anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is not a lie, and just as it taught you, remain in it [or “him”]. (1 John 2:27)

In the context of the letter, the “anyone” (τις) whose teaching the author warns against no doubt refers to a group of false teachers, secessionists who were once part of this Christian community but have now departed: “They went out from us, but they were not part of us. For if they were part of us, they would have remained with us—but their departure revealed that none of them were part of us” (1 John 2:19).⁴

 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/  Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical translations are the author’s own.  This clipped ending is probably at least partly responsible for the variant, καὶ οἴδατε πάντα (“… and you know all things”). πάντα is no doubt secondary on the basis of both internal and external evidence. Externally, πάντες is supported by the earliest Greek manuscripts (ℵ B) as well as a number of early versions (syrp, h copsa arm geo). Internally, πάντες is the harder reading since it is awkward (a point we will discuss later) and also leaves the object of knowledge unstated.  Typical of Johannine word-play, the author uses the same prepositional phrase (ἐξ ἡμῶν) in two senses to describe their departure “from us” because they were not “(part) of us.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-008

74

Mark L. Strauss

While the exact identity of these secessionists is debated,⁵ they are characterized by Christological, soteriological, and ethical errors:⁶ 1. They deny that Jesus is the Christ (2:22; 5:1) and the Son of God (5:5). 2. They deny the Son and so deny the Father (2:22– 23; 3:23; 4:15; 5:5). 3. They deny the incarnation, that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:2– 3). 4. They claim to be without sin (1:8) and not to have sinned (1:10). 5. They claim to know God, to have fellowship with him and to be in the light but continue to live a lifestyle characterized by sin and immorality (1:6; 2:4, 9; 3:6, 8 – 9; 5:18). 6. They deny the atoning death of Christ (2:1– 2). 7. They disobey God’s commands (2:3 – 5, 29; 3:10; 3:24; 5:2– 3) and walk in darkness (1:6). 8. They hate true believers (2:9 – 10, 11; 3:10, 15; 4:8, 19). 9. They do not love others, which is the characteristic of true believers (2:10; 3:14; 4:7– 8, 11– 12, 16, 19 – 21; 5:1– 3). 10. They are part of the present evil “world” system and so followers of the devil rather than God (3:8, 10; 4:5 – 6; 5:19). The teaching of the secessionists had evidently resulted in a great deal of confusion and doubts within this community of faith. The author writes both to refute the false teachers and to assure the true believers. “I did not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie is from the truth” (2:21). The author appeals to his readers not to be led astray by these false teachers, since the readers know with certainty the truth. The basis of this assurance is the “anointing” (χρῖσμα) that they have received “from the holy one” (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου), which teaches them the truth concerning “all things” (2:20, 27). In contrast to the teaching of the false teachers, who are liars (1:10; 2:4, 22; 4:20; 5:10) and antichrists (2:18, 22; 4:3), this anointing is “true” (ἀληθές), not a lie. Hence, the readers ought to remain or abide in him/ it (μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ). The pronoun αὐτῷ could be either neuter or masculine and so could refer either to the anointing itself or to God/Jesus, the agent of this anointing. Since elsewhere in the Johannine literature, “abiding/remaining” relates especially to identification with Christ (John 15:4– 7; 1 John 2:24), this latter is most likely.

 The main suspects are Docetists, (proto‐)Gnostics, or more specifically, Cerinthian Gnostics. See Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982/London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), 55 – 68; Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 15 – 27; Karen Jobes, 1, 2, 3 John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 23 – 25; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 14– 22.  Brown, Epistles of John, 50 – 55.

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

75

1.1 The Identity of the Χρῖσμα The details of our exegesis must not distract us from the remarkable epistemological claim being made, which is that the “anointing” believers receive teaches them all things. Whatever this χρῖσμα is, it carries great authority, supplying authentic knowledge of the truth and replacing the need for teachers. The most common answer is that the anointing refers to the Holy Spirit, an interpretation that has a long and venerable history in the church.⁷ This makes sense, since the presence of the Spirit in a person’s life is both the assurance of salvation and the source of all truth for the believer. First John confirms both these points. In 3:24 the author writes, “The one who keeps his commands remains in him, and he in him. And in this way we know that he lives in us, by the Spirit which he gave us [ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος οὗ ἡμῖν ἔδωκεν].” Similarly, 4:13 says, “In this way we know that we remain in him and he in us: by his Spirit he has given to us [ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν].” The Spirit is repeatedly referred to as the one who testifies to the truth: “And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth” (1 John 5:6b). The presence of the Spirit is the evidence of the abiding presence of God in the believer, and so proof of their salvation. These statements suggest that all believers have the Spirit living in them and that this indwelling takes place at the moment of salvation. While a majority of interpreters understand the χρῖσμα to be the Spirit, others have interpreted it as the message of salvation or the word of God. C. H. Dodd claimed that the anointing “is the Word of God, that is, the Gospel, or the revelation of God in Christ, as communicated in the rule of faith to catechumens, and confessed in Baptism.”⁸ Ignace de la Potterie affirms that the anointing is the message, but combines the two interpretations: “The anointing is indeed God’s word, not as it is preached externally in the community, but as it is received by faith into men’s hearts and remains active, thanks to the work of the Spirit.”⁹ I. H. Marshall agrees with this dual focus, claiming that “The anointing is the Word taught to converts before their baptism and apprehended by them through the work of the Spirit in their hearts… The antidote to false teaching is the inward reception of the Word of God, administered and confirmed by the work of the Spirit.”¹⁰ He points to several pieces of evidence in support of  See the list in Brown, Epistles of John, 345.  C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, MNTC (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946), 58 – 64.  Ignace de la Potterie, “Anointing of the Christian by Faith,” in The Christian Lives by the Spirit, eds. I. de la Potterie and S. Lyonnet (Staten Island: Alba, 1971), 79 – 143; quote from 114– 115.  Marshall, Epistles of John, 155.

76

Mark L. Strauss

the anointing as the reception of the message of salvation: 1. The close parallel between 2 Corinthians 1:21– 22 (“God… who anointed us… sealed us and gave the Spirit as a deposit”) and Ephesians 1:13 (“you…having heard the message of truth … were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit”) links the three ideas of anointing, sealing by the Spirit and hearing the message of truth. 2. The didactic function of the anointing (“his anointing teaches” [τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσμα διδάσκει]) fits well with the idea of the anointing as the word of God. 3. Finally, in 1 John 2:14 the author uses language similar to the indwelling Spirit when he says that “the word of God remains in you” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει). Cf. 2 John 2: “the truth that remains in us” [τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν]).¹¹ Raymond Brown make a similar point about verse 24. In the three sentences addressed to “you” (2:20, 24, 27), the first and last speak of an anointing from the Holy One or from “him,” while the middle speaks of “what you heard from the beginning.” Both the “anointing” and “what you heard” abides or remains in the Christian.¹² One wonders, however, whether the views of Dodd, Marshall and de la Potterie on the anointing are in any real sense different from its identification with the Holy Spirit. To say that anointing is the word of God as confirmed by the Spirit is little different from saying that the Spirit confirms the truth of the message. In the end the preponderance of evidence favors the anointing as the Holy Spirit. This is especially so since the anointing is described as something given by God.¹³ The pervasive teaching of Scripture is that the Spirit is a gift given by Jesus/God (Luke 11:13; John 3:34; 7:39; 14:16, 25; 15:26; 16:7, 15; Acts 5:32; 8:18; 15:8; Rom. 5:5; 1 Cor. 2:12; 12:7, 13; 2 Cor. 5:5; Gal 3:5; Eph 1:17; 1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:7; 1 John 3:24; 4:13). One of the reasons Marshall argues for the anointing is because this interpretation alleviates the problem of subjectivity. He writes, Above all, when understood in this way, John’s statement is free from the danger of subjectivism. The false teachers could lay claim to spiritual illumination: how, then, could John’s readers know for sure that their spiritual experience was of superior quality? If it is simply a matter of comparing claims to spiritual illumination, one person’s claim may be as good as another’s. But if John rests his case on his readers’ possession of the objective testimony of

 Marshall, Epistles of John, 155.  Brown, Epistles of John, 346.  See Brown, Epistles of John, 347– 48. Whether the “Holy One” here refers to the Father or the Son, God is clearly the source of sending. In Luke 24:49 Jesus says he will send “what my Father has promised.” In Acts 1:4 he tells the disciples to “wait for the gift my Father promised,” and in Acts 2:33 Peter says Jesus “received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit,” which he has now poured out.

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

77

the Word of God, as handed down in the church, then clearly his case rests on a solid foundation.¹⁴

This is Dodd’s concern as well: The appeal to the indwelling Spirit easily declines into an appeal to the individual experience of ‘inspiration’. If such experience is made the criterion, persons with little grasp of the central truths of the Gospel may mistake their own ‘inspirations’ (or bright ideas) for the truth of God, and so the corporate, historical tradition of Christianity is imperiled. Our writer found that this was actually happening within his sphere of influence (see 4:1– 6). If, on the other hand, we are referred to the Gospel itself, which is a recital of what God did for us in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to the Gospel not as merely heard, believed and remembered, but as lovingly apprehended and retained as a power in our lives then there is an objective standard by which the faith of the Church is kept true to what is distinctive in the Christian revelation. The interior testimony of the Holy Spirit is confirmation of the datum in the Gospel (see 4:13).¹⁵

Notice that both Marshall and Dodd speak of the subjectivity of individual claims to truth. Marshall notes that “one person’s claim may be as good as another’s” and Dodd warns of “the individual experience of ‘inspiration’,” where “persons …may mistake their own ‘inspirations’ … for the truth of God.” In this way, “the corporate, historical tradition of Christianity is imperiled.” Yet the “anointing” in 1 John likely refers not primarily to the claim of individuals alone, but to the Spirit’s testimony corporately in the church (in worship, prayer, fellowship, the eucharist, etc.). Consider these points: 1. The verbs and pronouns are plural throughout, suggesting a corporate rather than an individual reference: “You [pl.] have [ἔχετε] an anointing from the holy one and all of you know [οἴδατε] …” (2:20), etc. 2. The repeated use of the first and second person plural nominative pronouns (ὑμεῖς [6x]; ἡμεῖς [10x]), which are grammatically unnecessary (since the verb carries the person and number), would seem to emphasize this corporate sense: “And you [ὑμεῖς] have an anointing from the Holy One…” (v. 20); “Let what you [ὑμεῖς] heard from the beginning remain in you…” (v. 24). “Let the anointing you [ὑμεῖς] received from him remain in you…” (v. 27). While John has a tendency to use more subject pronouns than other writers, they are still rare. There are 309 verbs in the indicative in 1 John and only 26 nominative personal pronouns. Significantly, all six nominative, second person plural pronouns

 Marshall, Epistles of John, 155 – 156.  Dodd, Johannine Epistles, 63 – 64.

78

Mark L. Strauss

(ὑμεῖς) in the letter appear in contexts relating to God’s indwelling presence (1:3; 2:20, 24 [2x], 27; 4:4). 3. In the second half of verse 20, the author explicitly (and quite awkwardly) emphasizes a corporate sense by introducing the nominative plural adjective πάντες. Instead of writing “you [pl.] know,” he writes that “you all [πάντες] know.” The unusual nature of this expression is likely one of the reasons copyists changed πάντες to πάντα: “you know all things.”¹⁶ 4. In 2:12– 14, one of the strongest statements of epistemological confidence in the letter, the author repeatedly emphasizes that he is writing, “because you know…,” while addressing four different groups: τεκνία (“children”), πατέρες (“fathers/parents”), νεανίσκοι (“young men/people”), παιδία (“children”). Commentators debate whether these designations represent two, three, or four distinct groups in the church and whether they refer to spiritual or physical identity.¹⁷ But there is a no doubt that together they emphasize the corporate nature of this knowledge: all alike—parents, young people and children—know the truth. 5. At times the author assumes something is true simply because the community affirms it. For example, 1 John 4:6 reads, “We are from God, and the one who knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. In this way we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” This suggests a corporate consensus achieved through the unifying testimony of the Spirit. 6. This corporate sense fits well with statements about the indwelling presence of the Spirit elsewhere in the New Testament. While Paul can refer to each individual’s body as “a temple of the Holy Spirit,” (1 Cor. 6:19), he also speaks of the corporate nature of this indwelling. The NIV brings out well this corporate sense. “Don’t you know [οἴδατε] that you yourselves are [ἐστε (pl.)] God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple [οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς].” (1 Cor. 3:16 – 17 NIV).

1.2 The Spirit and anointing elsewhere in Scripture Further evidence that the “anointing” here refers primarily to the Holy Spirit is the connection between anointing and the Spirit elsewhere in Scripture. The anointing of David to be king by the prophet Samuel is accompanied by an endowment of the Spirit: “So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the

 See note 3 above.  See Brown, Epistles of John, 297– 300.

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

79

presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David” (1 Sam. 16:13). This passage has its precedent in David’s predecessor Saul, the first king of Israel, who as the Lord’s anointed was at times empowered for action by the Spirit of God (1 Sam. 11:6; 19:23). Yet while the Spirit empowered Saul for specific tasks, David is said to have had a permanent endowment with the Spirit (“from that day on”). This, in turn, becomes the model for the messianic king from David’s line, upon whom, “the Spirit of the Lord will rest…the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2). It is significant that the role of the Spirit with reference to the Messiah is to impart divine wisdom and understanding, much like the χρῖσμα of 1 John 2:20, 27. Like the Davidic Messiah, the Servant figure of Deutero-Isaiah is also uniquely endowed with the Spirit: Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)

While Spirit-endowment is not explicitly linked with “anointing” in Isaiah 11 or Isaiah 42, both concern the kind of appointment and commissioning associated with anointing in the Old Testament. An explicit link between Spirit-endowment and anointing is, however, made in Isaiah 61:1– 2, which has a good number of conceptual parallels with Isaiah 11 and 42: The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God.

The “year of the Lord’s favor” refers to the Jubilee year (Lev. 25), a symbol of restoration, renewal and emancipation. Isaiah takes Jubilee imagery and uses it as an eschatological cipher for the coming of God’s kingdom and restoration of creation. The constellation of ideas associated with the Spirit-endowment of the Davidic Messiah (Isa. 11:1– 2), the Isaianic servant (Isa. 42:1) and the prophet-herald of Jubilee restoration (Isa. 61:1– 2) are picked up by the Gospel writers. Luke’s Gos-

80

Mark L. Strauss

pel in particular identifies Jesus’ reception of the Spirit at his baptism as his “anointing” as Messiah (= “Anointed One”). Following the empowerment by the Spirit at his baptism (3:21– 22; cf. Isa. 42:1– 2), Jesus goes into the wilderness “full of the Holy Spirit” (4:1) and is tempted by the devil. He then returns to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit,” enters the Nazareth synagogue, and reads from Isaiah 61:1– 2: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me…” It could not be clearer that the “anointing” here relates to the empowering presence of the Spirit in Jesus’ life. In summary, while the interpretation of the anointing in 1 John as the word of God has merit, the evidence points to the Spirit as the primary referent. The anointing refers to the internal testimony of the Spirit, who confirms the truth of the apostolic gospel message, which has been faithfully passed down by the community of faith.

2 The Spirit and Epistemology Elsewhere in the New Testament: A Sampling The role of the Spirit in confirming the message of salvation is not unique to the Johannine Epistles. This function of the Spirit as epistemologically decisive finds support elsewhere in the New Testament. Though with sometimes different emphases, other NT writers affirm the important role the Spirit plays in the believer’s knowledge of the truth. Here is a sampling:

2.1 The Gospel of John Not surprisingly, Jesus’ teaching about the Spirit in John’s Gospel has many points in common with the teaching of 1 John. In John 14:17, part of the Farewell Discourse, Jesus tells the disciples that they will know “the Spirit of truth” that they received because he “remains in you and will be in you” (παρ᾿ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται). This represents a striking parallel with 1 John 2:27, where the χρῖσμα that they received “remains in you” (μένει ἐν ὑμῖν). Similarly, just as “it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth” (1 John 5:6), so in the Farewell Discourse Jesus teaches that “the Advocate…the Spirit of truth…will testify about me” (John 15:26). In 1 John 2:27 the “anointing…teaches you about all things,” so in the Gospel “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit…will teach you all things” (John 14:26) and “the Spirit of truth… will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

81

These points of contact would seem to confirm that the primary sense of χρῖσμα is the “anointing” by the Spirit, who testifies to believers, assuring them of the truth of the gospel message. In Johannine epistemology, authentic knowledge of God comes through the mediating work of the Spirit.

2.2 The Letters of Paul For the apostle Paul, the Spirit is many things: the evidence of the dawn of the new age, the agent of regeneration (Rom. 8:15), and the empowering presence of God in the life of the believer.¹⁸ All true believers have received the Spirit of God: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given one Spirit to drink” (1 Cor. 12:13). Since this is the case, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ” (Rom. 8:9). This Spirit-endowment comes at the moment of salvation: “When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph. 1:13). While the epistemological role of the Spirit in confirming the truth is less emphasized in Paul than in the Johannine literature, it is nevertheless present. Paul affirms in 2 Corinthians 1:21– 22 that “it is God who establishes us together with you in Christ and who anointed us, who also sealed us and gave us the guarantee of the Spirit in our hearts.” The “seal” here is likely the Spirit himself (cf. Eph. 1:13; 4:30).¹⁹ The “guarantee [or ‘down payment’] of the Spirit” (ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος)—a genitive of apposition—means the Spirit is the guarantee. The Spirit as revelatory agent providing epistemological certainty is most strongly set forth in 1 Corinthians 2:6 – 16: The “mystery” of the gospel that was hidden for ages is now “revealed to us by his Spirit” (v. 10). We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, “so that we may know the things freely given to us by God” (v. 12). We do not speak words of merely human wisdom but words “taught by the Spirit” (v. 13). While “the person without the Spirit does not accept the things of the Spirit of God…the Spirit-led person [πνευματικὸς] discerns all things” (ἀνακρίνει τὰ πάντα; vv. 14– 15). The Spirit is not only the agent of salvation but also the confirmatory agent, providing knowledge of God and assurance of salvation.  See Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994) and much more briefly in Paul, the Spirit and the People of God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996).  See Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 112: “The ‘seal’ is nothing less than the Spirit himself, by whom God has marked believers as his own ultimate possession.”

82

Mark L. Strauss

2.3 Luke-Acts It is widely recognized that the Spirit plays a prominent role in Luke’s writings.²⁰ There are three distinct periods of the activity of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. 1. In Luke’s birth narrative the Old Testament Spirit of prophecy is renewed as the angel Gabriel predicts that John the Baptist will be filled with the Spirit even before he is born (1:15), and characters like Elizabeth and Zechariah break out in Spirit-inspired prophetic utterance (1:41, 67). The Holy Spirit rests on righteous Simeon, prompting him to come to the temple to see Lord’s Anointed (2:25 – 27). This is the righteous remnant of Israel at the turn of the era—the dawn of God’s eschatological salvation. 2. In the Gospel proper, the Spirit fills and empowers Jesus to accomplish the messianic task. In fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies (Isa. 11:1– 2; 42:1; 61:1– 2), Jesus is “anointed” by the Spirit as Messiah at his baptism (3:21; cf. Acts 10:38) and then filled and empowered by the Spirit (4:1, 14, 18 – 19; cf. Isa. 61:1– 2) as he goes out preaching, healing, and casting out demons. 3. Finally, in Acts, John the Baptist’s prediction that the one coming after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Luke 3:16; cf. Acts 1:5) is fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, as the ascended and exalted Jesus pours out the Spirit on his disciples, empowering them for ministry. Peter identifies this manifestation of the Spirit as the eschatological fulfillment of Joel 3:28 – 32 and so as evidence that the new age has dawned: In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy. (Acts 2:17– 21)

Throughout Acts, then, reception of the Holy Spirit is the evidence of salvation and marks entrance into the church and the new age of salvation (2:33, 38; 8:15, 17– 19; 10:44– 45, 47; 15:8, 28; 19:2, 6). In Acts 10:45, the Jerusalem believers are “astonished” that the Holy Spirit could be poured out on Gentiles confirming their entrance into the new covenant people of God apart from circumcision. Peter responds that, “Surely no one can prohibit these from being baptized  See especially Max Turner, Power from on High. The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts, JPTSS 9 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

83

with water, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (10:47; cf. 15:8, 28). Throughout Acts the Spirit fills and empowers believers (2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5: 7:55; 9:17; 11:24) and guides and directs the progress of the Gospel (Acts 11:12, 28; 13:2). The Spirit is the evidence of God’s presence and power (Acts 4:31; 6:10). While Luke does not refer to the Spirit as the internal testimony confirming the truth of the gospel in the same way that we find in the Pauline and Johannine literature, there is no doubt that for Luke the activity of the Spirit in the early church represents confirmation of the gospel and proof that the kingdom of God is dawning through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the unstoppable expansion of the church of Jesus Christ.

3 Other Epistemological Claims in First John and Elsewhere It is important to note that while First John emphasizes the Spirit as the primary confirmatory agent for the believer, there are other (potentially competing) epistemological claims in the letter. For example, the author begins with a strong affirmation related to eyewitness testimony: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1– 3)

Here the author appeals not to the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, but to the eyewitness testimony of the apostles and other first-generation believers. Through multiple senses—sight, sound and touch—they were witnesses and so bear reliable testimony to the events of the gospel. Here we have what might be called an evidentialist apologetic. Of course, this is not unique to the Epistles of John. The Fourth Gospel also affirms the importance of eyewitness testimony. John’s Prologue emphasizes both the eyewitness testimony of the author (“we have seen his glory”; 1:14) as well as the important testimony of John the Baptist, who came “as a witness to bear witness concerning the light” (1:7; cf. 1:6 – 8, 15; cf. 1:19 – 36). The Epilogue similarly points to the eyewitness testimony of the Beloved Disciple (21:24). Mira-

84

Mark L. Strauss

cles, too, have epistemological value in the Gospel of John²¹ The “signs” Jesus performs provoke faith for many (2:11, 23; 6:2) and Jesus points to his “works” as sufficient confirmation that the Father has sent him (5:36; 10:25, 32, 38; 14:11). So, too, Paul, while making it clear that the gospel can only be comprehended by those who have the Spirit, nevertheless appeals to eyewitness testimony when it comes to the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:3 – 8). The author of Luke-Acts, while emphasizing the role of the Spirit as confirming the truth of the Gospel, also points to the importance of eyewitness testimony and careful historical work. This historiographic approach is evident especially in Luke’s prologue, where he claims to have received eyewitness testimony and to have “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” so that he could write an orderly and reliable account (Luke 1:1– 4). Miracles, too, provide an epistemological foundation for faith in Luke-Acts (Luke 24:19; Acts 2:22; 4:16; 5:12; 14:13; 15:12; 19:11). This kind of evidentialist or historicist epistemology has dominated apologetics in the West since the period of the Enlightenment. The development of the scientific method and historical-critical methods have tended to denigrate the apparently “subjective” role of the Holy Spirit as a means of confirming the truth. We conclude, however, by pointing to several Christian philosophers who, while not rejecting the role of evidence and historical research, nevertheless place the testimony of the Holy Spirit at the center of their epistemology.

4 The Spirit and Epistemology in Philosophical Perspective William Lane Craig introduces an epistemological and apologetic approach that is remarkably similar to the Spirit-centric approach we have examined above. He writes, May I suggest that, fundamentally, the way we know Christianity to be true is the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit…. I mean that the witness, or testimony, of the Holy Spirit is its own proof; it is unmistakable; it does not need other proofs to back it up; it is self-evident and attests to its own truth. It is this self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit that assures a person that Christianity is true.²²

 See David A. Redelings, The Epistemological Basis for Belief according to John’s Gospel: Miracles and Message in their Essentials as Nonfictional Grounds for Knowledge of God (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011).  William Lane Craig, Apologetics. An Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 18.

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

85

While strongly asserting that the Spirit as the ultimate epistemological test, Lane (like the biblical authors) does not discount the important role of reason or evidence: we must make a distinction between knowing [Christianity] is true and showing it is true. We know Christianity is true by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Spirit. We show Christianity is true by demonstrating that it is systematically consistent.²³

Alvin Plantinga, considered one of the foremost Christian philosophers of our day, also gives a significant role to the Holy Spirit in his epistemology. In Warranted Christian Belief, the third volume of his three-volume magnum opus, Platinga seeks to provide a philosophical foundation for Christian belief. Adopting what has been called Reformed epistemology, he argues that belief in God is properly basic (recognized as true without being inferred from other truths). While evidentialists claim that propositions are basic only if they are either self-evident or incorrigible,²⁴ Plantinga asserts that there is no reason these should be the only properly basic assumptions. Following a model drawn from Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin (“A/C model”), he maintains that belief in God is properly basic, needing no evidentiary defense. Human beings have an innate capacity to apprehend God’s existence in the same way they have a natural capacity to apprehend truths of logic and perception. If this is the case, then belief in God is innate, and can be justified, warranted and rational even apart from external evidence. While Plantinga’s A/C model relates to the existence of God, he develops a second model known as the “Extended A/C” model to show that specifically Christian theological beliefs such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the atonement are warranted and justified because of the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing those beliefs about in the believer. It is the Holy Spirit who renders them basic.²⁵ Plantinga writes: “What is really involved in a believer’s coming to accept the great things of the gospel, therefore, are three things: Scripture (the divine teaching), the internal invitation or instigation of the Holy Spirit, and faith, the human belief that results.”²⁶ For example, one

 Craig, Apologetics, 25.  Incorrigible means not able to be corrected or improved. “I feel pain” is an incorrigible statement.  Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 247.  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, 249 – 50.

86

Mark L. Strauss

hears the teaching of Scripture and immediately finds himself saying, “Yes that’s true; that’s correct.” According to the model, this conviction comes by way of the activity of the Holy Spirit. Calvin speaks here of the internal ‘testimony’ and (more often) ‘witness’ of the Holy Spirit; Aquinas, of the divine ‘instigation’ and ‘invitation’. On the model, there is both Scripture and the divine activity leading to human belief.²⁷

Plantinga cites the Heidelberg Catechism (following John Calvin) as a good summary of his perspective: True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation. (Q. 21)²⁸

Our purpose in introducing the views of Craig and Plantinga is not to defend in detail their philosophical conclusions, but rather to show that the results of our exegesis with reference to the epistemological role of the Holy Spirit have been taken up, scrutinized and defended in the spotlight of rigorous philosophical discussion.

5 Conclusion: Some Implications and Applications In this paper we have examined the New Testament evidence that the testimony of the Holy Spirit represents key epistemological confirmation for the truth of the gospel message. The explicit statements of this in 1 John 2:20 and 27 are supported by many references elsewhere, especially in the Johannine and Pauline literature. The epistemological value of the testimony of the Holy Spirit has often been denigrated, especially in the West, because of its supposed subjective or arbitrary nature. It is no different, some say, from the Mormon “burning in the bosom” or the ecstatic experiences of other religious traditions. Yet the claim of subjectivity is unfounded. Subjectivity means arising from within yourself rather than from an external object or source (i. e., “objective”). It means existing in one’s  Plantinga, Warranted Christian Believe, 250 – 251.  Cited by Plantinga, Warranted Christian Believe, 247.

Epistemology and the Spirit in Biblical and Philosophical Perspective

87

mind rather than the external world. Yet if the Holy Spirit exists—and as Christians we must believe he does—then the confirmation that comes from the Spirit is objective, not subjective. To be sure, someone can falsely claim to have received revelation from the Spirit or can mistake any number of experiences—internal or external—to be the work of the Spirit. But such experiences cannot themselves negate either the reality of the Holy Spirit’s existence or his role in confirming the truth. A case can even be made that confirmation by the Spirit has greater epistemological value than other factors, such as the testimony of the Bible or eyewitness reports of miracles, etc. If I want to know someone personally, the best way to do this is not to read about them, hear others speak about them, or to look at a representation of them in a video or photograph. It is to meet them, engage in communication, spend time together. If God is indeed a person, then the best way to know him is through an existential encounter with his Holy Spirit.

Jonathan D. Parker

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11 1 Introduction Although not the first text that might come to one’s mind, Numbers 11 has much to say for those investigating the Spirit’s role in the interpretation of Israel’s Scriptures.¹ In particular, Numbers 11 features a unique confluence of known sources of authority, focuses this configured authority on a complaining Moses, and then, remarkably, transfers “the spirit upon him” (‫הרוח אשׁר עליו‬, v. 25) to a council of seventy elders (hereafter, “the Seventy”). They then evidence the success of this transfer by prophesying: “As the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied” (v. 25). While the relation of this council to known historical entities in ancient Israel remains difficult to say,² the notion that this passage was seeking to consolidate authority around an ongoing (albeit idealized) Mosaic model remains strong. Recent pentateuchal research suggests the goal of the text was, as part of a broader Deuteronomistic or post-Priestly redaction, to prioritize Torah over prophecy while continuing to welcome prophetic contributions.³ These interpretations have especially helped overcome the limitations of previous approaches which tended to relegate the significance of the passage to its placement in an assigned source or as a single past event of prophetic ecstasy, with little to no consideration of the concerns of the text’s authors. However, by refocusing our attention on s/Spirit (‫ )רוח‬rather than on the passage’s probable compositional history, several facets come into better view, and applications to contemporary biblical interpretation are sharply presented.

 This essay presumes a Christian frame of reference, even as it avoids divisive terms when possible in order to invite maximum dialogue between believing communities, especially Jews and Christians who share Israel’s Scriptures. It also uses the capitalized masculine pronoun for the divine, though aware of its limitations and potential faults.  Ze’ev Weisman, “The Personal Spirit as Imparting Authority,” ZAW 93 (1981): 225 – 34 (231); Henoch Reviv, “The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating,” ZAW 94 (1982): 566 – 75; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Eine Auslegung von Ex 33,7– 11; Num 11,4– 12,8; Dtn 31,14 f.; 34,10,” ZAW 102 (1990): 169 – 80 (170); Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZABR 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 251– 59.  E. g., Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz”; Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 76 – 91, 194– 97. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-009

92

Jonathan D. Parker

The argument here will proceed in three stages: First, we will briefly review the passage. Second, we will examine a neglected unifying theme (i. e., a “flesh and spirit” dyad). Finally, we will consider the Seventy elders of Numbers 11 and the Mosaic authority they depict and construct, including a running commentary on the implications for the practice of the spiritual interpretation of Scripture.

2 Numbers 11: An Introduction At first, Numbers 11 appears simply as an event in the life of Israel under the leadership of Moses in the desert and stands in a series of “murmuring” episodes, wherein all Israel complains against their leaders or God Himself and then the leaders or God respond.⁴ Numbers 11 is the first in the second half of these episodes (Num 11– 19). On these occasions, the people do not complain as they did in the first half (Exod 15 – 17) about their necessities (e. g., potable water, food), but instead about their desires (e. g., the kind of food, who gets to lead and under what conditions).⁵ Often, the people barely survive, usually due to Moses’s intercession on their behalf.⁶ However, it doesn’t take long to discover a number of significant oddities in Numbers 11. For example: (1) There seems to be very little reason for the introductory episode about Taberah, vv. 1– 3; (2) furthermore, the elders are clearly instituted to assist Moses with his “burden,” but how does their prophesying help? The answer is not obvious, especially since they seem of no use in either providing the quail or stopping the people from punishment once the quail arrive. Finally, (3) who are the two somewhat cryptic prophesying figures named Eldad and Medad, who appear in the camp as if they were originally part of the Seventy but cannot be so since the Seventy are said to be all accounted for in v. 24?⁷ Can any sense be made of this confusing narrative portrait? As Benjamin Sommer suggests, “Such a degree of incongruity demands attention.”⁸ On the

 George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 28, 40, 96 – 115; Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Book of Numbers,” NIB, vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 99.  Dozeman, “Numbers,” 99.  Dozeman, “Numbers,” 100.  Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, trans. James D. Martin, OTL (London: SCM, 1968), 90; Blum, Studien, 84.  Benjamin D. Sommer, “Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11,” JBL 118 (1999): 601– 24 (602).

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

93

other hand, close attention to details may lead us to demur from calling these and other features “incongruities.” Instead, as Horst Seebass suggests, the passage “might well display extraordinary theological power.”⁹

2.1 Quail and Elders? Most interpreters try to unwind the passage by first noting its dual-story structure: one focused on the Israelites’ complaint for meat and the other on Moses’s complaint about his burden,¹⁰ or sometimes, one on the divine gift of quail and another on the gift of the spirit,¹¹ or simply on “quail” and “elders.”¹² This approach has its basis in tradition-historical approaches such that each story has its own sphere of tradition, i. e., “quail” (cf. Exod 16:8, 13; Ps 78:17– 30; Ps 106:14– 15) and “elders” (Exod 24:1, 9 – 11; notably without “elders” mentioned, Exod 18:13 – 27; Deut 1:9 – 17).¹³ Indeed, the dyadic nature of the chapter is unde-

 Horst Seebass, Numeri (10,11 – 14,45), BKAT 4.2.1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 31. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.  Dozeman, “Numbers,” 105; idem, “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah,” JBL 119 (2000): 21– 45 (36), both “developed” from Exod 33, within the pre-Priestly history; Thomas Christian Römer, “Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of Numbers,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, W. Brian Aucker, VTSup 113 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 436.  Noth, Numbers, 83; Ludwig Schmidt, “Mose, die 70 Ältesten und die Propheten in Numeri 11 und 12.” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Pentateuch, BZAW 263 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 251.  Achenbach, Die Vollendung, 227, 231; Rainer Albertz, “Noncontinuous Literary Sources Taken Up in the Book of Exodus,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan Christian Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 615. Other labels for the division include: “quails” and “Moses’ complaint” (plus later expansions), Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), trans. Philip H. Wicksteed (London: Macmillan, 1886), 158; “seventy elders” and “lust for flesh,” George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903), 100 – 1; “supply with food/ murmur” and “leadership of the people/relief of Moses,” Blum, Studien, 83n171; “food” and “leadership,” Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 206 – 7; “food” and “governance,” Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 327; “Moses, the people, and plague” and “Moses, the elders, and prophecy,” Sommer, “Reflecting,” 604.  For Exodus 16, 18, and 24:1, 9 – 11, Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Berlin: Reimer, 1899; repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 99 – 100; Schmidt, “Mose,” 261; for Exodus 16 & 18, Hugo Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen, FRLANT 18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), “quail sagas” (137– 42) and “Moses as judge” (168 – 80); for Psalms, see Sommer,

94

Jonathan D. Parker

niable, even while there has never been consistent agreement about the source(s) of Numbers 11¹⁴ and many have long considered 11:4– 34 (if not the whole chapter) as from a single source and a “literary unity.”¹⁵ What is less clear is why the two are brought together at all. Apart from questions of genre and plot development as mentioned above, what does hunger, quail, and craving have to do with burden, elders, and prophesying that would prompt the connection? Wellhausen argues, “The section in 11:4– 34 is not a natural unit but a highly artificial interweaving of two component parts which have nothing to do with each other. How can the hunger of the people awaken the desire in Moses to have co-workers for his public work?!”¹⁶ Most scholars choose not to address this question at all. Among those who do,¹⁷ the attempts typically (a) still divide the passage by “elders” and “quail” but (b) rely on unique and anomalous efforts of textual division and combination to argue for the origins of their particular dyad. None has yet to convince.

“Reflecting,” 604; Coats, Rebellion, 215. Reviv, “Traditions,” John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 212– 19, and Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, trans. Allan W. Mahnke (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 83 – 90 make connections between the elders and Exodus 18 and Deuteronomy 1, but not Exodus 24, whereas Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 339, John R. Levison, “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of the Ecstatic Elders,” CBQ 65 (2003): 503 – 21 (514– 18), and Blum, Studien, 89 – 90, see the connection to Exodus 24 as significant, or even critical. For Deuteronomy 1 as decidedly reflecting both Numbers 11 and Exodus 18, see Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 99 – 110; however, ‫ נשא‬is, in fact, found in Exodus 18:22 itself and seems a capable basis for Deuteronomy 1, cf “the Leitwort ‫ נשׂא‬belongs only to one source (non-J)” (109).  Although Sommer, Baden, and Stackert, claim separability of J and E sources, as they themselves acknowledge, older historical critics, including Kuenen, Wellhausen, and Carpenter & Harford-Battersby, were content with the label, “JE,” and felt they could only gesture toward possible differentiations of J or E from the text’s past. See Jeffery Stackert, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 16 – 19, for discussion.  Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W. Anderson (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 32. For a recent discussion, see Stephen Germany, The ExodusConquest Narrative: The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua, FAT 115 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 197– 203.  Wellhausen, Composition, 99.  (1) Blum, Studien, 83. (2) Horst Seebass, “Num. XI, XII, und die Hypothese des Jahwisten,” VT 28 (1978): 214– 23; later with revisions, idem, Numeri, 35 – 40; still critiqued by Schmidt “Mose,” 252n3. (3) Sommer, “Reflecting,” 614– 24, who depends on a “punishing” view of the transfer of the spirit upon Moses. (4) Stackert, Prophet, 91, who admits, “there is no reason to conclude that the E story in Num 11* relates to the same event as J’s account of the Israelites’ dietary complaints and their aftermath.”

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

95

In response to these proposals, we might consider the division of quail and elders a false starting point and that a recommitment to the literary unity of the passage is worth renewed attention. Despite his own excision of any elders material from his analysis of Numbers 11, George Coats helpfully reminds readers that: Interpretation of Pentateuchal narratives commonly begins with assumptions about disunity. If, for example, a word or sentence in a pericope appears on the surface to be disruptive or unnecessarily repetitive, the interpreter may simply excise the problem without considering the possibility that the word or phrase may have had a role to play in the rhetoric native to the narrator’s own world of narration technique.… It is therefore of critical importance in any effort to recover meaning from any example of narrative art to recognize whatever sense of rhetorical unity may be at the heart of the piece.¹⁸

An attempt to work with the passage as a literary unity is not just advisable given the as-yet unconvincing theories of its formation, but also because it seeks to look with the grain of the biblical text in order to see its rhetorical and theological “heart” before giving up and seeing only disparate strands. Indeed, canonical readers, who interpret the Bible as the church’s (or synagogue’s) book and are seeking the theological rationale(s) that produced the final form through inspired redactional activity,¹⁹ will be all the more inclined to prefer unity at the literary level wherever possible. Might there be a link between the people’s craving for meat and God’s response with s/Spirit to the elders, after all? Is it saying something about the dyad of our human desires and God’s prophetic word?

3 Spirit and Flesh in Numbers 11 Among those who have seen a unifying theme in Numbers 11:4– 35 (whether they explore the passage’s compositional history or not) are those who have noticed a divine double-action specifically based on the double-meaning of ‫רוח‬, which can mean either “spirit” or “wind.” In Roy Gane’s words, “Having answered Moses’ need by putting his Spirit (ruaḥ ) on the elders [in v. 25], the Lord delivers fresh meat to the people …, sending a literal wind (also ruaḥ ) that blows quail in from

 George W. Coats, “Humility and Honor,” in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, ed. David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser, JSOTSup 19 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 97.  E. g., John Webster, Holy Scripture, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 19, 30.

96

Jonathan D. Parker

the sea [in v. 31].”²⁰ Furthermore, the text suggests that both of these are not just “spirit,” but “the Spirit,” i. e., they are “of YHWH.” Verse 31 says this directly, and because the antecedent to “the spirit” in v. 26 must be “the spirit upon [Moses]” in v. 25, it must be the Spirit of YHWH whose distribution Moses celebrates and wishes more of.²¹ Despite this parallel provision, A. H. J. Gunneweg is likely right that the word ‫ רוח‬alone would not be enough to bring two such disparate plots together, weaving them into one.²² What relationship could the Spirit providing food have with the Spirit providing (what is usually termed) “leadership”? Aaron Schart suggests that we are more likely to find our answer in the dyad of both Spirit and “flesh” (‫בשׂר‬, or “meat”): “To ask if it is right that the quail story was expanded by the elders story is also to ask why both stories were linked so closely together. The answer may lie in the intention of the expander, relating the themes of ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh’ to one another.”²³ Similarly, Thomas Römer describes Numbers 11 as opposing “the flesh and the spirit in a quasi-Pauline manner. The ‘carnal desire’ of the people provokes their death; YHWH’s plan for life²⁴ materializes in the gift of the spirit.”²⁵ Admittedly, for those who parse the themes as “quail” and “elders,” the word “flesh” does not appear in verses

 Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 582; very similarly, A. Graeme Auld, “Samuel, Numbers, and the Yahwist-Question,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten, ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte, BZAW 315 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 242; differently, Roger D. Cotton, “The Pentecostal Significance of Numbers 11,” JPentT 10 (2001): 3 – 10 (5); intensified parallel over over-flowing spirit and quail, Dennis T. Olson, Numbers, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 1996), 68 – 69.  Blum, Studien, 79n151; Seebass, Numeri, 34.  Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 169.  Aaron Schart, Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 164– 65.  “as opposed to Moses’s plan for death in vv. 11– 15,” 488n39 (author’s note in original).  Thomas Christian Römer, “Nombres 11– 12 et la question d’une rédaction deutéronomique dans le Pentateuque,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans, ed. Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, BETL 133 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 488; also, Römer, “Sojourn,” 437; Thomas Christian Römer, “Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21,” in Torah and the Book of Numbers, ed. Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola, and Aaron Schart, FAT 2/62 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 76; Nathan MacDonald, “The Spirit of Yhwh: An Overlooked Conceptualization of Divine Presence in the Persian Period,” in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism Vol. II, ed. Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster, FAT 2/61 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 99n17.

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

97

typically marked as belonging to that “story.”²⁶ Nevertheless, we ought to consider if the real dyad of the chapter is not “quail and elders,” but “flesh and spirit.” If so, then what could bring the two “stories” together might be a meditation on the biblical tradition that all flesh is contingent upon spirit—indeed, the Spirit —for life (including food to live) and, consequently, there are challenges to such a contingent life: namely, (a) the burden of living too long (and wishing to die) and (b) the loss of life (how to mourn and yet carry on the memory and achievements of those who came before us). These two sides of the “spirit/flesh” dyad thus account for a story of the Spirit’s provision for life through food (and the proper response to that gift) as well as the complaint of Moses, whose wish for death centers on the fragility of his own creaturely life and the need among the people to be able to continue his authority beyond his death. Such conceptions of “flesh and spirit” are available from a number of biblical sources, of which Psalm 104:30a, 29b is classic: “When you send forth your spirit [‫]רוח‬, they are created,” “When you take away their breath [‫]רוח‬, they die” (NRSV). Walther Eichrodt calls this view, “The Spirit of God as the Principle of Life” and suggests that early Israelites (among others) saw through the uncontrollable moments of birth and death that “rūaḥ is at all times plainly superior to Man, a divine power within his mortal body, subject to the rule of God alone.”²⁷ This view obviously connects with the contingency of bodily life, but in the same psalm, arguably in the same pericope (vv. 27– 29a), God is also described as the ultimate source of water and food, not only for humanity but all creatures (vv. 10 – 14a, 16 – 22; albeit not by operation of His ‫ רוח‬directly).²⁸ Thus, food and spirit are brought closer through this dyad. More directly, Psalm 78 speaks of the context of the murmuring episodes in the desert and of the events of Numbers 11 specifically, including the ‫ רוח‬for both the flesh as birds (78:26 – 27) and for the flesh as contingent life (78:39)! It is therefore likely that it was from this psalm, or a tradition like it,²⁹ that “spirit and flesh” became a

 The versification for each story of the chapter has not reached consensus, but this delineation is the most convincing: Joel S. Baden, Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 92– 94, i. e., Quail: vv. 4– 10, 13, 16a, 18 – 34; Elders: vv. 11– 12, 14– 17, 24– 30. Similarly, see Volkmar Fritz, Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten, Marburger Theologischer Studien 7 (Marburg: Elwert, 1970), 16, affirmed by Blum, Studien, 83.  Walther Eichrodt, Old Testament Theology, Volume 2, trans. J. A. Baker, OTL (London: SCM, 1967), 47– 48.  However, cf. Psalm 104:3 – 6//Gen 1:1.  Coats, Rebellion, 215, 251, dates Psalm 78 to the period of the early divided kingdom, well before current assessments of the compositional history of Numbers 11. Anthony F. Campbell, “Psalm 78: A Contribution to the Theology of Tenth Century Israel,” CBQ 41 (1979): 51– 79, agrees

98

Jonathan D. Parker

concept for contemplation capable of producing or connecting the dual themes of YHWH’s actions by His Spirit and the negative responses by Moses and the people (i. e., those of the flesh).

3.1 The burden of flesh As a way of summarizing our insights thus far, we may focus on one keyword from the text: “burden” (‫)משׂא‬. Most interpreters point to the burden of Moses and suggest that his is a burden of “leadership.” This is surely right inasmuch as Moses’s own lament to YHWH is the result of YHWH having laid on him “the burden of all this people” (v. 11), for whom he is clearly responsible. But the burden of all this people is not just for their organization or administration. No assembling of the congregation is required (as in the exodus), and no judgments or decisions (cp. Exodus 18) are evident. Instead, the burden is their craving, which Moses (erroneously) interprets as a need to supply them with what they want (v. 13). He feels like a wet-nurse (v. 12).³⁰ But, they do not actually need food. They have manna (vv. 4– 6); they just don’t like it. (An attitude the narrator shades with disapproval, vv. 7– 9.)³¹ What Moses needs to know is not where to get (flesh as) meat for them (v. 13), but what to do with their craving. Thus, attention to the literary unity of the story exposes inadequacies in interpretations which consider the theme of the story to be “food.” Both the etiology itself (v. 34) and the lament of Moses point to the fact that the real need of both the people and Moses is dealing with the burden of the people’s own desires. We might further bolster this argument by suggesting that, in fact, dealing with desires is as foundational to the Hebrew Bible’s sense of human flourishing as the Ten Commandments, which use the same word for “covet” (in Deut 5:21) that is translated here as “craving” (hitp. ‫)אוה‬. When compared with Exod 12:38, v. 22 looks oddly dismissive of the people’s access to meat. Perhaps part of the text’s concern is how to manage the greed of the people’s meat-eating in a postDeut 12 environment where their meat-eating is decentralized and potentially unbridled, since the hithpael of ‫אוה‬, with specific regard to eating meat, only occurs in Deut 12:20 and Num 11:4. One can well-imagine a post-Deuteronomic context in which the Torah appears insufficient to curb excessive, non-cultic meat-eatand sees no dependence on the pentateuchal material. Also, if non-P Exod 16 pre-dates Numbers 11, then Psalm 78:21– 22 could provide the source material for Taberah as well as explain why Numbers 11 moves from that episode to the quail event//78:26, skipping 78:23 – 25.  Or, foster parent, cf. Stackert, Prophet, 94– 7.  Gray, Numbers, 105, saw these verses as a mere insertion.

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

99

ing. From this perspective, our desires then are the burden of our flesh.³² They emerge from our own bodily selves, and properly ordering them troubles us daily. We need the Spirit, to provide order and life beyond the dominion of wants.³³ Finally, we might suggest that Moses’s burden is not just in dealing with the people’s cravings of their flesh but in dealing with the limitations and incapabilities of his body, his own flesh, to be able to meet the needs of the people. Moses may be weary of his task,³⁴ or perhaps he has forgotten that he is not (and never has been) capable of meeting the people’s needs (vv. 21– 22), only God is (v. 23). Either way, part of the burden of our flesh, according to the passage then, is its limitations. It grows weary, it cannot do all that we think it should do, and we are reminded, at the climax of Moses’s lament (v. 15), it dies. All these burdens of the flesh are inherent in Moses’s dialogue with YHWH, and they are derivative of Israel’s traditions on the nature of creaturely life. They point to a need for the Spirit’s work in both beginning human life and in relieving its burdens by extending authority, beyond the life of any individual, over its desire. The genesis and telos of Scriptural interpretation are thus spiritual.

4 The Spirit and the Seventy in Numbers 11 At first, the Seventy seem to be an irrelevant response to the problems Moses is facing. And yet, every step of God’s activity (and Moses’s obedience) in these brief verses configures Mosaic authority to its highest level in the Pentateuch and gives that authority, by the Spirit, to the Seventy, correlated to the burdens of the flesh of the people and Moses. To help us see how the Seventy thus provide a pattern for spiritual interpreters today, we will delineate this constructed Mosaic authority and its transfer as laid out in the text. As we go, a particularly prophetic Mosaic authority comes to light, one that preserves any already-textualized superiority of Moses without constricting Mosaic authority to the text alone, i. e., as though it could exist without the Spirit and without interpreters.

 For more on the problem of desire in Paul’s (possible) reflections on Numbers 11, see Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 363 – 69.  This presumes a combination of both Spirit as source of life and Spirit as transmitter of the word, counsel, and/or wisdom of YHWH. Obviously, this connection appears in later texts like Isaiah 40:3; 61:1, but it can also be seen earlier, e. g., 2 Sam 23:2; 1 Kgs 22:24; esp. Isa 11:2 (and its use of ‫נוח‬, cp. Num 11:25b).  Stackert, Prophet, 98.

100

Jonathan D. Parker

4.1 Text: Seventy elders of Israel, gathered and known (v. 16) Following the order of the present text, one first notices that God calls Moses to “gather for [Him] seventy elders of Israel, who you know to be elders of the people” (Num 11:16). Likely, the term “elders of Israel” should be understood as distinct from “elders in the city” (e. g., Deut 21:3, 6; 22:15, 17), who served in ancient Israel as local legal authorities.³⁵ Instead, these elders are those who appear to function as a partially representative body at a national level (e. g., Ezek 8:11). Their presence here, specifically as “elders of Israel,” is especially noteworthy given the similarities they share with the seventy elders of Exod 24:1, 9 – 11, who see YHWH’s heavenly throne room and eat and drink with Him, alongside Moses, without being harmed. Additionally, these two Seventies are linguistically connected by the unusual term ‫אצל‬. They are described as “chief men” (NRSV, ‫ )אצלים‬in Exod 24:11 while in Num 11:17, YHWH says, “I will draw (‫ )ואצלתי‬upon the spirit that is on you and put it on them” (NJPS). Not much more can be said about the lexical connection between the words,³⁶ but several scholars agree that the wording (and the highly symbolic nature of seventy itself!) does draw the two passages together.³⁷ Importantly, Jean-Louis Ska has argued that Exodus 24 establishes the institution of the Seventy elders of Israel as a prophetic council (due to their visionary experience and access to the “divine council,” without harm) with the “primary function … to legitimate [them as] the worthy heirs of Moses” and in textual continuity with the Seventy in Numbers 11.³⁸ If Numbers 11 knows Exodus 24:1, 9 – 11 (which it likely does), then Exodus 24’s Seventy heightens Moses’s own authority since Numbers 11’s already high council (from Exodus 24) can yet still receive something from him. The authority of the Seventy is increased by the Spirit they receive, which they didn’t already have, and by being “gathered” (‫)אסף‬³⁹

 Crüsemann, Torah, 78 – 83.  Levine, Numbers 1 – 20, 339, suggests ‫ אצל‬means something like “spirited,” but “lifted” seems closer, if they in fact share the same stem.  Blum, Studien, 89 – 90; Levison, “Prophecy,” 514– 16. However, Numbers 11 more likely expands on Exodus 24 than depends on it for coherence, see Jean-Louis Ska, “Vision and Meal in Exodus 24:11,” in The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions, FAT 66 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 174n51; also, Römer, “Sojourn,” 438. On the symbolic nature of the number seventy, see Jacob Milgrom, Numbers, JPSTC (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 86 – 87.  Ska, “Vision and Meal,” 165 – 83, esp. 183.  Note: Römer is likely correct that ‫ אסף‬as “a kind of leitmotif … present in both traditions [i. e., quail and elders],” “Nombres,” 487; also, Albertz, “Noncontinuous,” 615n27, and see below.

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

101

to YHWH, affirming their publicly observable qualifications as recognized by Moses. Thus, Numbers 11’s Seventy is the highest council of all.

4.2 Text: Their scribes (v. 16) YHWH continues his specification of those whom Moses should choose by describing them as not only a council of national “elders,” but ‫שוטריו‬. This term is usually translated as “their officers” but is better translated closer to its apparent etymology as “their scribes,”⁴⁰ (from the Akkadian šaṭāru).⁴¹ To wit, after evaluating the evidence, Nili Fox offers a six-part summary of what ‫ שטרים‬are according to the biblical material.⁴² Fox argues that ‫ שטרים‬typically work outside the cult, are often involved in the judiciary, and are sometimes very high in status (e. g., Exod 5:10 – 19; Num 11:16) but are at other times “clearly subservient” to other governmental authorities.⁴³ Although it is easy to discount such a mixed and laconic portrait as unhelpful, it is also possible that it is just this combination of possibilities that the author of Numbers 11 wishes to convey. That is, perhaps the fact that these “scribes” can be either mere recorders or administrative functionaries conveys both preparation for subservience to Mosaic authority as well as ability to represent and charge the people.⁴⁴ Together these qualities make the Seventy suitable executives but only by the Spirit upon Moses. In addition, when considered alongside v. 26’s clear depiction of some kind of recording (‫)בכתבים‬, the designation ‫ שטרים‬likely indicates that Moses is meant to look among the elders not only for those who are publicly capable of national leadership but a subset of those who have the technical skill to write. Why YHWH would ask for this particular quality among those gathered deserves attention. The most obvious reason is that YHWH wants the Seventy to be able to record and write on behalf of Moses, especially beyond the limitations of his mor-

 As does Dozeman, “Numbers,” 106; cf. Dozeman, “Masking,” 36n60.  “‫שׁוֵֹטר‬,” HALOT 4:1441– 42; “*‫שׁטר‬,” HALOT 4:1475 – 76.  Nili Sacher Fox, In Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah, HCUM 23 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000), 192– 96.  Fox, Service, 195. Citing Weinfeld, Fox also notes how much more scribal the understanding of a ‫ שׁ)ו(טר‬is in more recent the depictions and translations, e. g., LXX γραμματεύς or γραμματοεισαγωγεῖς.  Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 175n14, suggests embracing the “subordinate authority” of Numbers 11’s ‫ שטרים‬without observing their possible high status as well.

102

Jonathan D. Parker

tal life. If this is so, then this narrative may be set alongside Deuteronomy as a key text that reveals how writers of the biblical text viewed themselves as capable of Mosaic Fortschreibung, i. e., “Mosaic scribes.”⁴⁵ Especially when seen along with their later activity as “prophets,” Numbers 11 may well be intended to provide theological context and authority for when such expansion (incl. textual addition) to the Mosaic law was deemed necessary. By this account, Moses did write the whole Torah, but only by the Spirit and through those who saw themselves (and others like them) in the Seventy.

4.2.1 Implications: Authorized elder-scribes It is clear from the above that Mosaic authority begins when divine initiative calls previously trained and publicly verified elder-scribes to join a community of authorized recipients of that authority. God’s Spirit graciously directs and guides some of His “lost creatures”⁴⁶ to seek a life of scribal training and growth in wisdom, or in terms from Numbers 11, to become “scribes” and “elders.” When these particular charisms mature to a point where they are publicly verifiable (like the “their” in v. 16), then the Spirit graciously calls them (as v. 16’s “gather to Me” indicates) into a structure of formal authority among His people (similar to the “seventy” here). Furthermore, Moses chooses the Seventy from “elders of the people” (v. 16). These people, who previously wept for meat (v. 4), did so “throughout their clans, each at the entrance to his tent” (v. 10). The “each” in verse 10 indicates that these Seventy are also ones who bitterly cried out to the Lord. They are not faultless, but they do have verifiable qualifications and potential, which YHWH now calls and Moses by his authority selects. In a similar fashion, Spirit-guided biblical interpreters should be called, not from among the faultless but among the qualified. However, what counts for enough wisdom, enough scribal training, an effectual call, and a proper formal authority to mirror Numbers 11 will of course remain debated issues. But perhaps seeing a common biblical pattern can enable both the believing community and those in the process of scholarly development to see themselves and their roles within God’s gracious economy more clearly.

 Cf. Bill T. Arnold, “The Book of Deuteronomy: Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity, or Something Else Altogether?” in Sepher Torath Mosheh: Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy, ed. Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017), 139 – 60.  Webster, Holy Scripture, 29.

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

103

4.3 Text: Brought to the tent of meeting, taking their place with Moses as he speaks with YHWH (vv. 16 – 17, 24 – 25) Over the last 30 years, the increased critical interest in Numbers 11 has largely been due to renewed attention given to YHWH’s command for Moses to bring the Seventy to the tent of meeting specifically. In particular, scholars have sought to determine whether a series of tent-related passages might form a post-Deuteronomic, post-Priestly, or Elohist strand of textual formation in the Pentateuch (Exod 33:7– 11; Num 11:4– 12:8; Deut 31:14– 15; 34:10).⁴⁷ Despite their disagreements about dating and the process of formation, most agree that the focus of these texts is on Moses’s unique oracular ability, which demonstrates the continuing pattern of the revelation at Mount Sinai through Moses⁴⁸ and thus his supreme authority over all prophecy and/or prophetic activity.⁴⁹ In its introductory and programmatic depiction in Exod 33:7– 11, the tent is (a) where those seeking YHWH may go (v. 7b; cp. Exod 18:13 – 27);⁵⁰ (b) it is “outside” the camp (v. 7, twice); (c) it is where “pillar of cloud” descends (vv. 9 – 10); and (d) it is where Moses could regularly meet with YHWH “face to face, as a man speaks with his friend” (v. 11).⁵¹ This means that when, in v. 16, the elders are called to join Moses at the tent of meeting, there is already cause to think they are being invited to receive (some

 Esp. Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz”; Blum, Studien, 76 – 91, 194– 97; Dozeman, “Masking”; Stackert, Prophet, 70 – 125; Albertz, “Noncontinuous,” 615 – 17. This “tent of meeting” query also overlaps with recent assertions that Numbers 11 is dependent on Deuteronomy 1, see esp. Martin Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke, ATANT 67 (Zurich: TVZ, 1981), 224– 63; Crüsemann, Torah, 87– 91; Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel,” in Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Ulrike Schorn and Matthias Büttner, BZAW 310 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 268 – 73; Römer, “Nombres”; Schmidt, “Mose”; Römer, “Sojourn”; contrast, Baden, J, E, 99 – 114.  Menahem Haran, “The Nature of the ‘’Ohel Mo‘edh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” JSS 5 (1960): 50 – 65 (56 – 58).  Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 177; Blum, Studien, 195; Stackert, Prophet, 92– 107, 123 – 25; contrast, Dozeman, “Masking,” 35 – 36, elders as receiving Moses’s “social,” “judicial,” or “civil authority” at the tent of meeting, without relating it to prophecy. Others who focus on Numbers 11 alone or outside the tent of meeting passages also see Moses as supreme prophetic authority, Crüsemann, Torah, 89 – 90; Schmitt, “Die Suche,” 272– 73; Römer, “Nombres,” 490; Schmidt, “Mose,” 260 – 61; Römer, “Sojourn,” 438.  See Dozeman, “Masking,” 32.  See Haran, “’Ohel Mo‘edh”; Blum, Studien, 76 – 77.

104

Jonathan D. Parker

of) his prophetic authority,⁵² i. e., even before their prophetic activity in v. 25. The ongoing significance of that prophetic authority is still debated,⁵³ but their calling to come and stand at the tent puts them, not as replacements of Moses, but specifically within earshot of his famed discourse with YHWH (“I will talk with you there,” v. 17) and in keeping with a near-reenactment of Sinai’s revelation (v. 16, ‫“ התיצב‬take a stand”; Deut 31:14;⁵⁴ Exod 19:17b; 34:5).⁵⁵ The elders are welcomed into the very epicenter of Mosaic authority and yet without interfering with it.⁵⁶ The expectation is thus set for the Seventy to (a) meet YHWH via the pillar of cloud, (b) at the tent of meeting, (c) in order to receive some sort of prophetic authority from YHWH, (d) but without bypassing Moses’s uniqueness. As we will see, verses 24b – 25 fulfill these expectations directly and with nuanced modulation.

4.3.1 Implications: Attenders to divine discourse This focus on the tent of meeting further emphasizes the pattern of the elders as a pattern of authority supporting spiritual interpretation because biblical interpretation attends to divine discourse.⁵⁷ Even though others also will listen for the Spirit speaking, it is proper to consider the special charism of biblical scholars, not only as listening to the word of the Spirit today, but to the divine discourse generated and preserved by the Spirit’s activity in the past. The primary posture of biblical interpreters is therefore one of listening. One that requires slow and deliberate attention to God’s word in the past, recognizing his communication to those who are specifically not “us” (i. e., bodily-present now). At the request of God, the Seventy in this passage model this listening; they, like modern interpreters, listen to God’s speaking to another authority, one notably previous to them. From time to time, biblical interpreters, like the Seventy, are dis-

 Some like Stackert, argue for Moses′s authority as completely subsuming all other forms of prophecy, i. e., prophecy-like behavior is invoked here just to show that prophecy is no more, Prophet, 92– 107.  Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 177, and Blum, Studien, 194– 96 see the narrative as essentially symbolic, drawing all prophecy under the authority of Moses qua Torah; contrast, Crüsemann, Torah, 90, Dozeman, “Numbers,” 103, 107, and Schmidt, “Mose,” 257, 260, who see the Seventy as receiving something “prophetic” but for the purposes of “leadership.”  Also note the nearness of the written Torah in Deut 31:9 – 13 to this tent episode.  Blum, Studien, 78.  Joshua dwells in the tent (Exod 33:11b), but Haran is right: he never hears “the divine word with him [Moses],” even in Exod 24:13 or 32:17, Haran, “’Ohel Mo‘edh,” 57.  Cf. Thomas B. Dozeman, Holiness and Ministry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 114.

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

105

missed from this original discourse to carry out their speaking and other duties among the people, but first, they gather around Holy Scripture and listen to what God has already said. Jean-Yves Lacoste has recently described this balance as between “haste,” i. e., speaking what the church knows, and yet “less speed,” i. e., “taking time [for] interpretative tasks.”⁵⁸ It is worth pausing here to recognize the Spirit’s beckoning to come and listen, at the site of revelation. There is an inertia built into the Spirit’s work in the biblical text: He has made it heavy so that His people will take it slowly.

4.4 Text: Sharing the Spirit upon Moses (vv. 17, 25) Continuing in v. 17, YHWH describes his plan for helping Moses with his burden: taking some of the spirit upon him and putting it on them. It is notable that the phrasing throughout the passage is “the spirit upon [you/him]” (‫הרוח אשׁר על‬, vv. 17, 25). This wording is either meant to indicate that the spirit is Moses’s “personal spirit” (i. e., not YHWH’s) or YHWH’s spirit as it is on Moses. ⁵⁹ However, v. 29 resists the former reading in favor of the latter: Moses understands Joshua to be alarmed on his account (‫ )המקנה אתה לי‬and so the spirit upon them must somehow relate to that which is upon him. ⁶⁰ And yet, the spirit on Eldad and Medad is also clearly celebrated as the spirit of YHWH (v. 29b). If the same spirit rests on both, is the spirit of YHWH upon Eldad and Medad meant to dismantle and dislocate what has just been built with the Seventy with a superior, non-Mosaic Spirit, or is it meant to just be a separate extension of the same Spirit? While the latter is possible, most scholars see Numbers 12 as offering a clarifying response to the former; no matter if non-Mosaic prophesying is celebrated, Mosaic authority remains supreme.⁶¹ Ultimately though, the Seventy are those who participate in Mosaic authority by YHWH’s spirit upon Moses and their prophesying through it.

 Jean-Yves Lacoste, “More Haste, Less Speed in Theology,” trans. Oliver O’Donovan, IJST 9 (2007): 263 – 82 (270).  Weisman, “Personal Spirit,” argues in favor of the latter, but his arguments have not been persuasive; for more, see Stackert, Prophet, 100n79; cf. John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 415.  Blum, Studien, 79n28.  Blum, Studien, 79; Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 178.

106

Jonathan D. Parker

While there is widespread agreement that the spirit language here indicates a kind of transmission of authority,⁶² what authority is intended by the “spirit upon [Moses]” has been less clear.⁶³ It seems that one’s sense of the Mosaic authority often depends on one’s previous understanding of Israel’s development of the conception of Mosaic authority, e. g., Moses as cult founder, vs. covenant mediator, vs. suffering intercessor, vs. author of the Torah.⁶⁴ Perhaps, however, what is most remarkable about the depiction of the Seventy is how capable they are of absorbing all of these. They are well-placed to be “successors” to Moses even if we admit that there are conflicting successors presented in the final form of the Pentateuch (e. g., Joshua, cf. Num 27:18; Deut 31:14– 15). Furthermore, the careful phrasing of “the spirit upon him” immediately produces reflection on who Moses is and how Mosaic authority is narrated by the Hebrew Bible itself; i. e., whatever is transmitted by the Spirit, it is not just YHWH’s spirit generally, but YHWH’s spirit as it has been active and demonstrated through the textually-constrained life of Moses. Overall, this wording is likely so careful because it is meant to both continue Moses’s authority while maintaining his incomparability (and narratively constrained characteristics); others may succeed him, but no one can replace him.⁶⁵ Furthermore, nowhere else does Moses long for death (v. 15). If the passage’s fundamental dyad is “flesh and spirit,” we may then propose that “the spirit upon Moses” is intended to transfer some of the spirit of YHWH, as it has been shaped in and through the ministry of Moses, to a body of Seventy elders, and this, importantly, before his death—before something should happen to him (in the world of the text) and the chance be lost and so that the reader can know that the Spirit truly comes from him. This attention to the mortality of Moses not

 See MacDonald, “Spirit,” 104– 6; cf. Auld, “Samuel, Numbers”; David G. Firth, “The Spirit and Leadership: Testimony, Empowerment, and Purpose,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Nottingham: Apollos, 2011), esp. 261– 68.  Some above see passing on “leadership” vs. passing on (subordinate) prophetic authority; others try to do some of both.  Cult founder, if one sees the tent as (pre-Priestly) and absorbed into the tabernacle, cf. Dozeman, “Masking,” 41– 43; Covenant mediator, if one sees “speak to you” (v. 17) as comparable to Moses’s face to face encounters in Deuteronomy, cf. Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets, FAT 27 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 120 – 21; Suffering intercessor, if one sees Moses’ lament (vv. 11– 15) as on behalf of the people, cf. Arnold R. Rhodes, “Israel’s Prophets as Intercessors,” in Scripture and History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam, ed. Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt, PTMS 17 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 113 – 14; Teacher/Author of Torah, if one sees their scribal ability (as above).  Compare MacDonald, “Spirit,” 104; Blum, Studien, 195 – 96; Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 177.

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

107

only explains the specific kind of transmission entailed and the reason for this specific wording—i. e., instead of just blessing the “elders” or making a pronouncement about the relationship between prophecy and law—it also explains the ‫“( אסף‬gather,” “withdraw”) motif which is otherwise consistent but inexplicably frequent (vv. [4,] 16, 22, 24, 30, 32). When v. 30 uses the 3ms conjugation with Moses as the subject, we are reminded that when used with a single person, “the Nifal of ‫ … אסף‬is mainly used to express the death or burial of someone.”⁶⁶ The closing portrait is thus of Moses’s “withdrawal,” but the Seventy are also with him. In this, Crüsemann correctly suggests, “[The] Elders must become prophets who are filled with the spirit in order to prevent the death of the people and of Moses. They maintain the spirit of Moses and he ‘rests’ on them.”⁶⁷ Nothing can completely prevent death, but surely the word of YHWH through Moses can continue to prevent untimely death and further consequences from their rebellion.

4.5 Text: Prophesying together, without adding (v. 25) After confirming the proper execution of YHWH’s commands, Numbers 11:24b – 25 then portrays the seemingly inevitable result of God’s transmission of the spirit upon Moses to the Seventy: prophesying.⁶⁸ The kind of prophesying the Seventy engage in has often sparked debate, with some arguing (based on the hitp. ‫נבא‬ verb form and lack of specified verbal content) for a kind of non-verbal, usually ecstatic, “prophetic behavior,”⁶⁹ while others argue that neither lack of verbal content nor the form of the verb need indicate a “frenzy.”⁷⁰ Generally, the former suggest the elders’ prophetic activity is either incoherent or merely a sign of a longer lasting role such a “leader” to which the elders are presumed to now hold in some unique way.⁷¹ Alternatively, the latter think their ability to prophesy by the spirit upon Moses not only confirms the prophetic authority already ex Römer, “Nombres,” 491n58.  Crüsemann, Torah, 90; however, see context for some differences from the argument here.  Some see that the spirit “rests” (‫ )נוח‬as significant, cp. especially Isaiah 11, e. g., Wellhausen, Composition, 100. At most, it adds a sense of permanence to the presence of the Spirit upon the Seventy.  Recently, see Stackert, Prophet, 99 – 102.  Recently, see Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 176; cf. Levison, “Prophecy”; David L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel’s Prophets, JSOTSup 17 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 29; Abraham Heschel, The Prophets, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row; repr. 2 vols. in 1; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 2:115 – 46.  E. g., Noth, Numbers, 89; Schmidt, “Mose,” 259.

108

Jonathan D. Parker

pected (based on their location at the tent of meeting) but empowers them to both speak for Moses and by him. This latter configuration means that, in some sense, Moses has already been replaced. But as soon as this is the case, they likewise become a problem: What if they improperly innovate on Moses’s life and tradition? This possibility offers insight into another puzzle of the passage: Did the elders continue to prophesy or did they not? The Hebrew of v. 25b can be pointed in two different ways. One renders the phrase “and they did not continue” (‫יסף‬, MT; LXX) while another renders a different verb (‫ )סוף‬and reads “and they did not cease” (Tg. Onq.; Vulg.). Noting that the usual grammatical pattern for rendering “to continue” is the infinitive form of ‫יסף‬, A. H. J. Gunneweg argues that if v. 25b intended to say “and they did not continue,” then the present consonantal text would be an anomalous version. Thus, the verb cannot be ‫יסף‬, and the phrase ought to be rendered as “they did not cease.”⁷² In his rebuttal to Gunneweg, Ludwig Schmidt argues that in Deut 5:22 the same verb occurs, not in the infinitive, and yet clearly means “Yahweh did not continue.”⁷³ For Schmidt, then, there is no grammatical problem, and v. 25b should be rendered, “and they did not continue.” In my opinion, Gunneweg’s is right that the elders are prophets who are “subordinate to Moses”⁷⁴ rather than non-prophetic, spirit-enabled leaders as Schmidt avers,⁷⁵ but grammatically, Schmidt is correct. However, both have been drawn into a false choice over whether the elders “continue” or not. The text is not concerned with their continuing prophecy but with describing the fidelity of the elders to the supremacy of Moses even as they receive his authority. While Schmidt is right that Deut 5:22 can be read as “he did not continue,” most translate ‫ ולא־יסף‬as “he did not add,” i. e., YHWH stopped revealing at that time and did not add any more commandments.⁷⁶ This is, I think, closer to what Num 11:25b is trying to convey, and it should therefore be translated, “they prophesied, and they did not add.” After all, a prophet continuing to speak the word of YHWH as revealed to Moses through their own voice but without innovation is not inconsistent the supremacy of Moses’s authority. Only a prophet who tries to “add” more to what Moses has already spoken might undermine the very Mosaic authority they have inherited.

 Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 176.  Schmidt, “Mose,” 259, emphasis added.  Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 177.  Schmidt, “Mose,” 258.  See also, Deut 12:32 [13:1], which shares Num 11:25b’s concern for the continuation of word of YHWH through Moses.

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

109

4.6 Text: Open to others prophesying (vv. 26 – 29) Finally, Numbers 11 comes to the story of Eldad and Medad and their prophesying in the camp away from the Seventy (vv. 26 – 29). There are difficulties with this section which space will not allow us to resolve, but what is most important about their story is what it adds to our hypothesis that the Seventy are depicted as actively carrying the prophetic authority of Moses. In all likelihood, Eldad and Medad represent the known phenomenon of charismatic prophecy, i. e., those Israelites who felt compelled by the word of the Lord upon them to speak publicly.⁷⁷ If the Seventy carry the prophetic authority of Moses, then their existence might thereby render all other prophetic activity null and void. Instead, the episode of Eldad and Medad demonstrates that the new authority of the Seventy remains open to other prophetic activity, not just from these two but indeed from all of YHWH’s people with YHWH’s Spirit upon them, as Moses declares (v. 29).⁷⁸ However, as those who prophesy “outside” the Seventy, the degree of their authoritative contribution is initially ambiguous and ultimately adjudicated, not perspicuous. First, although some see the two episodes as referring to two unrelated phenomena (ecstatic legitimation vs. charismatic prophecy),⁷⁹ in my opinion, because the passage says “the Spirit rested on them” without changing the antecedent, it unites Eldad and Medad’s spiritual activity to the Seventy’s and considers Mosaic prophecy and charismatic prophecy in relation to one another. Eldad and Medad represent the goal of an unfolding and democratizing element to Mosaic authority through prophecy.⁸⁰ However, the narrative is yet again careful to constrain and balance its intent. Eldad and Medad remain inside the camp, not present at the tent of meeting or overhearing God’s speech to Moses. But this does not limit YHWH who is able still to work through them and use them according to His will. It does, however, limit their identifiable connection to the Seventy and leave their authority ambiguous. They are not immediately rejected, and the content of their prophesying is judged positively. But their content is judged. From this perspective of the Seventy, then, Eldad and Medad represent those prophets who arise from among the people. Surely their word is needed, as YHWH directs, but it remains the responsibility of those with the highest au-

 Reinhard G. Kratz, The Prophets of Israel, trans. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Nathan MacDonald, CrStHB 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 14.  On v. 29 and Joel 2:28, see Gunneweg, “Das Gesetz,” 177; MacDonald, “Spirit,” 109.  Schmidt, “Mose,” 258.  Blum, Studien, 194.

110

Jonathan D. Parker

thority over the word of Moses to discern whether those who arise are in fact true prophets. The Seventy appear to be that body. Furthermore, since the passage is ambiguous about whether Eldad and Medad were initially part of the Seventy or not, they are perhaps able to (re‐) join the Seventy, but as named and separate individuals that destiny is not guaranteed. They may forever be welcome to prophesy but without admittance to the Seventy. Thus, through Eldad and Medad, we see something like an appellate system for prophetic utterances in action and a clear example that the Seventy is not a closed system that will die out within the generation of the desert. Others can be admitted, especially if they have already been recognized as qualified scribes and elders, as their label “those recorded” (NJPS, ‫ )בכתבים‬thus indicates.

4.6.1 Implications: Prophesying together by the Spirit upon Moses, without adding The pattern of the elders in Numbers 11 suggests that the scholarly activity of confessing biblical interpreters is more prophetic and akin to the Seventy than they might initially think. That is, spiritual interpreters are to proclaim, like the Seventy, the word of the Lord, not only by the Spirit generally but by the Spirit who has always been at work among His people. The Spirit is ontologically identifiable with the Spirit of YHWH upon Moses, and who is present now through the prophetic words and spiritual work during the lives of those who came before, precisely because of their deaths. For Christians, where the coming of Moses’s death made possible the giving away of his authority to those after him to interpret him according to the Spirit of YHWH upon him, so the death and resurrection of Christ made possible the giving away of his authority to those after him to interpret him according to the Spirit upon him (cf. esp. John 1:32; 20:22– 23). This is no mere parallel but an extension and fulfillment of the Spirit’s work. No spiritual interpreter can do so alone, especially if their goal is to do so without “adding” to the word of the Lord. Instead, they are constrained by their tradition and creaturely limitations to do it together, open to new voices, but discerning about those voices together as well. While some ecclesial traditions will recognize the Spirit among them in the assembling of bodies for authoritative interpretation among them (e. g., house of bishops or college of cardinals), we may consider with the openness of Moses’s second wish (v. 30) a longing that all biblical interpreters would prophesy by the Spirit together. Numbers 11 provides the image of doing so “across the circle” of those gathered “around” the Scriptures (instead of the tent, v. 24b), sharing—sometimes from

Spirit and Mosaic Authority in Numbers 11

111

the great distances of other countries—in a kind of life together and in sharing the interpretations we receive, by the Spirit’s work within us.⁸¹

5 Conclusion The final configuration of the Seventy is as a council of inspired Mosaic scribes. Their Mosaic authority may be called “spiritual” and “prophetic” because it results by the Spirit in prophesying and is publicly recognizable as prophetic. This body of Seventy appears as an extension of authority by the spirit upon Moses, which by the lived tradition of Scripture, continues still. Returning to the keyword ‫משׂא‬, “burden,” helps portray the fullness of this arc as it is carefully detailed in Numbers 11: The people’s cry of rebellion prompts a sense of profound weakness in the person of Moses, a weakness which brought the whole community in touch with his creaturely limitations as much as their own. In response to his “burden” of creaturely life and its incumbent sinful desires, YHWH gave another “burden,” this time to those who are qualified to help him (while remaining open to others with new words from the Spirit): He gave a prophetic “oracle,” which in Hebrew is also ‫משׂא‬. Death and sin are thereby sanctified by the activity of the Spirit to become an organized and multiplied Mosaic authority, which in turn becomes Scripture. Scripture and its interpretation result from a divine response to the contingencies of creaturely life, ones felt by the very authors (and interpreters!) of Scripture themselves who experience the sanctification even as they write about it. The whole chapter is not just mere stories of “food and leadership,” but about the essence of Mosaic authority, which, by the Spirit, is the Lord making a future for his creatures.

 For a welcome theological exploration of this idea, see Joshua Broggi, Diversity in the Structure of Christian Reasoning: Interpretation, Disagreement, and World Christianity, SST 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

Richard S. Briggs

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel: Joseph, Daniel, and the Spirit in Dream Interpretation 1 Introduction

How shall we let the Old Testament contribute to our understanding of the role of the Spirit in interpretation? If we had an Old Testament account of someone interpreting a written text—especially a sacred one on its way toward later canonical status—then it might serve as a model of a biblical (Old Testament) portrait of “biblical interpretation,” accepting that that is a slightly anachronistic way of putting it. We could then explore the role of the Spirit in such an act. However, allowing for minor exceptions, we do not have such a portrait, at least with regard to the interpretation of a written text. What we do have instead are portraits of interpretation as it is exercised with regard to dreams within the Old Testament, especially in the cases of Joseph and Daniel. I therefore offer a study of the portraits of Joseph and Daniel as interpreters of dreams, with a view to discerning what such portraits tell us about the role of the Spirit in interpretation. The argument proceeds in the following steps. An introductory section clarifies how the Old Testament can address our understanding of the interpretation of scripture in a range of ways and identifies texts that actually talk of interpretation. These turn out to be dream accounts, along with the corresponding accounts of their interpretation. In practice, our main focus will be on the stories of Joseph and Daniel, with only a brief look at other Old Testament dreams. A second section analyzes the Joseph and Daniel accounts, asking how dream interpretation is portrayed, in particular in connection with the work of the Spirit. In conclusion I examine how the role of the Spirit in interpretation more generally is illuminated by these concerns with dream interpretation. In particular, I shall argue that a key element of these portraits is that of the faithful Israelite interpreting non-Israelite dreams by relating them to a wider picture of God’s purposes and nature.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-010

114

Richard S. Briggs

2 Learning Interpretation from the Old Testament: The Spirit in the Interpretation of Texts and Dreams Scriptural portraits of acts of interpretation are one obvious resource for reflection on the nature of scriptural interpretation. The majority of such portraits involve New Testament characters reading texts that are in the process of becoming “Old Testament” even as we watch the drama unfold. In this study I wish to explore instead Old Testament portraits of interpretation, of which there are far fewer.

2.1 Interpretation of Texts There are many ways to tackle even this reduced field of enquiry. The gold standard for our investigation would be a portrait of someone applying themselves to the interpretation of a given text, especially one already being set apart as “holy” (and thus in some sense on the way to becoming part of a canon). But as is well known, there is very little of this in the Old Testament, doubtless due in part to the generally low levels of literacy in the ancient world—so that few people would be reading as a matter of course—as well as the difficulties of knowing what sort of corpus of “scripture” would have been available to any given reader at any time. The exception that throws this lack into bold relief is the portrait of Daniel reading “in the books” the prophet Jeremiah in Daniel 9.¹ Daniel is shown reading what is probably Jeremiah 29, although possibly other passages also, and turning to prayer as a result. Even here what Daniel 9 offers is a picture of interpretation but not of what interpretation involves, although its relevance to the present enquiry will be touched on below. Most other references to the importance of studying or dwelling with scripture in some way likewise leave out the details of how the work of interpretation is understood.²  See Richard S. Briggs, “‘I Perceived in the Books’: The Portrait of Daniel as a Spiritual Student of Scripture,” in The Bible and Spirituality: Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually, ed. Andrew T. Lincoln, J. Gordon McConville and Lloyd K. Pietersen (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013): 111– 27.  See Ps 1, Ps 119, or passages such as Nehemiah 8, where Ezra and the Levites read from the book of the torah of God, which tells us only that some people (the Levites, or certain Levites) are qualified to “make clear” (‫ ) ָפּ ַרשׁ‬the words. For discussion of the issues raised by these and other examples see G.J. Venema, Reading Scripture in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 9 – 10;

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

115

2.2 Acts of Interpretation One way forward is to consider occasions where interpretation itself is foregrounded in the Old Testament text, and what God’s role is thought to be within it. Although this will not be the same as studying the interpretation of scripture, it seems reasonable to suggest that interpretation carried out with the help of God might relate to ways in which scripture is to be interpreted, especially if one locates the helping work of God in the domain of the Spirit—giver of interpretive aid and inspirer of scriptural text alike. Where might one locate such acts of interpretation in the Old Testament? The primary instances are of Joseph and Daniel interpreting dreams, mainly other people’s dreams though also their own, and indeed mainly dreams of non-Israelites. Of course, the full picture is more complex than this, and the complexities are worth reviewing briefly. Our interest is in cases where the Old Testament itself foregrounds an act as an act of interpretation, mainly by way of uses of words for “interpret,” although standard caveats about word studies apply. But note that in fact if one’s interest is in how the texts choose to foreground issues—a matter one might say of textual construction—then word studies are remarkably fit for purpose for locating appropriate texts, at least in broad terms.³ Key to the vocabulary of interpretation as we find it in Old Testament texts is ‫“( ָפַּתר‬to interpret”), which occurs nine times in the OT, all in Genesis 40 – 41, in the context of Joseph’s interpreting dreams. These chapters also include all five occurrences of the related noun ‫“( ִפְּתרוֹן‬interpretation”). In Judg 7:15, Gideon hears of a dream interpretation, as English translations usually render it. The word here is ‫ ֶשֶׁבר‬, related to verb and noun forms that connote “breaking” or “destroying.” This relatively common word, over forty times as a noun and more than a hundred more as a verb, is only here translated as “interpretation” because of the context of the sentence: “Gideon heard the telling of the dream and its ‫ ֶשֶׁבר‬,” perhaps to be understood as its “breaking open,” rather like, one imagines, the “cracking” of a code. The only use of the Hebrew word ‫ֵפּ ֶשׁר‬ in the Old Testament is in Eccl 8:1, where we read “Who is like the wise man,

31 – 2 Kings 22 – 23 – Jeremiah 36 – Nehemiah 8, Old Testament Studies 47 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004).  For example, the arguments between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jer 28 and other passages) might be seen as interpretive conflict, but the book of Jeremiah does not in fact do so. The picture in Jeremiah concerns not how to interpret some agreed given word of the Lord, but rather conflict over what that word of the Lord is. See R.W.L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine 14 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 41– 82 and 101– 9.

116

Richard S. Briggs

and who knows the interpretation (‫ ) ֵפּ ֶשׁר‬of a thing (‫ ”?) ָדָבר‬I shall return to this verse at the end of our account. The term does occur frequently in Aramaic (‫) ְפּ ַשׁר‬ in Daniel 2– 7, over thirty times in variant forms, again mainly concerning dreams. There is a distant sense of “interpretation” present in references to divination (‫) ָנַחשׁ‬, sometimes in particular translated in Deut 18:10 as “interprets omens” (NIV; ESV, though not NRSV). Although interpretation is clearly a constituent element of divination, the round condemnation of such practices allows us to leave these examples aside if we are seeking primarily a constructive portrait of interpretation from the Old Testament.

2.3 Conclusion This brief rehearsal of lexical data points strongly in one direction: when the Old Testament text foregrounds acts of interpretation as deliberate acts, they almost always relate to the interpretation of dreams. In particular, the two focal passages where such interpretation is practiced are in Genesis 40 – 41 with Joseph, and in Daniel 2– 7, in particular chapters 2 and 4, with Daniel himself as interpreter, but residually elsewhere (Dan 7:16 in particular). The other main story of interpretation relating to Daniel concerns his interpreting of the writing on the wall in Daniel 5. The language of interpretation is in particular concentrated in dream narratives where the Israelite interpreter (Joseph, Daniel, and to some extent also Gideon in Judg 7) grasps the significance of a dream given to a non-Israelite.⁴ The important point is that a dream being “translated” into a broader scheme of things by the interpreter in question—Joseph, Daniel—is key to the function of “interpretation” in these instances. This point will be developed further in our conclusion, after we turn to a careful reading of these two portraits of interpretation.

3 The Spirit in Dream Interpretation: Two Old Testament Portraits What portraits of interpretation are painted in the narratives of Genesis 37– 41 and the book of Daniel? We shall explore this question with a focus on the  The detailed picture is only slightly more complicated than this. See the issues discussed in 3.3 below.

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

117

role of the Spirit in these two texts, whether explicitly mentioned or not. Note that the proper focus of our enquiry is on the texts’ portraits of Joseph and Daniel, resulting in a form of canonical reading, attentive to literary detail. It is the Old Testament’s contribution to our subject that we are exploring, not an historical account of how dream interpretation actually took place.

3.1 Joseph as Dream Interpreter The Joseph story includes three pairs of dreams, in Genesis 37, 40 and 41. The first of these relates Joseph’s own dreams, the second those of the chief cupbearer and baker, and the third those of Pharaoh. The language of interpretation is related to the second and third pairs but is absent with regard to Joseph’s own dreams. In chapter 37, in the case of each of his own two dreams, Joseph simply relates what he has dreamed and he, his brothers, and his father, take them as transparent and not in need of any sort of interpretation (Gen 37:5 – 8, 9 – 11). Again, this is a point about how the text presents the matter. Whether it is true that Joseph’s initial dreams do not need interpretation has been debated by those pondering the complexity of matching details to fulfilment. The sun, moon and eleven stars bowing before Joseph in Gen 37:9 are taken up immediately by Jacob as referring to himself as father, to Joseph’s mother, and to Joseph’s eleven brothers, but some are troubled that this is not precisely how the narrative plays out the fulfilment, where it is not Rachel—who has died— who bows down, and the bowing of Jacob and eleven sons is split into various stages. For Ron Pirson, this triggers the search for a different symbolic interpretation, relating to numerical symbolism for time periods.⁵ More straightforwardly, the Talmud suggests that these issues showed that sometimes details might change during the delayed arrival of the fulfilment of the dream.⁶ Interestingly, that this pair of dreams in Gen 37 is presented without any moment’s reflection for interpretation within the text results in the reader finding it something of an open question as to whether or how these dreams are fulfilled in the succeeding

 Ron Pirson, The Lord of the Dreams: A Semantic and Literary Analysis of Genesis 37 – 50, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 355 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 50 – 59.  Cf. the discussion in Alan T. Levenson, Joseph: Portraits Through the Ages (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2016), 42– 45.

118

Richard S. Briggs

narratives—an openness that is a good example of inviting the reader’s interpretation while not foregrounding interpretation itself.⁷ The second pair of dreams is found in Genesis 40 in the account of Joseph’s prison companions: the dream of the cupbearer (40:9 – 15) and of the baker (40:16 – 19). Joseph responds to the first with “This is its interpretation,” (40:12) and offers a symbolic reading of “three branches” as “three days,” of the branches’ blossoming as restoration, and of the cup-bearer’s resuming his duties in the dream as a straightforward indication that he will be restored. Joseph’s response to the second dream is identical— “this is its interpretation” (40:18)—and here the three baskets are three days, while the birds’ eating out of the baskets symbolizes disaster: death after which the birds will eat the baker’s flesh. And so it all comes to pass … “just as Joseph had interpreted to them.” (40:22) Did Joseph know that the third day from that point was Pharaoh’s birthday? (40:20) Was it therefore likely that the sense of three branches about to change suggested time delay? One presenting issue about Joseph’s interpretations in this narrative is “whether the dreams themselves are inherently difficult to interpret, or whether the Egyptians simply lack the right man for the job.”⁸ Note that the dreamers themselves had lamented the lack of a suitable interpreter (40:8) and Joseph had replied that interpretations belong to God, and then immediately enjoined them to “tell them [the dreams] to me.” The point here is not that Joseph is a member of a comparable Israelite class of dream-interpreters and can therefore step in to meet the perceived need for an interpreter. There is no comparable class. Joseph is rather a man of God, in a manner shortly to be discussed, and therefore can interpret the dreams of the baker and cupbearer by virtue of his God-given gifts of wisdom and understanding. Levenson concludes, along with a range of Jewish commentators from Nachmanides to Benno Jacob, “that Joseph’s predictions were less prophetic foresight than shrewd text analysis.”⁹ Interpretation reappears in the third dream pair: Pharaoh’s dreams of sets of seven in Genesis 41. Here the first dream has seven fat cows followed by seven

 For a reading attuned to the literary detail of Gen 37 see Jonathan Grossman, “Different Dreams: Two models of interpretation for three pairs of dreams (Genesis 37– 50),” JBL 135 (2016): 717– 32.  Levenson, Joseph, 34.  Levenson, Joseph, 35. For a comparable discussion regarding the details see Camila von Heijne, “The Dreams in the Joseph Narrative and their Impact in Biblical Literature,” in ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 584, ed. Elizabeth R. Hayes and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014): 30 – 46; here 38 – 39.

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

119

thin cows who eat them; and the second has likewise seven good ears of corn swallowed up by seven thin ones. Pharaoh refers immediately to the expected class of dream-interpreters (“magicians and wise men”, 41:8) but nobody can interpret this for him, and then the cupbearer recalls specifically Joseph’s ability to interpret as relevant to the present moment. There is a strong repeated emphasis on interpretation as the point at issue in 41:12– 13. The cycle of Joseph insisting that God will be the one to interpret is repeated, and then Pharaoh recounts the dreams, with some added features. As the narrative then plays out, no further foregrounding of interpretation takes place—the term recedes from view. Instead, when Joseph both explains the dreams and then boldly goes on to tell Pharaoh what this means he should do about them, Pharaoh is pleased with his proposal and says, “Can we find anyone else like this—one in whom is the spirit of God?” (41:38, ‫)ִאישׁ ֲא ֶשׁר רוּ ַח ֱאל ִֹהים בּוֹ‬. Pharaoh’s own immediate answer is “No”—there is none so “discerning and wise” as Joseph (41:39). There is no further mention of interpretation in the book, except, oddly, for a serendipitous rendering in English translations of the situation in Genesis 42 where Joseph meets his brothers for the first time, and they do not know that he can understand them because of an “interpreter” placed between them—i. e. the existence of interpretation as an apparent barrier to understanding ironically allows Joseph to understand them undetected. This linguistic echo is not present in Hebrew, although the point may still be made about the narrative artistry of the scene. The reference in 41:38 to Joseph as “one in whom is the spirit of God” is a key to the whole narrative, and as Levison points out in his significant analysis, the real import of this phrasing is obscured by the need to make a decision in English over whether to translate the word ‫ ֱאל ִֹהים‬as “god(s)” or “God,” a choice that is left open and ambiguous in the Hebrew.¹⁰ This ambiguity permits readers to recognize that no alternative is posited here between the spirit as a sudden and intrusive presence in Joseph’s dream interpretation and the spirit as a characteristic of Joseph’s character, such that he is well placed to offer insight to the dreams. Rather the spirit is both already present and in particular shown forth in this moment. In Levison’s conclusion: “If we set aside a false dichotomy between the spirit as physical life-force and the spirit as a temporary endowment, we are able to grasp the gist of Gen 41:38. Pharaoh attributes Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams to the divine character of the spirit within him—not the divine spirit that has come upon him.”¹¹ Further, as Levison rightly observes, “No hint of an extra-

 John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 36 – 40.  Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 49; cf. 48 – 51.

120

Richard S. Briggs

ordinary, ephemeral experience accompanies his clairvoyant knowledge of dreams,” since dreams are presented in “formulaic and pedestrian language.”¹² In my judgment, Levison is right, both here and in his more general emphasis on understandings of the spirit that avoid polarization between the ongoing presence of the spirit in the life of one of God’s people, and the specific and particular moments at which this might be noted owing to a display of wisdom or insight. All that his account lacks for our own purposes is a further reflection on why this working of the “spirit of God” in Joseph is called forth in this way at this time. What is it in Joseph’s specific context that makes interpretation a presenting feature of the work of the spirit at this point? The answer, I suggest, is that here we have the Israelite interpreter “translating” the dream of the non-Israelite into an understanding of how events will play out in God’s world. Further, the specific reason that discernment and wisdom are key to Joseph at this particular juncture is that he effects a bridging context by which a dream can be configured into a bigger picture, and only thereby understood. The dreams in question are experienced by people (the cupbearer; the baker; Pharaoh) who cannot relate them rightly to that bigger picture, at least according to the claims of those whose perspective is attuned to the God of Israel. The discernment and wisdom that Joseph brings to bear see clearly how the dreams will play out. That there is no comparable wisdom at hand in his recounting of his own dreams in Genesis 37 is part of the way that he is shown to be a person who has grown in wisdom through the spirit of God as the narrative develops. But in Genesis 37 the configuring of the dream into a bigger picture is left largely unpondered.¹³ Interpretation is a feature of the Joseph narratives that is foregrounded where we have the collocation of Joseph the wise and discerning man in whom is the spirit of God, non-Israelite dreamers, and a mapping of the dream into an Israelite (Joseph’s) perspective on what will happen in God’s world.

3.2 Daniel as Dream Interpreter We may be briefer with the Daniel narratives because the conclusions will be largely the same, and the reason for this is that the relevant Daniel narratives seem to parallel the Joseph account to a remarkable degree, indeed sufficiently remarkable that it must in some sense be deliberate. As Sumner suggests: “Daniel as the exilic Joseph is also an exemplar of the real wisdom that knows its ori-

 Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 50.  This point is emphasized in Grossman, “Different Dreams.”

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

121

gin—and in Daniel’s case its end—in the purposes of the God of Israel.”¹⁴ Once again, we will discover that dream interpretation revolves around configuring non-Israelite dreams into this larger framework, “the purposes of the God of Israel.” Daniel is described in 1:17 as being given insight into “all visions and dreams,” and this is put to the test in chapter 2. As soon as the book has switched into Aramaic, interpretation becomes prominently foregrounded. Nebuchadnezzar wants his magicians and others to interpret his dream for him, even though he will not tell them what it is. Although interpreters have divided down through the centuries on why he will not do so, it is at least possible that the dream has unnerved him without remaining clear to him, and that therefore what he wants is an account of the dream himself.¹⁵ I take it that this still might not mean that a confident interpreter could say whatever they liked, since what must be put forward is a rendering and interpretation of the dream that will ring true to the king. The unfolding of the narrative in Daniel 2 makes clear that there is specific divine revelation to Daniel to reveal “the mystery” (2:19), which may or may not equate to interpreting the dream. Arguably it more plausibly refers either to the revelation of the content of the dream itself, or to the insight to configure its details into the wider narrative of empires that will comprise his explanation. In any case, it is as a result of a night spent in prayer that Daniel is able to confront Nebuchadnezzar with both the dream and interpretation. As is well known, the dream is of a great multi-part statue that is then destroyed by a rock, which grows to fill the whole earth. In a temporal extending of its detail, Daniel renders this dream into an interpretation of one empire succeeding another until the final one is destroyed by a kingdom belonging to the God of heaven (2:44). The temporal flexibility here and elsewhere in Daniel is most likely a feature of the flexibility of the construction of narrative time in the Persian world, whereby power is understood as a timeless abstract category that is instantiated in one empire after another.¹⁶ If this is so then it is a reminder that Daniel’s narrative is shaped by its various cultural contexts, and that we should not misread details of Daniel’s interpretations with regard to how these dreams play out.

 George Sumner, “Daniel,” in Samuel Wells and George Sumner, Esther and Daniel, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2013), 93 – 225; here 105.  See discussion in Carol A. Newsom (with Brennan W. Breed), Daniel, Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 68.  As argued by Alexandria Frisch, The Danielic Discourse on Empire in Second Temple Literature, Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 176 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 84.

122

Richard S. Briggs

An oddity of the dual revelation of dream and interpretation is that the chapter in effect affords no insight into how the interpretation might have been worked out from the dream. If we look to how the chapter handles the question of what allows the interpretation to take place, we find Daniel, as per Joseph, emphasizing that “there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries” (2:28), and furthermore that he (Daniel) has not received the revelation “because of any wisdom that I have more than any other living being.” Although this might sound like a different emphasis from the one we found in the Joseph stories, in context it is probably more of a statement about the important revealer in the story being God and not a human being.¹⁷ To a considerable degree Daniel 4 repeats the scenario: Nebuchadnezzar has a dream, is frightened by it, calls for interpreters, but on this occasion can recall the dream. Daniel is introduced early into the search for an interpretation, significantly by way of the description of him as one “who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods” (4:8 [4:5 Aram]; ‫)רוַּח־ֱאָלִהין ַק ִדּי ִשׁין ֵבּּה‬. The striking similarity of this phrase to the Hebrew one in Gen 41:38 should not go unnoticed, obscured as it is in most English translations by defaulting to “holy gods” here. As Levison urges, the setting and point are sufficiently the same in Daniel 4 as they are in Genesis 41 that again the interpretive accent should fall on this being the spirit of God at work in Daniel.¹⁸ In any case, this character note is all that the chapter really contributes to an understanding of the dream interpretation as an act of interpretation, and we need not rehearse the details of the text here. Something similar may be said about the other story that foregrounds interpretation: Daniel 5’s narrative of the writing on the wall, and King Belshazzar’s concern to find an interpreter who can interpret it. Once again Daniel succeeds where local would-be interpreters fail, even in this case where the matter concerns words rather than pictures—words that are clearly given to all participants in the drama rather than “internally” to one dreamer. But just as with chapter 4, and chapter 2 before it, the core claim that singles out Daniel’s ability to interpret is given in 5:11 in identical wording to 4:8 [4:5 Aram]: “a man … who is endowed with a spirit of the holy gods.”¹⁹ In conclusion, Daniel’s interpretation of dreams is congruent entirely with Joseph’s. It is secured by his ability to relate the details of a non-Israelite dream (and also the vision/occurrence of writing on the wall in Daniel 5) to a

 Newsom, Daniel, 74.  Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 39 – 40 n.8.  The Aramaic is identical, raising therefore the same issues as discussed above.

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

123

grasp of the larger understanding of life in God’s world that comes from his adherence to the God of Israel. This conclusion is strengthened when one considers Daniel 7– 12, which of course remain deeply embedded in dreams and visions. Daniel does consider explicitly the interpretation of the dream in Daniel 7 for example (7:16). But here we no longer have a situation where the issue is an attempt by an Israelite to explain or interpret the dreams of another. Rather we have an Israelite who is himself subject to dreams and visions (indeed “night visions,” 7:7, 13) and who himself lacks understanding. This fits with the darker turn in the book toward what has conventionally (if awkwardly) been called an apocalyptic perspective. That turn is marked here by recognizing that the wise man Daniel is no longer able to map the dreams themselves to a wider configuration of reality without divine and angelic assistance. In Daniel 7– 12 the world has grown darker than a good man is capable of comprehending without further help.

3.3 Other Old Testament Dreams The consistency of the picture that has emerged in our reading of Joseph and Daniel may be highlighted by way of brief consideration of other Old Testament dream passages, which are relatively few in number. The two factors that are relevant to our analysis are whether they foreground moments of interpretation, and who among the participants in the narrative is an Israelite. One dream worth considering is the Midianite dream of Gideon’s victory in Judges 7, which as we saw does include mention of interpretation. Here both the dreamer and the interpreter are Midianite, although the dream relates to Gideon, who overhears it and understands it as vindication from the Lord (in 7:15). Arguably this is indirectly a comparable Israelite/non-Israelite issue, in the sense that it is Gideon’s perspective on the non-Israelite interpretation that is ultimately in view. The other main dream account outside Genesis is that of Solomon in 1 Kings 3, where God appears to Solomon in a dream and speaks to him (3:5). Although this does of course raise various issues of interpretation for the reader—it fits rather neatly the oft-quoted criticism of Hobbes, that a belief that God speaks in a dream is really just saying that one has dreamed that God spoke²⁰— no issues of interpretation are actually discussed in the account, and neither is any Israelite/non-Israelite factor at stake in the text.

 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (originally published 1651): 3.32.

124

Richard S. Briggs

The remaining dream accounts are earlier in Genesis (Abimelech in Genesis 20; Jacob in Genesis 28, 31; Laban in Genesis 31), where the issues of being within and outside “Israel” are in the process of being configured as the narrative develops, and thus are not quite the same. It is also notable that the various ancestral dreams of Genesis are not accompanied by descriptions of interpretation, perhaps because their significance is grasped by the dreamers themselves (e. g. Jacob in Genesis 28). Nevertheless, the first of these examples looks similar to the Joseph/Daniel cases and yet no interpretation is needed—Abimelech, king of Gerar, receives clear instruction from God in a dream about how to engage with Abraham and Sarah. This may be the point to note that there are both similarities and distinctions between dreams and visions in the Old Testament.²¹ Indeed, some of the Genesis narratives are among the hardest to situate with respect to this classification. But this is in part about the phenomenological overlap between a dream and vision, and with our emphasis being on textual portraits rather than capturing of history, we may let the matter of classification be determined by the choice made in any given text.²² This quick review of other dream narratives highlights what sets our two primary passages apart: in the cases of Joseph in Genesis 40 – 41, and Daniel in Daniel 2– 4 (and 5 – 7), the language of interpretation arises because non-Israelites have dreams that they cannot understand, while Israelites are able to interpret and understand them.

4 The Role of the Spirit in Dream Interpretation: An Old Testament Contribution to Understanding Scriptural Interpretation Our pursuit of how the Old Testament might make a contribution to our understanding of the interpretation of scripture led us to those places where interpretation is foregrounded in the Old Testament text, which turned out to be dream narratives, and in particular the narratives of Joseph and Daniel. We then read these accounts looking for suggestions about how their interpretation functioned and what one might learn from that. It remains only to draw these threads to This is discussed in many of the contributions to Hayes and Tiemeyer, eds., ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible.  See also Laura Quick, “Dream Accounts in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Jewish Literature,” Currents in Biblical Research 17 (2018): 8 – 32; cf. 10 – 11.

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

125

gether back into the bigger question of how the Spirit is at work in the interpretation of Scripture, given the readings we have offered. There is certainly enough food for thought in the Joseph and Daniel narratives to encourage readers with rather more positive hope for catching sight of the Spirit in interpretation than one might gather from the one remaining Old Testament mention of interpretation that we have not yet analyzed—the one found in Eccl 8:1: “Who is like the wise man, and who knows the interpretation (‫ ) ֵפּ ֶשׁר‬of a thing (‫”?) ָדָבר‬²³ Maybe Qoheleth’s answer to this semi-rhetorical question is “nobody,” or maybe it is the one who “obeys a command.” (Eccl 8:5) Or maybe interpretation too is ‫“( ֶהֶבל‬meaningless”) in Qoheleth’s construal of the world? The subsequent development of ‫“( ֵפּ ֶשׁר‬this-is-that”) interpretation at Qumran and further afield lies beyond our scope but does arguably represent a broadening out of hermeneutical questioning beyond what we have seen is its rather circumscribed role within the Old Testament itself. One reason for that would be that changing contexts force questions of interpretation naturally into the frame, as we will consider below. Finding interpretation everywhere can be somewhat wearying, and perhaps that is already being anticipated in Eccl 8:1? But the drift of this verse might also be that knowing interpretation is precisely one attribute of the wise man, since the verse begins “Who is like the wise man?” Although little is certain in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes, such a reading would fit with our wider picture. I conclude by drawing out three substantive theological and hermeneutical points from our study, and at the same time recognize that other related questions are ripe for further investigation.

5 Three Highlights of the Old Testament Portrait(s) First, the Old Testament offers relevant material to the study of the Spirit in the interpretation of scripture. It does so in a range of ways, but particularly by including narratives where interpretation is at issue. As we have seen, this is mainly with regard to dream interpretation. Scripture itself is rarely the focus, in part for straightforward historical reasons relating to whether there was any recognized Scripture to hand at the time of the various narratives. Another reason why Scripture is not much shown to be contested, though, is that a good deal  It is interesting to speculate on whether ‫ ָדָבר‬here might be rendered “dream” in light of our foregoing analysis.

126

Richard S. Briggs

of scriptural interpretation is triggered by the creation of contextual and social/ ideological dissonance between the world imagined by the text and the world experienced by the readers. For as long as the world envisaged by Deuteronomy, for instance, was the world of its readers, there would be questions of interpretation regarding Deuteronomy, to be sure, but more likely there would be questions of application, or reflections upon the nature of obedience to the text, or to “walking in its ways.” But once scriptural texts are carried into new settings, then interpretation becomes a clearer priority. In fact, it is surprising how little this still occurs in the Old Testament. Perhaps the historical issues about availability of texts explain this, but might it also be a deliberate pointer away from seeing hermeneutics as the key to all mysteries? In any case, the interesting thing is that the exception, in Daniel 9, fits the picture we have been developing in this analysis. Daniel 9 shows Daniel interpreting scripture, but in so far as it offers material to help readers reflect on how he does it, that material relates to the character of Daniel the reader, rather than the hermeneutical steps he has taken.²⁴ Secondly, and to broaden this point about Daniel 9: as our readings of Joseph and Daniel made clear, when the Old Testament is interested in talking about interpretation, it is focused mainly on wisdom and discernment to construe a presenting “text” (dream, written words, …) in terms of a bigger picture that relates to God and the world as God’s world. We have conjectured that this is why it is the foreign contexts of Genesis 40 – 41 and Daniel that provide the bulk of Old Testament examples of interpretation. This positive reading of dream interpretation as one exemplar of spirit-filled acts of interpretation seems a more plausible view than the claim that dream-revelation is being critiqued by way of its non-Israelite setting. For example, Satterthwaite argues that such settings of these stories suggest a negative evaluation of dream-interpretation as a standard way of hearing from God.²⁵ His claim moves directly from passages condemning divination (Deut 13:1– 6) or false prophecy (Jer 23:25 – 32) to a negative evaluation of dream-revelation per se. But the prophet Joel anticipates that in future days dreaming will be a characteristic of the Spirit’s being poured out (2:28 – 32—a passage of course with major New Testament take-up).

 See Briggs, “I Perceived in the Books,” for a reading of the book that draws this out. An interesting perspective on how the text of Daniel can serve to train readers in hermeneutical matters is Aaron B. Hebbard, Reading Daniel as a Text in Theological Hermeneutics (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009).  Philip E. Satterthwaite, “‫פתר‬,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 3:721– 25.

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

127

It would be odd if such anticipation were totally discontinuous with any previous sense of dreams being capable of positive use in revelation or in understanding. Thirdly one Old Testament contribution to scriptural interpretation is to draw attention to the role of the wise and discerning interpreter, in whom is God’s Spirit. The Spirit is present more as the resourcer and cultivator of good character than as the provider of moments of lapidary insight. Interpretation is thus commended as the repeated interaction of attention to the text with its fit within wider frameworks that, in particular, attend to God’s purposes in the world. Such is interpretation that is indebted to the Spirit, as it is illumined by Old Testament portraits of dream interpretation.

6 For Further Consideration Several matters are worthy of further investigation. Some are paths deliberately not taken here, but the final one in particular holds promise for further theological reflection. First, I have chosen to let the Old Testament text operate at face value. This is not because suspicious reading does not have its place, but if anything because it sometimes seems to have too prominent a place.²⁶ Writing on dream interpretation today positively invites a good deal of hermeneutical suspicion via the various works of Freud, Jung and others, and readings of Genesis and Daniel that take this line are not hard to find.²⁷ But for all their insight into how one might appropriate Old Testament points with regard to dream interpretation today, they seem ill-suited to readings of ancient narratives that relate dream accounts outwards to observable phenomena rather than inwards to the inner self.²⁸ A second deliberate limitation of this study is its focus on Old Testament dream accounts to the relative exclusion of other ancient (especially Near Eastern) materials, and later Jewish developments of these same themes. It is clear that there is much to learn from such comparisons, across cultures or across

 See further Richard S. Briggs, “Juniper Trees and Pistachio Nuts: Trust and Suspicion as Modes of Scriptural Imagination,” Theology 112 (2009): 353 – 63.  E. g. John A. Walsh, “The Dream of Joseph: A Jungian Interpretation,” Journal of Psychology & Theology 11 (1983): 20 – 27.  Another behind-the-text issue eschewed here concerns source-critical attempts to account for dream emphases in Genesis, which are helpfully reviewed in Quick, “Dream Accounts in the Hebrew Bible,” 11– 16.

128

Richard S. Briggs

times, but in my judgment that will more profitably be pursued after learning from the Old Testament portraits themselves.²⁹ Finally, Christian readers will rightly wonder how far the analysis developed here might transfer into and beyond the New Testament. One of the real achievements of Levison’s work is to show that failure to take the Old Testament witness seriously has led to multiple distortions of the assessments of the Spirit’s work in, through and beyond the Christian church.³⁰ If one starts one’s account from Luke-Acts or from 1 Corinthians, that starting point shapes the kinds of conclusions one will draw. Valuable as these New Testament witnesses are, they presume upon a prior scriptural narrative that runs all the way back to Gen 1:2 with its brooding Spirit in creation, and which picks up reference to the Spirit in multiple and subtle ways throughout the story of Israel.³¹ In Levison’s own analysis, “the principle task of the holy spirit for Christians is to illuminate the person of Jesus by setting his words and actions in the context of Israel’s poetry, stories, and prophecies.”³² The implications of this in light of our reading of dream interpretation deserve further attention. Levison’s focus is on the setting of Jesus into the context created by the pressure of Israel’s texts. In the present study I have suggested that a comparable dynamic is at work in matters of interpretation in general and particularly in more outward-focused contexts, evidenced by the way that Joseph and Daniel are enabled to set (foreign) dreams into the context created by their own immersion in Israelite wisdom and perspectives. What might that say to the task of interpreters of scripture, then and now, who are called to make sense of specific scriptural words by relating them to a bigger perspective on the ways of God in Israel and the church? What might it say to the task of those called to interpret experiences in the world around them, at home and abroad, in terms of relating them to the wider matrix of immersion in the wisdom of Israel and the church? It seems significant that interpretation takes place in

 For illuminating examples one can consider Frances Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras, Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 90 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); or the suggestive pointer towards later rabbinic concerns with parallels between dream interpretation and text interpretation in Maren Niehoff, “A Dream which is not Interpreted is like a Letter which is not Read,” Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992): 58 – 84 (especially 63 – 67 on Joseph and Daniel), which makes the point that Daniel 5 already effects this transition.  See especially Jack Levison, Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013).  With particular reference to aspects of Exodus, Isaiah and Haggai in particular see John R. Levison, The Holy Spirit before Christianity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019).  Levison, Inspired, 227.

Discerning the Ways of God Beyond Israel

129

the Old Testament in the kinds of context that most closely approximate those of cross-cultural and mission workers today. If the portraits of Joseph and Daniel are to be believed, then one place where we may rightly expect to find the Spirit at work today in interpretation will be in just such cross-cultural and missional contexts, helping to relate the insights of those outside the people of God to the wisdom found within the people of God. On matters of the Spirit and interpretation (including the interpretation of scripture), the Old Testament proves to be a key resource for Christians seeking to discern the way ahead in the multi-cultural world of the twenty-first century.

Mark J. Boda

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature 1 Introduction In his 1970 Vetus Testamentum Supplement on the Joseph Novella in Gen 37– 50, Donald Redford criticizes Gerhard von Rad for treating the Joseph narrative as a wisdom story.¹ In his earlier study von Rad had linked Joseph’s statements on divine providence in Gen 45:8 and 50:20 to proverbial literature like Prov 16:9; 19:21; 20:24.² Furthermore, von Rad identified the depiction of Joseph’s good speech and competent work in the royal court in Gen 41 as part of a strategy to make Joseph a paragon of wisdom virtue. Redford defers, noting: But the unmistakable fact is that nowhere in this chapter is Joseph’s excellence of speech or superior counsel held up as an object of admiration. Both the butler and Pharaoh are impressed by only one thing, viz. that by virtue of divine inspiration Joseph can interpret dreams and thus forecast the future. Joseph’s suggestions are extremely valuable, and are characterized by wisdom, but only because god has revealed it all to him (cf. vs. 39). Divine inspiration takes us out of the practical world of the Wisdom school, and into the realm of the story-teller. By its very nature it is miraculous, a gift of god, not a cultivated virtue. A man so gifted cannot be emulated.³ In our opinion the Joseph Story has passed through the hands of one (or several) who has himself been influenced by Wisdom teaching; but there is no reason to believe that the story per se originated in, or belongs to, the sphere of Wisdom Literature.⁴

With thanks to the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies for helpful feedback during our annual meeting sessions at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, May 2018.  Donald B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37 – 50), VTSup 20 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970).  G. von Rad, “Josephsgeschichte und Ältere Chokma,” in Congress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953, ed. Aage Bentzen and G. W. Anderson, VTSup 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1953), 120 – 27.  Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 103.  Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, 105. Claus Westermann takes a similar tack when he concludes that the Joseph story is not a didactic story/wisdom narrative because it runs counter to wisdom, since Joseph’s wisdom is “not something acquired, not the wisdom of the schools”; Claus Westermann, Genesis 37 – 50: A Commentary, CC (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 248. On the controversial issue of “wisdom literature” as a category, see the various voices in Mark J. Boda, ed., et al., Riddles and Revelations: Explorations into the Relationship between Wisdom and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 634 (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-011

132

Mark J. Boda

Michael Fox writing three decades later continues this attack on von Rad’s work.⁵ Affirming Redford’s distinction between the influence of wisdom teaching and something arising from a sphere of wisdom literature, Fox distinguishes between wisdom and wisdom literature, the latter “a well defined literary genre of instructional texts whose exemplars share characteristic assumptions, principles, and literary formulations.”⁶ Thus, Fox states: But if dream interpretation is wisdom, it is not of the sort that Wisdom literature is interested in. Wisdom literature does not directly repudiate dream interpretation and mantic expertise, but by repeatedly defining wisdom in terms of piety, practical good sense, and ethical virtues, it virtually shoulders aside the magical and mantic wisdom that was so important throughout the ancient world.⁷ In Wisdom literature, in contrast, wisdom or receptivity to wisdom is never said to reside in the wise as a “spirit of God” or even to indicate the presence of that power. Wisdom is obtained by listening, absorbing the wisdom of the past, and applying it in new ways. Wisdom literature does have concepts of wisdom as a divine gift, but they are of different sorts. According to Prov. vii and Ahiqar 94b (“From heaven the peoples receive favor. Wisdom is from the gods”), wisdom is of divine origin. It is, however, granted to mankind as a whole, not dispensed in special communications to individuals.⁸

Fox proposes what he calls “two discrete planes” of wisdom in the Joseph story, “higher and lower, or divine and human…Wisdom of the higher sort is necessarily a divine endowment. It is not achieved through study, experience, or investigation.”⁹ Fox goes on to extend this to the book of Daniel, concluding: There is indeed wisdom in the Joseph story, but it is not the wisdom of Wisdom literature. The concept of wisdom in the Joseph story is affiliated with the pietistic and inspired wisdom of Daniel rather than with the ethical and practical wisdom of Wisdom literature.¹⁰

But is this really the case? Solomon himself clearly bridges these two supposedly “discrete planes,” as one who is associated with the accumulation of wisdom in 1 Kings 1– 11 and yet at the same time as one who received divine wisdom at the

2018); as well as the recent contribution of Will Kynes, An Obituary for Wisdom Literature: The Birth, Death, and Intertextual Reintegration of a Biblical Corpus (New York, NY: Oxford University, 2018); and Mark J. Boda, “Prophecy and Wisdom Literature,” in Oxford Handbook of Wisdom and Wisdom Literature, ed. Will Kynes (Oxford: Oxford University, 2021), 459 – 74.  Michael V. Fox, “Wisdom in the Joseph Story,” VT 51 (2001): 26 – 41.  Fox, “Wisdom in the Joseph Story,” 29.  Fox, “Wisdom in the Joseph Story,” 33.  Fox, “Wisdom in the Joseph Story,” 37.  Fox, “Wisdom in the Joseph Story,” 36.  Fox, “Wisdom in the Joseph Story,” 40.

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

133

outset of his reign (1 Kgs 3). The example of Solomon prompts us to take another look at this “lower” plane of wisdom of Fox, that is, the book of Proverbs that is so closely associated with the Solomonic tradition.

2 Proverbs and Sources of Wisdom 2.1 Observation, Experience and Tradition In Proverbs indeed we find a form of wisdom which is focused on “study, experience, or investigation” as Fox has claimed. Whether it is the cry of the parent to children in Prov 4:3 – 4 passing wise tradition to the next generation: 1

Hear, O sons, the instruction of a father, And give attention that you may gain understanding, 2 For I give you sound teaching; Do not abandon my instruction. 3 When I was a son to my father, Tender and the only son in the sight of my mother, 4 Then he taught me and said to me, “Let your heart hold fast my words; Keep my commandments and live; 5 Acquire wisdom! Acquire understanding! Do not forget nor turn away from the words of my mouth.”¹¹

Or the reflective observation in the example story of Prov 24:30 – 34 30

I passed by the field of the sluggard And by the vineyard of the man lacking sense, 31 And behold, it was completely overgrown with thistles; Its surface was covered with nettles, And its stone wall was broken down. 32 When I saw, I reflected upon it; I looked, and received instruction. 33 “A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest, 34 Then your poverty will come as a robber And your want like an armed man.”

The priority placed on reflective experience and learned tradition means that wisdom is most often associated with the elderly (e. g., Prov 4:1), while folly

 Citations of biblical text are generally from NASB revised by the author at places.

134

Mark J. Boda

with the young (e. g., Prov 7:7). This explains the many exhortations from parental figures and wisdom herself throughout the introductory section of Prov 1– 9. These exhortations seek to capture the imagination of youth to embrace the way of wisdom, which begins with accepting the mentorship of the earlier generation who will shape their approach to life, preparing them for a life time of gathering wisdom so that they can do the same for the next generation.

2.2 Proverbs 2 and Divinely Infused Wisdom We see the process of wisdom formation in Prov 2. The parent begins by focusing on the child’s reception (‫ )לקח‬and storage (‫ )צפן‬of the tradition being passed down (my words…my commandments) and calls the child to attune their epistemological faculties (ear/heart-mind) to wisdom while attuning their affections towards a passionate search for wisdom (cry…lift voice…seek…search). 1

My child, if you will receive (‫ )לקח‬my words And treasure (‫ )צפן‬my commandments within you, 2 Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; 3 For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; 4 If you seek her as silver And search for her as for hidden treasures;

One who has received the tradition in this way and has been oriented towards discovering wisdom in the experience of life is an ideal wisdom candidate. What comes next, however, is important. The wisdom formation described in 2:1– 4 is expressed in conditional form: “if (v. 1) … if (v. 3) … if (v. 4).” This formation is thus only preparatory for another stage in wisdom development that is introduced by the word ‫“( אז‬then”) in 2:5: 5

Then (‫ )אז‬you will discern the fear of Yahweh And discover the knowledge of God. 6 For (‫ )כי‬Yahweh gives wisdom; From his mouth come knowledge and understanding. 7 He stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk in integrity, 8 Guarding the paths of justice, And he preserves the way of his godly ones. 9 Then (‫ )אז‬you will discern righteousness and justice And equity and every good course. 10 For (‫ )כי‬wisdom will enter your heart

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

135

And knowledge will be pleasant to your soul; Discretion will guard you, Understanding will watch over you,

11

This stage is introduced by “the fear of Yahweh” and “the knowledge of God.” This is the first time that the divine has been mentioned in this passage, but it shows that the goal of the wisdom tradition was to lead disciples to the “fear of Yahweh” (‫ )יראת יהוה‬which defines the human stance in the relationship between Yahweh and humanity: it is one of awestruck submission as seen in the book of Deuteronomy.¹² Deuteronomy 10:12 places this fear alongside walking in all Yahweh’s ways, loving Yahweh, and serving Yahweh with one’s heart and with all one’s soul (cf. 4:10; 5:26; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 10:20; 13:5[ET 4]; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12, 13). This fear is typified by Walter Brueggemann as “utmost seriousness” which “requires attentiveness to some things rather than others, to spend one’s energies in response to this God who has initiated life.”¹³ The presentation of the fear of Yahweh in Deuteronomy needs to be seen through the lens of Deut 5 where Moses reminds the people of their fear before Yahweh’s presence on Mount Horeb (Sinai).¹⁴ Thus, this relational stance of “utmost seriousness” is rooted in an encounter with the presence of Yahweh.¹⁵ Throughout Proverbs it is “the fear of Yahweh” which is typified as the foundational relational orientation towards God for those on the path of wisdom. It is identified as the beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7; 9:10). It produces a hatred of evil (8:13), prolongs life (10:27; 14:27; 19:23), entails walking uprightly (14:2), yields a sense of security (14:26), imparts wisdom (15:33), preserves one from evil (16:6) and disaster (19:23), rewards one with riches, honor and life (22:4), as well as praise (31:30). Not only is discerning “the fear of Yahweh” key to this first stage according to Prov 2:5, but also discovery of the “knowledge” of God. In a similar way Prov 9:10 associates “the fear of Yahweh” with “knowledge” of God (there Most Holy One, see below). While there is some debate over the meaning of this “knowledge,” whether a knowledge possessed by Yahweh or a relational connection

 For this connection between wisdom and Deuteronomy see Mark J. Boda, “The Delight of Wisdom,” Them 29 (2004): 4– 11.  Walter Brueggemann, “Praise to God Is the End of Wisdom: What Is the Beginning?” Journal for Preachers 12 (1989): 30, italics original.  See the use of the verb ‫ ירא‬in Deut 5:5, 29.  Patrick highlights the link between the traditions of fear in Deuteronomy and wisdom, in James E. Patrick, “‘The Fear of the Lord Is the Beginning of Wisdom’: Calendars, Divination and Stories of Terror,” in Perspectives on Israelite Wisdom: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Jarick, LHBOTS 618 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 148 – 71.

136

Mark J. Boda

to Yahweh,¹⁶ it soon becomes clear in Prov 2 that the goal of wisdom was also to grant access into the wisdom and knowledge possessed by Yahweh and we soon discover that this is a gift from God. What follows in 2:6, introduced by the causal particle ‫“( כי‬for”) then reveals the divine dimension to the acquisition of wisdom as “Yahweh gives wisdom” since “from his mouth come knowledge and understanding” (v. 5). A second use of the word ‫“( אז‬then”) occurs in 2:9, revealing the impact of this divine gift as the child is able “to discern righteousness and justice and equity and every good course,” the cause of which is introduced by the “for” (‫ )כי‬of v. 10: the divine gift by which “wisdom will enter your heart” (v. 10). This divinely infused wisdom is what then delivers the child from the two major temptations of youth described throughout the remainder of ch. 2 (vv. 12– 22). Each temptation is introduced by the infinitive construct ‫“( להצילך‬to deliver you”), in the first case introducing deliverance from following after the immoral gang (vv. 12– 15) and in the second from following after the immoral woman (vv. 16– 19). This deliverance will ensure a godly and long life, introduced by the particle ‫“( למען‬so that,” vv. 20 – 22). This is a reminder that wisdom is not only about the acquisition of knowledge but is about practical living. It is not merely about advantageous ways of living, but fundamentally about morality. Proverbs 2 thus shows us that while tradition and experience are often identified as the key epistemological values of wisdom,¹⁷ there is a third epistemological value that appears to be even more important to experiencing a life of wisdom and it is the divine dimension. For the one seeking wisdom, this entails adopting the inner posture of the fear of Yahweh which grants access to “the knowledge of God” (v. 5). This results in the ability to discern “every good course” (v. 9), made possible because wisdom has entered one’s heart (v. 10) because Yahweh has granted wisdom (v. 6). This is an important corrective to the traditional approach to wisdom within Old Testament scholarship that has often typified wisdom as a secular or at least

 The nature of the construct relationship in these phrases in 2:5 (‫ )דעת אלהים‬and 9:10 (‫דעת‬ ‫ )קדשׁים‬is debatable, ranging from genitive of authorship/inalienable possession to objective genitive, thus knowledge possessed by the deity or humans knowing the deity; Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1 – 15, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 214. The use of the same phrase in Prov 30:3 with the verb ‫ ידע‬suggests the latter.  On the relationship between experience and tradition as two key sources of wisdom, see Rainer Albertz, “The Sage and Pious Wisdom in the Book of Job: The Friend’s Perspective,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 243 – 61; Michael V. Fox, “The Epistemology of the Book of Proverbs,” JBL 126 (2007): 669 – 84.

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

137

anthropocentric enterprise. The structure of Prov 2 clearly shows that while the tradition has a key role to play in wisdom formation, its goal is to orient the disciple to an attentive and inquisitive disposition that will make possible a relationship with Yahweh who will grant understanding, infusing the heart with insight for wise righteous living.

2.3 Proverbs 10 – 31, Wisdom and Divine Activity While the proverbial tradition in Prov 10 – 31 is dominated by wisdom focused on patterns of human activity, the divine dimension is not ignored, appearing regularly throughout this tradition. The majority of instances where God is mentioned, remind the reader of God’s sovereign superintendence of human activity which often means that he not only keeps account of what takes place, but will intervene during or after this activity to either reward or punish (Prov 15:3, 9, 25 – 26, 29; 16:3 – 5, 7, 9; 17:3, 15; 18:10; 19:17; 20:22– 23; 21:2, 31; 22:12; 24:17– 18; 25:21– 22). This is a key reminder that the wisdom tradition is not deistic, but rather pictures a God who is intimately involved in creation and culture. The other major theme associated with God in the proverbial tradition of Prov 10 – 31 is God’s role in imparting and revealing wisdom to humanity. Proverbs 16:1 identifies “plans” with the human heart, but the “answer of the tongue” with Yahweh. Humans may have many plans as to how they will proceed in a given situation, but it is Yahweh who provides the wise answer for the particular moment. This is similar to Prov 19:21, which contrasts human plans with “the counsel of Yahweh.” Yahweh can control the human heart and provide guidance according to Prov 21:1: “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of Yahweh; He turns it wherever He wishes.” Yahweh not only provides insight into the human heart, but actually searches the inner life of a human through “the spirit of humanity” (‫)נשׁמת אדם‬. “Those who seek Yahweh,” according to Prov 28:5, “understand all things,” again reminding us of the revelatory nature of seeking Yahweh. Revelation, whether through prophetic vision (‫ )חזון‬or written Torah, is key to a peaceful society and blessed life (Prov 29:18). This shows that what we have seen in Prov 2 is not an anomaly, but that God is certainly understood even within the wisdom proverbial tradition as one who is involved in the activities of human life and who provides revelation for wise living.¹⁸

 See Tremper Longman, The Fear of the Lord Is Wisdom: A Theological Introduction to Wisdom in Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 111– 26.

138

Mark J. Boda

2.4 Proverbs 1 and Revelatory Wisdom Turning back to the introductory chapter of Proverbs we find similar themes. The opening prologue in 1:2– 7 lays out, through a series of infinitives, the basic purposes of the collection of wisdom which follows, and in this way is similar to what we have seen at the outset of Proverbs 2. Immediately following the prologue, we hear the parental voice: 8

Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My child…

The voice of the parent(s) continues until 1:19 and matches the parental voice at the outset of Prov 2. Proverbs 1:20, however, introduces a new voice, that of Wisdom calling out to those in need of wisdom: “naïve ones…simple-minded…scoffers…fools” (v. 22). The context of her speech is odd: “in the street…in the square… at the head of the noisy streets…at the entrance of the gates in the city” (vv. 20 – 21), rather than in the quietness of the family setting seen in the parental advice of 1:8 – 19. Her speech also sounds like the appeal of an ancient prophet rather than the methodical teaching associated with the sage.¹⁹ Certainly, she employs the vocabulary of the wisdom tradition (knowledge, reproof, counsel, fear of Yahweh), but she combines this with cries akin to a prophetic warning:²⁰  See further Alan C. Lenzi, “Proverbs 8:22– 31: Three Perspectives on Its Composition,” JBL 125 (2006): 687– 714 (711– 14), who argues for allusions to prophetic calling passages in Prov 8:22– 31 (Exod 3:14; Isa 48:16), which shows that “Wisdom is implicitly a messenger sent by Yahweh to humanity and therefore can communicate to mortals her unique cosmological knowledge” (713). “Wisdom’s prophetlike character in this poem creates a mechanism for authenticating the sayings recorded in the book of Proverbs as deriving from the heavenly realm. As 8:31 does not restrict the movements of Wisdom among humanity, it can be assumed that she is free to proclaim her heavenly authorized knowledge to one and all. In this manner she is similar to the Israelite prophets, though apparently with a more universal scope” (713 – 14).  Phyllis Trible, “Wisdom Builds a Poem: The Architecture of Proverbs 1:20 – 33,” JBL 94 (1975): 509 – 18. See also the form critical work of Christa Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1 – 9: Eine Formund Motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung unter Einbeziehung Ägyptischen Vergleichsmaterials, WMANT 22 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966), 119 – 29. Scott L. Harris, Proverbs 1 – 9: A Study of Inner-Biblical Interpretation, SBLDS 150 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), notes how wisdom teachers in Prov 1:20 – 33 draw especially on Jer 7, 20 and Zech 7 for portrayal of wisdom, suggesting strong affinities with the prophetic tradition; William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 265, refers to “prophetic interpretation of old wisdom.”

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

139

23

Turn (‫ )שוב‬to my reproof, Behold (‫)הנה‬, I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you. 24 Because I called and you refused, I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; —28 Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me,

The call to repentance typical of the prophetic movement (turn, ‫ )שוב‬is foundational to Wisdom’s invitation in v. 23.²¹ She warns that because when she called they refused, when they call she would not answer (vv. 24, 28), in a fashion similar to other recitations of frustration of the message in the prophetic tradition as seen below:²² Isa 1:15 So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. Jer 11:11 Therefore, thus says Yahweh, “Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to me, yet I will not listen to them.” Jer 14:12 When they fast, I am not going to listen to their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I am not going to accept them. Rather I am going to make an end of them by the sword, famine and pestilence. Ezek 8:18 Therefore, I indeed will deal in wrath. My eye will have no pity nor will I spare; and though they cry in my ears with a loud voice, yet I will not listen to them.

 Contra Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 41– 42. There is no need for ‫ תשׁובו‬in v. 23 and ‫ משׁובה‬in v. 32 to have the same sense; the verb ‫ שׁוב‬can mean “turn” and with the preposition can refer to “turning to” in the sense of repentance (Isa 31:6).  Note the traditional separation between priestly, prophetic and wisdom traditions expressed so well in the SBL presidential address of R. B. Y. Scott, “Priesthood, Prophecy, Wisdom, and the Knowledge of God,” JBL 80 (1961): 1– 15. See further on the challenges of separating prophecy and wisdom in Mark J. Boda, “Wisdom in Prophecy: A Response,” in Riddles and Revelations: Explorations into the Relationship between Wisdom and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Mark J. Boda, Russell L. Meek, and William R. Osborne, LHBOTS 634 (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018), 246 – 56; Boda, “Prophecy and Wisdom Literature.”

140

Mark J. Boda

Mic 3:4 Then they will cry out to Yahweh, But he will not answer them. Instead, he will hide his face from them at that time Because they have practiced evil deeds. Zech 7:11– 13 But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing. They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which Yahweh of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets; therefore, great wrath came from Yahweh of hosts. And just as he called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen,” says Yahweh of hosts.

The promise which follows the call to repentance also echoes a key prophetic theme throughout the Old Testament, that of the deity promising to send forth his spirit to the audience.²³ ‫ אביעה לכם רוחי‬Prov : ‫ אצק רוחי על־זרעך‬Isa :

I will pour out my spirit on you I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring

‫ ורוח חדשׁה אתן בקרבכם‬Ezek : put a new spirit in your midst²⁴ ‫ ורוח חדשׁה אתן בקרבכם‬Ezek : put a new spirit in your midst ‫ ואת־רוחי אתן בקרבכם‬Ezek : I will put my Spirit in your midst ‫ ונתתי רוחי בכם‬Ezek : I will put my Spirit within you ‫ שׁפכתי את־רוחי על־בית ישׂראל‬Ezek : I will have poured out my Spirit on the house of Israel ‫ אשׁפוך את־רוחי על־כל־בשׂר‬Joel : [:] ‫ אשׁפוך את־רוחי‬Joel : [:]

I will pour out my Spirit on all mankind; I will pour out my Spirit

‫ ושׁפכתי על־בית דויד ועל יושׁב‬Zech : I will pour out on the house of David and on the ‫ירושׁלם רוח חן ותחנונים‬ inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication

 Contra Waltke, Proverbs 1 – 15, 199n17, who translates this as “my thoughts,” not wanting to “mislead many English readers into associating the thought with Isa. 44:3 and Joel 2:28 (3:1).” See Tremper Longman, Proverbs, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 112, who notes connections between wisdom and spirit in Exod 31:3 and Isa 11:2– 3.  Following the MT, especially Codex Leningradnensis (the more difficult reading) over other Hebrew manuscripts, OG, Peshitta, Targum, Vulgate.

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

141

The sending forth of Wisdom’s spirit in Prov 1:23 is directly related to revelation in the line which follows: “I will make my words known to you,” employing a verb, as Trible has noted, drawn from “the language of disclosure in prophetic speech; cf. Isa 5:5; Jer 16:21; Ezek 20:5.”²⁵ In the prophetic literature the pouring out of the spirit has several effects. In Isa 44:3 it functions like streams do in a wilderness region, sustaining new vegetation representative of the remnant from exile. In Ezek 11:19; 36:26, 27 the spirit enables the people to obey the law and renew the covenant relationship. In Ezek 37:14 the spirit brings the remnant to life, while in Ezek 39:29 no effect is provided. In Zech 12:10 the spirit prompts a penitential response. In Joel 3:1– 2[2:28 – 29], the spirit poured out results in sons and daughters prophesying, old men dreaming dreams, and young men seeing visions, that is, the signs associated with prophecy in Israel (see Num 12:6). This final case is the closest to what we see in Prov 1:23. The spirit being poured out results in revelation: making the words of Wisdom available to those who would repent. In every other case in the Old Testament where this tradition is found the referent of “my spirit” is Yahweh. In this passage then we see a similar trend to what was observed in Prov 2. Now through the figure of Wisdom we see the promise of a divinely infused wisdom. All that is holding back this infusion of wisdom is the absence of the qualities reviewed in Prov 2:1– 4, that is passionate embrace of wisdom. Again, we have seen how human tradition stands alongside divine revelation as key sources for the formation of wisdom. These are not seen in opposition to one another, but human tradition subordinates itself to divine revelation, preparing the wisdom candidate for induction into divine revelation.

2.5 Proverbs 30 – 31 and Revelatory Wisdom While we have seen how the first two chapters of Proverbs highlight both tradition and revelation as two key sources of wisdom, the revelatory source of wisdom is also evident in the closing two chapters of Proverbs. Both Prov 30 and 31 begin with similar superscriptions: ‫ דברי אגור בן־יקה המשׂא נאם הגבר‬Prov : The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the oracle. Declaration of the man ‫ דברי למואל מלך משׂא אשׁר־יסרתו אמו‬Prov : The words of King Lemuel, an oracle which his mother taught him:

 Trible, “Wisdom Builds a Poem,” 512n20.

142

Mark J. Boda

Earlier superscriptions in the book referred to “the proverbs of” (‫משׁלי‬, Prov 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). Proverbs 30:1, 31:1 share at least the opening phrase “words of” (‫)דברי‬ with the introduction to the words of the wise in 22:17 (Incline your ear and hear the words of the wise),²⁶ but only in 30:1 and 31:1 do we find “the words of…” (‫ )דברי‬followed by the term “oracle” (‫)משׂא‬. This term oracle is one associated elsewhere with prophets or prophetic material, appearing in Isa 13:1; 14:28; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 21:1, 11, 13; 22:1; 23:1; 30:6; Jer 23:33 – 38; Ezek 12:10; Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1; Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1; 2 Kgs 9:25; 2 Chron 24:27; Lam 2:14.²⁷ This connection to the prophetic revelatory tradition is further bolstered by the phrase which follows “oracle” in Prov 30:1: “declaration of the man.” The term “declaration” (‫ )נאם‬is predominantly used in connection with a divine name countless times in the prophetic material of the Old Testament (e. g., Zech 1:3). In Prov 30:1 it is used in connection with a human. This happens elsewhere in the Old Testament only eight other times, six of which occur in the Balaam cycle in Num 24 (vv. 3 – 4, 15 – 16) and two in 2 Sam 23, both using the same phrase as here: “the declaration of the man” (‫ ;נאם הגבר‬Num 24:3, 15; 2 Sam 23:1).²⁸ Numbers 24 When Balaam saw that it pleased Yahweh to bless Israel, he did not go as at other times to seek omens but he set his face toward the wilderness. 2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes and saw Israel camping tribe by tribe; and the Spirit of God came upon him. 3 He took up his discourse and said, “The declaration (‫ )נאם‬of Balaam the son of Beor, And the declaration (‫ )נאם‬of the man (‫ )הגבר‬whose eye is opened; 4 The declaration (‫ )נאם‬of him who hears the words of God, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered, ....................... 15 He took up his discourse and said, “The declaration (‫ )נאם‬of Balaam the son of Beor, And the declaration (‫ )נאם‬of the man (‫ )הגבר‬whose eye is opened, 16 The declaration (‫ )נאם‬of him who hears the words of God, And knows the knowledge of the Most High, Who sees the vision of the Almighty, Falling down, yet having his eyes uncovered. 1

 The abbreviated “these belong to the wise” (‫ )אלה לחכמים‬in 24:23 is unique.  Mark J. Boda, “Freeing the Burden of Prophecy: Maśśā’ and the Legitimacy of Prophecy in Zech 9 – 14,” Biblica 86 (2006): 338 – 57.  Odd is the use of one other time in the OT in Ps 36:1[2] where it refers to the declaration of sin within the heart of the ungodly.

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

143

2 Samuel 23 Now these are the last words of David. The declaration (‫ )נאם‬of David the son of Jesse, The declaration (‫ )נאם‬of the man (‫ )הגבר‬who was raised on high, The anointed of the God of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel, 2 “The Spirit of Yahweh spoke by me, And his word was on my tongue. 3 “The God of Israel said The Rock of Israel spoke to me…

1

As can be seen from these passages, the phrase “the declaration of the man” is used in contexts where individuals are being portrayed as revelatory figures, whether Balaam, one who “hears the words of God…knows the knowledge of the Most High…sees the vision of the Almighty,” or David through whom “the Spirit of Yahweh spoke,” on whose tongue was “his word” and to whom “the Rock of Israel spoke.” Thus, the book of Proverbs ends with the presentation of two figures whose words are identified as revelation akin to prophecy. While Agur’s words which follow are challenging to understand, it is clear that he immediately claims that he is in the category of “fool” (“Surely I am more a fool than any man”) and does not possess “the understanding of humanity,” a condition linked in v. 3a to the fact that he had not learned wisdom. If v. 3b is read as a contrast,²⁹ “But I do have the knowledge of the Most Holy One,” then this would indicate that Agur is contrasting a form of knowledge attained through revelatory means rather than through the traditional process of wisdom teaching. The phrase “knowledge of the Most Holy One” (‫)דעת קדשׁים‬³⁰ appears in Prov 9:10 in parallel with the fear of Yahweh:

 The key issue is whether the negative particle of v. 3a is understood as elided in v. 3b. Ellipsis involving negation does occur in biblical poetry, see Cynthia Miller, “Ellipsis Involving Negation in Biblical Poetry,” in Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty–Fifth Birthday, ed. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis Robert Magary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 37– 52, yet she argues that Prov 30:3 is a case of “syntactic ambiguity” and so “the polarity of the second line can be ascertained only through semantics. That is, an interpreter must decide which syntactic structure to assign on the basis of exegesis” (51n35). Notice though the identical structure in Ps 78:7 (clausal waw for both lines, chiastic order of elements) where the negative particle is not elided.  The plural ‫ קדשׁים‬could mean “holy ones” (and refer either to angels or saints), but this plural is commonly understood as a plural of majesty or deity, so “most Holy One” as used in Prov 9:10, 30:3; and Hos 12:1[11:12]; see Waltke, Proverbs 1 – 15, 428n19; idem., Proverbs 15 – 31, 456n18; John W. Miller, Proverbs, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2004), 100,

144

Mark J. Boda

The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Most Holy One is understanding.

The “fear of Yahweh” in the first line of the couplet refers to the human response before the powerful God of creation. It may be that “knowledge of the Most Holy One” in the second line is also describing something possessed by the wise, that is, it refers to their relational knowing of the Holy One. However, in Prov 30:3 this knowledge appears to be something gained that is similar but different from human wisdom and understanding, and thus could as easily refer to the knowledge which the Holy One possesses. This is the sense most likely as seen above in Prov 2:5 – 6, as also in Prov 3:19 – 20. This sense of knowledge can be discerned in passages like Ps 139:6 where the psalmist declares that “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it,” characteristics that make it necessary for Yahweh to impart such knowledge to humanity. Proverbs 30:4 refers to the Holy One whose knowledge he possesses. The reference to ascending to and descending from heaven is suggestive of the movement of divine knowledge from heaven to earth and possibly of the provision of access to the divine council for revelatory figures (e. g., 1 Kgs 20; Isa 6; Jer 23:18, 22). The questions which follow all point to Yahweh as creator and sustainer of the universe, an identity made clear by the reference to “his name” at the end of the verse, echoing the doxologies in Amos and Job.³¹ Agur then speaks about the “word of God,” identifying it as tested (Prov 30:5), reminiscent of David in 2 Sam 22:31 (//Ps 18:31; cf. Pss 12:7[6]; 105:19), before warning his audience not to add to God’s words (Prov 30:6), reminiscent of Moses in Deut 4:2; 13:1[12:32]. These “words” may be written, but in both cases, they are words which were delivered orally to a revelatory figure. Agur transitions in 30:7– 9 with a prayer to Yahweh to protect him from denying God in his old age (“before I die”). What then follows in 30:10 – 33 is a series of wisdom sayings from Agur akin to those found in Prov 10 – 29. Proverbs 30 represents the fruit of wisdom from one who does not appear to have the qualities revered within traditional wisdom, except for his supposed old age, relying instead upon revelatory means.³²

281; Christine Roy Yoder, “On the Threshold of Kingship: A Study of Agur (Proverbs 30),” Int 63 (2009): 254– 63 (260n22).  James L. Crenshaw, Hymnic Affirmation of Divine Justice: The Doxologies of Amos and Related Texts in the Old Testament (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975).  See also Markus Saur, “Prophetie, Weisheit und Gebet: Überlegungen zu den Worten Agurs in Prov 30,1– 9,” ZAW 126 (2014): 570 – 83, who highlights the key role of Prov 30 in drawing in pro-

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

145

Proverbs 31 then continues this trend by drawing on wisdom from revelatory means through a mother to bring closure to the book as a whole.³³ While both father and mother are mentioned as purveyors of traditional wisdom at the outset of the book in Prov 1:8 and in 6:20,³⁴ the mother’s voice is never heard as the father addresses the child or children throughout Prov 1– 9. The mother is mentioned in passing in 4:3 in a context that focuses on the father’s teaching, accentuating her absence from the pedagogical process. It is significant then that the final chapter of Proverbs grants voice to a mother speaking to her son and when she speaks her words are identified as revelatory in nature. While the voice of the father is clearly associated with traditional wisdom throughout Prov 1– 9, here the voice of the mother is associated with revelatory wisdom. This mother introduces her son to the ideal woman of Prov 31, a woman who is strikingly similar to Wisdom encountered in Prov 1– 9. This woman figure also functioned as a revelatory figure, a prophet, and so possibly this brings us full circle to themes first encountered in Prov 1– 2.

3 Proverbs and the Revelatory Inclusio This means that surrounding this book often identified as the core of traditional wisdom, we find chapters which suggest a prioritizing of revelatory wisdom over traditional wisdom. The opening chapters reveal how the two work together, traditional wisdom preparing the way for revelatory wisdom. Some have suggested that the closing chapters, especially ch. 30, are designed to bring the two streams into opposition with one another, reminding traditional wisdom of its limits and, based on my work above, its need for revelatory wisdom.³⁵

phetic and prayer traditions to solve the problems with traditional wisdom sources raised by books like Ecclesiastes and Job.  See further: Thomas P. McCreesh, “Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31:10 – 31,” RB 92 (1985): 25 – 46, who shows the close association between the woman Wisdom in Prov 1– 9 and the woman of Prov 31.  Proverbs 10:1; 15:20; 19:26; 20:20; 23:22 (listen to father, but don’t despise mother); 23:25; 28:24; 29:15; 30:11, 17.  See especially Yoder (“On the Threshold,” 263) who writes: “Agur is the book’s final indictment of wisdom’s excesses, and its most ardent plea for wonder, reverence, and humility—essential qualities of those who ‘fear YHWH’ (e. g., Prov 15:33).” Also see Rickie D. Moore, “A Home for the Alien: Worldly Wisdom and Covenantal Confession in Proverbs 30,1– 9,” ZAW 106 (1994): 96 – 107 (107), who notes in his summary: “Agur registers the final primacy of God’s revelation (covenantal/prophetic traditions of Torah and Prophets) over human investigation (wisdom tradition), though not without affirming the crucial role of the latter in everyday

146

Mark J. Boda

“Wisdom books” need to be interpreted from their end and this is certainly true for Job and Ecclesiastes in which the concluding chapters of the book provide the means for evaluating the voices speaking throughout the book.³⁶ For Proverbs, people have focused more attention on the beginning of the book, pointing to the key hermeneutical role of Prov 1:1– 7, as well as Prov 1– 9, for reading the book as a whole. This evidence suggests, however, that there may be an important role for the closing chapters in Proverbs (chs. 30 – 31) which, together with the opening chapters (chs. 1– 2), point to the importance of revelation as a source for wisdom.

4 Beyond Proverbs There is no space in this chapter to consider other wisdom books in depth, but Job clearly highlights the priority of revelatory wisdom over tradition and experience. Even if one is not prepared to affirm the role of Elihu in the book along with Calvin, Gordis, and Seow as well as most medieval Jewish interpreters,³⁷ no one would doubt that the climax of the book lies in the revelatory encounter between God and Job in Job 38 – 41, one which brings the key theme of the “fear of Yahweh” that opens the book into focus and reminds us that the fear of Yahweh is not some pietistic human respect divorced from the presence of God, but the kind of terror that was experienced by Moses and Israel of old according to Deuteronomy as they came in direct contact with Yahweh. As for Ecclesiastes, there we see the futility of human experience and tradition under the sun, suggesting the need for a perspective derived from above the sun, one that may be related to the “eternity” which the divine has placed within human hearts, and the destination of the eternal home to which the spirit within humanity will go in the end.

life.” Moore, however, does not seem to consider that the revelatory tradition is present in Proverbs itself and so this is not only set within the larger canonical context of the TaNaK but first and foremost within Proverbs.  If one was to include Song of Songs within the wisdom tradition, this also would be seen since Song 8 provides important perspectives on the nature of love and sexuality and offers an evaluation of Solomon.  See the superb review by Choon Leong Seow, “Elihu’s Revelation,” ThTo 68 (2011): 253 – 71.

Knowledge from Above: Revelatory Hermeneutics within Wisdom Literature

147

5 Conclusion This study has raised a serious question about the characterization of wisdom by those studying this tradition in the Old Testament. Typically, the core wisdom tradition is identified with the book of Proverbs and its countless traditional sayings beginning with chapter 10. The books of Job and Ecclesiastes are then classified as revolts against this core wisdom tradition, calling into question the tradition itself or the interpretation of human experience that created it.³⁸ In the traditional approach, wisdom is gained by learning the tradition and experiencing life, activities that require a long life and thus preference the elderly. The court stories of Joseph and Solomon, not to mention that of Daniel, however, stand in stark contrast to this view of wisdom. They depict young people who are given wisdom by God with little to no mention of acquisition of past tradition. Revelatory experiences are key to their acquisition of wisdom. While these observations could lead us to identify the court stories as further “revolts” against the core wisdom tradition, the fact that so much “wisdom” must be identified as “revolt” raises serious questions about the legitimacy of what is at the core of the wisdom tradition. Close attention to the book of Proverbs has highlighted the way which even what was deemed “traditional” wisdom is framed by reference to revelatory resources for the acquisition of wisdom.³⁹

 See the classic expression of this in R. B. Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1971).  See also Longman, Fear of the Lord, 83 – 84, for his criticism of Crenshaw for saying that dream interpretation through revelation distances Joseph from wisdom, arguing that “it is not uncommon to appeal to revelation as the source of true wisdom” (84).

Benjamin G. Wright III

“With a Spirit of Understanding” (Sir 39:6): Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira 1 Introduction The Wisdom of Ben Sira is considered to be one of the paradigmatic wisdom texts from the Second Temple period. We learn much from it about the scribal vocation in this period. In the famous section in 38.24– 39.11, where Ben Sira discusses the place of tradespersons and artisans (38.24– 34b) and subsequently the scribe (38.34c – 39.11) in God’s oikonomia,¹ he represents the scribe as the potential recipient of divine revelation/inspiration.² The passage on the scribe and his inspiration is worth quoting in full. Unfortunately, no Hebrew is extant for this passage and so the Greek stands as the main textual tradition.³

 I use the term oikonomia in line with A. Jordan Schmidt, Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach, DCLS 42 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2019), 281– 84.  Many scholars have commented on this passage and the idea of the inspired scribe. See, for example, Johannes Marböck, “Sir. 38,24– 39,11: Der schriftgelehrte Weise. Ein Beitrag zu Gestalt und Werk Ben Siras,” La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament,” ed. M. Gilbert, BETL 51 (Leuven: Peeters, 1979), 293 – 316, especially 307– 11; Helge Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, WUNT 2.6 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980), chap. 3; Leo G. Perdue, “Ben Sira and the Prophets,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 38 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 132– 54; John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2009), 118 – 26; Benjamin G. Wright III, “Conflicted Boundaries: Ben Sira, Sage and Seer,” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. Martti Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 229 – 53.  Although I quote the Greek translation here, I will comment on the Syriac translation below where it helps us to understand the text. Moreover, we always have to reckon with the fact that this passage is available only in translation and so we can only attribute the ideas expressed there to Ben Sira himself with extreme caution. On issues of translation generally, see Lawrence Venuti, Translation Changes Everything: Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge, 2013). On translation and Second Temple texts, see Benjamin G. Wright III, “Translation, Reception, and the Historiography of Early Judaism: The Wisdom of Ben Sira and Old Greek Job as Case Studies,” in “When the Morning Stars Sang”: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Christine Roy Yoder and Scott C. Jones, BZAW 500 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 239 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-012

150

Benjamin G. Wright III

38.34 Save for him who devotes his soul and who thinks about the law of the Most High 39.1 He will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and he will be occupied with prophecies (προφητείαις). 39.2 He will preserve the narratives (διήγησιν) of famous men, and he will penetrate into the twists of illustrations (παραβολῶν). 39.3 He will seek out the obscurities of proverbs (παροιμιῶν), and he will be engaged with the riddles of illustrations (παραβολῶν). 39.4 He will serve among nobles, and he will appear in front of rulers. He will travel in the land of foreign nations, for he has tested the good and bad things in people. 39.5 He will devote his heart early towards the Lord who made him, and he will petition in front of the Most High, and he will open his mouth in prayer, and concerning his sins he will petition. 39.6 If the great Lord wants, he will be filled (ἐμπλησθήσεται) with a spirit of understanding (πνεύματι συνέσεως). He will pour forth (ἀνομβρήσει) words of his wisdom, and in prayer he will acknowledge the Lord.⁴ 39.7 He will direct counsel and knowledge, and on his hidden things he will think. 39.8 He will illuminate the instruction of his teaching, and in the law of the Lord’s covenant he will boast.⁵

In the key verse, 39.6, at God’s pleasure, the scribe can become filled with “a spirit of understanding” that apparently inspires him to “pour forth words of his wisdom.” The entire section focuses on the scribe and his wisdom. That is, the words and actions of the scribe are specifically said to come from him. Although this passage has provoked much scholarly discussion about the sage and inspiration, there actually has been little discussion of what exactly the “spirit of understanding” is. The assumption seems to be that this is a divine spirit or a “Holy Spirit,” but that does not necessarily have to be the case. If we ask about the nature and work of this spirit, several questions arise. What exactly is this spirit? Is it the Holy Spirit, a divine spirit, or a human spirit? What does Ben Sira think this spirit actually does? What is the nature of the inspiration or revelation that this verse suggests is available to the sage by virtue of being filled with this spirit?

 The Syriac here has “and they will praise him for his thoughts,” which Jan Liesen suggests fits the context better than a prayer of the sage. See his argument in Full of Praise: An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12 – 35, JSJSup 64 (Leiden: Brill), 74– 5.  The translation is taken from my translation of Sirach in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (New York: Oxford University, 2007) (NETS).

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

151

2 The “Spirit of Understanding” The Hebrew and Greek words translated as “spirit” in English occur several times in Ben Sira. If we begin with the Greek word πνεῦμα, the translator uses it eight times (30.15; 34.14; 38.23; 39.6; 39.28; 43.17; 48.12; 48.24).⁶ We can eliminate 39.28 and 43.17 from our discussion, since the term in these verses refers to wind. Of the others, 30.15 (‫ רוח‬in Ms B) and 34.14 (no Hebrew extant) refer to a human spirit. In Sir 38.23, the deceased person’s spirit departs, but in this case, the Hebrew in Ms B appropriately has ‫ נפש‬rather than ‫רוח‬. The two other cases of πνεῦμα, 48.12 and 24, both of which render ‫רוח‬, have bearing on how we interpret the “spirit of understanding” in 39.6; both come in descriptions of prophets in Ben Sira’s “Praise of the Ancestors” section. The Hebrew ‫רוח‬, the main term for “spirit,” occurs twelve times in the extant Hebrew fragments, three of which clearly mean wind (39.28, where the Greek is πνεῦμα; 5.9 and 43.20, where the Greek is ἄνεμος). Of the other nine occurrences, seven clearly refer to human spirits. In 30.15 it is translated with πνεῦμα; in 4.6 and 7.11 it is rendered in Greek as ψυχή; in 4.9, 5.11, 16.17, and 16.25 it is translated contextually. The remaining two passages, 48.12 and 24, both have πνεῦμα as the Greek equivalent and together with their Greek translations require more detailed comment for their relevance to 39.6. In Ben Sira’s praise of Elijah, the Greek of Sir 48.12 reads: “It was Elias who was enveloped in a whirlwind, and Elisaie was filled with his spirit (ἐνεπλήσθη πνεύματος αὐτοῦ), and in his days he did not tremble before any ruler, and no one oppressed him.” The Hebrew of Ms B is fragmentary, but it clearly transmits a longer text than we find in the Greek. Unfortunately, though, the clause that corresponds to Elisha being filled with Elijah’s spirit has not survived: “[E]l[iahu]…and [E]l[isha]…a double portion, he multiplied signs,⁷ all of his

 In Sir 9.9, the majority of the Greek manuscripts have πνεῦμα in 9b, which Alfred Rahlfs, (Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpres edidit Alfred Rahlfs [Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935]) reads in his edition. Joseph Ziegler in his Göttingen edition of Sirach (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. XII/2. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980]) reads with Clement of Alexandria and the Latin translation, both of which agree with the extant Hebrew of Ms A that the verse should read αἷμα, “blood.” I have not included this verse in my survey above for this reason.  Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella note that for what amounts to 12c they are following the Genizah manuscript B, but it is plainly fragmentary here and does not preserve the first three stichoi very well; see Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 529. A. E. Cowley and A. Neubauer (The Original He-

152

Benjamin G. Wright III

days, he did not tremble before anyone, and no one ruled over his spirit (‫)רוחו‬.” The Syriac also has a longer text than the Greek, and it reflects a Hebrew Vorlage close to that of Ms B: “Elijah was taken to heaven in the storehouses, and Elisha received a double prophecy, and his mouth uttered numerous trials and signs. In his days, he was not shaken by anyone and no mortal ruled over him.” The Syriac does not refer to Elijah’s spirit, and it likely transferred the notion of doing double what Elijah did from 12c, if Cowley’s and Neubauer’s proposed reading is correct.⁸ Presuming that the Hebrew underlying the Greek phrase was ‫—רוח‬and I think that there is good reason to think that—the idea that someone is filled with a spirit parallels the language of 39.6.⁹ In this case, Elisha is filled with Elijah’s spirit as his successor. We can draw two conclusions from this verse that help us to interpret 39.6. First, Ben Sira employs the language of filling with a spirit in a prophetic context. Even though the spirit in this verse is human—it is Elijah’s, after all—the phrase to fill with a spirit suggests that 39.6 should be read within a similar framework.¹⁰ I will return to this issue below. Second, that Elisha was filled with Elijah’s spirit suggests that this spirit enters into Elisha from the outside. That is, the language does not seem to be metaphorical, and the Greek text envisions an external spirit coming into Elisha. On the basis of the Hebrew and Syriac evidence, there was likely a longer text in which the filling of Elisha with Elijah’s spirit empowered him to do double what Elijah did before him. Sir 48.24 comes in the middle of a section on the prophet Isaiah. After praising king Hezekiah for doing what pleased God, the Greek translator introduces Isaiah in verse 22, who was “great and reliable in his vision. In his days the sun stepped back, and he added to life for the king.” He continues in verse

brew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus [xxiv. 15 to xlix. 11] [Oxford: Clarendon, 1907], 36) reconstruct the third stichos as ‫ פי ש]נים[ אתות הרבה‬with ‫ אתות הר‬signified as partial letters. Recently taken digital photographs are very difficult to read, since a number of the pages from the Bodleian leaves of Ms B have deteriorated over the decades, and so it is hard to tell if Cowley’s and Neubauer’s proposed reading is correct. The clearest photograph is probably from the facsimile edition of 1901, and even there it is difficult to corroborate their reading. For digital photographs of the Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts, see the website, “The Book of Ben Sira” (https://www.bensira. org/). At any rate, the Greek certainly does not transmit the c and d cola, if they were in the Hebrew parent text at all.  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 534.  The ending of 48.12 in the Hebrew of Ms B, “and no one ruled over his spirit (‫)ברוחו‬,” suggests that the same word likely was present in the missing stichos.  Marböck, “Der schriftgelehrte Weise,” 308 writes that 39.6 “represents doubtlessly a climax of this statement [i. e., that Elisha is filled with Elijah’s spirit]” (‘Sir. 39,6 stellt zweifellos eine Kimax zu diesen Aussagen dar’).

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

153

24, “By a great spirit (πνεύματι μεγάλῳ), he showed what would be forever, and he comforted those who mourned in Sion.”¹¹ Although the end of 48.22 and all of verse 23 are missing in MS B due to damage, the Hebrew of 48.24 reads similarly to the Greek, “And by a mighty spirit (‫ )ברוח גבורה‬he saw the future (‫)אחרית‬, and he comforted the mourners of Zion.” This passage is the only other place in Ben Sira besides 39.6 where a potentially non-human spirit shows up. It seems likely that in his section on Isaiah, Ben Sira drew on traditions such as Isa 11.2– 3 where the “spirit of the Lord” rests upon the “shoot” that comes from the “stump of Jesse.” Ben Sira, however, has transferred the spirit’s resting to the prophet Isaiah himself. This spirit in the context confers wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, and fear of the Lord (Isa 11.2).¹² With the exception of “might,” Ben Sira ascribes all of these qualities to the ideal sage. With respect to the “great spirit” possessed by Isaiah in Ben Sira, then, I disagree with John Levison, who contends that this verse speaks about Isaiah’s spirit and not a divine one.¹³ Two points militate against his position. First, the Greek and Hebrew do not specify that this is Isaiah’s spirit. The word is anarthrous in both 48.24 (in both Hebrew and Greek) and 39.6, which are the only two cases in Ben Sira where a non-human spirit might be intended.¹⁴ Second, that 48.24 has Isa 11.2 in the background suggests that Ben Sira’s “great spirit” is the “spirit of the Lord” as in the passage from Isaiah. In fact, the Hebrew of 48.24 in Ms B reads ‫רוח גבורה‬, the same combination of terms as the MT of Isa 11.2. (The Greek of Sirach does not reflect the Old Greek of Isaiah.) These considerations make it likely that with respect to Isaiah, Ben Sira has a divine spirit in mind and not Isaiah’s human spirit. To sum up the relevance of these texts to 39.6, then, 48.24 portrays a spirit, in a manner similar to the case of Elisha, coming from outside of the prophet, which fills him. This spirit, unlike Elijah’s, however, is divine, it is “mighty/

 I have adapted my NETS translation here, since the Greek, following the Hebrew, does not specify “his,” that is, Isaiah’s spirit, but simply says “a great spirit.”  Marböck, “Der schriftgelehrte Weise,” 308 connects Isa 11.2 with 39.6 – 8, but he does not refer to Ben Sira’s statements about Isaiah in this regard.  Levison (Filled, 124) writes, “Most stunning of all, Ben Sira does not incorporate the language of inspiration in his description of Isaiah, who, ‘By his great spirit saw the future, and comforted the mourners in Zion’ (48:24). It was not the spirit of the Lord, understood as a charismatic endowment, that enabled Isaiah to see the future and to comfort mourners in Zion but the majesty of his own spirit.”  The Greek of 39.6, at least, parallels the anarthrous noun in the Greek and Hebrew of 48.24. As I noted, no Hebrew has survived for 39.6. The Syriac reads “the spirit of understanding,” which, if translating a Hebrew consonantal text, might or might not reflect accurately its Vorlage.

154

Benjamin G. Wright III

great,” and it endows the prophet with, among other things, counsel and knowledge, both of which are endowments of the sage in 39.7, who is filled with a “spirit of understanding” (cf. Isa 11.2 for “understanding” [‫בינה‬/σύνεσις] as a prophetic endowment). It seems likely, then, that the “spirit of understanding” that fills Ben Sira’s sage is a divine spirit that endows the sage with qualities very much like those attributed to those that the spirit confers on Isaiah, both in Ben Sira and in the MT. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that in 39.6 Ben Sira positions the sage as in some way analogous to the biblical prophets in which his “spirit of understanding” acts as the genesis of the sage’s inspired teaching.¹⁵

3 Ben Sira and the Prophets If we read 39.6 and consider the activity of the sage in the context of what Ben Sira says about the prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah, we might ask if there are other indications in the text that point to Ben Sira constructing a relationship between the sage and the prophets. This evidence is mixed and ultimately, in my view, ambiguous. The critical text in this regard is 24.32– 34, which comes at the end of Ben Sira’s famous water metaphor of the sage’s connection to Wisdom. 24.32 Still I will again make education enlighten like dawn, and I will shine them forth to far off.¹⁶ 24.33 Still I will again pour out teaching like prophecy (ἔτι διδασκαλίαν ὡς προφητείαν ἐκχέω), and I will leave it behind for generations of eternity. 24.34 See that I have not toiled for myself alone But for all who seek it out.

As with so many other critical passages in Ben Sira, no Hebrew has survived for this one. In Greek the most important phrase is “like prophecy” (ὡς προφητείαν). The Syriac has “in prophecy” ( ), which suggests that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek and Syriac had either an initial kaph or beth, which either the translator of the Greek or Syriac misread. This ambiguity complicates considerably how to understand the verse. If we read with the Greek, we also are con-

 I hesitate to call this spirit the Holy Spirit, since that is a different issue in my estimation, one that cannot be adequately resolved for Ben Sira given his modest references to a “spirit” that God endows on the sage or a prophet. On Ben Sira as standing in the line of prophets, see Perdue, “Ben Sira and the Prophets” and Wright, “Conflicted Boundaries.”  I give here my NETS translation. The antecedent of the Greek neuter plural pronoun αὐτά is unclear.

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

155

fronted with the interpretive difficulty of whether to construe ὡς in its comparative sense of “like” or in its more equalizing sense of “as.”¹⁷ In the former sense, Ben Sira’s teaching is being compared to prophecy. In the latter sense, the meaning comes closer to the Syriac, where Ben Sira frames his teaching as a kind of prophetic utterance. These two different ways of reading 24.33 are exemplified by Leo Perdue, Pancratius Beentjes, and Helge Stadelmann, who draw opposite conclusions from the verse. On the more positive side, Perdue concludes that by comparing his teaching to prophecy Ben Sira claims that the sage inherited the inspiration granted to the prophets of old.¹⁸ By contrast, in his detailed study, Helge Stadelmann argues that, based on the parallel phrase “like the dawn” in verse 32, verse 33 does not identify his teaching as prophecy but only compares it with prophecy.¹⁹ Beentjes, like Stadelmann and on the basis of the same text and the same comparison, emphasizes that Ben Sira did not identify himself with the prophets nor did he include himself among their ranks.²⁰ All three scholars, however, ultimately rely on the Greek text for their interpretations, which as I noted has its own ambiguities. The Syriac in verses 32 and 33 has the preposition beth in both phrases, (“in the dawn” in v. 32) and (“in prophecy” in v. 33), which points back to the potential ambiguity that I highlighted above about how the translators read the Hebrew. Given these several uncertainties and with no Hebrew extant, I am not convinced that 24.33 on its own can be decisive as an indicator of Ben Sira’s self-perception in the way that these three scholars have tried to make it.²¹ Some other pieces of evidence are relevant to thinking about Ben Sira’s relationship to the prophets. As far back as 1914, W. Baumgartner showed that Ben

 Wright, “Conflicted Boundaries,” 236.  Perdue, “Ben Sira and the Prophets,” 136 – 37.  Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 259. He looks to the priesthood as a more likely background for Ben Sira’s claims (259 – 60).  Pancratius C Beentjes, “Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Ben Sira,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 427 (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 135– 50, here 149.  For a review of the scholarship on this verse and its implications, see Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 177– 88. Martin Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism, transl. John Bowden, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], 1.134) notes two “tendencies” in Ben Sira: the wisdom teacher who is immersed in the sapiential tradition and the one who “goes beyond that of a mere tradent and assumes prophetic features.” Hengel gives these texts a very political reading, which I think over interprets the text.

156

Benjamin G. Wright III

Sira employed some prophetic forms in his book.²² So, for example, in 2.12– 14 and 41.8 – 9, we find the prophetic “Woe” form.²³ Randal Argall has shown that in chapter 36, Ben Sira adapts the Divine Warrior motif from the prophetic visions in Second and Third Isaiah.²⁴ Of course, the use of prophetic forms and motifs does not in and of itself demonstrate that Ben Sira thought of himself as standing in the line of the prophets. It does, however, add circumstantial evidence to that of the spirit in the prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah that Ben Sira saw the ideal sage as he constructed him in chapter 39 as having some relationship to the prophets. One final piece of evidence that will also form a segue to a discussion of the inspiration of the sage is the relationship between the sage and Wisdom. I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of this relationship as it bears on any possible relationship between Ben Sira and the prophets. As a general rule, the prophets were the recipients of divine speech, which they communicated to others. If Ben Sira were to see himself as related to the prophets, we would expect him to be the recipient of some form of divine speech as well. I think that indeed we can see an analogous idea in Ben Sira. When Joshua gets introduced in Sir 46.1, the Hebrew of Ms B describes him as the “attendant/servant of Moses in the prophetic office (‫ ”)משרת משה בנבואה‬and in Greek as “the successor of Moses in prophecies (διάδοχος Μωυσῆ ἐν προφητείαις).”²⁵ Although Ben Sira does not call Moses a prophet in 44.23 f–45.5, the idea that Joshua is his “attendant”/“successor” implies a prophetic line of succession that extends back to Moses, who had direct, face-to-face encounters with God (see Exod 33.11; Deut 34.10).²⁶ If we look at chapter 24 in this light, then, we see two ways that Moses’s prophetic office informs the text. First, at the very beginning of her speech, Wisdom identifies herself as God’s speech: “I came forth from the mouth of the Most

 W. Baumgartner, “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach,” ZAW 34 (1914): 161– 98. On the prophetic forms, see 186 – 89.  Baumgartner, “Gattungen,” 188. See also Randal A. Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment, SBLEJL 8 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 235 – 39.  Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 219 – 20. On the originality of 36.1– 22, see Greg Schmidt Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel, JSJSup 139 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 198 – 201.  Beentjes (“Prophets and Prophey,” 140) argues cogently that the Hebrew ‫ נבואה‬indicates an office. See also, Burton Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers, CSHJ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 205 – 6. For more detailed discussion of Joshua in this respect, see Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 189 – 92; Beentjes, “Prophets and Prophecy,” 139 – 40; and Perdue, “Ben Sira and the Prophets,” 143 – 44.  Perdue, “Ben Sira and the Prophets,” 143 – 44.

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

157

High, and I covered the earth like a mist” (24.2). From there, God commands Wisdom to pitch her tent in Israel (24.8), where she ministers in the Temple (24.10). Finally, in verse 23, Wisdom becomes embodied in the Torah: “All these things are the book of the covenant of the Most High God, a law that Moses commanded us, an inheritance for the gatherings of Jacob” (NETS adapted). Second, at the same time that Wisdom is divine speech, her embodiment in the “book of the covenant of the Most High God” conveys the divine word to those, like Ben Sira, who are able to interpret that divine speech, to acquire Wisdom and thus the divine message, and to communicate it to others.²⁷ In this way, our sage functions in an analogous way to the prophets whom he lauds in the Praise of the Ancestors, even if he does not perform miracles or foretell events as some of them did.²⁸ What the sage does have is the inspiration of the prophets through “a spirit of understanding” that results in revelation, although the mechanism for acquiring that revelation differs markedly from his prophetic predecessors.

4 The Nature of Scribal Inspiration/Revelation in Ben Sira Almost all interpreters of Ben Sira take 24.33 and 39.6 as statements about the inspiration of the sage. Even though, in contrast to Perdue, Stadelmann and Beentjes do not think that Ben Sira believed himself to be in the line of prophets, both accept that Ben Sira is claiming some kind of inspired status for his teaching. Beentjes says that Ben Sira considered himself “as a kind of inspired mediator,” and Stadelmann thinks that Ben Sira distinguishes between two kinds of scribes, a “regular” scribe, who is described in 38.34c – 39.5, and the ideal “inspired” scribe of 39.6 – 8.²⁹ Levison, however, is one of the notable outliers vis-à-

 Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 54– 55 compares Sir 24.1– 12 with narratives of a prophetic call, and he concludes that Ben Sira participates “in an inspired process that is prophetic in origin and result.” See also, Martti Nissinen, “Wisdom as Mediatrix in Sirach 24: Ben Sira, Love Lyrics, and Prophecy,” in Of God(s), Trees, Kings and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola, ed. M. Luuko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila, StOr 106 (Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2009), 377– 90.  Perdue (“Ben Sira and the Prophets,” 153) argues that Ben Sira described the prophetic miracles “in order to compete with those wandering wonder-workers who claimed the power to heal, protect from demons, and raise the dead. Israel’s prophets had such powers.”  Beentjes, “Prophets and Prophecy,” 149; Stadelmann, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter, 217– 18 (see the longer discussion in chap. 4). See also Liesen’s critique of Stadelmann’s distinction from the point of view of poetic and strophic analysis (Full of Praise, 64).

158

Benjamin G. Wright III

vis any claim to inspiration in Ben Sira. In a nutshell, he maintains that in 39.6 there is no charismatic endowment through some “moment of inspiration,” but rather the scribal task is laborious commitment to study.³⁰ I think, however, that Levison sets up something of a false dichotomy between (1) momentary and charismatic inspiration by a “spirit of understanding” and (2) the scribal vocation of study and long-term pursuit of Wisdom. The key issue, as I see it, is the mechanism and character of inspiration. Whether Ben Sira understood himself to be the heir of the prophets or not, I think that he claims for his scribal teaching an inspired status. Granted, for Ben Sira inspiration and revelation come through the very scribal activities that Levison describes, but in my view, Ben Sira represents the sage, who becomes filled with the spirit of 39.6, analogously (at the least) with the prophets, as inspired. A number of passages in Sirach combine to reinforce this conclusion.³¹ Perhaps the strongest evidence is found in the intertextual connections between chapters 24 and 39. Sir 24.33, where Ben Sira connects his teaching to prophecy, is the culmination of the entirety of chapter 24, but especially of verses 30 – 32. After Wisdom proceeds out of God’s mouth and is sent to dwell in Israel and the temple (vv. 1– 12), she compares herself first to spices that are used in the temple sacrificial cult (vv. 13 – 17) and to food and drink offered to those who would become wise (vv. 19 – 22). Then comes the pivotal verse 23 where Wisdom is embodied in the Torah, which then gets compared to four rivers (vv. 25 – 27).³² Verses 28 – 31 contextualize verses 32– 34 (cited above): 24.28 The first man did not complete knowing her [i. e., Wisdom],³³ and so the last one did not track her out; 24.29 For her thought was filled from the sea, and her counsel from the great abyss. 24.30 And I, like a canal from a river and a water channel, issued forth into an orchard. 24.31 I said, “I will water my garden, and I will drench my flower bed.”

 Levison, Filled, 119.  Some of the following argument is a condensed version of Wright, “Conflicted Boundaries.”  I do not include v. 24 here, since it belongs to GII.  The feminine singular pronoun αὐτήν in v. 27a could refer either to the feminine nouns βίβλος in v. 23 or σοφία, who is the subject of chap. 24 more generally. It cannot refer to νόμος, which is masculine. Most commentators take it to refer to Wisdom, primarily because of the reference to the “first man” (i. e., Adam) to whom the “book of the covenant” had not yet been revealed. The Syriac of 24.28, presumably resolving an ambiguous text in the Hebrew Vorlage, explicitly refers to Wisdom as the subject of the verse.

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

159

And look! The canal turned into a river for me, and my river turned into a sea.

Ben Sira develops this elaborate water metaphor in order to claim a direct connection to Wisdom, the embodiment of divine speech, which he has already established is present in the “book of the covenant” of verse 23. If we read 24.28 – 34 together with 39.6 – 8, we see some important verbal overlaps.³⁴ In 24.25 – 27 and 29, with respect to the rivers and the sea, the Greek employs the language of filling. Moreover in 24.19, Wisdom calls, “Come to me you who desire me and from my produce be filled.” Of course, the sage of 39.6, if God is willing, is filled with a spirit. In 24.33, Ben Sira will “pour out” his teaching like prophecy, where the Greek employs the verb ἐκχέω. In 39.6 the sage will “pour forth words of his own,” where the Greek has the roughly synonymous verb ἀνομβρέω.³⁵ This connection to Wisdom does not come to the sage in a flash of charismatic insight. In this Levison is correct. Acquiring Wisdom is a laborious process that the sage must pursue single-mindedly. Nevertheless, the process culminates in inspiration/revelation in which Wisdom comes to the sage. In 4.17– 18, Ben Sira encapsulates the discipline that Wisdom visits on those who seek her, but also the rewards: “But in disguise I will walk with him, and I will try him with trials. And at the time when he fills his heart with me, I will return and guide him, and I will reveal (ἀποκαλύψει; ‫גליתי‬, Ms A) to him my secrets (κρυπτά; ‫)מסתרי‬.”³⁶ The revelatory activity of Wisdom with the sage in chapter 4 parallels in significant ways God’s revelatory activity in 42.18 – 19, which comes toward the beginning of Ben Sira’s praise of God’s works in creation (43.15 – 43.33): “The abyss and the heart he [i. e., God] searches, and their subtleties he understands, for the Most High knows (all) knowledge, and he looks into the signs of the age, making known (ἀπαγγέλλων; ‫ )מחוה‬things that are past (τὰ παρεληλυθότα;

 See also the comparison between these two chapters in Liesen, Full of Praise, 172– 74. In this analysis, I am relying primarily on the Greek text. The Syriac for 39.6 – 8 differs quite a bit from the Greek.  These two Greek verbs tend to render different, though lexically overlapping, Hebrew roots: ἐκχέω tends to render ‫( שפך‬although not in every case), while ἀνομβρέω and its related form ἐξομβρέω usually translate ‫נבע‬. For a detailed discussion of ἀνομβρέω in Ben Sira, see Liesen, Full of Praise, 66 – 71.  The translation is based on Ms A. The Greek has a longer text, which differs from the Hebrew by referring to Wisdom in the third person rather than have Wisdom speaking in the first person: “Because at first she will travel with him though he twist and turn; fear and dread she will being upon him, and she will torment him with her training until she has faith in his soul, and she will test him with her statutes. And again she will return straight back to him and will reveal to him her secrets.” For my purposes here, the point is practically the same.

160

Benjamin G. Wright III

‫ )חליפות‬and things that will be (τὰ ἐσόμενα; ‫ )נהיות‬and revealing (ἀποκαλύπτων; ‫ )מגלה‬the track of things that are hidden (ἀποκρύφων; ‫)נסתרות‬.”³⁷ Ben Sira does not claim to have insight into all of the matters outlined in these verses. Yet, within the poem on creation, the ‫ נסתרות‬likely refer to secrets of creation, a number of which Ben Sira does claim to understand, even if he realizes that much more lies hidden from him (43.32). Elsewhere, in 48.25, the same Hebrew word refers to things that Isaiah saw and clearly indicates eschatological realities. These uses point back to Sir 3.21– 24 in which Ben Sira counsels his students not to investigate nor research secret things (τῶν κρυπτῶν; ‫ נסתרות‬Ms A), since “things that are greater than you have been shown to you” (3.23).³⁸ In these verses, Ben Sira warns his students about speculation into things that are “too marvelous” for them. His caution seems directed at their inexperience and inability at this stage of their lives to fathom these things. As James Aitken notes, Ben Sira, by virtue of the fact that he has the requisite experience and has a connection to Wisdom (cf. 24.32– 33) was more able to understand these matters: “As he [i. e., Ben Sira] presumably saw himself as a true disciple of Wisdom, he would expect Wisdom to reveal her ‘secrets’ to him (cf. 4.18).”³⁹ Ben Sira’s students had yet to experience the transformation from desiring the acquisition of Wisdom to becoming sages who had actualized that desire, and so they were not equipped at that time of their lives for such knowledge. That Ben Sira thinks the mature sage to be the (potential) recipient of divine inspiration/revelation seems clear enough. It remains to investigate how this inspiration works. For Ben Sira, the prospective sage has three primary sources of wisdom: instruction in the tradition of the sages; observation of the created order; and study of the Israelite literary heritage.⁴⁰ For Ben Sira, inspiration or revelation by/of Wisdom is available in each. First, in 6.18 – 37, he encourages his students to pursue education in three sections. In verses 18 – 22, he exhorts them to value education, which will benefit them until they are old. Wisdom can be harsh, he says, but “like one who plows and reaps, draw near to her, and wait for her plentiful harvest; for you will work in her service for a little

 The translation is based on the Hebrew as preserved in the Masada manuscript  One these verses, see especially my article “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood,” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint, ed. Benjamin G. Wright III, JSJSup 131 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 97– 126 and James K. Aitken, “Apocalyptic, Revelation and Early Jewish Wisdom Literature,” in New Heaven and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millennium, ed. Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward, VTSup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 181– 93, esp. 188 – 91.  Aitken, “Apocalyptic,” 190.  On these sources, see Wright, “Conflicted Boundaries,” 230 – 35.

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

161

bit, and tomorrow you will eat of her produce” (6.19).⁴¹ This verse anticipates Wisdom’s own call to those who would seek her in chapter 24.19 – 21, where she calls to those who desire her to be filled from her produce, a passage that culminates in Ben Sira’s comparison of his teaching to prophecy. In the second section (vv. 23 – 31), Ben Sira admonishes his students to accept his counsel and to submit to the difficult discipline of Wisdom.⁴² In the end, by submitting to her, she will be turned into joy for his students (v. 28). Ben Sira describes the student who persists in Wisdom’s discipline as wearing garments that allude to both royalty and priesthood. In the third section (vv. 32– 37), Ben Sira provides the means by which his students can cultivate Wisdom and then eat of her produce: attending to the instruction of the sages, presumably those who have already achieved what his students desire. If they listen, cling to the wisdom of the sages, listen to every “godly discourse,” wear out the sages’ doorsteps, and think on God’s commandments, “he [i. e., God] will know your heart, and whoever desires, that one will become wise” (Ms A). It is tempting to see this concluding sentence in relation to Ben Sira’s claim in 42.18 that God, who searches hearts and knows everything, reveals secrets. We can say, however, that in this section Ben Sira does connect education and the often trying discipline of Wisdom to other passages that have a clearer connection to the inspiration of the sage and to divine revelation. The second source of Wisdom is creation. We have already seen that in his praise of the works of creation, Ben Sira sees the created order as a potential source of revelation. Jordan Schmidt notes how Ben Sira connects God’s encompassing knowledge in 42.18 – 21 with the sage’s reception of revelation from creation: One mode of God’s knowledge is described in v. 18d as his looking (‫ )נבט‬on the eternal signs, and in v. 19 God is depicted as declaring (‫ )חוה‬his knowledge of the past and future events, which issues in the revelation (‫ )גלה‬of secrets. Ben Sira’s activity (as well as that of the angels in v. 17), for its part, parallels God’s in some limited sense since he too looks (‫ )חזה‬on the created world and repeats (‫ )שנן‬what he has seen (42:15; cf. also 15:18; 16:24– 25; 24:332– 33; 39:12– 15, 32– 35; 43:11, 28, 32– 33), and hopefully his doing this will result in the revelation of wisdom to his students.⁴³

Indeed, as I noted above, in the praise of creation, Ben Sira goes on to describe some of the “secrets” of how creation works so marvelously. Observation of cre-

 The translation is based on Hebrew of Mss A and C. The Greek differs in only minor ways.  These verses are partially extant in Hebrew in 2Q18 (fragmentary) and in Mss A and C.  Schmidt, Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus, 169.

162

Benjamin G. Wright III

ation by the wise reveals, among other things, its orderliness and God’s glory. Indeed the poem is bracketed with testimonies to Ben Sira’s, albeit limited, knowledge that yet undoubtedly surpasses that of his students: “I will indeed recall the works of God and what I have seen I will tell (42.15; Mas)…Many things are more marvelous and mighty than these; only a few of his works have I seen (Ms B). For the Lord made all things, and to the pious he gave wisdom (Gr)” (43.32– 33).⁴⁴ With respect to inspiration/revelation, then, the close observation of creation through the lens of Wisdom brings revealed knowledge to the sage. The third source of wisdom for Ben Sira is the literary heritage of Israel.⁴⁵ By the time of Ben Sira in the Second Temple period, the sages had begun to possess and to interpret a corpus of literary texts that had been passed down from earlier times, what we can call Torah.⁴⁶ Just as the tradition of the sages and creation already held importance as foundations for knowledge, these texts became indispensable objects of sapiential study as well. Ben Sira outlines the sage’s activity in 38.34c – 39.3 (cited above). The sage will devote himself to consideration of “the law of the Most High,” “will seek out the wisdom of the ancients,” will concern himself with “prophecies,” etc. Of the sage’s objects of study, things like prophecies, parables, and proverbs have an enigmatic character, which the sage must penetrate in order to explain them. Indeed, Beentjes has argued that the poetic parallelism, which characterizes the poetry in 39.1– 5, essentially equates “the wisdom of all the ancients” with “prophecies” in 39.1. Thus, “[t]he first colon of 39:1 preserves the identification of Wisdom and Torah, whereas the second colon of 39:1 deliberately uses prophecies. In this way, the revelatory aspect of tradition is explicitly emphasized: the sofēr examines prophecy as interpretation of Torah.”⁴⁷ Ben Sira does not, however, as we learn in 39.6, come to this inter-

 Sir 42.15 is fully extant in the Masada manuscript, whereas 43.32 is only in Ms B in Hebrew. Sir 43.33 is very fragmentary in Ms B, and thus I rely on the Greek for that verse.  I use the phrase “literary heritage” as a way of describing those literary works that Ben Sira thought to be authoritative. Exactly what his “canon” (if he had one) looked like is not clear, and the form in which he received these texts is not always certain either. He certainly knew texts and traditions now included in the Hebrew Bible, probably the Pentateuch and some prophetic works, but which specific texts, what form they had, and what kind of authority they possessed for him do not always emerge with clarity from his book. For a discussion of the Jewish literary imagination and the problems of talking about “books” like Ben Sira, see Eva Mroczek, The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).  Here I refer primarily to what we now know as the Pentateuch. For more detail, see my article, “Torah and Sapiential Pedagogy in the Book of Ben Sira, in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter, JSJSup 163 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 157– 86.  Beentjes, “Prophets and Prophecy,” 147.

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

163

pretive knowledge passively. Engaging in these activities leads to Ben Sira’s statement about the sage’s travels and experience of “the good and bad things in people” (39.4). Although they at first might not seem directly connected, 39.5 and 6 both refer to what comes out of the sage’s mouth, in 39.5 prayer, here confession of sin, and in 39.6 “words of his wisdom.”⁴⁸ In between, he is filled with the “spirit of understanding,” if God wills it. The sage then will “illuminate (ἐκφανεῖ) the instruction of his teaching, and in the law of the Lord’s covenant he will boast” (v. 8). Here again we see a dense series of connections with chapter 24. The vocabulary of illuminating in 39.8 recalls that of 24.32 about shining (φωτίζω) or illuminating (ἐκφαίνω), and the “law of the Lord’s covenant” of 39.8 reminds one of the “covenant of the Most High God” in 24.23. The result is that the sage will leave a name for future generations, and his wisdom will not disappear (39.9 – 11//24.33). What follows in Sir 39.12– 15 forms a segue between the praise of the scribe and a short praise of God’s works in 39.16 – 21. In this strophe, Ben Sira again refers to himself as being filled, although the Greek here has the verb πληρόω rather than ἐμπίμπλημι of 39.6. He then addresses his students as sons in verses 13 – 14, encouraging them to listen to him so that they will “blossom,” employing language reminiscent of Wisdom in 24.14– 17.⁴⁹ The process outlined in 38.34c–39.11 positions the sage who is filled with a “spirit of understanding” at the center of the transmission of divine knowledge. This knowledge is inspired and comes from revelation via the “spirit of understanding,” but achieving that knowledge begins with a preparatory process in which the sage “thinks,” “seeks,” “is occupied with,” “preserves,” “penetrates,” “seeks out,” and “is engaged in” the traditions that have come down to him. Only when he devotes his heart to God and confesses sins might God fill him with the “spirit of understanding,” and only then can he pour forth words of instruction that are analogous to prophecy and that shine forth and illuminate. Katri Antin argues that all the traditional elements indicating the transmission

 Liesen (Full of Praise, 63), for example, notes the start of a new strophe in v. 6 and consequently, he argues that vv. 5 and 6 are not closely related: “It is not that the being filled with a spirit of understanding (39,6b) is a direct answer to the prayer of 39.5e, for that prayer was about sins.” Of course, the Greek of 39.6 ends with the sage’s prayer, whereas the Syriac has the sage praised for his thoughts.  On Ben Sira’s construction of his students as sons, see Benjamin G. Wright, “From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael Knibb, ed. Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu, JSJSup 111 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 309 – 32 and “Ben Sira on the Sage as Exemplar,” in Wright, Praise Israel, 165 – 82. For detailed discussion of 39.12– 15, see Liesen, Full of Praise, 114– 43.

164

Benjamin G. Wright III

of divine knowledge are present in Ben Sira 24, which bears on how we interpret chapter 39: “One can…observe from an etic perspective that all the elements required for the transmission of divine knowledge to take place (i. e., divine source, human mediator, and recipients) can be found in Sirach 24. Furthermore, Ben Sira depicts himself as transmitting divine knowledge…to the people of Israel. The description of the transmission of divine knowledge incudes features that can also be found in ancient Near Eastern prophecy…Additionally, Ben Sira teaches that wisdom cannot be gained by simply meditating on the sapiential tradition, the created order, and Israel’s literary heritage, but both God and Wisdom are described “revealing” (‫ )גלה‬knowledge (4:18; 42:19). In Sirach 39, Ben Sira summarizes the mediation of divine knowledge as a three-stage process: (1) a sage must acquire wisdom, pray and be obedient to God (39:1– 5); (2) however, God is the ultimate source of wisdom, and therefore, an ideal sage is also a recipient of divine revelation, as God fills him with “a spirit of understanding” (πνεύματι συνέσεως); (3) in response, a sage should teach others and give thanks to God in prayer.⁵⁰

5 Conclusions While it might seem in a cursory reading that the spirit does not play a significant role in the book of Ben Sira, its occurrence in 39.6 locates it in the center of the stage. Ben Sira’s “spirit of understanding” has affinities with both the human spirit of prophecy that gets transmitted from Elijah to Elisha in 48.12 and the “great spirit” of Isaiah in 48.24 that draws its inspiration from Isa 11.2– 3. Thus, the “spirit of understanding” that God grants the ideal sage is a spirit of prophecy, and, since it is not transferred from another human being, it is a divine spirit. In 38.34c–39.8, Ben Sira combines the scribal/sapiential task of devotion to the study of the tradition with receiving divine speech (i. e., Wisdom) and with prophetic insight into the interpretation of that tradition, which amounts to divine knowledge. If we read chapter 39 within the frame of what Ben Sira says about the nature of Wisdom and his connection to her in chapter 24, then we can conclude that this “spirit of understanding” is none other than Wisdom herself. She comes forth from the mouth of God, and she speaks in the divine council. She is the word of God, and she comes to the sage who is prepared to receive her. She does not come to the sage in the manner of ancient prophets, however,

 Katri Antin, “Transmission of Divine Knowledge in the Sapiential Thanksgiving Psalms from Qumran” (PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2019), 21– 22. Here she relies on the Greek text rather than the Syriac.

Spirit and Inspiration in the Wisdom of Ben Sira

165

that is, in the form of miracles and predictions. She comes to the sage in the form of inspired interpretation that he subsequently speaks to others. In 39.6, then, where Ben Sira speaks of a “spirit of understanding” rather than Wisdom, he cements the connection of the sage to the ancient prophets, while at the same time he reconceives how inspiration works. In “pouring forth words of his wisdom,” the sage acts in an analogous way to the prophets, activity that becomes even clearer in the allusion to prophetic activity in 39.7: “He will direct counsel and knowledge, and his [i. e., God’s] hidden things he will ponder.”⁵¹ This appeal to prophetic activity on the part of the sage accomplishes at least two goals for Ben Sira, it seems to me. First, it confers authority on his interpretations of the tradition. Although they are his “words of wisdom,” Ben Sira’s interpretations and teaching originate with Wisdom, who proceeds from God’s own mouth. Such a claim to authority certainly would have an important pedagogical function. I can only imagine the response of my own undergraduates if I were to say that my instruction comes to them as divine knowledge derived from inspiration, but this seems to be exactly what Ben Sira is saying to his own “sons” (and even to us as we read his book two millennia later).⁵² Second, the transmission of such inspired knowledge assures that his name will be remembered. It cannot be accidental that 39.9 – 11 concludes the section on the ideal scribe— who, of course, is Ben Sira himself—in which his name “will live for generation of generations…If he abides, he will leave behind a name greater than a thousand, and if he rests, it will be favorable for him.” This language resonates with that of 44.1– 16, the introduction to the Praise of the Ancestors. Ben Sira and other sages like him belong in the company of those included in the Praise. By making such an argument, he, as one who receives divine inspiration, stakes a claim for his inclusion among Israel’s luminaries, a claim that, on the basis of the survival of his book, seems to have succeeded.

 In this reconception of the sage’s role, Ben Sira was not alone in the Second Temple period. We can see similar processes at work, for example, in the sapiential hymns among the Hodayot from Qumran. See Antin, “Transmission of Divine Knowledge” on these hymns.  On the way that an ancient text can “recruit” readers both ancient and modern, see Carol Newsom, “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1– 9,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, ed. P. L. Day (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 142– 60. For Second Temple texts, see Wright, “From Generation to Generation.”

Cornelis Bennema

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings 1 Introduction The aim of this study is to examine the Gospel and Letters of John regarding the role of the Spirit in interpretation.¹ While scholarship has generally recognized that texts such as 14:26 and 16:12– 15 assign a hermeneutical role to the Spirit, a more detailed and systematic treatment is lacking.² I will argue that John understands the hermeneutical role of the Spirit primarily in terms of the Spirit’s cognitive, didactic and mnemonic functions in which mimesis proves to be an important mechanism to convey and preserve divine truth. I make my case by applying a basic linear communication model to the Johannine writings:³

This communication model applies to the Johannine writings in two steps. First, Jesus communicates his message to audiences that include John. Second, John communicates his message about Jesus in the written form of his Gospel and Letters to a late first-century audience. We will learn that on each occasion the Spirit has a key role in encoding and decoding the message. While I will explore Jesus’ Cornelis Bennema is Senior Lecturer in New Testament Studies at London School of Theology, UK and Extraordinary Researcher in the Unit for Reformational Theology and Development of the South African Society, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, South Africa.  The use of ‘John’ for the author(s) of the Johannine writings is not an assertion about a particular historical identity. The similarities in language, syntax, style and thought between the Gospel and Letters warrant an examination of both writings. References to chapter and verse only, come from John’s Gospel.  Craig S. Keener’s comprehensive work on Spirit hermeneutics, for example, has remarkably little to say on the Johannine writings (Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in Light of Pentecost [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016]).  See, for example, Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1963); Ronald B. Adler and Neil Towne, Looking Out, Looking In: Interpersonal Communication, 10th edn (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001 [orig. 1978]). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-013

170

Cornelis Bennema

speech and its need for interpretation, Jesus’ communication includes his actions, which also need interpretation (see, e. g., 6:14– 15; 13:7, 12). Hence, Jesus’ communication refers, more accurately, to his speech–acts, that is to his words and actions.⁴ Although I will focus on the Spirit’s hermeneutical role in relation to Jesus’ spoken and John’s written words, the latter includes both Jesus’ words and actions, so the Spirit’s work will naturally include the interpretation of Jesus’ actions. In contradistinction to hermeneutical approaches that prioritize either author or reader, I contend that both have equal, vital roles. The author initiates the communication and hence probing the author’s intended meaning is natural and crucial. The passing of John, the author, does not nullify this quest because his intended meaning is embedded in the text. At the same time, reading a text is an interpretative or decoding activity, so the reader always ascribes meaning. However, if we accept that the author’s intent matters, the reader’s task is to reconstruct as best as possible this intended meaning from the text.⁵ I must explain the use of the main participants ‘Jesus’ and ‘John’ in this communication model. While a good case can be made that the author of John’s Gospel is the beloved disciple (21:24), his identity is less clear. The most likely candidates are John of Zebedee or John the Elder.⁶ For the sake of convenience, I will use the term ‘John’ to refer to the person who received Jesus’ message and wrote the Gospel and Letters. ‘Jesus’ refers to the Johannine Jesus; the Jesus as he is remembered and presented by John in his writings. I will not discuss the extent to which the Johannine Jesus corresponds to the historical Jesus. I take John’s self-attestation to the reliability of his eyewitness account (19:35; see also

 I thank Volker Rabens (YMCA University of Applied Sciences, Germany) for drawing this to my attention.  For an informed discussion, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998). In this study, I refer to the reading of the Johannine text in community, so an approach such as ‘I own the text and read it as I want’ does not work. In the public sphere, speakers often complain about being misrepresented or their words being taken out of context in news reports, and similarly, scholars would protest when reviewers or peers misinterpret their publications.  For John of Zebedee as the author, see Daniel F. Stramara, “The Chiastic Key to the Identity of the Beloved Disciple,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 53 (2009): 5 – 27; Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John, 2nd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 309 – 13. For John the Elder as the author, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), chs 16 – 17. For an extensive overview of suggestions, see James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 127– 224.

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

171

1 John 1:1– 4) and the community that vouches for it (21:24) to mean that John preserved the ipsissima vox Jesu rather than the ipsissima verba Jesu. In other words, the Johannine text is not a courtroom transcript but a truthful account of what John has remembered about Jesus.⁷

2 Jesus’ Communication In its simplest form, the basic communication model applies to Jesus’ communication as follows:

A closer look at the Johannine text, however, shows that the model should be adapted in two ways: (i) Jesus speaks God’s words; (ii) the Spirit is active in and through Jesus’ words. Consequently, the augmented model would look like this:⁸

 For a detailed defence of the historical reliability of John’s Gospel, see Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Leicester: Apollos, 2001); Cornelis Bennema, “The Historical Reliability of the Gospel of John,” Foundations 67 (2014): 4– 25. Maarten J. J. Menken even argues that John’s Gospel is the product of the Spirit and constitutes a new Holy Scripture; see Menken, “What Authority Does the Fourth Evangelist Claim for His Book?,” in Studies in John’s Gospel and Letters: Collected Essays, ed. Maarten J. J. Menken, CBET 77 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 73 – 90.  John does not depict that God communicates directly to humanity but only indirectly through Jesus’ words (indicated by dotted lines). Once I have established that God is the source of Jesus’ speech, I can ‘drop’ God from the trail (see the diagram in the next section) because this communication is more implicit and the focus is on Jesus’ communication to humanity.

172

Cornelis Bennema

Jesus speaks God’s words. Jesus’ main activity is teaching (6:59; 7:14– 17, 28, 35; 8:2, 20; 18:19 – 20), and he is often identified as a (God-sent) teacher (1:38; 3:2; 8:4; 11:28; 13:13 – 14; 20:16). As a teacher, Jesus speaks the very words of God (3:34). Indeed, Jesus repeatedly claims that he only speaks what the Father tells him (7:16; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49 – 50; 14:24; 15:15; 17:8, 14).⁹ This mimetic dynamic creates congruent speech, so that the Son’s teaching is the Father’s teaching. In addition, Jesus’ words contain liberating, life-giving truth (6:63, 68; 8:31– 32; 12:50; 15:3), where ‘truth’ is Johannine shorthand for the divine reality about God and the world above (see 1:9, 17; 3:33; 8:26, 40; 17:17). In other words, when Jesus speaks God’s words, divine truth is revealed to people. Jesus’ speech needs decoding. Even a cursory look at John’s Gospel shows that people often misunderstand Jesus’ words and reject his message. This is partly to do with people’s condition and partly with the nature of Jesus’ speech. In John’s dualistic worldview, there are two spatial locations or spheres: heaven or the realm above where God resides, and the created world or realm below (e. g. 3:31; 8:23). The created world and its people are enveloped in a cognitive and moral darkness: (i) the dark world rejects the life-giving Light (1:4– 11);¹⁰ (ii) people are ‘from below’—they are not from God and do not know him (8:23, 47, 55); (iii) people are engaged in immoral behaviour and prefer the darkness (3:19 – 20). There is no natural contact between these two realms, except through the one who came from the world above to the world below (3:13, 31). So, while the invisible Father resides in heaven, the visible Son (Jesus) is on earth to reveal the Father and speak his words (1:18; 3:31– 32; 6:46; 8:38). In other words, the divine response to people’s epistemic darkness is the Logos– Light who came into the dark world in the person of Jesus to enlighten people about God (1:4– 5, 9, 18). Jesus’ revelation, however, is far from clear because people misunderstand, struggle to understand or fail to understand it. Jesus’ speech or teaching is open to misunderstanding because it contains literary devices such as double entendre, metaphors, symbolism and irony (see, e. g.,

 For the idea of divine instruction (the Father educating the Son), see Jan G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John, BibInt 47 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 272– 78; Stephen E. Witmer, Divine Instruction in Early Christianity, WUNT II/246 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 95 – 105.  The darkness in 1:5 can be understood, inter alia, as a cognitive darkness because καταλαμβάνειν can mean ‘to overcome, overpower’ or ‘to comprehend, understand’, and arguably both are in view.

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

173

3:3 – 10; 4:10 – 15, 32 – 34; 6:41– 66; 11:11– 14; 13:36 – 38). In short, Jesus’ communication needs decoding.¹¹ The Spirit facilitates Jesus’ speech. While the role of the Spirit as the decoder of Jesus’ speech becomes apparent in the post-Easter period (see the next section), the Spirit is already present during Jesus’ ministry and active in and through Jesus’ words. From the outset, Jesus is endowed with the Spirit who is the means by which Jesus speaks God’s words and makes him known (1:18, 32; 3:34). If Jesus’ anointing with the Spirit in 1:32 alludes to the coming of the Spirit on the Messiah in Isaiah 11:2 (as many scholars concede), then the Spirit is expected to provide Jesus with revelatory wisdom and knowledge to carry out his messianic ministry.¹² This fits with the information in 3:34 that Jesus can speak God’s words because God has given Jesus the Spirit.¹³ The Spirit’s facilitation of Jesus’ speech has two implications for our understanding of the divine communication. First, rather than a pre-incarnational scenario where the Father instructed the Son on exactly what to say on earth, it is more likely that Jesus on earth is in constant communication with his Father in heaven through the Spirit. This corresponds with Jesus’ claim in 1:51 to have continuous open access to heaven (1:51).¹⁴ Similarly, the force of 5:19 – 20 is that the Son continuously does on earth what he sees the Father doing in heaven because the Father continuously shows the Son his works.¹⁵ In 11:41– 42; 12:27– 28 and 17:1– 26, we have concrete examples of the ongoing communication between Jesus and the Father in heaven, showing that during his earthly ministry Jesus was continuously in communication with his Father through the Spirit, and received infor-

 See further Cornelis Bennema, “Christ, the Spirit and the Knowledge of God: A Study in Johannine Epistemology,” in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God, ed. Mary Healy and Robin Parry (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007): 107– 33, here 110 – 116.  Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT II/148 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 163. Although Isa 11:2 has ἀναπαύειν, John’s use of μένειν in 1:32 can be readily explained by his preference for this term.  Most scholars agree that the subject of διδόναι is God rather than Jesus (see the discussion in Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 164– 65).  The present tense of the participles ἀναβαίνοντας and καταβαίνοντας in 1:51 probably denotes that the access to heavenly revelation is an ongoing, current activity.  The present participle ποιοῦντα in 5:19b indicates that the action occurs simultaneously with the action in the main verb, so that Jesus asserts that he can only do ‘what he sees the Father (presently) doing’. Hence, the use of the future tense in 5:20b, ‘He will show him greater works than these (i. e. those in 5:1– 18),’ would indicate the Father’s ongoing unfolding of his plan to the Son, who then actualizes it on earth.

174

Cornelis Bennema

mation about what to speak.¹⁶ The second implication is that Jesus’ speech is more likely a faithful retelling of the Father’s words rather than a verbatim repetition on every occasion. According to 3:34, Jesus can speak God’s words precisely because he has received the Spirit rather than the Father dictating to the Son or the pre-incarnate Son having memorized the Father’s words. Hence, when Jesus passes on what the Father tells him, this is not necessarily the Father’s ipsissima verba but more likely his ipsissima vox—a faithful paraphrasing of the Father’s words. Jesus’ Spirit-filled speech affects people. The Spirit does not only aid Jesus’ speech but also reaches out to people through Jesus’ speech, mediating its truth and enabling people to believe in Jesus and thus have life. In 4:10, 14, Jesus is depicted as the source of ‘living water’ and this expression has four possible referents in Judaism: (i) life or salvation (Isa 12:3; 35:6 – 7; 55:1– 3; Jer 17:13; Zech 14:8); (ii) cleansing or purification (Lev 14:5 – 6; Num 19:17– 19); (iii) the Spirit (Isa 44:3); and (iv) divine teaching (Prov 13:14; 18:4; Isa 11:9). These referents all resonate in John: (i) Jesus is endowed with the Spirit to provide divine teaching (1:32; 3:34); (ii) Jesus’ words are imbued with the Spirit and produce life (6:63); (iii) ‘living water’ is identified as the Spirit in 7:38 – 39; and (iv) Jesus confirms the cleansing properties of his words (15:3; see also 17:17). Combining these four referents, I suggest that ‘living water’ is a metaphor for Jesus’ Spirit-filled words that cleanse and give life to those who understand and accept them.¹⁷ In fact, the Spirit’s role in providing Jesus with knowledge extends to revealing the meaning of Jesus’ teaching to people. Jesus’ condensed claim in 6:63 that the Spirit gives life and that his words are Spirit-and-life very likely means that Jesus’ speech is life-giving when its meaning is understood, which is enabled by the Spirit.¹⁸ Hence, the Spirit has a hermeneutical role already during Jesus’ ministry in aiding people to understand Jesus’ words, although this will become more apparent post-Easter (see below). John the recipient. While we stated earlier that John and the believing community both assert that John’s Gospel is a reliable eyewitness testimony about Jesus, we cannot be certain how John gathered all of Jesus’ communication. Nev-

 Although in 8:26, 28, 38 and 12:49 – 50 the Father’s instruction is expressed by aorist and perfect tenses and Jesus’ telling by present tenses, this simply shows that Jesus’ words come after hearing the Father’s words, but these instances of hearing–speaking probably occur during Jesus’ ministry.  See also Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, AB 29 (2 vols.; London: Chapman, 1971), 1:178 – 79; Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts—Then and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 61– 63; Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 183 – 85.  Turner, Spirit, 66 – 67; Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 202– 204.

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

175

ertheless, I consider the following possibilities. First, while the beloved disciple as the author only comes on the scene in 13:23, he could already have been in view in 1:37 as one of the two unnamed disciples (the other being Andrew).¹⁹ As a former disciple of John the Baptist, he could have witnessed events as early as those in 1:19 – 28. In which case, the beloved disciple was present throughout Jesus’ ministry, from the earliest stages (1:19, 37) to the private meeting (13:23) to the last events (18:15; 19:26 – 27, 35; 20:2; 21:7, 20). Second, while John may not have been a first-hand witness to every communication of Jesus, he would have heard about it later. For example, while John was absent during Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman because he had gone to the town with the other disciples (4:8, 27), he would almost certainly have learned about the conversation during Jesus’ two-day stay (4:40). After the resurrection, it is possible Jesus told the disciples about his trial before Pilate, which took place largely indoors. Although we cannot be certain, it is sufficient for our purpose to accept John’s claim that he was part of a group of eyewitnesses (see the ‘we’ in 1:14 and 1 John 1:1– 4) and that his recorded eyewitness testimony is reliable (19:35; see also the certification of the communal ‘we’ in 21:24). Conclusion. We noted that the Spirit has a twofold hermeneutical role. First, if the Spirit facilitates Jesus’ hearing and speaking the Father’s words and if Jesus’ speech is a faithful retelling of God’s words rather than literal repetition, then the Spirit has a hermeneutical role in the communication process between God and Jesus. Second, while the Spirit is the channel of communication between God and Jesus, we also detect glimpses of the Spirit’s hermeneutical role in helping people to understand Jesus’ communication. The Spirit helps to decode Jesus’ speech to people during Jesus’ earthly ministry, albeit not at the scale that is possible after Easter. Alluding to 3:8, just as we can infer the direction of the wind from its visible effects, so the visible effect of people understanding and accepting Jesus’ message reveals that the Spirit has been at work. In sum, the Spirit’s hermeneutical role is to communicate the divine truth (i) from God to Jesus, enabling Jesus to speak God’s words, and (ii) from Jesus to people, decoding Jesus’ speech and enabling people to understand it.²⁰

 See Brown, Gospel according to John, 1:73; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 391– 92.  Word and Spirit were already closely associated in various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures and Second Temple Jewish literature, in that Spirit-inspired interpretation is the hermeneutical key to unlock the meaning of a sacred text, teaching or vision (David E. Aune, “Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, ed. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993]: 126 – 50; Cornelis Bennema, “The Strands of Wisdom Tradition in Intertestamental Judaism: Origins, Developments and Characteristics,” TynB 52 [2001]: 61– 82, here 65 – 67, 72– 73, 78; Kevin L. Spawn

176

Cornelis Bennema

3 John’s Transition from Receiver to Sender John’s transition from being a receiver of Jesus’ communication in the 30s to the author of his Gospel and Letters in the 80s–90s is appreciable and must have included considerable reflection on what he had seen and heard as an eyewitness during Jesus ministry.²¹ I will argue that the Spirit as a mnemonic and didactic agent facilitated this transition. We can, of course, not be certain of the extent to which John was able to decode Jesus’ message during his time with him. Was John the ideal, perceptive eyewitness even during Jesus’ ministry or did his understanding only develop post-Easter? What we do know is that John in his writings reveals the post-Easter reality of Spirit-enabled remembrance and understanding of Jesus’ teaching. It is safe to conclude that John himself has experienced the hermeneutical role of the Spirit that he outlines in his writings. Consequently, it was the Spirit who facilitated John’s transition from receiver to sender. We will focus on the following part of the communication process:

Memory. As we stated earlier, John’s Gospel is the account about Jesus’ public life and ministry as John observed and remembered it. I suggest that the Spirit assisted John in storing, retrieving and interpreting the data, and to demonstrate this I will look at memory and the Spirit as a mnemonic agent. John’s mnemonic language contains three terms: (i) μνησθῆναι (‘to remember, to recall’; 2:17, 22; 12:16); (ii) μνημονεύειν (‘to remember, to recall’; 15:20; 16:4, 21); (iii) ὑπομιμνῄσκειν (‘to remind, to call to mind’; 14:26; 3 John 10). Regarding the first term, in all three

and Archie T. Wright, eds., Spirit and Scripture: Examining a Pneumatic Hermeneutic [New York: T&T Clark, 2012], esp. the essays by Mark Boda and Archie Wright; Jack Levison, Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 125 – 45).  Most scholars date the Johannine writings in the late first century and many contend that the Gospel was written before the Letters (see the detailed discussion in Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003], 81– 126).

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

177

instances the subject of the middle verb μνησθῆναι is the disciples. In 2:17, the disciples remember Scripture in response to Jesus’ action in the temple, but it is unclear whether the anamnesis occurs at the time of Jesus’ action or later. Next, in a brief exchange where ‘the Jews’ misunderstand Jesus’ claim that he can raise ‘this temple’ in three days if they destroy it (2:18 – 20), John clarifies in an aside that Jesus was foretelling his resurrection (2:21). John reveals, helpfully, that the disciples remembered what Jesus had said after the resurrection, and this anamnesis fostered belief in both the Scripture and Jesus’ words (2:22). We find a similar situation in 12:16. The crowd’s enthusiastic welcome of Jesus alongside Jesus’ decision to ride a donkey rather than a war horse to counter the crowd’s wrong expectations are explained by references to Scripture (12:12 – 15). Subsequently, we learn in 12:16 that the disciples did not understand these things at the time; only after Jesus’ glorification (i. e. after his death, resurrection and ascension) do they remember that these things were written of Jesus (in Scripture) and do they understand this event. These occurrences of μνησθῆναι seem to suggest that the disciples’ anamnesis occurs mainly after Jesus’ earthly ministry and relate specifically to the remembrance of Scripture (about Jesus) or Jesus’ own teaching, effecting understanding and belief.²² The verb μνημονεύειν occurs twice in the literary unit 15:18 – 16:4a where Jesus forewarns his disciples of persecution because of their allegiance to him. He explains that his followers can expect to come up against a similar attitude and behaviour from the world as he did—hate and persecution (15:18 – 20). He asks the disciples in 15:20 to remember (μνημονεύειν) what he said earlier, in 13:16, that ‘servants are not greater than their master’. Then, in 16:4a, Jesus clarifies his reason for warning them of future persecution—that the disciples will remember his words when these events occur. In both cases, remembering Jesus’ warnings about persecution will enable the disciples to understand their trouble and put it in context. At the same time, Jesus encourages his disciples, using the analogy of a woman who forgets her labour pains, saying they too will no longer remember the distress of Jesus’ departure when considering the joy of his return (16:20 – 22). I will examine the third mnemonic term John uses (ὑπομιμνῄσκειν) later in this section because this relates to the Spirit. For now, I conclude that the Johannine concept of memory has two aspects: (i) the subject of remembrance is primarily the Scripture (specifically what it says about Jesus) or Jesus’ own teach John A. Robinson calls this ‘deferred meaning’, that is, meaning that is not explicated when events occur but later, whether through recategorization or elaboration (“Perspective, Meaning, and Remembering,” in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory, ed. David C. Rubin [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995]: 199 – 217, here 201– 202).

178

Cornelis Bennema

ing; and following from this, (ii) remembrance enables understanding and belief.²³ In the following excursus, I will relate John’s concept of memory to contemporary theories of human memory.

Excursus: The Workings of Memory According to the standard dictionaries, memory is the ability of an organism to store, retain and recall information and experiences. There is considerable debate about the accuracy of the storage process (because all events are interpreted through sensory and cognitive processes) and whether the recollection of an event or experience produces an exact version of what was stored or a creative reconstruction of it.²⁴ Cognitive scientists distinguish between individual and social memory. Individual memory can refer to various sub-types of memory, such as personal event memory (memory of events people have personally experienced), factual or semantic memory (memory of facts people have learnt from external sources), and procedural memory (memory of how to do or operate things).²⁵ Social memory refers to the shared or collective memory of a group, and individual memory can become part of social memory (see the use of the first person plural ‘we’ in 1:14 and 1 John 1:1– 4). Contemporary studies have shown that individual memory is not a ‘filing cabinet of stored photographic images of the past’ but more a ‘selective reconstruction of the past’.²⁶ Just as the perception of an event, and hence the creation of a memory, is selective and interpretative, so is the retrieval process.²⁷ In addi Similarly, Larry W. Hurtado notes that Johannine remembrance is more than recollection and includes ‘a new understanding of Jesus’ pre-resurrection sayings and actions’ (“Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. David B. Capes et al. [Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2007]: 195 – 213, here 208).  See further Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, ch. 13.  Eric Eve, Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition (London: SPCK, 2013), 87– 88; Pascal Boyer, “What Are Memories For? Functions of Recall in Cognition and Culture,” in Memory in Mind and Culture, ed. Pascal Boyer and James V. Wertsch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009): 3 – 28, here 4. In the literature, ‘personal (event) memory’ also features as ‘episodic memory’, ‘autobiographical memory’ or ‘recollective memory’ (William F. Brewer, “What Is Recollective Memory?,” in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory, ed. David C. Rubin [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995]: 19 – 66, here 20 – 21, 32).  Eve, Behind the Gospels, 88.  Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 326; Alan Kirk, “Memory Theory: Cultural and Cognitive Approaches to the Gospel Tradition,” in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament, ed. Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris (London: Routledge, 2010): 57– 67, here 58.

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

179

tion, individual memory can prove to be simultaneously reliable and fallible (people can forget, distort or reinterpret past events), and there is, often, an interpretative element in the act of remembering to suit the present situation.²⁸ According to reconstructive theories of memory, recollective memories contain both stable and variable elements. A memory is not encoded, stored or retrieved as a single unit in and from one location in the brain but as various components in different areas of the brain in collaboration with so-called ‘schemata’—patterns that enable the mind to organize data in a usable way. Since these schemata may change over time, the organizing principles used by the mind may cause variation in the recall or reconstruction of a memory, and the purpose for which the memory is recalled may also strongly affect the reconstruction of the memory.²⁹ I will focus on personal event memory since this relates best to John’s experience of being a receiver to becoming a disseminator of Jesus’ communication. Looking at the transience of human memory, McIver shows that ‘episodic memory that survives for the first five years after an event is likely to be very stable for the next twenty years or more’.³⁰ Some kinds of episodic memories, however, are less susceptible to or even exempt from the frailty of transience, usually memories that include vivid recollection of sensory images. These emotional and sensory personal event memories are ‘long-lived and have the ability to retain many details with great accuracy’.³¹ McIver draws on the work of psychologist David Pillemer, who proposes that an event is a personal event memory if it (i) is the memory of a specific event; (ii) contains a detailed account of the personal circumstances; (iii) is associated with sensory images that contribute to the feeling of re-experiencing it; (iv) relates to a particular moment of phenomenal experience; and (v) is believed to be a truthful representation of what happened.³² For Pillemer, memories of personal trauma, flashbulb memories, memories of critical incidents and moments of insight are all varieties of personal event memories.³³ Such memories, McIver asserts, ‘all involve something so significant to

 Eve, Behind the Gospels, 89 – 90. See also Robert K. McIver, Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels, RBS 59 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), ch. 4.  Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 326 – 27; David B. Pillemer, Momentous Events, Vivid Memories (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1998), 55 – 59; David C. Rubin, “Introduction,” in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory, ed. David C. Rubin (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995): 1– 5, here 4; McIver, Memory, 76 – 80.  McIver, Memory, 40.  McIver, Memory, 58.  Pillemer, Momentous Events, 50 – 51, cited in McIver, Memory, 50, 146.  Pillemer, Momentous Events, 30 – 49, cited in McIver, Memory, 50.

180

Cornelis Bennema

the individual concerned that they leave a strong emotional and sensory memory’.³⁴ He goes on to say that ‘many of the events described in the Gospels are of such a nature that they would have had a significant emotional and sensory impact on participants and eyewitnesses’ and claims that such dramatic events would have resulted in special kinds of memories—personal event memories— that were immune to being transient.³⁵ In view of memory theory, many of the events recorded in John’s Gospel are emotionally and sensory-charged incidents that would have forged lasting personal event memories in John’s mind. For example, if John was a disciple of John the Baptist, the latter’s urging John (and Andrew) to leave him and follow Jesus (1:35 – 37) would have left a lasting memory in John’s mind. Jesus’ miraculous signs during his ministry would undoubtedly have been etched in John’s mind. Similarly, Jesus’ surprising action of washing his disciples’ feet would have created a personal event memory in John’s mind.³⁶ We learn in 13:1 that the act of foot washing was a demonstration of Jesus’ love for his disciples, so it would be a tangible experience etched in John’s mind. Jesus, having stated that laying down his life for his disciples is a sign of true love and friendship (15:13), goes on to demonstrate this—a demonstration that unfolds dramatically before their eyes as Jesus is arrested, tried and crucified. John’s recollections of Jesus’ sacrificial love, recorded in 1 John 3:16, show that these events had become personal memories. Hearing Jesus’ announcement in 13:33 that he will not be around much longer is clearly traumatic for the disciples (see 13:36; 14:1, 5, 8; 16:6, 20, 22) and would have created personal event memories. After Jesus and his disciples had their final meal together and made their way across the Kidron valley (14:31; 18:1), they may well have walked through or passed a vineyard.³⁷ In which case, Jesus’ use of the analogy of the vine and its branches

 McIver, Memory, 50. See also Sven-Åke Christianson and Martin A. Safer, “Emotional Events and Emotions in Autobiographical Memories,” in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory, ed. David C. Rubin (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995), 218 – 43.  McIver, Memory, 41.  The foot washing episode qualifies on all Pillemer’s criteria mentioned above: (i) it represents an event that took place at a particular time and place; (ii) it contains a detailed account of personal circumstances at the time of the foot washing; (iii) the account of the event is accompanied by sensory images (e. g. the vivid description of Jesus’ actions in 13:4– 5, 12) and emotions (e. g. Peter’s reactions in 13:6– 9); (iv) the event is of short duration but has a remarkable impact; (v) since the beloved disciple’s extended eyewitness account is considered trustworthy (19:35; 21:24), this memory too can be viewed as a truthful representation of what happened.  Although the terse phrase ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν in 14:31 finds its natural sequel in 18:1, this does not automatically mean that John 15 – 17 is a later interpolation. It is possible

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

181

would have created a vivid memory in John’s mind. In fact, John’s recollections of Jesus’ farewell discourse seem to be based on highly stable, non-transient personal event memories. At the same time, ‘moments of insight’, which are personal event memories according to Pillemer, occur when the disciples experience instances of post-resurrection remembrance (2:17, 22; 12:16). The beloved disciple is especially noted for his insights (e. g., 20:8; 21:7). Bauckham, likewise, draws attention to the fact that ‘we are already structuring events, selecting and ordering, seeking coherence and meaning, when we experience and perceive the events, but even more so when we recall and recount them’.³⁸ He goes on to explain the relationship between personal event memory and story schemata: In perception and recall we are constantly narrativizing experience—by selection, connection, and explanation of items—and must employ such narrative structures as are available to us as established schemata in our memories. This is the only way to make sense of events in the way that stories do… Mostly we remember in order to tell other people. Often the telling to other people is the remembering.³⁹

Similarly, David Pillemer asserts: The usual communicative form for sharing personal event memories is the narrative: people talk and write about them. But the phenomenal experience at the time of a momentous occurrence is not primarily verbal; things are seen, heard, and felt. Telling the story of what happened requires that the primarily nonverbal, imagistic input be translated into a coherent, story-like, verbal memory narrative.⁴⁰

In short, remembering is a communicative act in which people recall and narrate a memory (either internally to themselves or externally to others). This dynamic may apply to the Johannine writings. John’s memories of Jesus’ ministry were part of a narrative and this narrative substructure aided the stability of his memory and assisted the recall of events. It appears, then, that personal event memory involves both the interpretation and reconstruction of stored events from the past. We now turn to John’s third mnemonic term, ὑπομιμνῄσκειν, and show that the Spirit aids the process of remembering. Spirit, memory and teaching. Knowing his departure from this world is imminent, Jesus promises his followers the Spirit-Paraclete, who will come in his that Jesus and his disciples did get up and leave the house, but that Jesus taught the material in John 15 – 17 along the way.  Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 335.  Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 336 – 37.  Pillemer, Momentous Events, 52– 53 (original emphasis).

182

Cornelis Bennema

place to assist them in their ongoing mission. There are several indicators that the Spirit is patterned on Jesus. When Jesus tells his disciples that he will give them ἄλλος παράκλητος (‘another paraclete’) (14:16), the implication is that he is the first παράκλητος (see also 1 John 2:1).⁴¹ The Spirit is modelled after Jesus (ἄλλος is ‘another [of the same kind]’) and will take over Jesus’ function as παράκλητος after his departure.⁴² This becomes evident especially with regard to teaching. In 14:26, Jesus informs his disciples that the Spirit will teach them everything (πάντα) and remind them of everything (πάντα) that he has told them (ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ]). What the Spirit brings will not be unfamiliar because both occurrences of πάντα are qualified by the phrase ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ]. Hence, the Spirit’s teaching is in keeping with what Jesus has taught. Similarly, the Spirit will not speak on his own but only what he hears from Jesus (16:13 – 15).⁴³ This corresponds to what we noted earlier, that Jesus spoke only and simultaneously what he heard the Father say. Likewise, the future tense of the verbs ἀκούειν and λαλεῖν in 16:13 refers to simultaneous activities—the Spirit will speak what ‘he’ hears Jesus say.⁴⁴ The precise nature of the Spirit’s mimesis of Jesus’ didactic function lies between two extremes: on the one hand, the Spirit does not provide new teaching independent of Jesus’ historical teaching; on the other hand, the Spirit does not simply reiterate the ipsissima verba Jesu. It is more likely that the Spirit’s didactic role lies in explaining the meaning and significance of Jesus’ historical teaching in any culture and time. In other words, the Spirit faithfully recontextualizes Jesus’ original words for any context.⁴⁵ The Spirit’s hermeneutical role of inter Contra Troels Engberg-Pedersen, who views Jesus and the Spirit-Paraclete as the same figure in that they are both pneuma (John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel [Oxford: Oxford University, 2017], 277– 81).  Rudolf Bultmann (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray [Oxford: Blackwell, 1971], 566 – 67) and Raymond E. Brown (“The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 13 [1966 – 1967]: 113 – 32, here 113 – 14, 126 – 27) were the first to point out the numerous functional parallels between Jesus and the Spirit-Paraclete.  This relates to the work of the Spirit after Jesus’ departure—in John himself and in other believers—and thus already anticipates the diagram in the next section.  See also Tricia Gates Brown, who argues that the Spirit will not only remind the disciples of Jesus’ historical teaching but also proclaim to them the words he hears from the glorified Jesus (Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective, JSNTS 253 [New York: T&T Clark, 2003], 209). For the view that the future work of the Spirit in 16:13 includes prophecy, see Crinisor Stefan, “The Paraclete and Prophecy in the Johannine Community,” Pneuma 27 (2005): 273 – 96.  See Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 228 – 34. For similar understandings of the Spirit’s teaching and reminding functions, see Craig R. Koester, The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 152– 57; Levison, Inspired, 149 – 51; Timothy Wiarda,

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

183

preting and recontextualizing Jesus’ teaching is therefore less a literal repetition and more a faithful retelling of Jesus’ communication, similar to what we concluded about the Son–Father mimesis. This points to the existence of a mimetic chain: Jesus speaks what he hears from the Father and the Spirit speaks what he hears from Jesus. This mimetic chain of speech ensures that people hear God’s very words.⁴⁶ Thus, John’s expression ‘Spirit of truth’ (14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6) is the appropriate functional label for the Spirit who communicates truth (see also 4:23 – 24; 1 John 5:6). The Spirit-Paraclete’s teaching informs John’s testimony in order to evoke belief among his audience (15:27; 16:7– 11; 17:20; 20:30 – 31). In light of the mimetic chain of communication, we could say that just as Jesus’ words are Spirit-and-life (6:63), so John’s words are ‘Paracleteand-life’. Conclusion. Jesus’ original communication is interpreted, contextualized and preserved by John for his audience and the Spirit plays a crucial hermeneutical role in this communication process. As a mnemonic and didactic agent, the Spirit enables John to remember, reconstruct and interpret past events, thus shaping John’s narrative record in the post-Easter era. John’s Prologue (1:1– 18), explanatory ‘asides’ (e. g., 2:21; 12:16) and commentary (e. g., 3:16 – 21, 31– 36; 19:36 – 37) are evidence of the Spirit’s hermeneutical role.⁴⁷

4 John’s Communication Somewhere in the late first century, John wrote his Gospel and Letters. John’s purpose in remembering and recording is to present the Jesus of the past truthfully to his audience in the present in order to promote life-giving belief. For our purpose of determining the Spirit’s hermeneutical role, I shall simply use the collective term ‘John’s audience’ to refer to the recipients of the Johannine writings without discussing whether John intended his Gospel for the same audience as

Spirit and Word: Dual Testimony in Paul, John and Luke, LNTS 565 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 121– 29.  Witmer arrives at the same conclusion via another route. He focuses on how the prophecy of Isa 54:13 quoted in John 6:45a (‘and they shall all be taught by God’) is fulfilled in the teaching of Jesus. As Jesus receives direct, divine instruction from God and imitates him (e. g. 5:19 – 20; 7:16; 8:26, 28), so Jesus’ teaching perfectly mediates God’s word to people (Divine Instruction, 94– 106).  For John’s narrative ‘asides’, see David A. Lamb, Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings, LNTS 477 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 148 – 73.

184

Cornelis Bennema

his Letters (the so-called Johannine community) or for a broader subset of Christians in the Graeco-Roman Empire.⁴⁸ John’s Gospel is the account of Jesus’ life as John observed and remembered it, and the Johannine Letters reiterate, extrapolate and apply Jesus’ teaching to a Johannine community or church that is experiencing a crisis.⁴⁹ While the Gospel and Letters belong to different genres (biography/historiography and epistle, respectively) and may have had different intended audiences, both the Gospel and 1 John are based on eyewitness testimony (21:24; 1 John 1:1– 4; see also 2 John 5 – 6; 3 John 12) and aim to evoke a life-giving belief in Jesus among their audiences (20:31; 1 John 5:13). Such a belief is based on an adequate decoding of the Johannine text, a process in which the Spirit plays a crucial role. We now turn to the final part of the communication process:

We learned earlier that the didactic function of the Spirit has two elements: the Spirit will teach Jesus’ followers πάντα and remind them of πάντα, where πάντα refers to all of Jesus’ historical teaching (14:26; see also 16:13 – 15). The Spirit does not provide new teaching independent of Jesus’ historical teaching or simply repeat Jesus’ words. Instead, the Spirit aims to explain the meaning and significance of Jesus’ historical teaching for any situation and time. This was not just the experience of John but also of his first-century audience. Just as the Spirit decoded Jesus’ teaching to John, so the Spirit decodes John’s writings to his read-

 For a detailed discussion, see Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Edward W. Klink III, “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question,” CBR 3 (2004): 60 – 85.  For the various hypotheses regarding the Sitz im Leben of the Johannine community, see Wally V. Cirafesi, “The Johannine Community Hypothesis (1968–Present): Past and Present Approaches and a New Way Forward,” CBR 12 (2014): 173 – 93; idem, “The ‘Johannine Community’ in (More) Current Research: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Methods and Models,” Neotestamentica 48 (2014): 341– 64.

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

185

ers and auditors.⁵⁰ The Spirit’s ongoing hermeneutical role is to remind people of Jesus’ speech and actions as they have been preserved in the Johannine text and explain their meaning for a particular context.⁵¹ The Johannine Letters attest to this reality. In 1 John 2:18 – 28, John warns against false teachers or antichrists and points to the Spirit’s teaching as a safeguard. The indwelling χρῖσμα (‘anointing’) that believers have received from God/Jesus and that teaches them about πάντα (1 John 2: 20, 27) undoubtedly refers to the Spirit (see 14:17, 26).⁵² The indwelling Spirit provides believers with truth or knowledge, grounded in Jesus’ teaching (see ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς in 1 John 2:24), to discern and ward off false teaching.⁵³ We find a similar exhortation in 1 John 4:1– 6, where John urges believers to use their Spirit-provided knowledge to critically examine or evaluate (δοκιμάζειν) teachings they hear or religious experiences they have. The Spirit’s hermeneutical role in enabling believers to make a true confession of faith in Jesus is also the means of authenticating who belongs to God.⁵⁴ Maarten Menken

 See also Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 33 – 34.  Exploring John’s motive for writing his Gospel, Tom Thatcher provides an important corrective to the ‘archive’ model, which holds that the Gospels were written to preserve the living memory of Jesus. Utilizing social memory theory, Thatcher argues that in producing a written Gospel, John could freeze his unique vision of Jesus in a permanent, non-negotiable medium and use that text authoritatively against competing perspectives, whether from ‘the Jews’, the antichrists or other perceived opponents (“Why John Wrote a Gospel: Memory and History in an Early Christian Community,” in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, ed. Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, SBLSS 52 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005]: 79 – 97).  This is the view of most scholars, contra Tricia Brown who contends that χρῖσμα refers to God’s word rather than the Spirit (Spirit, 240 – 241).  John R. (Jack) Levison, however, sees a contrast between John’s Gospel and 1 John: whereas the Gospel speaks of the Spirit recollecting and clarifying Jesus’ teaching, 1 John 2:20, 27 indicate that the presence of the Spirit in the community renders teachers and further education superfluous (Filled with the Spirit [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 417– 20; see also Wiarda, Spirit and Word, 136). This seems a false dichotomy because John’s assertion that his entire community has knowledge (1 John 2:20) is simply evidence of the Spirit’s teaching (14:26; 16:13 – 15). The phrase ‘you do not need anyone to teach you’ in 1 John 2:27 is a warning against being swayed by deceptive teachers who do not have the Spirit rather than an assertion that believers no longer need Spirit-filled human teachers. While the Spirit is actively at work in each believer, reading and interpreting the Johannine text remains a community task. Hence, the Spirit is the chief educator of the believing community. Peter Stuhlmacher is more on target, stating that 14:26 parallels 1 John 2:27 (“Spiritual Remembering: John 14.26,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, ed. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker and Stephen C. Barton [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004]: 55 – 68, here 63).  Brown, Spirit, 245 – 46; Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 410 – 415.

186

Cornelis Bennema

makes a good case that in 1 John 5:6 – 8 ‘water’ and ‘blood’ indicate the beginning (Jesus’ baptism) and end (Jesus’ death on the cross) of Jesus’ ministry, and that John’s entire narrative, from ‘water’ to ‘blood’, is a testimony of the Spirit.⁵⁵ In 2 John, John warns his audience to watch out for false teaching, specifically an incipient Docetism (vv. 7– 8), and to remain (μένειν) and not go beyond (προάγειν) Jesus’ teaching (v. 9). John says something similar in 1 John 2:24, where ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (‘what you heard from the beginning’) very likely refers to Jesus’ historical teaching, in a context of the Spirit’s teaching (1 John 2:20, 27). John’s appeal in 2 John 9 echoes Jesus’ exhortation to remain (μένειν) in his words or teaching (15:7). Hence, John reminds his audience that Jesus’ words are both the basis and boundary for knowing and experiencing the divine reality. Jesus’ words are embedded in the Johannine text and form the basis and boundary for the Spirit’s hermeneutical work (see 14:26; 16:13 – 15).

5 Conclusion We started our study with a basic linear communication model:

Our study has revealed a more complex communication model augmented with the hermeneutical role of the Spirit as an encoder and decoder.

 Maarten J. J. Menken, “‘Three That Testify’ and ‘The Testimony of God’ in 1 John 5:6– 12,” in Studies in John’s Gospel and Letters: Collected Essays, ed. Maarten J. J. Menken, CBET 77 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015): 391– 409, here 395 – 403.

The Hermeneutical Role of the Spirit in the Johannine Writings

187

We learned that Jesus communicates God’s truth to people, but his message is enigmatic, ambiguous and prone to misunderstanding. In 16:25, Jesus refers to his teaching as being ‘veiled’ or encoded (παροιμία) but promises to speak ‘plainly’ (παρρησία) in the future, which we now know refers to the time of the Spirit. While the disciples get a glimpse of that coming reality in 16:26 – 29, in the postEaster era the Spirit will explain everything that Jesus has said in such a way that his words become plain. John has recorded a few instances of the disciples being able to grasp Jesus’ teaching after the resurrection (2:17, 22; 12:26; 16:4), which is most likely the result of the Spirit’s anamnesis. In his first letter, John describes more fully the post-Easter reality where believers have knowledge because of the Spirit (1 John 2:20, 27). The extent of their understanding of the divine reality is indicated by the frequent phrase ‘(by this) we/you know that’ (1 John 2:5, 18, 21; 3:5, 14– 16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2, 15, 8 – 20). Indeed, in the post-Easter era, the cognitive darkness that enfolds the world and its people (1:5, 9 – 11) is dissipating in the believing community (1 John 2:8). In sum, Jesus taught in ‘encoded’ language about God and the divine reality, but his teaching had to be ‘decoded’ in order to be understood. In the post-Easter period, the Spirit functions as a decoder, decrypting or unlocking Jesus’ words to the readers or auditors of the Johannine text. This model still applies today in that the same Spirit that enabled John’s original audience to decode John’s record of Jesus’ message continues to assist today’s readers of the Johannine text, so they have the same access to Jesus’ message as the original audience.⁵⁶ Mimesis proves to be an important didactic mechanism to convey and preserve divine truth.⁵⁷ The Johannine writings show a mimetic preservation of God’s communication, from God to Jesus to John to readers or auditors of the Johannine text—a process that is not so much a literal replication of the divine message but a faithful retelling or contextualization. There is a strong continuity between God’s words, Jesus’ speech and John’s written testimony. Jesus spoke God’s words (3:34) and just as Jesus’ words are Spirit-and-life (6:63), so John’s

 Similarly, James D. G. Dunn states that ‘each generation is as close to Jesus as the last—and the first—because the Paraclete is the immediate link between Jesus and his disciples in every generation’ (Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament [London: SCM, 1975], 351). See also David F. Ford’s stimulating essay where he supplements Richard Hays’s approach of ‘reading backwards’ with a ‘reading forwards’ (“Reading Backwards, Reading Forwards, and Abiding: Reading John in the Spirit Now,” JTI 11 [2017]: 69 – 84).  For the Johannine concept of mimesis, see Cornelis Bennema, Mimesis in the Johannine Writings: A Study in Johannine Ethics, LNTS 498 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017) or, briefer, idem, “Imitation in Johannine Christianity,” ExpTim 132.3 (2020): 101– 110.

188

Cornelis Bennema

written testimony about Jesus are ‘Paraclete-and-life’ (17:20; 20:31)—accepting or believing the words of Jesus preserved in the Johannine text leads to participation in the divine life that the Father and Son share (1:12; 20:31). Jesus and John are reliable links in the mimetic chain of God’s communication to humanity because of (i) the receiver’s intimate relationship with the sender—Jesus with God (1:18) and John with Jesus (13:23); and (ii) the Spirit’s involvement in the hermeneutical process. The Spirit superintends the mimetic chain of passing on divine truth, from God to Jesus to John to those who read or hear John’s writings. The Spirit unlocks the meaning of Jesus’ communication that is embedded in the Johannine writings for their audiences. Our study has shown that the hermeneutical role of the Spirit in preserving, communicating and interpreting the divine truth in the Johannine text is best explained in terms of the Spirit’s cognitive, didactic and mnemonic activities.

Craig G. Bartholomew

The Spirit of Truth in John’s Gospel and Biblical Hermeneutics 1 Introduction In too many ways truth is a casualty of our times. Postmodernism savaged the pillars of modernity but remained within its basic paradigm of human autonomy. As Gadamer said of Derrida’s and Vattimo’s presentations in the dialogue at Capri about religion, “Both agree that no matter to what extent we recognize the urgency of religion, there can be no return to the doctrines of the church.”¹ The result is that most postmodernism has been deconstructive, pushing away at the fault lines of modernity but without providing a constructive alternative. Thus, for all its genuine critique of modernity, postmodernism was akin to sitting on the branch of “real presence” and sawing away at the branch at the same time. If postmodernism made the humanities look respectable and avant guarde for a time, commentators are now picking up on the link between its subversion of truth as a real possibility and fake news.² The consequences can literally be deadly. As I write this thousands have died as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, and many unnecessarily, not least in the USA, because of a failure to attend to the truth of the pandemic. Bauckham notes how the Bible provides us with an alternative to both the universalism of modernity and the particularism of postmodernism.³ We do well to revisit the Bible on this issue and not least in relation to the Spirit. “Truth” is a major theme of John’s Gospel in which it occurs some twenty-one times. In Jn 14:17; 15:26; and 16:13 the Spirit is referred to as “the Spirit of truth.” Our focus in this chapter will be on the Spirit and truth in John and its implications for biblical interpretation. Under the shadow of modernity, the Spirit has not always fared well in biblical hermeneutics, and when it is appropriated there is a fear of opening the door to a wild pluralism akin to that of postmodernism. As I hope to show in this chapter, in terms of John such a fear is

 H-G. Gadamer, “Dialogues in Capri,” in Religion, edited by J. Derrida and G. Vattimo (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 200 – 211, 207.  Michiko Kakutani, The Death of Truth (London: William Collins, 2018).  Richard Bauckham, “What is Truth?” in The Bible in the Contemporary World: Hermeneutical Ventures (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 159 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-014

190

Craig G. Bartholomew

ungrounded, and we need to retrieve, to open wide our hearts to the role of the Spirit in biblical exegesis.

2 Truth in John’s Gospel Three times John refers to the Spirit as “the Spirit of truth,” as noted above. In Jn 14 Jesus exhorts his disciples not to be troubled; he goes to prepare a place for them and they know the route to that place! Thomas and Philip embody the obduracy of the disciples through their questions. In vv. 15 – 31 Jesus tells them that he will ask the Father, and the Father will give them “another Advocate,” “the Spirit of truth,” who will enable them to know that Jesus is in the Father, the disciples in Jesus, and Jesus in them. To those who love Jesus and keep his word the Spirit will enable the Father and the Son to set up home with them. The Spirit will teach the disciples and remind them of all that Jesus has said to them. In Jn 15:18 – 16:4 Jesus reminds his disciples that they, like him, will be persecuted. True testimony will be in short supply but when “the Spirit of truth” comes he will testify on Jesus’s behalf. Thus, the disciples must also testify because they have been with Jesus from the outset of his public ministry. In Jn 16:12– 15 Jesus tells his disciples that it is better for him to leave them, for then the Advocate, the Spirit of truth will come to them and he will show the world it is wrong about sin, righteousness, and judgement. Jesus has so many things still to teach his disciples, but they are not ready for all his teaching at this time. However, when “the Spirit of truth” comes he will speak to them what he hears; he will take what is Jesus’s and declare it to the disciples. Clearly in John, the Spirit is inseparably related to truth, but what exactly is truth in John’s Gospel? First, truth is Christocentric and personal; it is Jesus. In Jn 14:6 we find the well known saying “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” the second “I am” saying in John. Clearly, in context the question of the way is central (cf., the evocative description of Jesus in Jn 1:51 as the ladder stretching between heaven and earth). Michaels argues that “The dominant predicate here is ‘the Way.’ Jesus could have just said, ‘I am the Way. No one comes to the Father except through me,’ and the dynamic of the exchange would have been the same.”⁴ Bruce, in contrast, argues that there are three coordinate predicates: “Jesus is not only the way to God; he is the truth of God—how could he be otherwise, since he is the embodiment of God’s self-revelation?—and he is the

 J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 775.

The Spirit of Truth in John’s Gospel and Biblical Hermeneutics

191

life of God, ‘the true God and eternal life’ (1 John 5:20), manifested on earth to give his flesh ‘for the life of the world’ (John 6:51).”⁵ There is not much at stake in the translation; Jesus is the way because he is the truth and the life.⁶ And the place Jesus is the way to, is also personal, it is to the Father (Jn 14:6). Bauckham notes that “He [Jesus] is the key to all truth, the one in whom God reveals to us as much as we can know of the ultimate truth of things.”⁷ Similarly Newbigin evocatively describes Jesus as the clue to all that is.⁸ John thus presents us with a view of truth as located in the person of Jesus. Truth is thus intensely personal, and far removed from the Greek notion of truth as propositional alone. Because Jesus is the truth, we know the truth through an encounter with him, there is no other way. And it is an encounter facilitated by the Spirit; one must be “born of the Spirit” (Jn 3:8). The Spirit testifies and the apostles testify (cf., Jn 21:24) and through this testimony we are brought to Jesus. Second, truth is trinitarian and relational. Jesus is the way to the Father and the Spirit will be “in you” (Jn 14:17), and he will facilitate the Father and the Son setting up home with the disciples (Jn 14:23). Here we clearly have the New Testament data that was developed by the early church into the doctrine of the Trinity. This domestic description is relational through and through and reinforces the idea of truth as deeply personal and emerging out of a profound encounter with Jesus.⁹ Thirdly, truth involves testimony. The Father testifies (Jn 1:33), John the Baptist testifies (Jn 1:19; 2:32, 34); Jesus testifies, the Spirit testifies, and the disciples testify, and the author of John testifies. Thus, truth in John is not only personal but also content full. And because it is rooted in the trinitarian God it is authorita F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: A Verse-by-Verse Exposition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983).  B.M. Newman and E. A. Nida conclude, “Thus there are two possible interpretations: (1) The emphasis may be on the goal to which the way leads … If this exegesis is followed, one may translate ʻI am the way that leads to the truth and to life’; or, expressed more fully, ʻI am the way that leads to the truth (about God) and to the life (that God gives).’ (2) However, the emphasis may be on the way itself. If this exegesis is followed, ʻtruth’ and ʻlife’ must be taken as qualifiers of ʻway,’ which is primary in the context. One may then render ʻI am the true way, the way that gives people life.’ Or, more fully, ʻI am the way that reveals the truth (about God) and gives life (to people).’ In effect, the two possible interpretations are close in meaning, and it is difficult to argue for one against the other. However, the context would seem to favor the second.” B. M. Newman and E. A. Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 475.  Bauckham, “What is Truth?,” 161.  Lesslie Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 3.  Cf., Jean Vanier, Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus Through the Gospel of John (Ottawa: Novalis, 2004).

192

Craig G. Bartholomew

tive.¹⁰ As Newbigin comments “The life of God given to men in Jesus – in his life, death, and resurrection and in the coming of the Spirit – is at the same time understanding how things truly are. It is participation in the truth. These things cannot be separated.”¹¹ Fourth, truth is lived. This is an emphasis found repeatedly in John. In Jn 14 Judas asks how it is that Jesus will reveal himself to the disciples but not to the world. Jesus replies: “Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” (Jn 14:23) From this perspective truth cannot be known without being lived. Fifth, truth is liberating. The famous verses in this regard are Jn 8:31– 32: “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” In these verses we find an emphasis on the truth being lived, being known, and its effect: freedom. Sixth, truth is integrally bound up with the Spirit of truth. In the account of Jesus’s baptism, it is the descent of the Spirit that signifies to John the Baptist that Jesus is the one who will baptize with the Spirit. As above, we have seen the role of the Spirit in enabling the disciples to grasp the truth about Jesus and to bring to mind his teaching. Truth is thus a rich, multi-faceted concept in John. And the Spirit is the Spirit of this truth.

3 Truth, the Spirit, and Creation In the early church, John’s Gospel became known as the “spiritual” Gospel, such is its rich teaching about Jesus. Alas, many moderns have concluded that this spiritual Gospel has very little to do with history. In his recent work on John, Bauckham has robustly defended the historicity of John. He notes that “what most Johannine scholars have failed to take seriously is that the Gospel’s theology itself requires a concern for history … We should not expect the history to have been lost behind the interpretation but rather to have been highlighted by the interpretation.”¹² Indeed, John’s theology not only requires a concern for history but for creation. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John, in his magisterial prologue, takes us back into eternity when the Word was with God. Indeed, it is as though, in John’s Gos Cf., Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017).  Newbigin, The Light Has Come, 3.  Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved, 14.

The Spirit of Truth in John’s Gospel and Biblical Hermeneutics

193

pel, the Spirit performs the sort of testimony Jesus promises he will provide. The prologue contains strong intertextual links with Gen 1, and in v. 2 we read that “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.”¹³ This is a strong statement of creatio ex nihilo, and has major implications for our view of truth and the work of the Spirit. As Ridderbos says in relation to the Christology of John, “Without knowing how wide and high and deep the work of God has been at the beginning, one cannot understand the dimensions of the glory, of the grace, and of the truth of Jesus Christ.”¹⁴ Verse 4 continues by noting that life was in the Word, and that this life was the light of all people. “[I]n him was life” (Jn 1:4) refers to the Word as sharing in the life of God and being the source of life in the creation. Verse 9 refers to Jesus as the “true light, which enlightens everyone,” picked up later in John when Jesus declares himself the light of the world (Jn 8:12; 9:5). Bruce says of Jesus being the light of all people that “This is true both of the natural illumination of reason which is given to the human mind and of the spiritual illumination which accompanies the new birth: neither can be received apart from the light that resides in the Word. But what the Evangelist has in mind here is the spiritual illumination that dispels the darkness of sin and unbelief.”¹⁵ People might refuse that light, which is Jesus, but it is not because there is no light for them, but because they choose the darkness. Michaels observes of Jn 1:9 that “For the first time, ‘light’ can be appropriately capitalized, because it is now apparent that ‘the true Light’ is a personal being.”¹⁶ An issue these opening verses raise is the relationship between the Word as the one who is the light of all, and the explosion of light associated with the incarnation. Theologically, this is the relationship between creation and redemption, a vital issue for construing “the Spirit of truth” correctly. Alas, as Tjørhom observes, Several currents have failed in keeping creation and redemption together – or in securing a proper balance between these two interrelated sides of God’s work. Late pietism or neo-pietism ended up in this ditch, advocating a strongly personalized perception of salvation at the cost of creation theology. The spiritual proxy of these currents, a deistically inclined romanticism pointed towards the opposite extreme. Here it was fervently argued that God and

 Herman Ridderbos, Studies in Scripture and its Authority (St. Catherines, ON: Paideia, 1978), 67– 8, argues that Gen 1:1– 2:3 provides the major background to John’s Logos theology.  Ridderbos, Studies in Scripture, 69 – 70.  Bruce, Gospel of John.  Michaels, The Gospel of John, 61.

194

Craig G. Bartholomew

nature were identical entities. This implied that creation carries its own salvation within itself, having no need for an external savior.¹⁷

Tjørhom captures the relationship between creation and redemption succinctly in his statement that “without creation there is nothing to save – creation is the ‘stuff’ of salvation.”¹⁸ As Bavinck and Kuyper have taught us the biblical paradigm is that grace restores nature. It is the medicine that heals what has gone wrong in God’s good, but fallen, creation.¹⁹ Commentators seem to struggle to grasp this. Michaels, for example wrestles with the universal and the particular view of the Word as light in Jn 1 and says that, Almost always, “light” in the Gospel of John is a metaphor, but the question here is whether the metaphor is to be understood universally, as the intellectual or emotional light distinguishing humans from the rest of creation, or more specifically as the “the light of the world” revealed in Jesus Christ (see 8:12). The former points toward the general or universal understanding of verse 4, the latter toward the more redemptive-historical interpretation. But because there has been no mention of any specific “coming” of the light this early in the story, it is wise to give the phrase “the light of humans” the broadest possible application. It is fair to assume that “the light of humans” refers to a capacity for love and understanding given to every human being at birth.²⁰

This is fine as far as it goes but it does not go nearly far enough in articulating the relationship between creation and redemption, a theme that is central to Jn 1:1– 18. Jesus’s work as the light of salvation is integrally related to his being the light of all people. The Word brings the world into existence and sustains it in existence so that when the Word becomes incarnate, he “came to what was his own” (Jn 1:11)! Thus, Jesus as the light refers to far more than a capacity for love and compassion given to humans. Every fibre of our existence owes itself to him, as does every minute of every day that we are held in existence. We referred above to Newbigin’s statement that “The life of God given to men in Jesus … is at the same time understanding how things truly are. It is participation in the truth. These things cannot be separated.”²¹ Philosophically, we might

 Ola Tjørhom, Embodied Faith: Reflections on a Materialist Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 34.  Tjørhom, Embodied Faith, 36.  See Craig G. Bartholomew, Contours of the Kuyperian Tradition: A Systematic Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), chapter 2.  Michaels, The Gospel of John, 55 – 6.  Emphasis added.

The Spirit of Truth in John’s Gospel and Biblical Hermeneutics

195

say that John’s testimony about Jesus provides us with a critically realist view of truth.²² It is realist in that the world does indeed have a discernible shape that can be known, given to it by the Word. It is critical in that we can only know this shape truly through Christ and the Spirit. Few people have articulated such an epistemology as clearly as Oliver O’Donovan in his Resurrection and Moral Order, charting a course between Barth and Brunner. As with Barth, O’Donovan is crystal clear about the epistemic priority of Christ: “That small segment of reality, elect and chosen of God, shapes all the reality that we encounter, so that to be in touch with reality in any form we have to be in touch with that reality.”²³ With Brunner, O’Donovan insists that there are objective orders in the creation, but we can only know these aright “in Christ.” That light and truth which is Christ thus opens out not just onto the individual and the church, although it certainly does this, but onto the entire creation. As George Steiner so evocatively reminds us, for there to be real presences in the world and for us to be able to discern them we need a grammar of creation. ²⁴ And this is precisely what that clue which is Jesus provides us with. And this clue extends to every area of life including our view of language, an issue of fundamental importance for biblical hermeneutics. Steiner, for example, rightly uses Jn 1:1 to rebut deconstruction! It is Derrida’s strength to have seen so plainly that the issue is neither linguistic-aesthetic nor philosophical in any traditional, debatable sense – where such tradition and debate incorporate, perpetuate the very ghosts which are to be exorcized. The issue is, quite simply, that of the meaning of meaning as it is re-insured by the postulate of the existence of God. “In the beginning was the Word.” There was no such beginning, says deconstruction; only the play of sounds and markers amid the mutations of time.²⁵

Theologically, the Spirit is understood to lead the creation to its goal in Christ. The Spirit of truth is that Spirit of that truth which is Jesus. This has major implications for biblical hermeneutics to which we now turn.

 Cf. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), for his development of a rich, critical realist epistemology for the NT.  Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 121.  George Steiner, Real Presences (London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1989).  Steiner, Real Presences, 120.

196

Craig G. Bartholomew

4 The Spirit of Truth and Biblical Hermeneutics When I did my Ph.D. I attended literary conferences that were so awash with postmodernism that I realised few were interested in interpreting texts truthfully. Sertillanges, The Intellectual Life,²⁶ was an important source for recalling me to my vocation as a scholar to tell the truth as best I can in my scholarship. Of course, we can only aspire to this if we believe the truth is out there! From John we know that the truth is indeed out there, and there is a great deal at stake in living and articulating it. Heinz Kuhn tells an interesting story about the great 20th century Roman Catholic priest and scholar Romano Guardini. Kuehn attended chapel where Guardini was presiding in Berlin the morning after the horrors of Kristallnacht. As Guardini approached the altar, Kuehn heard someone say loudly “Now let’s get a foothold on reality again.”²⁷ This captures poignantly what healthy biblical interpretation should do, namely, ground us again and again in reality, reality as revealed to us in Jesus. How then might “the Spirit of truth” guide our understanding and practice of biblical interpretation? First, according to John, the model reader will be one who has encountered Jesus and keeps his word. This is not for a moment to suggest that the Christian exegete cannot learn from non-Christian exegetes. With Augustine we affirm that all truth is God’s truth and that non-Christian exegetes may have extraordinary insights from which we can learn. Nevertheless, if Christ is the truth and the Spirit is the Spirit of truth, then living every more deeply into union with Christ will be an indispensable characteristic of and advantage for the Christian exegete. To be indwelt by the same Spirit who testifies of Jesus in John’s Gospel is to align the sails of one’s exegesis with the way the wind blows. Second, the most rigorous exegesis will be accompanied by prayer and deep dependence upon the Spirit. If the Spirit is the Spirit of truth and Jesus is the truth, then we start to see the inseparable link between the Spirit and Jesus. It is the great joy of the Spirit to open our whole beings to the overwhelming reality of God coming to us in Christ, and to do this through the witness of the Bible, including John’s Gospel. Thus, there is a spirituality of and for biblical scholarship that we do well to attend to and to practice if we seek the truth of the Bible.

 A. G. Sertillanges, The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods, trans. Mary Ryan (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1987).  Heinz R. Kuehn, “Fires in the Night: Germany 1920 – 1950,” in Romano Guardini: Proclaiming the Sacred in a Modern World, ed. R. A. Krieg (Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications 1995), 1– 14, 7.

The Spirit of Truth in John’s Gospel and Biblical Hermeneutics

197

In Reading Luke Robby Holt and I address this topic in our essay “Prayer In/and the Drama of Redemption in Luke: Prayer and Exegetical Performance.”²⁸ In my Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics, I have argued for the closest relationship between lectio divina and the most rigorous analysis of the Bible.²⁹ Alas, in most scholarship a chasm exists between these two. Of course, each one can and should provide a corrective to the other but what we must resist is the common view that they operate on the basis of different epistemologies. John would reject such a view since Jesus is the truth, who reveals to us how things really are. To bracket out our commitment to Jesus and invocation of the Spirit when we don our scholarly hats is not to enter a neutral space but to adopt a different and opposing epistemology to that which John provides. Third, the Spirit will lead us to do justice to the biblical text. For many the fear of welcoming the Spirit into one’s study and classroom is that wild, crazy readings will result. But, as we have seen, the Spirit honors and preserves the order of creation, over which he hovered in Gen 1:2 before it achieved its final shape, including the gift of language and its capacity to tell the truth about the world. Jesus, as we have seen, confirms and grounds the realism of the world and the text. Jean-Paul Chrétien has provided us with a profound philosophy of language in his The Ark of Speech. ³⁰ “Ark” here is a reference to Noah’s ark! For postmoderns all language does violence to the world whereas, as Chrétien points out, language is a wonderful gift which enables Adam to name the animals in such a way as to preserve and protect their otherness, just like an ark. Language and textuality are possibilities built into the creation by … Jesus. Thus, we can rightly expect the Spirit of truth to honor them fully and to assist as we use all available resources to plumb the depths of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and NT Greek. Inspiration in reading the Bible, is not for a moment alien to perspiration. The Spirit of truth is not a quick fix enabling us to bypass the orders of creation established by Jesus. Quite the reverse. Fourth, a Spiritual hermeneutic will cause us to attend to the philosophical and religious sub-texts of biblical studies. As I have argued in my God Who Acts in History: The Significance of Sinai,³¹ modern biblical criticism is deeply

 Craig G. Bartholomew and Robby Holt, “Prayer In/and the Drama of Redemption in Luke: Prayer and Exegetical Performance,” in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation, ed. Bartholomew, et al, SAHS 6. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 350 – 75.  Craig G. Bartholomew, Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Framework for Hearing God in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015).  Jean-Paul Chrétien, The Ark of Speech, trans. Andrew Brown. (New York: Routledge, 2004).  Craig G. Bartholomew, God Who Acts in History: The Significance of Sinai (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020).

198

Craig G. Bartholomew

shaped by philosophers like Spinoza and Kant, both of whom held very specific views of religion and felt no qualm about bringing them to bear on biblical exegesis. Their views are entirely at odds with the view of religion we find in John, and the honest Christian exegete will have to take seriously the views of history, textuality, language and religion that he/she is working with, and be able to give an account of these from a Christian perspective. Fortunately, we live amidst an extraordinary renaissance of Christian philosophy so that major resources are already available for us in this respect. Fifth, a Spiritual hermeneutic will open the Bible for all of life. If Jesus is who John says he is, both creator and redeemer, then his truth will be of profound relevance to all of life, including the individual and the church, but also the many other spheres of life.³² Already above we have touched on the implications of John for our views of truth and language, both deeply contested areas in philosophy, education, and public life, for example. Few things are more important today than rich readings of the Bible that enable us to see its relevance to our own lives and to the whole of the creation. Berkhof is right when he asserts, having noted the connection in the OT between the Spirit and agriculture, architecture, jurisdiction, and politics,³³ that “In general all human wisdom is the gift of God’s Spirit.”³⁴ Sixth, the telos of a Spiritual hermeneutic will always be to enable us to listen for God’s address. So much biblical scholarship stops short of this goal, whereas our whole rasion d’etre for attending to Scripture as Christians is to find the truth. Berkhof reminds us that the Spirit too faces the cross daily as he is resisted time and time again: he too “goes the way of the cross, because everywhere he is resisted and grieved.”³⁵ There are many ways for biblical scholars to practice this resistance and, not least, by refusing to make the goal of all their rigorous work the testimony of the Spirit. Seventh, Spirit-ual exegesis will lead us ever more deeply into dwelling with the Father, Son and Spirit. Truth is ultimately a person, and thus exegesis will never rest with more cerebral knowledge but with a richer relationship with

 Compare the essay by Matthew Emerson and Craig G. Bartholomew, “Theological Interpretation for all Life,” in A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation, ed. Bartholomew and Heath A. Thomas (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), chapter 12.  Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), refers to Is 28:26; Ex 31:3; 35:21; Num 11:7; Is 45:1– 5; Job 32:8; Dan 1:17; 5:11.  Hendrikus Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Atlanta: John Knox, 1964), 96.  Berkhof, Christian Faith, 135.

The Spirit of Truth in John’s Gospel and Biblical Hermeneutics

199

God through Jesus and by the Spirit. Of course, we are here referring to the huge Jesus of John, and to the Trinity of which he is a part. Georges Bernanos wrote to his fiancée,³⁶ “Who could ever harm us resting on this breast from which all of light has come forth?” This question from Bernanos evokes in exquisite fashion the telos of the Bible. In John’s Gospel the beloved disciple reclines on Jesus’ breast—And Peter having turned about doth see the disciple whom Jesus was loving following, (who also reclined in the supper on his breast, and said, “Sir, who is he who is delivering thee up?” (Jn 21:20, Young’s Literal Translation)—an action which becomes in Bernanos’s question a metaphor for the role of Scripture. In his extraordinary Under the Gaze of the Bible, Jean-Louis Chrétien notes that When I read the Bible this way³⁷ and receive it as a missive in which my name is traced with the sympathetic ink of grace, the today of my living attention enters the temporal dimension of which this writing itself speaks, that is, the sacred story. As small and narrow as may be that door of my reading, which causes me to enter into that which it speaks of, as insignificant as may be the flame of my today, it is still into the sacred story that I am placed, and to it henceforth that I belong as long as I listen.³⁸

5 Conclusion In his Lessons of the Masters, George Steiner reminds us of what is at stake in education: “To teach seriously is to lay hands on what is most vital in a human being.”³⁹ He argues that anti-teaching is close to being the norm and that our schools are full of “amiable gravediggers” who “labor to diminish their students to their own level of indifferent fatigue. They do not ‘open Delphi’ but close it.”⁴⁰ By contrast Steiner describes his experience of his doctoral seminar in Geneva that was sustained virtually unbroken for twenty-five years:

 Quoted by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word: Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, vol. 1 (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996), 7.  Chrétien is not referring to the quote from Bernanos but to reading the Bible “today” in the sense of the Epistle to the Hebrews.  Jean-Louis Chrétien, Under the Gaze of the Bible, trans. John Marson Dunaway (New York: Fordham University, 2015), 2– 3.  Georg Steiner, Lessons of The Masters (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 18.  Steiner, Lessons, 18.

200

Craig G. Bartholomew

“Those Thursday mornings were as near as an ordinary, secular spirit can come to Pentecost.”⁴¹ If this is true of education, how much more so of biblical interpretation? We need practices and scholarship drenched in the Spirit of truth, Pentecostal exegesis, work that regularly has us—at least metaphorically—on our knees in supplication, adoration and praise, even as we wrestle with the most technical and challenging parts of exegesis, all in search of the truth.

 Steiner, Lessons, 19.

Marianne Meye Thompson

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”: Spirit-Inspired Interpretation in the Gospel and Epistles of John 1 Introduction In his last words to the disciples, as recounted in the Gospel of John, Jesus tells his disciples that he is going away, but that he will send them the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, to be with them. Jesus goes so far as to say that his departure is for their good, for only when he departs will the Spirit come. This Spirit, the Paraclete, will “teach you everything” and “remind you of all that I have said to you” (14:26). Even though Jesus will be absent from the disciples in the flesh, the Spirit’s witness will bring to mind the words and deeds of his earthly life. Jesus further tells them that the Spirit will “guide you into all the truth” and “declare to you the things that are to come” (16:13). Apparently, then, the Spirit’s instruction is not limited to “reminding” the disciples of what Jesus has done, but rather also encompasses understanding that is to be attained and events that have yet to unfold. The Spirit’s guidance refers both to things past and things to come, that is, to the things that happened both prior to and after the death of Jesus.¹ The Spirit exercises this multifaceted instructive function following Jesus’ “departure” to the Father. As the Gospel also notes elsewhere, there are some things, including the meaning of Jesus’ words and work, that are understood only after his death and resurrection, after his departure (2:22; 12:16; 13:7).

 In a recent article, Thomas Tops reviews the scholarly discussion on whether the Paraclete’s work should be conceived of primarily as retrospective, oriented to the past and, hence, reminding the disciples of what Jesus had said, or prospective, oriented towards the future and, hence, exercising what Tops terms “a properly revelatory function”; see “The Orientation of the Teaching of the Paraclete in the Gospel of John: Retrospective or Prospective?” NTS 66 (2019): 68 – 86. Tops concludes that while the Paraclete’s work can indeed be called properly “revelatory,” the Paraclete “cannot teach something that has not been taught by Jesus” (p. 81). Cornelis Bennema argues that “to teach” (John 14:26, 16:12– 15) is “practically a verb of revelation”; see Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT II/148 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 228. See also the discussion of “revealed knowledge” in John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 399 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-015

202

Marianne Meye Thompson

Since the Spirit is given only after Jesus’ death and resurrection (7:37– 39; 20:22), and since the Spirit teaches the disciples and guides them into the full understanding of truth² (John 16:12; 14:26; 1 John 2:27; 4:1– 2), the Spirit can be understood to be the implicit agent of the disciples’ remembering and understanding.³ “All things” which the disciples are to remember and understand include events in Jesus’ own life, such as his action in the temple, the meaning of which the disciples understood at a later time when they grasped it in light of Psalm 69:9, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” Similarly, Jesus’ prediction of the temple’s destruction and rebuilding in three days was understood only later, after his resurrection, to refer to the “temple of his body.” As John writes, “After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken” (2:22). Similarly, when Jesus rode on a young donkey into Jerusalem, to the acclamation of the crowds, it is said that Jesus’ disciples “did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things had been written of him and had been done to him” (12:16 – 17). It is striking that in this assertion, “understanding” and “remembering” belong together: they un Tops suggests two possible readings of the assertion that the Spirit will guide the disciples “into” or “in all truth” (ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ). On the one hand, if all (πάσῃ) is taken as an adjective modifying “truth” (ἀληθείᾳ) the implication is that the Spirit will lead the disciples into “completeness” or “fullness of revelation” (that is, more or additional things will be revealed by the Spirit). Thus “all truth” includes new revelation that the disciples receive from the Spirit. On the other hand, if “all” (πάσῃ) is taken as an adverb modifying “will guide” (ὁδηγήσει), then the sense is “the Spirit will guide you completely in/into the truth.” Tops believes that this (second, correct) reading implies that the Spirit will guide the disciples in the truth, “where they already are,” but not into further or more truth (Tops, “Orientation,” 80). Connecting the disciples’ “remembering” (2:22, 16:4) with the Paraclete’s “reminding” (14:26), Bennema argues that the teaching role of the Spirit-Paraclete brings the disciples to a “further level of cognitive perception,” itself mediated by the Spirit and already a “deeper” level than the sensory perception on which it is based; Saving Wisdom, 144, 150, 159, 231.  Among those who argue that the Spirit exercises primarily this “retrospective” function are Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (XIII – XXI), AB 29 A (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 650 – 51; E. Franck, Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John, ConBNT 14 (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1985); Bennema, Saving Wisdom. Others have thought that the Paraclete’s function includes the revelation of things not taught by Jesus, including Christine Hoegen-Rohls, Der nachösterliche Johannes: Die Abschiedsreden als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zum vierten Evangelium, WUNT II/84 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 116 – 17; Raimond Bieringer, “The Spirit’s Guidance Into All the Truth: The Text-Critical Problems of John 16,13,” in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel, ed. A. Denaux; BETL 161 (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002), 198 – 9.

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

203

derstood later, when they remembered what the Scripture had said. These two verbs—understanding and remembering—pick up on the description of the Spirit’s work, of calling to memory the things that Jesus did, and teaching the disciples everything. Both the capacity to “remember” Jesus’ words, and the understanding that the disciples are said to acquire “later,” or after Jesus’ resurrection, may be attributed to the work of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, even when the Spirit is not named explicitly as the source of such insight (John 2:22; 12:16; 13:7; see 1 John 2:27; 4:1– 2). The Spirit calls Jesus’ words to mind because the Spirit bears witness to Jesus (15:26). Both the Scriptures (5:39) and the Gospel (20:31) likewise serve as witnesses to Jesus. Even though the Gospel makes no explicit claim to be written under the tutelage or inspiration of the Spirit, the Spirit’s witness includes the things that Jesus said and did—things that need to be remembered—and how these things are to be understood, what claims they make. The varied christological formulations of the Gospel, presented in the form of Jesus’ words, surely would count as part of the words that the Spirit called to mind and the testimony borne by the Spirit.⁴ The Epistles of John, likely written after the Gospel, enunciate the claim that their author, and those to whom he is writing, have the “anointing” of the “holy one” (presumably, the Spirit, 1 John 2:20), so that they may confess what they have known “from the beginning” (1 John 2:24). The Spirit enables them to remember and understand the truth that has always been with them. As we shall see, the Epistles provide some further tantalizing insights into both the content of the Spirit-inspired teaching and the means by which it would have occurred. In order to pursue this discussion, we shall look, first, at some general comments about the role and function of the Spirit in the Gospel of John. Then we shall turn to the Epistle of 1 John for some insight into how the Spirit’s work was apparently carried out among the disciples. Here we note, especially, the importance of the continued teaching function of the Spirit, as well as the challeng Franz Mussner, The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St. John, trans. W. J. O’Hara (London: Burnes & Oates, 1967), 44, put the point pithily: “The Johannine mode of vision and the work of the Paraclete belong inseparably together.” Thus Andrew T. Lincoln comments that the Spirit unfolds the significance of Jesus’ words for the disciples in the new situations in which they find themselves; see Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 111. Similarly, but perhaps pointing back more to Jesus’ words in their original setting, Bennema understands “calling to mind” Jesus’ words to encompass interpreting and explaining Jesus’ revelation, providing the disciples with a new or deeper understanding of what he taught; see Saving Wisdom, 228. Jesus’ parting words—“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”—show that even while Jesus was with them, the disciples were unable to comprehend all that he said (16:12).

204

Marianne Meye Thompson

es that arise alongside claims to be the recipients of unique instruction by the Spirit of God. If the Gospel promises that the Spirit who comes will guide the disciples into all truth, and if that truth includes deeper insight into the person of Jesus and understanding of the Scriptures as bearing witness to Jesus, then 1 John shows that, in spite of the claims to the Spirit’s inspiration, the proper understanding of Jesus continued to trouble the various Johannine churches. In this Epistle, it is not, however, the Scriptures of Israel that the Spirit illumines to the disciples; 1 John is remarkably silent regarding the role or content of the Scriptures in bearing witness to Jesus. Instead, it is the Gospel itself, or at least the witness to Jesus as the Word made flesh enshrined within the Gospel, that the Spirit further illumines, now primarily by correcting false understandings of the Gospel’s central affirmations.⁵ Thus, 1 John offers a corrective to false readings of the Gospel of John, showing how and that the Spirit guides the disciples into understanding the entirety of the truth, but that there are limits circumscribing what constitutes “truth.” Finally, then we shall offer some concluding hermeneutical reflections on how the Gospel “works” to present its retrospective witness to Jesus, under the aegis of the Spirit’s guidance and the witness of the Scriptures.

2 The Spirit in the Gospel of John In John, the Holy Spirit bears a distinctive designation, “Paraclete” (παράκλητος).⁶ A number of interpreters and translations have assigned to the word a forensic or legal sense: the Paraclete is an advocate, in the sense of a “defense attorney.” In pre-Christian and extra-Christian literature παράκλητος means “mediator, intercessor, helper.”⁷ Philo uses the word to mean both “intercessor, mediator” (Jo-

 In his commentary on the Epistles of John, Raymond Brown argued that they give evidence of a struggle between two groups within the “Johannine community,” who understood the witness of the Gospel differently at key points, including their ideas of Jesus and of the Spirit; see Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 30 (Doubleday: Garden City, 1982).  For reviews of scholarly discussion and theories about the meaning of the term see Bennema, Saving Wisdom, 213 – 21; Franck, Revelation Taught; and T. G. Brown, Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-scientific Perspective, JSNTSup 253 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 170 – 86.  So BDAG ad loc, citing references to Demosthenes, Dionysis Halicarnassus, Heraclitus, and Dio Cassius. In the LXX, Job’s “comforters” are called παρακλήτορες (Job 16:2). In John, the Spirit is not explicitly said to intercede for believers, although the Paraclete is instrumental in their defense against the world. Neither does the familiar translation “Comforter” (RSV), derived

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

205

seph 239; Moses 2.134) and “adviser, helper” or “advocate” (Creation 23, 165), without locating such help or advocacy in a law court. Kenneth Grayston contends that the sense is closer to “patron” or “sponsor” (hence, the Latin translation is typically advocatus), someone whose presence and person count in favor of another.⁸ In rabbinic literature the word is transliterated as pěraklît in m. ’Abot 4:11, where the context shows it is roughly the opposite of “accuser”: “Whoever performs one precept gets for himself one advocate [pěraklît], but whoever commits one transgression gets for himself one accuser.” Because it is difficult to find an adequate English translation, the term is often simply transliterated as “Paraclete”, though “helper” or “advocate” could serve well.⁹ The distinctive designation of the Spirit as “the Paraclete” occurs only in the Gospel’s farewell discourse, where the Spirit is also designated “the Spirit of truth” and “the Holy Spirit” (chs. 14– 16). But in the narratives framing the farewell discourse (chs. 1– 13, 18 – 20), the Spirit is called either simply “the Spirit” (1:32– 33, 3:5 – 6, 34; 4:23 – 24, 6:63, 7:39) or the “Holy Spirit” (1:33; 20:22). Most intriguing is the way in which the designations “Paraclete” and “Spirit” tend to correspond, not only to different portions of the Gospel, but also to two rather different ways of describing the Spirit’s role and work. On the one hand, primarily in those descriptions in the narratives, the Spirit has been understood, alongside “wisdom” and “word,” as a way of speaking of God’s activity or as the manifestation of a particular divine activity or power.¹⁰ Hence, the Spirit is God’s own activity, the means by which God effects new birth or brings life to the children of God (3:3 – 8; 6:63; 7:37– 39). Jesus will baptize “with” or “by” the Holy Spirit, described by analogy with “water” (1:33; 3:5 – 6; 7:37– 39); Jesus “breathes” the Spirit into his disciples (20:22). The activities of the Spirit have primarily to do with the Spirit’s agency in the formation and purification of the “children of God.”

from the cognate verb παρακαλέω, “comfort, exhort, encourage,” aptly characterize the Paraclete’s functions in John; but, otherwise, see Franck, Revelation Taught, 28 – 29.  Kenneth Grayston, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990), 122. Brown, Spirit in the Writings of John, proposes that the system of patronage in the ancient Mediterranean world stands behind John’s designation of the Spirit as “the Paraclete,” and that, against this background, one should understand the Paraclete’s role as “broker” or “mediator.”  Latin authors including Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine rendered the term Advocatus; the Vulgate used the transliterated Paracletus.  E. g., George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John, SNTSM 12 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 31– 32.

206

Marianne Meye Thompson

On the other hand, the Spirit has also been conceived as “a divine being distinct from and in some degree independent of God.”¹¹ Such a characterization of the Spirit takes its cue from the farewell discourse (14:16 – 17, 26; 15:26; 16:7, 13), where the Spirit is called the “Paraclete,” as well as the Holy Spirit and Spirit of truth,¹² but never simply “the Spirit” (contrast 1:32– 33, 3:5 – 6, 34; 4:23 – 24, 6:63, 7:39). Coupled with the various activities of the Spirit, it is more difficult to think of “the Spirit” as “breath” or “wind” when presented as the Paraclete. Indeed, the Spirit-Paraclete is a teacher (14:26), who reminds the disciples of Jesus’ words (14:26), testifies on Jesus’ behalf (15:26), glorifies Jesus (16:13), and accuses or convicts the world of sin (16:7– 8). The Spirit-Paraclete is the “Spirit of truth” because the Spirit teaches, clarifies, and leads into, the truth. The Paraclete “comes from” (15:26; 16:7, 13) and is “sent” by God (14:26; 15:26; 16:7); in turn, the Spirit can be “received” or “welcomed;” and believers are said to “know” and, most peculiarly, to “see” the Spirit (14:16 – 17). Here, the Spirit is described, not by analogy with water and breath, but rather as a prophet or emissary—much as Jesus himself is depicted in John. And it is precisely in these instances that the teaching and guiding role of the Spirit comes to the foreground. One may dispute whether or not these two ways of conceiving the Spirit – as power, and as personality – are truly different. John Levison has argued that these two conceptions of the Spirit are found already in the Old Testament, as well as in Jewish interpreters of Scripture.¹³ Isaiah, for example, speaks of God pouring out his spirit like water (44:3), but then personifies the Spirit when he says “the Spirit of the Lord gave them rest.” Similarly, in the book of Haggai, God announces “my spirit abides among you” (2:5). And in Nehemiah we read, “You gave your good spirit to instruct them” (9:20). The same variation in portraying the Spirit can be found in Jewish authors such as Philo, who can speak both of the Spirit within Moses, the Spirit inspiring and entering Moses, as well as of the Spirit who guides or accompanies or “guides to the truth itself” (Moses 2.264– 65). In other words, the different ways of portraying the Spirit, as breath or water, and as companion or instructor, are likely not incompatible.

 Stephen Smalley, “Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 293.  “Spirit of truth” can be found in Jub. 25:14, 1QS IV, 21– 23, Jos. As. 19:11, T. Jud. 20:5 (if not a Christian interpolation); the DSS and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs refer often to “the spirit of deceit” or “spirit of error.”  Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 229; see also his discussion of the “two modes of divine presence,” signaled by the prepositions παρά (“alongside, with”) and ἐν (“in, among”): the Spirit will be with and in the disciples (390 – 98).

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

207

Even so, distinctly new functions are attributed to the Spirit once Jesus’ death and departure come into focus in the Gospel in the Farewell Discourse: if previously, the Spirit was the means of the purification and creation of the children of God, now the Spirit’s role in instructing and guiding the disciples is foregrounded. In Jesus’ absence the Paraclete continues to teach the disciples, as Jesus did; but now the Spirit particularly causes the disciples to recollect and understand all the truth of Jesus’ words and deeds. Not only does the Spirit teach, but the Spirit teaches about Jesus so that the fullness of what Jesus was and is may be understood. Put briefly, the Spirit of truth bears witness to Jesus, who is the Truth. Because the Paraclete comes as a successor to Jesus upon his return to the Father, it is not uncommon to describe the Paraclete as a “replacement” for Jesus.¹⁴ There are indeed correspondences between the work of Jesus and the Spirit, which have been taken to suggest that Jesus’ activities are carried on by the Spirit, or perhaps even as the Spirit. One might call this a “christological interpretation” of the Spirit, since it alleges that the portrait of the Spirit and the Spirit’s work are drawn from the model of Jesus himself.¹⁵ The overlapping functions of Jesus and the Spirit are primarily those of teaching and disclosing God’s word, functions that fit with and show the aptness of the designation, “Spirit of truth.”¹⁶ Strikingly, Jesus and the Spirit perform the same tasks: 1. Jesus teaches (7:14– 15, 8:20, 18:19), as does the Spirit (14:26); 2. Jesus gives testimony (5:31 f; 8:13 f; 7:7), as does the Spirit (15:26); 3. Both Jesus (7:17, 8:26, 14:10) and the Spirit (14:26; 16:13 – 14) speak of what they have heard; 4. Both Jesus (1:18; 4:25) and the Spirit (16:13) disclose and reveal. In other words, what Jesus had done while on earth, the Spirit undertakes now that Jesus has returned to the Father. However, many of the functions attributed to the Spirit are elsewhere predicated, not of Jesus or of Jesus only, but also of the Father.

 R. E. Brown, John 2:1143. Bennema, Saving Wisdom, 220, notes that the Paraclete both takes over (some of) Jesus’ functions and also mediates the presence of Jesus and the Father; see also Marianne Meye Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 179 – 185.  Emphasized by Gary Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 141.  For further discussion, see R. E. Brown, John 2. 1140 – 41. On the Paraclete’s dual and related functions of providing witness and guidance, see Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 110 – 23; Bennema, Saving Wisdom, 225 – 28; Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 385 n. 32.

208

1.

2. 3.

4.

Marianne Meye Thompson

The Father testifies to Jesus (5:37, 8:18; 1 John 5:9), as does the Spirit (15:26 – 27). The Father glorifies Jesus (5:44; 8:54; 12:23, 28; 13:31– 32, 17:1, 5), as does the Spirit (16:14). The Father will be with the disciples (14:23; 17:11, 15, 26), and the Spirit will be with them as well (14:17). The Father has the authority and right to judge, but has handed judgment over to the Son (5:22, 27, 30; 8:16); so, too, the Paraclete convicts the world of judgment (16:8 – 11). The Paraclete teaches (14:26; 16:13), as does God (5:45; 1 John 2:26 – 27); Jesus teaches what God tells him to teach (7:16 – 17).¹⁷

In other words, the Spirit carries on the work of both the Son and of the Father. In John, not only is it true that “what the Father does, the Son does”; it is also true that “what the Father does, the Spirit does.” If, after Jesus’ departure, the Spirit will exercise new and specific functions among the disciples, focused particularly on teaching and guiding into the truth,¹⁸ we might ask how the Spirit’s role was identified and experienced. How did these early followers of Jesus understand or experience the Spirit’s functions of teaching and guiding into the truth to be located in their personal or corporate lives? Taking up this question, some interpreters have pointed out that the description of the Paraclete’s functions correspond to those of the ideal Christian prophet or teacher in the church.¹⁹ In other words, the Spirit’s roles of teaching, revelation, speaking, and bearing witness are exercised in the company of disciples, most probably by those who were designated or looked to as leaders and teachers, perhaps even primarily by the Beloved Disciple. One might term this the ecclesiastical understanding of the Spirit.²⁰ The Spirit’s work is exercised

 For the Paraclete as teacher and examination of key terminology, see Bennema, Saving Wisdom, 228 – 34.  The textual variants at 16.13 suggest two different possible interpretations. If the Spirit is to guide the disciples “in all truth” (εἰς), then the disciples are already in the “full truth;” if the Spirit is to guide the disciples “into all the truth” (εἰς), then they are not yet in that full truth. For the former view, see Bennema, Saving Wisdom; for the latter view, see Hoegen-Rohls, Der nachösterliche Johannes, and Raimond Bieringer, “The Spirit’s Guidance Into All the Truth.” See also note 2 in this essay.  The “gifts of the Spirit” in 1 Cor 12:4– 10 include speaking wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, and discernment; Eph 4:11 includes prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.  See Eugene Boring, “The Influence of Christian Prophecy in the Johannine Portayal of the Paraclete and Jesus,” NTS 25 (1978): 113 – 23; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete; Franck, Revelation Taught, argues that the “Methurgeman”, the translator and interpreter of (Hebrew) Scripture into Aramaic in the synagogue context, shapes the conception of the Paraclete’s didactic func-

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

209

through those who teach, bear witness, seek the truth, and among the disciples in studying Scripture, or in bearing witness to the world (16:7– 8).²¹ The term Paraclete is not simply a cipher for Christian prophets, but the work of the Paraclete is known and manifested through the teaching of the prophets within the community. Such an understanding of the Paraclete comes into focus in the context of the situation alluded to in 1 John. When that Epistle urges its readers to “test the spirits,” appeals to the anointing of the holy one that teaches “about all things,” and reminds believers that the “Spirit of God” leads to the truthful confession that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (2:20 – 27; 4:1– 3), it lodges such teaching in the context of the warnings against “many false prophets.” In 1 John, we find helpful evidence for how the Spirit was understood to be present and to function among these early followers of Jesus.

3 Spirit-inspired Prophets In the first Epistle of John we find the negative admonition “do not believe every spirit” followed by the positive exhortation to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (4:1). Since prophets, by definition, are those who are understood to speak by the power of God and on behalf of God, these “false prophets” must have claimed the inspiration of God’s Spirit. But the claim to be inspired by the Spirit can and must be tested, for the claim to have the Spirit is not evidence that one does. It is obvious that the author of this Epistle believes that he, and those to whom he is writing,

tions, which can be compared to the midrashic practices of expounding and interpreting Scripture.  On this point, see Bennema, Saving Wisdom, 235 – 36, who speaks of “co-ordination” of the witness of the Paraclete and of the disciples; their witness is the “medium” of the Paraclete’s witness, so that the witness of the Paraclete and the disciples are “not two distinct activities but essentially one.” Bennema further notes, however, that “the witness of the disciples is either the result of the simultaneous parallel witnessing of the Paraclete, and/or the result of an earlier, related (teaching) activity of the Paraclete” (236). That (perhaps earlier) work of reminding the disciples of Jesus’ words (14:26; 16:12– 15), reveals to the disciples the meaning and intent of Jesus’ words so that they may properly bear witness to and against the world in the cosmic trial between Jesus and the world. In this cosmic case, the Spirit-Paraclete serves as the disciples’ advocate by substantiating their witness to Christ. Thus the Paraclete executes the roles of Teacher and Revealer with respect to the disciples and, simultaneously, the role of Advocate with respect to the world (241). On the role of the Paraclete in the cosmic lawsuit, see Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 110 – 23.

210

Marianne Meye Thompson

share the anointing of the spirit of God (1 John 2:20, 27).²² But since there are apparently some who are no longer part of the author’s community but are likely making the same claims, there must be an effort made to discern who speaks the truth. Hence, the readers are challenged to “test the spirits,” that is, to discern the power at work inspiring a person by examining the words spoken and, specifically, the works spoken in witness borne to and about Jesus. While the word “spirits” is plural, the author of 1 John identifies only two spirits that could be at work: God’s Spirit, also called the Spirit of truth because it guards and inspires truth (4:2, 6); and the spirit of antichrist, which inspires falsehood, and especially false confession of Christ (4:3, 6). In other words, there may be many prophets, persons claiming to speak the truth for God, active in the communities addressed in the Epistle, but ultimately these prophets speak either truth or error: they are inspired by two different spirits.²³ The call comes to “test the spirits,” that is, to discern whether the message spoken is truth that comes from God or falsehood that opposes God’s witness to Jesus. Such testing is necessary because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1). While “prophet” in the Pauline literature refers to a specific function within the church (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:1– 5, 29 – 33; Eph 4:11), 1 John apparently refers more broadly to all of those who left the church as “false prophets,” because they carry with them testimony that claims to be Spirit-inspired, but which is not. All persons speak by the inspiration of one spirit or another, and the spirit at work in a person can be identified by means of the witness each bears to Jesus Christ. Hence, this Epistle links the witness borne by the Spirit to Jesus, and the teaching about Jesus, with a very specific confession of him as the one “come in the flesh.” Thus the promise, found in the Gospel, that the Spirit of truth will lead the disciples “into all truth” does not mean that anything said by one claiming to have that Spirit is true. There are false prophets; there are erroneous interpretations of Jesus. By the same token, there are Spirit-inspired confessions.

 Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 415 – 19, argues that the presence of this “anointing” essentially renders the role of “teacher” in the community superflouous.  On the two spirits in John, 1 John, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 386 – 90, 407– 409.

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

211

4 Spirit-inspired Confession If in the Gospel of John Jesus promises the Spirit of truth who will teach and guide the disciples, in 1 John, the testimony of the Spirit focuses on the substance of that teaching and, more specifically, on what one teaches about Jesus (1 John 4:2– 3). Hence, the Epistle links the witness borne by the Spirit to Jesus with a very specific confession of him as the one “come in the flesh.” The emphasis on true confession indicates that our author’s concern about the “spirits” and “testing the spirits” does not have to do with possession by spirits or demons, the practice of ecstatic speech, or claims to foresee the future.²⁴ Rather, the issues have to do with affirmations about Jesus that have been handed down in the community, which focus specifically on the fact that he has “come in the flesh.” There is obviously an overlap between the Epistle’s version of the confession, “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” (4:2) and the Gospel’s affirmation that “the Word became flesh” (1:14). To confess that Jesus Christ has come “in the flesh” was not a new confession, but one that stands in continuity with the Gospel’s understanding of Jesus as the Word that was made flesh (1:14), a confession that lay at the heart of the Gospel’s witness to Jesus. But clearly the understanding of these affirmations in the Gospel had elicited debate that led eventually to a rift in the community. Still, exactly what is at stake in the author’s insistence that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” remains debatable. As noted, the formulation in the Epistle clearly echoes language found in the Gospel of John. The twinned assertions that “the Word was with God” (John 1:1) and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) might be understood to be summarized in the Epistle’s insistence that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” Perhaps this was shorthand for summarizing the Gospel’s narrative about and understanding of Jesus, encompassing both his divine origins and identity as the one who was with God, and his human existence as one who “dwelt among us” (John 1:14). He had “come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2). But the Gospel of John further notes that this one who “came down from heaven” gives life to the world by giving his “flesh,” presumably in his death (John 6:51). “Flesh” (σάρξ) denotes humankind in its frailty and mortality; and verbs

 Some scholars have argued that the author has in view ecstatic utterance in the community; J. L. Houlden, The Johannine Epistles, (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 107– 9; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 204. But, as R. E. Brown (Epistles, 489) notes, all have a spirit. The issue is not, as it is in Corinth, the need to discern a variety of charisms, including the prophetic gift, but the recognition of the two spirits of truth and error as they are manifested in the lifestyles and confessions of various persons.

212

Marianne Meye Thompson

for “give” (παραδίδωμι, δίδωμι) with the preposition ὑπέρ (“on behalf of”) feature in New Testament formulations having to do with the death of Jesus on the cross (such as Rom 8:32; Gal 2:20). When Jesus says that “the bread which he gives for the life of the world” is his flesh, he includes his death, even if he does not limit his self-giving to his death. It may be, then, that the formulation “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2) has in view also the significance of the death of Jesus, the one who “came down from heaven” to give his flesh for the life of the world. Not surprisingly, other passages in the Epistle stress the importance of Jesus’ death and the atonement that it makes for sin (1:7; 2:1– 2; 4:9 – 10, 14) and its provision for God’s gift of life (5:11– 12). True confession about Jesus includes a specific understanding of what his death had accomplished. Put differently, the concerns in the Epistle’s warnings against “false prophets” and its call to “test the Spirits” are not only christological, but also soteriological, in their focus. While the confession “Jesus Christ incarnate” encapsulates John’s understanding of Jesus, it reminds the readers of the salvation that comes through Jesus and exhorts them to faithfulness to him. The Spirit thus bears witness to Jesus as the Word who had been made flesh and who gave his flesh for the life of the world—and does so by (1) calling to mind the Gospel’s narrative about Jesus and (2) by correcting any false understanding that may have arisen about Jesus. In other words, the Spirit teaches and guides the disciples into “all truth” by instructing them how to read the Gospel. Here, then, the Spirit’s hermeneutical role in guiding the disciples into “all the truth” comes to the fore: without the guidance of the Spirit, texts can easily be misread and their witness to Jesus misconstrued.

5 Spirit-inspired Response The assertion that one must acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:2) is then epitomized by the simpler formula that one must acknowledge Jesus (v. 3). Such a restatement makes it clear that what John ultimately seeks is faith in a person, the incarnate Word, and not faith in a doctrine or affirmation, even something so central as the “Incarnation” of Jesus or beliefs about the atonement. In confessing that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” one “acknowledges” or “confesses” Jesus himself. “Acknowledgment” or “confession” of Jesus has in view faith and trust in a person. Still, what one confesses about Jesus remains of crucial importance, because the substance of the confession that is urged and taught has to do with the identity of Jesus and what he accomplishes. To deny that Jesus has come in the flesh means not only to reject

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

213

the truth that “the Word became flesh,” but to reject that his flesh is given for the life of the world. Those who deny Jesus are called the world (1 John 4:3 – 5). “The world” is that sphere of existence opposed to or ignorant of God’s Spirit and ways (2:15 – 17). In the Gospel of John, the world cannot “receive” the Spirit of truth: it neither “sees him nor knows him” (14:17). The world “hates” the disciples of Jesus even as it hated Jesus; and it hates them because they do not “belong to the world” (15:19). The Paraclete, in fact, exercises his role of advocacy over against the world, proving the world wrong “about sin and righteousness and judgment” (16:7– 8). In other words, in both the Gospel and the Epistle there is a clear division between those who are of the Spirit and of the world, and this is the same division that runs between those who confess Jesus appropriately through the Spirit’s instruction and those who do not. After all, Jesus promised his followers the Spirit of truth who would “teach [them] all things” (14:26) and “guide [them] into all truth” (16:13). The Spirit inspires both teaching and understanding of the truth. Both true teaching and response are inspired by the Spirit who inspires and guards the truth of the word of life. There is conflict between truth and error, between the Spirit of truth and, in the Epistles, the spirit of antichrist. Neither the Gospel nor the Epistle sees this struggle played out in a world far above and beyond human beings, but rather in a contest between two groups of people with differing understandings of Jesus. In spite of what were likely identical claims to have been taught by the Spirit of God and to have been guided “into all truth,” the author of the Epistle calls to mind the affirmations of the Gospel about Jesus’ flesh to show that the Spirit does not lead into truth that contradicts, explicitly or implicitly, the message of the Gospel. To be guided into all truth is not to be guided away from truths central to the faith of believers.

6 The Spirit’s Instruction: Understanding Jesus From Scripture From the foregoing discussion, we see that not only does the Spirit teach and instruct, but that the Spirit’s role encompasses proper understanding of Scripture. Whereas the Epistle insists that the Spirit’s teaching reinforces the Gospel’s emphasis on the genuine enfleshment of the Word, in the Gospel the Spirit fosters understanding of the Scriptures of Israel, our “Old Testament.” An example of the Spirit’s work in understanding Scripture can be found in the dialogue between Jesus and his audience that follows upon the feeding of the 5000. The

214

Marianne Meye Thompson

crowds ask Jesus to do a sign comparable to Moses’s mediation of the gift of manna, citing Scripture as their warrant: “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” (6.31).²⁵ In response to this request, Jesus presents himself as one who can feed people not only with physical bread that sustains them for a day, but also with heavenly bread that sustains them forever, bread that gives life to the world (6:27, 33). The people (or, the crowds) are eager for such life-giving sustenance: “Sir, give us this bread always!” Jesus then identifies himself as the bread of life, inviting them to come to him to eat and drink and so satisfy their hunger and thirst. The references to manna, and the invitations to both eat and drink, call upon biblical and Jewish interpretations of bread and manna as the word and wisdom of God.²⁶ In John, both are embodied in Jesus, as Jesus asserts in the statement, “I am the bread of life.” That is, he is the “bread” of the Scriptural text, the bread that has “come down from heaven” (6:33, 38). Now some of Jesus’ hearers, identified as the Jews are said “to murmur” (γογγύζω) with respect to this claim (6:41– 42). How could he, whose earthly origins they know, have “come down from heaven?”²⁷ They understand what he is claiming: and they challenge his assertions and grumble about those claims.

 There is no exact match to this quotation; cf. Exod 16:4, “I am going to rain bread from heaven for you;” Exod 16:15, “It is the bread that the LORD has given you to eat;” Ps 78:24, “he rained down on them manna to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven;” and Neh 9:15: “For their hunger you gave them bread from heaven” (all NRSV). For a discussion of “composite quotations in John,” such as this quotation in 6:31, see Catrin H. Williams, “Composite Citations in the Gospel of John,” in New Testament Uses, vol. 2 of Composite Citations in Antiquity, eds. Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn, LNTS 593 (London: Bloomsbury, 2018), 94– 127.  Manna symbolizes divine wisdom, teaching, or the word (Deut 8:3; Prov 9:5; Isa 55:10 – 11; Sir 17:11; 24:19 – 22; 45:5). According to Sirach, wisdom is embodied in the Torah (Sir 24:19 – 21). In commenting on Exodus 16:4, Philo (Mut. 44.259 – 260), replaces manna with wisdom (σοφία), leading him to say: “And indeed it says, ‘Behold I rain upon you bread from heaven.’ Of what food can he rightly say that it is rained from heaven, save of heavenly wisdom which is sent from above?” See also Her. 39.191, Fug. 18.9; Leg. 3.162– 64. On the association of messianic expectation and the wisdom tradition, see Andrea Taschl-Erber, “Christological Transformation of the Motif of ‘Living Water’ (John 4; 7): Prophetic Messiah Expectations and Wisdom Tradition,” in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophet, and Divine Messiah, ed. Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 248 – 270; and, in the same volume, William Loader, “Wisdom and Logos Traditions in Judaism and John’s Christology,” 303 – 34.  Thus the Jews murmured, or grumbled (vv. 43, 61; 7:32) even as had “their ancestors” (οἱ πατέρες; 6:31, 49) to whom God had given the manna in the wilderness (Exod 15:24; 16:2, 7, 8, 9, 12; 17:3; Num 11:1; 14:2, 27, 17:5, 17:10 [LXX 17:20, 25]). In the Exodus narratives, “murmuring” signals a lack of trust in God; in John, a lack of trust or belief in Jesus as the one who comes from God.

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

215

How could they be true? Jesus” citation of the prophets to make the point that only those “taught by God,”²⁸ who have “heard and learned from the Father,” will respond to his words (6:44–-45), indicates that the understanding of Jesus as the “bread from heaven” is dependent upon a particular reading of Scripture. The two Scriptural texts, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat,” and “They shall all be taught by God” are mutually interpretive: those who are taught by God read the Scripture regarding the bread from heaven as Jesus does. Jesus further glosses his claim to be the bread of life come down from heaven (6:35, 48, 50, 51) with the identification of the bread as his flesh, which one eats to have eternal life (6:40, 48 – 51). This assertion now leads to disputes among the Jews as they wonder how he will give them his flesh to eat (6:52). In response, Jesus speaks of the need to eat and drink the flesh and blood of the Son of Man, since these are “true food” and “true drink” (6:53 – 54, 57– 58). Now some of Jesus’ own disciples balk, finding Jesus’ words too difficult to accept. Just as Jesus had earlier described the Jews who grumbled against him as those who had not been drawn or taught by God (6:44– 45), now he describes his own disciples who grumble as those who have not been granted faith by God (6:64– 65), who have not been given life by the Spirit of God (3:3, 6; 6:63). They are those, apparently, who have not been “taught by God,” and who, therefore, have not understood the witness of the Scriptures as Jesus interprets them. Those born of the Spirit are taught by God, and so read the Scriptures as Jesus himself does, as a witness to what God does through him.

7 Concluding Remarks In sum, then, the Spirit is the agent of the disciples’ remembering and understanding who Jesus is in light of the Scriptures. The Spirit points resolutely to Jesus, bearing witness to him, and glorifying or honoring him (1:32– 34; 15:26; 16:14). Since the disciples come particularly to understand the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection only “later” (e. g., 2:22; 12:16; 13:7), “all the truth” surely includes deeper insight into Jesus’ identity and work, elucidating what was latent in his life. Comprehension of Jesus’ action in the temple, for example, did

 Again, the biblical citation is not exact, but most closely approximates Isa 54:13. John quotes the passage as “they will all be taught by God,” with “all” rather than Isaiah’s phrase “all your children,” thus broadening the reference from the people of Israel to a more generic “all.” The general reference to “the prophets” may allude to the fact that the prophetic tradition expected a time in which God’s people would be “taught by God”; see the earlier references in Isa 2:1– 3, 11:9 (also Hab 2:14); as well as Jer 31:33 – 34 (38:33 – 34 LXX).

216

Marianne Meye Thompson

not come simply by observing what Jesus did, but from reading the Scriptures in light of the resurrection and the new understanding of Jesus that comes with it, in the context of a community committed to following him, under the tutelage of the Spirit. One cannot dispense with the events of the past—such as the temple action or the triumphal entry—but the events themselves cannot and do not lead to full perception of their significance.²⁹ To put it differently, “sight” is not always “insight.” Insight is given by the Spirit. It is altogether likely that the author of the Gospel understood the truth granted by the Spirit as including the robust presentation of Jesus found in the Gospel. The Gospel explicitly indicates that it was only “later” that the relevance of the Scriptures to Jesus’ life was fully grasped. According to the Gospel of John, Scripture, properly understood, bears witness to Jesus (5:38 – 39). But unless one is taught by God (6:45), reads Scripture in light of the resurrection of Jesus (2:17, 22), and is guided by the teaching of the Spirit of truth (14:26; 16:13 – 14), one hears the Scripture not as a witness to the identity of Jesus as the life-giving Word of God but as an accusing witness, a judge.³⁰ In short, one can “search [the Scriptures]” and learn that “no prophet is to rise from Galilee” (7:52), or one can search the Scriptures and hear the witness they bear to Jesus (5:39). The Spirit of truth teaches the disciples “everything,” including how to understand the Scriptures. Those who hear (or read) the Scriptures so as to discern the testimony that they bear to Jesus do so not because they are particularly adept exegetes but because they have been guided by the Spirit to read as they do. They have been “taught by God” (6:45). They also read as disciples, those who follow Jesus, who have undergone the “birth from above” of which he spoke to Nicodemus. They are the disciples who come to understand later, after Jesus’ resurrection and with the guidance of the Spirit. They participate in those very same realities that are spoken of in the text: they have been born anew by the Spirit of God,

 Tops uses Kierkegaard’s distinction between recollection and repetition to explore the relationship between the “reminding” (recollection) and “teaching” (repetition) functions of the Paraclete. Recollection is retrospective and cognitive (2:19 – 22; 12:12– 16). Teaching has to do with transforming into living the truth. Teaching is repetition, because the teaching of the Paraclete is not in competition with the teaching of Jesus and because it enables the disciples to embody the truth (14:25 – 6; 16:12– 13). “The Paraclete repeats Jesus’ teaching as a totality, nothing more and nothing less. Yet, his teaching function is not reduced to his reminding function, but is genuinely revelatory. Although his teaching does not add anything new to the old, it does renew the old. Nothing has changed, yet everything has become new” (p. 85). See Brown, Spirit in the Writings of John, 309.  Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 54– 56.

“The Paraclete Will Teach You All Things”

217

who brings Jesus’ word to remembrance (14:26), bears witness to Jesus (15:26), and guides into all truth (16:13). In the Epistles, it is not explicitly the ways in which the Scriptures of Israel relate to Jesus’ person and work that are held up as the subject of the Spirit’s teaching of the community. Rather, the subject of the Spirit’s instruction is the identity of Jesus as the Word of God, made flesh. In other words, the Spirit continues the work of teaching, of instructing, but always by reminding the disciples of what they had known, and believed, from the beginning of their community’s life, in continuity with the work and person of Jesus and, specifically, with the witness of the Gospel to him. The Spirit is their teacher, guiding them fully into all the truth they had always known.

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

The Spirit and Imitatio Christi in 1 John 1 Introduction

The purpose of following discussion is to consider the pneumatology of 1 John. The reason for this particular focus is both pragmatic and theological. On the pragmatic side, the function of the Spirit in the Johannine Epistles, especially 1 John, has not received much sustained attention in recent scholarly studies. This neglect no doubt reflects the general sentiment that what can be said about the Spirit in 1 John is largely a function of what one makes of the same in the Fourth Gospel. In other words, if one “gets” what is going on in the Gospel of John, much follows along similar lines as one considers the pneumatology of the Epistles.¹ On the theological side, just as has been recognized in relation to Christology, a consideration of the Spirit in 1 John² raises significant issues that are at best only implied in the Gospel. Indeed, the epistle has its own contribution to make; it casts pneumatological language in a distinct light within the Johannine tradition. With respect to the Johannine tradition, in particular the Fourth Gospel, the function of the (Holy) Spirit has been understood in a number of different, partly overlapping ways. It suffices here to mention three. First, in one strain of interpretation, the Spirit has been interpreted as that activity of God which enabled a third or fourth generation of Christians not to feel disadvantaged by their growing remoteness in time to Jesus. Not only does the Spirit’s presence bridge the gap between Jesus of the early 1st century CE with Christians of the late 1st century, the writer of the Gospel assigns words to Jesus which argue that his community of believers are actually at an advantage: the believer in Jesus “will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going

 See the helpful comparison of expressions and vocabulary of 1– 3 John with the Fourth Gospel by George L. Parsenios, First, Second, and Third John, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 7– 11 (esp. 11: “John and 1 John are also not so far apart on the role of the Spirit”). Judith M. Lieu seems more inclined to underscored difference between the Johannine writings, despite shared expressions; cf. eadem, The Theology of the Johannine Epistles, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991) 16 – 21, 36 – 37, and 99 – 107 and I, II, and III John, The New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 17– 18 and passim., which center mostly on other motifs such as general vocabulary, ethics, Christology, eschatology, the relation to Judaism, and use of scripture.  The term “S/spirit” (πνεῦμα) does not occur anywhere in 2 and 3 John. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-016

220

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

to the Father”³ (John 14:12); and, “I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate (i. e., the Spirit) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (16:7).⁴ Second, another interpretation has drawn attention to the Spirit’s role as an instructor. Through the Spirit, God is active in helping the Johannine community of believers to become a community that discerns its way in the midst of uncertain times. Again, Jesus’ words function to underscore this point: “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive … You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you” (14:17); “… the Holy Spirit … will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you” (14:26); “the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf” (15:26); and, “when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (16:13).⁵ This understanding may be echoed in 1 John 5:6: “And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth.” A third way the Spirit may be thought to function in the Fourth Gospel is as an agent of ethical transformation. Through the Spirit, Jesus’ instruction to “love one another (John 15:12, 17; cf. 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:4, 11, 12; 2 John 5) becomes a real possibility.

2 “Spirit” in the Johannine Tradition: Preliminary Observations In John’s Gospel, the term “spirit” (πνεῦμα) occurs twenty-two times. In twelve instances, it denotes the divine Spirit, that is, the Spirit of God that is also closely associated with Jesus (John 1:32, 33; 3:5, 6, 8, 34; 6:63; 7:39 bis; 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). In only three further texts specific mention is made of the Spirit as “the Holy Spirit” (1:33; 14:26; 20.22), while in three other cases, the term refers to Jesus’ human spirit (11:33; 13:21; 19:30). Finally, twice it is used positively to describe a more authentic dimension of religious observance (4:23, 24—here, worshipping “in spirit and in truth”). There is no explicit reference to “the Spirit of God” in the Fourth Gospel.

 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are taken from the NRSV.  See James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit. A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of the Earliest Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 350 – 351.  Cf. Cornelis Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT 2.148 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002).

The Spirit and Imitatio Christi in 1 John

221

With respect to “the Spirit,” the language of 1 John is very similar to that of the Gospel,⁶ though it stands apart in a couple of ways. As in the Gospel, the simple expression “the Spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα) remains the most common expression, appearing in seven of twelve occurrences (1 John 3:24; 4:2, 3, 6; 5:6, 8). In three other cases the word seems to function neutrally to indicate part of the human being, that is, it refers to a person’s capacity to confess or not to confess something essential about Jesus (4:1, 2, 3; see further below). Like the Gospel, the expression “the Spirit of truth” can also be found, though only once (4:6). Nonetheless, its occurrence is, as we shall see below, significant for the pneumatology of 1 John. Comparison with the Gospel reveals several differences: the designation “the Holy Spirit” nowhere appears in the text, while the related expressions “that (implied: spirit) of the Antichrist” (4:3) and “the Spirit of Error” (4:6), which are not found in the Gospel, occur once, each in a significant way. In addition, the phrase “his spirit,” which is assigned to Jesus at the time of his death in the Gospel (John 19:30; cf. also 11:33 and 13:21), refers in 1 John 4:12– 13 to the Spirit of God which God has given to believers who abide in him. The brief overview of occurrences above yields a few initial observations. First, several times in the Fourth Gospel reference is made to Jesus’ human spirit in a way that does not refer to the Spirit of God or to a divine force. In these instances, Jesus is presented as troubled within himself (11:33—before raising Lazarus, when overcome by emotion in response to the mourning over his death; 13:21 —when about to announce that one of his disciples would betray him) and, as mentioned above, when he gives up his life force (19:30). Any reference to Jesus’ spirit in this way is completely lacking in 1 John. It is difficult to determine whether or not 1 John avoids a profane use of “spirit.” In any case, when it comes to Jesus himself, 1 John develops themes implicit in the Fourth Gospel. According to the latter, the Spirit is to be sent to believers from the Father in Jesus’ name (John 14:26); one step further, Jesus can state that he himself is the one who will send the Spirit, which comes from the Father (15:26). The Spirit in the Gospel, then, is from the Father, but testifies to and is mediated by Jesus. Second, the Fourth Gospel mentions “spirit” as a dimension of divine activity that contrasts with “the flesh” (3:6) or with a sphere of activity that carries no particular salvific import (3:6; 4:23, 24). Again, this kind of contrast is entirely absent from 1– 3 John.

 See the bibliography in n. 1.

222

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

Third and significantly, 1 John is much more inclined than the Gospel of John to use “spirit” in an oppositional way,⁷ that is, in pitting one kind of spirit over against another. When referring to a force or influence, 1 John not only mentions the Spirit of God (4:2) or simply to “the Spirit” (in its relation to God), it also draws attention twice to an opposite force that is designated, respectively, “that (i. e., the Spirit) of the Antichrist” (4:3) and “the Spirit of Error” (4:6). The text at 1 John 4:3 implies that any spirit which denies that Jesus is from God is “the (Spirit) of the Antichrist” (καἰ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὁ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὁν ᾽Ιησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστίν καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου) that is now present in the world. A good case could be made that the expressions referring to “the Antichrist” and “Error” should be considered proper names, as they function in direct contrast to “the Spirit of God.”⁸ This personifying language would be analogous to what we find in the Two Spirits Treatise in the so-called Community Rule of the Dead Sea Scrolls—“the Spirit of truth” versus “the Spirit of iniquity” (1QS 3.18 – 19 and 4.23). Indeed, before mentioning the Spirit of the Antichrist and the Spirit of Error, the writer of 1 John warns the audience in 4:1 against believing “every spirit,” so that in this frame of reference the antithesis between the one spirit and the other is to be read. Fourth, whereas the Spirit in the Gospel of John is closely bound up with Christology and, in particular, has its source in God as Father who gives the Spirit to believers (John 14:26; 15:26; cf. further Mt 10:20 and Lk 11:13), in 1 John the Spirit links believers even more closely to the person and event of Jesus. In the Fourth Gospel, of course, the Spirit cannot be given until Jesus has been glorified following his death (7:39; 20:19 – 23). Jesus, in his final instructions at the meal before his death at Passover, emphasizes that his disciples will be given the Spirit to remember what Jesus has taught them (14:26) and to be led into all truth (16:13). In addition, it is possible that the Spirit, as the Advocate (παράκλητος) who abides in them, will be the way in which Jesus remains present after he goes away (14:16 – 19). If, then, the Spirit in the Gospel denotes the presence of God and Jesus among believers following Jesus’ death, in 1 John the function of the Spirit is attached to the death of Jesus in and of itself. Accordingly, it is

 John 6:63, “spirit” contrasts with “flesh,” in a context where it denotes an ideal dimension associated with Jesus’ words and, implicitly, those who believe (6:64).  This holds especially if “Spirit of truth” is an allusion to the same in John 14:17; 15:26; and 16:13. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, AB 30 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1982), 485 – 511; however, contra e. g. Bennie H. Reynolds, “Demonology and Eschatology in the Oppositional Language of the Johannine Epistles and Jewish Apocalyptic Texts,” in eds. Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017), 325 – 45.

The Spirit and Imitatio Christi in 1 John

223

no longer the Spirit that operates as the “Advocate,” but rather Jesus himself, “in order that you (i. e., the addressees) may not sin” (2:1). In what follows, we shall consider how these particular differences manifest themselves in the text of 1 John and what they may signify for the overall interpretation of the composition.

3 The Pneumatology of 1 John: A Literary Approach We have noted above that unlike the Gospel of John, 1 John can speak of a “spirit” in a categorically negative way. A close reading of the text suggests that the pneumatology of 1 John not only draws on language from the Gospel, but also, and especially, formulates it within a context of theological crisis within the Johannine community. Thus, in order to recover the particular focus and context of 1 John’s pneumatology, it is helpful to ask just what, precisely, the expression “the Spirit of error” means when it occurs in 1 John 4:6. The text reads as follows: We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of error (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης). (Translation my own)

What, we may ask, is the Spirit of error with which the Spirit of truth is placed in such contrast? A clue that points towards an answer to this question can be found in verses 2 and 3a of the same chapter. They read, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God….” (cf. also 2 John 7). One would not be far wrong to infer that 1 John’s understanding of the Spirit is linked to what is claimed about Jesus having come in the flesh. Those who do not have the Spirit of God—they are frequently called “secessionists” or “opponents” identified with those who “went out from us” (1 John 2:18)— do not prime facie embrace the right Christology. On this, many scholars of otherwise widely different approaches to the epistle are agreed. And so, in drawing a profile of those who deny that Jesus is the Christ and who deny both the Son and the Father together (2:22, 23), most scholars have adopted the view that the author is engaged in defending a community of believers from “false doctrine” or

224

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

“heresy” of a docetic or incipient gnostic kind, which is so labelled by aligning the community’s opponents with “the Spirit of error.”⁹ A description of such a doctrinal dispute could be hypothetically and plausibly reconstructed. As is commonly held, the Gospel has emphasized the nature of Jesus as exalted and as of divine origin (over against “the Jews” who do not— so in ch’s. 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10). Language about the Spirit, accordingly, relates to what is “above” (John 3:3 – 8; cf. 1:32– 34) and underscores Jesus’ unique relationship to the Father (14:26; 15:26; 16:13). The focus of 1 John, on the other hand, centers on Jesus’ humanity; thus, the opening of the epistle poetically introduces Jesus as “that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the word of life” (1 John 1:1); correspondingly, having the Spirit of God is linked with confessing that Jesus has come in the flesh (4:2). The opponents, who are accused of having left the community and who presumably do not have the Spirit, “deny” that Jesus is the Christ, that is, that the Messiah, the Son of God, took on flesh (2:22– 23). The author’s emphasis on Jesus being in the “flesh” would, then, seem to be an allusion to the Prologue of the Gospel, which declares that in Jesus “the word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). We are left to imagine that the secessionists, whether or not indebted to Johannine tradition, simply did not get their Christology right; not only do they not take Jesus’ full humanity seriously (enough), they modelled themselves on a trans-substantive Christology that aspires to a non-material, “spiritual” existence that by its very nature does not require piety to be based in the body. As an extension of this ideology, 1 John re-

 The most thorough overview of the question to date is provided by Daniel R. Streett, They went out from us: the Identity of the Opponents in First John, BZAW 177 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010); see also the overview by Lieu, I, II, and III John, 10 – 14, and her brief discussion in The Theology of the Johannine Epistles, 13 – 16. Cf. further B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955, repr. 1892), xxxiv–xxxvii; Wolfgang Nauck, Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes, WUNT 3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957), 123 – 25; C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1947), xix; Rudolf Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, trans. R. Philip O’Hara et al., Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 35 – 39 and 61– 64; Klaus Wengst, Häresie und Orthodoxie im Spiegel des ersten Johannesbriefes (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976), 15 – 37; Brown, The Epistles of John, 73 – 79 and 776 – 81; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 14– 22; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, trans. Reginald and Ilse Fuller (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 17– 24; Johannes Beutler, Die Johannesbriefe, Regensburger Neues Testament (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2000), 20 – 24; Daniel Keating, in Kelly Anderson and Daniel Keating, James, First, Second, and Third John, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 129 – 30.

The Spirit and Imitatio Christi in 1 John

225

jects an attitude the author seems to attribute to the opponents more than once, namely, that they live in a “sinless” state (so 1 John 1:8—“if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”; cf. further 1:10). To make such a claim is, in short, to “lie” and not to “do the truth” (1:6). What I have just described may certainly be taken as a doctrinal dispute that has gotten out of hand and that, from the standpoint of the author behind 1 John, has resulted in an irretrievable split in the community, a split that merely manifested what he is constrained to imagine was an already existing reality (1 John 2:19—“they went out from us, but it was not as though they were of us”). Along these lines, then, scholars have, with many nuances, suggested that the views of the opponents resembled or represent an incipient form of gnostic thought,¹⁰ a docetic Christology,¹¹ or even a Christology that would be preserved in traditions later attributed to Cerenthius (cf. Irenaeus, c. Haer. 1.26.1).¹² In any case, the problem is essentially regarded as one of “heresy” with its disdain for a somatic piety that links to a corresponding Christology. However, to satisfy ourselves with a heresy-based interpretation of the problem underlying 1 John short-circuits text-immanent cues within the epistle itself. In my view, to regard a main dimension of the work’s concern with opponents as doctrinal (a) fundamentally misunderstands the particular way the language of 1 John functions (that is, the language used is not always going to be as descriptive as it initially appears to be) and (b) divorces far too casually the epistle’s pneumatology (inextricably bound up with Christology) from the question of how the writer thinks a life of faith should be lived. While “the Spirit of truth” may be contrasted from “the Spirit of error” in 1 John 4:6, the “truth” with which it is linked might not simply be a matter of signing up to the right Christology. As noted above, “truth” for the author is more than a matter of assent; it is something to be “done” (cf. 1:6). Who, then, are the opponents, and what does the Spirit of error with which they are associated have them doing? In response to such a question, the first thing to note is that the so-called “heretics” may have actually held much more in common with the writer and the Johannine community than is commonly admitted, even beyond Raymond Brown’s well-known stress on their indebted-

 For example, Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 38 – 39; Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 23 – 24.  For example, Marshall, The Epistles of John, 21– 22. This is the approach ultimately taken by Street, They Went Out From Us, 173 – 217, for whom 1 John 4:1– 6 functions as a “cornerstone” for the argument that the opponents were Docetists (359).  See especially, Brown, The Epistles of John, 65 – 68, 776 – 71.

226

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

ness to Johannine tradition.¹³ For example, Judith Lieu has, in particular, recognized that not only the opponents but also the writer himself lay claim to being sinless.¹⁴ We have already mentioned the misguided claim that is ascribed to the opponents who think they have no sin and have not sinned, respectively, in 1 John 1:8 and 10. The author, however, also writes in 3:6 and 9 that, “[e]veryone who remains in him (in Christ) does not sin (οὐκ ἁμαρτάνει); everyone who sins has neither seen him (Jesus) nor knows him” and “[n]o one who is born of God does sin (ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ), because his seed remains in him; he is not even able to sin (καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν), because he is born of God.”¹⁵ The statements of the writer can be contextualized if we ask with respect to what the sinlessness is being asserted; indeed, one could argue that the epistle’s claim in 3:6 and 9, unlike that criticized in 1:8 and 10, is not categorical, but rather holds insofar as the “mortal” sin (5:16) is concerned. Or, one can imagine that, within the context of the argument of chapter 3, the author is thinking of sin in a specific sense, that is, not showing love to others in the community.¹⁶ The ideology of sinlessness by both the epistle and the opponents raises the possibility, however, that the false claim attributed to the opponents in chapter 1 is not a point that, in the framework of a heated debate, can be taken at face value. The opponents may have also understood their own sinlessness in a particular way, a way that the writer of 1 John so vehemently rejects; the author does not nuance their claim as they themselves might have, in order to cast them in as negative a light as possible. The claim to sinlessness could thus be understood in different ways. If we recognize the potential for ambiguity when reconstructing differences between the epistle and the opponents, it becomes possible to entertain a more nuanced approach to the pneumatology of 1 John. The language of the Spirit in 1 John may be more a function of claims and counter-claims and less a function of assenting to a correct christological formulation. In a search for the root of the crisis or split, the place to look is not, at least initially, in emerging doctrinal disputes in the first and second centuries CE, but rather in 1 John itself. The Spirit of Error is associated with that of the Antichrist, who is initially introduced in 1 John 2:18 as “an antichrist” manifested through the coming of “many anti-

 In addition to the bibliography above, see Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1979), 93 – 144.  Lieu, The Theology of the Johannine Epistles, 52– 53. Lieu goes on to observe correctly that whereas in the Gospel “sin” is connected to unbelief, “this does not fit 1 John so well” (53). She does not, as shall be suggested below, take the problem of “sinlessness” as a point of departure for interpreting 1 John.  Translation and emphases in italics are my own.  So, Lieu, The Theology of the Johannine Epistles, 53.

The Spirit and Imitatio Christi in 1 John

227

christs” (i. e., the opponents) into the world. The designation expresses what the writer thinks lies behind unjustifiable and reprehensible behavior. The problem, at least at first, seems not so much to have been doctrinal or even concerned with the correct way to interpret received Johannine tradition. Instead, the split emerged from an experience of profound disappointment within the Johannine community. The denial that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:2) should be considered in relation to the description of behavior that is deplored in 3:14– 18, a passage worth citing here in full: We know that we have passed over from death into life because we love one another. Whoever does not love abides in death. All who hate a brother or sister are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them. We know love by this, that he (i. e., Jesus) laid down his life for us – and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.

The link between those who do not share their material well-being with others in the community and the denial of Jesus Christ coming in the flesh is not a far stretch. “Love,” as the writer comprehends it, proceeds from a right understanding of Jesus; conversely, if love in the community, for instance through the sharing of one’s goods, is not carried out, then it follows that the event of Jesus has not been correctly apprehended to begin with. Those who in the writer’s view refuse to have compassion on others in the community and who do not “lay down” their lives do not take seriously what it means for Jesus to have given his life “for us.” (3:16). In effect, they have not comprehended the significance of Jesus’ death, which constitutes precisely the zenith of Jesus’ act of self-giving for others. They have not, therefore, understood the very high point of his life “in the flesh.” The opponents probably believed that Jesus did in fact die and that perhaps even his death signifies the forgiveness of sins. Jesus’ life and death, however, are not simply a means of “getting in,” of becoming part of the people of God; Jesus’ death should be a way of life. Jesus’ life, in particular at the point of his death, is paradigmatic, and in the heat of controversy and heart-felt disappointment, the writer regards the imitative significance of Jesus’ death as so essential to faith identity that any co-existence in community with the opponents who fail to recognize Jesus in this way is unimaginable. The “heretics” deny Jesus (and therefore God) altogether because they have not drawn the life-formational consequences for themselves from Jesus’ death; they have not discerned therein a pattern that forms the foundation for believers who are to express life in community through love. The split that has occurred is the outgrowth of such extreme dismay and anxiety that any thought of reconciliation is considered an impossi-

228

Loren T. Stuckenbruck

bility.¹⁷ Doctrinal heresy per se was not likely to have been the problem: the problem was whether or not what one thinks about Jesus manifests itself in a transformed existence that takes Jesus’ death as the essential point of departure. Being able to live one’s life through self-sacrificial giving—what 1 John calls “love”—is hence the mark of “abiding” or “remaining” in Jesus and, more importantly, of Jesus “abiding” in believers and, quite simply, believing in the name of Jesus Christ (with all attendant qualifications; cf. 1 John 3:22– 24a). Being able to recognize the enduring, formative presence of Jesus (through his death) among believers in the community is considered an essential mark of the Spirit, which the writer claims God “has given us” (3:24b). It would be wrong to suggest that the pneumatology of 1 John reflects a stronger ethical emphasis than does the Gospel. What one can maintain, however, is that the commandment to love in the Fourth Gospel (cf. John 13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12), which is likewise derived from the model of Jesus’ love, is in 1 John given a more specific footing, namely, in the metaphorically filial responsibilities of those with means towards those in need (1 John 3:23; cf. 4:21; 5:2– 3; 2 John 5 – 6).

4 Concluding Reflection If one takes the above reading as an interpretive key to the interpretation of 1 John, what does one do with the pneumatology of the text? Brown is wellknown for having contextualized the ethics of the epistle in such a way that the author’s message about “love” seems less than generous.¹⁸ It is insider language that functions to consolidate the community over against those whose way of life is seen to have erred in the appropriation of common tradition. The community members are, in the end, enjoined to love one another, not just anyone, and not least those who have “left” the community.

 The relations had broken down far beyond, for example, the kinds of tensions addressed in 1 Corinthians chapters 8 – 10 between the well-to-do “strong” and the “weak” whom Paul attempts to reconcile. If 1 John knows of Jesus’ prayer for unity amongst his followers in John 17:20 – 23, then the only way it could be thought to have been in force during the writing of the epistle is if the claim only applies to true believers – the opponents could never have been part of the community to begin with (cf. 1 John 2:19).  Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 135, in a statement that applies to 1 John as well: “… one must recognize that his (i.e., the author’s) attitude towards the secessionists in a passage like 2 John 10 – 11 supplied fuel for those Christians of all times who feel justified in hating other Christians for the love of God.”

The Spirit and Imitatio Christi in 1 John

229

Brown’s reading of 1 John is important in the challenges it lays before those who seek to interpret it for faith communities that hold it to be sacred tradition. However, on balance, this reading does not go far enough. If the oppositional language of “Spirit” can be integrated into the message of the epistle as a whole, then a principle emerges that in itself is larger and more embracing than the particular context from which it has sprung. The principle is that, whatever one understands receiving forgiveness of sins to mean, it is the way one lives life in community with others that is ultimately determinative. In 1 John, it is not simply one’s way of life in tandem with faith claims in itself, but rather it is the patterning of life after an ultimate act of self-giving by Jesus through which faith is authenticated. The believers addressed in 1 John are told they have an “anointing” received from God (1 John 2:27) and, therefore, have no need for anyone to teach them, a daring thing for the author to communicate to a community whose well-being and identity, in the face of “heresy,” are under threat! This anointing may have pneumatological overtones, as the term “anointing” (χρῖσμα) in 2:27 replaces the function that the Gospel attributes to the Spirit itself, who is to guide Jesus’ disciples into all truth (John 16:13). Nevertheless, in 1 John it comes from God and is bound up with Jesus (χρῖσμα relating to “Christ,” Χριστός; (cf. 2:22), and so implies, in anticipation of chapter 3, that the community finds its orientation around Jesus’ death, not only as a way of “getting in,” but also and especially as the way to enrich life together for the common good. This principle is at once formulated within the messiness of the argument of 1 John and capable of playing a formative role within the larger framework of faithbased religious identity. Indeed, moves in this direction can be found within the narrative worlds of other writings of the New Testament such as the Gospel of Mark, 1 Corinthians, and the Apocalypse of John.

Holly Beers

Who Carries the Mission Forward? The Unnamed and Overlooked Characters in Acts 1 Introduction This project began with a question: what happened to the other women in Acts 1:14, who count among their number Mary the mother of Jesus?¹ And, for that matter, Jesus’ brothers? What became of them? We hear of James later on, of course, but just him. Surely the others matter as well. Surely their lives and witness count, even if they do not serve as major characters in Luke’s narrative. They are filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost just as the apostles are. How might a minor character be read and understood in ways that honor their contribution? It is common in narrative criticism to follow characters—as John Darr argues, “character is cumulative”²—but that strategy then omits or marginalizes minor, unnamed, and/or one-time-occurring characters. But what if minor characters are seen as a group? What if their characterization is built collectively, so that their contributions to the narrative—including their mostly local, Spirit-empowered witness—are seen and valued, even if they do not travel widely and take the Gospel to the ends of the earth (however academics or ancients construe that designation, 1:8)? Of course, the significance of Peter and Paul cannot be denied.³ However, Paul is not one of the original twelve; and even Matthias, who is chosen to re-

 In her analysis of narrative beginnings, Hannah Cocksworth argues that “by providing enough information to allow readers to find their bearings within the narrative world while at the same time holding back certain information, a beginning can create and initiate problems or questions which need to be answered.” See Hannah M. Cocksworth, “Zechariah and Gabriel as Thematic Characters: A Narratological Reading of the Beginning of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:8 – 20),” in Characters and Characterization in Luke-Acts, ed. Frank Dicken and Julia Syder, LNTS 548 (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 41– 54 (42).  John A. Darr, On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in LukeActs, Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 42, emphasis his.  E. g. Sean A. Adams, “The Characterization of Disciples in Acts: Genre, Method, and Quality,” in Characters and Characterization in Luke-Acts, ed. Frank Dicken and Julia Snyder, LNTS 548 (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 155 – 68, who focuses on Peter and Paul. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-017

232

Holly Beers

place Judas in 1:15 – 26, then disappears as an individual from the narrative. After noticing that Peter and perhaps, secondarily, John, are the only two of the twelve apostles to receive narrative priority, the question of how the other ten function is relevant (cf. 8:1; 11:1; 15:2, where readers are reminded of the presence of the apostles in Jerusalem). The narrative tension created by the contrast of an apparent priority group (the twelve apostles) with the decentralization of the Spirit at Pentecost results in an opening. The priority group thus loses a bit of priority, but rightly so. First, they become the 120 (1:15), then a crowd of more than 3000 by the end of Acts 2. That is how the Spirit operates, after all. All act as characters with direct access to the Spirit of God, who has filled and empowered them. Even Peter, the main parallel with Jesus in the first half of Acts, shares the story and the glory with other characters. The rest of the twelve may be seen as being critiqued for their lack of narrative participation, or perhaps as participants in a minor way in the task of witnessing to the end of the earth (1:8), which may be where they fit most appropriately. Perhaps they are also mainly faithful in small ways, empowered by the Spirit in their local spaces. In terms of method, I will use narrative criticism.⁴ Thus, my focus will be on the ways in which the minor characters in Acts demonstrate appropriate verbal and lifestyle responses in their role as Spirit-empowered followers of Jesus as narrated by Luke,⁵ the implied author/narrator.⁶ Because I will trace the minor characters as a group, priorities of cumulative reading and the importance of anticipation and retrospection find their proper place.⁷ Here Michal Beth Dinkler’s comments are worth quoting in some detail: As a character’s attributes accumulate over the course of a narrative, readers come to associate them with particular habitual behaviors and ultimately conclude that those traits —and the lack of other traits—define that character. It is important to note here that, as reader-response critics emphasize, readers’ conclusions about characters’ attributes will

 The use of narrative criticism also means that offering definitive judgments regarding questions of historicity lies outside the boundaries of my analysis.  Cf. the related approach in Joel F. Williams, Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark’s Gospel, JSNTSup 102 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 89, who analyzes how Mark’s minor characters are used by Mark to move readers toward an appropriate response to Jesus.  While author and narrator are distinct in literary theory, in the Gospels they often merge. See, e. g., Williams, Other Followers, 70. By “Luke” I am not making any claims regarding historical authorship.  Darr, Character Building, 30: “Anticipation and retrospection are continuous, complementary activities. Moving through the text, a reader begins to formulate expectations and opinions which then become the basis upon which subsequent data is processed. In turn, one reassesses previously-formed expectations and opinions in the light of new information and insights.”

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

233

differ. Human selfhood and human behavior, like texts, always only acquire meaning within the socially constructed parameters of distinct social groups.⁸

In other words, the “particular habitual behaviors” include for me the response of these characters to the Gospel and their participation in the forward movement of the Gospel.⁹ I see these behaviors as defining the character of this group.¹⁰ But, as Dinkler recognizes, my conclusions may differ from others’ conclusions because my socially constructed parameters emphasize the voices that have been habitually overlooked in scholarship.¹¹

2 Luke 24 – Acts 2 While my focus will be on Acts, especially the post-Pentecost narrative, a few comments about the pre-Pentecost story in Luke 24 and Acts 1 are relevant. When the two disciples (Cleopas and another unnamed figure, perhaps his wife)¹² on the road to Emmaus encounter Jesus, they are thus granted the status

 Michal Beth Dinkler, “Building Character on the Road to Emmaus: Lukan Characterization in Contemporary Literary Perspective,” JBL 136, no. 3 (2017): 687– 706 (699).  Luke may show and/or tell his readers about these minor characters (e. g. Dinkler, “Building Character,” 691). For a detailed discussion of how showing and telling can function, see Williams, Other Followers, 60 – 66. Also, some of the action in Acts may occur in response to opposition (e. g. the persecution of the disciples by the Sanhedrin in chapters 4– 5), while other action is proactive.  Because of this focus, traditional labels such as flat vs. round and background vs. protagonist are not helpful (see, e. g., Dinkler, “Building Character,” 691; Darr, Character Building, 45).  Cf. Darr, Character Building, 38, regarding Luke-Acts as a literary work that is a production of the reader: “It will always evidence some gaps, inconsistencies, indeterminacies, and ambiguities.” This reality also highlights the discussion among contemporary literary theorists concerning whether characters exist in the narrative world or in the experience and perspective of the reader(s) (Dinkler, “Building Character,” 694). If it is true that characters are “’implied people’ who exist only within the narrated world but nevertheless exert extratextual effects” (Dinkler, “Building Character,” 706), then it is also true that the extratextual effects include the reader’s connection with and response to the characters’ choices. Cf. Darr, Character Building, 59: “The process of constructing character is neither neutral nor unidirectional. Even as we fashion dramatis personae, we are being positioned and maneuvered—indeed, shaped—by the rhetoric of the text. While building Luke’s characters, the audience experiences a certain character building of its own!”  Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 193, n. 351, 211– 12, argues that the named Cleopas of Luke 24:18 and Clopas of John 19:25 are the same person, and adds that Luke is likely naming the source of his material in Luke 24. This makes it possible that Cleopas’ unnamed traveling companion is his

234

Holly Beers

of being witnesses to the risen Lord. In other words, depending upon when they joined the band of Jesus’ disciples, they may be eligible for the group of the twelve (cf. Luke 8:1– 3).¹³ Indeed, Luke gives their encounter with Jesus a good deal of narrative time and space. When they return to Jerusalem after recognizing Jesus (24:31), they meet with the eleven and others (v. 33). This latter group tells the two new arrivals that Jesus has appeared to Simon, but that encounter is not narrated. Cleopas and his companion then relate their experience with the risen Jesus. Jesus next appears to the entire group, standing among them and offering peace (v. 36). The “them” here is almost certainly a mixed group of men and women,¹⁴ thus amplifying the number of those outside of the eleven apostles who are witnesses to the resurrection. This also shapes the understanding of the commission language in the following verses, for it is given to this larger group. This is the group whose minds are opened to understand the Scriptures (v. 45), and who is told that they are now “witnesses of these things” (v. 48).¹⁵ They will soon be “clothed with power from on high,” the Father’s promise (v. 49). They receive his blessing and experience his ascension, worshipping him (vv. 51– 52). All of them. When Acts 1 then reverts to the group of the apostles (v. 2), the amorphous boundary between this group and the broader community is present. In other words, Luke can still highlight the apostles while also narrating the reality, both in Luke and throughout the coming chapters of Acts, that “the role of witness was never limited to the Twelve.”¹⁶ This is confirmed in the following verses, where Peter speaks among a group of “brothers” (v. 15), for the sense is likely “brothers and sisters,” as the rest of the verse clarifies that the group numbered about 120.¹⁷

wife (whom Bauckham sees as Mary of Clopas). See also I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 894.  Cf. Bauckham, Gospel Women, 212, who argues that “both Clopas and his wife Mary were disciples of Jesus who traveled with him from Galilee on his final journey to Jerusalem.”  Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 853.  All translations from Luke and Acts are mine, unless otherwise noted.  Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012– 15), 696.  I also see ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί in v. 16 as including the women who are part of the group of 120 and filled with the Spirit at Pentecost. Cf. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. Bernard Noble, Gerald Shinn, and Hugh Anderson, rev. trans. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), 159, n. 5: “Though the women are probably thought of as present, they have no part in the proceedings.” See also Keener, Acts, 756.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

235

At Pentecost Jesus pours out the Spirit to this group of about 120 (2:4, 33; cf. 1:8; 1:15; 8:17; 9:17– 18; 10:44; 19:6). The Spirit and all it entails, including the decentralization of access to God and God’s empowerment, is thus not reserved for the twelve alone.¹⁸ As is commonly acknowledged, the number is significant, indicating the symbolic completion of the reconstitution of Israel as the people of God.¹⁹ This group grows exponentially in Acts 2, as there is present in Jerusalem a crowd of Jews from “every nation under heaven” (2:5). This group, each of whom hears the 120 speaking in their native language, is symbolically representative of the Diaspora Jews and the world’s nations who will experience God’s salvation (cf. Luke 3:4– 6; 24:47; Acts 1:8; Isa 40:3 – 5; 49:6).²⁰ When Peter then declares Jesus’ outpouring of the Spirit and promises the same to this larger group of people if they repent (2:33 – 40), this suggests at least partly that other aspects of the Spirit’s empowering work are also open to the listening Jews (ἐπαγγελία, “promise,” appears in Luke 24:49; Acts 2:39). And not just to them, but to their children and “all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call” (v. 29). In other words, the 120 and the 3000 are paralleled; their sharing of the same Spirit points to a sharing of the same empowerment and missional witness.²¹ There is a likely Old Testament foundation here. In an earlier work I argued that the Spirit-anointed Servant of Isaiah 40 – 55, whose task is then passed to (or perhaps better: shared with) a group of plural servants in Isaiah 56 – 66, is at least one of the scriptural foundations for Luke’s famous parallelism of Jesus and the disciples, especially Peter and Paul.²² In other words, the restoration envisioned in the second half of Isaiah, while initiated by God and then embodied

 Cf. A. C. Clark, “The Role of the Apostles,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 169 – 90, who argues for special privileges for the twelve. He admits that Paul and Barnabas are exceptions (e. g. Acts 14:4, 14) (181).  David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 123 – 25; Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts, JSNTSup 141 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 169.  Cf. Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 66. Denova, Things Accomplished, 172– 73, and Pao, New Exodus, 130 – 31, argue that the list of nations at Pentecost is specifically about the ingathering of the exiles, not about the Gentile mission (though Pao concedes that this may be implicit).  See Robert P. Menzies, “The Sending of the Seventy and Luke’s Purpose,” in Trajectories in the Book of Acts: Essays in Honor of John Wesley Wyckoff, ed. P. Alexander, J. D. May, and R. G. Reid (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 87– 113 (96 – 100).  Holly Beers, The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’: Luke’s Model from Isaiah for the Disciples in Luke-Acts, LNTS 535 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015).

236

Holly Beers

by a Spirit-endowed Servant (perhaps a remnant or an individual), was meant to include the larger community in the Servant’s task. The task, then, would be continued and embodied by unnamed characters within this community who suitably found their place—and their primary identity—within the larger people of God. According to Acts 2:42– 47, it is this group of unnamed many who carry the mission forward. While the apostles do “many wonders and signs” (v. 43), it is “all who believed” (v. 44) who engage in the material sharing, eating together, praising God, and “having the favor of all the people” (v. 47).²³ The narrative order suggests that, after their reception of the Spirit, this is how the community lived. In other words, the Spirit empowers this next phase in their lives. When Luke adds that their numbers were growing daily (v. 47), the implication is that the communal life, not the action of the apostles, was the primary stimulus. Because this crowd of unnamed many lived faithfully in their current moment, exactly where they were, by the power of the Spirit, the mission expanded. This also highlights the important reality that witnessing, a major task of the disciples in Acts (cf. 1:8), is not just or even primarily verbal but is rather multi-faceted; it includes actions, even lifestyles, as these verses so aptly demonstrate.²⁴

3 Acts 3 – 7 In Acts 3, Luke introduces the man lame from birth (v. 2). While Peter heals him “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (v. 6), the agency of this unnamed lame man is significant. It is while Peter and John are about to enter the temple that the man begins to ask them for alms, and only then do Peter and John turn their attention toward him (vv. 3 – 4). The man’s request for alms not only gives a possible subtle narrative critique of the unseeing disciples, who walk past him,²⁵ but leads to Peter’s proclamation of the source of the healing and the opportunity for the watching crowd to repent (vv. 9 – 26), which narratively includes an implicit offer of the Holy Spirit (see 2:38). Will the crowd repent and participate in moving the mission forward? Yes, according to Luke. Not all, but many who heard, whom Luke estimates at

 This is true even if some of the 3000 were festal visitors and returned home. See Keener, Acts, 1000.  For witness as lifestyle, see H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology, SNTSMS 89 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996), 257.  Of course, Jesus did not heal every person in need. It is the way in which Luke narrates this episode that suggests a possible critique of Peter and John.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

237

about five thousand (4:4).²⁶ Because of the manner in which the last crowd responded (2:42– 47), readers are left to assume narratively that this crowd will live similarly unless told otherwise. In other words, because of their repentance and access to God’s Spirit, their communal life will witness to the Gospel and thus propel the mission. In chapters 4– 5 the response of the believers to persecution (by the Sanhedrin) includes requests that will, if granted by God, expand the mission. Peter and John, along with their “friends” or “brothers and sisters” (τοὺς ἰδίους)—at least some of whom must be part of one of the earlier groups mentioned—respond to this opposition not in kind but with prayer and requests both for boldness in speaking and continued healings, signs, and wonders (4:29 – 30). Luke tells us that their gathering place was shaken, and that this group, who had already been filled with the Holy Spirit (e. g. 2:4, 38), is filled again and then speaks with boldness. As before, speaking is not enough. Their communal life described in 4:32– 37 recalls 2:42– 47 with its emphasis on sharing resources. Luke does not immediately narrate a growth in the church or expansion of mission, for, after introducing Barnabas, the episode with Ananias and Sapphira follows. However, the judgment of the latter minor characters also stimulates the group’s witness, for while nonbelievers do not casually join the community as they gather, the community is still esteemed by outsiders even as more and more people, both men and women (ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν), are added as committed participants (5:13 – 14). In other words, an effect of the Ananias and Sapphira incident is the realization by outsiders of the standards and cost of joining the community.²⁷ However, many are apparently ready for the challenge (v. 14), with another result being the healing of many sick and those oppressed by unclean spirits (vv. 15 – 16). The narrative implication is that the Spirit is at work empowering this aspect of their witness (cf. 1:8; 4:30). More opposition from the Sanhedrin and Jewish elders follows in Acts 5, and Peter, in his response (alongside the apostles), affirms that the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him, also witnesses to Jesus as they do (v. 32). The implication is that the Jewish leadership has not been given the Spirit.²⁸ However, even a Spirit-filled community can be unfaithful, as Luke narrates in chapter 6. Commentators have often identified the specific problem as hungry widows,²⁹ though Reta Halteman Finger has argued, in my opinion convincingly,  Luke uses ἀνήρ here.  Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 201.  Witherington, Acts, 232.  E. g. Haenchen, Acts, 261.

238

Holly Beers

that the διακονία is not food distribution but table service. In other words, the unnamed Hellenistic widows are not being given enough opportunity to share in the planning and enactment of the communal meals for which they are leaders, not (simply) recipients.³⁰ Mitzi Smith has noted both the anonymity and silence of these women, who “are doubly removed from having any say in the daily ministry or in the resolution of disorder even when that disorder concerns them.”³¹ However, though the seven men appointed to help resolve the issue are named, that naming may be dependent upon Luke’s sources or the familiarity of at least some of the men to Luke’s audience. Also, the seven men are silent as well; only the twelve speak (as a collective). The communal solution to the problem with the widows is perhaps subversive, as women are in charge of food in virtually all known societies.³² In other words, men here are given women’s work. Of course, they may not be planning and serving, but fulfilling another vital role in a context where language is a barrier: according to Halteman Finger, they may have been bilingual.³³ Luke next gives a summary that details the spreading of the word of God and the increased number of disciples, including priests. While the exact categorization and function of the summaries is disputed,³⁴ the location of this summary suggests that the unnamed widows’ Spirit-empowered service, helped by the linguistic abilities of men, contributed to this growth. The rest of Acts 6 details Stephen’s interaction with the Sanhedrin, where his Spirit-empowered witness enables him to respond to his opponents in such a way that their recourse is to stone him (6:10; 7:55). Especially meaningful is the first “Spirit filling” of Stephen, which occurs outside the narrative, thus giving credence to the narrative implication that passages such as 2:38 assume that the Spirit will be poured out upon all who respond appropriately to the Gospel. The result of this stoning, however, is also noteworthy, for the ensuing persecu-

 Reta Halteman Finger, Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 256 – 57 and ch. 11. In this book she also addresses related questions, including whether this early community was one of consumption or production, and the role of meals in the ancient world.  Mitzi J. Smith, The Literary Construction of the Other in the Acts of the Apostles: Charismatics, the Jews, and Women, PTMS 154 (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 121.  Halteman Finger, Widows, 205. Cf. Luke T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts, SBLDS 39 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 213, who argues that Luke “expresses the bestowal of spiritual authority on the Seven by having them placed over the disposition of goods” (emphasis his).  Halteman Finger, Widows, 272– 73.  See, e. g., Witherington’s discussion in Acts, 157– 59.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

239

tion leads to all except the apostles being scattered throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1).

4 Acts 8 – 12 Acts 8 – 12 continues to highlight non-apostolic and even Gentile figures moving the mission forward. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the apostles’ rather sedentary lifestyle here is being narratively critiqued by Luke with his comment that “all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria except the apostles” (8:1),³⁵ it is this non-apostolic group who proclaims the good news as they go “from place to place” (v. 4).³⁶ The only one named at this point is Philip, and his encounters in Samara fill chapter eight (the Spirit is directing Philip in vv. 29, 39). The rest are anonymous, though it is their actions that finally move the witness outside of Jerusalem as Jesus commanded in 1:8 (cf. 11:19 – 26, discussed below).³⁷ In Acts 9 a minor character named Ananias plays an important role in Saul’s commission. He has a vision (ὅραμα, v. 10), which narratively signals that the Spirit has been poured out on him, for in Acts 2 such visions are seen as evidence of the Spirit’s work (cf. ὅρασις in 2:17, quoting Joel, its only occurrence in Acts; cf. also Paul’s vision in 9:12). Ananias somewhat reluctantly obeys the command to visit Saul after his blinding on the road to Damascus, articulating to Saul that he has been sent “so that you may see and be filled with the Holy Spirit” (9:17, emphasis mine). Apparently Ananias, an otherwise unknown figure, is a vessel who both carries the Spirit and is the one through whom Saul will be filled with the Spirit, even though the details of Saul’s filling remain outside the narrative (cf. 22:12– 16). Ananias’ faithfulness in his context—in this narrative moment— is thus a foundation for Saul’s energetic mission in the rest of Acts.

 Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, NICNT, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 162– 63, who claims that the twelve likely “conceived it to be their duty to stay at their post.” Peter and John do leave the city at times (e. g. 8:14; 9:32, 38 – 39; 10:24).  In 8:3 Luke narrates that Saul is busy imprisoning unnamed men and women (τε ἄνδρας καὶ γυναῖκας; cf. the related ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας in 9:2 with similar activity by Saul), while in 8:12 he tells the reader that at Samaria both men and women (ἄνδρες τε καὶ γυναῖκες) are baptized.  The Ethiopian eunuch may also fit here, for though he is the recipient of the mission in Acts 8, the implication is that he takes the “good news about Jesus” (v. 35) home with him and thus becomes a bearer of the mission as well (cf. the Jews “from every nation under heaven” in Acts 2, for whom something similar can be argued).

240

Holly Beers

The same is true for Barnabas, a better-known though still minor character in Acts. At Jerusalem, when the disciples are afraid of Saul and question whether his commitment to Jesus is true, Barnabas advocates for him (v. 27).³⁸ Saul’s departure to Tarsus is followed by another Lukan summary, which indicates the peace and “building up” of the assembly in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. The geographical references are surely significant, indicating an ongoing fulfillment of Jesus’ command to be his witnesses in the first and third of these locales. Also meaningful is Luke’s language, which stresses that the assembly increased in numbers while living in the encouragement of the Spirit (and the fear of the Lord, 9:31). In other words, at least partly because of the encouraging work of the Holy Spirit, these unnamed many who constitute the assemblies in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria are seeing unnamed many others added to their communities.³⁹ The Spirit-empowered faithfulness of the former stimulates the inclusion of the latter. The end of Acts 9 details Peter’s healing of the bedridden Aeneas and the raising of the disciple (μαθήτρια, v. 36) Dorcas/Tabitha. While Peter is a major character and Aeneas and Dorcas are both minor characters,⁴⁰ their restoration serves a greater purpose in the narrative than simply emphasizing their own healing or paralleling Peter and Jesus. Luke tells his readers and hearers that “all the inhabitants” saw Aeneas and “turned to the Lord” (v. 35). Similarly, the news of Dorcas’ raising “became known throughout all of Joppa, and many put their trust in the Lord” (v. 42). Their lives, as named minor characters, carry the mission forward by being the stimulus for many joining the ranks of the disciples. More visions are in store, as both Cornelius and Peter experience them in Acts 10 (ὅραμα, vv. 3, 17, 19 [the Spirit talks to Peter here; the same is true in 11:12]; 11:5; Peter’s vision is paired with ἔκστασις, “trance” language in 10:10; 11:5). After Cornelius’ vision he instructs two slaves and a devout soldier to find Peter (10:7). It is then possible that these men are among the group of Cor Also relevant are unnamed disciples initiating Saul’s escape from Damascus in v. 25 and from Jerusalem in v. 30, whose protection of Saul leads to the spread of the Gospel through him.  This likely also includes earlier named characters such as Mary (1:14), John, Philip (and perhaps Simon?!), and Ananias, though the greater portion of the group is the unnamed disciples.  Cf. Halteman Finger’s argument (Of Widows, 259 – 61) that Dorcas is not a widow being supported by others but is likely a craftswoman who employs other women in her textile shop and is thus illustrative of a community of production (not consumption) common in Acts. Smith, Literary Construction, 123, notes Tabitha’s silence and contrasts it to the raising of the widow’s son in the Gospel, for the boy speaks (7:15). Smith also compares the silence of Tabitha to that of Jairus’ daughter (8:51– 55). However, in Acts 9 itself Luke pairs the episode of Tabitha/Dorcas with that of Aeneas, who is silent as well, indicating that silence is not strictly driven by gender.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

241

nelius’ relatives and close friends upon whom the Spirit fell at the end of the chapter (vv. 24, 44; 11:11, 15; cf. Peter’s reference to Cornelius’ “entire household” in 11:14). These men, subordinate in social and cultural roles, would thus be included in the first clearly-identified Spirit-filled Gentile group, placing them in a unique role in the growing Gospel movement. More specifically, if the Spirit in Luke–Acts signifies “universal participation in the mission of God,”⁴¹ as Robert Menzies claims, then Cornelius and his Gentile household are participants also. Peter’s trance and accompanying vision end up involving six other (circumcised) believers who accompany him to Caesarea (10:23, 45; 11:12). These six apparently baptize the Gentiles who receive the Spirit, as it is unlikely that Peter both orders them to be baptized and then performs the baptisms himself (v. 48).⁴² While these six are present at least partly to be witnesses to Peter’s actions, especially since when Peter mentions them in his defense to the apostles and Jewish believers the six appear to be in attendance (11:12), that role is not their only function in the narrative. Their presence validates Peter’s testimony and thus propels the mission forward. These six may be the lynchpin of Jew-Gentile κοινωνία in Acts. The second half of Acts 11 perhaps contains the most consolidated number of references to unnamed and minor characters in Acts. Here a group of unnamed believers scattered at the same time as Philip travel to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, at first speaking the word only to Jews. However, some men among them (from Cyprus and Cyrene) change course after arriving in Antioch, where they include Hellenists in their audience,⁴³ and their efforts lead to many believing and turning to the Lord (vv. 19 – 21). Another step forward is taken when Barnabas arrives from the Jerusalem assembly. Barnabas accepts and encourages the group, and after describing Barnabas as being “full of the Holy Spirit and faith,” Luke narrates: “And a great crowd was added to the Lord” (v. 24). Next Barnabas recruits Saul from Tarsus, and for a year they teach together in Antioch (v. 26). When a group of prophets then arrives from Jerusalem (v. 27), the only named one, Agabus, accurately predicts a famine through the inspiration of the Spirit. The response by the anonymous believers in Antioch is to participate in alleviating the need in Judea (v. 29),

 Sending, p. 97.  Pervo, Acts, 282.  There is a textual issue related to the identity of the second group of believers: Hellenists or Greeks (and, then, the related question of whether the Hellenists, if that is the best reading, are ethnically Jewish but speak Greek or are ethnically Gentile). See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 340 – 42.

242

Holly Beers

signaling their role in the mission and thus its extension (cf. 2:42– 47; 4:32– 37; 6:1– 7). In Acts 12, after Herod has James killed, Peter is arrested and imprisoned (vv. 2– 4). Because Luke’s next comment includes the point that the assembly was earnestly praying to God for Peter (v. 5), Peter’s angelic release in the following verses functions as an answer to those prayers. In other words, the active prayers of the as-yet-unnamed disciples stimulate the narrative by leading to Peter’s freedom (as he has more to accomplish as well).⁴⁴ Two of these disciples are then named, and both are women. The first is Mary, the mother of John Mark, and the second is Rhoda. They are a true social contrast, as one is the owner of the home and thus probably also of the slave, while the other is the slave (vv. 12– 13; cf. female slaves [δούλη] who are promised the Spirit in Acts 2:18, quoting Joel).⁴⁵ Perhaps significantly, the only one who speaks as an individual is the slave, and while her surprise is evident (as she does not open the door for Peter), she speaks the truth to the praying disciples who do not trust her account (vv. 14– 16). In light of the minor and unnamed chracter group traced so far, Rhoda can thus function as a caution to readers and hearers not to discount the seemingly insignificant voices in the text. They have much to say and do as faithful carriers of the mission.⁴⁶

5 Acts 13 – 20 Acts 13 opens with a mention of prophets and teachers at Syrian Antioch;⁴⁷ besides Barnabas and Saul, three other minor characters are named: Simeon called Niger, Lucius from Cyrene, and Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod. While Saul and Barnabas alone travel to the next geographical location (though note John Mark’s presence and then departure in 13:5, 13; cf. 12:25),⁴⁸ the three

 This is true whether or not Luke is critiquing Peter here for his lack of perception (vv. 9 – 11; ὅραμα, vision, is used in v. 9).  See Keener, Acts, 1904– 06.  For a related argument see Patrick E. Spencer, “’Mad’ Rhoda in Acts 12:12– 17: Disciple Exemplar,” CBQ 79 (2017): 282– 98.  For discussion of whether some are prophets and others teachers, or all are prophets and teachers, see Keener, Acts, 1982– 83. Josef Zmijewski, Die Apostelgeschichte, Regensburger Neues Testament (Regensburg: Pustet, 1994), 479, argues for the latter.  The narrative function of John Mark has been analyzed in some detail by C. Clifton Black, “John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson, ed. Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 101– 20.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

243

that apparently remain in Antioch are pivotal participants in the mission. It is through them and their prophetic and/or teaching roles that they hear where the Gospel will move (perhaps along with Barnabas and Saul, vv. 1– 4). Their faithful and Spirit-empowered local presence moves the mission forward. The belief of the Gentile proconsul in Acts 13:12 recalls the Cornelius material from chapters 10 – 11, and the reader is left to ponder what the commitment of such a significant figure will mean for his local context. In Pisidian Antioch many Jews, converts to Judaism, and (God-fearing) Gentiles respond well to Paul and Barnabas (vv. 43, 48; cf. vv. 16, 26),⁴⁹ though others do not (vv. 45, 50). Even after resistance, these new disciples, some of whom are Gentiles, and all of whom are unnamed,⁵⁰ are “filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit” (v. 52), narratively recalling the earlier promise at Pentecost (2:17, 38 – 39). This pattern is repeated in Iconium, where some Jews and Greeks believe (14:1; cf. Luke’s inclusion of the minor character Barnabas in “the apostles” in vv. 4, 14), and perhaps also in Lystra, where the Gentile lame man is restored because Paul sees that he had faith to be healed (v. 14). This healing, notwithstanding the initial confusion and later interference by Jews from Antioch and Iconium, apparently results in some becoming disciples (14:20, perhaps from Iconium, but in light of v. 22, probably from Lystra). In Derbe “many disciples” are again the result (v. 21), after which Paul and Barnabas retrace their steps. It is in this geographical circle that the local disciples in these cities are highlighted. Luke narrates that Paul and Barnabas strengthened and encouraged the disciples in each place and appointed elders for them (14:22– 23), after which they “entrusted” the elders with prayer and fasting to the Lord (14:23; cf. 13:3). Beyond the faithful presence of the unnamed disciples themselves, these local leaders, at least some of whom may have been Gentiles (cf. 14:27, which narrates that God “opened a door of faith for the Gentiles”), is significant because of the question of Gentile involvement raised by scholars. Rebecca Denova, for example, argues that Gentiles do not fulfill any clear leadership roles in Acts,⁵¹ but her claim might be overstated in light of the proconsul’s belief and the proselytes and Godfearing Gentiles who respond well to Paul’s proclamation about Jesus in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. How do these new disciples live in their local spaces and places? Surely a proconsul would be a natural leader, and in light of Paul and Barnabas’ declaration from Isaiah about being a light

 For the identity of God-fearers see Witherington, Acts, 341– 44.  Haenchen, Acts, 415. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Acts, ANTC (Nashville: Abington, 2003), 203, sees the disciples who are “filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit” here as Paul and Barnabas.  Things Accomplished, 188.

244

Holly Beers

for the Gentiles in Pisidian Antioch (13:47), Gentile participation is assumed and thus leadership appears at least to be a narrative option for them. In Acts 15 the Jerusalem council highlights not just Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James, but “some of the others” who were appointed by the church in Antioch to go with Paul and Barnabas (v. 2). In Jerusalem this group is welcomed by the church, the apostles, and the elders (v. 4). While the apostles and elders meet to discuss (v. 6), the entire church consents to the decision (v. 22), which is that the same Spirit who was given to the Gentiles is the one who directed the decision of the council (vv. 8, 28). The men who are chosen to accompany Paul and Barnabas in their departure from Jerusalem are Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, both described as leaders and, even more specifically, as prophets (vv. 22, 32). Upon returning to Antioch, it is these two who “encouraged and strengthened the believers” before they return home (v. 32). While Silas takes a clear leading role alongside Paul in the next chapters, Judas disappears from the narrative. However, his leadership (as a prophet) in his local context of Jerusalem would surely have continued, contributing to the growth of the movement. Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch “for some time” and engage in teaching and proclaiming the word (v. 33). However, they are not alone in this activity, for “many others” also teach and proclaim (v. 33). While still in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas disagree over John Mark, leading to Paul’s choice of Silas. Paul and Silas then add Timothy to their crew in Lystra (16:1– 3), after which the three of them travel “from town to town” sharing the decision from the Jerusalem council (v. 4). Luke follows this with another of his summaries: “therefore the assemblies were strengthened in faith and increasing in numbers daily” (v. 5). The growth of these assemblies is thus attributed to the message and personal presence of these three men; the mission is carried forward not just by Paul, but also Silas and Timothy (and the directives of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem; cf. the Spirit’s leading in v. 6, and the “Spirit of Jesus” leading in v. 7; cf. also 2:34). It is also, perhaps, carried forward by Luke himself, as the “we” passages indicate (16:10 – 17, etc.).⁵² If so, then Luke and at least Timothy were present during the “conversion” of Lydia and her household (vv. 14– 15, and perhaps as well during the flogging and imprisonment of Paul and Silas, vv. 19 ff).

 Green has noted Luke’s foreshadowing preferences (E. g. Gospel, 342), and Gentile leadership may be foreshadowed in the Gospel in passages such as Luke 8:26 – 39 with the Gentile demoniac and 10:1, where the group of seventy(‐two) (cf. the table of nations in Genesis 10) is actively missional, not the recipients of the mission.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

245

Lydia’s likely status as a Gentile “Godfearer” is significant (v. 14),⁵³ as the text then tells of a Gentile woman who leads in a local context. She is described as having a household and as giving hospitality to the “we” group (at her insistence; see “she prevailed upon us” in v. 15). Her presentation in the narrative can be understood much more negatively, however, as Mitzi Smith argues. Smith sees Lydia as passive (in contrast with Cornelius, who receives his own vision and asks for Peter’s help in response) and as “seeking the approval of her superiors” when she extends hospitality to them.⁵⁴ While it is true that Luke does not narrate a request for help from Lydia, her insistent offer of hospitality could be read not as desperate approval-seeking but rather as an assertive voice following cultural custom.⁵⁵ Also, Smith’s claim that “Lydia does not receive the Holy Spirit in the same way Cornelius’ household does”⁵⁶ overlooks the narrative development that has been building since Pentecost, which assumes it. After Paul and Silas’ release, they again visit Lydia and her household, taking time to encourage the ἀδελφοὺς there (v. 40), which most likely includes both male and female believers not simply from her household but from the jailer’s household (vv. 32– 34) and possibly other evangelistic work (see the “some days” in v. 14). This hospitality indicates again that her local leadership and faithfulness is moving the mission forward, while the presence of the “brothers and sisters” narratively raises the question of their own Gospel activity. In Thessalonica, Paul’s interaction in the synagogue over three Sabbath days leads to some Jews being persuaded, as well as “many godfearing Greeks and not a few prominent women” (17:4). The ensuing uproar envelops Jason “and some believers” (v. 6; cf. “the others” in v. 9), the former having hosted Paul and Silas in his home. Once again, locals—Jews, Greeks, men, women, only one of whom is named—are seen to be key narrative players if one recognizes the roles they would likely fill after Paul and the others leave. “Prominent women” would surely continue as “prominent women” in this new, local community of Jesus followers. These believers, in addition to whatever may be narratively assumed of their faithfulness and continued contribution, also serve the mission by sending Paul and Silas to Berea (v. 10; cf. the arrival of Timothy and Erastus in Macedonia in 19:22). The Berean response is even better, with “many” Jews believing, as well as “not a few respected Greek women and men” (17:12). This group replicates the action of the Thessalonian believers by sending Paul  See Greg W. Forbes and Scott D. Harrower, Raised from Obscurity: A Narratival and Theological Study of the Characterization of Women in Luke-Acts (Eugene: Pickwick, 2015), 186.  Smith, Literary Construction, 141.  Forbes and Harrower, Raised from Obscurity, 187.  Smith, Literary Construction, 142.

246

Holly Beers

away when opposition mounts (v. 14; though Silas and Timothy remain). They even take it a step further, with some escorting Paul personally to Athens (v. 15). Their protection of Paul supports the mission by giving Paul the opportunity to proclaim Jesus in this famous philosophical city. And proclaim he does: to Jews and Gentile godfearers (σεβομένοις) in the synagogue (v. 17), to people in the marketplace (v. 17), to Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (v. 18), and to those at the Areopagus (vv. 19 – 31). The response in Athens has often been minimized by scholars,⁵⁷ but Luke’s narration that “some” actually became believers, two of whom he names (Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, v. 34), is still surprising to those who know the philosophical context of Athens.⁵⁸ Paul’s collaboration with Aquila and Priscilla begins in Acts 18 in Corinth with tentmaking (vv. 2– 3). Paul gets credit for teaching in Corinth, but to focus only on teaching misses the impact of the others in the narrative, including Priscilla and Aquila, who appear to be mature followers of Jesus when Paul meets them.⁵⁹ Silas and Timothy come to rejoin Paul, and Titius Justus the godfearer (σεβομένου) hosts, while Crispus the synagogue leader (together with his household) and many other Corinthians become believers (vv. 7– 8; cf. v. 10). After Aquila and Priscilla accompany Paul to Ephesus (where he leaves them), they teach Apollos (18:26; note the πνεῦμα in the description of Apollos in v. 27). In light of what the reader of Acts already knows about this couple, the narrative question concerns what else they accomplished while there.⁶⁰ As a partial answer, the Ephesian believers who encourage Apollos in his desire to go to Achaia (and even write a letter to the disciples there, v. 27; cf. also his impact in Corinth) are thus likely products of the ministry of Priscilla, Aquila, and/or Apollos. In Ephesus, a city that became a center of the Jesus movement, it is these three (along with unnamed believers) who are at least part of the foundation in a way that is not true even for Paul.⁶¹

 E. g. Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 451.  David Gill, “Dionysios and Damaris: A Note on Acts 17:34,” CBQ 61 (1999): 483 – 90, argues that Luke created both of these characters.  Forbes and Harrower, Raised from Obscurity, 191.  Forbes and Harrower, Raised from Obscurity, 194, also ask this question.  Pace William O. Walker, Jr., “The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources,” NTS 54 (2008): 479 – 95 (489 – 91), who reads Luke’s portrayal of Priscilla negatively, a move in line with what he sees as Luke’s larger anti-feminist bias. This is true also for Smith, Literary Construction, 144– 45. She stresses that Prisca and Aquila do not baptize Apollos, thus demonstrating that they are subordinate to both Paul and Philip.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

247

Unnamed disciples accompany Paul when he (later) leaves the Ephesian synagogue (19:9), and while his daily arguments in the lecture hall of Tyrannus lead to “all the inhabitants of Asia” hearing the word of the Lord (v. 10; cf. the miracles God performs through him in v. 11), the believers who confess their “practices” (πράξεις) and burn their magic books lead also to the word growing, as the οὕτως indicates (vv. 18 – 20). In the famous theater scene in Acts 19, Paul’s traveling companions Gaius and Aristarchus are mentioned (v. 29), while both “disciples” and “officials of the province of Asia” act to protect Paul from the crowd (vv. 30 – 31). In other words, these unnamed people who safeguard Paul also allow the mission to continue outside the bounds of Ephesus. Another “we” passage begins in Acts 20:5, and Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophium are named as Paul’s companions as well (v. 4). While these men are likely Paul’s “Jerusalem collection” team,⁶² it is also important to note that, without their presence, Paul’s ministry and effect would have been curtailed. They give him credibility and protection, thus supporting the mission (cf. the believers in Troas in 20:7– 12). Paul’s meeting with the Ephesian elders in 20:17– 38 underscores the effect that local leadership has. Paul urges them to keep watch over themselves as shepherds and the flock that the Holy Spirit has given them to oversee (v. 28). Their faithfulness will protect disciples from false teaching, among other dangers (vv. 29 – 30). When Paul describes his own example, the implication is that their actions as elders give an example to others as well, even or especially through suffering (v. 35; cf. 14:22). This is even more significant if the elders are not all Jewish but are a mixed Jew-Gentile group, which seems likely in light of the efforts in Ephesus.

6 Acts 21 – 28 More “we” language follows in Acts 21. The “we” group encounters disciples, women and children among them, at Tyre (vv. 3 – 5; cf. the Spirit in 19:21; 20:22– 23). After Tyre is Ptolemais (with more believers, v. 7), and then Caesarea (with disciples, including Mnason, in v. 16). Here Paul and company stay with Philip, one of the seven, and his four daughters. Luke describes the daughters as “prophesying” (v. 9), though they do not speak in the narrative. Agabus, a male prophet, speaks instead for the Holy Spirit (v. 11). Mitzi Smith has argued that the daughters “function to foreground and enhance the activity and speech

 Haenchen, Acts, 581.

248

Holly Beers

of male approved intermediaries,”⁶³ but what that critique overlooks is that Luke’s overarching focus is on the growth of the Gospel witness, not equality of speaking parts.⁶⁴ Also, Agabus’ prophecy is relevant to Paul’s travel and impending suffering and thus serves the progress of the narrative. I would argue that the narrative assumption, because of the Joel quotation in Acts 2 and its development throughout the book, is that these daughters speak outside of the narrative as inspired by the Holy Spirit. In other words, readers assume that these women contribute to the mission in their local context (v. 9), as so many others have done. Back in Jerusalem, the “we” group is welcomed by “the brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί, 21:17), and then the group visits James and all the elders (v. 18). This latter group recounts the “many thousands” of Jewish believers (presumably in the area, v. 20), which both recalls the numerical growth in the early chapters of Acts (e. g. 2:44; 4:32; 5:14) and narratively implies that those early communities have grown in the meantime (because of the faithfulness of local believers and perhaps some of the apostles). When in chapter 22 Paul describes how he persecuted the “Way” and bound “both men and women” (ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας, v. 4; cf. v. 19), again the narrative is pointing to the early chapters of Acts, including the reference to the Spirit being poured out on men and women in the Joel quotation at Pentecost (2:17– 18) and the mass conversions already mentioned. The reader of Acts is thus again reminded that much has occurred outside of the narrative.⁶⁵ The last chapters of Acts detail no conversions, as the focus is on Paul’s imprisonment and trial(s). However, at points in the narrative Luke draws attention to other minor characters who are faithful, such as Paul’s friends who take care of his needs (24:23; 27:3). In Acts 27– 28 the “we” language appears again, as do references to local believers who extend hospitality and welcome (in Puteoli, 28:14; in Rome, v. 15). A narrative question that arises from these episodes concerns the origin of these local communities of Jesus followers. At least part of the answer is likely found in Acts 2 at Pentecost, where there are unnamed Jews present from Rome (v. 10), at least some of whom presumably traveled home at a

 Literary Construction, 146.  Keener, Acts, 3092, suggests that the daughters were likely part of the group of believers who urges Paul not to leave, and Luke omits this aspect of their prophesying because it would serve as a critique. Forbes and Harrower, Raised from Obscurity, 199, argue that the daughters serve to “amplify the prophetic event” of Agabus’ prophecy.  Cf. also the son of Paul’s sister in 23:16, another narrative teaser that points to action and relationship outside the narrative.

Who Carries the Mission Forward?

249

later point.⁶⁶ Perhaps these anonymous believers, upon whom the Holy Spirit was poured out decades before, went home and lived faithfully in their context. Perhaps their embodied witness produced Roman fruit (cf. the Jews who are convinced by Paul’s argument in 28:24, who might then extend this local faithfulness). Many have argued that Acts ends on a note of openness, or, better said, a sweeping invitation to its readers, and thus awaits the continuation of the mission embodied by Jesus and his early followers.⁶⁷ A certain openness finds its place in a focus on unnamed and minor characters, for the unnamed and ever-changing reading and hearing audience of Luke–Acts is thus encouraged to identify with this group and imitate their Spirit-empowered faithfulness in their own local and global contexts.

7 Conclusion The book of Acts thus tells the story not simply or even primarily of Peter and Paul in their Spirit-inspired witness, for the minor characters respond faithfully, again and again and in a variety of ways, to the Gospel and thus its extension in their (often local) contexts. The Spirit empowers and thus inspires their devotion and sharing (e. g. 2:42– 45); their proclamation, exorcisms, and healings (e. g. 6:3, 5; 8:5 – 7); their tongues and praise (e. g. 10:44– 46); their broader teaching as well as teaching of scripture (e.g. 2:4, 14– 40, 42; 13:1, 16 – 47); their prophetic words (e. g. 13:1– 2; 21:9 – 11); and more. Significantly, for most, their initial Spirit fillings lie outside the narrative. Such a liminal space suits these minor characters, as their inspiration also crosses boundaries in that the Spirit compels much more (but not less) than the interpretation of scripture. As narrated by Luke, the disciples in Acts claim thus an inspiration by the Spirit to interpret themselves and their world (though at times specifically in relation to scripture): who they are, how they live, and where the Spirit takes them.

 E. g., Brian S. Rosner, “The Progress of the Word,” in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 215 – 33 (232).  E. g. Witherington, Acts, 809. Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986 – 90), 2:355 – 56, argues that the narrative expectation (because of the parallels to Jesus) is that Paul will die.

Ben C. Blackwell

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus 1 Introduction 1.1 Establishing the Question In Paul’s letters he frequently relates justification to the work of Christ. For example, in response to the problem of falling short of God’s glory, Paul holds out the hope of justification by God’s grace “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:23 – 24).¹ Or later in Romans, Paul declares that Christ “was handed over to death for our transgressions and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:24). In Galatians, we read that “a person is justified not by works of the law but through Christ-faith” (Gal 2:16).² No matter how we should interpret the Greek phrase regarding “Christ-faith,” the reality of justification is still focused on Christ. Representing a traditional (Protestant) perspective that focuses on the work of Christ in justification, Richard Gaffin emphasizes how justification has primarily been associated with the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers.³ Carefully articulating justification in terms of union with Christ, Gaffin argues that the nature of justification as grounded in “Christ’s own righteousness, complete and finished in his obedience, culminating on the cross.”⁴ This is distinct, he writes, from “the righteousness and obedience being produced by the transforming work of the Spirit in those who are in union with Christ”⁵ because “it is Christ’s sacrifice for me, not the Spirit’s work in me, that is the basis of my being forgiven.”⁶ By associating justification primarily with the work of forgive-

 Here and throughout, I use the NRSV translation.  So as not to give preference in the debate regarding πίστις Χριστοῦ as “faith of Christ” or “faith in Christ,” I use the ambiguous phrase “Christ-faith.” On the wider debate, see Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010).  Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2013), 57– 58.  Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, 57.  Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, 57.  Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, 58. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-018

252

Ben C. Blackwell

ness, this interpretive strategy therefore distinguishes the objective work of Christ from the subjective work of the Spirit in terms of justification.⁷ In distinction to this christologically-focused perspective on justification, other theological traditions include the work of the Spirit more closely. Representing older traditions, the contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church highlights the role of the Spirit in justification, such that the Spirit is the primary subject of the first three statements regarding the nature of justification. For example, it reads: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ’ and through Baptism.”⁸ Without ignoring Christ, we see how the Spirit’s role is more instrumentally evident. More recently, Pentecostal and charismatic (systematic) theologians have begun to emphasize the Spirit’s fundamental role in justification, particularly highlighting the work of the Spirit in regeneration and new creation.⁹ We see a difference in approaches to justification, then. Some more centrally include the work of the Spirit, and others distinguish the work of the Spirit. This raises the question: which approach is more faithful to the Pauline letters? Of course, there are multiple ways that the Spirit might be associated with justification, as the charismatic and Roman Catholic positions do not directly overlap. So, beyond ascertaining whether the Spirit should be associated with justification, we must also determine how the Spirit is associated, if in fact that is the case. To establish whether and how the Spirit is associated with justification, we will focus on key passages in the Pauline letters that address justification in the context of the Holy Spirit.

 Importantly, Gaffin, like others in this broader tradition, does not separate justification from sanctification, but he does firmly distinguish them. Also, Gaffin strongly emphasizes the work of the Spirit in establishing believers’ faith, which unites them to Christ. This distinction is echoed by Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2007). Note how he is cautious of an approach that “shifts the material cause of eschatological justification from christology to pneumatology” (173).  Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1995), §1987.  D. Lyle Dabney, “‘Justified by the Spirit’: Soteriological Reflections on the Resurrection,” IJST 3.1 (2001): 46 – 68; Frank D. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

253

1.2 The Interpretive Context Before starting this study on justification and the Spirit, it would be helpful to introduce a basic taxonomy of approaches to justification within contemporary biblical scholarship. Rather than using the labels “old” and “new” perspectives, let me define the approaches using their primary emphases: justification as acquittal, justification as covenant membership, and justification as rectification.¹⁰ With justification as acquittal (often styled as the Lutheran perspective or the Old Perspective), the focus is on justification as God’s declaration of forgiveness via acquittal. Key proponents include Stephen Westerholm and John Barclay.¹¹ With justification as covenant membership (often styled as the New Perspective), the focus is on justification as God’s declaration of membership in the covenant community. Key proponents include N.T. Wright and James Dunn.¹² With justification as rectification, the focus is on justification as God’s restorative, life-giving act. Key proponents include Martinus de Boer and Douglas Campbell.¹³ It is beyond the scope of this essay to spell out the details of each.¹⁴ For our purposes here, we should note that the acquittal and covenant membership approaches both focus on justification as a status declaration and therefore explicitly distinguish it from the transformative work of the Spirit, at least with regard to present or initial justification. As we approach the Pauline letters, we will see that all three approaches have distinct strengths and each raises particular questions. With these approaches in mind, let me also introduce another helpful taxonomy reflected in James Prothro’s monograph Both Judge and Justifier. ¹⁵ He argues

 Cf. Douglas Campbell’s similar but distinctive taxonomy: The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy (Continuum: New York, 2005), 17– 55.  Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 275 – 77; John Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 375 – 84.  N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 991; James D.G. Dunn, ‘The New Perspective: Whence, What, and Whither?’ in The New Perspective on Paul, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1– 97.  Martinus C. de Boer, “Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2.15 – 21,” JSNT 28.2 (2005): 189 – 216, here, 210; Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).  See my forthcoming book for further detail on the history and implications of these interpretative approaches to Paul (as well as more detailed exegesis of the passages below): Ben C. Blackwell, Participating in the Righteousness of God: Justification in Pauline Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).  James B. Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul, WUNT 2/461 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018).

254

Ben C. Blackwell

that Paul primarily draws his justification language from Jewish legal frameworks represented by LXX (and related traditions). There are two primary frameworks represented in these texts: bilateral and trilateral. In a bilateral framework, humans and God are in a covenant lawsuit, with God serving as both the opposing party and the judge. In a trilateral framework, there are two opposing parties, and God serves as judge (the third party). Both models are equally “forensic” and express the central meaning of justification as an “enacted verdict.” Prothro argues that these are not two mutually exclusive frameworks because they are at times simultaneously applied to the same situation. His study helps provide clarity to the discussion. The fact that these frameworks are not mutually exclusive means that we cannot simply use them in a binary approach for interpreting Paul, as Prothro himself shows. Bringing this consideration of the bilateral and trilateral contentions helps explain the three primary approaches to justification.¹⁶ The acquittal approach primarily views justification as a bilateral contention, where God as judge acquits humans who were (formerly) his opposing party. The covenant membership and rectification approaches primarily view justification as a trilateral contention, where God re-establishes correct order for his people in the face of opposition from cosmic agents (rectification) or the unrighteous nations (covenant membership), with the latter especially noting this as a covenant lawsuit. The fact that these two Jewish frameworks for understanding justification can simultaneously inform one’s perspective of a forensic situation means that these three approaches to justification do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.¹⁷ Indeed, we will see how Paul exploits the ambiguity within the metaphor to emphasize different issues. The mutually informative nature of the bilateral and trilateral approaches opens doors for recognizing the role of the Holy Spirit in justification while not minimizing its Christological basis. Christ’s death and resurrection are the basis for justification, an act of God which is then effected by the agency of the Holy Spirit. Thus, I argue that justification is a new covenant reality, complete at conversion, including both forgiveness and new life. This divine act establishes renewed human agency for a moral life. This will be demonstrated from our analysis of contexts where Paul brings the Spirit and justification together, as we will now see.

 Due to its recent release, most, however, do not directly employ his taxonomy.  Pace Campbell, Deliverance of God, 191– 92.

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

255

2 Analyzing the Letters Though our interest is primarily related to the role of the Spirit, we must not forget that Paul primarily situates justification in terms of the death and resurrection of Jesus and that he most often utilizes this teaching in settings related to Jews and Gentiles living within the community of God’s people together. Paul also sets this teaching in explicitly eschatological contexts, such as when he describes those who will inherit the kingdom of God. While the majority of passages highlight Christ, some include the Spirit. For example, he writes: “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).¹⁸ The relationship in this passage is informative, but since justification is not the central theme here, we will turn towards others where we can more substantively explore his argument in terms of the Holy Spirit—Galatians 2 – 3, 5; 2 Corinthians 3; and Romans 8.

2.1 Galatians As with Paul’s other letters, he writes his letter to the Galatians to orient this community to the eschatological reality established through the death and resurrection of Jesus. While Paul does not make resurrection as explicitly central as the topic is in his other letters, this death-resurrection dialectic serves as the foundation for his theological argumentation throughout the letter. The Christological pattern of death giving way to resurrection life is established in 1:1– 4, and this pattern is then applied to Christ-believers as they embody the Christ-narrative as a present reality: 2:19 – 21; 5:24– 25; and 6:14– 15. Beverly Gaventa rightly highlights this all-encompassing reality as the “singularity of the Gospel.”¹⁹ Embodiment of the Christ-narrative in these passages constitutes a holistic identity for believers. In the first place, believers are co-crucified with Christ to the cosmic powers—to the law, to the flesh, and to the world; likewise, new life holistically orients believers—to God, Christ, the Spirit, and themselves. In the midst of this wider framing of reality, Paul uses justification to help address problems within the Galatian community related to the integration of

 Cf. Rom 14:17.  Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “The Singularity of the Gospel Revisited” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott, et al, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 187– 99; also, “The Singularity of the Gospel: A Reading of Galatians,” in Pauline Theology: Vol. I, ed. Jouette Bassler (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 147– 59.

256

Ben C. Blackwell

Jews and Gentiles together. Though he will address a number of related issues, Paul’s most consistent theme is that justification comes through Christ-faith, not through works of the law (e. g., 2:16; 3:2, 21– 22). Essential to his argument is that all believers have been justified by God through Christ-faith, and this grounds his argument that the people of God should not be divided. The difficult thing about his use of justification language is that he uses it in such a way that he presumes his audience already knows what it entails. Noting this lack of specificity, Prothro argues that Paul employs a shared understanding of justification shaped by the Jewish legal contexts (esp. in LXX traditions) from which he draws the terminology.²⁰ This, however, does not resolve the interpretive dilemma because the terminology can relate to bilateral contentions (where God is both the judge and the offended party) and trilateral contentions (where God is the judge between two opposing parties). Most rightly see justification as representing a forensic metaphor, but we should note that many of the forensic elements that so strongly shape other letters are virtually absent here. For example, in the contexts immediately surrounding justification, there is no discussion of God as “judge” or the act of “judgment” or “condemnation,” as in Paul’s other letters.²¹ Considering the specific progression of Paul’s argument, several interpretive questions will guide our conclusions regarding justification in Galatians and how the Spirit relates to his teaching. (1) Which legal framework does Paul primarily employ, bilateral or trilateral? (2) How does the experience of co-crucifixion and co-life with Christ by faith (2:19 – 20) relate to Paul’s argument about justification by faith (2:15 – 21)? (3) How does the experience of the Spirit by faithhearing (3:1– 5) relate to his wider argument about justification by faith (2:15 – 3:14)? (4) How much should the contrast between life/blessing and death/cursing (3:10 – 14, 21) be identified with justification? I will answer these questions in turn (1, 2, and 4), though I will leave the question of the Spirit (3) until the end: (1) Forensic Frameworks. Is a bilateral or trilateral framework more prominent? Prothro argues that the bilateral/acquittal reading dominates the letter.²² Throughout the letter justification is clearly a divine act, as evidenced by the regular use of passive voice, and Paul’s discussion of being justified “before God” in 3:11 favors a bilateral reading focused on acquittal. With that reading, justifica-

 Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier, 128 – 139. Barclay argues similarly in Paul and the Gift, 375 – 77.  E. g., Rom 5:16 – 18; 2 Cor 3:9. In the wider context of Galatians, we see some forensic language with “condemned” (καταγινώσκω) in 2.11 and “judgment” (κρίμα) in 5.10, but neither of these is immediately in the context of righteousness language.  Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier, 127– 55.

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

257

tion entails reconciliation with God, even forgiveness (even though we should note forgiveness is never directly equated with justification in this letter). Recognizing this important evidence, I agree that Paul works from a bilateral framework, but he also includes a trilateral framework as well. In fact, we see both frameworks juxtaposed from the beginning of the letter, with sin before God and cosmic opponents representing the present evil age standing together (1:4). This juxtaposition continues when we encounter Paul’s first substantive engagement with justification in 2:16. We are initially drawn to evidence of a bilateral framework from his use of Psalm 143:2. Although Paul only quotes the latter part of the verse, the immediate context of the quotation makes God’s judgment evident: “And do not enter into judgment (κρίσις) with your slave because no one living will be counted righteous before you” (Ps 142:2 LXX NETS).²³ At the same time, we should not miss the fact that Psalm 142 (LXX) is a prayer for deliverance from enemies (cf. 142:9 – 12), such that a trilateral contention actually sets the terms for God’s saving judgment in that passage. Further evidence helps support the inclusion of a trilateral perspective, even with the bilateral being more evident. Paul does not robustly explain cosmic opponents in the context of justification, such as the stoicheia (4:3, 9), but the problem of death arises directly (2:19 – 20; 3:13) and indirectly (1:1; 3:21– 22).²⁴ The inclusion of death also raises the covenantal perspective, since this fits within the wider use of covenantal language throughout chapters 2– 4—covenant, blessing, curse, life, and death. The position of those who are righteous vis-à-vis sinners also presents the possibility of trilateral contention where God vindicates his people before nations. Thus, I argue bilateral and trilateral perspectives are at play in Paul’s argument.²⁵ As Prothro notes, the two approaches need not be competing, because both types of contentions can overlap in the same setting. (2) Co-crucifixion and Co-life (2:19 – 20). When we come to the potentially disjunctive inclusion of co-crucifixion and co-life with Christ in 2:19 – 20, we must ask what role this plays in Paul’s justification argument. Since there is no break in his rhetorical progression, there is no warrant to see this as an interruption or diversion, but rather as a direct continuation of Paul’s justification ar-

 Cf. David A. deSilva, Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 217.  Some highlight the problem of exile. cf. John Anthony Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians, WUNT 2/454 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 83, esp. n.162. However, exile is at most only implicit in Paul’s argument, whereas death is prevalent throughout.  De Boer is right that the cosmic opponent reading of justification is inchoate in Galatians and more fully developed in Romans: “Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition,” 211.

258

Ben C. Blackwell

gument.²⁶ In this way, justification is brought directly into connection with Paul’s singular gospel, which is the world-shaping reality of Christ’s death and resurrection. When Paul argues that he “live[s] (ζῶ) by faith in the Son of God” (2:20), this directly extends his argument about being “justified (δικαιωθῶμεν) by Christfaith” (2:16). Thus, as God rectifies believers from the problem of death by granting them a share in Christ’s life, they embody the reality of justification. Accordingly, rectification stands right alongside acquittal, with covenant important as well, as we will now see. (4) Life/Blessing and Death/Cursing (3:10 – 14, 21). Continuing Paul’s focus on sharing Christ’s life as the justifying experience, we should note that two of the primary OT intertextual references that Paul uses to address justification by faith include a form of “live” (ζάω) with Hab 2:4 (3:11) and Lev 18:5 (3:12). By employing these OT verses, Paul extends his righteousness-life argument by showing that life does not come through works of the law but through righteousness by faith. Indeed, Hab 2:4 may be the most direct explanation of what justification entails: “the one righteous by faith will live” (3:11). Sharing in Christ’s life constitutes the experience of justification.²⁷ Indeed, this reading where justification is identified with “life” is confirmed in Gal 3:21, where righteousness through the law cannot “make someone alive,” only a righteousness by faith can do that. This language of death and life is set within a wider covenant framework of “blessing” and “cursing.”²⁸ Like Abraham, those of faith experience blessing, whereas others experience cursing (cf. Gen 12:1– 3). While we have noted the (new) covenant realities expressed by life/death and blessing/ cursing, this extends beyond covenant membership as a distinctly soteriological experience. The experience of life in the face of death represents a justification as rectification perspective, but as a (new) covenant reality. (3) Holy Spirit and Justification (3:1– 14). This brings us to our central question: how does the blessing of the Spirit (3:1– 5, 14) relate to Paul’s wider argument about justification by faith (2:15 – 3:14)? We see that Paul juxtaposes justification by faith and reception of the Spirit by faith, but he moves the argument beyond mere comparison by showing they are coterminous by means of the term

 Cf. Scott Shauf, “Galatians 2:20 in Context,” NTS 52 (2006): 86 – 101; Michael J. Gorman, “Reading Gal 2:15 – 21 Theologically: Beyond Old and New, Beyond West and East,” in Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019), 115 – 49. Pace Gaventa, “The Singularity of the Gospel Revisited,” 194– 95.  Cf. Sprinkle, Preston M. Sprinkle, Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul, WUNT 2/241 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 137– 42.  For the OT covenantal context of these terms, cf. Genesis 12; Deuteronomy 29 – 30.

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

259

“blessing.”²⁹ That is, the blessing of Abraham is both justification by faith (3:9) and reception of the Spirit (3:14). Since the Spirit’s presence by faith instantiates the righteousness by faith, Paul uses “just as” (3:6) to link his Spirit argument (3:1– 5) with the Abraham argument (3:6 – 14). The Spirit’s role becomes clearer when we consider that justification entails being made alive: the righteous by faith will live (3:11) and righteousness by faith (not the law) makes someone alive (3:21). The Spirit appears to be the agent who enacts the justification-aslife reality. The life-giving presence of the Spirit is important to Paul’s later argument in the letter—5:19 – 25 and 6:7– 9—though not there explained in terms of justification. While status declaration readings of justification struggle to incorporate another passage which includes the Spirit, Gal 5:6, Paul’s statement reads smoothly in light of co-resurrection with Christ as inherent to justification: “For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.” The “hope of righteousness” speaks to the hope of final justification at the resurrection of the just. The life-giving presence of the Spirit is a present reality with those in Christ (the focus of Gal 2– 3), but we know believers will not fully realize that life-giving reality until their resurrection at his future return (the focus of Gal 5:6). Importantly, when considering the present aspect of justification and life, these are not characterized as variable quantities but rather as God’s completed act, and thus the basis of assurance. Readings of justification that see justification as a status declaration consider the inclusion of the Spirit in 3:1– 5 as a shift in the argument away from the experience of justification towards a description of the evidence for justification.³⁰ In that way, the Spirit’s presence does not effect justification, though it is coincident with and therefore an important marker of justification. However, in a framework where the Spirit communicates the life of the risen Christ to believers, 3:1– 5 sits more squarely within the progression of 2:16 – 21 and 3:6 – 14. Galatians presents a both/and reality with regard to justification. In Christ and through the Spirit believers are set right before God and are rectified in the face of death by sharing in Christ’s life. Thus, in justification they are acquitted and enlivened as fulfillment of covenant blessing. The ground is Christ but the mode of participation in justification is through the life-giving presence of the Spirit and Christ.

 Cf. Gorman, “Reading Galatians 2:15 – 21 Theologically,” 332– 40.  E. g., Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 188; Sam K. Williams, “Justification and the Spirit in Galatians,” JSNT 29 (1987): 91– 100, here, 97– 98.

260

Ben C. Blackwell

2.2 2 Corinthians In distinction to Galatians, justification is much less central to the argument of 2 Corinthians. The statement receiving the most attention in the letter is that of 2 Cor 5:21, which draws together aspects of acquittal (through association with reconciliation), rectification (with embodiment of Christ’s death and life), and potentially covenant (with the covenantal terms of death and life).³¹ Given our interest in justification and the Spirit, our focus will be on the first mention of righteousness language in the letter, which comes in chapter 3. In that chapter Paul describes the life-giving work of the Spirit as support for his ministry among the Corinthians, and this new covenant ministry is described as a ministry of righteousness (3:9). Though explained in less detail than our Galatians passages, we will see explicit incorporation of acquittal, rectification, and covenant in 2 Corinthians 3 as before. Paul evidently received challenges from the Corinthian opponents because his ministry did not correspond to their models of success. In response, Paul concedes his weakness and leans heavily upon the “not yet” of his eschatological ministry in 2 Corinthians 4, focusing on his suffering with Christ. In 2 Corinthians 3, however, he highlights the “already” of the new covenant, highlighting the present reality of the transforming work of the Spirit (which the Corinthians have already experienced) to substantiate his ministry among them.³² In this context, he gives two thesis-like statements which set up the contrast between the old and new covenants: 1) “you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (3:3); and 2) God “has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (3:6). The remainder of the chapter is an exposition of the Spirit’s life-giving work, particularly through transformation of hearts, as we see in the climax of the chapter in 3:18. When explaining how this life-giving experience is an instantiation of divine glory (3:7– 11), Paul argues that the new covenant glory is greater than the glory experienced by Moses and those in the old covenant. In contrast to the Galatians passage, which drew out an argument about justification over several paragraphs and thus required close attention to see the progression, justification  The covenantal resonance is more oblique than the association with acquittal and rectification. For a full exposition of this passage in its context, see my Christosis, 219 – 32.  Cf. Jeffrey W. Aernie, Is Paul also among the Prophets? An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians, LNTS 467 (London: T&T Clark, 2012).

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

261

here serves as one part of a tighter construction. The argument here is terse and based on antonyms which makes his position explicit. In 3:9 Paul contrasts the “ministry of condemnation” with the “ministry of righteousness.”³³ Within the larger flow of the chapter, condemnation is associated with death (3:6, 7), the letter (3:6, 7), stone tablets (3:3, 7), and faded glory (3:7, 10, 11). Likewise, righteousness is associated with life (3:3, 6), the Spirit (3:3, 6, 8, 17– 18), hearts (3:3), and remaining glory (3:10, 11). The repetitive nature of his terminology represents an integrated whole. Accordingly, the wider argument focuses on different aspects of the whole related to agency, location, etc. rather than noting an ordering or hierarchy. On the one side is a distinct focus on the new covenant reality, which is the experience of life as a heart transformation by the Spirit. In contrast, the old covenant reality is ultimately an experience of death, arising from the letter, which is on stone tablets. That Paul sees “righteousness” as part of this new covenant experience is clear; indeed, this “ministry of righteousness” (3:9) is parallel to his description of his “ministry of the new covenant” (3:6) and “ministry of the Spirit” (3:9).³⁴ What does this “righteousness” entail? We should note that Paul uses the term “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) rather than “justification” (δικαίωσις). This might entail that Paul is referring to a moral attribute as a subjective experience rather than the process by which God acts. Two things support focusing on God’s act, though without excluding the subjective experience. First, the antonym supplied by Paul, “condemnation” (κατάκρισις), entails both the act of judgment and its execution, and thus highlights God’s agency.³⁵ Second, Paul does not just speak of “righteousness,” but of the “ministry of righteousness.” As with the corresponding “ministry of” phrases, the emphasis is upon leading others to experience God’s divine act. Thus, we are warranted in describing the experience related to this “ministry of righteousness” as that of justification, that is, an execution of God’s righteousness.

 The NRSV reads “ministry of justification.”  While faith was a central uniting factor in the justification-Spirit argument in Galatians 2– 3, Aguilar Chiu rightly notes the lack of “faith” in this context, showing that the pairing of these is not only due to being common (but distinct) outcomes of the same process: José E. Aguilar, “Justification and the Spirit in Paul: Is there a relationship?” in Il Verbo di Dio è vivo. Studi sul Nuovo Testamento in onore del Card. Vanhoye, eds J.E. Aguilar, F. Manzi, F. Urso, C. Zesatti, Analecta Biblica 165 (Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2007), 357– 377, here, 361.  Cf. Louw & Nida, 56.30, 31; Friedrich Büchsel, TDNT 3:951. That the execution is even more central to this set of forensic terms, see Rom 5:16 where the “verdict” (κρίμα) is distinguished from the death-executing “condemnation” (κατάκριμα).

262

Ben C. Blackwell

What then does this justification entail? With the explicit contrast with “condemnation,” a distinctly forensic term, the implication is that justification entails acquittal before God. That said, the central thrust of the wider argument is the inward experience of life by the Spirit. As such, the justification spoken of here should also be recognized as rectification, or being given life. This also develops from the contrast with condemnation. The “ministry of condemnation” (3:9) is directly parallel to the “ministry of death” (3:7). Thus, the focus is not on a declaration alone (or solely a status), but on the execution of that judgment: condemnation-as-death through the letter is contrasted with justification-as-life by the Spirit. This corresponds to the chapter’s thesis in 3:6—the Spirit “gives life” or “makes alive” (ζωοποιέω).³⁶ This new life speaks to the initial experience, which also serves to ground the ongoing life in the Spirit characterized by moral transformation (3:18).³⁷ Accordingly, the focus of justification here is an initial justification (the “already”) rather than a focus on final justification. However, the present life-giving presence of the Spirit ultimately grounds Paul’s assurance of the hope of resurrection in the future before the judgment seat of Christ by means of the Spirit (5:4– 10). By combining acquittal and new life, we see how bilateral (before God) and trilateral (with regard to death) perspectives are mutually informative. While this may seem to locate justification in a subjective experience (rather than God’s objective pronouncement), the focus of this whole passage is on the divine agency as the source of all this: “our competence is from God” (3:5); “the Spirit gives life” (3:6); and “in Christ [the veil] is taken away” (3:16). Indeed, by using a primary term for resurrection (ζωοποιέω), Paul is emphasizing the inability of humans to create this reality because no one can make themselves alive.³⁸ Important to the structure of the argument is that this divine life-giving is not just an act of God, but also a subjective reality because believers participate in the life of God. It is the Spirit of the living God (3:3) who makes alive. The divine presence creates a new reality: “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (3:17). The subjective element is clear since the focus of the work of the Spirit on

 Cf. Gal 3:21, where justification is directly identified with this same term.  The effectiveness of this transformation is the basis for Paul’s overall argument: the Corinthians have to accept his ministry as valid because they have seen the life-giving transformation through the Spirit which came from his ministry. Accordingly, justification as a declaration alone would not fit the thrust of the passage.  At the same time, by using the language of “life,” which corresponds both to the beginning and the continuation of the Christian experience, he grounds a necessary dependence not just at the start but for the whole life.

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

263

the heart. Thus, justification as rectification comes through participation in God, such that believers experience the life of God.³⁹ Where does this leave the justification as covenant membership approach? While membership as a status is implied by participation in new covenant realities, that affirmation alone is inadequate. However, we must not miss the foundation on which this whole argument stands—this “ministry of righteousness” (3:9) is a “ministry of the new covenant” (3:6). Accordingly, while some may dispute the covenant basis of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3, dismissing covenant is impossible here. Thus, justification as life by the Spirit is a fundamentally (new) covenantal reality. When Paul addresses justification in 2 Corinthians 3, he employs a new covenant framework to bring together acquittal and rectification. As noted above these three aspects also inform the later passage in 2 Cor 5:14– 21. That passage is more Christologically focused, as believers die and live with Christ, and justification is set directly in the context of new creation and reconciliation. While the Spirit is not directly mentioned there, one might have reason for seeing the Spirit as an implied contrast with the flesh in 5:16. Whether or not the Spirit should inform our reading of 2 Cor 5:14– 21, we see how participation in Christ establishes both acquittal and life in God, and this coheres directly with chapter 3. Unsurprisingly, we will find similar patterns in Romans 8.

2.3 Romans 2.3.1 Romans 8 in Context Justification is not the only theme, or even necessarily the central theme, of Romans, but one cannot miss the importance of this topic to Paul’s argument, particularly in Romans 1– 11. Accordingly, before we can address justification in Romans 8, we must consider the role of the topic up to that point. Our treatment will, of course, be selective, and the approaches that we have already explored will help shape our discussion. In the thesis of the letter (1:16 – 17), righteousness language shows up twice— the “righteousness of God” (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) and “the one righteous by faith” (ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως)—showing that the letter will address these wider themes.

 This participationist framework undergirds much of the argument in 2 Corinthians 3, particularly thought the topic of glory—God shares his glory with believers. This therefore shapes the way I read 3:18: from (God’s) glory to (believers’) glory. See my Christosis, 189 – 91.

264

Ben C. Blackwell

The focus is primarily on God and his saving activity, but this plays out on the human level in terms of the Hab 2:4 quotation—“the one righteous by faith will live.” As with Galatians, this OT passage demonstrates the necessity of “faith” for the experience of righteousness while also drawing in the topic of “life.”⁴⁰ The Habakkuk reference also plays a more structural role for the first half of the letter: Romans 1– 4 explores “the one righteous by faith” (ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως), and Romans 5 – 8 expounds “will live” (ζήσεται). Nygren rightly notes that it is not righteousness (chs 1– 4) moving to life (chs 5 – 8), as if they are two distinct sections: righteousness is the consistent theme throughout, with “faith” its primary co-text in chs 1– 4 and “life” in chs 5 – 8.⁴¹ What distinguishes Romans from Galatians and 2 Corinthians is the breadth and depth of the forensic language used to characterize his argument about justification. In particular, Paul variously describes God’s judgment, wrath, and condemnation which serve to ground the human problem (e. g., 1:18; 2:5, 12, 16; 3:4– 8; 5:16 – 19).⁴² In the face of this divine condemnation, God justifies the ungodly (4:5). This basic framework rightly grounds the justification as acquittal position, showing that the language is primarily forensic. To further support this reading, Paul argues that the gift of justification entails forgiveness of sins (Rom 4:1– 8), and many see his discussion of reconciliation with God as likewise constitutive of justification (5:9 – 11).⁴³ Interpreters highlighting rectification note that justification entails acquittal (and forgiveness), but a singular focus on acquittal underplays the problem of death. Most from the rectification position do not just attend to the existential problem of death, but rather its role as a cosmic power along with Sin and the Flesh to enslave humanity. As a result, justification as rectification entails freedom from these powers and thus entails life.⁴⁴ Though justification as acquittal has its most explicit support in Romans, the rectification approach pervades the letter. This begins with the use of Habakkuk in the letter’s thesis: “the one righteous by faith will live” (1:17). As another exam-

 While the Spirit’s role in this life is not made evident here, the interconnections between Jesus’ resurrection and the Spirit of power in 1:1– 4 gives reason for seeing an implicit role for the Spirit here.  Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983 [1944]), 84– 92. Cf. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 48n.47, 53n.61.  Note how 8:31– 34 uses condemnation in a forensic manner, but its source is not divine, such that a third party condemnation is presumed.  Westerholm (Perspectives Old and New on Paul, 294) argues that reconciliation is, however, a distinct metaphor from justification.  Cf. Campbell, Deliverance of God, 665.

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

265

ple, consider Rom 3:23 – 24 where justification is presented as God’s response to the human problem of lacking the glory of God. Throughout the letter, Paul identifies glory with immortality, so lacking glory entails mortality or death.⁴⁵ As a result, the solution to this problem of mortality is justification, which entails life. This justification-as-life is also the focus in Rom 4:13 – 25. Those who believe like Abraham are justified; that is, they have expectation of (new creation) life. In fact, the principle that the present reality of justification entails the present reality of life sets up the question that grounds chapters 5 – 8: if believers have life in the present as justification, how do we make sense of the current (and future) struggles with death? His answer will be that justification is an eschatological doctrine that links the present and future experience of life. After reiterating the death-life contrast that undergirds the condemnation-justification framework in Romans 5, Paul asserts his basic premise that serves as the thesis for the rest of chapters 5 – 8: “grace reigns through righteousness unto life” in 5:21. As a result, we should expect Romans 8 to further this righteousness-life discussion. Without the term “covenant” (διαθήκη) appearing in Romans until 9:4 (and only elsewhere in 11:27), many are hesitant to use this as a primary lens for interpreting justification in Romans. However, Paul discusses Abraham and Moses not just as models but as metonymies for the covenants that correspond to them. Without using the term new covenant, Paul interacts with several texts traditionally considered new covenant texts, particularly in Rom 2:28 – 29 when he employs the language of the circumcision of the heart in terms of the Spirit in contrast to the letter.⁴⁶ In fact, this letter-Spirit distinction from 2:28 – 29 is directly reflected in 7:5 – 6, which serves as a thesis statement for 7:7– 8:30, and this leads us to the focus of our study, which is Romans 8.

2.3.2 Romans 8 Romans 5 – 8 is centered around the dynamic of freedom in life from the power of death’s agency at work among believers. After addressing the problem of death in terms of sin in chapter 6, Paul then turns to the problem of death in terms of the flesh and law in chapter 7. As the thesis statement for 7:7– 8:30, 7:4– 6 presents the hope of dying and rising with Christ and lays out two aspects which cor-

 See Ben C. Blackwell, “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3:23,” JSNT 32 (2010): 285 – 308.  Cf. Kyle B. Wells, Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart, NovTSupp 157 (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

266

Ben C. Blackwell

respond to the following two sections: verse 5 argues that the law and flesh lead to death (7:7– 25), and verse 6 argues that believers are freed to serve through the power of the Spirit (8:1– 30).⁴⁷ Paul’s contrast between the “newness of the Spirit” and the “oldness of the letter” (through the flesh) casts Paul’s argument in Romans 8 in a distinctly new covenant frame (in contrast to the old covenant). After detailing the inadequacy of the law to free one from the “body of death” (7:25), Paul exclaims new life in terms of Christ and the Spirit. In connection to his larger argument in chs 5 – 8 that righteousness reigns in life, Paul begins with an exclamation of “no condemnation for those in Christ” (8:1). Since condemnation and justification are direct antonyms, this is an example of litotes, and could be restated positively as “there is now justification for those in Christ.” With the “now” (νῦν), this is clearly a reference to present justification. What is important for our study is the evidence he gives to ground present justification: “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (8:2). Notwithstanding the debates about the use of law (νόμος) here, the core idea is clear: the Spirit of life frees from sin and death, and this is the basis for the affirmation that there is present justification.⁴⁸ Accordingly, justification entails the Spirit’s work of giving life. Within the letter, this is an advance from his previous argumentation. The correspondence between justification and life was established at the beginning (1:17), but up until now the primary emphasis has been on sharing in Christ’s death in order to share in his life (e. g., 4:25; 5:6 – 11; 6:2– 7; 7:4). Now, Paul is clarifying that the life-giving aspect of justification is not merely through the presence and agency of Christ but also through the Spirit.⁴⁹ They work in harmony as 8:3 – 4 demonstrates: Christ overcomes the flesh so that the just decree (δικαίωμα) of the law is fulfilled by those who walk in the Spirit.⁵⁰

 See my Christosis, 117– 73, for a more detailed discussion of Romans 8.  In 8:1 we see an implicit question: how do we know there is justification? This is answered in 8:2: the Spirit of life set believers free from sin and death through Christ!  Fee (God’s Empowering Presence, 523n.148, cf. 536) makes a distinction here between the types of righteousness, a distinction unwarranted by the text: “Christ has done what Torah could not do regarding sin and righteousness (= right standing) and the Spirit has done regarding life and righteousness (= obedience).” Since Torah could not produce obedience, it could not produce right standing. Thus, Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection secured justification as in 7:24– 8:1, but the focus of 8:2– 4 is that the work of the Spirit actualizes in the life of believers what Christ achieved. Thus, justification is by the life-giving work of the Spirit and Christ in coordination, not segregated into stages.  I make an argument in my Christosis (123 – 25) to support the reading of δικαίωμα as the righteous decree of life in the law.

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

267

After exploring the basic antithesis between the flesh and the Spirit in terms of death and life in 8:5 – 8,⁵¹ in 8:9 – 11 Paul articulates a response to the question underlying much of chs 5 – 8: if believers have life now as justification, how do we make sense of the current and future struggles with death? Paul first (re)establishes that Christ-believers are truly of and in the Spirit rather than the flesh (8:9). He then clarifies the distinction between the present (8:10) and future (8:11) experience of life for those in the Spirit by means of the body.⁵² In the present, “even though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life on account of righteousness” (8:10). In the future, the presence of the Spirit assures that believers will be raised, as God raised Christ (8:11). The identity of the s/Spirit and the grammar are a little ambiguous in 8:10,⁵³ but for our purposes we should note that Paul directly correlates the Spirit with righteousness. Given the present-future distinction between 8:10 and 8:11, the reference to life in 8:10 is not referring to future life as a result of righteousness (cf. 2:6 – 13). Rather, in line with the larger flow of the letter and with 8:1– 2 more immediately, justification (as an already present reality) is identified with life by the Spirit. It appears that justification is the cause for the Spirit’s life-creating presence because of the preposition διά followed by an accusative.⁵⁴ While 8:10 seems to set out an ordo with justification as the basis for the Spirit’s presence, we saw earlier in 8:1– 2 that the Spirit’s presence was the basis for justification. Paul, thus, appears to situate the justification-Spirit relationship reciprocally, so it would be inappropriate to develop an ordo since these appear in such close proximity.⁵⁵ The common factor with both—Spirit and justification—is the presence of Christ.⁵⁶

 On the identification of justification and the work of the Spirit, note that “peace” is associated with both (5:1; 8:6).  Note his use of ζωοποιέω in 8:11 as a description of bodily resurrection.  The arguments for reading the Holy Spirit here by Fortuna are convincing: Robert T. Fortuna, “Romans 8:10 and Paul’s Doctrine of the Spirit,” ATR 41 (1959): 77– 84.  Paul Meyer (“The Holy Spirit in the Pauline Letters: A Contextual Exploration,” Int 33.1 [1979]: 3 – 18, at 8) argues that the Spirit “produces life …, and this the Spirit does for the sake of producing righteousness (telic dia with the accusative, as in 1 Cor. 11:9), which is the fulfillment of the ‘just requirement’ mentioned in verse 4.” While I see the primary force of “righteousness” as relating to justification at conversion, Meyer helpfully shows the interconnection between the conversion transformation and embodiment of that reality in a believer’s walk.  Similarly, an ordo cannot be discerned between the presence of the Spirit and adoption/rebirth: cf. Gal 4:6, 29; Rom 8:14.  Fee, while previously noting that Romans is not simply divided between the earlier Christological parts and the later pneumatological ones (God’s Empowering Presence, 474), argues that the justification mentioned in this verse is not particularly related to the Spirit and life but to Christ in you (548 – 52).

268

Ben C. Blackwell

As the chapter concludes, we find two more discussions of justification. In 8:29 – 30, Paul proclaims the confident expectation that “those who are justified are glorified.” This presents the reversal of the situation noted in 3:23 – 24. In sin, humans lost participation in divine glory and became mortal, to which Paul held out the solution of justifying-life through Christ. As we would expect, justified people participate in divine glory-immortality, as rectification. Showing that rectification and acquittal are not mutually exclusive, Paul reiterates the hope of justification in the face of forensic condemnation in 8:32– 33, though Prothro rightly notes how this is a trilateral rather than a bilateral contention.⁵⁷ We find, then, evidence supporting aspects of all three of the primary positions—acquittal, rectification, and covenant. The basic hope that Paul presents is freedom from sin, and thus God justifies ungodly people, such that they experience forgiveness. Yet, the problem of sin is not merely relational and neither is the solution. Sin brings condemnation-as-death, and accordingly God provides justification-as-life through Christ and the Spirit. In other words, as believers experience the divine presence in Christ and the Spirit, they share in the divine attribute of life, and this is their justification. Paul points to this basic rectification perspective in the thesis of the letter: “the righteous one by faith will live” (1:17). Through his use of new covenant texts and themes, Paul makes clear that this justifying experience of new life by the Spirit is the consummation of the new covenant. Although the majority of Paul’s discussion related to justification in Romans is more focused on Christ’s death and life as the basis for justification, in this chapter the Spirit as the agent of life comes to the fore. In this way, Paul presents the agency of Christ and the Spirit as cooperative since they together achieve a common goal, though with different roles. Christ achieves justification through his death and resurrection, and the Holy Spirit enacts this justification through his life-giving presence.

Excursus: The Pastorals With the strongly disputed authorship of the Pastoral Letters, they cannot easily serve as immediate confirmation of my reading of the undisputed letters. However, it is interesting to note that in the two key passages where we find justification language, the Spirit is directly connected. First, in 1 Tim 3:16 we see how Christ is “justified by the Spirit.” The majority of commentators see this phrase as referring to Christ’s resurrection which vindicates his identity as the righteous

 Prothro, Both Judge and Justifier, 202– 205.

The Spirit and Justification in the Pauline Corpus

269

messiah. The importance is that the Spirit is the agent of this experience of his resurrection-as-justification. That resurrection is inherent to Jesus’ justification shows how justification is not merely a new status but a lived reality through the agency of the Spirit. Second, in Titus 3:1– 8 we likewise encounter an interaction between justification and the Spirit. The argument is more developed, but points directly to the same conclusion. In verse 7, we get the purpose clause that sums up the previous saving reality while explaining its goal: we are saved “so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” This passive participle (“having been justified;” δικαιωθέντες) points back to and sums up the previous phrase about being saved through the washing and rebirth of the Holy Spirit (3:5). Thus, we have regeneration as the key starting point of the Christian experience which climaxes in embodied eternal life. Note particularly that this singular salvation is “through” (διά) both the Holy Spirit (3:6) and Jesus Christ (3:7). Accordingly, we see how being justified is identified with the experience of new life through Christ and the Spirit. While we do not have a full treatment of these ideas, we see that the ground of our justification is in Christ but that it is effected through the Holy Spirit.

3 Conclusion Justification is a complex teaching, and Paul used it to address a variety of contexts. We have focused particularly on these questions: is the Holy Spirit involved in justification, and if so, how? In summary, I conclude: 1. As a forensic term, justification means an “enacted verdict” at the lexical level. When Paul utilizes this terminology to describe the divine-human encounter, at the discourse level this enacted verdict includes both forgiveness and new life, as a new covenant blessing. This approach brings together the acquittal, rectification, and covenant readings, though not simply in the way those three approaches normally argue. While Paul only explicitly associates justification with forgiveness once in his corpus (Rom 4:5 – 8), we have seen how “life” is prevalent not only in multiple contexts, but even in the key OT foundation for Paul’s theology: “the one righteous by faith will live” (Hab 2:4; Gal 3:11; Rom 1:17). Accordingly, acquittal and rectification need not be at odds. The gift of life is the execution of the justifying work of God, just as equally the execution of death is what condemnation entails.⁵⁸ As an eschatological doctrine, Paul emphasizes initial justification as a present reality. There is no indication that it is something

 Cf. BDAG, δικαιόω, 249.

270

Ben C. Blackwell

that grows. His pronouncement that one is “just” (and forgiven) likewise entails his new creation act of giving new life. This life is eschatologically experienced, truly in the present but not fully consummated until bodily resurrection. As a gift, this is not something that is merited by human agency. Only God can raise people from the dead. 2. Justification is founded on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ. Gaffin is thus correct. The divine presence of Christ mediates this reality, showing the importance of union with Christ. In his description of justification, Paul writes: “It is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20).⁵⁹ Based on a number of texts, we can also see that justification is mediated by the presence of the life-giving Spirit. Gaffin is not correct to distinguish the subjective work of the Spirit from justification.⁶⁰ Since Paul presents justification as a completed action, this rules out a growing righteousness by the Spirit as Gaffin and others rightly highlight. However, as a distinctly new covenant blessing, the reality of new life in believers’ hearts is the reality of a “ministry of righteousness” (2 Cor 3:9). 3. Justification as the new creation reality creates the ground for seeing Paul’s theology as more integrated. While justification cannot be equated with sanctification, the new creation act of making alive entails that people will live to God in obedience. This also opens the door for wider discussions related to justification and theosis, the doctrine of sharing in God’s divine life.⁶¹ This essay only begins to explore these important issues, and there is much room for further study on the relationship of justification and the Spirit.

 This reading broadly agrees with Chester’s reading of Paul and his description of Luther’s theology: Stephen J. Chester, Reading Paul with the Reformers: Reconciling Old and New Perspectives (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 175 – 318, 415 – 16.  Union with Christ is an important and helpful phrase; however, it can distort perceptions of justification, in that it prioritizes Christ over the Spirit.  Cf. Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).

John R. (Jack) Levison

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3, the Writings of Philo Judaeus, and the Letter to the Hebrews 1 Introduction How Paul taught is an open book—or an open letter, at least: revelations of mysteries, the handing down of traditions, the occasional word of Jesus, and myriad interpretations of scripture. Recent Pauline scholars, in fact, have confirmed the impression that he was an astute, if idiosyncratic, interpreter of ancient texts.¹ What they have not done is to connect Pauline interpretation to the question of inspiration. Did Paul see himself as an inspired interpreter of scripture? That question lies at the heart of this study. To address this question, we will turn first to 2 Corinthians 3:12– 18, in which Paul tinkers with the text of Exodus 34. We will then discover data from Paul’s context—in the writings of Philo Judaeus and the letter to the Hebrews—to corroborate the thesis that Paul viewed himself as an inspired interpreter of scripture.

2 2 Corinthians 3:12 – 18 Paul’s letters offer many fascinating interpretations of scripture. Paul’s interpretation of the exodus, for example, is novel: the Israelites “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” (1 Cor 10:2– 4). A communal baptism into Moses, spiritual food and drink, and a spiritual rock—Jesus himself—who follows them around, hardly arise from the surface of Exodus 16 – 18 and Numbers 11– 14. Does Paul offer such a radical interpretation of Torah because he thinks he is inspired? He does not say.

 Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016); Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004); N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-019

272

John R. (Jack) Levison

This is not the only novelty in his cache of interpretations. Paul interprets Hagar and Sarah allegorically as the earthly and heavenly Jerusalems (Gal 4:24). Paul is like Philo, discerning a level of meaning—for both, this is the allegorical level—that takes the reader beyond the literal meaning of scripture. Philo is clear about how he discovers the allegorical level of meaning: the divine spirit speaks to him, teaching him or driving him into ecstasy or lifting him on the winds of knowledge. Paul is more circumspect. Does he offer an allegorical interpretation of Torah because he thinks he is inspired? He does not say. Paul’s letter to the Romans contains other candidates for inspired interpretation. His lengthy interpretation of the words, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (4:3), leads him well beyond those few words of scripture to the psalms and to interpretations that are, once again, barely transparent. His prodigious, if idiosyncratic, effort to explore and explain the fate of Israel is rife with scripture from start to finish (Romans 9 – 11). Does Paul put this impressive collection of scriptural texts on display because he thinks he is inspired? He does not say. There may be one text in which Paul does lay claim, in a subtle way, to inspiration. In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul draws several contrasts, one of which is between the ministry of Moses, encapsulated in the ten commandments written on stone tablets, and his own ministry, encapsulated in the work of the spirit written on the tablets of human hearts (2 Cor 3:1– 3). To develop this contrast, Paul interprets, among other texts, Exodus 34:29 – 35, in which Moses has to wear a veil so that the Israelites do not see the glory on his face that resulted from his being in the presence of God. The story unfolds as Moses descends from the mountain (a second time) with stone tablets in hand. To shield the Israelites from God’s glory, which shines on his face, he wears a veil after receiving the commandments. Whenever he meets God, he removes the veil; whenever he returns to Israel, he puts the veil on again. Paul derives something surprising from this basic story line: Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit. (2 Cor 3:12– 18)²

 All biblical quotations, unless otherwise stated, are from the New Revised Standard Version.

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

273

2.1 The Pitfalls Indisputable elements of inspired exegesis are present in 2 Corinthians 3: interpretation of a text; novelty of exegesis; and clear appeals to the spirit. No sooner, however, do we discover a possible nexus of interpretation and inspiration than we encounter nearly insurmountable heuristic challenges. One modern reader has noted that 2 Corinthians 3 “is full of problems, ambiguities and pitfalls.”³ Another calls it “the Mount Everest of Pauline texts as far as difficulty is concerned.”⁴ Scholars such as Margaret Thrall and W. C. van Unnik have documented these pitfalls,⁵ so we can admit that the challenges are both ample and overwhelming—and plod on. Some scholars have refused to charge ahead and have, instead, thrown their hands in the air, concluding that Paul’s “engagement with scripture amounts to little more than an ad hoc citation of isolated texts, pressed into the service of whatever argument he happens to be pursuing at the time—usually in defiance of their plain sense.”⁶ The problems in 2 Corinthians 3 have led another to conclude his analysis of 2 Cor 3:18, 4:16 – 17 in this way: Most of this is, strictly speaking, nonsense. It is hard enough to empathize with Paul when he is doing his best to say something intelligible about an experience that he himself admits to be inexpressible (2 Corinthians 12); it is even harder once he starts arguing about it. But this is what an interpreter has to do …

If there is a measure of empathy in this assessment, it lies, though only latently, in the last line: “Yet even when he [Paul] talks nonsense his intelligence and sincerity shine through.”⁷

 Morna D. Hooker, “Beyond the Things that are Written? St. Paul’s Use of Scripture,” NTS 27 (1981): 295 – 309, 296. For a coherent analysis of 2 Cor 3:7– 14, see Scott J. Hafemann, “The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor 3:7– 14: An Example of Paul’s Contextual Exegesis of the OT – A Proposal,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 14 (1992): 31– 49. Hafeman (31) begins by quoting Hooker’s line, cited above, “whatever the passage from the OT originally meant, it certainly was not this!” in order to wrest some coherence in Paul’s thought from its apparent incoherence.  A. T. Hanson, “The Midrash in II Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration,” JSNT 9 (1980): 19.  Margaret E. Thrall. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: T&T Clark, 1994), and W. C. van Unnik, “’With Unveiled Face’, An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii 12– 18,” NT 6 (1964): 153 – 69, esp. 153 – 59.  Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004), 273, 9.  John Ashton, The Religion of Paul the Apostle (New Haven: Yale University, 2000), 138.

274

John R. (Jack) Levison

Though Ashton’s assessment is harsh, it is not unreasonable. Several characteristics of Paul’s argument do give the impression that Paul is a cavalier interpreter who has little regard for scripture itself because he is preoccupied with his own agenda.⁸ First, several times Paul changes the wording of scripture. For instance, it is not Moses who turns to the Lord, as in Exod 34:34, but anyone can turn to the Lord in 2 Cor 3:16. Second, Paul collapses fragments of texts with apparent disregard for their contexts. The contrast of stone tablets and the tablets of human hearts, written with the spirit, reflects Ezekiel’s contrast of hearts of stone and flesh and the promise to give Israel a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek 11:19 – 20). The citation, just slightly later, “Let light shine out of darkness,” alludes to the first lines of Torah: Gen 1:3 (2 Cor 4:6). Third, Paul may be following Jewish interpretative agendas rather than looking for the meaning of scripture itself. The illumination of Moses’s face, for instance, may reflect a Jewish tradition, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, of facial illumination. The hymn writer thanks God that, “through me you have enlightened the face of the Many; you have increased them, so that they are uncountable, for you have shown me your wondrous mysteries” (1QH 12.27).⁹ Fourth, more than one modern reader has suggested that Paul may be more preoccupied with his opponents’ alleged misinterpretations than with the text itself—which leads Paul to various interpretations that seem to be short on scriptural ballast. Dieter Georgi, who devotes an entire monograph to Paul’s alleged opponents, suggests that “the textual difficulties can easily be resolved by assuming that the opponents had put their tradition in writing and that Paul based his refutation on this text.” 2 Cor 3:7– 18 is the literary product of Paul’s opponents—not Paul himself, though he used their text—2 Cor 3:7– 18—for “his polemical criticism.” Georgi even reproduces 2 Cor 3:7– 18 with underlinings: what is not underlined is the original text of Paul’s opponents; underlined are subsequent Pauline glosses. Why does Georgi go to such lengths to identify the alleged literary text of Paul’s opponents? To solve the tortured character of 2 Cor 3:12 – 18.¹⁰

 On Paul’s free association of ideas, which leads from letters of recommendation to the ministry of Moses, see the lucid analysis of Joseph Fitzmyer, “Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (2 Cor 3:7—4:6) and a Palestinian Jewish Motif,” TS 42 (1981): 634– 39.  Translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are from Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls, Study Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).  See also David L. Balch, “Backgrounds of I Cor VII: Sayings of the Lord in Q; Moses as an Ascetic theios aner in II Cor. III,” NTS 18 (1972): 358 – 62. Balch attributes Paul’s turgid use of Exo-

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

275

Despite the problems, ambiguities, and pitfalls that characterize Paul’s interpretation of scripture, it may be possible to discover a motivation and method in Paul’s interpretation of Exodus 34. Take, for example, the question of how Paul could characterize the ten commandments as a ministry of death. Francis Watson has shown that this may arise from Paul’s conflating Moses’ two ascents. The second, in Exodus 34, brought glory to rest on Moses’ face; the first, in Exodus 32, resulted in the death of three thousand Israelites, who had partied while Moses was on the mountain. The stones, which shattered when Moses threw them to the ground, led in this initial episode to actual death.¹¹ Paul’s reading of scripture, then, may be more carefully constructed than the smattering of fragments in his letters suggests. Whether he composes allegory, collects excerpts into a catena of quotations, or interprets a single text, such as Exodus 34, he often takes scripture beyond its obvious meaning—or what would be obvious to us. If he were Ben Sira or Josephus or a hymn writer of the Dead Sea Scrolls, he might be prone to attribute the unlocking of mysteries or the composition of allegories to the holy spirit. This Paul does not do.

2.2 The Veil Paul does, however, offer us a veiled clue to his experience of inspiration in his freehand interpretation of Moses’ veil, so his interpretative movements repay careful scrutiny. In the scriptural story, the veil lies only over Moses’ face. In Paul’s interpretation, Moses is not the only one who dons a veil. The succession of Paul’s thought goes like this: (1) A veil covers Moses’ face (3:12 – 13): “Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside.”14 (2) A veil covers the reading of [this portion of] the old covenant (3:14) “But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there …”15 (3) A veil covers the hearts of readers who are not “in Christ” (3:15): “Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds.”

dus 34 to the need to respond to a Corinthian misinterpretation that takes its cue from the writings of Philo, according to whom Moses’ preparation for his ascent was intensely ascetic; the Corinthians were adopting a similar form of asceticism, of which Paul must disabuse them.  Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 288 – 89.

276

John R. (Jack) Levison

(4) The veil is removed from the faces of those who turn to Christ (3:16 – 17): “but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” (5) A veil covers the gospel for those who are perishing, unbelievers whose minds the god of this world has blinded (4:3 – 4): “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” In this string of interpretations, the veil shifts from Moses (#1), to the public reading of the old covenant (#2), to the hearts of readers who are not in Christ (#3), to believers in Christ whose veils are removed (#4), to the gospel itself (#5). In many respects numbers one and five are similar: those outside cannot see something good, something possessed of the glory of God. More germane for grasping whether Paul understands himself as an inspired interpreter of scripture are numbers two, three, and four. Numbers two and three parallel one another and therefore make one and the same point: those who are not “in Christ” cannot read the old covenant correctly. Number four explains why: only those who turn to Christ can read Exodus 34 correctly. It is essential to stop here for a moment rather than slipping immediately into the magnificence of verse eighteen, with its spotlight on dazzling transformation from glory into glory. It is tempting to focus on what bedazzles in 2 Cor 3:18—transformation from glory into glory, which comes from the Lord, the spirit—but that will arise soon enough. For now, it is crucial to recognize that Paul is talking about reading—and reading right. If he is interested in experience, it is a single sort of experience: the experience of reading Torah, of interpreting Moses. “Paul’s explanation of the veil intends to speak not just of Moses’ person but also and above all of the text, with which Moses is so closely associated throughout this passage (cf. vv. 7, 15). The story of Moses’ veil is the text speaking of itself: we have here a self-referential parable or allegory of the Torah.”¹² Paul is, then, concerned in 2 Corinthians 3 with how people read Moses. This is what the veil signifies. “Paul’s understanding of Moses’ veil is ultimately concerned not with matters of history or biography but with ‘Moses’ as a text that is read, and with ‘the sons of Israel’ as the (non-Christian) Jewish community of the present, gathered each Sabbath to hear it being read. This shift from past to present occurs in vv. 14– 15, where it is underlined by the repeated use of the phrase,

 Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 295.

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

277

‘to this day’.”¹³ Reading. Texts. Readers—Paul included. This is the topic of 2 Corinthians 3. If the second and third references to the veil are about reading—or not reading—Moses right, then the fourth reference to the veil should also be about reading Moses, the text, correctly. Paul gives no signal that he has shifted his attention from reading to some other topic, some other experience. His question is more modest but not, for that reason, less significant: If the heirs of the Israelites do not read Moses right, then who does? Those who turn to the Lord, who is the spirit. Those who are “in Christ.” In short, the principal purpose of the spirit is to inspire the correct interpretation of scripture—in this case, Exodus 34. At its base, therefore, Paul’s discussion is about how the spirit leads believers to read Moses.

2.3 The Mirror The boldness, the inspiration, the life-giving quality of Paul’s gospel is deeply rooted in how he reads the glory of Exodus 34, alongside promises of the spirit in Ezekiel 11 and 36 and the explosion of light in Genesis 1. Yet how does he read Exodus 34? In the light of Christ. Paul reads Torah as one who has turned to the Lord, the spirit. From this vantage point, which Israel’s heirs do not share, Paul sees what they do not. Ultimately, the spirit prompts a different sort of reading, a different interpretation of scripture, a different perspective on Moses. As an inspired reader, Paul sees that the story of Moses is actually a story about how Moses’ heirs read the story wrongly because they fail, “to this day,” to recognize the presence of a new covenant, which renders the old covenant obsolete. This is not just a story about how Moses turned—past tense—to the Lord but also an agenda for how anyone can turn—present tense—to the Lord, the spirit, and have the veil lifted and, without a veil, read Moses right. Though Paul spreads the spirit to a variety of other spheres, from miracles in Galatians 3 to charismatic gifts in 1 Corinthians 12– 14, here in 2 Corinthians 3 he draws a clear and unavoidable contrast between those who read Moses without the spirit and those who read him with the spirit. To validate his own reading of scripture, he plays what might seem to be loose and free with Torah; he shifts the locus of the veil, changes past verb tenses to present, and situates the discussion in terms familiar from Ezekiel’s contrast of stony hearts and new spirits. These are not insignificant interpretative moves. Yet Paul can do this, can introduce ap-

 Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 295.

278

John R. (Jack) Levison

parent innovations and changes, at least to his own satisfaction, because he is an inspired interpreter of scripture, because he has turned to the Lord, the spirit. All of this is complicated, and it becomes even more inscrutable in what follows: “And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the spirit” (2 Cor 3:18). Modern interpreters have tripped over the image of the mirror, yet this mirror may provide the key to understanding Paul as an inspired interpreter of scripture. What can the mirror possibly mean?¹⁴ We begin with what the mirror does not mean. When Paul says that believers “with unveiled faces” see “the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror,” he is not painting in broad strokes a picture of the Christian experience. His strokes are subtler and his topic more slender. He is talking about one indispensable, pivotal experience of faith: reading the story of Moses right, which, of course, is all about glory. Believers in Christ are transformed from glory into glory because they are able to read the text of Moses, a text about God’s glory, right—or in the right direction—from back to front. They cannot read it this way—the mirror way—if they read it, as it is read in the synagogue, from beginning to end. That is not how believers are transformed; they are transformed when they read the mirror-image of the text. And the mirror provides the reverse image of how to read scripture. The mirror gives believers the ability to read the whole story from Christ backwards. In fact, an experience of Christ drives readers relentlessly, voraciously back to the story of Moses, though with an entirely new perspective. The image of the mirror illuminates what Paul is saying in this highly inventive discussion of reading Moses. In a mirror world, left is right, and right is left. Paul gazes into scripture, where he sees the opposite of how scripture is normally read in his day. His colleagues in the synagogue read the normal way, from right to left rather than left to right, from beginning to end rather than end to beginning, but this way of reading causes them to miss the central point of inspiration: the new covenant eclipses the old, the spirit supplants stone, boldness replaces hiddenness, open-faced glory unseats veiled glory. They fail to see that they, like their Israelite ancestors, are missing out on the glory of God; it is veiled to them.

 See, for example, Thrall, Commentary, 283 – 87, 290 – 95; Annette Weissenrieder, “Der Blick in den Spiegel: II Kor 3,18 vor dem Hintergrund antiker Spiegeltheorien und ikonographisher Abbildungen,” in Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images, eds. Annette Weissenrieder, Friedericke Wendt, and Petra von Gemünden (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 313 – 43; and B. J. Oropeza, Exploring Second Corinthians: Death and Life, Hardship and Rivalry. (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 246 – 53.

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

279

When we understand mirror-reading as reading from end to beginning, we are able to solve one of the cruci interpretatum of Pauline literature, that is, whether the participle, κατοπτριζόμενοι, should be interpreted as “beholding in a mirror” or “reflecting what is in the mirror.” Do believers see the image of Christ or reflect the image of Christ? In this context, with its emphasis upon reading Moses right, the participle must mean beholding. By reading the glory of Moses in Exodus 34 with unveiled faces from front to back, from the perspective of Christ, believers are transformed into the same image (of Christ), from glory into (Christ’s) glory (2 Cor 3:18). All of this—the reading, the glory, the image, the transformation—is “from the Lord, the spirit” (2 Cor 3:18). All of this, in other words, is the product of the inspired interpretation of scripture.

3 Philo Judaeus Some interpreters of Paul have discovered in 2 Cor 3:18 a window to Paul’s Damascus Road experience in Acts 9.¹⁵ Others have discovered a rich vein of mysticism in 2 Cor 3:18.¹⁶ Others focus upon transformation.¹⁷ Volker Rabens insists that Paul connects contemplation to transformation, experience to ethics. He concludes his discussion of 2 Cor 3:18: Through the cognitive and the immediacy-creating character of “unveiling”, the Spirit enables people to be transformed through “beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror”. … This activity is best comprehended through the concept of “transformation through contemplation”, … On the basis of this Spirit-created intimate relationship to God in Christ, believers are transformed “into the same image”, that is, their lives portray more of the characteristics of Christ.¹⁸

In a later study, Rabens appeals to the writings of Philo Judaeus to connect contemplation with ethical transformation.¹⁹ He is justified in doing so. He does not,  For example, Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 179, 182– 93.  April DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse on the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004), 64– 65.  M. David Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 216 – 223.  Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 202– 03.  Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics, 298. This topic has been discussed carefully in several of the articles included in the volume, The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: A

280

John R. (Jack) Levison

however, include some texts of clear relevance to 2 Corinthians 3, and he omits key dimensions of certain texts that he does discuss. In other words, there is more to be done than Rabens has done. In particular, it is possible to identify similarities—and differences—between Philo’s autobiographical accounts of inspired writing and Paul’s portrayal of inspired interpretation in 2 Corinthians 3. Why? Because, while Philo does describe contemplation, he also recalls, in autobiographical snippets, what we might call inspired-contemplation-as-interpretation.

3.1 Seeing What to Write To explore the nexus of contemplation and ethical transformation, Rabens analyzes On the Migration of Abraham 34– 37. He is right to identify this as a central text, yet this text is less about contemplation in general than inspired writing. Philo compares occasions when he intends to follow “the usual course of writing on philosophical tenets” but comes away empty with other occasions when he comes to his work empty, only to find himself suddenly full. Philo’s philosophical writing—at least the extant literature we have of his—consists nearly exclusively of the interpretation of Torah.²⁰ In the process of writing philosophical interpretations of Torah, and not in an effort simply to behold God, Philo has an intense experience of beholding. Beholding what? Not so much God as an unexpected shower of ideas that allow him to write under divine possession. Particularly important, in light of the image of beholding in 2 Cor 3:18, is the language Philo adopts of seeing and sight: “For I obtained language, ideas, an enjoyment of light, keenest vision, pellucid distinctness of objects, such as might be received through the eyes as the result of clearest shewing” (On the Migration of Abraham 35). Philo sees these ideas as “light,” “with keenest vision” as if seen “through eyes.” In other words, he describes his experience as seeing what he is to write. Equally important, though lost in translation, is the role played by composition or interpretation. The translation, “language,” for the Greek, ἑρμηνεύει,

Multidisciplinary Perspective, eds. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2014).  See below on the clear connection between philosophical contemplation and scripture interpretation in On the Special Laws 3.1– 6. Translations of Philo are from the Loeb Classical Library.

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

281

is perhaps vacuous.²¹ As translators Colson and Whitaker note, language (ἑρμηνεύει) and ideas—the first two elements Philo mentions—were often considered the kernels of composition. In this context, of course, ἑρμηνεύει may communicate a particular form of composition: the interpretation of ancient texts. On the Migration of Abraham 34– 35, then, conveys key elements of inspired interpretation: the work of writing; more specifically, inspired writing; writing as interpretation; and inspiration through an experience of seeing.

3.2 A Vision-seeking Mind On the Migration of Abraham 34– 35 is not the sole or central description of inspired interpretation in the writings of Philo. In On Dreams 2.252, Philo describes a different experience of frequently hearing an invisible divine voice: “I hear once more the voice of the invisible spirit, the familiar secret tenant, saying, ‘Friend, it would seem that there is a matter great and precious of which thou knowest nothing, and this I will ungrudgingly shew thee, for many other welltimed lessons have I given thee.” This voice, modeled on Socrates’ daemon, Philo hears when he receives messages about how to interpret Torah.²² Although Philo hears rather than sees something, he prefaces his account of this experience with praise for the vision seeking mind: “For what grander or holier house could we find for God in the whole range of existence than the visionseeking mind [φιλοθεάμονα διάνοιαν], the mind which is eager to see [ὁρᾶν] all things and never even in its dreams has a wish for faction or turmoil?” (2.251). It is to this sort of mind that the familiar secret tenant speaks. As in On the Migration of Abraham 34 – 35, Philo sets the work of interpretation alongside two essential ingredients: inspiration and seeing. These experiences are markedly different from one another, not least in that the former entails ecstasy and the latter mental sobriety. Still, despite these fundamental differences, both experiences, as Philo describes them, involve inspiration, interpretation, and seeing.

 For textual issues, none of which invalidates this point, see the note on On the Migration of Abraham 35 in Philo Vol. 4, ed. F. H. Colson and George Herbert Whitaker (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2004), 561.  For further details, see my Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 117, 180 – 82, and 190 – 191.

282

John R. (Jack) Levison

3.3 Stooping to look Philo’s enthusiasm for the inspired interpretation of Torah leads him to take his experiences in still another direction in On the Special Laws 3.1– 6, where he borrows the famed language of the ascent of the soul from Plato’s Phaedrus to describe his uncanny ability to interpret scripture.²³ When on occasion Philo is able to “obtain a spell of fine weather and a calm from civil turmoils,” he is able to “open the soul’s eyes,” to be wafted on the winds of knowledge, and to become “irradiated by the light of wisdom.” During these rare moments of respite, Philo finds himself “daring, not only to read the sacred pages of Moses, but also in my love of knowledge to peer into each of them and unfold and reveal what is not known to the multitude.” This reflection evinces a striking correspondence between the ascent of the philosopher’s mind and the discernment of an interpreter’s mind. His experience as an interpreter of scripture mirrors his life as a philosopher. The passage begins with philosophical ascent and possession (3.1– 2), is interrupted by a plunge into the ocean of civil cares, (3.3 – 4) and concludes with an ascent on the winds of knowledge to interpret Torah (3.5 – 6). Within this structure, the initial ascent to contemplate the upper air corresponds to the final ascent to interpret Torah. Philo reinforces this correlation between philosopher and interpreter by employing the same verb, “to stoop,” to describe the experiences of ascent and interpretation. The words, “Ah then I stooped [gaze down] from the upper air …” (3.2) correspond to “Behold me daring … to stoop [peer] into each of them [the sacred messages of Moses] and unfold …” (3.6).²⁴ Though different from On the Migration of Abraham 34 – 35 and On Dreams 2.252, this text shares with them a love of true sight and light. Mired in civil cares, Philo maintains a love of learning and looks with his soul’s eyes (τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμασιν), even dimly, at a world undimmed by evil (3.4). During infrequent moments of tranquility, Philo escapes the tyranny of civil leadership and opens the eyes of his soul (τοὺς τῆς ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμούς), to be irradiated by the light of wisdom (φωτὶ τῷ σοφίας ἐναυγάζομαι).

 Plato, Phaedrus 246 A–53C. For further discussion, see my The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Boston: Brill, 1997), 151– 58, 208 – 09.  On the illuminating relationship between On the Special Laws 3.5– 6, On Planting 22– 24, and On the Giants 53– 54, see my “Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus,” JSJ 26 (1995): 288– 98. The correlation between Philo as an inspired interpreter and Moses as an inspired teacher is apparent in On the Cherubim 48, which includes what is implicit in On the Special Laws 3.6. For further analysis, see my Filled with the Spirit, 194 note 29.

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

283

In On the Special Laws, Philo depicts an experience of inspiration that is very much like his understanding of prophetic inspiration—though not exactly. Prophets speak when they fall under the power of ecstasy and divine possession, “when the mind is evicted at the arrival of the divine Spirit.”²⁵ In contrast, his experience in On the Special Laws is preceded by preparation, knowledge, and contemplation at moments when he is free of civil responsibilities, and his mind becomes more alert, not less, as his ability to interpret Torah intensifies rather than diminishes. During those experiences, an inspired Philo, wafted on the winds of knowledge, opens the eyes of his soul to the light of wisdom —and stoops to peer into the oracles of Moses. By doing so, he gains a level of knowledge inaccessible to most.

4 Paul and Philo With none of Philo’s wistful reflections in On the Special Laws would, I imagine, Paul disagree: harried, intense, devoted Paul, who finds unabashed freedom in the spirit when, as an interpreter of Torah, he beholds the image of Christ, from end to beginning, and is transformed from glory into glory. The experience is altogether enrapturing, and words can barely hold the reality. Words are old wineskins, these experiences new wine. Still, salient across these rapturous experiences lies a pattern—elements that appear in both Paul and Philo’s descriptions of inspiration. First, of course, there is inspiration itself, which Philo describes in a plethora of ways, from possession to an invisible spirit styled on Socrates’ daemon to ascent. For Paul, only the spirit matters, for, in his heuristic framework, the Lord of Exodus 34 is nothing—or no one—other than the spirit. What Philo has many names for, Paul has one. Second, there is interpretation. For Philo, philosophical writing is exegetical writing; composition is interpretation. Generally, Philo writes on three levels: the literal; the allegorical; and the ethical. The first, it seems, can be gotten to by native talent and a good Roman education. The second and third levels demand inspiration. When Philo is possessed or hears a whisper or rises on the winds of knowledge, it is usually an allegorical interpretation—the key to an exegetical conundrum—that he receives. For Paul, the pattern of interpretation is not so

 Philo Judaeus, Who Is the Heir, 265. See my “Philo’s Personal Experience and the Persistence of Prophecy,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 194– 209.

284

John R. (Jack) Levison

well-ordered, perhaps because of the occasional and demanding nature of his letters and perhaps because he is not a devotee of a coherent exegetical method, such as the Alexandrian exegetical tradition. His methods seem more eclectic, his exegesis more urgent. Nonetheless, for both authors, exegesis lies at the heart of transformation. Third, there is seeing. Philo’s descriptions are rife with the language of sight: light; keenest vision, as if through eyes; the vision-seeking mind; the soul’s eyes; and irradiation by the light of wisdom. Paul chooses a few key images and words: unveiled; gazing in a mirror; and “image” itself—all of which amounts to freedom. Both authors understand inspiration as a sort of seeing, even seeing with the mind or soul. These are significant points of contact between Philo and Paul: inspiration, interpretation, and vision. Yet Paul and Philo are not in complete agreement. Under inspiration, Philo receives knowledge that is inaccessible to the many (On the Special Laws 3.6), though he is willing to teach them. Paul’s impulse is quite different. With emphasis, Paul claims, “And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18). Though there is considerable debate about who the “all of us” are in this text, there is little reason to infer that Paul means to exclude anyone, given how emphatically he begins: ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες. If Philo, under inspiration, attains elite knowledge that belongs to the privileged few, Paul’s claim, at least here, when he no longer demeans the Corinthians, or some of them, for being babes in Christ, is that everyone—anyone—who turns to the Lord, the spirit, can behold the divine image and be transformed from glory into glory.

5 The Letter to the Hebrews If Philo offers a context for 2 Corinthians 3 and the inspired interpretation of scripture from within the world of Second Temple Judaism, the letter to the Hebrews offers a credible context within the early church. In three passages in the letter to the Hebrews, the activity of the spirit precedes a citation or summary of scripture. In Heb 3:7– 8, the holy spirit is the source of Ps 95:7– 11: Therefore, as the Spirit says, “Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, as on the day of testing in the wilderness …” (Heb 3:7– 8)

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

285

In Heb 9:6 – 9, the spirit explains the practice of Israel’s high priest: Such preparations having been made, the priests go continually into the first tent to carry out their ritual duties; but only the high priest goes into the second, and he but once a year, and not without taking the blood that he offers for himself and for the sins committed unintentionally by the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing. This is a symbol of the present time … (Heb 9:6 – 9)

Heb 10:15 – 17 consists of quotations of Jer 31:33 and 31:34. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds,” he also adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more” (Heb 10:15 – 17).

In each of these texts, the author of the letter does not say that the holy spirit inspired the original text of the Greek Old Testament; the spirit rather interprets those texts for the community. The letter to the Hebrews, therefore, takes us to the heart of the inspired interpretation of scripture. The author does not say that the spirit spoke Psalm 95 but that the holy spirit says it, or that the holy spirit indicated something about the high priest but that the holy spirit indicates, or that the holy spirit testified but that the holy spirit testifies—and, importantly, “to us.” The primary locus of inspiration is not the ancient text but the contemporary community.²⁶

5.1 Modified Citations In two texts, the spirit alters ancient texts to meet the needs of the community to which the letter is addressed. Hebrews 3:7 – 11. The citation in this text is altered and attributed to the spirit. LXX Ps 94:9 – 10 reads: Where your fathers tried me; they put me to the proof and saw my works. For forty years I loathed that generation.

 For a thorough discussion of pneumatology in the letter to the Hebrews, see my “Toward a Theology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” CBQ 78 (2016): 90 – 110.

286

John R. (Jack) Levison

Heb 3:9 – 10 reads instead, “where your ancestors put me to the test, though they had seen my works for forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation.” In LXX Psalm 94, God loathes Israel for forty years. In Hebrews, Israel tests God for forty years. This alteration heightens the protracted character of Israel’s rebellion, as well as what is at stake in persistent resistance to God—a key theme of the letter to the Hebrews. This difference is not the product of a different Vorlage. The author cites the text of LXX Ps 94:9 – 10 when writing later, “But with whom was God angry forty years?” (Heb 3:17). The author knows LXX Psalm 94 as it now stands, but in Heb 3:9 the spirit speaks a modified version, which emphasizes the danger of becoming hardened toward God over a span of years. Such recalcitrance, cautions the author, invariably leads to irrevocable unbelief.²⁷ Hebrews 10:16 – 17. In Jeremiah 31, God makes a covenant with the house of Israel; in Hebrews 10, God makes a covenant “with them.” In Jeremiah 31, God “remembers their sins no more;” in Hebrews 10, the words, “and their lawless deeds,” are inserted: “their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” These changes, like the alteration in Hebrews 3, are not due to a different Vorlage, since the author earlier cited Jeremiah 31:31– 34 more closely: Jer :,  (LXX :, )²⁸

Heb : – 

Heb : – 

Because this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, quoth the Lord …

This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord …

This is the covenant that I will make with them. after those days, says the Lord …

because I will be gracious regarding For I will be merciful their injustices, toward their iniquities. and remember and I will remember their sins their sins no more.

no more

I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more

When the author attributes the words of Jeremiah to the holy spirit and interprets them as a present testimony to his hearers (“the Holy Spirit also testifies to  Further details are available in Martin Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Amtscharisma, Prophet, & Guide of the Eschatological Exodus. (Lanham: University Press of America, 2004), 28 – 32.  Translations of the Septuagint are from Albert Pietersma and Benjamin Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University, 2007).

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

287

us …”), the words are tailored to accommodate the situation of the letter’s recipients. The words, “with them,” replace “the house of Israel” and allow the text of Jeremiah to include the readers of the letter. The addition of the words, “and their lawless deeds,” to Jer 31:34 accentuates concrete sinful activity and, as a consequence, emphasizes the scope and depth of God’s mercy (Heb 10:17).

5.2 Editorial Expansions In three instances, the spirit is the source of the expansion of scripture. The movement from citation to application is unbroken. This expansion of scripture—not primarily the original production of scripture—is the locus of inspiration. Hebrews 3:7 – 8. We have seen already that the author introduces a citation of LXX Psalm 94 with a clear formula: “Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says” (Heb 3:7). The conclusion, however, contains no equivalent indication that the text is over and the application about to begin. The author simply continues, “Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God” (3:12). The shift from text to application, in other words, is seamless.²⁹ The words, “as the Holy Spirit says,” in Heb 3:7 do not introduce the quotation of a psalm—but a psalm and its extended interpretation, which includes further quotations of the psalm, combined with other scriptural texts, such as Gen 2:4. Inspiration extends beyond initial quotation to a written sermon that returns repeatedly to the same psalm text toward a clear parenetic end: “Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs” (Heb 4:11). Hebrews 9:6 – 9. After describing how the high priest brought blood into the second tent annually, the author writes, “By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing” (Heb 9:8). This interpretation is a reversal of the meaning of the original text. The first tent did continue to stand when the high priest entered the second. This reversal is made possible by inspiration. The Greek verb, δηλοῦν,

 No less important, the sermon circles back three times to Psalm 95; in Heb 3:15; in Heb 4:3, followed by a quotation of Gen 2:4 and still another of Ps 95:11, in a homiletical reflection upon the conception of rest; and in Heb 4:7, with further reflection upon the meaning of “today” and “rest” in relation to sabbath rest (Gen 2:4) and the peaceful rest of entry into the promised land.

288

John R. (Jack) Levison

translated perhaps too blandly by “indicates,” could just as easily be translated, “reveals,” as in 1 Cor 3:13 and 12:27, as well as in 1 Peter 1:1, 14.³⁰ The distance between original meaning and inspired interpretation may not be lost on the author, who characterizes this interpretation as a parable or symbol: “This is a parable of the present time, during which gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper …” (Heb 9:9). Yet presumably it is a legitimate parable, an inspired one, which leads to Christ: “But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11– 12). This is a stunning move from the literal sense of the text to its Christological significance. The spirit leads through multiple levels of meaning. The tents can be understood temporally to symbolize the tent that cannot be revealed as long as its predecessor is left standing, anthropologically to symbolize the inability of sacrifices and offerings to assuage human consciences, cosmically or spatially to symbolize the eternal or heavenly tent made without hands, and christologically to symbolize the willing sacrifice of Christ. It is hardly surprising that the author attributes this layering of meaning to the holy spirit. Hebrews 10:15 – 18. Heb 10:15 – 18 unfolds in several steps.³¹ First comes a reference to the holy spirit: “And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us.” Second, the words, “for after saying,” introduce a citation of Jer 31:33. Third, that citation appears in modified form. Fourth is the omission of the first part of Jer 31:34.³² Fifth, the end of Jer 31:34 is cited: “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Finally, the section concludes with an inference: “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.” We noticed already that the holy spirit modifies the text of Jer 31:33 – 34 by changing “the house of Israel” to “them” in order to encompass the readers of his day. Now we see, from the author’s perspective, that the holy spirit testifies by omitting an appreciable portion of that text. The holy spirit is a conscious and engaged interpreter of scripture, selecting some passages, altering them, and

 Emmrich puts it succinctly: “But the author of the epistle also saw Pneuma as the revealer of interpretative secrets (9:6 – 10).” Emmrich, Pneumatological Concepts, 37.  See the discussion above.  The omitted section: “and I will become a god to them, and they shall become a people to me. And they shall not teach, each his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord, because they shall all know me, from their small even to their great …’” (LXX Jer 38:33 – 34).

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

289

adding to them or omitting portions of them. Equally significant, there is no seam between the citation and extension of the scriptural text to the community—no formula to signal the end of an inspired prophetic text and the beginning of uninspired exhortation. In this respect, Hebrews 10 follows a pattern set in Hebrews 3 – 4 and 9. The extension of the scriptural text to include the community of the letter’s readers is the work of the holy spirit, who “testifies to us.”

6 Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews Four similarities join these passages with Paul’s interpretation of Exodus 34. As in the case of Philo, these similarities do not suggest direct dependence in either direction, but they do point to a common context and shared sensibilities, according to which the spirit inspires interpretation. First, Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews extend the meaning of scripture to include the community addressed by the letter. Veils and unbelief and hardened hearts characterize Paul’s contemporaries, who hear the scriptures with no more understanding than the Israelites had of Moses. Similarly, in Hebrews 10, the covenant with Israel extends to the letter’s recipients when “the spirit testifies.” How so? Through the testimony of the spirit, an explicit reference to a covenant with Israelites in Jeremiah 31 becomes a reference simply to a covenant “with them.” Both authors, then, are reluctant to limit the significance of the text to the past. Second, because of this commitment to contemporary meaning, both authors are willing to alter the original text. Paul does this by writing that Moses put on a veil because the glory was fading; this spin on Moses’ veil is simply not in Exodus 34. Nor is the interpretation he proffers in 2 Cor 3:17: “the Lord” is (or means) “the spirit.” Similarly, in Heb 9:6 – 9, the author describes the priestly service in the first tent and the high priestly service in the second in this way: “By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary has not yet been disclosed as long as the first tent is still standing. This is a symbol of the present time …” (Heb 6:9). This statement is simply not true, from the standpoint of Torah. A further example of alteration is Heb 3:9, in which the Israelites put God to the test for forty years; in the Psalms, in contrast, God loathed a generation of Israelites for forty years. This change underscores a key theme of Hebrews: how dangerous it is to let rebellion fester. These examples are an indication of how willing both Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews are to alter the original texts. And both authors consider themselves inspired: it is the spirit who makes textual changes to meet the needs of contemporary contexts.

290

John R. (Jack) Levison

Third, both authors move seamlessly from text to application. Paul does this so effortlessly that it is difficult to know what to do with 2 Cor 3:17: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” The majority of interpreters understand this as a gloss on the text of Exodus 34, with little more than δὲ as an indication of an interpretation to be proffered—hardly the harbinger of creative exegesis.³³ The tenuous basis for distinguishing when Paul is interpreting, stating, or citing a text offers a key indication of how difficult it is to determine where Paul’s summary of the text ends and where his application of the text for his contemporaries begins. This phenomenon is apparent in Hebrews 3, as well, where a quotation of scripture moves without any indication to words of exhortation, “Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God” (3:12). In summary, Paul and the author of the letter to the Hebrews alike move seamlessly between text and application. Fourth, Christology shapes exegesis for both authors. The commitment to the centrality of Christ shapes how both authors read scripture. In Hebrew 9, for example, observations about priestly service lead to a “parable of the present time” and, ultimately, to the statement, “But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption” (Heb 9:11– 12). For Paul, in a similar vein, the glory of Exodus 34 and the image of Genesis 1 are about “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4). Both authors are committed to grounding their gospels in scripture—but scripture read through the prism of Christ.

7 Conclusion In an intense defense of both his apostolic authority and the freedom with which every believer can experience the new covenant, Paul turns, as he so often does in his letters, to scripture. Yet he reads differently from readers in the synagogue. Paul reads Torah—Exodus 34, in this particular case—from end to beginning, from left to right, from Christ to Moses. By playing on what Israel’s heirs do in For example, Thrall (Commentary, 274) states, “The ‘Lord’ of the text in Exodus stands for the Spirit, when Exod 34:34 is seen as prefiguring the events of Paul’s own day.” Victor Furnish also emphasizes this connection in his analysis of this passage. II Corinthians. ABC (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1984), 212.

The Inspired Interpretation of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3

291

correctly, he comes to terms with what he and those in his apostolic band do correctly: read scriptures as they ought to be read because Paul’s people inhabit the realm of the spirit and know the end of the story. The mirror in 2 Cor 3:18, then, is about mirror-reading, reading the image in reverse, from Christ to Moses. Paul does not refer to gazing into a mirror to describe contemplation, reflection, or even diminished apprehension (“in a mirror dimly”). All of these could be central—except that Paul, in this context, is concerned principally about how to interpret Exodus 34 in a way that differentiates followers of Jesus from Jews in the synagogue. Paul is interested, in short, in reading Moses right, with unveiled faces and full comprehension. This can happen only when believers turn to the Lord, the spirit, and read Moses in reverse, from the perspective of Christ, in whom the light of creation is present (2 Cor 4:4– 6). This emphasis upon reading Moses right shapes how 2 Cor 3:18 ought to be read. This dazzling description of transformation is not about mysticism, contemplation, or even transformation in and of themselves. It is about the contemplation of Torah, of Moses’ glory, in the light of Christ. 2 Corinthians 3 – 4, in short, has less to do with a mystical apprehension of the divine than a contemplative reading of Torah, through which believers are transformed into the image of Christ, from glory into glory. Paul, in short, claims to be an inspired interpreter of scripture. This claim should not surprise us, as similar claims are scattered across early Jewish writings, from Sirach, in the early second century BCE, to 4 Ezra, in the late first or early second century CE.³⁴ It required of us, in fact, little analysis to isolate elements of Philo’s claims to inspired interpretation that can be found, too, in the writings of Paul: sacred texts in need of interpretation; claims to inspiration; and a keen emphasis on sight and seeing. Nor should Paul’s claim surprise us from the perspective of the early church, given that other of its authors made similar claims to being inspired interpreters of scripture.³⁵ The letter to the Hebrews, we noted, exhibits several features that might even suggest a common milieu in the early church: the capacity to extend the meaning of an ancient text; the freedom to alter an ancient story or saying; and the ability to apply the text to a later community without signaling a movement from past to present. Most important is the compulsion to interpret ancient texts through the lens of Christ. This is the defining characteristic that ties Paul’s letters to the letter to the Hebrews. All

 E. g., Sir 39:6 – 7; 4 Ezra 14:20 – 44.  See Levison, Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 145 – 177.

292

John R. (Jack) Levison

of this, of course, is the work of the spirit. For Hebrews, the spirit does the actual interpretation. For Paul, this happens when believers, with unveiled faces, turn to the Lord, who is the spirit. Claims to the inspired interpretation of scripture lie scattered across the literary plains of Early Judaism and early Christianity. Paul’s interpretation of Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3 is just one of them. Does it have heuristic pitfalls that make it impossibly difficult to interpret? Yes, it does. The irony may be this: Paul would perhaps have claimed that what modern interpreters see as pitfalls are the work of the spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom—of interpretation.

Blaine Charette

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3): The Realization of an Old Testament Covenantal Hope 1 Introduction In his letter to the Philippian church Paul expresses an interest in upholding the integrity of the gospel he proclaims. He is confident that the Philippians, whom he regards as dedicated partners in his work, firmly support his gospel. Nonetheless, even as he commends their faithfulness he does present them with specific challenges throughout the letter, including frequent warnings in which he directs their attention to those who misrepresent or distort the gospel. This essay will focus on Paul’s statements in 3:1– 3 where he warns the Philippians of those, he characterizes as “the mutilation”, who stand in sharp contrast to genuine followers of Christ, like Paul and the Philippians, who can be rightly called “the circumcision.” As the true circumcision they worship God in the Spirit, their boast is in Christ, and, unlike these others they do not place confidence in the flesh. Further, the essay will examine how the language of this passage relates to other passages in Paul which reassess circumcision from a covenantal perspective and how the passage can be read against the broader context of covenantal expectation in the OT regarding circumcision of the heart. It is not surprising that Paul should be concerned about the integrity of the gospel since he writes the letter while he is imprisoned for Christ (1:13) and for his defense (ἀπολογία) of the gospel (1:16). It is also not surprising that under these circumstances he would write to the Philippians whom he regards as his partners in the gospel. They had a share (κοινωνία) in the gospel from the very beginning (1:5) and he considers them partners (συγκοινωνός) not only in his bonds but also in the defense and confirmation (ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ καὶ βεβαιώσει) of the gospel (1:7).¹ Paul wants the Philippians to know that the gospel is advancing as a result of his imprisonment (1:12– 14), but further wishes to encourage them to live their lives (πολιτεύομαι) in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ by standing firm in one spirit and struggling together in one mind for

 At 4:15 Paul speaks of their exclusive sharing (κοινωνέω) with him in the matter of giving and receiving “in the beginning of the gospel”. He also mentions Euodia and Syntyche by name at 4:2– 3 as women who struggled together alongside him in the gospel. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-020

294

Blaine Charette

the faith (πίστις) of the gospel (1:27). It is clear that Paul needs to stress the defense, confirmation, and struggle of the gospel as well as encourage the faithful living out of the gospel because of the dangers and confusion presented by others whose understanding and practice of the Christian message differs radically from that which Paul proclaims and to which the Philippians are themselves committed.

2 Opposition to the Gospel in the Letter Throughout the letter Paul makes frequent mention of those who set themselves against the gospel or even more directly against Paul himself, presumably because they disagree with the gospel he proclaims.² In order to understand more clearly what he asserts about these opponents at 3:1– 2 it is helpful to provide an overview of what is said about opposition to the gospel throughout the letter. The first reference to specific antagonism is at 1:15 – 19. There Paul speaks of those who proclaim Christ from envy, enmity, and even selfishness in order to increase the distress (θλῖψις) of his imprisonment.³ Although Paul dismisses this of no real consequence, since Christ is nonetheless proclaimed, his portrayal of these preachers is portentous. It is significant that the motivations which Paul attributes to them, namely envy (φθόνος) and enmity (ἔρις), are two vices Paul lists among the works of the flesh at Gal. 5:20 – 21 and which in that context distinguish those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Furthermore, the selfishness (ἐριθεία) which inspires their proclamation is the very mindset Paul advises the Philippians to avoid when at 2:3 – 5 he challenges them to be of the same mind as Christ. Paul is not merely indifferent to such preaching intended to harm him but even rejoices that Christ is proclaimed even in such a manner. It is surprising that Paul should rejoice in a proclamation of Christ that stems from false motives especially when this motivation could serve to debase the proclamation itself. Paul’s rejoicing should not be read as an endorsement or commendation of

 The argument presented in this discussion assumes that the opponents Paul mentions throughout the letter are, more or less, similar to each other; presumably they represent a Jewish-Christian faction which stresses the need for circumcision and thus espouses, from Paul’s perspective, a deficient understanding of the gospel. A concise summary of different assessments of the opponents is found in Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 26 – 35.  The Philippians, by contrast, share in the distress of Paul (4:14: συγκοινωνήσαντές μου τῇ θλίψει).

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

295

any manner of preaching Christ, especially when the character of the proclamation is quite opposite to the character of the Christ who is proclaimed. It is best to interpret Paul’s determination to rejoice in such circumstances as an encouragement to himself and to his readers to remain positive and trusting even in the midst of an antagonistic and dispiriting situation. Similar encouragements to rejoice appear later in the letter. It is important to recognize that although Philippians can be read as a joyful and uplifting letter it would be wrong to idealize the positive character of the letter by overlooking the strain and weariness noticeable in Paul’s writing. Without question he speaks much of joy, peace, and contentment, yet the letter also offers a view into a more pessimistic outlook at this stage of his imprisonment. Paul describes his present condition as a time of distress or tribulation (θλῖψις) that was evidently taking a toll on him since his preference would be to simply die and be with Christ (1:23). He portrays his ministry largely in terms of struggle. When speaking of his faithful associate Timothy he not only remarks positively that he has no one else like him who genuinely cares about others but adds to this the negative assessment that all others merely seek their own interests (2:19 – 21). At 2:27 he expresses gratitude to God for showing mercy in preserving the life of Epaphroditus, but further observes that this healing saved him from sorrow upon sorrow (ἵνα μὴ λύπην ἐπι λύπην σχῶ). It is also noteworthy that in his final statement about the opponents at 3:18 he is troubled to the point of tears. There is certainly confidence and optimism throughout the letter and even in the context of 1:15 – 19 he is careful to note there are indeed some who proclaim Christ out of good will. Moreover, despite the setbacks he is experiencing, Paul is confident that through the prayers of the Philippians and the support of the Spirit all of this will turn to his salvation. Nonetheless, there are many indications that Paul is in considerable distress and pain as he writes to the Philippian community. The many references to joy and thanksgiving in the letter, at times expressed as imperative appeals to rejoice, serve an important purpose as constant reminders to encouragement in the face of the harsh challenges Paul and his readers face in their striving for the truth and integrity of the gospel. Paul next addresses the matter of opposition in the context of his charge to the Philippians to live lives (πολιτεύομαι) worthy of the gospel through firm commitment and active striving for the faith of the gospel (1:27– 30). He is confident that if they act as one in their defense and promotion of the truth of the gospel they will have nothing to fear from their adversaries. Moreover, he is convinced that such unity and resolve will provide evidence to such opponents not only of their own destruction (ἀπώλεια) but also of the salvation (σωτηρία) of those, who like the Philippians, live out faithfully the gospel of Christ. Paul does not identify these adversaries or describe the nature of their opposition. However, in 1:29 – 30

296

Blaine Charette

he refers to the sufferings of the Philippians and states that they are sharing in the same struggle (τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα ἔχοντες) that he had mentioned earlier in the chapter. This suggests that their opponents are similar to those adversaries of Paul who are contributing to his difficulties in prison. Based on what is said about them they characterize an improper and distorted understanding of the gospel that will result in a profoundly negative judgment in the end. Through the use of the term σωτηρία Paul further connects his struggle with that of the Philippians. Supported by their prayers and the Spirit, his trials will end in his salvation (1:19); likewise, their unity in one spirit and resolute fellowship in the faith of the gospel will result in their own salvation. The opposition may create a context of suffering and distress but commitment to unity and the truth of the gospel will prevail. Paul continues to encourage the Philippians in chapter 2 by further delineating what living lives worthy of the gospel means. He urges them towards greater unity, love, and service towards others. They are to eschew the attitudes and behaviors that characterize those who oppose the gospel and instead share in the mindset of Christ which is powerfully presented in the Christ narrative of 2:6 – 11. Their unity and commitment to the interests of others will flourish as they participate in the humility and obedience of Christ. Paul offers not only the story of Christ as a model for them to follow but also draws their attention to the activity of people like himself, Timothy, and Epaphroditus who live lives of sacrifice and service for others. They are to honor such people (2:29).⁴ Their community is to be defined by the character of Christ and lived out in imitation of those who most authentically appropriate the message of Christ. In the midst of this encouragement to live in a manner reflective of Christ, Paul further instructs them at 2:14– 15 to conduct themselves not with grumbling (γογγυσμός) or arguing but in a blameless manner as befitting true children of God. In this way they will stand out in the midst of “a crooked and perverse generation” (γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης). This statement should be read as having relevance to how Paul views the Philippian community over against their opponents. The covenantal background to this language suggests that Paul wishes to portray his readers as the true covenant community over against those who rebel against God’s purpose. The term γογγυσμός is used repeatedly in Exodus and Numbers (LXX) to describe the complaints of the wilderness generation when they failed to trust in the provision of God or opposed his guidance. The phrase “crooked and perverse generation” finds its closest parallel

 Paul echoes this sentiment at 3:17 when he calls on his readers to imitate him and carefully observe those who live according to the example set by Paul and his close associates.

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

297

in Deut 32:5 (LXX: γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη) in which the falseness and stubbornness of that generation is set in contrast to God’s own faithfulness and justice. It is striking that Paul should use such language resonant with covenantal concerns. It would appear that what he means by “a crooked and perverse generation” is not the larger pagan context in which the Philippian church is located but more specifically those opponents they face who come from the broader Christian community.⁵ Such people might identify as Christians and yet their understanding and practice of the gospel is contrary and perverse. Paul is thus applying this language in a way that parallels its use within the Pentateuch. Israel at the time of its wilderness experience was comprised of both the faithful and the rebellious. The faithful receive the promise of God’s salvation but the unfaithful invite God’s judgment. The echo of Dan 12:3 in the following clause, affirming that in the midst of this generation they shine like stars in the world, reinforces this idea that they are the wise who will experience everlasting life unlike their adversaries who will face shame and contempt. Before examining the key passage of 3:1– 3 it is helpful to look at the final reference to opposition at 3:17– 20. Paul begins by encouraging the Philippians to pay careful attention to those who live according to the example set by himself, Timothy, and others since they provide an important contrast and corrective to the example of others who live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Paul’s observation that he has often told his readers about them and is now doing so again with tears suggests that these are the same opponents he has been speaking about throughout the letter. He is certain that their end is destruction (ἀπώλεια), reasserting what he had said concerning their adversaries at 1:28. Presumably, Paul depicts them as enemies of the cross because their understanding of the Christian faith does not fully embrace the full significance of suffering as modeled primarily in Christ, humbling himself and becoming obedient even to death on a cross (2:8), but also presented in the lives Paul and the Philippians. For Paul God has granted his people the privilege not only of believing in Christ but also of suffering (πάσχω)for him (1:29). Paul expresses his own desire at 3:10 of knowing Christ in such a way as to share in his sufferings (πάθηματα) and becoming

 The majority of commentators interpret the phrase with reference to the pagan environment of the Philippian believers; note, for example, the observation of Gordon D. Fee that Paul’s use of the epithet is “a fair reflection of his view of pagan society”; see Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 245. Moisés Silva recognizes that “Judaizing opponents” may be in view, but because of the phrase “in the world” later in the verse he ultimately applies the phrase to the pagan environment; see Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 125.

298

Blaine Charette

like him in his death (συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ). The cross is for Paul not only central to the story of Christ but should be central to all who believe in Christ. The commitments of the opponents are far from those of Christ. They serve their belly and they glory is in their shame. Their thoughts are set on what is earthly and for that reason their end is destruction. It is very possible that the descriptions Paul applies to these enemies of the cross contain subtle references to circumcision. Their commitment to Christ and the gospel is corrupted and compromised by their insistent devotion to circumcision and to a form of religion focused on external matters. It is significant that Paul punctuates his condemnation of these opponents with the declaration that “our citizenship (πολίτευμα) is in heaven” from which will come the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. This citizenship language contains an obvious echo to the earlier charge at 1:27 to live lives (πολιτεύομαι) in a manner worthy of the gospel. Those who do so rightly belong to the community of the redeemed and will be saved in the day of Christ (cf. 1:5, 10; 2:16) whereas destruction will be the end of these enemies whose thinking is centered on earthly matters with no thought of heaven. Paul is using here the language of covenant inclusion and exclusion. Those whose minds are set on Christ and who thereby live lives consistent with the citizenship of heaven will ultimately experience the salvation of Christ, whereas those whose minds and activity are defined by unseemly concerns will be excluded from the blessings of salvation.

3 Circumcision, Worship, and Boasting in Philippians 3:1 – 3 Paul’s statements in 3:1– 3 stand at an important juncture in the letter.⁶ To this point he has emphasized his partnership with the Philippian community in the defense and establishment of the gospel and in their common struggle to be faithful to the message of Christ over against those who advocate an alternative understanding of the gospel. He has also encouraged them to live in a manner worthy of the gospel by becoming more united and supportive of each other through their faithful appropriation of the examples found in the story of Jesus and in the lives of service of those around them. He will now expound further on these same issues related to their struggle as a precaution (ἀσφαλής) giving them

 Paul transitions to this section of the letter with the adverbial τὸ λοιπόν which is best understood as introducing remaining and more definitive deliberations on his key concerns in order to strengthen and make more specific what he has already said.

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

299

greater certainty and assurance. To that end Paul is very direct in his condemnation of the opponents and specific about the issues that are at stake. It is significant and not at all surprising that as he does so he calls upon his readers to rejoice in the Lord. As noted earlier, Paul’s purpose in using the language of rejoicing is to encourage and strengthen himself and the community in the face of hardship and opposition. At 1:18 rejoicing punctuates his first statements regarding the opponents. At 2:17– 18 he asks the church to rejoice with him even if his life should end as a sacrifice to God. It is important and appropriate that now when he is about to make his strongest statement about the opponents that he should command them to rejoice. Paul’s description of the opponents takes the form of a three-fold warning: “Watch the dogs, watch the evil workers, watch the mutilation” (3:2). Just as Paul will later encourage the community to pay attention (σκοπεῖτε) to those who live out the Christian life appropriately (3:17), here he cautions them to watch (βλέπετε) these opponents in order to take notice but also be aware of the dangers they pose. The three designations refer to the same adversaries but present their character and activity in different ways in order to give greater definition to who they are and the harm they inflict on the church. It would appear from the terms Paul uses to describe this group that they are Jewish-Christians determined to impose the identity markers of Judaism, particularly circumcision, on Gentile converts. The pejorative term “dogs” (κύνες) refers to the predatory and unclean nature of such opposition. In view of the fact that the matter of circumcision is central to Paul’s polemic, it is likely that this contemptuous epithet should be seen against the backdrop of Jewish disdain for the uncleanness of those who are uncircumcised. If this is the case, Paul at the outset wants to identify the opponents as the ones who are in fact unclean since they do not possess the true mark of those who are in covenant with God. The opponents are “evil workers” to the extent that their mission runs counter to the work of the gospel since their energies are focused on making Gentiles submit to the Mosaic Torah. For Paul they are evil inasmuch as they carry out a competitive Christian mission promoting a message that is ultimately destructive since it misrepresents the righteousness and proper obedience that for Paul is essential to the message of Christ. The term “worker” (ἐργάτης) resonates with the many references to work and workers in the letter. Paul regards his own ministry as fruitful “work” (1:22) and considers activity done for and by members of the church as “the work of Christ” (2:30). He also refers to his many co-workers (συνεργός) who are associated with the Philippian church (2:25; 4:3). In describing the opponents as workers Paul wants his readers to recognize that, although in some respects these opponents are engaged in similar activities to that of le-

300

Blaine Charette

gitimate workers, nonetheless they are evil since their mission is defined by objectives and motivations contrary to God’s purpose and ultimately damaging to the work of Christ. This is why they need to watch such people carefully so as not to be deceived into thinking that the work of the opponents is similar to their own. Finally, Paul identifies the opponents as “the mutilation” (ἡ κατατομή). The term is intended as a wordplay on “the circumcision” (ἡ περιτομή), which is central to Paul’s declaration in the next verse (3:3), and accordingly disparages the circumcising activity of these Christian workers as a mere mutilation of the flesh. It is quite possible that Paul is also thinking of the sort of body cutting, practiced by Israel’s neighbors, that is forbidden in the Torah (cf. Lev 19:28; 21:5 [LXX: κατατέμνω]; Deut 14:1).⁷ If so, this is consistent with Paul’s position that they are promoting practices at variance with a true understanding of covenant and more consistent with what should be condemned within a covenantal framework. What they doubtless see as the righteous work of circumcising Gentiles to fully bring them into the covenant community, Paul regards as an evil work with damaging effect that has nothing to do with the covenant. In a forceful contrast to this negative assessment of the opponent’s circumcision, Paul emphatically declares, “We are the circumcision!” (3:3). Included among the “we” are the Philippians and all who believe in the gospel Paul proclaims.⁸ He is careful to maintain “circumcision” as an essential characteristic of covenant yet reinterprets it as not consisting in a physical operation but rather in a spiritual transformation. Acceptance into the covenant community now requires something much more profound than the bodily circumcision so important to the opponents. The opponents by focusing only on the past external marker of covenant identity have overlooked the spiritual reality of the presence of the Spirit of God which now identifies the people of God. It is their failure to recognize this that makes their own circumcision a mere mutilation. Paul refers directly to the role of the Spirit in the next clause which begins to clarify what characterizes the true circumcision. They worship in the Spirit of God (οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες). The Spirit empowers believers to worship or serve in the way that most pleases God. Paul does not specify what this worship motivated by the Spirit entails but the letter suggests that it would encompass all activity done in service to God and his people. Two passages are especially suggestive of the role of the Spirit in bringing about instrumental  See H. Koester, “κατατομή” TDNT 8, 109 – 111, who is followed by several commentators in noting the ironical twist in Paul using this term against his opponents.  This pronouncement “we are the circumcision” finds its counterpart at 3:20 when Paul states, “our citizenship is in heaven.” Both are affirmations of covenantal inclusion.

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

301

change in the lives of the readers resulting in more effective service to God. At 1:6, when thanking the Philippians for their participation in the gospel, Paul expresses confidence that by the day of Jesus Christ God will bring to completion the good work (ἔργον ἀγαθὸν) he began among them. This should be read as an implicit reference to the work of the Spirit in the life of the community developing and directing its activity and mission. Similarly, when Paul exhorts them at 2:12– 13 to work out (κατεργάζεσθε) their salvation with fear and trembling and further observes that God is at work in them (ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν) enabling them both to will and to work (καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν) according to his good pleasure, it is the Spirit of God who is the effective power behind this willing and living in obedience to God’s will. This statement may be seen as illustrative of what Paul means when he speaks of “the circumcision” worshipping in the Spirit of God. Physical circumcision cannot empower this change in will and action. It takes the Spirit of God to effect such transformation. The worship to which Paul refers is also demonstrated by the noticeable emphasis on service throughout the letter. In the salutation at 1:1, Paul identifies himself and Timothy as “servants of Christ Jesus” (δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ).⁹ Later at 2:22. he commends Timothy for serving (δουλεύω) with him in the cause of the gospel. This language receives special import when Christ himself is described at 2:7 as taking on the “form of a slave” (μορφὴν δούλου). The service Paul and Timothy offer is in imitation of the service rendered by Christ himself. Paul also makes frequent use of terminology drawn from formal religious service. Should his death occur it would be a drink offering over the sacrifice and service (λειτουργία) of their faith (2:17). Epaphroditus had functioned as a servant (λειτουργός) on their behalf to meet Paul’s need (2:25), risking his life for the work of Christ (τὸ ἔργον Χριστοῦ) to fulfill their service (λειτουργία) to Paul (2:27). This terminology indicates that Paul regards as worship all activity done by believers in imitation of Christ’s service and effected by the Spirit of God. This worship of the true circumcision is complemented by their boast (καυχάομαι) which is in Christ. Their confidence or trust is found only in what God has done through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. This language of boasting occurs frequently in Paul’s letters and appears to be primarily rooted in the assertion of Jer 9:23 – 24, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord”, which Paul cites on two occasions (1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17). To boast in the Lord is to take a stance of humility before God recognizing that ultimately

 With respect to possible covenantal associations, note that the Hebrew ‫“( עבד‬to serve”) although frequently translated by λατρεύω is also translated by δουλεύω.

302

Blaine Charette

one’s hope and security is found only in him and not in oneself or in one’s accomplishments. The next phrase, that the circumcision place no confidence in the flesh, emphasizes that very point. By this statement Paul places the focus once again on the opponents whose emphasis on the requirement of physical circumcision shows a misplaced boasting.¹⁰ The true circumcision, even though they may be physically circumcised, place no confidence in their circumcision. Paul attaches to this description of the worship and boast of the community an extended personal reflection (3:4– 16). He begins by asserting that he would have reason for confidence in the flesh. He details his credentials and attainments within Judaism, which include not only circumcision on the eighth day but also zeal and blamelessness with respect to the Torah. Yet, he has come to regard all this as nothing. His boast is now in Christ for whom he willingly treats as a loss everything he had once valued. Paul’s only interest now, by having a righteousness not based on his own achievement but from God through the faith, is to know Christ in the most complete way through experiencing the power of his resurrection and sharing in his suffering by becoming like him in his death. This is an aspiration that those who are enemies of the cross do not understand. Moreover, it illustrates an additional feature of what worship in the Spirit of God and boasting in Christ involves. By means of this personal statement, which culminates in his final denunciation of the opponents (3:17– 20), Paul provides a full account what it means to be the circumcision and citizens of heaven.

4 The Place of Circumcision in Paul’s Thought To provide context for Paul’s assertion in Philippians 3, that the true circumcision are those whose righteousness is from God through faith and whose goal is to fully know Christ, it is helpful to review Paul’s statements elsewhere regarding circumcision. It is clear that Paul is not opposed to the practice of circumcision in itself, but rather to the notion that Gentiles believers need to be circumcised to be part of the covenant people of God since for him that would undermine the true basis of righteousness. It is significant that three times in his letters Paul declares that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything (Gal 5:6; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:19). Circumcision is not the issue; rather, as

 This language parallels Gal. 6:13 – 14 where Paul asserts that those who compel the Galatians to be circumcised do so that “they might boast in your flesh”, whereas he will only boast in the cross of Christ.

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

303

he states in these passages, what matters is “faith working through love”, “a new creation”, and “obeying the commandments of God”. These are the ideals and qualities that distinguish those in covenant relationship with God. A passage that closely aligns to Paul’s argument in Philippians 3, and which relates to the emphasis on obeying the commandments of God, is Rom 2:25 – 29. There Paul argues that circumcision has value only if one obeys the law and that if one who is uncircumcised keeps the requirements of the law their uncircumcision will be regarded as circumcision. He further extends the logic of this proposition by affirming that one is not a Jew due to outward or external marks since the circumcision which truly defines the Jew is not external or literal but rather inward or spiritual. It is a circumcision of the heart in the Spirit (2:29; περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι). When Paul affirms at Phil 3:3 that “we are the circumcision” he is essentially applying to his readers the reasoning outlined in Romans. Paul in Philippians does not describe this circumcision as “of the heart in the Spirit”, yet his immediate joining of circumcision with “worship in the Spirit of God” draws attention to the spiritual source and operation of this circumcision. This inner quality of circumcision relates closely to Paul’s understanding of faith. In his deliberation on Abraham’s experience at Rom 4:9 – 12, he notes that Abraham was regarded as righteous by faith prior to his circumcision and that he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith. It is this priority of faith over circumcision with respect to righteousness that makes Abraham the father of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised who believe and trust in God. This emphasis on faith is also present in Paul’s observations about true circumcision in Philippians. At 3:9, in the context of his personal reflection on what true circumcision means, he speaks of coming to know a righteousness not of his own from the law but through the faith of Christ from God based on faith. For Paul this is the essence of the gospel he proclaims. It is significant that when he charges the Philippians to live in a manner worthy of the gospel (2:27), they are to do so by their united struggle for “the faith” of the gospel. The disposition of the opponents addressed in Philippians to regard physical circumcision as the essential distinction between Jew and Gentile and thus between those inside and outside the covenant community corresponds to the subject of reflection in Eph 2:11– 16. Paul there reminds his readers that prior to their reconciliation in Christ they as Gentiles were called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision.” Yet he adds that this was but a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands (ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου). He further states that now by the blood of Christ they are included among the people of God. It is the cross of Christ that breaks down the division and makes of the two groups one by creating one new people. This assessment which makes the cross

304

Blaine Charette

and not physical circumcision the key to inclusion in the covenant relates closely to the emphasis in Philippians and helps to clarify why Paul would describe the opponents as enemies of the cross. Their refusal to accept the gospel message centered on the cross of Jesus and based on faith in the efficacy of his death and to put in its place a message centered on the need for circumcision makes them enemies of the cross.¹¹ This Ephesians passage is of additional relevance to Philippians in its description of the pre-Christian condition of Gentiles as estranged from the citizenship (πολιτεία) of Israel (2:12). Within the Pauline corpus this terminology appears only in this passage and twice in Philippians at 1:27 (“live as citizens in a manner worthy of the gospel”) and at 3:20 (“our citizenship is in heaven”). As noted earlier, the importance of this language in Philippians, similar to its use in Ephesians, is to emphasize the full inclusion of the Philippian believers in the covenant.¹² The declaration that “our citizenship is in heaven” should be regarded as conceptually equivalent to the declaration that “we are the circumcision”. By accepting the gospel of faith preached by Paul the Philippian believers have received the spiritual circumcision of the heart and are now full members of the covenant community.

5 The Old Testament Hope for the Circumcision of the Heart To appreciate the full importance of Paul’s affirmation that believers are the circumcision the statement must be seen within the context of OT teaching on the spiritual dimension of circumcision and on the hope for a future circumcision of the heart. The concept of heart circumcision first appears in Deut. 10:16 where Moses orders the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart and no longer be stubborn. Circumcision is mentioned only twice

 Note also that at Gal 5:11 Paul observes that the cross is an offense to those who promote circumcision.  It is commonplace to read the citizenship language of Philippians against the backdrop of colonial preoccupation with Roman citizenship, according to which Paul introduces a counter citizenship that is heavenly; see Marcus Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians BNTC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 98. It is preferable to interpret this language against the backdrop of Jewish understandings of covenant; Ernest C. Miller, Jr. concludes his review of the verbal form by noting that there exists “a Jewish understanding of πολιτεύεσθαι which signifies for Jews life lived faithfully in the covenant relationship with God as manifested in obedience to Torah”; see Miller, “Πολιτεύεσθαι in Philippians 1:27: Some Philological and Thematic Observations,” JSNT 15 (1982): 90.

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

305

in Deuteronomy (10:16; 30:6), yet both times it is with reference to the circumcision of the heart.¹³ Heart (‫)ֵלב‬, however, is a key term in the theology of Deuteronomy and a review of its usage helps to clarify the meaning of heart circumcision. Prior to this appeal at 10:16 to circumcise the heart, Moses had emphasized the importance of a heart centered on God. In chapter 4 the story of Israel’s disobedience and subsequent return to covenant faithfulness is briefly reviewed. Early in the chapter the people are charged not to forget. They must not allow God’s activity on their behalf to depart from their heart or mind (4:9). Nevertheless, they will stray from the covenant and descend into idolatry. The Lord will then scatter them among the nations where they will serve (‫ ;עבד‬LXX: λατρεύω) other gods made with hands (4:28). Yet from that place they will seek God and find him if they seek him with all their heart and soul (4:29). This coupling of heart and soul appears most famously in 6:5 – 6 where the people are instructed to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, and might. Moreover, they are to keep what he commands on their heart. This demand is repeated at 10:12– 13 in answer to the question of what the Lord requires of Israel. He wants his people to fear him, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve (‫ ;עבד‬LXX: λατρεύω) him with all their heart and soul, and to keep his commandments. It is in this context and in response to this charge that the people are directed at 10:16 to circumcise their hearts. It is clear that what hinders Israel from loving and serving God in a manner fitting to covenant is an adverse internal disposition. The remedy is to cut this out by the circumcision of the heart. There are repeated calls in Deuteronomy to love God and serve him with all their heart and soul (cf. 11:13; 13:3) and to observe and heed his commands with all their heart and soul (cf. 11:18; 26:16). Nonetheless, it is evident in the theological storyline of Deuteronomy that Israel is unable to truly love God or be obedient to his words. Thus there is a certain inevitability to the judgment that befalls the nation of Israel. A very revealing statement is found in 29:4, following the lengthy discourse on the covenant curses that will be unleashed upon Israel because of its violation of covenant. The explanation for Israel’s anticipated failure is that the Lord had not yet given the people a heart to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear. The point is that the circumcision of the heart is not something the people can do for themselves; rather, it is something that God must do for them. This is supported by the prophetic statement in 30:1– 10. If, after the  In the opinion of Werner E. Lemke, the metaphor of the uncircumcised heart is used in Deuteronomy essentially as “a synonym for the more commonly known metaphor of the stiff neck”; see Lemke, “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor,” in A God So Near: Essays in Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 303.

306

Blaine Charette

experience of exile, the people finally remember with their heart and return to the Lord and obey him with all their heart and soul, then he will restore them. Moreover, he will then circumcise their heart so that they will love him with all their heart and soul and thus live. It is God himself who will perform this operation of heart circumcision. The fulfillment of this hope, however, is deferred until the restoration from exile. Nonetheless, it promises a future in which the covenant people will love and serve God in the appropriate manner. This aspect of the theology of Deuteronomy is taken up by the exilic prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Jeremiah first refers to the concept of heart circumcision at 4:4 in language similar to that of Deut 10:16. The people of Judah are directed to circumcise themselves to the Lord by removing the foreskin of their hearts lest the wrath of God come upon them. As in the Deuteronomy passage the people are encouraged to circumcise their hearts in order to avert God’s judgment. Of greater importance to the theme of heart circumcision, however, is the remarkable vision of the new covenant at Jeremiah 31:31– 34. In the future the Lord will make a new covenant with Israel that will significantly differ from the earlier covenant he had made with their ancestors which they had broken. What will distinguish this new covenant is that God will place his Torah within them, specifically he will write his Torah on their hearts. The relationship between God and his people will be restored and even surpass what had come before since the people will now know the Lord as they had not known him before. In this vision no mention is made of circumcision of the heart but what is described closely resonates with the Deuteronomic tradition. God will effect a change in the hearts of his people that will radically transform the relationship. The will of God, expressed in his Torah, will now be internalized leading to greater obedience and deeper knowledge and understanding of the Lord whom they serve. A similar vision of this profound transformation of the hearts of the people is found at Ezekiel 36:22– 28. In this passage the Lord announces that in order to sanctify his name, which Israel had profaned among the nations, he will display his holiness through Israel in the sight of the nations. He will accomplish this by gathering them from the lands of exile and returning them to their own land. There he will purify and change them. He will give them a new heart and place a new spirit within them. The language of circumcision of the heart is not used. However, this change will involve God taking from them the heart of stone. The hardened heart which had hindered Israel’s faithfulness in the past will be removed. Additionally, he will put his Spirit (‫ ;רוּ ַח‬LXX: πνεῦμα) within them making it now possible for them to walk in his statutes and follow his ways. Then, in fulfillment of the Deuteronomic promise, the people will live in the land he gave their fathers. The significant development in Ezekiel’s vision

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

307

is the role of the Spirit of God as the power effecting this change within the people. It is typical of Ezekiel to associate the Spirit with the future restoration of the people (see 37:1– 14 and 39:25 – 29). It is fitting that the eschatological renewal of the people should involve the creative Spirit of God.

6 The Influence of This Theme on Paul’s Teaching in Philippians In various places Paul’s writings show the influence of these OT passages that refer to a future circumcision of the heart. When at Rom 2:29 he affirms that it is circumcision of the heart in the Spirit that makes one a Jew he is echoing this Deuteronomic theme. Likewise, when he occasionally stresses that it is not circumcision or uncircumcision which matters but rather such values as the keeping of the commandments or of faith working though love the emphases of Deuteronomy are clearly in view.¹⁴ With respect to this circumcision of the heart effecting obedience to Torah, it is notable what Paul says at Rom 7:6 (“we serve in the new life of the Spirit and not according to the old written code”) and 8:4 (“the requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit”).¹⁵ The theme also provides the backdrop of Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians at 2 Cor 3:3, that they are a letter of Christ written by the Spirit not on tablets of stone but on human hearts, and a few verses later at 3:6 of his description of his ministry as that of a new covenant not of letter but of the Spirit who gives life. This topic has considerable relevance to Paul’s thought in Philippians. When he declares at 3:3, “we are the circumcision”, the statement assumes that Paul and his readers are now living within that eschatological reality indicated by this prophetic theme of the circumcised heart. The Spirit of God, which for Paul identifies the true people of God, now enables and directs the worship of the Philippians and other believers. It is noteworthy that in Deuteronomy true worship, the proper function of the covenant people, is the very thing prevented by their hardness of heart. There are continual reminders throughout the book of their responsibility to worship and serve God (cf. 6:13; 10:12, 20). Yet representa-

 When Paul affirms at Gal 6:15 that is not circumcision or uncircumcision that is important but the new creation it is possible he is reflecting on passages like Ezekiel 36.  One could also compare the assertion of Titus 3:5, that salvation is not by works of righteousness but according to God’s mercy through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, which resonates with the language of Ezekiel 36.

308

Blaine Charette

tive of the tone of the book is the wistful entreaty of 11:13: if only the people would obey the Lord’s commandments by loving and serving him with all their heart and soul. Poignantly, the worship mentioned most often in the book is Israel’s worship of other gods (cf. 4:28; 11:16; 13:2, 6, 13; 29:18, 26; 31:20). In Deuteronomy the circumcision of the heart is essential for faithfulness to covenant and the proper worship of God. It is meaningful that immediately following Paul’s declaration that new covenant believers are the circumcision he states that they worship in the Spirit of God. The Spirit who effects the circumcision now also makes possible the proper worship of the community. It is of additional interest that at Deut 10:20 – 21 the charge to only worship (‫ ;עבר‬LXX: λατρεύω) the Lord is grounded in the reality that he is Israel’s boast (‫ ; ְתּה ָלּה‬LXX: καύχημα). It is possible this passage influenced Paul’s linking of worshipping in the Spirit of God with boasting in Christ Jesus as the central characteristics of the circumcision. In any case, there is a remarkable symmetry between the two passages. With respect to such boasting it is also noteworthy that Jer 9:23 – 24, a principal text informing Paul’s use of the term boast, counsels that those who boast should boast only in that they understand and know the Lord. This pronouncement is given within a context in which the people of Israel do not know their Lord but which finds an answer later at Jeremiah 31:34 where it is noted that when the new covenant is established no longer will the people teach one another saying, “Know the Lord”, for by then they will all know the Lord. This time of greater understanding of the heart will also be a time of greater knowledge of the Lord. It is somewhat fitting then that in Paul’s personal reflection following his statements in Phil 3:3 he stresses his resolve to know Christ. These connections serve to show that Paul’s statements in Philippians 3 originate from an integrative deliberation on the benefits that result from the eschatological fulfillment of the circumcised heart. For Paul this circumcision by the Spirit of God enables true worship, proper boasting, and a profound desire to know the Lord. For Paul this is what identities “the circumcision” or the new covenant people of God. These characteristics further explain what Paul means by living in a manner (πολιτεύομαι) worthy of the gospel (1:27). It was noted earlier that Paul’s language of citizenship (πολίτευμα) at 3:20 stands in a counterpart relationship to the term “circumcision”. In this respect, it is of further interest that the LXX of Jer 31:34 reads “No longer shall they each teach their fellow citizen (πολίτης) … saying know the Lord.” Paul’s use of such language may not have been suggested by this text, yet it reinforces the idea of covenantal identity inherent in such language. The Philippian believers are part of the new commonwealth of the people of God. They are the ones, and not their opponents who insist on physical circumcision, who truly live out the good news of the gospel and are thus the

Circumcision and Worship in the Spirit of God (Phil. 3:3)

309

true citizens of the eschatological community foreseen by the prophets. Those opponents rather epitomize “a crooked and perverse generation” (2:15), echoing the language of Deut 32:5 that is directed at the unfaithful and rebellious within Israel. It is therefore not surprising that the fate of these adversaries, twice stated as “destruction” (ἀπώλεια; 1:28; 3:19), is the same judgment declared throughout Deuteronomy (see LXX: 4:26; 8:19; 30:18; cf. 28:45) that will befall the people of Israel if they violate the covenant. The irony is very pointed. The opponents believe they are protecting the integrity of the covenant and yet they are the very ones who undermine it by acting contrary to God’s purpose and will. The language directed against the opponents in Philippians brings into even greater relief Paul’s positive pronouncements regarding those who affirm the gospel he proclaims. The reality experienced by those who receive and uphold the gospel is best understood within the context of Israel’s covenantal story. In truth they represent the fulfillment of the prophetic hopes for Israel. As those in whom the circumcision of the heart has come into effect they are now able to worship God in a manner that was not possible in the past. Their service to God is now grounded in their boast in Christ Jesus, the one through whom these hopes have been realized. Moreover, like Paul himself, their aspirations can now be directed to knowing God more fully through knowing all he has done for them in Christ. Their distinctive experience of the Spirit enables them at long last to faithfully live out covenant relationship with God.

Lisa Bowens

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23 1 Introduction In his letters, Paul proclaims an apocalyptic gospel to his audiences, a gospel that declares that God and God’s Spirit have invaded the cosmos through the Christ event.¹ The language of invasion, however, means that the cosmos is not one of harmony but rather filled with struggle, for God invades a cosmos enslaved by hostile powers, such as Sin and Death (Rom 5, 6).² How does Romans 8:19 – 23 inform this apocalyptic framework in which God invades the cosmos? How does Paul describe the Spirit’s role in this particular snapshot of an apocalyptic incursion? Α number of issues confront the reader when interpreting Romans 8:19 – 23. Among them are Paul’s birth imagery, the identity of the sons of God, the motif of suffering, and the meaning of adoption. This essay will argue that integral to all of these issues is the Spirit language that Paul inserts into v. 23. To be sure, Spirit language occurs before and after this pericope, but arguably this passage is a significant part of the climax of the apostle’s Spirit speech in Romans 8. Paul’s Spirit language in this pericope underscores the existence of a cosmic struggle and depicts a cosmos in pain. At the same time, the apostle’s Spirit speech describes the believer’s paradoxical location in which she exists in two realities at the same time, a reality of liberation and a reality of suffering, a reality of adoption and a reality of labor pains. The Spirit’s presence in the believer’s life is evidence both of God’s invasion and an ongoing struggle between God and the anti-God

 This essay utilizes the sense of apocalyptic as put forth by James Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997): “Paul’s view of wrong and right is thoroughly apocalyptic, in the sense that on the landscape of wrong and right there are, in addition to God and human beings, powerful actors that stand opposed to God and that enslave human beings. Setting right what is wrong proves, then, to be a drama that involves not only human beings and God, but also those enslaving powers. And since humans are fundamentally slaves, the drama in which wrong is set right does not begin with action on their part. It begins with God’s militant action against all the powers that hold human beings in bondage” (87).  Martyn, Theological Issues, 283. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-021

312

Lisa Bowens

powers.³ For Paul, then, the Spirit is what ties all of these verses together and becomes the means through which to interpret the current situation of humanity and all of creation.

2 The Plight In Romans Paul emphasizes humanity’s enslavement writing that “Sin came into the world through one man” (5:12), “Death exercised dominion” (5:14, 17; cf. 6:9), and “Sin exercised dominion in death” (5:21; cf. 6:14). As has been noted, in these verses Sin and Death are subjects of verbs, indicating that Paul views these entities as actors on the cosmic landscape.⁴ Ernst Käsemann sums up the view well writing, “Hence Paul is definitely not speaking of personal guilt or naturally necessary death but of the forces of sin and death which have invaded the world.”⁵ Sin and Death are active cosmic powers arrayed against God, God’s people, and all of creation (8:20 – 21), for the apostle writes in 8:21 that creation, too, is in slavery (δουλείας) because of Adam’s actions.⁶ Paul’s language regarding these “ruling powers” describes the cosmic landscape for his Roman audience, emphasizing to them the universal need for divine rescue. Beverly Gaventa also describes Paul’s language regarding Sin in Romans remarking that the apostle portrays Sin as a “cosmic terrorist. Sin not only entered the cosmos with Adam; it also enslaved, it unleashed Death itself…”⁷ Gaventa’s comments underscore the indissoluble link that Paul believes exists between Sin and Death, twin powers whose destruction God executes through the Christ event. Although the Christ event has liberated the cosmos, these anti-God powers refuse to concede defeat and, therefore, the conflict continues until the eschaton when God eradicates all evil completely (16:20). Using a divine passive (ἐλευθερωθήσεται; 8:21), Paul writes that creation will be free from slavery to cor-

 The phrase “anti-God powers” comes from James Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 370 – 373, 417.  See Beverly Gaventa, Our Mother Saint Paul (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 125 – 136; Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 374– 75; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 139 – 58.  Käsemann, Romans, 147.  See also the discussion in Shane Berg, “Sin’s Corruption of the Knowledge of God and the Law in Romans 1– 8,” in The Unrelenting God: God’s Action in Scripture Essays in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa, ed. David J. Downs and Matthew L. Skinner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 119 – 38.  Gaventa, Our Mother, 130 – 131.

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

313

ruption indicating God’s future liberative action on behalf of the world. In the meantime, believers live in the “in between” times, in the juncture of the old and new ages. The Spirit is central to Paul’s portrayal to the Roman believers of this current state of affairs, for the Spirit bears witness to their present existence in the overlap of the ages in which humanity and creation suffer, give birth, and await eagerly for deliverance.

3 The Spirit and Cosmic Expectation 3.1 Personification When one reads Romans 8:19 – 23 one of the pericope’s most striking features is the apostle’s personification of creation as a woman. Yet the apostle depicts creation not just as any woman, but a specific type of woman—a woman in two stages of pregnancy, the waiting, expecting stage (vv. 19, 23) and in the process of travail, laboring to give birth (v. 22). This personification has tremendous implications for the theological claims the apostle attempts to convey by utilizing such a metaphor. Personification allows one to make sense of events in the world in human terms via human interactions and experiences.⁸ Hence, when Paul employs personification in Romans 8:19 – 23 to describe the complex process of creation’s current status of suffering, he intentionally chooses to highlight a particular convergence of the human experience of pregnancy and creation’s present state of pain. The depiction of an expectant mother in labor is the only way to describe the specific reality of creation’s suffering and hope. The personification of creation appears in several verses: Creation Creation Creation Creation Creation Creation

waits (v. 19) expects (v. 19) subjected (v. 20) enslaved (v. 21) groans (v. 22) labors (v. 22)

This delineation of Paul’s personification demonstrates what is most amazing about the powers of metaphorical thought: the power to create.⁹ Paul, in person-

 George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989), 72, 34.  Lakoff and Turner, More Than Cool Reason, 80.

314

Lisa Bowens

ifying creation as an expectant mother, “creates” a vision for his hearers, through which they may grasp the reality of creation’s experiences and ultimately, their own.

3.2 Pregnant Expectation: Longing for the “Sons” of God The vision that Paul creates for his audience of creation as a pregnant woman begins in Rom 8:19 of this pericope, which describes the waiting process of the expectant mother (“For the creation waits with eager anticipation longing for the revelation [apocalypse] of the sons of God”) who waits excitedly to see her child for the first time at birth.¹⁰ Such an intense expectation, Paul says, defines the same eagerness of creation in desiring to see the “sons” of God” revealed. Paul highlights creation’s intense expectation by utilizing the noun ἀποκαραδοκία (eager expectation) and the verb ἀπεκδέχεται (waiting eagerly). Harry Hahne characterizes the term as implying a crowd standing on tiptoe straining with outstretched heads to catch the first glimpse of a person or event eagerly longed for.¹¹ Thus, ἀποκαραδοκία denotes confident and eager expectation and the verb ἀπεκδέχεται reinforces the idea of eager waiting and, as a result, helps to emphasize this aspect of the birth process, which Paul deems important by his inclusion of these two words in a single phrase. The apostle could not have expressed the longing of creation more dramatically. But what is it that creation longs to see? Paul responds that the apocalypse or the revelation of the “sons” of God generates this deep longing in creation. Susan Eastman proposes an identity for the “sons” of God who will be revealed in an article entitled, “Whose Apocalypse? The Identity of the Sons of God in Romans 8:19.” While many commentators take for granted that the “sons” of God in this verse are the same as those who are led by the Spirit in 8:14, Eastman correctly argues that the “sons” of God creation waits to see revealed are all those who “are called to be God’s sons and daughters, including those who are not yet included in the category Christian.”¹² This group includes not only those who will believe in the future but also all of Israel.¹³ It follows, then, that the apoc-

 Author’s translation.  Harry Alan Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8:19 – 22 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 181.  Susan Eastman, “Whose Apocalypse? The Identity of the Sons of God in Romans 8:19,” JBL 121 (2002): 263 – 277 and see discussion of Eastman’s work in Gaventa, Our Mother, 55 – 6.  Eastman, “Whose Apocalypse?,” 266.

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

315

alypse of v. 19 is not just a public revelation of a previously hidden state of “sonship” but the rectification of all.¹⁴ Consequently, this revelation of the “sons” of God that creation longs to see is the consummation of the gospel’s power in bringing all together, both Jew and Greek (Rom 1:16). Moreover, the “sons” of God that creation expects to see revealed encompasses both female and male believers which accentuates the radical nature of the revelation. Since “sons” in Paul’s day indicated status, privilege, and honor, the apostle’s language signifies that all believers, including women, acquire the “recognized status and legal privilege reserved for sons.”¹⁵ Therefore, the revelation is one which unveils the unity of Jew and Greek as well as the unity of female and male. Sheila McGinn captures well the nature of the apostle’s language in these verses: “Paul’s claim that a woman was adopted as son-heir does not require her to become male, but rather affirms that her inheritance will be an equal portion with the other heirs. When God saved Israel from slavery in Egypt, all Israel was saved, not just the men. As then, so even more now. God does not evaluate a person’s worth κατὰ σάρκα, but κατὰ πνεῦμα; male privilege is subverted, and all become heirs on an equal basis, not only with each other but with Christ himself.”¹⁶ This apocalypse is so radical that women inherit equally with men and they too are included in the apocalypse of God’s sons, a view that counters the patriarchy of Paul’s day. Moreover, the revelation of the daughters and sons of God is intimately linked with creation’s deliverance from subjection to corruption due to human action, which Paul echoing Genesis 3, refers to in Rom 8:20.¹⁷ Robert Jewett also notes Paul’s reference to the creation story writing, “The fall of nature  Eastman, “Whose Apocalypse?,” 266. Gaventa, Our Mother, writes of this apocalypse that it is “not merely a public discourse of something that has been kept secret; it is an event in which something happens that so radically disrupts the world as to be called an invasion” (56).  William Sanday and Arthur Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), 202. This status of women is prefigured in the Pauline congregations in which women preached alongside Paul (Phil 4:3), prophesied to congregations (1 Cor 11:5), and were described as ministers and apostles (Rom 16:1, 7). From Paul’s perspective the present ἐκκλεσία should reflect the new creation in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male and female (Gal 3:28).  Sheila McGinn “Feminists and Paul in Romans 8:18 – 23: Toward a Theology of Creation,” in Gender, Tradition and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders, eds. Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte (New York: T & T Clark, 2005), 21– 37, 10 – 11.  For a discussion of the Genesis story as background for this passage see Jewett, Romans, 513; James D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 487; Charles E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), 207; and David T. Tsumura, “An OT Background to Rom. 8:22” New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 620 – 621.

316

Lisa Bowens

was ‘not through its own fault’ because it is the human race that remains responsible for the defacing of the ecosystem.”¹⁸ Consequently, God’s apocalypse of human beings, the ones whose actions detrimentally affected creation, will now instigate a divine reversal. In Genesis, the action of human beings plunged creation into brokenness, but now God’s actions bring healing and deliverance. The reversal of creation’s plight takes place through the divine action in revealing all of God’s children. In her book, Metaphor and Religious Language, Janet Soskice makes a significant observation about metaphors. Metaphors are often used “to disclose [something] for the first time. The metaphor has to be used because something new is being talked about.”¹⁹ This divine transformation of creation linked with the revelation of the identity of the children of God as Jew and Greek, future and present believers, and male and female is new and, hence, something creation yearns to see. Such a divine invasion overturns the normal processes of the world and allows for a birth to become an apocalypse. Just as natural childbirth brings forth a new being into the world, so too the labor process of creation and humanity together (v. 22) will bring forth this new “being” that consists of the unification of all of these diverse believers into one “body” (v. 23). Yet this new being can only come about through the suffering of childbirth.

3.3 Spirit Groans: Suffering Childbirth In Rom 8:22, Paul moves from depicting creation in the waiting, expecting stage (v. 19) of pregnancy to the actual childbirth phase: οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν. Along with the significant phrase πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (“the entire creation”), two important verbs appear in this verse: συστενάζει and συνωδίνει with which Paul portrays creation as groaning (συστενάζει) and suffering in labor pains together (συνωδίνει). Whereas some scholars argue that here Paul only refers to nonhuman creation, the expression πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις along with the συν compound verbs, συστενάζει and συνωδίνει indicate that the entire creation, including humanity, is in labor. Paul, then, does not separate creation into human and nonhuman groups.²⁰ Paul uses συστενάζει in Rom 8:22 to refer to the groaning of the natural order due to the devastation of sin and his use is similar to the appearance of στενάζω

 Jewett, Romans, 514.  Janet Soskice, Metaphors and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 89.  So also, Gaventa, Our Mother, 54– 55.

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

317

in the LXX (e. g., Lam 1:1– 4; Job 24:12, 31:38 – 40; Isa 19:8). Additionally, Paul’s language echoes passages from the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1– 36) in which nature suffers in pain because of human sin and suprahuman exploitation, which pollute the earth (Isa 24:4– 7; 4 Ezra 7:1– 4). For example, regarding the effect of human sin upon creation, Hosea 4:1– 3 paints a vivid scene: Hear the word of the Lord, O people of Israel; for the Lord has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or loyalty, and no knowledge of God in the land. Swearing, lying, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out; bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, and all who live in it languish; together with the wild animals and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea are perishing (NRSV).

This passage reveals that human sin drastically affects nonhuman creation and creates a state of grief and sorrow for both human and nonhuman creatures, for “all who live” in the land suffer. Significantly, not only “all who live” in the land suffer, but the land itself mourns. The writer of Hosea personifies the earth creating a graphic picture of a land in grief. Such portrayals shed light on Paul’s personification of a creation groaning and in travail. In Romans 8:23, however, readers encounter the notion that “we who have the ἀπαρχή of the Spirit” groan together with creation. Here the metaphor takes an interesting turn because Paul places the Spirit at the center of the birthing process. His declaration that the Spirit empowers believers to groan with and to be in labor with creation highlights that this lament testifies to the struggle between God and the anti-God powers of Sin and Death, a struggle that affects human and nonhuman creation. Thus, for Paul, the Spirit’s presence emphasizes a shared labor process between humanity and creation. Creation, in Romans 8:21, suffers in slavery to corruption because of Adam’s act. In this verse, Paul refers to Genesis 3 and humanity’s effect upon creation. Yet at the same time, Paul’s language here and earlier in Romans (5:12– 21) depicts a two-tier plight that comes about through human and supra-human activity, for Paul declares that Adam’s action opens the door for Sin and Death. As Shane Berg comments, “Adam’s primal disobedience is treated by Paul as the point at which sin and death commence their subjugation of the entire human race. Adam’s singular role in opening the door to the reign of sin is contrasted with Christ’s singular obedience in bringing about the dethroning of these powers and the inauguration of the reign of grace.”²¹ The notion that supra-human powers affect both human and nonhuman creation appears in the Book of

 Berg, “Sin’s Corruption,” 125.

318

Lisa Bowens

Watchers. In this text the author utilizes Genesis 6:1– 4 but elaborates upon the passage to describe the origin of evil and evil spirits. The author views the angels’ decision to mate with women as sinful and their offspring, the giants, as evil. Because the giants originate from intercourse between women and angels, they are hybrid beings comprised of flesh and spirit who wreak havoc upon the earth. In several passages, the writer details the disastrous effects of the actions of the giants upon creation and human beings. [The giants] were devouring the labor of all the sons of men, and men were not able to supply them. And the giants began to kill men and to devour them. And they began to sin against the birds and beasts and creeping things and the fish, and to devour one another’s flesh. And they drank the blood. Then the earth brought accusation against the lawless ones (1 En. 7:3 – 6).²² Then Michael and Sariel and Raphael and Gabriel looked down from the sanctuary of heaven upon the earth and saw much bloodshed on the earth. All the earth was filled with the godlessness and violence that had befallen it. And entering in, they said to one another, ‘The earth, devoid (of inhabitants), raises the voice of their cries to the gates of heaven. And now to , the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make suit…And now look, the spirits of the souls of the men who have died make suit, and their groan²³ has come up to the gates of heaven… (1 En. 9:1– 3a, 10a – b).

The writer portrays the giants as destroying both human and nonhuman creation and, as a result, both cry out. The earth protests this treatment by bringing an accusation, crying to heaven’s gates, and the souls of murdered human beings groan before heaven. Whereas in Hosea the land mourns, in the Book of Watchers, the author points specifically to the verbal protests of both human and nonhuman creation who cry out against the giants’ atrocious actions. Similar to what one finds in Hosea and Paul, the writer of this passage personifies the earth as a lamenting victim in need of God’s deliverance. To be sure, the passages from the Book of Watchers and Hosea do not portray humanity and creation in labor, but the picture of both humanity and creation crying out in agony is analogous to what one finds in Romans 8. Furthermore, the Book of Watchers portrays supra-human powers afflicting creation and humanity and so attests to a tradition of evil powers that vex the cosmos.²⁴ From the perspectives of both

 Translations are from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, trans., 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004).  The term στενάζω appears in the Georgius Syncellus Greek text. See Matthew Black, ed. Apocalypsis Henochi Graece: Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca, PVTG (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 23.  See also George W. E. Nickelsburg 1 Enoch 1 A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1 – 36; 81 – 108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) who writes “The giants are made the

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

319

Paul and the Book of Watchers’ author, the extent of suffering is so great that humans and creation cry out in anguish and protest. In the Book of Watchers, supra-human beings are the agents that inflict suffering, whereas in Hosea human beings are the agents. Together Hosea and the Book of Watchers depict traditions of human beings and creation experiencing suffering due to human or supra-human activities. In Paul, these two traditions coalesce; Sin and Death entered into the cosmos through a human being, Adam, and these powers in turn enslave and dominate all creation which suffers enslavement to corruption. Sin, a cosmic terrorist, to revisit Gaventa’s language, entered the world with Adam and so enslaved creation and brought Death.²⁵ According to Paul, human and supra-human beings create the current plight of suffering. To sum up the discussion of the importance of these passages thus far: Both Hosea and the Book of Watchers depict a solidarity between humanity and the rest of creation in which all suffer together, whether at the hands of human beings or by the actions of supra-human agents. The solidarity of human and nonhuman suffering expressed in shared laments, along with a depiction of this suffering as having human and supra-human origins, links these passages with Paul’s view of the world in which both Adam and the powers of Sin and Death afflict all creation. Ernst Käsemann’s remarks regarding the Romans passage are apropos, “Here, with an emphasis hardly excelled in the New Testament, the solidarity of the Christian community with the unredeemed world is brought out. This solidarity (and that means community in the face of tension) rests in the fact that church and world are together waiting expectantly for the manifestation of the liberty of the children of God.”²⁶ Käsemann emphasizes Paul’s perspective that all of creation, human and nonhuman, are intimately connected in suffering and expecting redemption. The aforementioned similarities between these texts and Paul’s language in Romans do not negate an important contradistinction to the above passages; that is, Paul avers that all creation groans and is in labor, including those who have the ἀπαρχή of the Spirit. Thus, in 8:23 the apostle specifies that πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις which groans and is in labor in v. 22 includes Spirit-filled believers. The connection between the Spirit and humanity’s groans is foreshadowed earlier in the chapter (v. 15; cf. v. 26) in which the Spirit speaks through believers subject of the violence described in Gen 6:5 – 7, 11– 12, and the human race and the animal world are its victims” (186); Archie Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1 – 4 in Early Jewish Literature (WUNT 198; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 143 – 145.  Gaventa, Our Mother, 130.  Ernst Käsemann, “Cry for Liberty,” 126 – 127.

320

Lisa Bowens

enabling them to call God Father, for the Spirit transmogrifies believers’ speech and identity.²⁷ Believers, who are now God’s children, verbally declare God as their Father but at the same time groan in labor with creation, which longs to see the children of God revealed.²⁸ The Spirit transforms believers’ language so that they can speak of an identity that consists of a transformed coexistence of present and future realities. Believers’ Spirit speech entails a lament at the same time it makes a declaration of God as Father; God’s adoption of believers is already complete because they have the Spirit of adoption and so they are already children and heirs. Yet both humanity and creation await the birth, revelation, and adoption of God’s children. The Spirit attests to and declares through the believer this paradoxical actuality. “Believers who have the ἀπαρχή of the Spirit” groan with creation but also travail or have birth pangs (συνωδίνει) along with creation. The fact that humanity shares so many of the traits of creation signifies that humanity too experiences labor. Creation Creation Creation Creation Creation Creation

waits (v. 19) expects (v. 19) subjected (v. 20) enslaved (v. 21) groans (v. 22) labors (v. 22)

Humanity waits (v. 23) Humanity expects (v. 23) Humanity subjected (v. 23) Humanity enslaved (v. 23) Humanity groans (vv. 22, 23) Humanity labors (vv. 22, 23)

Although the verb συνωδίνω is unique in the NT, the verb ὠδίνω (Gal 4:19, 27; Rev 12:2) and the cognate noun ὠδίν appear several times (Matt 24:8; Mk 13:8; Acts 2:24; 1 Thess 5:3), often in reference to suffering at the end of the age. Similarly, Old Testament writers frequently employ childbirth imagery to describe es-

 In regard to using “Father” language for God, I find Marianne M. Thompson’s comments in The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000) applicable here even though they refer to Father language in the OT. “When God is characterized with male or masculine imagery, these attributes are not derived from characteristics inherent in male gender but, rather, from a specific set of functions. Male gender [is not] ‘ontologized’ into the being of God, as if that which were “male,” or “masculine” in and of itself served to render the biblical God more clearly” (54). Thus, Paul’s depiction of God as Father in Rom 8:15 has more to do with kinship, family relationships, and intimacy in that familial relationship than about God’s “maleness.”  For a discussion of the sociopolitical dimension of the Spirit’s groans see Emerson Powery, “The Groans of ‘Brother Saul’: An Exploratory Reading of Romans 8 for ‘Survival,’” Word and World 24 (2004): 315 – 22, particularly 320 – 22.

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

321

chatological suffering (Isa 13:8, 21:3, 26:17– 18; Jer 4:31; Mic 4:9 – 10).²⁹ Paul’s use of this term demonstrates the joint labor process and the joint pain endured by human and nonhuman creation as they both undergo the birthing process. Paul’s employment of συνωδίνω conveys an “interdependence…between nature and humanity in their shared status as creatures of God, not a superiority of humans over nature.”³⁰ Creation and humanity are intimately bound up with one another, for creation is eager for human salvation because human fulfillment and the fulfillment of creation are mutually contingent; both will receive the “freedom of the glory of the children of God.”³¹ Because of the Spirit believers are now children of God whose language aligns with their new status. From Paul’s perspective, the Spirit is integral to the believer’s status as “son” and provides the believer the ability to articulate that “sonship” involves co-suffering and co-laboring with creation (Rom 8:14– 23). It is important to note that as women are included in the category “son,” men are included in the labor process. The “we” who have the ἀπαρχή of the Spirit incorporates both males and females within the feminine imagery of childbirth, for everyone who has the Spirit experiences labor pains along with creation. Therefore, not only is creation depicted in this pericope with feminine imagery, but through his “Spirit speech” the apostle expands the feminine imagery to em-body both men and women. The apostle’s “Spirit speech” illustrates that men and women realize their apocalyptic destiny as they participate in the Spirit’s labor process. The identity of the “sons” waiting to be revealed is integrally connected to the feminine process of giving birth. That Paul includes men in the labor process echoes his language in Gal 4:19 where he portrays himself as in labor (ὠδίνω) with the Galatians. Since ὠδίνω occurs in a number of texts to denote the pain and anguish that precedes the judgment or the day of the Lord, it is often noted that Paul’s use of the term in Gal 4:19 suggests that he views the Galatian situation within an apocalyptic framework.³² In this passage Paul’s labor refers to his apostleship in the midst  See also the chapter “Great Tribulation in Jewish Literature” in Dale Allison, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2013; previously published Fortress Press, 1985), 5 – 25; cf. 63; Jamie P. Davies, “What to Expect when you’re Expecting: Maternity, Salvation History, and the ‘Apocalyptic Paul,’” JSNT 38 (2016): 301– 315.  Sheila McGinn “All Creation Groans in Labor: Paul’s Theology of Creation in Romans 8:18 – 23,” in Earth, Wind, and Fire: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Creation, eds. Carol J. Dempsey and Mary Margaret Pazdan (Minnesota: Liturgical, 1989), 116.  McGinn “All Creation Groans,” 120, 114.  See the discussion of this verse in Susan Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 89 – 126; Gaventa, Our Mother,

322

Lisa Bowens

of the present evil age (Gal 1:4) and “reflects the anguish of the whole created order as it awaits the fulfillment of God’s action in Jesus Christ.”³³ Upon turning to Romans, the labor Paul depicts that accompanies his apostolic role is now a cosmic labor taken up and experienced by all creation, both human and nonhuman, both women and men. Paul views suffering and the Spirit as what connects believers to the languishing ecosystem. “We who have the ἀπαρχή of the Spirit” groan along with the rest of creation. This shared labor takes place because of the Spirit’s empowering presence.

3.4 The Spirit’s ᾿Aπαρχή Paul’s phrase, “We who have the ἀπαρχή of the Spirit” indicates that those who have the Spirit groan, labor, travail, and eagerly wait along with the “unredeemed world.” But what is the meaning of ἀπαρχή? While many commentators choose to translate this word as “first fruits,” seeing it as synonymous with ἀρραβών, which appears in Paul’s other letters (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:14), Henry Stuart Jones in his 1920 Inaugural Lecture at the University of Oxford offers another possible translation of ἀπαρχή. In his examination of a Roman papyrus Code of Regulations, he finds that the word ἀπαρχή “was technically used in the sense of a certificate of registration showing that the holder was of free birth, as opposed to the οἰκογένεια, which was the identity–paper of one born a slave.”³⁴ This word, then, is the technical term for the birth certificate of a free person.³⁵ Jones’s interpretation of Paul’s use of this word in light of this translation follows at length: When we read the passage which begins at verse 16, we see that St. Paul is here arguing that our claim to spiritual freedom is based on the witness of the Spirit to our sonship, just as in Egypt the μαρτυροποίησις of the parent was among the documents put in evidence in the procedure of ἐπίκρισις by which claims to privileged status were judged; and that in spite of this—in spite of the fact that we have, as it were, obtained through

29 – 39; Brigitte Kahl, “No Longer Male: Masculinity Struggles Behind Galatians 3:28?” JSNT 79 2000: 37– 49, especially 42, 45 – 46; Martyn, Galatians, 426 – 431.  Gaventa, Our Mother, 34.  Henry Stuart Jones, A Fresh Light on Roman Bureaucracy: An Inaugural Lecture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920), 21.  Jones, A Fresh Light, 21; George Milligan, Here &There Among the Papyri (London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1922), 100; Charles Clare Oke, “A Suggestion with Regard to Romans 8:23,” Interpretation 11 (1957): 455 – 456.

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

323

the mediation of the Spirit the certificate which entitles us to be registered as the sons of God—we are still awaiting our formal release from the bondage of the flesh and the law.³⁶

Charles Clare Oke’s observations in 1957 that Jones’s proposal is one of the most interesting suggestions from the papyri that has received little attention is just as appropriate today as when he first made this statement.³⁷ While some scholars note the possible translation of ἀπαρχή as birth certificate (it is listed as a possible definition in LSJ and BDAG), they dismiss it. James Dunn’s observation is representative. He comments that the sense of ἀπαρχή as birth certificate is attractive in view of the birth metaphor, but in fact it would throw the thought in some confusion—a birth certificate already issued while the birth travail is still in progress!³⁸ Despite these reservations, this alternative translation coheres with Paul’s extensive birth metaphor in these verses.³⁹ While the traditional rendering equating ἀπαρχή with ἀρραβών corresponds to Paul’s theology in general, the definition of birth certificate is more appropriate in this context, for it corresponds to the Spirit’s agency throughout this chapter in which the Spirit causes mortal bodies to live, enables believers to put to death the deeds of the body, leads in appropriate conduct, bears witness with the spirit of believers concerning their own status as children, and assists in moments of weakness (8:11, 13, 14, 16, 26).⁴⁰ Paul adds to this list the Spirit’s conferral of a birth certificate in which the Spirit provides incontrovertible evidence that the birth believers and creation long for, that is, adoption and redemption will come to pass. The word ἀπαρχή then, denotes another particular activity of the Spirit, which correlates to the ideas of birth and new status that permeate this section of the letter. The paradoxical parallels are striking. Believers already have the Spirit of adoption but await adoption and they already have the birth certificate of the Spirit but await the birth. The birth certificate from the Spirit is a more explicit way of saying that the status of believers has changed despite the existence of an “unredeemed world.” The Spirit’s certification is believers’ assurance that they have been adopted, while still waiting for the fullness of that adoption, the revealing of all God’s children—Jews, Gentiles, females, males, present and future believers. Likewise,

 Jones, Fresh Light, 21. See also Milligan, Here & There, 165; Oke, A Suggestion, 455 – 456.  Oke, “A Suggestion,” 455.  Dunn, Romans, 474.  Although the term appears elsewhere in Romans 11:16 and 16:5 with the connotation of first fruits, the birth imagery in this passage makes the translation birth certificate particularly suggestive here. Cf. 1 Cor 15:20, 23; 16:15; 2 Thess 2:13.  Oke, “A Suggestion,” 457.

324

Lisa Bowens

the certification of the Spirit or the “birth certificate” provides believers with the assurance of creation’s full deliverance as well—God liberates both nonhuman creation and humanity from the hostile powers of Sin and Death. In addition, the Spirit’s certification parallels the notion that the “sons” of God encompass those “who are not yet included in the category Christian.” These “sons” of God have yet to be incorporated, but they will be. The birth has yet to take place, but it will come to pass, for it has already been documented. Paul’s use of ἀπαρχή here demonstrates the apostle’s Spirit hermeneutic in seeing the redemption of all God’s creation—human and nonhuman as a definitive future reality with present implications. In fact, Paul makes a point to emphasize that although believers have the birth certificate that certifies the reality of this birth, they still groan and engage in the labor process along with creation. The presence of the Spirit does not negate the pain of labor.⁴¹ Paul’s clever inclusion of the word ἀπαρχή, which indicates the bestowal of the birth certificate ahead of the completion of the birth process, resembles his description of God’s action in Romans 4:17 in which Paul recounts God calling Abraham “Father of many nations” even though Abraham’s body was dead. Paul writes that God “gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (NRSV). Thus, the certification of the Spirit is God’s proleptic act calling into existence the new birth which is about to be (8:18, 23). The birth certificate of the Spirit is the believer’s promise that the groaning, the labor pains, and the birthing process are not in vain. The birthing process will undergo completion and no power will abort it, for God is the attending physician who will see the birthing process through to the end. In effect, God has provided confirmation and documentation for the birth’s ultimate conclusion by providing the birth certificate before the culmination of the labor process. Paraphrasing Paul, who writes at the end of the chapter, “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation” will be able to prevent this birth from coming to term.⁴²

 Similarly, Paul’s certainty of Israel’s redemption (Rom 9 – 11) and all of creation neither reduced his anguish nor his pain over many Jews’ rejection of Christ. While he believes that all Israel will be saved (11:26), his suffering on their behalf is great (9:1– 3).  Several things need to be said at this point: First, to characterize God as the “attending physician” is meant in no way to diminish God’s role in the birthing process. God is ultimately the one who will bring the birth to pass and whose action creation and humanity long to see displayed. Secondly, the birthing process, while difficult today, was extremely difficult and dangerous in Paul’s day. David Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), notes that “for most women…giving birth was

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

325

3.5 Spirit Birth: Apocalypse, Adoption and Redemption of Our Body, not Bodies What is it that the Spirit’s birth certificate certifies? Paul reveals that the birth the Spirit’s ἀπαρχή certifies is adoption, which Paul further explains as the redemption of our body. Thus, the birth is a tri-dimensional event: it is the revelation of the sons of God (8:19) and at the same time adoption and redemption (8:23). In one sense believers already have the Spirit of adoption (8:15), which enables them to cry out to God, “Abba, Father.” This Spirit, Paul declares, bears witness with believers’ spirits that they are children of God (8:16). Therefore, believers are already children of God and already adopted, yet and still they await adoption (8:23). Through the Spirit, believers have been transferred from the old age of enslavement to Sin and Death to the new age of adoption as God’s children. This transference from the old age to the new age signifies the apocalyptic movement that Paul perceives takes place in believers’ lives, and so he characterizes this movement as a birth-adoption. Viewing adoption as a new birth resonates with adoption experienced in Greco-Roman society. In one form of Greco-Roman adoption there were two steps: the release of the one to be adopted from his natural father’s potestas and the adopting father’s assertion of his potestas over the adoptee.⁴³ Gellius explains the process: When outsiders are taken into another’s family and given the relationship of children, it is done either through a praetor or through the people. If done by a praetor, the process is called adoptatio…Now, we have adoptatio, when those who are adopted are surrendered in court through a thrice repeated sale by the father under whose control they are, and are claimed by the one who adopts them in the presence of the official before whom the legal action takes place.⁴⁴

Through adoption the adoptive father becomes the new paterfamilias, for as Gaius notes in the Institutes “parents cease to have in their power those children

both a painful and hazardous undertaking with little hope of remedy if anything went wrong” (56). In a context in which his audience would have been familiar with the danger of labor, Paul’s use of ἀπαρχή to speak of a birth certificate issued before the birth assures his audience that while the suffering may be great (v. 22; cf. v.18) nothing will go wrong with this pregnancy.  James Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 48; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 10, 12; Williams, Paul’s Metaphors, 64.  Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 5.19.1– 3 (Rolfe, LCL).

326

Lisa Bowens

whom they give in adoption.”⁴⁵ David Williams’ observation about this process is important for our discussion. He writes, For the adoptee, in law, this was a new birth. A new life had begun. The old life was behind. All rights in the old family were gone; all rights in the new family were now his (or hers). The adopted son was heir to his adoptive father’s estate. If there were other sons, natural sons of his new father, he was treated as their equal. The debts of his old life were canceled, and no claim could be made against him in the courts on that account. In the eyes of the law, he was no longer the person he had been. He was a new man.⁴⁶

Williams’ comments shed light on Paul’s use of adoption in v. 23, for Paul’s audience would have been familiar with regarding adoption as a “new birth” and, therefore, would have seen the birth metaphor begun in v. 19 completed in v. 23 with the word υἱοθεσία. Through the Spirit’s activity, creation and humanity are in co-labor, eagerly awaiting new birth, the new status of the daughters and sons of God, in which the old life has been left behind and a new one has been entered. The idea of adoption as a “new birth,” which was such an integral part of the adoption process allowed one to have a new life and to begin afresh. Therefore, the adoption process provides the background for Rom 8:12– 17 as well. Once, believers were under the potestas of Sin and Death; but God in mercy makes believers children through the Spirit of adoption. The past no longer has any claim on the believer. Instead, the adoptive Father (v. 15) gains parental rights over the believer and for the adopted child the past is no more. As Paul declares, believers are heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ (v. 17).⁴⁷ This notion of adoption demonstrates the implications of the apostle’s language earlier in Romans as well as the passage in our discussion. Paul equates the new birth with adoption, but at the same time further explains in the next phrase of v. 23 that this adoption is the “release,” or the “redemption of our body.” The word ἀπολύτρωσιν found in this verse is rare, and it normally refers to the freeing of slaves or captives from war.⁴⁸ The semantic density of the term, insofar as it refers to both liberating slaves and victims of war,

 Gaius, Institutes, 1.134, trans. W. M. Gordon and O.F. Robinson (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1988).  Williams, Paul’s Metaphors, 64 (emphasis added); Gaius, Institutes, 3.83 – 84; 4.38; Scott, Adoption, 12– 13. For a different view see Scott who argues for an OT/Jewish background for υἱοθεσία.  Williams, Paul’s Metaphors, 65.  Gaventa, Our Mother, 58. Josephus, Antiquities 12.27– 28; Dan. 4:34 (LXX); Letter of Aristeas; Philo, Every Good Man is Free, 114.

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

327

indicates Paul’s own view of humanity and creation’s plight. Humanity, like the rest of creation, awaits freedom, for both suffer enslavement to hostile powers, and are simultaneously victims of the war between God and the anti-God powers of Sin and Death. Paul’s employment of this term indicates that he understands the adoption, this new birth, as liberation from captivity to Sin and Death, victimizing powers from which humanity and creation need deliverance. Indeed, God wages war on behalf of humanity and creation, refusing to leave them in the grip of these enemies, for these powers are not only anti-God, but antihuman and anti-creation. The term ἀπολύτρωσιν coheres with Paul’s statements elsewhere in Romans in which he paints the picture of an enslaved and embattled cosmos (5:12– 14, 17; 6:16 – 17, 20 – 23; 16:20). For the last phrase of 8:23 some English versions translate σῶμα in the plural, i. e., bodies, but the Greek is actually singular. By using the singular form, Paul describes an apocalyptic convergence of human and nonhuman creation merging into one body; by doing so he depicts a unified human and nonhuman body groaning and undergoing labor pains and experiencing redemption.⁴⁹ As humanity and creation are unified in their suffering and birth pangs, so too are they unified in their experience of birth, redemption, and liberation. By using the singular σῶμα, Paul portrays a deep intricate union between humanity and the rest of creation, an enduring bond that remains in the midst of the throes of painful labor and persists in the glorious triumphs of giving birth and receiving divine deliverance. The Spirit’s presence in the believer’s life makes this apocalyptic convergence possible, for it is through the Spirit that believers groan with, labor with, and experience the divine birth of adoption and redemption with creation. Indeed, the birth certificate of the Spirit confirms this divine birth. The Spirit testifies that God’s delivering power does not just redeem and liberate human bodies but connects these human bodies with all of creation, thereby demonstrating the comprehensive cosmic scope of God’s divine invasion.

3.6 A Spirit Hermeneutic: Interpreting the Apocalyptic Invasion Our close examination of Paul’s metaphor of creation as an expectant mother reveals the Spirit as disruptive, wherein a new, surprising state of affairs is un-

 See also J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 181, 287, 289.

328

Lisa Bowens

veiled. The agency of the Spirit is a central feature of Paul’s logic in these verses; the Spirit brings the unity of humanity and creation to the forefront in this apocalypse of God’s children. Although Paul’s use of personification echoes the metaphoric language of other Jewish texts regarding the suffering of creation and humanity, for Paul the Spirit orchestrates humanity’s incorporation into creation’s labor pains and simultaneously disrupts the “normal” birth process. Indeed, “our body” that groans, experiences birth pangs, and awaits redemption is a body constituted through an apocalyptic convergence, that is, a unified human and nonhuman creation, which includes Jew, Greek, female, male, present believers, and those yet to be. Paul’s Spirit talk in v. 23 illustrates the divine invasion of God and God’s Spirit, which overturns all previous expectations.⁵⁰ The Spirit’s certification of believers testifies to a paradoxical existence, one which acknowledges the reality of enslavement at the same time it bears witness to the actuality of liberation. Believers have the Spirit of adoption (8:15), can now call God Father (8:15), and yet groan awaiting adoption (8:23). This paradoxical nature of already having the Spirit of adoption and waiting for adoption characterizes the believer’s existence in which she possesses what she longs for, but at the same time longs for the complete fulfillment of what she already possesses. The Spirit of adoption subverts male privilege, enabling women to become heirs and inherit along with men. Likewise, men are included in the labor process and groan along with the rest of creation. Believers live in the nexus of a reality in which they undergo labor pains at the same time they receive the birth’s confirmation. The Spirit’s apocalyptic disruption means that men along with women give birth, birth certificates are now given before labor is completed, and birth is now a tri-dimensional event encompassing apocalypse (8:19), adoption (8:23), and liberation from slavery (8:21, 23). Hence, Paul’s Spirit-talk underscores that the birthing process is ultimately a divine process, and that the new creation, while not fully realized, has begun and the world is no longer the same.

4 Conclusion Gordon Fee once wrote, “For Paul the Spirit, as an experienced and living reality, was the absolutely crucial matter for Christian life, beginning to end.”⁵¹ This essay provides an analysis of Romans 8:19 – 23 that demonstrates one of the  As Martyn, Theological Issues, states, “The advent of the Son and of his Spirit is thus the cosmic, apocalyptic event” (121).  Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 1.

Paul’s Spirit Speech: Invasion and Disruption in Romans 8:19 – 23

329

ways in which Paul views the Spirit as an experienced and living reality for believers. It has argued for the centrality of the Spirit to this pericope and has sought to revisit “birth certificate” as a possible translation for ἀπαρχή because it coheres with the apocalyptic sensibilities of the Spirit’s activities in v. 23 and Pauline pneumatology elsewhere in Romans.

Robert Wall

“Every Scripture is God-breathed” “Come, my Way, my Truth, my Life: Such a Way, as gives us breath: Such a Truth, as ends all strife: Such a Life, as killeth death.” George Herbert

1 Introduction When introducing my students to Bible translations, the first claim I typically make is that every translation is an interpretative act, which requires the translator to decide between various possible meanings of polyvalent words and the significance of their relationship with other polyvalent words of an often ambiguous syntax. My point in this teachable moment is that the decisions we make when translating biblical texts are hardly neutral. A careful comparison between different translations of the same biblical text recognizes that the substantive disagreements among translators are sometimes rooted in theological or philosophical disagreements rather than purely linguistic reasons. The translator’s decisions in all these matters shape the way a biblical passage is read and understood. Such is the case of the KJV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by the inspiration of God.” Of course, no translation of scripture about scripture was more widely adopted in the English-speaking Reformation than the KJV translation of this verse. No text was more assiduously consulted for a Protestant dogmatics of sola scriptura than this one. It is unfortunate, then, that the KJV of this crux interpretum is mistranslated and its mistranslation naturally led to a popular misunderstanding of scripture’s inspiration still today. The most decisive misstep of the KJV translation of Paul’s claim about his Bible is how it fills the ellipsis that supplies the verbal idea that links scripture with its divine inspiration. Perhaps under the lingering pressure of the Reformation’s sola scriptura principle, translators filled this gap with the present passive of the verb “to give”—a verbal idea that implies God “gives” scripture away, presumably to its inspired authors as a statement of scripture’s divine origins. This translation, received and memorized among Protestant Christians, has cued an extended debate in modern biblical criticism about the origins of “all scripture.” It is no surprise that modern criticism’s reconstruction of the Bible’s formation in early Christianity often begins with a

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-022

332

Robert Wall

curt dismissal of any attempt to explain this phenomenon by appealing to scripture’s inspiration.¹ The following essay attempts to respond to this narrative in two interpenetrating expositions. The first offers my reading of 2 Timothy 3:16 in its compositional and canonical contexts, and the second offers a theological reflection on the idea of inspiration as an element of a pneumatology of scripture.

2 Reading of 2 Timothy 3:16 in Context The catchphrase, πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος (“every scripture is God-breathed,” 2 Tim 3:16a),² functions as the pivot point in the second of three integral paraenetic units, each cued by Paul’s emphatic address of Timothy, Σὺ δὲ (“Now you,” 3:14; cf. 3:10; 4:5). Most scholars have recognized that each unit is a kind of mimesis that profiles a canonical Paul, whose exemplary life (2 Tim 3:10 – 13) and instruction (2 Tim 3:14– 4:4) establish the community’s enduring norm beyond his death (2 Tim 4:5 – 8). As such what is remembered of Paul constitutes an apostolic tradition that is passed on to his successors, such as Timothy (3:14; cf. 1 Tim 6:20), who are delegated the responsibility of making certain this tradition has a viable future for subsequent generations of believers (2 Tim 1:13; 2:2; cf. 4:18).

2.1 Reading 2 Timothy 3:10 – 13 with Acts If 2 Tim is read with Acts open as a canonical index of these memories, surely Paul’s résumé of persecution in “Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra” (2 Tim 3:11) that frames the first typology of mimesis (2 Tim 3:10 – 13) recalls exactly the summary found in Acts 14:21, which in Luke’s narrative setting concludes his prior story of Paul’s first urban mission (Acts 13 – 14). Certainly, a principal role of this narrative unit within Acts is to confirm Paul’s commission according to Acts 9:15 – 16, which had predicted his suffering for preaching Christ. What the

 See, e. g., Jens Schröter’s otherwise helpful reconstruction of the reception of Jesus traditions in the NT in From Jesus to the New Testament, ET (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2013), 325, who rejects “inspiration” as a theological explanation of an essentially historical process. I do not think one can divide one from the other, but each forms a necessary piece of an integral, mutually-glossing whole.  For interested readers, a more detailed exposition of this passage from 2 Timothy may be found in my commentary on 1 – 2 Timothy & Titus, THNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 267– 78.

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

333

Acts narrative makes clear, however, is that a primary provocation of Paul’s suffering is his use of scripture for “teaching, reproof, correction, and training” in God’s way of salvation (cf. Acts 13:14– 52; 17:1– 5; 28:23 – 28)—a connection that may then be implicated in our reading of 2 Tim 3:16. The “battle for the Bible” that plots Paul’s story in Acts is not waged with other Jews over divergent or non-Jewish Bible practices or over the Bible’s authority, since on these issues they all share a common theology of scripture (cf. Acts 17:2– 3a). Paul seems alert that the controversy elicited by his reading of the synagogue’s Bible concerns his messianic referent, Jesus of Nazareth, for whom he “suffers bad news” (2 Tim 2:9a; cf. Acts 17:3 – 5). Paul’s story in Acts links his use of scripture with his persecution and so then with his missionary calling. The conflict plotted by this narrative does not concern the Bible’s authority, which is assumed by all parties, but over its prophetic performances in proclaiming the gospel (cf. 2 Tim 4:2). This observation carries over into the second typology of mimesis, which concerns Paul’s performances of scripture and Timothy’s imitation of them as a “man of God” (2 Tim 3:17): the crucial issue of scripture’s inspiration is not its production or ontology but its practice in obedience to God’s call as a messenger of the gospel.³

2.2 Reading 2 Timothy 3:10 – 13 with 3:14 – 17 The hinge verse (v. 14) that connects the first two units of mimesis repeats the aorist indicative of μανθάνω (“learned”). Paul’s emphatic use of this verbal idea makes clear that the learning objective of his catechesis of Timothy (cf. 3:14– 17[4:4]) was for him to remain secured in his present ministry by the things he learned from the apostle in the past. This is now more important

 The only title given Timothy (and Titus) when addressed as the congregation’s pastor is “man of God,” which trades on its use for OT prophets (e. g., Elijah), carriers of God’s word to God’s people. Otherwise, the duties and practices given them by Paul are apropos of delegated leadership: they teach and preach Paul’s gospel as a word of truth and instruct congregations founded by Paul’s missionar y endeavor, and they safeguard the memories and practices of the Pauline apostolate and pass it on to other tradents. Timothy is called “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and so must practice and parade this truth (4:13) according to his ordination (v. 14). He is held responsible for the congregation’s salvation (v. 16). In fact, the political structure of the “household of God” vests considerable authority in the successor of the apostolate, not in the form of a church office but because of Paul’s hands-on ordination (2 Tim 1:6 – 7), precisely because the word of God the “man of God” carries into ministr y is none other than the word disclosed to Paul in a kairos moment, an apocalypse of divine revelation (cf. Titus 1:3).

334

Robert Wall

than ever, not only because Paul has left Ephesus for Macedonia thus leaving Timothy in charge of the mission in Ephesus (cf. 1 Tim 1:3) but because of the disruptive opposition he faces there (cf. 2 Tim 3:1– 9). This typology of learning, which presumes both good content and confidence in the trustworthiness of that content, depends mostly on personal experience—on the constructive effects of what is learned. While I agree with those who contend that Timothy’s πιστόω, his “confidence,” derives from the recognition of Paul’s singular importance as “teacher of the gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim 2:6) and of his virtue (so 2 Tim 3:10 – 13)—a Hellenism still current today that links the reliability of a message with the evident expertise and personal virtue of the messenger. The use of πιστόω in the LXX may suggest that Timothy’s confidence is also based on a more utilitarian principle that the ends produced by what is learned justifies the merit accorded it (cf. 2 Sam 7:25; 1 Kgs 1:36; 8:26; 2 Macc 7:24; 12:25; Ps 92:5; Sir 27:27; 29:3). In any case, I would argue that Paul’s presumption that Timothy has complete confidence in what he has learned from him underscores a more functional idea of what is learned, which seems crucial in his typology of God-breathed scripture. Timothy follows Paul’s Bible instruction not so much because of some inherent property or ontology—e. g., because it is what it is—but rather because it does what it does: a practiced Bible produces positive results. Paul makes this point clear in what follows in 3:15 – 17 in two related case studies that trace Timothy’s formation from his childhood (v. 15) into a “man of God” (v. 17). In the first case, Paul observes the redemptive effect that resulted from Timothy’s initiation from childhood into Israel’s scripture: τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (“making you wise for the purpose of salvation through the faith of Christ Jesus”).⁴ Paul’s use of the vernacular, ἱερὰ γράμματα (“holy writings”), used only here in his canonical letters, has occasioned considerable discussion among scholars. Most agree that the phrase likely refers to Israel’s scripture in Greek translation—the Septuagint.⁵ But the substantive, γράμματα (lit., “letters”), probably also carries more colloquial freight that envisages a child’s elementary education—like learning the

 I understand the preposition εἰς in its logical sense to set out the learning objective of the prior act of learning scripture: in this case, to form in Timothy the capacity to trust Christ Jesus for his salvation from sin (that is, in the truth of Paul’s message). For my translation of διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, which focuses (as Paul does in Romans 3:22) on the faith of Jesus in God’s plan of salvation, see Luke Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, AYBC (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2001).  For this linguistic background, see G. Schrenk’s word studies in TDNT 1:763 – 65; 3:221– 30. As is well known, Philo (e. g., in De vita Mosis 3.39) and Josephus (e. g., in Antiquities 1.13) used this same phrase in reference to the LXX.

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

335

“letters” of an alphabet. In a catechetical typology such as this one, the addition of the adjective ἱερὰ (“holy”)—a word whose sacral use underwrites the Spirit’s work in hallowing ordinary creatures (like written letters) for holy ends—would seem to imply Timothy’s Bible and so its study from childhood was sanctified by God’s Spirit as the means of enabling him to trust Jesus for salvation.⁶ R. F. Collins observes how this purpose phrase (v. 15b) stands at the center of a chiasm, enclosed by elements of Timothy’s religious formation on the one hand (vv. 14, 17) and scripture’s usefulness over the course of this lifelong learning on the other (vv. 15a, 16).⁷ In particular, Paul’s use of the present participle of δύναμαι (“making/enabling”) implies again the performative character of scripture in Timothy’s theological formation. In a sense, Timothy’s experience of God’s salvation because of Jesus is coterminous with his learning the “holy writings” from his trusted teachers, including Paul (and also his mother and grandmother; cf. 2 Tim 1:5). That is, Timothy’s experience of scripture, which actively forged the know-how that produced his trusting Jesus for salvation (rather than the options Paul earlier alludes to in 3:1– 9), supplies a persuasive line of evidence of the efficaciousness of Pauline instruction. In canonical context, the reader may well observe here the implied criticism leveled by 2 Peter against those “ignorant and unstable” opponents who misuse Paul’s letters because of their difficulty (cf. 2 Pet 3:15 – 16). Not only is 2 Peter generally concerned with the teaching authority of the apostolic tradition (cf. 2 Pet 1:12– 21), but the criticism of 2 Pet 3:15 registers the same pairing of religious instruction with the verbal aspect of σοφία or wisdom-making as found in 2 Tim 3:15. Moreover, the polemical rhetoric that casts this pairing in 2 Pet is similar to 2 Tim 3 where Paul’s case studies in the stabilizing effects of Bible-centered catechesis contrasts with those “unstable” opponents who seek to “unlearn” Paul. Note especially 2 Pet 3:16’s use of the alpha privative, ἀμαθής, that contrasts to Paul’s positive emphasis of its verbal idea, μανθάνω, in 2 Tim 3:14 as

 Cf. J. A. Sanders, “Canon, Hebrew Bible,” ABD 1:838. Keck rightly notes that Paul rarely uses scripture as a proof text but draws the structure of an argument from scripture; he reasons from the text. In Keck’s phrase, “Paul not only reads his Bible in light of Christ but also reads the Christ event in light of his Bible…to show their coherence because God is consistent;” Romans, ANTC (Peabody, MA: Abingdon, 2005), 38. Moreover, if the Timothy correspondence was added to the Pauline canon to help make sense of difficult letters (cf. 2 Pet 3:15), the example of Timothy’s learning may personalize Paul’s difficult comments in Gal 3:23 – 26 about the church’s role of Jewish scripture as a pedagogue of faith.  R. F. Collins, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, NTL (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 262, although he incorrectly posits this claim as part of a polemic against the opponents rather than as an apologia for the Pauline tradition.

336

Robert Wall

the goal of his instruction. To “unlearn” Paul, then, subverts one’s progress toward the wisdom that enables σωτηρία (2 Tim 3:15; 2 Pet 3:15). To sum up, what seems clear is that vv. 14– 15 set out a typology of illumination in which Paul’s Bible instruction initiates Timothy, his successor (at least in Ephesus), into a fuller experience and knowledge of God’s salvation. While the terms and personnel of this typology change, I would argue it is repeated and in more dramatic fashion in what follows in vv. 16 – 17. In this second case study, however, it is not Paul who is the agent of Timothy’s illumination but the Breath of God, who inspires every scripture’s every use, both priestly (“teaching…training”) and prophetic (“reproof…correction”), to mature the “man of God” (= Timothy) to do “every good work.”

2.3 2 Timothy 3:16 and the Nature of Scripture The change of terms Paul uses for scripture from ἱερὰ γράμματα to πᾶσα γραφὴ (“every scripture”) cues a somewhat different and fuller conception of Timothy’s Christian formation. If the earliest stage of his learning as a child was brokered by the synagogue’s scripture, then Paul’s use of γραφὴ, which normally refers to his messianic or “Christian” reading of his Jewish Bible (cf. Rom 1:2; Luke 24:44– 49), may well implicate Timothy’s subsequent Bible instruction as a Jesus follower. Paul continues this emphasis with a second case study that trades on two adjectives, θεόπνευστος (“God-breathed”) and ὠφέλιμος (“useful”). Even as “holy writings” were used by his teachers to make Timothy wise for salvation, so now “every scripture” is used by the Breath of God to form Timothy into a “man of God” capable of good works (3:17). The gravitas of Paul’s typology of scripture is holy ends and not divine origins, performance and not production. To understand this second case study requires several interpretive decisions. Three of the most crucial attend to the opening phrase in which Paul asserts that “every scripture is God-breathed and useful.” (1) The absence of a verb that relates the subject matter of the phrase, “every scripture,” to the two adjectives that follow is not difficult to settle but crucial to recognize. Logically, the interpreter supplies the present “is” since Paul has an existing text in mind: every scripture is this and that.⁸ The interpreter must necessarily recognize by this ac-

 I find is ironical that in his massive monograph that challenges on biblical grounds the Reformation’s doctrinal centerpiece, “justification by faith alone,” Roman Catholic theologian, Robert A. Sungenis, only once refers to 2 Tim 3:16, translating it (emphasis mine), “All Scripture was

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

337

tion that Paul is not speaking of the past of scripture—i. e., of its origins—but about what scripture presently is or does. As an alternative to the decision to use present tense of εἰμί to fill in Paul’s ellipsis, consider J. R. Levison’s felicitous catchphrase, “charismatic exegesis,” which envisages the effect of the Spirit’s breathing out into a faithful people to animate their reading of scripture in intellectually creative and time-sensitive ways. Levison’s idea applied here, especially to understand the predicative sense of θεόπνευστος, may commend instead the present tense of γίνομαι: “every scripture becomes God-breathed and useful for teaching … training.” In any case, this Pauline typology of scripture does not have in mind the past inspiration of authors and editors who wrote and shaped every biblical text into their final canonical form—their so-called (but fictive) “autographs”—but rather of those biblical texts presently received and used by faithful disciples.⁹ (2) This leads the interpreter to a second important decision: with the verb “is” now supplied, what is the relationship between “every scripture” and the two adjectives that follow? Again, the decision about the second adjective is routine: it must be predicative of scripture such that “every scripture is useful.” Additionally, the interpreter should recognize that the pressure point of Paul’s typology of scripture is felt here as well—in the usefulness of scripture. The syntactical problem remains whether the first adjective, “God-breathed” is also predicative of every scripture or is it attributive such that “every God-breathed scripture is useful.” This decision may be based on an interpreter’s belief that scripture is useful precisely because it is God-breathed. But this reading in my view makes little sense of the conjunction’s role in the phrase, θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, which appears to connect the two nominative feminine adjectives

inspired and profitable for teaching…,” thereby following without acknowledging it Protestantism’s Tendenz of locating scripture’s inspiration in the historical past of inspired authors rather than as an ongoing work of the Spirit’s illumination; Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997), 247.  The doctrine of “plenary inspiration,” dating from the mid-19th century in Reformed Protestantism, argues that the per se text was produced by God even if in a transient sense since the text carries God’s words articulated in the persona and literary technique of a particular apostolic or prophetic author. Even though rarely is a dictation typology used to explain plenary or verbal inspiration, the sense of this interpretation is that the biblical text is inherently divine and so inerrant in all that its words say even if in a qualified sense. In fact, the qualification added in some conservative circles that only the “autograph” is inerrant, since scribal corruption of the text introduced error into a text authored by God, is in effect a claim for the text’s verbal dictation.

338

Robert Wall

as though of a single piece.¹⁰ That is, the one is not because of the other, useful because it is breathed out by God; both tropes, God-breathed and useful, form together an interpenetrating whole, a practical theology of scripture whose present performance (not past production) is God-breathed.¹¹ This is an important note to sound especially in relationship to scripture’s authority. According to this reading, scripture’s enduring authority is recognized not as an inherent stasis but only when and if scripture is acted upon and the effects of doing so are embodied and observed for all to see. In this sense, scripture’s authority is confirmed by testimony of its life-giving effects, not by confession of what is believed about it. (3) These exegetical decisions target the important lexical question: to what does θεόπνευστος refer and how does it help characterize what scripture is and does? The Hellenistic religious literature of antiquity sometimes describes the speeches of religious men as “inspired,” but usually in reference to their “mantic” experiences or sometimes to the reception of their speeches by others who are “inspired” by their powerful rhetoric. For example, 4 Ezra (written about the same time as 2 Timothy) describes the inspiration of the prophet Ezra this way: “And on the next day a voice called me, saying, ‘Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to bring.’ So I opened my mouth, and a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire. I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding and my wisdom increased, for my spirit retained its memory and my mouth was opened and no longer closed” (4 Ezra 14:37– 38). This does not seem the sense of its use here. Since θεόπνευστος is a biblical hapax without a history of specific uses, one is permitted to speculate that Paul created θεόπνευστος by purposefully attaching two common words, θεός (“God”) and the aorist stem of πνέω (“breathed”). Taken together this novel word echoes two familiar stories of God-breathing to

 The discussion of this syntax is extensive and the decision is not an easy one; see I. H. Marshall’s expansive summary of the options; Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999). My decision from among these plausible options is largely determined by my sense of the overall argument Paul is making here—the semantic field cultivated by this particular passage.  Tertullian, however, in defense of the prophecy of Enoch as Christian scripture, reads this text for support, “Every scripture useful for edification is divinely inspired” (On the Apparel of Women, 1.3). He contends on this reading that the practical uses of Enoch about Jesus and by Jude testify to its divine inspiration. In this sense, the attribution of θεόπνευστος is secondary rather than primary or parallel to ὠφέλιμος. What this passing citation from the great apologist may suggest is that the epistemic role of scripture to monitor heresy had not yet taken root; rather, the chief aim of the church’s Bible practices was to cultivate faith and virtue.

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

339

help readers imagine scripture’s role as the Spirit’s auxiliary in enlivening the spiritual formation of the “man of God” (3:17; ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος = Timothy). The first biblical analogy of God-breathing comes from the creation narrative and is a passage of enduring importance for a biblical conception of human life. According to LXX Gen 2:7, God (ὁ θεὸς) breathed the “breath of life” (πνοὴν ζωῆς) into the human’s nostrils (εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ) and “he became a living soul” (καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν).¹² In this example, Timothy is the Garden’s ἄνθρωπος (so 2 Tim 3:17) in whom God breathes into through sanctified materials—in this case God breathes life into Timothy through the ἱερὰ γράμματα/πᾶσα γραφὴ, which seems roughly analogical to God breathing life into the Human through χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, which God hallows for human life (see Gen. 2:1– 3). The second biblical analogy of God-breathing is Ezekiel’s stunning vision of exiled Israel’s “dry bones” rattling around in a lifeless desert (Ezek 37:1– 14). This text is familiar to Timothy as an important Passover haftarah, read aloud to remind God’s people of God’s promise of restoration. In its original setting, the prophet reports that the Lord God promises to breathe life into another lifeless body through the agency of God’s Spirit. Strikingly when read in the LXX, the prophet recognizes there is “no breath in Israel’s corpse”: πνεῦμα οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς (37:8b). His observation prefaces the Lord’s commission of the prophet, προφήτευσον ἐπὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ εἰπὸν τῷ πνεύματι τάδε λέγει κύριος ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων πνευμάτων ἐλθὲ καὶ ἐμφύσησον εἰς τοὺς νεκροὺς τούτους καὶ ζησάτωσαν (“to prophesy this to the Breath, ‘Breath, come from the fourfold spirit to breathe into these corpses so they will live’”; Ezek. 37:9b, my translation).¹³ Whether or not Paul had this biblical analogy in mind no one knows; however, these co-texts are part of a wider canonical context faithful readers wrap around 2 Tim 3:16 to better understand not only Paul’s clear sense of scripture’s

 ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν (LXX Gen 2:7).  The phrase, ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων πνευμάτων (LXX 37:9b), which I translate “from the fourfold spirit,” is typically translated “from the four winds” as the natural (or creational) source of the air that gives new life to Israel’s corpses. However, the purposeful interplay between different connotations of πνεῦμα in this text suggests rather a divine source of life that reimagines the Garden story in Genesis for exilic Israel. It is God’s Spirit who mediates new life that God has promised a restored Israel. The metaphor “fourfold” symbolizes comprehensiveness: God’s Spirit will deliver everything that is needed for a new life to restored Israel—in Paul’s phrase, for “every good work.”

340

Robert Wall

formative role in growing a faithful people for God’s work, but also of scripture’s relationship to “the Breath” or Spirit of God as an agent of its life-giving power.¹⁴ In his treatment of the holy Spirit in earliest Christianity, Levison considers the importance of these same two OT texts in forging Paul’s understanding of the biblical promise of a new creation. He argues that Paul’s reading of Gen 2:7 and Ezek 36 – 37 is transformed by his belief in the resurrection. Rather than locating the “spirit of life” in the first Adam as other Jewish interpreters (including Philo) do, Paul now locates the divine spirit in the risen Christ, the second Adam, in whom the Holy Spirit vivifies a new life in all who believe. In Levison’s reading, Christ’s resurrection and the individual believer’s baptism into his spiritual body personalizes Ezekiel’s prophecy “that bones and sinews and flesh can rekindle, and that the spirit can come from the four corners of the earth to fill the moribund nation, to re-create Israel into a new people who will till the land until it becomes a garden of Eden.”¹⁵ The morality of the first Adam of Gen 2:7, in whom the divine breath is stilled by sin, provides, then, the prophetic foil for the second Adam’s life-giving spirit who reorders the relationship between mortality and immortality. My argument for a more functional understanding of θεόπνευστος in which the idea of God’s breathing newness of life through scripture cannot be detached from the idea of scripture’s usefulness may be worked out within this same matrix of meaning. Not only his coinage of but even the use of a fully formed (or mature) “man of God” as the telos of using scripture recalls the transforming effect the risen Adam’s life-giving spirit has upon the faithful mortal in whom it breathes new life; and, indeed, it is scripture that this life-giving spirit uses to lead this new creature “through a valley of very many, very dry bones back up the garden path to Eden.”¹⁶ Perhaps Paul’s conception of individual (and not just national) restoration may target a Timothy whose spiritual gift needs rekindling (so 1:6 – 7). In any case, my primary claim is that the echoes of these two biblical texts about the Breath of God by whom life is given thickens considerably Paul’s idea of a God-breathed scripture. Drawing upon the Gen 2:7 analog, scripture becomes the sanctified medium through which God’s Breath enters the “man of God,” forming him for the work of God. For this reason, I understand the principal meaning of scripture’s ὠφέλιμος “usefulness” in this broader way: the out-

 See J. Webster’s development of this idea in his Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003), 42– 67.  J. R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 315.  Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 316.

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

341

line of scripture’s uses (“teaching…training”) that follow are useful in forming faithful readers to participate in the work of God (see below). The catalogue of scripture’s uses, which includes both priestly roles (“teaching…training”) and prophetic roles (“reproof and correction”), is patterned on what rabbis understood as the canonical roles of Torah.¹⁷ Not only is Torah the “curriculum” used by rabbis-like-Moses when teaching the congregation the truths about God (so Deuteronomy), Torah is also used by prophets-likeMoses when calling the congregation to repentance (cf. Jeremiah, Isaiah).¹⁸ Paul’s point in exhorting Timothy, then, is to underwrite both roles with scripture in hand. In those instances where he is to reprove and correct misguided believers (e. g., 2 Tim 2:15 – 19), unruly elders (e. g., 1 Tim 5:17– 20), or false teachers (2 Tim 3:1– 9), he does so by applying scripture in prophetic ways to bring about their repentance. In those instances where he takes responsibility for teaching and training the congregation to live holy lives before God (e. g., 1 Tim 3:14– 16; 5:6 – 10). The importance of this ecclesial work was recognized as the reason for the inclusion of the Pastoral Epistles in the Pauline corpus listed by the Muratorian Canon (ca., 200). What is clear from 2 Tim 3:17 especially is that not only are “good works” the aspirations of “the man of God” but they are the holy ends of scripture’s God-breathed uses.¹⁹ In fact, the repetition of the predicate adjective, ἄρτιος (“competent”) and its verbal form, ἐξαρτίζω (“made competent”) bring to focus the concluding purpose clause that helps secure the overarching platitude of Paul’s scripture typology. Within the bounds of the Pauline canon, this sentiment is more aptly expressed by the adumbration of “good works” in Eph 2:10, which claims: αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα, κτισθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐπὶ ἔργοις ἀγαθοῖς οἷς προητοίμασεν ὁ θεός, ἵνα ἐν αὐτοῖς περιπατήσωμεν (“for we are God’s work, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God premade in order that we should practice them;” my translation).

 For this background, see T. Scott Caulley, “The Idea of Inspiration in 2 Peter 1:16 – 21,” unpublished Dr. Theo. dissertation, University of Tübingen, 1983.  L. T. Johnson argues this is thematic of the Book of Acts, which narrates the mission of the apostles according to the Moses prophetic typology set out by Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7; Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina 5 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 12– 14.  The phrase, πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν (“every good work”) is repeatedly used in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 2:10; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 3:1; as is καλοῦ ἔργου (“good work”; 1 Tim 3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8), and according to Marshall is a theologically (rather than morally) determined conception of Christian existence; 227– 29. That is, it is the manner of public life produced by God’s saving grace and is characterized in the Pastoral Epistles by the practical virtues of the day.

342

Robert Wall

3 A Theological Reflection on the Inspiration of Scripture Christian scripture’s primary residence is the church, “a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:22).²⁰ It is there that God’s people receive and use scripture with the Spirit who inspires every scripture’s every use to form a people who love God with all their hearts and minds and who love all their neighbors as God loves them. This is the normative metric by which “every good work” is accessed. The focus of this study, then, is to relocate the Spirit’s act of inspiration of biblical texts from their authorial origins in some indeterminate past—as though the Spirit breathed into authors to insure that what they wrote down in some indeterminate “autograph” aligned with the normative intentions of God—to the Spirit-inspired practices of scripture in the ongoing present. This preliminary assessment of scripture’s ecclesial location and the Spirit who dwells in the world at this same location should sharpen the focus of a pneumatology of scripture and the contribution made to this theological construction by Paul’s creative use of θεόπνευστος in 2 Timothy 3:16. Perhaps because the Protestant heirs of the Reformation in the West have been significantly shaped by modernity’s historicism, they tend to understand inspiration in historical terms—not only in terms of the historical figures who purportedly wrote the texts ultimately canonized (hence why the question of authorship and its link to a text’s enduring authority remains so important to Protestant scholars) but also as an historical phenomenon. The intellectual imaginary that typically emerges is of an individual author who is “divinely inspired” at a particular moment in time to produce a revelatory text informed by that moment in time to produce a text of lasting value. In this sense, the phenomena of the canonical process would only validate an oracular origin. I cannot emphasize enough how different this conception is from what we actually find in scripture itself, which is a collection of canonical collections that is largely anonymous and seemingly disinterested in who wrote a text, especially when compared to its divine referent to whom it bears witness. In fact, whenever authors are self-reflective in what and how they write, they articulate

 See Daniel Castelo, “Inspiration as Providence,” in The Usefulness of Scripture: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Wall, edited by D. Castelo, S. Koenig, D. Nienhuis (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018) 69 – 81, whose conversation with my idea of scripture’s inspiration properly embeds it in a pneumatology and ecclesiology of scripture, which extends the idea of inspiration/illumination as the Spirit’s work in “breathing out” God’s word to God’s people. I am as always influenced by his theological ruminations.

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

343

it as a literary (rather than an inspired) performance (e. g., Luke 1:1– 4).²¹ Even the traditions of a “canonical Paul,” received by Acts and his NT letters, do not portray him as an inspired author. Nor does a Pauline typology of scripture given in 2 Timothy 3:14– 17 indicate that the “holy writings” or “every scripture” mentioned in this passage are divinely inspired productions of the individual “autographs” of individual authors. This essay has attempted to show that according to this biblical typology, which I receive as a normative conception of scripture, God breathes into “every scripture” when used for “teaching and training, reproving and correcting” a people, first to make them wise for salvation and then to form them into a people of God who are able to practice “good works.” These are the holy effects of scripture’s reception in history. Within the bounds of my pneumatology of scripture, then, the entire history of scripture from the composition of individual books, to the complex phenomena of the canonical process that gathered these books into canonical collections, to the church’s eventual recognition of scripture’s final form as a two-testament collection comprised of these canonical collections, and to the ongoing history of its subsequent performances/effects in worship, catechesis, mission, and personal devotion, provides a sustained witness of a faithful God’s providential use of scripture in the Spirit-led formation of a people who love God with all their souls and minds. Therefore, while I understand the writing, editing, and technology of collecting and circulating biblical texts are all informed by and conformed to the ordinary literary practices of antiquity,²² I do not consider any of these practices Spirit-less. The question remains, however, in what ways was the Spirit involved in this production process? More to the present point, what role might the Spirit perform in a mundane literary production that includes the writing, editing, copying, and circulating of those biblical stories, poems, oracles, letters, apocalypses, proverbs that God’s people “in the full-

 The very notion of “authorship” in antiquity is complex. Most biblical books and the canonical collections in which they are found reflect long histories of formation in which many unnamed groups and editors participated. Even some Pauline letters, which are among the only biblical compositions with authorial attribution, evince not only editorial activity in shaping their final form but their collaborative production as well.  The best introduction to this general idea remains D. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, LEC (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1985). See also F. M. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1994), 81– 84, who points out that a cultural interest in book learning in the Roman world (mostly among its educated elites) was reinforced by a Jewish reverence for the written text. Moreover, Paul’s use of “household” as a trope for church may have reinforced an interest in book-reading since in antiquity this was a household activity (e. g., home-schooling). It would not have been unusual that Timothy was trained in scripture by his mother and grandmother during his childhood.

344

Robert Wall

ness of time” came to recognize and receive as the inspired word of the Lord God Almighty?

3.1 The Beginning Point of a Pneumatology of Scripture Without developing a more robust response to this question, let me begin with the observation that most scripture was authored as occasional literature. Even the gathering and arranging of individual books into canonical collections responded to the exigencies of an ever-changing social world. Without denying the special circumstances of prophetic and apostolic appointments (see Acts) or the connections between these figures and the texts that are then entitled or attributed to them, biblical texts were “occasioned” as communicative acts that responded to the questions and concerns of others. I want to locate the Spirit there, not in some extraordinary experience of special revelation—“autographed” for a yet-to-be-formed Bible—but in the fuss and foment of an ordinary relationship between an author and his audience. Consider again the prologue to Luke’s Gospel. While nothing is mentioned in this prologue of the story-teller’s divine inspiration but only of the literary procedure he has followed in composing his story of Jesus, he does mention Theophilus as its recipient, implying that he purposefully has composed this narrative, ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν (Lk 1:4, “in order that you may know with certainty the things you have been taught”). Luke here defines the common ground of those communicative acts that produced “every scripture.” Few other biblical authors can match Luke’s brilliance as a story-teller. Not only is our two-testament Bible comprised of a diversity of literary genre but also of literary skill. There is also a diversity of audiences, some of whom need sharp correction while others need pastoral care. What all have in common, I would argue, are authors/editors who are called and gifted by God to care for those to whom they write—all the Theophilus’ of the ANE and Roman worlds for whom the biblical texts were written and first received. At the heart of communication that is “persuasive” (so πιστόω in 2 Tim 3:14) and “useful” (so ὠφέλιμος in 2 Tim. 3:16) is the author’s Spirit-matured capacity to discern what an audience genuinely needs to hear. Rather than subscribe to an “interventionist” or apocalyptic model of divine inspiration, I propose that we locate the initial work of creating biblical texts in the Spirit’s ordinary work of cultivating the capacity of faithful authors and editors to discern what their audiences need to hear and then write persuasive and useful texts in response. The motive of doing so is hardly humanistic but grounded in an author’s sense of sacred calling. This is clearly so of the prophet John who is called by the

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

345

risen One to write down the visions he receives “in the Spirit” (cf. Rev 1:19) in response to the evident needs of the seven congregations in Roman Asia under his care (so Rev 2– 3). So also Paul who typically opens his canonical letters by claiming an apostolic office to which he is called by Jesus then offers a prayer that identifies the needs of the audience addressed that has occasioned his correspondence. Sharply put, I propose a different first location for a pneumatology of scripture that biblical texts did not originate in the Spirit’s extraordinary act of inspiring authors to write texts-to-be-canonized-later for future and unknown audiences of readers. Instead, biblical texts were composed as the routine literary acts of authors who were guided by the Spirit to discern truth from falsehood (cf. 1 John 4:1– 6) in writing persuasive and useful texts for those under their care.²³

3.2 The “Pneumatological Imagination” of the Author The work of Pentecostal scholarship has been especially helpful in constructing fresh ways of thinking about the Spirit’s activity in producing “persuasive” and “useful” biblical texts. The first is Amos Yong’s complex idea of “pneumatological imagination,” which may help elaborate ways we think of the biblical author’s communication of truth-telling and care-giving in persuasive and useful ways for implied/intended readers.²⁴ Yong’s early formulation of this idea describes the Spirit’s pivotal role in enabling the interpreter to engage scripture with the mind of Christ. Quite apart from the rationalistic, text-centered practices of modern criticism and the decisions these practices generate about a biblical text, Yong profiles the Spirit’s activity upon the interpreter in coordinating the intellect, affections, and will in ways that construct a more holistic way of relating scripture to all of life—“worldmaking” is the term he uses. Critically, by giving the living Spirit access to ourselves in Spirit-animating practices, the Spirit cultivates in the interpreter a depth of honesty that is able to discern in rigorous ways truth from falsehood as well as those sources, intentions, purposes that incline others toward God’s truth or away from it.²⁵ It occurs to me that the idiom of “Spirit-filling” in Acts illustrates Yong’s idea, when the Spirit enables ordina-

 For a general discussion of this idea, see D. Castelo, Pneumatology: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 129 – 34. Also, J. K. A. Smith, Thinking in Tongues, PM (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 17– 47.  A. Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf&Stock, 2002), 123 – 49.  Esp., see Yong, 148.

346

Robert Wall

ry believers to have fresh insight—a “pneumatological imagination”—into the meanings of scripture to make spiritual judgments about the people and world around them. I would suggest that Yong’s description of the Spirit’s role in theological interpretation may be applied to how we think of the Spirit’s activity upon the authors of biblical texts. That is, rather than inspiring the writing of texts, the author’s experience of or participation with the Spirit’s active presence in worship, in the sacraments, in song, in mission, in fellowship forms in them a Spirit-shaped capacity to discern truth from falsehood as well as their competing sources and motives, and then to honestly communicate this discernment in the texts they write.

3.3 The “Pneumatic Discernment” of the Audience A second idea is J. C. Thomas’s conception of “pneumatic discernment,” especially as it is then elaborated in the work of Robby Waddell.²⁶ Thomas introduces his commentary on John’s Revelation by describing its implied readers (or auditors) as “people of the Spirit” who are able to discern the Spirit’s prophetic speech and understand its implications for life. They are not only willing participants when hearing “the words of the prophecy” read aloud but are able to identify with the figures and places that populate John’s visionary world—especially with the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11, which is the pivot point in a Pentecostal reception of Revelation.²⁷ Thomas’s characterization is similar to Waddell’s “profile of the Pentecostal reader of the Apocalypse.”²⁸ According to this profile, the reader’s dependence upon the Spirit extends beyond the primacy placed on the Spirit’s inspiration of scripture that illumines its present and localized meaning; in doing so the Spirit regenerates the community’s capacity or willingness to use scripture to cultivate its life with Christ.²⁹ Thomas’s conception of pneumatic discernment informs this study in two ways. First, it understands discernment as a mutually engaging experience between author and audience. Not only does the production of useful texts depend upon an author’s capacity to discern truth and the genuine needs of the audi-

 R. Waddell, The Spirit of the Book of Revelation, JPTSS, 30 (Leiden: Deo, 2006).  J. C. Thomas, Revelation, THNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 20 – 21. Cf. Waddell, Spirit, 183 – 84.  Waddell, Spirit, 97– 131.  Waddell, Spirit, 108 – 18; on this crucial point, see especially S. Land’s pioneering study of Pentecostal Spirituality (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993).

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

347

ence (see above) but the audience must then experience what is written in ways that allow them to discern truth when they receive what is written for them. In Thomas’s understanding, this requires the community to receive scripture in a worshipful setting where the Spirit’s real presence is experienced and God’s word is mediated through the Spirit. Secondly, this experience of being in and with the Spirit is localized in a particular community of saints where scripture is practiced and paraded as God’s word for all to hear. The admonition to pneumatic discernment is corporate, when the entire congregation prayerfully gathers around the church’s Scripture, not only bringing to it localized questions and concerns but in a communal setting in which the Spirit’s ministry of the Word is publicly received, owned, and applied.³⁰

3.4 The Spirit’s Inspiration of Scripture’s Ongoing Performances According to my reading of Paul’s use of θεόπνευστος in 2 Tim 3:16 – 17, scripture’s inspiration refers to the present action of God breathing new life into the community whenever practicing scripture faithfully, whether as prophet or as priest, to form a capacity or competence for good works. Understood at ground level, the community’s postbiblical recognition of the enduring authority of those texts it selected, preserved and received as canonical was based upon the testimony of how well certain texts functioned when repeatedly used across the church catholic in its worship, catechesis, mission, and personal devotions. This testimony is preserved in canon lists and codices, in extant sermons and commentaries from the second century into the sixth when the church’s two-testament canon was under construction. In fact, I would place the Bible’s real origins, then, not at the moment of its composition but at this extended postbiblical moment of its canonization. I am not naïve or indifferent to the enormous difficulty and complexity of the historical work that seeks to reconstruct the various phenomena of the church’s formation of its two-testament canon. Nonetheless, I think this hard work is laden with hermeneutical potential. Moreover, if shaped by a Pauline typology of scripture, the dogmatic location of the divine inspiration of scripture is here as well, for in the Spirit’s inspiration of scripture’s uses the church was able to detect the canonical form of those texts the Spirit sanctified to form subsequent generations of Christians. A proper theology of scripture attaches both its production and performance—i. e., its mate-

 Cf. Waddell, Spirit, 127– 30.

348

Robert Wall

rial existence as a literary text—to God’s providential care for creation and in particular God’s deep desire to repair all things broken according to God’s redemptive purposes. The Bible’s authority at its ecclesial address is not predicated on the identity and intentions of divinely inspired authors,³¹ the divine nature of inerrant propositions, or the artfulness of the biblical text. Rather, scripture’s authority as God’s word for God’s people is predicated on the Spirit’s inspired uses of every scripture to bring to realization God’s purposes for the world. In this sense, the pneumatology of scripture proposed here is underwritten by a long history of redemptive effects in the reordering of faithful readers to align with the Creator’s good intentions for them—what Paul names in 2 Timothy 3:15 – 17 as a wisdom for salvation and maturity for good works.³²

4 Conclusion: Scripture Made in the Image of the Church If one confesses the Son’s incarnation as Jesus from Nazareth is the normative revelation of God’s self-presentation and final mediator of God’s salvation in history (Heb 1:1– 3), then any affirmation of scripture’s enduring usefulness must somehow be related to this prior claim. Moreover, if scripture’s usefulness is conditioned on its relationship to the Spirit, then this relationship must also be attached to the prior belief in the Son’s incarnation of God’s truth and mediation of God’s redemptive purposes. In fact, scripture’s authority is predicated on its use as a Spirit-illumined witness to Jesus’s messianic life and his mediation of God’s salvation (so Luke 24:44– 49). The Spirit’s relationship with scripture is grounded  The modern conception of the divine inspiration of biblical authors (rather than of particular texts) is of a piece with Protestantism’s definition of apostolicity in terms of historical figures. That is, the primary justification of scripture’s authority is the divine inspiration of Christ’s apostles whose verbal inspiration enables them to write sacred texts that are infallible in content and plenary in scope. What follows defines the divine inspiration of scripture differently and so shifts its basis for scripture’s authority accordingly.  It is one of the principal theses of W. J. Abraham’s “canonical theism” that the church’s epistemic criterion is divine revelation, most especially in the Son, and not scripture. Scripture and all other auxiliaries of the Spirit function first and foremost soteriologically. These earthen vessels are transformed under the Spirit’s direction into a “complex means of grace that restores the image of God in human beings and brings them into communion with God and with each other in the church;” Canonical Theism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 3. While I think Abraham needs to develop a more adequate description of the overlapping relationship between scripture’s role in revealing God’s word and its role within the life of a congregation to cultivate a maturity that enables it to perform good works, I agree with his essential “thesis.”

“Every Scripture is God-breathed”

349

here in their interdependent role as witnesses to the Son’s incarnation. According to John’s Gospel, Jesus promised the Spirit’s Pentecost to “teach you everything and call to mind everything I said to you” (John 14:26) and by doing so to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). The Bible lays no claim to absolute truth. In fact, its authority in truth-telling depends on whether the community of its readers uses scripture to call to mind what Jesus said and did, which is presently understood as the Spirit’s task during this interim period when the risen Son is absent from his disciples. This is not a judgment, however, that the church makes about its scripture; it is a judgment made on behalf of all believers by the holy Spirit whose activity sanctifies texts, making them holy, and gathers them together into a biblical canon: a material “creature” which is “hallowed”—or set apart—in order to facilitate God’s redemptive purposes. The role of the holy Spirit, in absence of the incarnate One, is to find substitutes or material “auxiliaries” which are sanctified to continue to present the way, the truth, the life to the community of disciples in which it indwells. Scripture is sanctified by the Spirit for its use as a holy instrument of God’s self-presentation by which the way of God is known and life with God is made possible. There are still some scholars who press for the usefulness of an analogy of scripture’s nature to Christ in that both have “two natures,” human and divine.³³ But J. Webster’s cautionary note seems right to me: “The Word made flesh and the scriptural word are in no way equivalent realities.”³⁴ At the very best all one should allow is that one can speak of Christ as “human” and “divine” and one can do the same of scripture. But they are not equivalent humanities or divinities, nor do the Son and scripture perform equivalent roles as agents of God’s salvation or media of God’s revelation. As Webster admits, the use of this analogy “can scarcely avoid divinizing the Bible” and claim an “ontological identity” between the God-like propositions of the Bible and Christ who is God.³⁵ At a theological level, this will lead to idolatry; at a practical level, this will lead to the use of scripture as the “epistemic criterion” by which all truth in every domain is measured and confirmed. (My concerns with the claim of the Bible’s inerrancy or “errancy” reside here; such a claim seems misdirected.) Given these difficulties with scripture’s analogy to Christ, even if used modestly for illustrative purposes, inclines toward another analogy: scripture’s anal See now P. Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 13 – 21. Against Enns, see D. Castelo’s constructive proposal of scripture’s ontology in The Marks of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019).  Webster, Holy Scripture, 23.  Webster, Holy scripture, 23.

350

Robert Wall

ogy to the Church. This analogy avoids the ontological difficulty mentioned above. Further, it makes theological sense. That is, assuming that God’s redemptive purposes are embodied in the covenant-keeping community and that the Spirit hallows the material or textual properties of scripture—a “treasure in an earthen vessel”—in order to redeem and reorder the community according to ways of God, then it follows that the nature of this reordered community is of a piece with the nature of the sanctified text. If the church confesses that its creaturely existence is marked out as “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”—these are the material properties of God’s redemptive purposes when embodied in the mature church—then it follows logically that the material properties of scripture when scripture is being properly used/ read as scripture “to teach, correct, reprove and train justice” in bringing believers to maturity as the people of God (2 Tim 3:16 – 17) are of a piece with the church: that is, scripture is similarly marked out by the same Spirit that calls the church into existence by its oneness, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. What is true of the church is also true of its scripture. This idea of scripture’s ontology—what kind of text it is—intends to guide our approach to its interpretation and instruction. If this text is all of the above, then our interpretations and instruction of it must be of a piece with what it is. Consider Webster’s central point again: if our proper understanding of a theology of scripture is shaped in relationship with the triune God and our beliefs about a God who is at work within history in putting to rights a broken, fragmented world, then our readings of scripture and our uses of scripture must seek this same result. Sharply put, biblical interpretation and instruction must serve the interests of the Holy Trinity whose chief purpose is restoring order to all of creation. Readers of C. S. Lewis’s Narnia mythology may recall that the breath of Aslan, the Messiah-like lion who plays the story’s central character, brings to life all those creatures hardened into stone by the wicked witch. Lewis captures this creational sense of God’s breathing as life-generating in a way that mirrors Paul’s conception of scripture’s inspiration as the continuing action of God’s Spirit that animates and enlivens a community whenever scripture is used in worship as a sacrament of the word, in catechesis as a word of truth, in mission to announce God’s benefaction of all creatures great and small, and in personal devotions to hear a word from God that baptizes faithful readers into newness of life with their risen Lord.

J. Gordon McConville

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine 1 Introduction The expression “return to the heart” recurs a number of times in Augustine’s writings, notably in the Confessions. I highlight it in my title because it evokes the nature or condition of the human subject before God. And this is paired (in the title) with the activity of reading Scripture. I am concerned here with the nature of this relationship, that is, between the person and the text. More particularly, how does, or how can, a text function in the transformation of a person? And how might such transformation relate to our shared concern here, namely the work of the Spirit? The present question arises out of a long-standing interest in “biblical spirituality,” that is, how biblical texts may be used “spiritually,” or to put it differently, with the intention of “transformation.” In regard to the Psalms, for example, I have argued that the “I” voice that is ubiquitous there is one that is not historically definitive, but that speaks for (others, readers, Church), that can be adopted, that invites participation and performance, in worship and community, and for formation.¹ The paper begins with two sections on the self in the Confessions, then proceeds to two sections on Scripture and language, and concludes with some analysis of Augustine’s practice in the Confessions. ²

 J. G. McConville, “Spiritual Formation in the Psalms,” in The Bible and Spirituality: Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually, ed. J. G. McConville, A. T. Lincoln and L. Pietersen (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013), 56 – 74. The volume was an outcome of a project on biblical spirituality led by the editors.  I make no claim to account for the full scope of Augustine’s thought on the subject. And I realize the limitations of a study focusing on the Confessions alone (though I will refer to other works along the way). However, I note the view of Michael Cameron, that the Confessions reflect Augustine’s mature understanding of the relation between “word” and spiritual reality; Michael Cameron, “The Christological Substructure of Augustine’s Figurative Exegesis,” in Augustine and the Bible, ed. Pamela Bright (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame: 1999; orig. 1986), 74– 103. Similarly, Karlfried Froehlich speaks of the progression of Augustine’s view of Scripture from disdain for its crude anthropomorphisms to think of the God of the Bible as “the master rhetorician whose eloquent word had the power to persuade, instruct, delight, and move beyond https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-023

352

J. Gordon McConville

2 The Restless Heart Augustine’s understanding of Scripture is inseparable from his understanding of the human heart, and so of himself. The place of the human heart in his thought is signalled at the outset of the Confessions (I.1.1) in his best-known saying: “… you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you (…inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te).”³ In this way, he introduces the theme of the person’s struggle with himself, his distraction with everything that professes to satisfy, but cannot, because it is not God, his reaching for the end of restlessness that can only come in God. This struggle is played out in the Confessions, with Augustine himself a kind of “experiment” (“me ipso experimento,” VIII.5.11), a telling indication that the Confessions are no ordinary autobiography. They are rather a work of theology in practice, devoted to the question of how a human being may be in relationship with God. Augustine is at pains to depict the soul’s war with itself. An example, in VIII.5.10, occurs when he compares himself with the convert Victorinus: “I myself was longing for this very thing [conversion], yet I was bound, not by someone else’s iron chains, but by my own iron will.” He dwells long on this perversity of spirit, apparently fascinated by it. His story of the raid on a neighbor’s apple orchard, simply for the frisson of doing something prohibited, is told to illustrate the point. It is also exemplified in the famous: “Give me chastity and celibacy, but just not yet” (VIII.7.17). To these may be added his picture of wilful self-ruin in II.1 1. The language of the heart plays a central role in Augustine’s imagining of the struggle within himself for fulfillment. This alienation of the person is depicted, of course, as alienation from God. In a passage about pleasure in physical objects, he exhorts his readers to turn their love back upon their (the objects’) creator. God has not made things only to abandon them; the problem is in the human difficulty in having the discernment to love God rather than the things. Hence the exhortation: “Look, there he is!–wherever truth is distinguished: he is deep within the heart, though the heart has strayed from him” (IV.12.18). But the alienation is also from the self. Hence the exhortation to “return;” “Return to [your] heart you transgressors, and cleave to him who made you” (re-

the power of anyone using the instrument of language;” “‘Take Up and Read:’ Basics of Augustine’s Biblical Interpretation”, IBC (2004): 5 – 16 (5).  I am using the text of the Confessions in Carolyn J.-B. Hammond, Augustine: Confessions, Books 1 – 8/Books 9 – 13, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University, 2014, 2016). I also follow her translation unless indicated otherwise.

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine

353

dite, praevaricatores, ad cor;” IV.12.18). The expression recurs in IV.12.19: (“ut redeamus ad cor”). It seems to convey the idea that the “heart” is the core of the human being, the “holistic centre of the person,” as it has been put, and as such, the source of self-knowledge and the knowledge of God. Dupont and Walraet see the heart in Augustine as “the center of human happiness,” and cite in support Augustine’s phrase: “…my heart, where I am whatever it is that I am [cor meum, ubi ego sum quicumque sum]” (X.3.4).⁴ The context here is Augustine’s reflection on how other people might know him as he truly is, “in that place where neither eye nor ear nor mind can penetrate,” and his answer is that they may indeed know him, through love (caritas). He is thinking of his self post-conversion at the time of writing the Confessions. ⁵ Augustine’s use of the “heart” language here is interesting. There is a certain illogicality in the sequence: God is “in the heart”⁶ yet the “heart” has strayed from him, then “return to the [your] heart.” (I put “your” in parentheses here because Augustine does not say it, but simply “heart”): “redite, praevaricatores, ad cor.” Certainly, the sinner’s own heart is in mind. Augustine returns to the trope elsewhere: see also En. Ps. = Enarrationes in Psalmos 57.1: “Therefore what does that written law declare to those who have deserted the law written on their own heart? ‘Return to your heart, you transgressors’.”⁷ Here the law “written on the heart” has an echo of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31– 34, but recalls more immediately Rom. 2:15, where Gentiles, who “do instinctively what the law requires show that the law is written on their hearts.” Yet this heart, in Augustine, is a rather unstable place (“the heart has strayed from him…”). The phrase itself, “Return to the heart,” has its closest biblical echo in Isa 46:8: ‫השיבוּ פושעים ַעל־ֵלב‬, which is more accurately “bring [it] back to mind” or “take it [again] to heart – O sinners.” The context is one in which Yahweh, God of Israel, calls his people to acknowledge him only as God, and his purpose from the beginning. Augustine borrows the words, somewhat opportunistically, to further his argument about human (wilful) alienation from God and self. This heart itself is on the move (“restless”), not a destination offering bedrock. The point may possibly even be reflected in the phrase cited already: “where I am whatever it is that I am” (X.3.4), said of himself, incidentally, after his conversion.

 Anthony Dupont and Pierre-Paul Walraet, “Augustine on the Heart as the Center of Human Happiness,” in Studies in Spirituality 25 (2015): 45 – 77 (45). They note the term cor, “heart,” occurs over 8000 times in Augustine (46).  Dupont and Walraet, “Augustine on the Heart,” 47.  Cf. “I was unable to find the God of my heart” (non inveniebam deum cordis mei); VI.1.1.  See also Io.Ev.Tr. = Tractatus in Johannis Epistolam ad Parthos 18.10, and Dupont and Walraet, “Augustine on the Heart,” 51.

354

J. Gordon McConville

3 The Unfinished Self So, if the heart is unstable, where do we look for a “center” of the person? Can we even speak of such a center? The question relates to the whole method of the Confessions, which has a stated purpose of making Augustine himself an “experiment.” It also relates to the nature of Scripture, with which the Confessions are saturated, and which is closely meshed with Augustine’s articulation of who he is. As to where the “I” of Augustine is to be found, the Confessions do not offer an answer to this in the form of a straightforward autobiography. The subject of the narrative, putatively Augustine himself, is hard to locate. This is on his own testimony. The point is bound up with his treatment of the notion of memory. For Augustine, memory is crucially important to who he is. In a suggestive formulation, he says, “ego sum qui memini, ego animus” (X.16.25). Hammond translates, “I am a creature who remembers, I am a mind” but at the same time notes the striking resonance with Descartes’ cogito ergo sum, and thus a close connection between memory and human existence itself.⁸ One might propose, “I am what I remember.” Yet, a person’s memory is not something that can be identified in a space in the past and extracted from there to be objectively observed. In a memorable passage (X.17.26), Augustine pictures the teeming, fleeting complexity of the impressions of the mind – manifold, incalculable, flitting, having no limits. Thus, while the “I” is identified with the memory, it remains elusive: “even I myself do not fully understand what I am (nec ego ipse capio quod sum)” (X.8.15). Elsewhere, Augustine is a puzzle (quaestio) to himself: X.33.50. As Rowan Williams has it: …in a crucial sense (Augustine says explicitly), memory is what I am. The puzzle is that so much of what I am is absent from conscious awareness. To acknowledge the role of memory is to recognize that “I” am not a simple history to be unveiled and displayed for inspection, nor a self-transparent reasoning subject. To be an intelligence in time is to be inescapably unfinished, consistently in search. I am never just ‘there’. Je suis un autre, ‘I am another’, might be a summary of much of Augustine’s reflections in the Confessions. ⁹

 Hammond, Confessions 9 – 13, 111, n. 53. She hints that memini ergo sum, in the manner of Descartes, might express Augustine’s true meaning. Rowan Williams has it as “memory is what I am” (see next note). Cf. X.17.26 – “et hoc animus est, et hoc ego ipse sum,” i. e. the powerful, unfathomable force of memory; cf. also X.11.18.  Rowan Williams, On Augustine (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 2– 3. Cf. idem: “Material consciousness is that kind of human awareness which moves steadily through engagement with time and matter, accumulating experience, acknowledging connection…to understand is to be in a position to act, to follow,” The Edge of Words (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 72– 73.

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine

355

Yet memory is also somehow the memory of blessedness, and inextricable from the desire for blessedness, which is only found in God. In the passage cited a moment ago, where memory consists of endlessly fleeting impressions, Augustine claims that he will move beyond memory, upward to God, yet even here is a paradox: “If I find you beyond memory, I cannot remember you. And how shall I find you if I have no recollection of you?” (X.17.26).

4 The Self and Scripture This elusive self is the one who seeks God through Scripture. The relation between the words of Scripture and the truth about God and himself is not straightforward, however. In several passages, Augustine points in effect to the imperfections of Scripture. How is he to know, as a reader, what Moses really meant? If only he could have a conversation with Moses, then perhaps he could clarify some things. Yet this hope would be illusory. Wrestling with the meaning of creation (in Genesis), he says: Moses wrote this, he wrote it and he has departed [or “he wrote it and left, scripsit et abiit”]; he has made the transition from here to you: and he is not now before me. If he were, I would take hold of him and ask him questions…Then I would tune the ears of my physical body to the sounds bursting forth from his mouth–but if he spoke in Hebrew, in vain would that sound strike my senses, and nothing of it would touch my mind… (XI.3.5).

But that is not all. Even if Moses spoke in Latin (Augustine’s native language), how would he know he was speaking the truth! If he were convinced that Moses was speaking the truth, it would not be because of some clatter of syllables; rather truth itself would declare that it was the truth. Since, in any case, he can’t speak to Moses, he must seek to understand the truth from God, and he prays: “As you gave that servant of yours the capacity to say such things, give me now the capacity to understand them.” Augustine hasn’t finished at this point with Moses and his reader. It’s not just a question of the reader “getting” Moses: readers of Moses simply hear different things. There’s a strangely modern ring to the exchange he now imagines: “So when one person says ‘Moses meant what I mean,’ and another says, ‘by no means! He meant what I mean,’ I think that the more Christian response is, ‘Why not both instead..?’” Or indeed any number of others? Scripture contains many meanings, both those we have so far discovered and those we have not, and all

356

J. Gordon McConville

of them true (XII.31.42). The Spirit of God is sovereign in the disclosing of true meanings, whether Moses intended them or not (XII.32.43).¹⁰ Behind this whole extended reflection on the meanings of Scripture is a view of language itself, with its inherent limitations. In relation to the topic of time and memory, he says “Very little of what we say is stated accurately (proprie); most is inaccurate, but what we mean is understood” (XI.20.26). Above or in spite of the imperfections of language, there is a communication that finds its mark: “…truth speaks in a firm voice to my inward hearing concerning the true eternity of the Creator” (XII.15.18). This distinction between the “letter” and a deeper meaning was, of course, paramount in his first acceptance of Scripture and the Christian faith: while listening to the preaching of Ambrose in Milan, he saw how certain things could be understood “allegorically” (aenigmate), or “spiritually” (spiritaliter), “which when I took them literally were killing me” (V.14.24). And a distinction between “words” and the Word is sustained to the end of the Confessions. In an important passage, close to the climax of the work, he extols the Scriptures as incomparable: no other writings could have convinced him of the truth (XIII.15.17), and they will retain their saving capacity and purpose “to the end of the age” (XIII.15.18). Yet the same passage sustains a running contrast with a different vision of the truth, the privilege of the angels in heaven who have no need of Scripture but have a more direct access to the Word (XIII.15.18). Williams, commenting on this passage, says: “[the angels] ‘read’ without trouble the purposes of God that we must decode in a material text” (XIII.15.18).¹¹ And in the end it is this Word that will endure: “…the skin [Scripture] will be rolled up, and the grass over which it was stretched out will pass away [Isa 40:6 – 8] together with all its bright splendor, but your Word abides eternally” (XIII.15.18).

5 Scripture, Language and Representing God For Augustine, our condition as human beings lies behind the problem of truly representing, or signifying, God. The limitations of language, even Scriptural language, have this inescapable theological explanation. God is not an object like other objects, and so cannot be signified in the same way. The point brings us  While Augustine’s understanding of language has been thought to anticipate postmodernism, Frances Young has demonstrated the essential difference between the two, because Augustine has an investment in truth that is quite distinct from postmodern relativism; Frances Young, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics and Postmodern Criticism,” Int (2004): 42– 55 (42).  Williams, On Augustine, 37.

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine

357

close to what theology calls apophatic language, that is, where language is held to be incapable of uttering true facts about God. Susannah Ticciati, addressing the topic with special attention to Augustine, offers two provisional hypotheses: first, God-language has the purpose of contributing to the redemptive transformation of human beings, and second, human beings are potential signs of God, becoming better signs as they are brought into more fully redeemed relationship with God.¹² Because of the obvious problem of this dichotomy, that the transformation effected by language may not result from language that truly represents God, she tests these hypotheses in the course of her argument. First, she examines the separation of “representation” and “transformation” and proposes that “words and human beings are bound up together inextricably in representation and transformation.” Regarding the second hypothesis, in which human beings (not words) are “signs” of God, she proposes that human beings and words are levelled “in their inability to signify God,” or put positively: “…the divine difference is manifest in the redemptive transformation of creaturely semiosis, in which both words and human beings are potentially bound up.”¹³ These hypotheses sustain an account of the inter-involvement of the subject (the “I”) and language in the finite creature’s project of knowing the infinite God. Rowan Williams also addresses the question of language as “sign,” and the problem of understanding God and the world. For him, God’s “sign” is Christ, the Word made flesh.¹⁴ Yet this very sign affirms that the world, the creation, has meaning, that “we live entirely within a world of signs,” and only when we understand this are we “set free for the restlessness that is our destiny as rational creatures.” Meantime, “…we have our identity within the shifting, mobile realm of representation, non-finality, growing and learning, because it reveals what the spiritual eye ought to perceive generally – that the whole creation is uttered and ‘meant’ by God, and therefore has no meaning in itself.”¹⁵ But for Williams, in his reading of Augustine, the sheer difficulty of language belongs profoundly to the human condition: “a language which indefinitely postpones fulfilment or enjoyment is appropriate to the Christian discipline of spiritual homelessness.”¹⁶ Language is not for mastery, nor is the canonical text intended for

 Susannah Ticciati, A New Apophaticism: Augustine and the Redemption of Signs, SST = Studies in Systematic Theology 14 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 3.  Ticciati, A New Apophaticism, 15. The progression of her argument is anticipated programmatically in her opening chapter.  Williams, On Augustine, 43 – 45, citing De Doctrina Christiana, I.xi–xiii.  Williams, On Augustine, 45.  Williams, On Augustine, 47.

358

J. Gordon McConville

play, but for “the formation of caritas.”¹⁷ Language is interwoven with the restlessness that belongs to our humanity, and indispensable to the formation of the self.¹⁸ Ticciati’s “redemptive transformation” and Williams’s “formation of caritas” are helpful ways to account for Augustine’s inter-involvement of Scripture and himself. Williams gives further pointers in his treatment of Augustine as an interpreter of the Psalms. He sees as central to his conception a unifying of the divine and human voice in Christ, a union that extends to all the members of the body of Christ, that is, the Church.¹⁹ The autobiographical voice of the Psalms is “transfigured” by Christ’s incarnation, in a “communal voice that is nonetheless the only medium for the truly personal voice.”²⁰ The Psalms are thus a truthful story about “myself.”²¹ It is such union that enables both lamentation and true humility.²² In the Confessions, this autobiographical voice of the Psalms is “systematically blended with the voice of the Psalmist.” The Psalms thus “provide[s] an analogy for the unity or intelligibility of a human life lived in faith.”²³ In singing the Psalms, “[we] make the voice of the Body of Christ in worship our own.”²⁴ Augustine’s view of Scripture is therefore bound up with his underlying understanding of the relationship between God and the material world. This relationship is at the heart of his thought yet is also the place where language breaks down. God cannot be known through ordinary “signs,” yet he has given the “sign” of Christ, the incarnate Word. As Vessey has it, “From first to last Augustine’s is a Christian doctrina simultaneously human and divine, historical and transcendent.”²⁵ The point is dramatically performed in linguistic play,  Williams, On Augustine, 51, cf. 54– 55.  “Augustine is misunderstood if he is read as privileging a strictly individual interiority, rather than a self formed in temporal interaction and speech;” Williams, On Augustine, 57.  Williams, On Augustine, 26 – 27.  Williams, On Augustine, 34.  Williams, On Augustine, 36. I have elsewhere explored the “I” in the psalms as a voice that is not historically definitive, that speaks for, that can be adopted, that invites participation, performance, in worship and community, and for formation: “Spiritual Formation in the Psalms.”  Williams, On Augustine, 27, 30.  Williams, On Augustine, 25 – 26.  Williams, On Augustine, 38. In the same place, on XIII.15.18, Williams refers to Augustine’s wordplay on “reading, choosing, and loving,” in relation to the angels, namely legunt, eligunt, et diligent, which he paraphrases: “From their reading, they know what to choose and how to love” (ibid., 37).  Mark Vessey, “The Great Conference: Augustine and His Fellow Readers” in Augustine and the Bible, ed. Pamela Bright (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame: 1999; orig. 1986), 52– 73 (59).

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine

359

in which the reference of words continually slips between the transcendent and the material (as we shall see in a moment). Augustine’s exegetical practice is, therefore, necessarily figurative. In the view of Michael Cameron, it is a “unified practice with two aspects…anagogic and dramatic….” As “anagogic,” it takes a “a visible figure in the temporal, corporeal world of sense” and draws it broadly upward “into the supratemporal, incorporeal world of understanding.” The sign itself is “incidental, obsolescent.” Even so, such verbal signs “somehow [mediate] the power of the signified reality, the res itself as it were present within the signum, and anticipating its own full disclosure.”²⁶ The model is incarnational, and specifically Christological.²⁷ Or as Henry Chadwick has it, “Allegorical exegesis is the sacramental principle applied to Scripture.”²⁸

6 Augustine’s Interpretation in Practice This approach to the understanding of Scripture in relation to true speech about self and God is best seen in action. The Confessions are saturated with the words of Scripture. It is hard to see a system in their occurrence. They are sometimes sparse, sometimes dense. Texts are not necessarily cited in a full form, but rather allusively. Fox, noting that words from several Psalms may be combined together, explains that there is no intention to cite, but rather that Augustine simply recalls texts in the course of his praying.²⁹ There is probably more method in it than Fox seems to allow. According to Chadwick, “the psalm-citations have been shown to be integral to the literary structure of the work.”³⁰ However, it is true that his use of Scripture is woven inextricably into his practice of prayer. For example, in X.26.37, there is a hint of Job 23:8: “If I go forward he is not there,

 Cameron, “Christological Structure,” 79 – 80.  The distinction between the text as witness and the reality to which it points is also made by Brevard Childs, and behind him, Karl Barth. Childs: “…proper exegesis does not confine itself to registering only the verbal sense of the text but presses forward through the text to the subject matter (res) to which it points:” Brevard Childs, “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ?” in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Struhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Scott J. Hafemann, Jostein Adna, and Otfried Hofius (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997), 57– 64 (60). Elsewhere Childs said of allegory: “The method belongs organically to the Christian faith,” citing 1 Cor. 10:11; Brevard Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 149.  Henry Chadwick, Saint Augustine: Confessions (Oxford: Oxford University, 1991), 288.  Robin Lane Fox, Augustine: Conversions and Confessions (London: Allen Lane, 2015), 4.  Henry Chadwick, Augustine of Hippo: a Life (Oxford: Oxford University, 2009), 95.

360

J. Gordon McConville

or backward, I cannot perceive him” (NRSV). Augustine writes, of his search for God: “Where then did I find you in order to learn of you, if not in you yourself, far beyond myself? Nowhere was there any place: I went back and forth, but nowhere was there any place.” Hammond notes that here, in a part of Confessions in which scriptural allusion is sparse, Augustine “identifies closely with the mental processes of Job.”³¹ At the same time as he thus puts Scripture in its eternal perspective, he actually employs it in a peculiarly intense way. The point is illustrated by a remarkable interweaving of Psalm 42 with texts from Paul, among others (in XIII.13.14– 15.16). The springboard is 2 Cor 11:3, where the apostle Paul says: “we walk by faith, not by sight,” quickly followed by a line from Romans: “Hope that is seen is not hope.” The twofold negation of “seeing” sets the tone for what follows, the apostle being the vehicle of the thought that develops. Even he, with his unique claim to have access to the mind of God, is not perfect, but must strain forward to what lies ahead (Phil 3:13). There follows an unsystematic profusion of biblical texts, from Paul, Wisdom literature, the Prophets, the Fourth Gospel, and Revelation, creating a kind of spiritual biography of the apostle, depicting him as longing for both the presence of God and the deeper knowledge of himself. It is a picture of restless movement, between knowing and not knowing, always being carried forward towards its goal. In this image of flux, Psalm 42 plays a leading role. The Psalm is ideal for Augustine’s purpose, with the Psalmist’s acute longing for God, and his fluctuation, conveyed by the Psalm’s structure, between a sense of the loss of God’s presence and renewed assurance that he will stand before him again in praise. (The structure continues into Psalm 43³²). The Psalmist uses emotive language: “my soul longs/thirsts,” “my tears have been my food,” “I pour out my soul.” He addresses God and addresses himself. His state of flux is mirrored in language that draws tantalizingly on natural imagery: “I remember you from the land of Jordan and of Hermon, from Mt Mizar. Deep calls to deep at the thunder of your cataracts” (vv. 6 – 7[7– 8]). Somewhere in this vastness and noise is the voice of God, yet it is also overwhelming: “all your waves and your billows have gone over me.” The staccato connections are those of the troubled soul, who yet believes that hope in God is ultimately the right frame of the human spirit: “My soul is cast down, therefore I remember you…” (v. 6[7]). And the disturbed longing comes repeatedly to a culmination (if

 Hammond, Confessions 9 – 13, 132, n. 71. She notes incidentally that walking to and fro is also a characteristic of Satan (the Adversary) in Job, e. g. 1:7; 132, n. 72.  They are numbered 41– 42 in LXX.

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine

361

not rest) in the refrain: “Hope in God for I shall again praise him, my help and my God.” This is the evocation of personhood that Augustine interweaves with that of the apostle. To the Psalmist’s thirsty longing, and his “When shall I arrive?” (quando veniam, Ps 42:2[3]), he juxtaposes Paul’s “eagerness to be clothed in his heavenly habitation” (2 Cor 5:2). Again, adopting the language of the Psalm, he writes, “he calls out to the deep that is below him (vocat inferiorem abyssum),” to lead into Paul’s exhortation: “Do not be conformed to this age, but be reformed by the renewing of your minds” (Rom 12:2)³³ What is this “inferiorem abyssum”? In Psalm 42:8, “deep calls to deep” (‫ ) ְתּהוֹם־ֶאל־ ְתּהוֹם‬adopts the language of creation (Gen 1:2), with its mythological connotations, where the “deep,” like the darkness, represents the as yet unformed earth. The image of “deep calling to deep” poetically evokes great waterfalls to tap into the mysterious power of the creation in order to convey the profound troubling of the Psalmist’s mind. In Augustine’s conception, the twofold “deep” becomes an opportunity for an exploration of the soul. The “deep”—qualified as “inferiorem abyssum”—indeed becomes identified with the person’s soul. In the first place, the reference is to Paul himself, in his longing for Christ and the renewal of his mind, which is threatened by the dark forces within him. Yet this longing for his own renewal immediately melds with his longing for that of his fellow Christians in the churches to which he writes (with allusions to 1 Cor 14:20; Gal 3:1). At the same time, the voice of the apostle merges with that of the Spirit of God, which is heard in the “waterfalls” of his gifts (cataractas, as in Ps 42:7[8], in parallel with the “deep”), a torrent opened by Christ when he ascended on high, now bringing gladness to “your city.” Yet the voice also remains Paul’s, who is jealous for Christ, and so he calls to “the other deep (alteram abyssum),” that is, his fellow-Christians,³⁴ “in the voice of your waterfalls (cataractarum tuarum),” in the hope of protecting them from the wiles of Satan. Augustine himself now joins this fusion of voices, reverting to the idiom of the Psalmist, declaring that his “soul is sad, because it relapses and becomes an abyss once more – or rather it feels that it still remains an abyss” (14.15).³⁵ And he continues in the vein of the Psalm, now leaning on its powerful portrayal of  Translations following Hammond, 359.  As Hammond notes, “‘Deep calls to deep’ means one person calls to another.” She observes that Augustine elsewhere interprets this “abyss” as the human heart (En. Ps. 41.13.8): “Abyssus abyssum invocat, homo hominem”: Hammond, Confessions 9 – 13, 358 – 59.  [Anima mea] tristis est, quia relabitur et fit abyssus, vel potius sentit adhuc se esse abyssum.

362

J. Gordon McConville

the cyclic turbulence of the soul, yet true too to its tendency towards redemption. Thus he writes of the Spirit moving over “the darksome flux which is our inner selves,”³⁶ while striking the recurrent notes of hope in the Psalm: “In the morning I shall stand before him, and I shall behold the salvation of my countenance, that is, my God” (echoing Pss 42:5[6], 10[11]; 43:5). Augustine’s use of Scripture in this instance is a kind of display, a tour de force, hardly describable as a method. It may be seen as a “canonical” approach, in which the many voices of the canon are allowed to speak together, not according to a systematic theory, but as the substance of a conversation between the subject (Augustine), the personalities who speak in Scripture, and God, resulting in what I have already called a spiritual biography.³⁷ In a further remarkable passage, Augustine speaks more directly about Scripture (XIII.18.22). In it he pursues an analogy between the power of God in creation and the capacities of the faithful, “your [God’s] spiritual souls (spirituales tui).” Here too the thought proceeds by means of the convergence of disparate biblical texts. It arises in an appeal to Genesis 1 enmeshed with Psalm 85, so that the creative act is bound up with that Psalm’s imaginative invocation of “earth” and “heaven” in a figuration of the fruit of the ground and the rain that gives it life as the moral qualities of faithfulness and righteousness (Ps 85:11[12]). The “lights in the firmament,” an invention that entwines Gen 1:6 – 8 and 1:14– 19, translate then into the “light” that produces the fruit of goodness, such as caring for the poor and hungry, a connection encouraged by Isa 58:7– 8. The trope of “light” moves easily between the light that is in believers and may “break out” at any time in good works, and the “lights” that believers are to be in the world, “laying hold of the Word of life above” (Phil 2:15, cf. Matt 5:14). Now the thought returns to “the firmament,” where the laying hold of the word of life above is glossed as “cleaving to the firmament that is your scripture (cohaerentes firmamento scripturae tuae).” Once again, one is struck by the extraordinary dexterity of Augustine’s use of Scripture, a remarkable perception of the particularities of texts, and a capacity to weave them into a texture of rich meaning. His own reflections on this process are revealing. Scripture is the place where “you [God] deliberate with us (nobiscum disputas),” a notion that involves both attentive listening and creative invention. This attentive listening to, in principle, all the words of Scripture is potentially limitless, and lies behind the enormous intellectual feat of selection and  [spiritum]…super interius nostrum tenebrosum et fluvidum misericorditer superferebatur.  On Augustine’s model of Scripture as a “conversation,” see Mark Vessey, “The Great Conference: Augustine and His Fellow Readers” in Bright (ed.) Augustine and the Bible, 52– 73 (53 – 55), and further below.

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine

363

juxtaposition of texts that supports the Confessions. In the present passage, he goes on: “…how we are to distinguish between matters of intellect and matters related to physical senses (ut dividamus inter intellegibilia et sensibilia).” In this “conversation” with God, Scripture and the human subjects, the latter are active, having been entrusted with the task of making judgments. These judgments embrace a wide scope of human understanding, expressed in the merism “intellegibilia et sensibilia,” that is, broadly, as pertaining to the mind and to the senses. Augustine makes no attempt here to distinguish in a systematic way between kinds or levels of interpretation. Indeed, he was opposed to the idea of interpretation as a set of techniques. As Vessey argues, Augustine’s model of “conversation,” learned from Meropius Pontius Paulinus, was a riposte to Jerome’s “science” of biblical interpretation practiced by experts, in the Alexandrian tradition of Origen.³⁸ (Recall his playful dismissal of the idea that a meeting with Moses would clarify the meaning of the Pentateuch for him). Augustine’s emphasis, rather, is on the transformation of believers as interpreters. God has taken them into “the secret place of your [his] judgment (in abdito iiudicationis),” where he is now no longer alone as he was before the firmament was made, and where they make judgments about the truth of things that are like the judgments of God. He “deliberates” (disputas)³⁹ with them so that they might “shine above the earth and divide day from night and indicate the seasons.”⁴⁰ They can do this because, in Christ, “the former things have passed away, and look! new things have come into being.”⁴¹ Augustine’s essential distinction in the Confessions, concerning interpretation, is not between “literal” and “spiritual” senses, but be-

 Vessey, “The Great Conference,” 52– 57. Various classical analogies have been invoked in order to explain Augustine’s practice in the Confessions, though none exactly fits the case. As Fox says, the Confessions have obvious autobiographical features, yet are not straightforwardly an autobiography, since they are a prayer, and the story of the life is so subservient to the theological purpose of understanding how to speak truly about God. They are also in line with his own “soliloquies,” a kind of dialogue with his own Reason,” in a form traceable to Plato (Fox, Augustine, 2). Brian Stock proposes “that the soliloquy, or inner dialogue, was Augustine’s major type of spiritual exercise in works written between 386 and 400”; Brian Stock, Augustine’s Inner Dialogue: The Philosophical Soliloquy in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010), 229. As such, however, it has novel features first, because in it Augustine “[frames] the question of self-existence,” and second because the philosophical enquiry is inserted into a narrative, temporal scheme; Stock, Augustine’s Inner Dialogue, 230.  As Hammond notes, “the verb disputo suggests active dialogue between God and the believer; cf. Isa 1:18;” Confessions 9 – 13, 375.  “ut…luceant super terram et dividant inter diem et noctem et significent tempora.”  Citing 2 Cor 5:17, itself an adaptation of texts in Isaiah, e. g. Isa 43:18 – 19.

364

J. Gordon McConville

tween “spiritual” and “carnal” people (XIII. 18.22). The business of interpretation embraces both “intellegibilia” and “sensibilia,” while interpreters themselves are distinguished as either “spirituales” or “carnales” (after 1 Cor 3:1). The illumination of the Spirit is all-important for him in his quest for understanding. Finally, Augustine associates the spiritual quality of interpreters with the diversity of gifts among God’s people, all given by the one Spirit (1 Cor 12:7– 11). He concludes this section (XIII.18.22): “In perfect wisdom, O our God, you deliberate (disputas) with us upon all these subjects in your book (of which the firmament is a symbol), so that we can distinguish between all things in a marvellous contemplation, though still in signs and seasons and days and years.” The “conversation” that is entailed in interpreting Scripture, therefore, involves the Church together. As Vessey has it, Augustine believes that it would be a debasement of humanity if people did not learn from each other.⁴²

7 Conclusion The idea of “returning to the heart” in Augustine’s usage, therefore, is entwined with his view of the human person, which is fundamentally unstable. To “return to the heart” is not to go back to some previously occupied space. We recall that memory, in his thought, is not a recovery of the past, but is a function of human being, and orientated as much to the future, in desire, as to the past. Nor can “returning to the heart” be understood as the rediscovery of a “center” of the person, since the person is being perpetually remade as he or she seeks self-understanding in pursuing the knowledge of God. This quest is borne along in the Confessions by the special use of language there, where the internal discourse, or “soliloquy,” is turned outward in the form of prayer. It is a quest of the unfinished self, in which the narrative voice melds with Scripture and the voices of Scripture, and so with the voice of God. The place of Scripture resists final description because it is paradoxically both essential to the business of knowing God and doomed to obsolescence. Nor can it convey meaning in itself, because the reader requires the illumination of the Spirit, just as the authors did. Yet this does not condemn it to irrelevance, as if it were a “charismatic” conception of divine knowledge. The Confessions as a whole stand against that, simply because of their deep penetration by the words of Scripture. These are indispensable, just as the quest for God is one that is undertaken from within the material world of which the human is a part. The idea of “returning to

 Vessey, 57.

“Return to the Heart:” The Self and Scripture in the Confessions of Augustine

365

the heart,” therefore, plays on the pervasive notion of a desired object, and becomes one of the ways in which Augustine expresses that restlessness for God that is the hallmark of the work.

Ronald Herms, John R. (Jack) Levison, Archie T. Wright

Epilogue

Tasked with tucking and tacking, spinning and dying, artisans, female and male both, set to work on Aaron’s vestments: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a checkered tunic, a turban, and a sash.¹ What equipped them to do this so deftly? “And you shall speak to all who have ability,” commands God, “whom I have endowed with skill, that they make Aaron’s vestments to consecrate him for my priesthood” (Exod 28:3). This colorless interpretation in the New Revised Standard Version resembles the New International Version: “Tell all the skilled workers to whom I have given wisdom in such matters that they are to make garments for Aaron, for his consecration, so he may serve me as priest.” The Common English Bible reads much the same: “to whom I have given special abilities.” The Bibel in gerechter Sprache refers to “Weisheit und Geschick.” Brevard Childs’ translation, in his commentary on the book of Exodus, fits like a glove with these translations: “Next you shall speak with all who are skillful, whom I have endowed with talent.”² In all of these translations, the Hebrew, ‫מלאתיו‬ ‫ רוּח חכמה‬is interpreted as endowment with talent or skill. Representing an array of perspectives, these translations refer to skill and wisdom—but not to the spirit, though the Hebrew contains the words ‫ רוּח חכמה‬and not to the verb ‫מלא‬, “to fill.” Neither the spirit nor filling surfaces in these iterations of Exod 28:3.³ Do these translations suitably capture the language of filling and spirit in a passage that is lavish with hues and textures and unbridled generosity? The interpretation proffered by pioneering Pentecostal scholar Roger Stronstad suggests not. In the 1980s, he wrote, “The first concentrated outburst of charismatic activity is associated with the founding of the nation of Israel in the wilderness … The workers who are charged with the preparation of Aaron’s priestly garments

 For a fuller discussion of this text and the theologians to follow, see John R. Levison, Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 186 – 201.  Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 516.  Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2018), 325. But see Alter’s translation differs from those cited above by including a reference to both filling and the spirit of wisdom: “… every wise-hearted person whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom …” (Volume 1, The Five Books of Moses, 325). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-024

368

Ronald Herms, John R. (Jack) Levison, Archie T. Wright

or the building of the Tabernacle are endowed with craftsmanship skills through being filled with the Spirit of God” (Exod 28:3; 31:3; 35:31).⁴ Set Brevard Childs’ translation of the Hebrew, ‫מלאתיו רוּח חכמה‬, as “whom I have endowed with talent,” over against Stronstad’s characterization of these words as an “outburst of charismatic activity,” and we see the crux of the issue. The inspiration of the desert artisans can represent either native talent or a charismatic outburst. These construals represent two ends of the spectrum for grasping what the Spirit says—or how the Spirit speaks. Yet there is another point on this spectrum. William Propp frames the issue differently when he comments on Exod 28:3. “This might refer,” Propp proposes, “either to the bestowal of aptitude at birth or to a recent spiritual gift. Probably both are intended: under renewed inspiration, the already talented artisans will surpass themselves.”⁵ This statement takes us to the heart of the matter: the elusive nature of inspiration. Inspiration is so elusive that the best Propp can do— and it is not inappropriate or inept—is to preface his solution with the word, probably. “Probably both are intended.” Propp has done us a service by framing the issue in this way. Pinpointing inspiration on a spectrum with mathematical precision is simply not possible. Talk of the Spirit is inevitably slippery, unavoidably obtuse. This is not, in fact, a purely exegetical issue. It is representative of a larger theological question about the nature of inspiration—the essential question of this book—that can be illustrated by a few notable twentieth-century theologians. In 1929, for instance, Barth delivered the lecture, “The Holy Spirit and Christian Life,” at a critical juncture in history: eleven years after the end of the first world war and within a few years of the installation of Adolf Hitler. Barth, eschewing German Idealism, from the start reified a rigid dichotomy between divine revelation and human experience: “Augustine knew,” Barth began, “what later idealistic theologians no longer rightly understood, that God’s life, as it is named in the Bible as Spirit, Holy Spirit, is not identical with what we know of as our own created spirits, or our own inner life.”⁶ Nothing in human beings makes them capable of knowing what they can know only by revelation. Barth proceeds: “there can be continuity between God and humans (a true analogy of being), by virtue of the fact that He, the uncreated Spirit, can be revealed

 Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of Saint Luke (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 15.  William Propp, Exodus 19 – 40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 431.  Karl Barth, The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life. Translated and annotated by Michael Raburn (self-published, 2002), 5.

Epilogue

369

to the created spirits. Not that the revelation is given to the creature as such, on the contrary it belongs only to the Creator, though it comes in a manner suitable to the creature. It cannot, then, be understood as an original giftedness of the creature, on the contrary, only as a second wonder of God’s love, as an inconceivable, undeserved, divine blessing.”⁷ Jürgen Moltmann, in contrast to Barth, intimately connected the divine and human spirits. “In both Protestant and Catholic theology and devotion,” reflected Moltmann, “there is a tendency to view the Holy Spirit solely as the Spirit of Redemption. Its place is in the church, and it gives men and women the assurance of the eternal blessedness of their souls. This redemptive Spirit is cut off both from bodily life and from the life of nature. It makes people turn away from ‘this world’ and hope for a better world beyond. They then seek and experience in the Spirit of Christ a power that is different from the divine energy of life, which according to the Old Testament ideas interpenetrates all the living.”⁸ This perspective is errant, thinks Moltmann, who says further, “if redemption is the resurrection of the body and the new creation of all things, then the redeeming Spirit of Christ cannot be any Spirit other than Yahweh’s creative ruach.”⁹ In a similar vein, Wolfhart Pannenberg contended that “the human spirit is not an independent reality of its own, but a mere participation of the divine spirit, and a passing one.”¹⁰ This cannot be isolated within the church: “The work of the Spirit of God in his church and in believers serves the consummating of his work in the world of creation. For the special mode of the presence of the divine Spirit in the gospel and by its proclamation … is a pledge of the promise that the life which derives everywhere from the creative work of the Spirit will finally triumph over death …”¹¹ Pannenberg’s view of the Spirit is not naïve. Human flourishing is not the inevitable outgrowth of divine inbreathing. Yet sin and death do not erode the promise of life that “derives everywhere from the creative work of the Spirit.”¹² Since each and every human being has the divine spirit and the promise it portends, skill and understanding rise from within. Pannenberg

 Barth, Holy Spirit and the Christian Life, 8 – 9. Frank D. Macchia (Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 34) points out that Barth, in his Church Dogmatics, vol. 3, The Doctrine of Creation, part 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1960), 362– 63, later came to see the Spirit in the creation itself.  Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 8.  Moltmann, Spirit of Life, 9.  Wolfhart Pannenberg, Avery Dulles, Carl E. Braaten, Spirit, Faith, and Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 17.  Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology. 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 3.2.  Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3.9.

370

Ronald Herms, John R. (Jack) Levison, Archie T. Wright

writes: “In an extended sense the breath of life that is already given to all of us at creation (Gen. 2:7) may be seen as endowment with God’s Spirit. Beyond that, special manifestations in the course of life display specific and more intensive forms of endowment by God’s Spirit, as in special capacities for insight, artistic gifts, prophetic inspiration, and leadership charisma.”¹³ In a formidable essay, “On the Theology of Worship,” in his Theological Investigations, Karl Rahner, a leading voice in Vatican II, looked at grace from two related perspectives. In the first, grace comes, as in the writings of Karl Barth, as intervention in a sinful world.¹⁴ From the second perspective, grace permeates the creation from the start—not just from the incarnation: “Nature is, because grace has to be. From the outset, as ground of nature, grace is the innermost centre of this nature. Consequently, nature is never actually purely and simply secular; it is always nature graciously endowed with God himself.”¹⁵ There is no secular world set aside from grace, no spiritual world distinct from the rest of creation. From this point of view, “God … has already communicated himself in his Holy Spirit always and everywhere and to every person as the innermost center of his existence.”¹⁶ With this assertion, the waters are sufficiently muddied to return, with a peculiar and essential awareness of the fluidity of the inquiry and the elusiveness of the answer, to the questions with which we began this volume. ‒ ‒ ‒ ‒

What is the role of revelation in the interpretation of Scripture? What might it look like for an author to be inspired? What motivates a claim to the inspired interpretation of Scripture? Who is inspired to interpret Scripture?

What is the role of revelation in the interpretation of Scripture? Revelation is essential to interpretation, whether the revelation of an exegetical detail discerned through the laws of syntax and the labor of exegesis or the revelation of an exegetical detail in a flush of enthusiasm. These do not lie on opposite sides of a chasm, on two cliffs separated by a valley. If the relationship between divine Spirit and human spirit is fluid, if the situation of the interpreter is fluid, if the tradition that carries the text is fluid, if even the text itself is fluid at times, then revelation itself is fluid. Revelation is necessary for the interpretation of scripture, though revelation can come in the guise of insight or onslaught or out   

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3.9. Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations. 23 vols. (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 19.142. Rahner, Theological Investigations, 19.143. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury, 1978), 139.

Epilogue

371

growth, with none of these being of greater import than the other. Further, if grace permeates all of life, if the Spirit is not sequestered in the church, then revelation is not limited to authors of faith. Hearing the voice of the Spirit is not an experience limited to the pious. If revelation is limited, it is not limited by the interpreter but by the goal. Time and again in this volume, authors have noted that the goal of interpretation is wisdom, knowledge, and increased awareness of God. If revelation is constrained, then, it is constrained not by the mode of its inception but by the goal of its reception. No less fluidity attends the question of what it might look like for one to be inspired. Inspiration can transpire as an infusion, instantaneous or otherwise, or it can be a slow boil, a steady cultivation of wisdom and virtue through long days of waiting and reflecting. Or perhaps, lifelong and protracted, it may be a combination of both, the product of a synergy between these modes of revelation. Whether instantaneous or prolonged, whether an incursion or a welling up from within, whether through a heightening of senses or a loss of them altogether—whatever the mode of inspiration, the goal must always be the engendering of wisdom, the cultivation of virtue. This is the long game of inspiration, its telos, and it may only be possible to discern the impact of inspiration, in whatever form, in hindsight, in the realization that change has taken place, knowledge has been garnered, virtue has been enriched. What inspiration will have generated, at the end of the process, says much more than what inspiration generates at any particular moment. Telos, rather than a temporary experience, is the criterion that must be put into service to answer the question of what it might look like for someone to be inspired. In the end, there is no one mode of inspiration, no single model of inventiveness, no sole paradigm for the stimulation of the mind. In all of these ways, the Spirit speaks—so long as this inspiration leads to wisdom, to virtue, to an embrace of the full-flowered grace that permeates the whole of life. What motivates a claim to the inspired interpretation of Scripture? The answer to this question is a tricky business because motivations are slippery and inevitably contaminated. When Ben Sira claims inspiration for the scribe in a thinlyveiled autobiographical reflection, he is buttressing his status as an inspired interpreter of scripture. When Josephus claims a steady diet of dreams, his dreams provide a rationale, as he perches on the verge of capitulation to Rome. When Jesus in the Fourth Gospel iterates the promise of the Paraclete, this guarantee is for a select few, who alone can lay claim to the knowledge the Paraclete, which the world cannot receive, will generate. Even the author of the letter to the Hebrews is partisan; when the Spirit speaks, even in admonition, the Spirit speaks to those clustered around the embers of faith in Jesus Christ. Rarely is a claim to inspiration free of the effort to buttress one’s standing, whether overtly

372

Ronald Herms, John R. (Jack) Levison, Archie T. Wright

or implicitly, over against another person or community. This question of motivation, then, is perhaps the one that rings most resonantly the note of caution. If ancient authors, steeped in traditions and suffused by the language of sacred texts, were prone to bolster their positions, theological and otherwise, through claims to the Spirit, then the same danger lurks, perhaps even more perniciously, for contemporary interpreters claiming inspiration—which leads to the last question. Who is inspired to interpret Scripture? Those who find themselves on an unalloyed—or as unalloyed as possible—quest for knowledge that lies outside their purview, knowledge of a text for that text’s sake, knowledge of a world suffused by grace and Spirit. Those who are on a quest to bolster their own point of view against another, who seek knowledge for their own sake and wisdom for their own status, are not inspired to interpret Scripture, however intrepid or tenacious their claim. This assertion means that people of faith whose motivations are selforiented may be less susceptible to inspiration, notwithstanding claims to piety, than secular interpreters who are keen to learn wisdom. Whether the Spirit arrives in an onslaught, in a quiet voice, or from within through the cultivation of knowledge is rather less essential a matter than whether the Spirit comes to the pure in heart. The inspired interpreter of Scripture is not the Christian or the Jew or the secular interpreter—these are not the criteria of inspiration—but the individual or community open to learning. The inspired interpreter of Scripture is not the scholar—education is only occasionally the criterion of inspiration, as at Qumran or Ben Sira’s academy—but the student of Scripture, learned or otherwise. The inspired interpreter of Scripture is not the reclusive only—solitude is rarely a prerequisite of inspiration—but also the individual and community that engages the world in which the Spirit moves and over which, even in its chaos, the Spirit broods.

Bibliography Abraham, W. J. Canonical Theism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Achenbach, Reinhard. Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. BZABR 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Adams, Sean A. “The Characterization of Disciples in Acts: Genre, Method, and Quality.” Pages 155 – 68 in Characters and Characterization in Luke-Acts. Edited by Frank Dicken and Julia Snyder. LNTS 548. London: T&T Clark, 2016. Adler, Ronald B., and Neil Towne. Looking Out, Looking In: Interpersonal Communication, 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001. Aernie, Jeffrey W. Is Paul also among the Prophets? An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians. LNTS 467. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Aguilar, José E. “Justification and the Spirit in Paul: Is there a relationship?” Pages 357 – 77 in Il Verbo di Dio è vivo. Studi sul Nuovo Testamento in onore del Card. Vanhoye. Edited by J.E. Aguilar, F. Manzi, F. Urso, C. Zesatti. AnBib 165. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2007. Aitken, James K. “Apocalyptic, Revelation and Early Jewish Wisdom Literature.” Pages 181 – 93 in New Heaven and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millennium, ed. Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward. VTSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Albertz, Rainer. “Noncontinuous Literary Sources Taken Up in the Book of Exodus.” Pages 609 – 18 in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Bernard M. Levinson, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, and Konrad Schmid. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Allison, Dale. The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2013. Anderson, Kelly and Daniel Keating. James, First, Second, and Third John, CCSS. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Antin, Katri. “Transmission of Divine Knowledge in the Sapiential Thanksgiving Psalms from Qumran.” PhD diss., University of Helsinki, 2019. Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture And Community. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. Archer, Kenneth. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect.” Pages 131 – 48 in Pentecostal Hermeneutics. Edited by Lee Roy Martin. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Argall, Randal A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation, and Judgment. SBLEJL 8. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Arnold, Bill T. “The Book of Deuteronomy: Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity, or Something Else Altogether?” Pages 139 – 60 in Sepher Torath Mosheh: Studies in the Composition and Interpretation of Deuteronomy. Edited by Daniel I. Block and Richard L. Schultz. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2017. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Ashton, John. The Religion of Paul the Apostle. New Haven: Yale University, 2000.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-025

374

Bibliography

Auld, A. Graeme. “Samuel, Numbers, and the Yahwist-Question.” Pages 233 – 46 in Abschied vom Jahwisten. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Aune, David E. “Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity.” Pages 26 – 50 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Aune, David E. The New Testament in its Literary Environment. LEC. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1985. Baden, Joel S. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. FAT 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Baden, Joel S. Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Balch, David L. “Backgrounds of I Cor VII: Sayings of the Lord in Q; Moses as an Ascetic theios aner in II Cor. III.” NTS 18 (1972): 358 – 62. Barclay, John. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Bartholomew, Craig G. Contours of the Kuyperian Tradition: A Systematic Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017. Bartholomew, Craig G. God Who Acts in History: The Significance of Sinai. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Bartholomew, Craig G. Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Framework for Hearing God in Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Bartholomew, Craig G. “Theological Interpretation for all Life.” Pages 257 – 74 in A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew and Heath A. Thomas. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Bartholomew, Craig G., and Robby Holt. “Prayer In/and the Drama of Redemption in Luke: Prayer and Exegetical Performance.” Pages 350 – 75 in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, et al. SAHS 6. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Barton, John. Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Baumgartner, William. “Die literarischen Gattungen in der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach,” ZAW 34 (1914): 161 – 9. Bauckham, Richard. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Bauckham, Richard. The Bible in the Contemporary World: Hermeneutical Venture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Bauckham, Richard, ed. The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Beers, Holly. The Followers of Jesus as the ‘Servant’: Luke’s Model from Isaiah for the Disciples in Luke–Acts. LNTS 535. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

Bibliography

375

Bennema, Cornelis. “Christ, the Spirit and the Knowledge of God: A Study in Johannine Epistemology.” Pages 107 – 33 in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by Mary Healy and Robin Parry. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Bennema, Cornelis. Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Bennema, Cornelis. Mimesis in the Johannine Writings: A Study in Johannine Ethics. LNTS 498. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Bennema, Cornelis. “The Historical Reliability of the Gospel of John.” Foundations 67 (2014): 4 – 25. Bennema, Cornelis. The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel. WUNT II/148. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Bennema, Cornelis. “The Strands of Wisdom Tradition in Intertestamental Judaism: Origins, Developments and Characteristics.” TynB 52 (2001): 61 – 82. Berg, Shane. “Sin’s Corruption of the Knowledge of God and the Law in Romans 1 – 8.” Pages 119 – 38 in The Unrelenting God: God’s Action in Scripture Essays in Honor of Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Edited by David J. Downs and Matthew L. Skinner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Berkhof, Hendrikus. Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Berkhof, Hendrikus. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Atlanta: John Knox, 1964. Beutler, Johannes. Die Johannesbriefe. RNT. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 2000. Bieringer, Raimond. “The Spirit’s Guidance Into All the Truth: The Text-Critical Problems of John 16,13.” Pages 183 – 207 in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel. Edited by Adelbert Denaux. BETL 161. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 2002. Birch, Bruce C. Hosea, Joel, and Amos. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Bird, Michael F. and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Black, C. Clifton. “John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 101 – 20 in Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor of Joseph B. Tyson. Edited by Richard P. Thompson and Thomas E. Phillips. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998. Black, M., ed. Apocalypsis Henochi Graece: Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca. PVTG. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Blackwell, Ben C. “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3:23.” JSNT 32 (2010): 285 – 308. Blackwell, Ben C. Participating in the Righteousness of God: Justification in Pauline Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel. Leicester: Apollos, 2001. Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990. Bockmuehl, Marcus. The Epistle to the Philippians. BNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998.

376

Bibliography

Boda, Mark J. “Word and Spirit, Scribe and Prophet in Old Testament Hermeneutics.” Pages 25 – 45 in Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic. Edited by Kevin L. Spawn and Archie T. Wright. New York: T & T Clark International, 2012. Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Boda, Mark J., and Stanley E. Porter. “Literature to the Third Degree: Prophecy in Zechariah 9 – 14 and the Passion of Christ.” Pages 215 – 54 in Traduire La Bible Hebraique. Edited by R. David et M. Jinbachian. Montreal: Mediaspaul, 2005. Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2006. Boring, M. Eugene. “The Influence of Christian Prophecy in the Johannine Portrayal of the Paraclete and Jesus.” NTS 25 (1978): 113 – 23. Bornkamm, Günther. “Faith and Reason in Paul.” Pages 29 – 46 in Early Christian Experience. Edited by Günther Bornkamm. London: SCM, 1969. Boyer, Pascal. “What Are Memories For? Functions of Recall in Cognition and Culture.” Pages 3 – 28 in Memory in Mind and Culture. Edited by Pascal Boyer and James V. Wertsch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Brewer, William F. “What Is Recollective Memory?” Pages 19 – 66 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Bright, Pamela, ed., Augustine and the Bible. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, 1999. Briggs, Richard S. “‘I Perceived in the Books’: The Portrait of Daniel as a Spiritual Student of Scripture.” Pages 111 – 27 in The Bible and Spirituality: Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually. Edited by Andrew T. Lincoln, J. Gordon McConville and Lloyd K. Pietersen. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013. Briggs, Richard S. “Juniper Trees and Pistachio Nuts: Trust and Suspicion as Modes of Scriptural Imagination.” Theology 112 (2009): 353 – 63. Broggi, Joshua. Diversity in the Structure of Christian Reasoning: Interpretation, Disagreement, and World Christianity. SST 17. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1979. Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 30. Doubleday: Garden City, 1982. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (XIII – XXI). AB 29 A. New York: Doubleday, 1970. Brown, Raymond E. “The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel.” NTS 13 (1966 – 1967): 113 – 32. Brown, T. G. Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-scientific Perspective. JSNTSup 253. London: T. & T. Clark, 2003. Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: A Verse-by-Verse Exposition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Buckwalter, H. Douglas. The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology. SNTSMS 89. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles. Translated by R. Philip O’Hara et al. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973. Burge, Gary M. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Community. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Burge, Gary M. John. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Bibliography

377

Burgess, Stanley M. “Neocharismatics.” Page 928 in New International Dictionary of Pentecostal Charismatic Movements. Edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. Van Der Maas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Cameron, Michael. “The Christological Substructure of Augustine’s Figurative Exegesis.” Pages 74 – 103 in Augustine and the Bible. Edited by Pamela Bright. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1999. Campbell, Anthony F. “Psalm 78: A Contribution to the Theology of Tenth Century Israel.” CBQ 41 (1979): 51 – 79. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Campbell, Douglas A. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. Continuum: New York, 2005. Carnazzo, Sebastian. Seeing Blood and Water: A Narrative-Critical Study of John 19:34. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012. Castelo, Daniel. “Inspiration as Providence.” Pages 69 – 81 in The Usefulness of Scripture: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Wall. Edited by D. Castelo, S. Koenig, D. Nienhuis. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018. Castelo, Daniel. Pneumatology: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T&T Clark, 2015. Castelo, Daniel. The Marks of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. Caulley, T. Scott. “The Idea of Inspiration in 2 Peter 1:16 – 21.” D.Th. diss., University of Tübingen, 1983. Chae, Young Sam. Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Temple Judaism, and the Gospel of Matthew. WUNT 216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Charlesworth, James H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Chapman, Stephen B. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. FAT 27. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Chester, Stephen J. Reading Paul with the Reformers: Reconciling Old and New Perspectives. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Childs, Brevard S. “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ?” Pages 57 – 64 in Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Struhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann, Jostein Adna, and Otfried Hofius. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Childs, Brevard S. The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Childs, Brevard S. The Ark of Speech. Translated by Andrew Brown. New York: Routledge, 2004. Childs, Brevard S. Under the Gaze of the Bible. Translated by John Marson Dunaway. New York: Fordham University, 2015. Christianson, Sven-Åke, and Martin A. Safer. “Emotional Events and Emotions in Autobiographical Memories.” Pages 218 – 43 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995.

378

Bibliography

Cirafesi, Wally V. “The Johannine Community Hypothesis (1968–Present): Past and Present Approaches and a New Way Forward.” CBR 12 (2014): 173 – 93. Cirafesi, Wally V. “The ‘Johannine Community’ in (More) Current Research: A Critical Appraisal of Recent Methods and Models.” Neotestamentica 48 (2014): 341 – 64. Clark, A. C. “The Role of the Apostles.” Pages 169 – 90 in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Clark-Soles, Jaime. Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in Gospel of John. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Coats, George W. Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. Coats, George W. “Humility and Honor.” Pages 97 – 107 in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser. JSOTSup 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Cocksworth, Hannah M. “Zechariah and Gabriel as Thematic Characters: A Narratological Reading of the Beginning of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:8 – 20).” Pages 41 – 54 in Characters and Characterization in Luke–Acts. Edited by Frank Dicken and Julia Syder. LNTS 548. London: T&T Clark, 2016. Collins, Adela Y. Mark. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Collins, R. F. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. NTL. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. Cotton, Roger D. “The Pentecostal Significance of Numbers 11.” JPenT 10 (2001): 3 – 10. Cowley, A.E. and A. Neubauer. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (xxiv. 15 to xlix. 11). Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Craig, William Lane. Apologetics. An Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984. Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979. Crüsemann, Frank. The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Dabney, D. Lyle. “‘Justified by the Spirit’: Soteriological Reflections on the Resurrection.” IJST 3.1 (2001): 46 – 68. Darr, John A. On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts. LCBI. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Davies, J.P. “What to Expect when you’re Expecting: Maternity, Salvation History, and the ‘Apocalyptic Paul.’” JSNT 38(3) (2016): 301 – 315. de Boer, Martinus C. “Paul’s Use and Interpretation of a Justification Tradition in Galatians 2.15 – 21.” JSNT 28.2 (2005): 189 – 216. DeConick, April. Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse on the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature. New York: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2004. Denova, Rebecca I. The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts. JSNTSup 141. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. deSilva, David A. Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Dinkler, Michal Beth. “Building Character on the Road to Emmaus: Lukan Characterization in Contemporary Literary Perspective.” JBL 136 (2017): 687 – 706. Dixon, Edward P. “Descending Spirit and Descending Gods: A ‘Greek’ Interpretation of the Spirit’s ‘Descent as a Dove’ in Mark 1:10.” JBL 128 (2009): 759 – 780. Dodd, C. H. The Johannine Epistles. MNTC. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1947.

Bibliography

379

Dozeman, Thomas B. “The Book of Numbers.” Pages 1 – 268 in volume 2 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Dozeman, Thomas B. “Masking Moses and Mosaic Authority in Torah.” JBL 119 (2000): 21 – 45. Dozeman, Thomas B. Holiness and Ministry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Dubrow, Heather. Deixis in the Early Modern English Lyric: Unsettling Spatial Anchors Like “Here,” “This,” “Come.” New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015. Duff, Paul Brooks. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem.” JBL 111 (1992): 55 – 71. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit. A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of the Earliest Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975. Dunn, James D. G. Romans. WBC 38. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Dunne, John Anthony. Persecution and Participation in Galatians. WUNT II/454. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Dupont, Anthony, and Pierre-Paul Walraet. “Augustine on the Heart as the Center of Human Happiness.” Studies in Spirituality 25 (2015): 45 – 77. Eastman, Susan. “Whose Apocalypse? The Identity of the Sons of God in Romans 8:19.” JBL 121 (2002): 263 – 277. Eichrodt, Walther. Old Testament Theology, Volume 2. Translated by J. A. Baker. OTL. London: SCM, 1967. Emmrich, Martin. Pneumatological Concepts in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Amtscharisma, Prophet, & Guide of the Eschatological Exodus. Lanham: University Press of America, 2004. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University, 2017. Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Eve, Eric. Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition. London: SPCK, 2013. Fauconnier, Gilles. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985. Fauconnier, Gilles. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Fauconnier, Gilles and Eve Sweetser. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. “Mental Spaces: Conceptual Integration Networks.” Pages 303 – 71 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts, Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002. Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence. The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Fee, Gordon D. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Fee, Gordon D. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

380

Bibliography

Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah: An Exegetical Commentary. Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 2003. Firth, David G. “The Spirit and Leadership: Testimony, Empowerment, and Purpose.” Pages 259 – 80 in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Edited David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner. Nottingham: Apollos, 2011. Fitzmyer, Joseph. “Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (2 Cor 3:7—4:6) and a Palestinian Jewish Motif.” Theological Studies 42 (1981): 634 – 39. Flannery-Dailey, Frances. Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras. JSJSup 90. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Forbes Greg W. and Scott D. Harrower. Raised from Obscurity: A Narratival and Theological Study of the Characterization of Women in Luke-Acts. Eugene: Pickwick, 2015. Ford, David F. “Reading Backwards, Reading Forwards, and Abiding: Reading John in the Spirit Now,” JTI 11 (2017): 69 – 84. Fortuna, Robert T. “Romans 8:10 and Paul’s Doctrine of the Spirit.” ATR 41 (1959): 77 – 84. Fowl, Stephen E. Engaging Scripture. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Fox, Nili Sacher. In Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah. HUCM 23. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000. Fox, Robin Lane. Augustine: Conversions and Confessions. Milton Keynes, UK: Allen Lane, 2015. Franck, E. Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John. ConBNT 14. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1985. Frisch, Alexandria. The Danielic Discourse on Empire in Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 176. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Fritz, Volkmar. Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten. Marburger Theologischer Studien 7. Marburg: Elwert, 1970. Froehlich, Karlfried. “‘Take Up and Read’: Basics of Augustine’s Biblical Interpretation.” Interpretation (2004): 5 – 16. Furnish, Victor P. II Corinthians. ABC. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1984. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. “Dialogues in Capri.” Pages 200 – 11 in Religion. Edited by J. Derrida and G. Vattimo. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. “Reflections on my Philosophical Journey.” Pages 1 – 31 in The Philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer. Edited by Lewis Hahn. Chicago: Open Court, 1997. Gaffin, Jr., Richard B. By Faith, Not By Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2013. Gane, Roy. Leviticus, Numbers. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Gates-Brown, Tricia. Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective. JSNTS 253. New York: T&T Clark, 2003. Gaventa, Beverly. Acts, ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Gaventa, Beverly. Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Gaventa, Beverly. “The Singularity of the Gospel Revisited.” Pages 187 – 99 in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter. Edited by Mark W. Elliott, et al. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Gaventa, Beverly. “The Singularity of the Gospel: A Reading of Galatians.” Pages 147 – 59 in Pauline Theology: Vol. I. Edited by Jouette Bassler. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Bibliography

381

Germany, Stephen. The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua. FAT 115. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Gill, David. “Dionysios and Damaris: A Note on Acts 17:34.” CBQ 61 (1999): 483 – 90. Glad, Clarence E. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, Volume One: Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology, Volume Three: Israel’s Life. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009. Gorman, Michael J. Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Gorman, Michael J. “Reading Gal 2:15 – 21 Theologically: Beyond Old and New, Beyond West and East.” Pages 115 – 49 in Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1903. Grayston, Kenneth. The Gospel of John. Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Gressmann, Hugo. Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen. FRLANT 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. Grey, Jacqueline. Three’s a Crowd: Pentecostalism, Hermeneutics, and the Old Testament. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011. Grossman, Jonathan. “Different Dreams: Two models of interpretation for three pairs of dreams (Genesis 37 – 50).” JBL 135 (2016): 717 – 32. Gunneweg, A. H. J. “Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Eine Auslegung von Ex 33,7 – 11; Num 11,4 – 12,8; Dtn 31,14 f.; 34,10.” ZAW 102 (1990): 169 – 80. Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by Bernard Noble, Gerald Shinn, and Hugh Anderson. Rev. trans. R. McL. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971. Hafemann, Scott J. “The Glory and Veil of Moses in 2 Cor 3:7 – 14: An Example of Paul’s Contextual Exegesis of the OT – A Proposal.” HBT 14 (1992): 31 – 49. Hahne, Harry Alan. The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8:19 – 22 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Halteman Finger, Reta. Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Hammond, Carolyn J.-B. Augustine: Confessions, Books 1 – 8/Books 9 – 13. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014, 2016. Hanson, A.T. “The Midrash in II Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration.” JSNT 9 (1980): 19. Haran, Menahem. “The Nature of the ‘’Ohel Mo‘edh’ in Pentateuchal Sources.” JSS 5 (1960): 50 – 65. Hayes, Elizabeth R. and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, eds. ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 584. London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2014. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016.

382

Bibliography

Hebbard, Aaron B. Reading Daniel as a Text in Theological Hermeneutics. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. 2 vols. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974. Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets, 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Hess, Richard S. “Bezalel and Oholiab: Spirit and Creativity.” Pages 161 – 75 in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Edited David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Hill, Andrew E. and Richard D. Patterson. Minor Prophets: Hosea through Malachi. Cornerstone Bible Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008. Hollenweger, Walter J. Der 1 Korintherbrief. Eine Arbeitshilfe zur Bibelwoche. (Kingmünster: Volks-missinarisches Amt der Pfälizischen Landeskirche, 1964. Hollenweger, Walter J. “Rethinking Spirit Baptism,” Pages 169 – 70 in Pentecostals after a Century: Global Pentecostalism. Edited by Allan H. Anderson and Walter J. Hollenweger. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Hoegen-Rohls, Christine. Der nachösterliche Johannes: Die Abschiedsreden als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zum vierten Evangelium. WUNT II/84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Hooker, Morna D. “Beyond the Things that are Written? St. Paul’s Use of Scripture.” NTS 27 (1981): 295 – 309. Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. BTNC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. Hurtado, Larry W. “Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John,” Pages 195 – 213 in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by David B. Capes et al. Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2007. Hylen, Susan. Allusion and Meaning in John 6. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005. Jacobsen, Rolf A. Many Are Saying: The Function of Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Psalter. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. Jeremias, Jörg. “The Function of the Book of Joel for Reading the Twelve.” Pages 43 – 47 in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations, Redactional Processes, Historical Insights. Edited by Rainer Albertz, James Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012. Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of their Use in Conflict Settings. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Jobes, Karen. 1, 2, 3 John. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Johnson, Luke T. Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina 5. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992. Johnson, Luke T. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. ABC. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2001. Johnson, Luke T. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. SBLDS 39. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. SNTSM 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Bibliography

383

Jones, H. Stuart. A Fresh Light on Roman Bureaucracy: An Inaugural Lecture. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920. Kahl, Brigitte. “No Longer Male: Masculinity Struggles Behind Galatians 3:28?” JSNT 79 (2000): 37 – 49. Kakutani, Michiko. The Death of Truth. London: William Collins, 2018. Kang, Sa-Moon. Divine War in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. BZAW 177. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti, ed., Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2010. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. The Spirit in the World: Emerging Pentecostal Theologies in Global Contexts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012 – 15. Keener, Craig S. Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in the Light of Pentecost. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Keener, Craig S. The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997. Kirk, Alan. “Memory Theory: Cultural and Cognitive Approaches to the Gospel Tradition.” Pages 57 – 67 in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris. London: Routledge, 2010. Klein, Ralph W. “Back to the Future: The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus.” Interpretation 50 (1996): 264 – 276. Klingbeil, Martin. Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient near Eastern Iconography. Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Klink III, Edward W. “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question.” CBR 3 (2004): 60 – 85. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994 – 1999. Koester, Craig R. The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Kratz, Reinhard G. The Prophets of Israel. Translated by Anselm C. Hagedorn and Nathan MacDonald. CrStHB 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Kruse, Colin G. The Letters of John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Kuehn, Heinz R. “Fires in the Night: Germany 1920 – 1950.” Pages 1 – 14 in Romano Guardini: Proclaiming the Sacred in a Modern World. Edited by R. A. Krieg. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 1995. Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua). Translated by Philip H. Wicksteed. London: Macmillan, 1886. Lacoste, Jean-Yves. “More Haste, Less Speed in Theology.” Translated by Oliver O’Donovan. IJST 9 (2007): 263 – 82.

384

Bibliography

Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. More Than Cool Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989. Lamb, David A. Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings. LNTS 477. London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2014. Land, S. Pentecostal Spirituality. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. Leiva-Merikakis, Erasmo. Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word: Meditations on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1996. Lemke, Werner E. “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor.” Pages 283 – 97 in A God So Near: Essays in Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Edited by Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Levenson, Alan T. Joseph: Portraits Through the Ages. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2016. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1 – 20. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Levison, John R. A Boundless God: The Spirit According to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Levison, John R. An Unconventional God: The Spirit According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Levison, John R. The Holy Spirit before Christianity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019. Levison, John R. Inspired: The Holy Spirit and the Mind of Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Levison, John R. “A Theology of the Spirit in the Letter to the Hebrews.” CBQ 78 (2016): 90 – 110. Levison, John R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Levison, John R. “Philo’s Personal Experience and the Persistence of Prophecy.” Pages 194 – 209 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Levison, John R. “Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of the Ecstatic Elders.” CBQ 65 (2003): 503 – 21. Levison, John R. The Spirit in First Century Judaism. Boston: Brill Academic, 1997. Levison, John R. “Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus.” JSJ 26 (1995): 288 – 98. Lewis, I. M. Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession. 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge, 1989. Liesen, Jan. Full of Praise: An Exegetical Study of Sir 39,12 – 35. JSJSup 64. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Lieu, Judith M. The Theology of the Johannine Epistles. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991. Lieu, Judith M. I, II, and III John, NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. BNTC 4. London: Continuum, 2005. Lincoln, Andrew T. Truth on Trial. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2019. Litwa, M. David. We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2014. Longman, Tremper, III. “The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif.” WTJ 44 (1982): 290 – 307.

Bibliography

385

Macchia, Frank D. Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. MacDonald, Nathan. “The Spirit of Yhwh: An Overlooked Conceptualization of Divine Presence in the Persian Period.” Pages 95 – 119 in Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism Vol. II. Edited by Nathan MacDonald and Izaak J. de Hulster. FAT 2/61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Mack, Burton. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. CSHJ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Mann, Thomas W. Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: A Typology of Exaltation. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1977. Marböck, Johannes. “Sir. 38,24 – 39,11: Der schriftgelehrte Weise. Ein Beitrag zu Gestalt und Werk Ben Siras.” Pages 293 – 316 in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament. Edited by M. Gilbert. BETL 51. Leuven: Peeters, 1979. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1 – 8. ABC 27. Doubleday: New York, 2000. Marlow, Hilary. “The Spirit of Yahweh in Isaiah 11:1 – 9.” Pages 220 – 32 in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Edited David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Marshall, I. Howard. Pastoral Epistles, ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Martin, Lee Roy, ed., Pentecostal Hermeneutics. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Martyn, J. Louis. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. McConville, J. G. “Spiritual Formation in the Psalms.” Pages 56 – 74 in The Bible and Spirituality: Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually. Edited by J. G. McConville, A. T. Lincoln and L. Pietersen. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013. McComiskey, Thomas Edward. The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. McGinn, Sheila. “All Creation Groans in Labor: Paul’s Theology of Creation in Romans 8:18 – 23.” Pages 114 – 23 in Earth, Wind, and Fire: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Creation. Edited by Carol J. Dempsey and Mary Margaret Pazdan. Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1989. McGinn, Sheila. “Feminists and Paul in Romans 8:18 – 23: Toward a Theology of Creation.” Pages 21 – 37 in Gender, Tradition and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Border. Edited by Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. McIver, Robert K. Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. RBS 59. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. McKenzie, Steven L. “Exodus Typology in Hosea.” Restoration Quarterly 22 (1979): 100 – 108. McQueen, Larry R. Joel and the Spirit: The Cry of a Prophetic Hermeneutic. JPTSupS 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Menken, Maarten J. J. “The Minor Prophets in John’s Gospel.” Pages 79 – 96 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. New York: T & T Clark, 2012. Menken, Maarten J. J. “The Quotations from Zech 9,9 in Mt 21,5 and in Jn 12,15.” Pages 571 – 8 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by A. Denaux. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.

386

Bibliography

Menken, Maarten J. J. “‘Three That Testify’ and ‘The Testimony of God’ in 1 John 5:6 – 12,” Pages 391 – 409 in Studies in John’s Gospel and Letters: Collected Essays. Edited by Maarten J. J. Menken. CBET 77. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Menzies, Robert P. “The Sending of the Seventy and Luke’s Purpose.” Pages 87 – 113 in Trajectories in the Book of Acts: Essays in Honor of John Wesley Wyckoff. Edited by P. Alexander, J. D. May, and R. G. Reid. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Meyer, Paul. “The Holy Spirit in the Pauline Letters: A Contextual Exploration.” Int 33.1 (1979): 3 – 18. Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPSTC. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Miller, Donald, and Tetsunao Yamamor. Global Pentecostalism: The New Face of Christian Social Engagement. Berkeley: University of California, 2007. Miller, Jr., Ernest C. “πολιτεύεσθαι” in Philippians 1:27: Some Philological and Thematic Observations.” JSNT 15 (1982): 90. Milligan, George. Here & There Among the Papyri. London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1922. Moberly, R.W.L. Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine 14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013. Moore, Erika. “Joel’s Promise of the Spirit.” Pages 245 – 56 in Presence, Power and Promise. Edited by David Firth and Paul Wegner. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Mroczek, Eva. The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Mussner, Franz. The Historical Jesus in the Gospel of St. John. Translated by W. J. O’Hara. London: Burnes & Oates, 1967. Myers, Alicia D. Characterizing Jesus: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Fourth Gospel’s Use of Scripture in Its Presentation of Jesus. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Myers Alicia D., and Bruce G. Schuchard, eds. Abiding Words: The Use of Scripture in the Gospel of John. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. Nauck, Wolfgang. Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes. WUNT 3 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Newman, B. M., and E. A. Nida. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993. Newsom, Carol A. (with Brennan W. Breed). Daniel. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014. Newsom, Carol. “Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1 – 9.” Pages 142 – 60 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by P. L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1 A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1 – 36; 81 – 108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W. E. and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

Bibliography

387

Niehoff, Maren. “A Dream which is not Interpreted is like a Letter which is not Read.” JJS 43 (1992): 58 – 84. Nissinen, Martti. “Wisdom as Mediatrix in Sirach 24: Ben Sira, Love Lyrics, and Prophecy,” Pages 377 – 90 in Of God(s), Trees, Kings and Scholars: Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola. Edited by M. Luuko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila. StOr 106. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2009. Noth, Martin. Numbers: A Commentary. Translated by James D. Martin. OTL. London: SCM, 1968. Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Oke, C. Clare. “A Suggestion with Regard to Romans 8:23.” Interpretation 11 (1957): 455 – 56. Olson, Dennis T. Numbers. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1996. Oropeza, B.J. Exploring Second Corinthians: Death and Life, Hardship and Rivalry. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology. Vol. 2. London: SCM, 1971. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Parsenios, George L. First, Second, and Third John. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Pelikan, Jaroslav. Acts. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, IL: Brazos Press, 2005. Perdue, Leo G. “Ben Sira and the Prophets.” Pages 132 – 54 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Petersen, David L. The Roles of Israel’s Prophets. JSOTSup 17. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Philip, Finny. The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Pillemer, David B. Momentous Events, Vivid Memories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1998. Pirson, Ron. The Lord of the Dreams: A Semantic and Literary Analysis of Genesis 37 – 50. JSOT Supp 355. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: Oxford University, 2000. Porter, Stanley E. “Allusions and Echoes.” Pages 29 – 40 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SBLSS 50. Boston: Brill, 2008. Porter, Stanley E. “Further Comments on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” Pages 98 – 110 in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. Edited by Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis Ronald MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter. NTM 16. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.

388

Bibliography

Potterie, Ignace de la. “Anointing of the Christian by Faith.” Pages 79 – 143 in The Christian Lives by the Spirit. Edited by Ignace de la Potterie and S. Lyonnet. Staten Island: Alba, 1971. Powery, Emerson. “The Groans of ‘Brother Saul’: An Exploratory Reading of Romans 8 for ‘Survival.’” WW 24/3 (Su 2004): 320 – 322. Prothro, James B. Both Judge and Justifier: Biblical Legal Language and the Act of Justifying in Paul. WUNT 2/461. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Quick, Laura. “Dream Accounts in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Jewish Literature.” CurBR 17 (2018): 8 – 32. Rabens, Volker. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Redditt, Paul L. Zechariah 9 – 14. IECOT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2012. Redditt, Paul L. “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” SBLSP 40 (2001): 58 – 80. Redelings, David A. The Epistemological Basis for Belief according to John’s Gospel: Miracles and Message in their Essentials as Nonfictional Grounds for Knowledge of God. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011. Reviv, Henoch. “The Traditions Concerning the Inception of the Legal System in Israel: Significance and Dating.” ZAW 94 (1982): 566 – 75. Reynolds, Bennie H. “Demonology and Eschatology in the Oppositional Language of the Johannine Epistles and Jewish Apocalyptic Texts,” Pages 325 – 45 in The Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition and the Shaping of New Testament Thought. Edited by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017. Rhodes, Arnold R. “Israel’s Prophets as Intercessors.” Pages 107 – 28 in Scripture and History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Edited by Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt. PTMS 17. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977. Ricoeur, Paul. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University, 1970. Ridderbos, Herman. Studies in Scripture and its Authority. St. Catherines, ON: Paideia, 1978. Robinson, John A. “Perspective, Meaning, and Remembering.” Pages 199 – 217 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Römer, Thomas Christian. “Nombres 11 – 12 et la question d’une rédaction deutéronomique dans le Pentateuque.” Pages 481 – 98 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans. Edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Römer, Thomas Christian. “Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of Numbers,” Pages 419 – 45 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Römer, Thomas Christian. “Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21.” Pages 66 – 86 in Torah and the Book of Numbers. Edited by Christian Frevel, Thomas Pola, and Aaron Schart. FAT 2/62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. “Hebrew Bible Theology: A Jewish Descriptive Approach.” JR 96 (2016): 165 – 84.

Bibliography

389

Rose, Martin. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. ATANT 67. Zurich: TVZ, 1981. Rosner, Brian S. “The Progress of the Word,” Pages 215 – 33 in Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts. Edited by I. H. Marshall and D. Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Rubin, David C. “Introduction,” Pages 1 – 5 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1995. Rudman, Dominic. “The Commissioning Stories of Saul and David as Theological Allegory.” VT 50 (2000): 519 – 530. Sanday, William, and Arthur Headlam. The Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908. Saracco, Norberto. “I Will Pour out My Spirit on All People: A Pastoral Reading of Joel 2:28 – 30 from Latin America.” CTJ 46 (2011): 268 – 277. Satterthwaite, Philip E. “‫פתר‬.” Pages 3:721 – 25 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Schart, Aaron. Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen. OBO 98.” Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Schmidt, A. Jordan. Wisdom, Cosmos, and Cultus in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Schmidt, Ludwig. “Mose, die 70 Ältesten und die Propheten in Numeri 11 und 12.” Pages 251 – 79 in Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Pentateuch. BZAW 263. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. “Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel.” Pages 255 – 76 in Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Ulrike Schorn and Matthias Büttner. BZAW 310. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Die Johannesbriefe. HTKNT 13/3. 6th ed. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1979. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles. Translated by Reginald and Ilse Fuller. New York: Crossroad, 1992. Schneiders, Sandra M. “Biblical Spirituality: Text and Transformation.” Pages 128 – 30 in The Bible and Spirituality. Exploratory Essays in Reading Scripture Spiritually. Edited by Andrew T. Lincoln, J. Gordon McConville and Lloyd K. Pietersen. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013. Schneiders, Sandra M. “Christian Spirituality: Definition, Methods and Types,” Pages 1 – 8 in The New SCM Dictionary of Christian Spirituality. Edited by Philip Sheldrake. London: SCM, 2005. Schreiber, Mordecai. “I Will Pour out My Spirit on All Flesh’ (Joel 3:1).” JBQ 41 (2013): 123 – 29. Scott, James. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Seebass, Horst. “Num. XI, XII, und die Hypothese des Jahwisten.” VT 28 (1978): 214 – 23. Seebass, Horst. Numeri (10,11 – 14,45). BKAT 4.2.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. Sertillanges, A.G. The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods. Translated by Mary Ryan. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1987.

390

Bibliography

Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, 1963. Shauf, Scott. “Galatians 2:20 in Context.” NTS 52 (2006): 86 – 101. Sheridan, Ruth. Retelling Scripture: “The Jews” and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19 – 12:15. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Silva, Moisés. Philippians. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Ska, Jean-Louis. “Vision and Meal in Exodus 24:11.” Pages 165 – 83 in The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. FAT 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smalley, Stephen. “Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse.” Pages 289 – 300 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Smith, J. K. A. Thinking in Tongues. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Smith, Mark S. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Smith, Mitzi J. The Literary Construction of the Other in the Acts of the Apostles: Charismatics, the Jews, and Women. PTMS 154. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Reflecting on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11.” JBL 118 (1999): 602 – 24. Soskice, Janet. Metaphors and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Spawn, Kevin L., and Archie T. Wright. Spirit and Scripture: Exploring a Pneumatic Hermeneutic. London: T & T Clark, 2012. Spencer, Patrick E. “‘Mad’ Rhoda in Acts 12:12 – 17: Disciple Exemplar.” CBQ 79 (2017), 282 – 298. Sprinkle, Preston M. Law and Life: The Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul. WUNT 2/241. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Stackert, Jeffery. A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Stadelmann, Helge. Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. WUNT 2.6. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1980. Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1 – 8. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Stefan, Crinisor. “The Paraclete and Prophecy in the Johannine Community.” Pneuma 27 (2005): 273 – 96. Steiner, George. Lessons of the Masters. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Steiner, George. Real Presences. London: Faber and Faber, 1989. Stock, Brian, Augustine’s Inner Dialogue: The Philosophical Soliloquy in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Stovell, Beth. “The Arm of the Lord Gathers the Lambs: The Metaphors of Shepherd and Divine Warrior in the Book of the Twelve Prophets.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, GA, November 2010. Stovell, Beth. “Rivers, Springs, and Wells of Living Water: Metaphorical Transformation in the Johannine Corpus.” Pages 461 – 91 in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Bibliography

391

Stovell, Beth. Mapping Metaphorical Discourse in the Fourth Gospel: John’s Eternal King Linguistic Biblical Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Stovell, Beth. “Poetry of Presence: Divine Presence and Divine Spirit in the Book of the Twelve.” In Performance, Voicing, and Metaphor in Poetic Prophecy. Edited by Carol Dempsey, Elizabeth R. Hayes, and Beth M. Stovell. LHBOTS. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, forthcoming. Stovell, Beth. “Jesus Is God with Us: Applying Porter’s Criteria for the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament to the Theme of Divine Presence.” Pages 738 – 763 in The Language and Literature of the New Testament: Essays in Honour of Stanley E. Porter’s 60th birthday. Edited by Craig A Evans, Lois Katharine Dow and Andrew Pitts. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Stowers, Stanley K. “Paul on the Use and Abuse of Reason.” Pages 253 – 86 in Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by T. L. Belch, E. Ferguson and W. A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Stramara, Daniel F. “The Chiastic Key to the Identity of the Beloved Disciple.” SVTQ 53 (2009): 5 – 27. Strazicich, John. Joel’s Use of Scripture and the Scripture’s Use of Joel: Appropriation and Resignification in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Biblical Interpretation Series 82. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Street, Daniel R. They went out from us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John. BZAW 177. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of Saint Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Spiritual Remembering: John 14.26.” Pages 55 – 68 in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. Edited by Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker and Stephen C. Barton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Sumner, George. “Daniel.” Pages 93 – 225 in Esther and Daniel. Edited by Samuel Wells and George Sumner. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2013. Sungenis, Robert A. Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification. Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986 – 90. Tanner, Kathryn. Christ the Key. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Taschl-Erber, Andrea. “Christological Transformation of the Motif of ‘Living Water’ (John 4; 7): Prophetic Messiah Expectations and Wisdom Tradition,” Pages 248 – 70 in Reading the Gospel of John’s Christology as Jewish Messianism: Royal, Prophet, and Divine Messiah. Edited by Benjamin E. Reynolds and Gabriele Boccaccini. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA. and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007. Thatcher, Tom. Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. Thatcher, Tom. Why John Wrote a Gospel. Jesus-Memory-History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Thatcher, Tom. “Why John Wrote a Gospel: Memory and History in an Early Christian Community.” Pages 79 – 98 in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early

392

Bibliography

Christianity. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. SBLSS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Thiselton, Anthony C. “‘Behind’ and ‘In Front of’ the Text,” Pages 97 – 120 in After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig Bartholomew et al. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2001. Thomas, John Christopher and Frank D. Macchia. Revelation. THNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Thompson, Marianne Meye. The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Thrall. Margaret E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. London: T & T Clark, 1994. Ticciati, Susannah. A New Apophaticism: Augustine and the Redemption of Signs. SST 14. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013. Tjørhom, Ola. Embodied Faith: Reflections on a Materialist Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Tops, Thomas. “The Orientation of the Teaching of the Paraclete in the Gospel of John: Retrospective or Prospective?” NTS 66 (2019): 68 – 86. Torrance, Thomas F. God and Rationality. London: Oxford University, 1971. Torrance, Thomas F. Theological Science. London: Oxford University, 1969. Tracy, David. The Analogical Imagination. Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Tsumura, D.T. “An OT Background to Rom. 8:22.” NTS 40 (1994): 620 – 1. Turner, Max. Power from on High. The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. JPTSupS 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Turner, Max. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts—Then and Now. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. Van der Watt, Jan G. Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John. Biblical Interpretation Series 47. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Plurality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998. Vanier, Jean. Drawn into the Mystery of Jesus Through the Gospel of John. Ottawa: Novalis, 2007. Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Van Unnik, W. C. “‘With Unveiled Face’, An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii 12 – 18.” NT 6 (1964): 153 – 69. Venema, G. J. Reading Scripture in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 9 – 10; 31 – 2 Kings 22 – 23 – Jeremiah 36 – Nehemiah 8. OTS 47. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Venuti, Lawrence. Translation Changes Everything: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2013. Vessey, Mark. “The Great Conference: Augustine and His Fellow Readers.” Pages 52 – 73 in Augustine and the Bible. Edited by Pamela Bright. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1999. Von Heijne, Camila. “The Dreams in the Joseph Narrative and their Impact in Biblical Literature.” Pages 30 – 46 in ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’: Reading Dream and Vision

Bibliography

393

Reports in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Elizabeth R. Hayes and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. OTS 584. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Von Wahlde, Urban. The Gospel and the Letters of John: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters. 3 vols. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Waaijman, Kees. Spirituality: Forms, Foundations, Methods. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Waddell, Robbie. The Spirit of the Book of Revelation. JPTSS 30. Leiden: Deo, 2006. Walker, Jr., William O. “The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources.” NTS 54 (2008): 489 – 91. Wall, Robert. 1 – 2 Timothy & Titus. THNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Walsh, John A. “The Dream of Joseph: A Jungian Interpretation.” Journal of Psychology & Theology 11 (1983): 20 – 27. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Weisman, Ze’ev. “The Personal Spirit as Imparting Authority.” ZAW 93 (1981): 225 – 34. Weissenrieder, Annette. “Der Blick in den Spiegel: II Kor 3,18 vor dem Hintergrund antiker Spiegeltheorien und ikonographisher Abbildungen.” Pages 313 – 43 in Picturing the New Testament: Studies in Ancient Visual Images. Edited by Annette Weissenrieder, Friedericke Wendt, and Petra von Gemünden. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Bucher des Alten Testaments. 4th ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. Repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. Wells, Kyle B. Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart. NovTSup 157. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Wendland, E. R. “What is Truth? Semantic Density and the Language of the Johannine Epistles (with special reference to 2 John).” Neotestamentica Vol. 24/2 (1990): 301 – 333. Wengst, Klaus. Häresie und Orthodoxie im Spiegel des ersten Johannesbriefes. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1976. Westcott, B. F. The Epistles of St John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955. Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wiarda, Timothy. Spirit and Word: Dual Testimony in Paul, John and Luke. LNTS 565. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Widmer, Michael. Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32 – 34 and Numbers 13 – 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Williams, Catrin H. “Composite Citations in the Gospel of John.” Pages 94 – 127 in New Testament Uses of Composite Citations in Antiquity, vol. 2. Edited by Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn. LNTS 593. London: Bloomsbury, 2018. Williams, Catrin H. “Isaiah in John’s Gospel.” Pages 101 – 16 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Williams, David. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999. Williams, Joel F. Other Followers of Jesus: Minor Characters as Major Figures in Mark’s Gospel. JSNTSup 102. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Williams, Rowan, On Augustine. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Williams, Rowan, The Edge of Words. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Williams, Sam K. “Justification and the Spirit in Galatians.” JSNT 29 (1987): 91 – 100.

394

Bibliography

Witmer, Stephen E. Divine Instruction in Early Christianity. WUNT II/246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1 – 4 in Early Jewish Literature. WUNT II 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Wright, III, Benjamin G. “Conflicted Boundaries: Ben Sira, Sage and Seer.” Pages 229 – 53 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Edited by Martti Nissinen. VTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Wright, III, Benjamin G. “Fear the Lord and Honor the Priest: Ben Sira as Defender of the Jerusalem Priesthood.” Pages 97 – 126 in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint. Edited by Benjamin G. Wright III. JSJSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wright, III, Benjamin G. “From Generation to Generation: The Sage as Father in Early Jewish Literature.” Pages 309 – 32 in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael Knibb. Edited by Charlotte Hempel and Judith M. Lieu. JSJSup 111. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Wright, III, Benjamin G. “Torah and Sapiential Pedagogy in the Book of Ben Sira.” Pages 157 – 86 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. JSJSup 163. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Wright, III, Benjamin G. “Translation, Reception, and the Historiography of Early Judaism: The Wisdom of Ben Sira and Old Greek Job as Case Studies.” Pages 239 – 54 in “When the Morning Stars Sang”: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Christine Roy Yoder and Scott C. Jones. BZAW 500. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2018. Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Yong, Amos. Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2002. Young, Frances M. “Augustine’s Hermeneutics and Postmodern Criticism.” Interpretation 58/1 (2004): 42 – 55. Young, Frances M. The Theology of the Pastoral Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1994. Zmijewski, Josef. Die Apostelgeschichte. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Pustet, 1994.

Subject Index Abimelech 124 Acquittal (see Justification) 253, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262 – 264, 268, 269 Adam 55, 158, 197, 231, 312, 319, 340 – Second 340 Adoption 267, 311, 320, 323, 325 – 328 Advocate 14, 71, 80, 190, 204, 205, 209, 220, 222 f., 223, 240, 298 Agency 15, 16, 18, 49, 205, 236, 254, 261, 262, 265, 266, 268 – 270, 323, 328, 339 – divine 262 – human 18, 254, 270 Agent(s) 11, 15, 16, 23, 49, 65, 74, 81, 83, 176, 183, 202, 215, 220, 254, 259, 268, 269, 319, 336, 340, 349 – eschatological 23 Agur 141, 143 – 145 Allusion(s) 13, 32, 36, 39, 41 – 43, 51 – 53, 56 – 60, 138, 165, 222, 224, 360, 361 Analogy 61, 68, 177, 180, 205, 206, 339, 349, 350, 358, 362, 368 Anamnesis 177, 187 Anointing 49, 51 – 53, 56, 57, 59, 73 – 81, 173, 185, 203, 209, 210, 229 – oil 53, 56, 59, 78 Anthropology 18 – theological 18 Antichrist 74, 185, 210, 213, 221, 222, 226 Apocalyptic 70, 123, 160, 222, 253, 311, 314, 321, 325, 327 – 329, 344 Apologetic 66, 83 – 85 – evidentialist 83 Apostle(s) 4, 64, 81, 83, 191, 231, 232, 234 – 239, 241 – 244, 248, 273, 311 – 315, 319, 321, 324, 326, 327, 333, 341, 348, 360, 361 Apostolic 71, 72, 80, 239, 290, 291, 322, 332, 335, 337, 344, 345, 350 Augustine 196, 205, 351 – 365, 368 Authority 21, 23, 25, 26, 30 – 32, 34, 35, 40, 57, 75, 91 – 93, 97, 99 – 111, 162, 165, 171, 193, 208, 238, 290, 333, 335, 338, 342, 347, 348, 349 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-026

Balaam 142, 143 Baptism 22, 23, 26 – 28, 33, 35 – 38, 52, 69, 72, 75, 80, 82, 186, 192, 241, 252, 271, 340 – in the Holy Spirit 22, 37, 38 – of repentance 22 Belief(s) 14, 66, 73, 84 – 86, 123, 177, 178, 183, 184, 212, 214, 243, 337, 340, 348, 350 Bilateral 254, 256, 257, 262, 268 Birth 82, 97, 132, 193, 194, 205, 216, 236, 311, 313, 314, 316, 320 – 329, 368 – certificate 322 – 325, 327, 329 – imagery 311, 323, 360 Blessing(s) 107, 234, 256 – 259, 269, 270, 298, 369 Boast(s) 47, 150, 163, 293, 298, 301, 302, 308, 309 Boasting 4, 298, 301, 302, 308 Book of Watchers 317 – 319 Branch(es) 48, 118, 180, 189 Breath(ing) 16, 18, 47, 55, 69, 97, 206, 331, 336, 337 – 340, 342, 347, 350, 370 – Spirit as 55 Breathe(s)

69, 205, 339, 343

Caesar 25 Calvin 67 – 68, 70, 85, 86, 146 Canon 42, 114, 162, 335, 341, 347, 349, 362 – Muratorian 341 Canonical 95, 113, 117, 146, 332, 334, 335, 337, 339, 341– 345, 347, 348, 357, 362 Carnal 96, 364 – desire 96 Catechism 252 – Heidelberg 86 Character(s) 14, 21, 24, 29, 34, 35, 48, 49, 82, 119, 122, 126, 127, 138, 158, 162, 231 – 233, 236, 239, 240, 243, 246, 274, 279, 286, 295, 296, 299, 335, 350 Charismata 41, 69 Charisma (χρῖσμα) 370

396

Childbirth

Subject Index

316, 320, 321

Church Dogma 62 Circumcision 82, 265, 293, 294, 298 – 309 – of the heart 303 – 309, 352 Citizenship 298, 300, 304, 308 Cognitive Faculties 62, 71 Communication 87, 104, 132, 169 – 171, 173 – 176, 179, 183, 184, 186 – 188, 344, 345, 356 – basic model 17 – decoding of 184 Conceptual Blending 43, 44, 49 Confessions of Augustine 359, 360, 363, 364 Context 5, 9 – 12, 16, 17, 23, 27, 28, 31, 35 – 37, 40, 44, 57, 58, 62, 64, 70 – 73, 78, 97, 98, 102, 107, 115, 120 – 122, 125, 126, 128, 129, 138, 143, 145, 146, 150, 152 – 154, 170, 177, 182, 183, 185, 186, 190, 191, 205, 208, 209, 216, 222, 223, 226, 229, 238, 239, 243 – 246, 248, 249, 252 – 258, 260, 261, 263, 269, 271, 274, 279, 281, 284, 289, 291, 293 – 297, 302 – 305, 308, 309, 323 – 325, 332, 335, 339, 353 – Canonical 146, 335, 339 – cross-cultural 129 – missional 129, 235, 244 – multi-cultural 129 Conversion 244, 254, 267, 352, 353 Council 91, 100, 101, 111, 144, 164, 244 Covenant 36, 49, 55, 82, 106, 141, 150, 157 – 159, 163, 253, 254, 257 – 261, 263, 265, 266, 268 – 270, 272, 275 – 278, 285, 286, 289, 290, 296, 298 – 300, 302 – 309, 350, 353 – blood of 36 Creation 16, 18, 47, 51, 55, 79, 126, 128, 137, 144, 156, 159 – 162, 178, 192 – 195, 197, 198, 205, 207, 252, 263, 265, 270, 288, 290, 291, 303, 307, 312 – 324, 326 – 328, 339, 340, 348, 350, 355, 357, 361, 362, 369, 370 – new 18, 252, 263, 265, 270, 303, 307, 315, 328, 340, 369, – secrets of 160

Criticism 31, 68, 69, 123, 147, 197, 274, 331, 335, 345, 356 – narrative 231, 232, – textual 69 Daniel 113 – 117, 120 – 129, 132, 147, David 25 – 27, 34, 51 – 55, 58 – 60, 78, 79, 140, 143, 144, 175, 177 – 181, 183, 187, 235, 246, 257, 274, 279, 312, 324, 326 – King 51 – Son of 34, Dead Sea Scrolls 210, 222, 274, 275 Death 11, 14, 22, 36 – 38, 58, 59, 74, 77, 83, 96, 97, 106, 107, 110, 111, 118, 132, 177, 186, 189, 192, 201, 202, 207, 211, 212, 215, 221, 222, 227 – 229, 251, 254 – 262, 264 – 270, 275, 278, 297, 298, 301, 302, 304, 311, 312, 317, 319, 323 – 327, 331, 332, 369 – atoning 74 Deconstruction 195 Deixis 43, 44, 46 – relational 46 – spatial 46 – temporal 46 Demons 23, 26 – 28, 30, 82, 157, 211 Didactic 76, 131, 169, 176, 182 – 184, 187, 188, 208 Discernment 18, 34, 115, 120, 126, 134, 208, 282, 346, 347, 352 Disciple(s) 14 – 17, 21, 25 – 27, 29 – 39, 76, 80, 82, 83, 135, 137, 160, 170, 175, 177, 180 – 182, 187, 190 – 192, 199, 201 – 213, 215 – 217, 221, 222, 229, 233 – 236, 238, 240, 242, 243, 246, 247, 249, 337, 349 Discipleship 21, 35, 37, 38. Discourse 13 – 15, 28 – 30, 41, 44, 54, 57, 80, 104, 105, 121, 142, 161, 165, 181, 205 – 207, 269, 279, 305, 314, 364 – divine 104 – human 41 Divine Speech 156, 157, 159, 164 Divine 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 16 – 19, 22, 41, 42, 45 – 50, 52 – 54, 56 – 58, 60, 64, 67, 68, 79, 85, 86, 91, 93, 95 – 97, 100, 102, 104, 111, 119, 121, 123, 131, 132, 135 – 137, 141, 142, 144, 146, 149, 150 153,

Subject Index

154, 156, 157, 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169, 172 – 175, 183, 186 – 188, 205, 206, 211, 214, 220, 221, 224, 254, 256, 260 – 262, 264, 268 – 270, 272, 280 – 284, 291, 312, 316, 327, 328, 331, 333, 336 – 340, 342, 344, 347 – 349, 357, 358, 364, 368 – 370 Docetism 186 Docetists 74, 225 Church Dogma 62 Dreams 1, 3, 50, 82, 114 – 124, 127, 128, 131, 141, 281, 282 – interpretation of 116, 122 Dualism 61, 70 Ecclesiastical i, 208 Ecstatic Experience 5, 86, 107, 109, 211, Elders 31, 91 – 97, 100 – 104, 106 – 108, 110, 237, 243, 244, 247, 248, 341 Elihu 146 Elijah 2, 151 – 154, 156, 164, 333 Elisha 2, 151 – 154, 156, 164 Elohist 103 Enslavement 312, 319, 325, 327, 328 Epistemology 40, 71, 73, 80, 81, 84, 85 136, 173, 195, 197 – Reformed 85 Epistles 43, 74 – 78, 80, 83, 201, 203, 204, 211, 213, 217, 219, 222, 224 – 226, 338, 341 – Pastoral 341, Exegesis 2, 17, 18, 41, 60, 62, 71, 75, 86, 100, 126, 143, 175, 190, 191 196, 198, 200, 202, 253, 273, 284, 290, 337, 351, 359, 370 – charismatic 337, Faith

4, 10, 11, 15, 30, 32, 34, 35, 64, 66, 69, 74, 75, 77, 80, 84 – 86, 99, 128, 159, 176, 185, 194, 198, 212, 213, 215, 225, 227, 229, 241, 243, 244, 251, 252, 256, 258, 259, 261, 263, 264, 268, 269, 271, 273, 275 – 278, 291, 294 – 297, 301 – 304, 307, 334 – 338, 356, 358 – 360, 367, 369 – 372 Fear 30, 33, 38, 135, 145, 159, 160, 189, 295, 301, 305

397

– of Yahweh 134 – 136, 138, 143, 144, 146, Flesh 42, 74, 92, 93, 95 – 99, 106, 118, 191, 201, 204, 209 – 213, 215, 217, 221 – 224, 227, 255, 263 – 267, 274, 293, 294, 300, 302, 303, 307, 318, 323, 340, 349, 357 Flourishing 10 – 12, 18, 98, 369 – human 12, 18, 98, 369, Formation 44, 45, 65, 93, 95, 103, 134, 137, 141, 197, 205, 331, 334 – 336, 339, 343, 347, 351, 358 – Christian 336 Freud 70, 127 Fulfilment 58, 59, 82, 110, 240, 259, 267, 306, 308, 309, 321, 322, 328, 352, Fullness 10, 11, 14, 111, 202, 207, 323, 344 Function 4, 5, 13, 15, 26, 52, 76, 80, 100, 116, 165, 169, 182, 184, 201 – 203, 209, 210, 216, 219 – 222, 226, 229, 232, 233, 238, 241, 242, 247, 307, 320, 332, 348, 351, 364 – didactic 76, 182, 184 – mnemonic 169 Gnostics 74 – Cerinthian 74 God 1, 3, 10 f., 14, 17 – 19, 21 – 23, 25, 28 f., 31, 33, 35, 37, 41 f., 45 – 60, 62 – 64, 66 – 68, 70, 74 – 79, 81 f., 85 – 87, 92, 95, 97, 99 f., 102, 104 f., 109, 115, 118 – 124, 126 f., 131 f., 135 – 137, 143 f., 146 f., 149 f., 152, 154, 156 f., 159, 161 – 165, 171 – 175, 178, 183, 185, 187 f., 190 – 194, 196 – 199, 205 – 212, 214 – 216, 220 – 224, 227 – 229, 235 – 237, 242 f., 247, 251 – 268, 270, 272, 274, 276, 278 – 281, 286 – 290, 293, 295 – 297, 299 – 309, 311 f., 314 – 317, 319 f., 323 – 328, 331 – 345, 347 – 353, 355 – 365, 367 – 370 – of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 25 – Son of 28, 35, 36, 74, 224, 258 God Breathed 332, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343 Godfearer 243, Groaning 316, 317, 324, 327

398

Subject Index

Healing(s) 23, 24, 28, 34, 61, 82, 236, 237, 240, 243, 249, 295, 316 Heart(s) 3, 18, 23 – 25, 31, 32, 63, 67, 69, 72, 75, 81, 95, 133 – 137, 140, 142, 146, 150, 159, 161, 163, 190, 211, 227, 260, 261, 263, 265, 270 – 272, 274 – 277, 284, 285, 287, 289, 290, 293, 303 – 308, 338, 342, 344, 351 – 354, 358, 361, 364, 365, 368, 372 – hardness of 32, 307 Hermeneutics 17, 39 – 42, 62, 68 – 71, 99, 126, 131, 169, 185, 189, 195 – 197, – two-step 17 Herodians 25 Hosea 44, 317 – 319

– portraits of 113, 114, 116 – spiritual 9 – 15, 17, 18, 92, 99, 104 Interpreters 75, 93, 98, 99, 102, 104, 110, 111, 113, 118, 119, 121, 122, 128, 146, 157, 204, 206, 208, 264, 278, 279, 290 – 292, 340, 363, 364, 372 Intuition 10, 71 – pneumatic 71 Joseph 48, 113, 115 – 120, 122 – 129, 131, 132, 147, 151, 205, 242, 274 Jubilee 79 Judah 55, 306 Justification 204, 251 – 270, 336, 348 King

Illumination 61, 70, 76, 193, 274, 336, 337, 342, 364 – spiritual 76, 193 Imagination 11 – 14, 17, 19, 134, 162, 345, 346 – analogical 11, 12, 14, 17, 19 – pneumatological 345, 346 Imitation 296, 301, 333 Immersion 36, 38, 128 Incarnation(al) 18, 74, 85, 173, 193, 212, 266, 348, 349, 358, 359, 370 Inner-biblical 39, 41 – 43, 52, 53, 57, 59 Insiders 29, 30, 32 Insight 21, 23, 26, 27, 34 – 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 45, 59, 61, 98, 108, 119 – 122, 127, 129, 137, 159, 160, 164, 179, 181, 196, 203, 204, 215, 216, 232, 346, 370 Inspiration 2 – 4, 77, 131, 149, 150, 153, 155, 157 – 160, 162, 164, 165, 197, 204, 271 – 273, 275, 277, 278, 280 – 285, 287, 291, 331 – 333, 337, 338, 341, 342, 344, 347 – 350, 368, 370 – 372 – divine 131, 160, 165, 331, 338, 344, 347, 348 – of Scripture 346 – 348 Instigation 85, 86 Intent 40, 109, 170, 209 Intention 24, 61, 65, 67, 96, 342, 345, 348, 351, 359 Interpretation – communal 40

2, 28, 35, 50 – 60, 78, 79, 101, 115, 121 – 124, 137, 139, 141, 152, 157, 172 Kingship 35, 39, 42 – 44, 49 – 60 Knowledge 3, 12, 28, 30, 32, 43, 47 – 49, 65 – 67, 73, 75, 78 – 81, 84, 86, 120, 131, 134 – 136, 138, 139, 142 – 144, 150, 153, 154, 159 – 165, 170, 173, 174, 185, 187, 198, 201, 208, 272, 282 – 284, 306, 308, 312, 317, 336, 353, 360, 364, 371, 372. – of God 66, 67, 80, 81, 134, 135 – 136, 317, 353, 364, Leaven 31 – of Herod 31 – of the Pharisees 25, 31 Liberation 311, 327, 328 Linguistics 43 Lord 25, 35, 47 – 52, 54, 55, 60, 64, 79, 82, 95, 102, 111, 117, 123, 135, 137, 147, 150, 153, 160, 162, 234, 235 240, 241, 243, 272, 274, 276 – 279, 283 – 286, 288 – 292, 298, 299, 301, 302, 305, 306, 308, 317, 339, 350 – fear of 48, 79, 153, 240 Mediator 16, 106, 157, 164, 204, 205, 348 – inspired 157 Memory 1, 14, 16, 17, 51, 97, 176 – 181, 185, 203, 338, 354 – 356, 364 – episodic 178, 179 – social 16, 178, 185

Subject Index

Messiah 33, 34, 51, 52, 56, 59, 60, 80, 82, 173, 214, 224, 269, 350 – Davidic 34, 79 Messianic 23, 26, 33 – 35, 37 f., 79, 82, 173, 214, 333, 336, 348 – identity 33, 35 Metaphor 14, 33, 36, 43, 45, 48, 52 – 54, 60, 63, 154, 159, 172, 174, 194, 199, 254, 256, 264, 305, 313, 316, 317, 323 – 327, 339 – conceptual 48 Method 10 – 12, 14, 17, 71, 84, 184, 196, 231, 232, 275, 284, 354, 359, 362 – historical-critical 84 – scientific 84 Mimesis 169, 182, 183, 187, 332, 333 Mind 4, 25, 44, 62 – 65, 69, 87, 91, 128, 134, 153, 176, 178 – 181, 192, 193, 201, 203, 212, 213, 234, 253, 272, 276, 281 – 285, 291, 294, 298, 305, 336, 337, 339, 342, 343, 345, 349, 353, 354, 360, 361, 363, 367, 371 Mortality 106, 211, 265, 340 Mosaic 91 – 93, 99, 101, 102, 104 – 106, 108, 109, 111, 299 Most High God 28, 157, 163 Mystery 10, 29, 81, 121, 191 Narrative 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24 – 30, 32, 34 – 38, 44, 53, 58, 70, 82, 92, 94, 95, 101, 104, 109, 116 – 125, 127, 128, 131, 150, 157, 181, 183, 186, 205, 211, 212, 214, 229, 231 – 234, 236 – 242, 244 – 249, 255, 270, 296, 332, 333, 339, 344, 354, 363, 364 Non-Israelites 115, 124 Nous 63, 64 Numinous 30 Obedience 12, 64, 99, 126, 251, 266, 270, 296, 299, 301, 304, 306, 307, 317, 333 Outsiders 30, 32, 237, 325 Parable(s) 29 – 31, 162, 276, 288, 290, Paraclete 15, 16 181 – 183, 187, 188, 201 – 209, 213, 216, 371

399

Parallelism 48, 162, 235 – poetic 162, Passion 30, 32 – 37, 56, 321 Paul 4, 42 – 44, 47, 48, 51, 55, 56, 62 – 66, 70, 78, 81, 84, 99, 106, 149, 183, 197, 228, 231, 235, 239, 243 – 249, 251 – 280, 283, 284, 289 – 304, 307 – 309, 311 – 329, 331 – 343, 345, 347, 348, 350, 353, 360, 361 – canonical 332, 343 Pentecost 17, 41, 62, 82, 169, 200, 231 – 235, 243, 245, 248, 349 Performance 12, 197, 336, 338, 343, 347, 351, 358 Personification 313, 317, 328 Pharisees 24, 25, 31 Philo (of Alexandria) 3, 204, 214, 271, 272, 275, 279 – 284, 289, 291, 326, 334, 340, Philosophy 197, 198 Possession 26, 27, 76, 81, 136, 211, 280, 282, 283 Postmodernism 67, 189, 196, 356 Post-Priestly 91, 103 Power 1, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 42, 47, 48, 50 – 55, 57, 61, 66, 68, 70, 77, 82, 83, 93, 97, 106, 121, 132, 157, 173, 174, 182, 201, 205, 206, 209, 210, 220, 234, 236, 252, 255, 264 – 266, 283, 301, 302, 307, 311 – 313, 315, 317 – 319, 324, 324, 327, 340, 351, 352, 359, 361, 362, 369 Practice 9, 11, 12, 18, 39, 43, 70, 92, 113, 116, 149, 196, 198, 200, 209, 211, 247, 285, 294, 297, 300, 302, 333, 338, 341 – 343, 345, 351, 352, 359, 363 Praxis 40, 70 Prayer 1, 12, 61, 63, 64, 70, 77, 114, 121, 139, 144 f., 150, 163 f., 196 f., 228, 237, 242 f., 257, 295 f., 345, 359, 363 f. Presence 11, 25, 28, 30, 42, 44 – 51, 53 – 56, 59, 60, 62, 66 – 68, 75, 78 – 81, 83, 96, 100, 106, 107, 119, 120, 132, 135, 146, 185, 189, 195, 205 – 207, 210, 219, 222, 228, 232, 241 – 245, 247, 259, 262, 266 – 268, 270, 272, 277, 300, 311,

400

Subject Index

317, 322, 324, 325, 327, 328 346, 347, 360, 369 – Bread of 25 Presupposition 70 Prophecy 3, 58, 82, 91, 93, 103, 104, 107 – 109, 115, 126, 139, 141, 143, 152, 154, 155, 158, 161 – 164, 182, 183, 208, 248, 338 – 340, 346 Prophet 78, 79, 108, 114, 126, 138, 145, 152 – 158, 164, 165, 206, 208 – 210, 212, 215, 216, 241, 247, 338, 339, 344, 347, Public life 176, 198, 341 Qoheleth

125

Rationalism 61, 62 Recipient 102, 149, 156, 160, 164, 174, 183, 204, 238, 239, 244, 287, 289, 344 Rectification (see Justification) 253, 254, 258, 260, 262 – 264, 268, 269, 314 Redemption 193, 194, 197, 251, 288, 290, 319, 323 – 328, 362, 369 Relational 11, 46, 135, 144, 191, 268 Remembering (see Mimesis) 15 – 17, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 202, 203, 215 Resurrection 11, 15, 22, 25, 30, 58, 59, 77, 83 – 85, 110, 175, 177, 178, 181, 187, 192, 195, 202, 203, 215, 216, 234, 252, 254, 255, 258, 259, 262, 264, 266 – 270, 301, 302, 321, 340, 369 Revelation 1, 2, 29, 50, 51, 60, 67, 75, 77, 87, 103 – 105, 121, 122, 126, 127, 131, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145 – 147, 149, 150, 157 – 164, 172, 173, 178, 190, 201 – 205, 208, 271, 314 – 316, 320, 325, 333, 344, 346, 348, 349, 360, 368 – 371 – dual 122 Righteous 25, 82, 137, 257 – 259, 263, 264, 266, 268, 269, 300, 303 Righteousness 134, 136, 190, 213, 251 – 252, 256, 258 – 261, 263 – 267, 270, 272, 299, 302, 303, 307, 362 Sabbath 23, 25, 245, 276, 287 Scripture – inspiration of 346, 347, 348,

– interpretation of 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 14, 18, 61, 92, 113, 115, 124, 125, 129, 249, 275, 277, 279, 284, 285, 292, 370, 371 – Israel’s 91, 334 – Jewish 9, 13, 335, – meanings of 346 – performative character of 335 – pneumatology of 332, 342 – 345, 348 – reading of 9, 15, 67, 215, 275, 277, 337 – typology of 336, 337, 343, 347, Secessionist(s) 73, 74, 223, 224, 228 Sensus Plenior 11, 17 Septuagint 334 Servant 14, 33, 79, 156, 235, 236, 301, 355 Service 31, 34, 160, 238, 273, 289, 290, 296, 298, 300, 301, 309, 368, 371 Shepherd 52 – 56, 60, 247 Sinner 25, 257, 353 Sola Scriptura 331 Solomon 123, 132, 133, 146, 147 Soul 135, 150, 159, 282 – 284, 305, 306, 308, 339, 360 – 362 Spectrum 3, 3, 17, 43, 368 – hermeneutical 17 Speech – divine 156, 157, 159, 164 Speech-act 170 Speech 4, 27, 52, 62, 109, 131, 138, 141, 156, 157, 159, 164, 170 – 175, 183, 185, 187, 211, 227, 247, 311, 320, 321, 338, 346, 358, 359 Spirit 2 – 5, 9 – 11, 13, 15 – 19, 21 – 24, 26 – 28, 30, 35, 37 – 45, 47 – 53, 55 – 73, 75 – 87, 91 – 102, 104 – 111, 113 – 117, 119, 120, 122, 124 – 129, 132, 137, 139 – 143, 146, 149 – 154, 156 – 159, 163 – 165, 169 – 171, 173 – 177, 181 – 193, 195 – 213, 215 – 217, 219 – 226, 228, 229, 231, 232, 234 – 245, 247 – 249, 251 – 256, 258 – 270, 272 – 296, 300 – 303, 306 – 309, 311 – 314, 316 – 329, 335, 337 – 340, 342 – 352, 356, 360 – 362, 364, 367 – 372 – birth certificate of 322 – 325, 327, 328, 329 – certification of 323, 324, 328

Subject Index

– divine 4, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 42, 45, 48, 119, 150, 153, 154, 164, 220, 272, 283, 340, 369, 370 – fruit of 17 – Holy 2 – 4, 10, 21, 24, 26 – 28, 35, 37, 39, 41, 46, 47, 50 – 52, 56, 59 – 78, 80 – 87, 95, 102, 105, 114, 122, 128, 135, 143, 144, 150, 154, 171, 174, 176, 198, 203 – 207, 209, 219 – 221, 231, 236, 237, 239 – 241, 243, 245, 247 – 249, 252, 254, 258, 267 – 269, 275, 279, 280, 284 – 291, 307, 318, 328, 334 – 336, 340, 341, 343, 349, 350, 367 – 370 – human 16, 18, 55, 150, 151, 153, 164, 220, 221, 360, 369, 370 – in an unclean 21, 23, 26 – 28, 30, 35, 37, 38, 237, 299 – of Jesus 244, – of the Lord 48, 49, 80, 153, 206, 262, 272, 276, 290, 292 – of the world 81 – of truth 16, 78, 80, 183, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195 – 197, 200, 201, 203, 205 – 207, 210, 211, 213, 216, 220 – 223, 225 – of understanding 150, 151, 153, 154, 157, 158, 163 – 165, – testimony of the 78, 80, 186, 198, 211, 289 Spiritual authority 21, 238 Spirituality 9 – 12, 18, 196, 351 Strategy 21, 38, 131, 231, 252 Subjectivity 16, 76, 77, 86 Suffering 10, 21, 32 – 38, 58, 68, 106, 247, 248, 260, 296, 297, 302, 311, 313, 316, 319 – 322, 324, 325, 327, 328, 332, 333 Supernatural 41, 68 – 70 Synagogue 15, 23, 26, 27, 64, 80, 95, 208, 245 – 247, 278, 290, 291, 333, 336 Talmud 117 Teacher 4, 25, 73 – 76, 106, 138, 155, 172, 185, 206, 208 – 210, 217, 242, 282, 334 – 336, 341 Teaching 4, 15, 25, 27, 29 – 33, 37, 69, 71, 73 – 77, 80, 85, 86, 131 – 133, 138, 143, 145, 150, 154, 155, 157 – 159, 161, 163, 165, 172, 174 – 178, 181 – 187, 190, 192,

401

199, 201 – 203, 206 – 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 243, 244, 246, 247, 255, 256, 269, 272, 304, 307, 333, 335, 337, 341, 343 Tent of meeting 103, 104, 108, 109 Testimony 27, 28, 57, 58, 67, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 86, 87, 174, 175, 183, 184, 186 – 188, 190, 191, 193, 195, 198, 203, 207, 210, 211, 216, 241, 286, 289, 338, 347, 354 Text 3 – 5, 9 – 19, 26, 38, 41, 43, 50 f., 60, 62, 67, 70, 72, 91, 94 – 96, 98 – 103, 105 – 109, 113 – 118, 122 – 124, 126 – 128, 132 f., 144, 149, 151 – 156, 158 f., 162, 164 f., 169 – 171, 175, 183 – 188, 196 f., 202, 212, 214 – 216, 220 – 223, 225, 228, 232 f., 242, 245, 254, 264 – 266, 268, 270 – 291, 308, 317 – 319, 321, 328, 331, 335 – 340, 342 – 352, 356 f., 359 f., 362 f., 367, 370, 372 – behind 62, 127 – in front of 62 – within 117 Theosis 270 Torah 15, 91, 98, 102, 104, 106, 114, 137, 145, 157, 158, 162, 214, 266, 271, 272, 274, 276, 277, 280 – 283, 289 – 291, 299, 300, 302, 304, 306, 307, 341 Tradition – apostolic 332, 335 – prophetic 138, 139, 145, 215 Transcendence 9, 10, 18 Transfiguration 30 Transformation 11, 13, 18, 21, 160, 220, 260 – 262, 267, 276, 279, 280, 284, 291, 300, 301, 306, 316, 351, 357, 358, 363 Translation 14, 149 – 151, 153, 159 – 161, 191, 199, 204, 205, 223, 234, 274, 280, 286, 322, 323, 329, 331, 334, 352, 367, 368 f. Trial(s) 14, 27, 152, 159, 175, 248, 296 – cosmic 14, 209 Trilateral 254, 256, 257, 262, 268 Trinitarian 40, 68, 71, 191 Truth 16, 30, 57, 63, 67, 70, 73 – 78, 80, 81, 83 – 87, 169, 172, 174, 175, 183, 185, 187 – 198, 200 – 204, 206 – 210, 212,

402

Subject Index

213, 215 – 217, 220, 222, 225, 227, 229, 242, 295, 309, 331, 333, 341, 345 – 349, 352, 355, 356, 363 – divine 169, 172, 175, 187, 188 Typology 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 341, 343, 347, Uncircumcision 302, 303, 307 Understanding 10, 11, 18, 21 – 24, 26 – 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 36, 44, 46 – 49, 53, 58 – 61, 63, 67, 68, 70, 79, 101, 106, 113, 118 – 120, 122 – 124, 127, 133 – 137, 143, 144, 153, 154, 173, 175 – 178, 182, 187, 192, 194, 196, 201 – 204, 208, 209, 211 – 213, 215, 216, 220, 223, 227, 234, 254, 256, 276, 278, 283, 289, 294, 296 – 298, 300, 303, 304, 306, 308, 338, 340, 347, 350 – 352, 356, 358, 359, 363, 364, 369 Union 55, 196, 251, 270, 327, 348, 358 Virtues 17, 132, 341 Visionary 100, 346 – experience 100, Visions 13, 41, 50, 82, 94, 121, 123, 124, 141, 156, 239, 240, 281, 345 Wind 23, 47, 55, 61, 95, 151, 175, 196, 206,

Wisdom 3, 21, 23 – 26, 47 – 49, 61, 64, 65, 79, 81, 99, 102, 118, 120, 122, 126, 128, 129, 131 – 141, 143 – 147, 149 – 165, 173 – 175, 182, 198, 201 – 205, 207 – 209, 214, 220, 282 – 284, 335, 336, 338, 348, 360, 364, 367, 371, 372, – acquisition of 136, 147, 160 – revelatory 138, 141, 145, 146, 173 – traditional 144 – 145, 147 Witness(es) 11, 14, 16, 17, 23, 28 – 32, 51, 57, 59, 66, 83 – 86, 128, 170, 175, 196, 201, 203, 204, 207 – 212, 215 – 217, 231, 234 – 241, 248, 249, 313, 322, 323, 325, 328, 342, 343, 346, 348, 349, 359 – self-authenticating 84, 85 Woman 5, 24, 26, 34, 35, 136, 145, 175, 177, 245, 246, 313 – 315 – ideal 145 Women 5, 30, 82, 231, 234, 237 – 240, 242, 245, 247, 248, 293, 315, 317, 318, 321, 322, 324, 328, 369 Work(s) 18, 29, 40 – 42, 48, 61, 63, 67, 72, 84, 127, 159 – 163, 165, 173, 204, 210, 219, 252, 256, 258, 285, 286, 294, 307, 336, 341, 343, 347, 348, 362, 363 – good 336, 341, 343, 347, 348, 362 – transformative 21, 253 Worship(ping) 12, 30, 64, 77, 220, 234, 288, 293, 298, 300 – 303, 307 – 309, 343, 346, 347, 350, 351, 358, 370

Scripture Index Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Genesis 1 1:1 1:1 – 2:3 1:2 1:3 1:6 – 8 1:14 – 19 2:1 – 3 2:4 2:7 [LXX] 3 6:1 – 4 6:5 – 7 6:11 – 12 10 12 12:1 – 3 20 28 31 37 37:5 – 8 37:9 37:9 – 11 37 – 41 37 – 50 40 40 – 41 40:8 40:9 – 15 40:12 40:16 – 19 40:18 40:20 40:22 41 41:8 41:12 – 13 41:38 41:38 – 39

355 193, 277 97n28 193n13 128, 197, 361 274 362 362 339 287, 287n29 16, 339, 339n12, 340(3), 370 315, 317 317 318n24 318n24 244n52 258n28 258 124 124(2) 124 117(3), 118n7, 120 117 117 117 116 118n7, 131 117, 118 115, 116, 124, 126 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 117, 118, 122, 131 119 119 119(3), 122 48

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110689297-027

41:39 42 45:8 50:20 Exodus 3:14 4:27 5:10 – 19 12:38 13:21 14 14:19 – 24 14:21 15 15 – 17 15:8 15:10 15:13 15:17 15:24 16 16 – 18 16:2 16:4 16:7 16:8 16:9 16:10 16:12 16:15 17:3 18 18:13 – 27 18:22 19:9 19:16 19:17b 19:18 – 20 20:18 24 24:1

119, 131 119 131 131 44n22, 60, 128n31 138n19 46 101 98 45 96n25 45 47 50 92 47 47 47 46 214n27 15, 93n13, 98n29 271 214n27 214n25, 214n26 214n27 93, 214n27 214n27 45 214n27 214n25 214n27 93n.13, 94n13, 98 93, 103 94n13 45 45 104 46 46 94n13, 100, 100n37 93, 93n13, 100

404

24:9 – 11 24:11 24:13 24:15 – 18 24:17 25 – 31 25:15 25:16 25:18 28:3 31:3 32 32 – 34 32:17 32:18 – 23 33 33:7 – 11 33:8 33:9 – 10 33:11 33:14 33:14 – 15 34

34:5 34:6 – 7 34:26 34:29 – 35 34:34 35 – 40 35:21 35:31 40:34 – 38 Leviticus 5:7 12:6 14:5 – 6 18:5 19:18 19:28 21:5 25

Scripture Index

93, 100 100, 100n37 104n56 45, 46 45 47 45 45 45 3, 47, 48, 367(2), 368(2) 47, 140n23, 198n33, 368 275 45 104n56 45 93n10, 280n19 91n2, 103 46 103 103, 104n56, 156 45 46 50, 271, 275(3), 275n10, 276, 277(3), 279, 283, 289(2), 290(3), 291, 292 104 45 45 272 274, 290 47 198n33 47, 368 45

37 37 174 258 25 300 300 79

Numbers 11

11 – 12 11 – 14 11 – 19 11:1 11:1 – 3 11:4 11:4 – 6 11:4 – 10 11:4 – 34 11:4 – 35 11:4 – 12:8 11:7 11:7 – 9 11:10 11:11 11:11 – 12 11:11 – 15 11:12 11:13 11:14 – 17 11:15 11:16 11:16a 11:16 – 17 11:17 11:18 – 34 11:22 11:21 – 22 11:23 11:24 11:24b 11:24 – 25 11:24 – 30 11:25 11:25b 11:26 11:26 – 29 11:29 11:30 11:31

50, 91, 92, 93n11, 94, 94n13, 94n17, 95, 96, 96n20, 97, 98n29, 99, 99n32, 100, 100n37, 101n44, 102, 103n47, 103n49, 110, 111 96n25 271 92 214n27 92 98, 102, 107 98 97 94 95 91n2, 103 198n33 98 102 98 97 96n24, 106n64 98 97, 98 97 99, 106 100 – 104, 107 97 103 100, 104, 105, 106n64 97 98, 107 99 99 92, 107 110 103, 104, 107 97 91, 95, 96, 104, 105 99n33, 108(2) 96, 101 109 105, 109, 109n78 107(2), 110 96

Scripture Index

11:32 11:34 12 12:6 13 – 14 14:2 14:27 17:5 [LXX 17:20] 17:10 [LXX 17:25] 19:17 – 19 21 24:1 – 3 24:3 24:3 – 4 24:15 24:15 – 16 27:18 Deuteronomy 1 1:9 – 17 4 4:2 4:9 4:10 4:26 4:28 5 5:5 5:21 5:22 5:26 5:29 6:2 6:4 6:5 – 6 6:13 6:24 8:3 8:6 8:19 10:12 10:12 – 13 10:16 10:20 10:20 – 21

107 98 93n11, 105 141 45n26 214n27 214n27 214n27 214n27 174 96n25 142 142 142 142 142 106 106n64, 126, 135, 135n15, 146, 341 94n13, 103n47 93 305 144 305 135 309 305, 308 135 135n14 98 108 135 135n14 135 25 305 135, 308 135 214n26 135 309 135, 308 305 304, 305(3), 306 135, 308 308

11:13 11:16 11:18 12 12:20 12:32 [MT 13:1] 13:1 – 6 13:2 13:3 13:4 [MT 13:5] 13:6 13:13 14:1 14:23 17:19 18:10 21:3 21:6 22:15 22:17 26:16 28:45 28:58 29 – 30 29:4 29:18 29:26 30:1 – 10 30:6 30:18 31:9 – 13 31:12 31:13 31:14 31:14 – 15 31:20 32:5 [LXX] 34:9 34:10

305, 308 308 305 98 98 108n76, 144 126 308 305 135 308 308 300 135 135 116 100 100 100 100 305 309 135 258n28 305 308 308 306 305 309 104n54 135 135 91n2, 104 103, 106 308 297, 309 48 91n2, 103, 156

Joshua

106

Judges 7 7:15

116, 123 115, 123

405

406

Scripture Index

1 Samuel 11:6 16:13 19:23

79 79 79

2 Samuel 7:25 22:31 23 23:1 23:1 – 3 23:2

334 144 142 142 142 99n33

1 Kings 1 – 11 1:36 3 3:5 8:26 20 22:24

132 334 123, 133 123 334 144 99n33

2 Kings 9:25 2 Chronicles 24:20 – 21 24:27

4 142

Nehemiah 8 9:20

114 206

Job 1:7 16:2 23:8 24:12 31:38 – 40 32:8 38 – 41 Psalms 1 12:6 [MT 12:7] 18:31

136n17, 144, 145n32, 146, 147 360n31 204n7 359 316 316 198n33 146 53n51, 60 114n2 144 144

33:16 53 36:1 [MT 36:2] 142n28 42 [LXX 41] 360(2) 42:2 [MT 42:3] 361 42:5 [MT 42:6] 362 42:6 [MT 42:7] 360 42:6 – 7 [MT 42:7 – 8] 360 42:7 [MT 42:8] 361 42:8 361 42:10 [MT 42:11] 362 43 [LXX 42] 360 43:5 362 69:9 15 76 50n43 78 97, 97n29 78:7 143n29 78:17 – 30 93 78:21 – 22 98n29 78:23 – 25 98n29 78:24 214n25 78:26 98n29 78:26 – 27 97 78:39 97 85:11 [MT 85:12] 362 92:5 334 94 [LXX] 286(2), 287 94:9 – 10 [LXX] 285, 286 95 285, 287n29 95:7 – 11 284 95:11 287n29 99 50n43 104:3 – 6 97n28 104:10 – 14a 97 104:16 – 22 97 104:27 – 29a 97 104:30a(29b) 97 105:19 144 106:14 – 15 93 110:1 35n17 110:10 26 118 57 118:22 4 119 114n2 139:6 144 142 [LXX] 257 142:2 [LXX] 257

Scripture Index

142:9 – 12 143:2 Proverbs 1 1–2 1–9 1:1 1:1 – 7 1:2 – 7 1:7 1:8 1:8 – 10 1:8 – 19 1:19 1:20 1:20 – 21 1:20 – 33 1:22 1:23 1:23 – 28 1:24 1:28 1:32 2 2:1 2:1 – 4 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:5 – 6 2:5 – 11 2:6 2:9 2:10 2:12 – 15 2:12 – 22 2:16 – 19 2:20 – 22 3:19 – 20 4:1 4:3 4:3 – 4 6:20 7

257 257

138 145, 146 134, 138n20, 145, 145n33, 146, 165n52 142 146 138 135 145 138 138 138 138 138 138n20 138 139, 139n21, 140, 141(2) 139 139 139 139n21 134, 136 – 138, 141 134 134, 141 134 134 134, 135, 136, 136n16 144 134 – 135 136(2) 136(2) 136(2) 136 136 136 136 144 133 145 133 145 132

7:7 8:13 8:22 – 31 8:31 9:5 9:10 10 10 – 29 10 – 31 10:1 10:27 13:14 14:2 14:26 14:27 15:3 15:9 15:20 15:25 – 26 15:29 15:33 16:1 16:3 – 5 16:6 16:7 16:9 17:3 17:15 18:4 18:10 19:17 19:21 19:23 19:26 20:20 20:22 – 23 20:24 21:1 21:2 21:31 22:4 22:12 22:17 23:22 23:35 24:17 – 18

407

134 135 138n19 138n19 214n26 135(2), 136n16, 143 – 144, 143n30 147 144 137 142, 145n34 135 174 135 135 135 137 137 145n34 137 137 135, 145n35 137 137 135 137 131, 137 137 137 174 137 137 131, 137 135(2) 145n34 145n34 137 131 137 137 137 135 137 142 145n34 145n34 137

408

Scripture Index

24:23 24:30 – 34 25:1 25:21 – 22 28:5 28:24 29:15 29:18 30 30 – 31 30:1 30:3 30:4 30:5 30:7 – 9 30:10 – 33 30:11 30:17 31 31:1 31:30

142n26 133 142 137 137 145n34 145n34 137 144, 144n32, 145 141, 146 141, 142(2) 136n16, 143, 143n29, 143n30, 144 144 144(2) 144 144 145n34 145n34 145(2), 145n33 141, 142 135

Ecclesiastes 8:1 8:5

145n32, 146(2), 147 115, 125(2) 125

Song of Songs 8

146n36

Isaiah 1:15 1:18 2:1 – 3 5:5 6 6:9 – 10 11 11:1 – 2 11:1 – 9 11:2

11:2 – 3 11:9 12:3 13:1

128n31, 341 139 363 215n28 141 144 29, 32 79(2), 107n68 79, 82 48n39 48, 79, 99n33, 153(3), 153n12, 154, 173, 173n12 140n23, 153, 164 174, 215n28 174 142

13:8 14:28 15:1 17:1 19:1 19:8 21:1 21:3 21:11 21:13 22:1 23:1 24:4 – 7 26:17 – 18 28:26 30:6 31:6 35:6 – 7 40 – 55 [LXX] 40:3 40:3 – 5 40:6 – 8 40:10 – 12 42 42:1 42:1 – 2 43:18 – 19 44:3 45:1 – 5 46:8 48:16 49:6 54:9 – 55:5 54:13 55:1 – 3 55:10 – 11 56 – 66 58:7 – 8 61:1 61:1 – 2 63:7 – 14 Jeremiah 4:4 4:31 7

321 142 142 142 142 316 142 321 142 142 142 142 316 321 198n33 142 139n21 174 14, 235 99n33 235 356 52 79(2) 79(2), 82 80 363 140, 140n23, 141, 174, 206 198n33 353 138n19 235 15 215n28 174 214n26 235 362 99n33 79(2), 80, 82(2) 45n.27 341 306 321 138n20

Scripture Index

9:23 – 24 301, 308 11:11 139 14:12 139 16:21 141 17:13 174 20 138n20 23:18 144 23:22 144 23:25 – 32 126 23:33 – 38 142 28 115n3 29 114 31 286(2), 289 31:31 – 34 286, 306, 353 31:33 288 31:33 – 34[LXX 38:33 – 34] 215n28, 285, 286, 288, 288n32 31:34 287, 288(2), 308(2) Lamentations 1:1 – 4 2:14 9:15

316 142 214n25

Ezekiel 8:11 8:18 11 11:19 11:19 – 20 12:10 20:5 34 36 36 – 37 36:22 – 28 36:26 36:27 37:1 – 14 37:8b 37:9b [LXX] 37:14 39:25 – 29 39:29

53n51, 60 100 139 277 140, 141 274 142 141 53, 54 277, 307n14, 307n15 340 306 140, 141 141 307, 339 339 339, 339n13 140, 141 307 140, 141

Daniel 1:17 2 2–4 2–7 2:19 2:28 2:44 4 4:8 4:34 [LXX] 5 5–7 5:11 7 7 – 12 7:7 7:13 7:16 9 12:3

121, 198n33 116, 121(2), 122 124 116(2) 121 122 121 116, 122(2) 122(2) 326n48 116, 122(2) 124 122, 198n33 123 123 123 123 116, 123 114, 126(2) 297

Hosea 4:1 – 3 11:12 [12:1 MT]

318, 319 317 143n30

409

Joel 44n22, 52n48, 60 2 50 2–3 50n44, 51 2–4 42, 49 2:1 50n45 2:11 49 2:15 50n45 2:27 49 2:28 [3:1 MT] 109n78, 140, 140n23 2:29 [3:2 MT] 140 2:28 – 29 [3:1 – 2 MT] 50, 51, 141 2:28 – 30 [3:1 – 3 MT] 42n15 2:28 – 32 [3:28 – 32 MT] 82, 126 2:30 – 32 [3:3 – 5 MT] 50 2:32 [3:5 MT] 50 3:16 [4:16 MT] 51 3:17 [4:17 MT] 49

410

Scripture Index

3:21 [4:21 MT] 4 4:17

49 50 50n45

Amos

144

Micah 3:4 4:9 – 10

52 140 321

Nahum 1:1

142

Habakkuk 1:1 2:4 2:14

142 258, 264, 269 215n28

Zephaniah 3:14

57

Haggai 2:4 – 5 2:5

128n31 45n27 206

Zechariah 1:3 4

52 142 53

4:6 7 7:11 – 13 9 9 – 10 9 – 11 9 – 12 9:1 9:8 9:9 9:9 – 10 9:12 – 15 9:16 10 10:1 10:2 10:3 10:5 11 12 12 – 14 12:1 12:10 14:8 Malachi 1:1

53 138n20 140 54, 59 54n54, 56, 57 53 42, 49, 53, 56, 60 142 54 56n59, 57 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54, 55 55 – 59 58 55, 142 55, 58, 140, 141 174

142

Christian Scriptures / New Testament Matthew 3:16 5:14 9:3 9:4 10:20 14:22 – 33 21:5 24:8

22 362 24n2 24n2 222 31n13 56n59 320

Mark 1:1 1:8 1:10 1:21 – 28

21 – 38, 229 28, 35, 37 26 22 27

1:22 1:23 1:23 – 27 1:24 1:30 – 34 1:32 1:32 – 34 1:39 1:40 2:1 – 12 2:3 – 12 2:10 2:15 – 17 2:18 – 22 2:23 – 28

23, 25 26 23 28 23 26 23, 28 23 23 23 23 23 25 25 25

Scripture Index

3:1–5 3:5 3:7 – 12 3:10 3:11 3:30 4 4:1 – 20 4:11 4:12 4:12 – 13 4:13 4:15 4:35 4:35 – 41 4:40 4:41 5:1 – 18 5:1 – 20 5:2 5:2 – 13 5:6 5:7 5:15 5:16 5:18 5:25 – 34 5:28 5:29 5:30 5:34 6:1 – 6 6:2 6:5 6:7 6:13 6:30 6:32 – 44 6:45 – 52 6:50 6:52 7:1 – 23 7:14 – 15 7:18 7:24 – 30 7:25 7:25 – 26

23 32n15 28 23 23, 28 26 29 29n11 29 29 32 30 29n11 30 30 32n14 23 26n5 28 26 23 28 28 26 26 26 23, 24, 34 34 34 24 34 23 23 23 26n5, 30 26n5, 30 30 30 30 30 31, 32 31 31 31 34n16 26 26n5

7:28 – 30 7:32 – 35 8:1 – 10 8:11 8:11 – 12 8:14 – 21 8:17 – 18 8:21 8:22 – 26 8:29 8:29 – 32 8:31 – 33 8:32 – 33 8:34 8:46 9:6 9:17 9:25 – 27 9:30 – 32 9:33 – 37 10:2 10:32 – 34 10:34 10:35 – 45 10:36 – 40 10:38 10:39 10:45 10:46 – 52 12:13 – 17 12:15 12:18 – 27 12:28 – 34 12:34 12:35 – 37 12:36 13:8 13:11 14:23 14:36 15:19 15:39 16:8 Luke 1:1 – 4 1:4

23 23 31 24n2 24 31 31 31 23 35, 37 32 35 33 35 24 30 26 23 30, 33 33 24n2 30, 33 34 33 36 36n20, 38 36n19 36n19 23, 34 25 24n2 25 25 34n16 35n17 26 320 27 36 36 28 37 30n12 128 84, 343, 344 344

411

412

1:15 1:41 1:67 2:25 – 27 3:4 – 6 3:16 3:21 3:21 – 22 3:22 4:1 4:14 4:18 – 19 5:21 5:22 7:15 8:1 – 3 8:26 – 39 8:51 – 55 10:1 11:13 12:24 12:27 12:50 24 24:18 24:19 24:31 24:33 24:36 24:44 – 49 24:45 24:47 24:48 24:49 24:51 – 52 John

1 1 – 13 1:1 1:1 – 18 1:2 1:4 1:4 – 5 1:4 – 11

Scripture Index

82 82 82 82 235 82 82 80 22 80, 82 82 82 24n2 24n2 240n40 234 244n52 240n40 244n52 76, 222 65 65 36n20 233(2), 233n12 233n12 84 234 234 234 336, 348 234 235 234 76n13, 234, 235 234 13, 169 – 188, 189 – 200, 201 – 217, 219 – 229, 371 194 205 195, 211 183, 192, 194 193 193, 194 172 172

1:5 1:6 – 8 1:7 1:9 1:11 1:12 1:14 1:15 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:19 – 28 1:19 – 36 1:32 1:32 – 33 1:32 – 34 1:33 1:35 – 37 1:37 1:38 1:51 2:11 2:13 – 22 2:17 2:18 – 20 2:19 – 22 2:21 2:22

2:23 2:32 2:34 3 3:2 3:3 3:3 – 8 3:3 – 10 3:5 3:5 – 6 3:6 3:8 3:13 3:16 – 21

172n10 83 83 172(2), 193(2) 194 188 83, 175, 178, 211(4), 224 83 172 172(2), 173, 188, 207 175, 191 175 83 110, 173(2), 173n12, 174, 220 205, 206 215, 224 191, 205(2), 220(2) 180 175(2) 172 173, 173n14, 190 84 15 15, 176, 177, 181, 187, 216 177 216n29 177, 183 15, 176, 177, 181, 187, 202, 202n2, 203, 215, 216 84 191 191 57, 224 172 215 205, 224 173 220 205(2), 206 215, 220, 221(2) 61, 175, 191, 220 172 183

Scripture Index

3:19 – 20 3:31 3:31 – 32 3:31 – 36 3:33 3:34 4 4:8 4:10 4:10 – 15 4:14 4:23 – 24 4:25 4:27 4:32 – 34 4:40 5 5:1 – 18 5:19b 5:19 – 20 5:20b 5:22 5:27 5:30 5:31 5:36 5:37 5:38 – 39 5:39, 40 5:44 5:45 6 6:2 6:14 – 15 6:27 6:31 6:33 6:35 6:38 6:40 6:41 – 42 6:41 – 66 6:43 6:44 – 45

172 172(2) 172 183 172 76, 172, 173(2), 174(2), 187, 205, 206, 220 214n26, 224 175 174 173 174 183, 205, 206, 220, 221 207 175 173 175 224 173n15 173n15 173, 183n46 173n15 208 208 208 207 84 208 216 14, 203, 216 208 208 13n9 84 170 214 15, 214, 214n25, 214n27 214(2) 215 214 215 214 173 214n27 215(2)

6:45(a) 6:46 6:48 6:48 – 51 6:49 6:50 6:51 6:52 6:53 – 54 6:57 – 58 6:59 6:61 6:63

6:64 6:64 – 65 6:68 7 7:7 7:14 – 15 7:14 – 17 7:16 7:16 – 17 7:17 7:28 7:32 7:35 7:37 – 39 7:38 – 39 7:39 7:52 8 8:2 8:4 8:12 8:13 8:16 8:18 8:20 8:23 8:26 8:28 8:31 – 32 8:38 8:40

413

183n46, 216(2) 172 215 215 214n27 215 191, 211, 215 215 215 215 172 214n27 172, 174(2), 183, 187, 205(2), 206, 215, 220, 222n7 222n7 215 172 57, 214n26 207 207 172 172, 183n46 208 207 172 214n27 172 202, 205(2) 15, 174 76, 205, 206, 220, 222 216 224 172 172 193, 194 207 208 208 172, 207 172(2) 172(2), 174n16, 183n46, 207 172, 174n16, 183n46 172, 192 172(2), 174n16 172

414

8:47 8:54 8:55 9:5 10 10:25 10:32 10:38 11:11 – 14 11:28 11:33 11:41 – 42 12 12:1 – 11 12:12 – 16 12:15 12:16 12:16 – 17 12:23 12:27 – 28 12:28 12:49 – 50 12:50 13:1 13:4 – 5 13:6 – 9 13:7 13:12 13:13 – 14 13:16 13:21 13:23 13:31 – 32 13:33 13:34 13:36 13:36 – 38 14 14 – 16 14:1 14:5 14:6 14:8 14:10 14:11 14:12

Scripture Index

172 208 172 193 224 84 84 84 173 172 220, 221(2) 173 42, 49, 56, 57, 59, 60 56 216n29 56n59, 57 176, 177, 181, 183, 187, 202, 203, 215 202 208 173 208 172, 174n16 172 180 180n36 180n36 170, 202, 203, 215 170, 180n36 172 177 220, 221(2) 175(2), 188 208 180 228 180 173 190, 192 71, 205 180 180 190, 191 180 207 84 220

14:15 14:15 – 31 14:16 14:16 – 17 14:16 – 19 14:17

14:21 14:23 14:24 14:25 14:25 – 26 14:26

14:31 15 – 17 15:3 15:4 – 7 15:7 15:10 15:12 15:13 15:15 15:17 15:18 – 20 15:18 – 16:4(a) 15:19 15:20 15:26

15:26 – 27 15:27 16:4(a) 16:6 16:7 16:7 – 8 16:7 – 11 16:8 – 11 16:12

228 190 76, 182 206(2) 222 16, 80, 183, 185, 189, 191, 208, 213, 220(2), 222n8 228 191, 192, 208 172 76 216n29 15, 80, 169, 176, 182, 184, 185, 185n53, 186, 201, 201n1, 202, 202n2, 206(4), 207(2), 208, 209n21, 216, 217, 220(2), 221, 222(2), 224, 349 180, 180n37 180n37 172, 174 74 186 228 220, 228 180 172 220 177 177, 190 213 176, 177 16, 76, 80, 183, 189, 203, 206(4), 207, 215, 217, 220(2), 221, 222, 222n8, 224 208 16, 183 176, 177, 187, 202n2 180 71, 76, 206(3), 220 206, 209, 213 183 208 202, 203n4

Scripture Index

16:12 – 13 16:12 – 15 16:13

16:13 – 14 16:13 – 15 16:14 16:15 16:20 16:20 – 22 16:21 16:22 16:25 16:26 – 29 17:1 17:1 – 26 17:5 17:8 17:11 17:14 17:15 17:17 17:20 17:20 – 23 17:26 18 – 19 18 – 20 18:1 18:15 18:19 18:19 – 20 19 19:25 19:26 – 27 19:30 19:34 19:35 19:36 19:36 – 37 19:37 20:2 20:8 20:16 20:19 – 23

216n29 169, 190, 201n1, 209n21 80, 182, 183, 189, 201, 206(3), 207, 208, 213, 217, 220(2), 222, 222n8, 224, 229, 349 207, 216 182, 184, 186 208, 215 76 180 177 176 180 187 187 208 173 208 172 208 172 208 172, 174 188 228n17 208 58 205 180, 180n37 175 207 172 42, 49, 57, 58, 59, 60 233n12 175 220, 221(2) 57 57, 170, 175(2), 180n36 15 183 58 175 181 172 58, 222

20:22 20:22 – 23 20:30 – 31 20:31 21:7 21:20 21:24

Acts 1 1:2 1:4 1:5 1:8 1:14 1:15 1:15 – 26 1:16 2

2:4 2:5 2:10 2:17 2:17 – 18 2:17 – 21 2:18 2:22 2:24 2:32 – 36 2:33 2:33 – 40 2:34 2:38 2:38 – 39 2:39 2:42 – 47 2:43 2:44 2:47 3–7 3:2 3:3 – 4

415

16, 202, 205(2), 220 110 183 14, 184, 188(2), 203 175, 181 175, 199 83, 170, 175, 180n36, 184, 191 128, 231 – 249, 332 – 333, 344 233, 234 234 76n13 82 231, 232, 235(2), 236, 237, 239 231, 240n39 232, 234, 235 231 234n17 42, 49, 51, 52n48, 59, 232, 233, 235, 239, 239n37, 248 83, 235, 237 235 248 239, 243 248 82 242 84 320 51 52, 76n13, 82, 235 235 244 82, 236, 237, 238 243 235(2) 236, 237(2), 242 236 236, 248 236(2) 236 – 239 236 236

416

3:6 3:9 – 26 4–5 4:4 4:8 4:8 – 12 4:16 4:29 – 30 4:30 4:31 4:32 4:32 – 37 5 5:12 5:13 – 14 5:14 5:15 – 16 5:32 6 6:1 – 7 6:3 6:5 6:10 7 7:1 – 60 7:55 8 – 12 8 8:1 8:3 8:4 8:12 8:14 8:15 8:17 8:17 – 19 8:18 8:29 8:35 8:39 9 9:2 9:10 9:12 9:15 – 16 9:17 9:17 – 18

Scripture Index

236 236 233n9, 237 237 83 4 84 237 237 83(2) 248 237, 242 237 84 237 237, 248 237 76, 237 237, 238 242 83 83 83, 238 341n18 4 83, 238 239 – 242 239n37 232, 239(2) 239n36 239 239n36 239n35 82 235 82 76 239 239n37 239 239, 240, 240n40, 279 239n36 239 239 332 83, 239 235

9:25 9:27 9:30 9:31 9:32 9:35 9:36 9:38 – 39 9:42 10 10 – 11 10:3 10:7 10:10 10:17 10:19 10:23 10:24 10:38 10:44 10:44 – 45 10:45 10:47 10:48 11 11:1 11:5 11:11 11:12 11:14 11:15 11:19 – 21 11:19 – 26 11:24 11:26 11:27 11:28 11:29 12 12:2 – 4 12:5 12:9 12:9 – 11 12:12 – 13 12:14 – 16 12:25 13 – 20

240n38 240 240n38 240 239n35 240 240 239n35 240 240 243 240 240 240 240 240 241 239n35, 241 82 235, 241 82 82, 241 82, 83 241 241 232 240(2) 241 83, 240, 241(2) 241 241 241 239 83, 241 241 241 83 241 242 242 242 242n44 242n44 242 242 242 242 – 247

Scripture Index

13 13 – 14 13:1 – 4 13:2 13:3 13:5 13:12 13:13 13:14 – 52 13:16 13:26 13:43 13:45 13:47 13:48 13:50 13:52 14:1 14:4 14:13 14:14 14:20 14:21 14:22 14:22 – 23 14:23 14:27 15 15:2 15:4 15:6 15:8 15:12 15:22 15:28 15:32 15:33 16:1 – 3 16:4 16:5 16:6 16:7 16:10 – 17 16:14 16:14 – 15 16:15 16:19

242 332 243 83 243 242 243 242 333 243 243 243 243 244 243 243 243 243 235n18, 243 84 235n18, 243(2) 243 243, 332 243, 247 243 243 243 16n12, 244 232, 244 244 244 76, 82, 83, 244 84 244(2) 82, 83, 244 244(2) 244(2) 244 244 244 244 244 244 245(2) 244 245 244

16:32 – 34 16:40 17:1 – 5 17:2 – 3a 17:3 – 5 17:4 17:6 17:9 17:10 17:12 17:14 17:15 17:17 17:18 17:19 – 31 17:34 18 18:2 – 3 18:7 – 8 18:10 18:26 18:27 19:2 19:6 19:9 19:10 19:11 19:18 – 20 19:21 19:22 19:29 19:30 – 31 20:4 20:5 20:7 – 12 20:17 – 38 20:22 – 23 20:28 20:29 – 30 20:35 21 – 28 21 21:3 – 5 21:7 21:9 21:11 21:16

245 245 333 333 333 245 245 245 245 245 246 246 246(2) 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246(2) 82 82, 235 247 247 84, 247 247 247 245 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247, 248 247 247

417

418

21:17 21:18 21:20 22 22:4 22:19 22:12 – 16 23:16 24:23 27 – 28 27:3 28:14 28:15 28:23 – 28 28:24 Romans 1–4 1 – 11 1:1 – 4 1:2 1:16 1:16 – 17 1:17 1:18 2:5 2:6 – 13 2:12 2:15 2:16 2:25 – 29 2:28 – 29 2:29 3:4 – 8 3:22 3:23 – 24 4:1 – 8 4:3 4:5 4:5 – 8 4:9 – 12 4:13 – 25 4:17 4:24 4:25 5

Scripture Index

248 248 248 248 248 248 239 248n65 248 248 248 248 248 333 248 263 – 268 264(3) 263 264n40 336 315 263 264, 266, 268, 269 264 264 267 264 353 264 303 265(2) 303, 307 264 334n4 251, 265, 268 264 272 264 269 303 264 324 251 266 265, 311

5–8 5:1 5:5 5:6 – 11 5:9 – 11 5:12 5:12 – 14 5:12 – 21 5:14 5:16 5:16 – 18 5:16 – 19 5:17 5:21 6 6:2 – 7 6:9 6:14 6:16 – 17 6:20 – 23 7 7:4 7:4 – 6 7:5 7:5 – 6 7:6 7:7 – 25 7:7 – 8:30 7:16 7:22 7:24 – 8:1 7:25 8 8:1 8:1 – 2 8:1 – 30 8:2 8:2 – 4 8:3 – 4 8:4 8:5 – 8 8:6 8:9 8:9 – 11 8:10

264(3), 265(3), 266, 267 267n51 76 266 264 312 327 317 312 261n35 256n21 264 312 265, 312 265, 311 266 312 312 327 327 265 266 265 266 265 307 266 265(2) 65 65 266n49 266 255, 263(2), 265(2), 266n47, 311, 318 266, 266n48 267(2) 266 266, 266n48 266n49 266 267n54, 307 267 267n51 81, 267 267 267(5)

Scripture Index

8:11 8:12 – 17 8:13 8:14 8:14 – 23 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:19 8:19 – 23 8:20 8:20 – 21 8:21 8:22 8:23

8:26 8:29 – 30 8:31 – 34 8:32 – 33 9 – 11 9:1 – 3 9:4 11:16 11:26 11:27 12:2 12:6 14:17 16:1 16:5 16:7 16:20 1 Corinthians 1:10 1:18 – 25 1:31 2:6 – 16 2:10

267(2), 267n52, 323 326 323 267n55, 314, 323 321 81, 319, 320n27, 325, 326, 328(2) 323, 325 326 324, 325n42 313, 314(3), 316, 320, 325, 326, 328 311(2), 313(2), 328 313, 315, 320 312, 313 312(2), 313, 317, 320, 328 313, 316(3), 319, 320, 325n42 311, 313, 316, 317, 319, 320, 324, 325(2), 326(3), 327, 328(4), 329 319, 323 268 264n42 268 272, 324n41 324n41 265 323 324n41 265 63, 65, 361 210 255n18 315n15 323 315n15 312, 327 64, 128, 229 64 64 301 81 81

2:12 2:13 2:14 – 15 2:16 3:1 3:13 3:16 – 17 6:11 6:19 8 – 10 8:1 – 3 8:32 10:2 – 4 10:11 11:2 – 16 11:9 12 – 14 12:4 – 10 12:7 12:7 – 11 12:10 12:13 12:27 14:1 – 5 14:15 14:19 14:20 14:29 – 33 15:3 – 8 15:20 15:23 16:15 2 Corinthians 1:21 – 22 1:22 3

3–4 3:1 – 3 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:7

419

76, 81 81 81 64 364 288 78 255 78 65, 228n17 65 212 271 359n27 5 267n54 65, 277 208n19 76 364 210 76, 81 288 210 63, 65 63 63, 361 210 84 323n39 323n39 323n39 260 – 263 76, 81 322 4, 255, 260(3), 263(2), 273(3), 276, 277(2), 280(2), 280n19, 284, 292 291 272 260, 261(3), 262, 307 262 260, 261(5), 262(2), 263, 307 261(4), 262, 276

420

3:7 – 11 3:7 – 14 3:7 – 18 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:12 – 13 3:12 – 18 3:14 3:14 – 15 3:15 3:16 3:16 – 17 3:17 3:17 – 18 3:18

4 4:3 – 4 4:4 4:4 – 6 4:6 4:16 – 17 5:2 5:4 – 10 5:5 5:14 – 21 5:16 5:17 5:21 10:17 11:3 12 Galatians 1:1 1:1 – 4 1:4 2–3 2–4 2:11 2:15 – 21 2:15 – 3:14 2:16

Scripture Index

260 273 274(3) 261 256n21, 260, 261(3), 262, 263, 269 261(2) 261(2) 275 271, 272, 274 275 276 275, 276 262, 274 276 262, 289, 290 261 260, 262, 263n39, 273, 276, 278, 279(5), 280, 284, 291(2) 260 276 290 291 274 273 361 262 76, 322 263 263 363 260 301 360 273 64, 255 – 259 257 255 257, 322 255, 259, 261n34 257 256n21 256 256, 258 251, 256, 257, 258

2:16 – 21 2:19 – 20 2:19 – 21 2:20 3 3:1 3:1 – 5 3:1 – 14 3:2 3:2 – 3 3:5 3:6 3:6 – 14 3:9 3:10 – 14 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:21 3:21 – 22 3:23 – 26 3:28 4:3 4:6 4:9 4:19 4:24 4:27 4:29 5:6 5:10 5:11 5:19 – 25 5:20 – 21 5:24 – 25 6:7 – 9 6:13 – 14 6:14 – 15 6:15 Ephesians 1:13 1:14 1:17 2:10

259 256, 257(3) 255 212, 258, 269 263, 277 63, 361 256, 258, 259(3) 258 256 63, 64 76 259 259(2) 259 256, 258 258(2), 259, 269 258 257 258, 259 256, 258(2), 259, 262n36 256, 257 335n6 315n15 257 267n55 257 320, 321(2) 272 320 267n55 259(2), 303 256 304n11 259 294 255 259 302n10 255 303, 307n14

76, 81(2) 322 76 341

Scripture Index

2:11 – 16 2:12 2:22 4:11 4:23 4:30 Philippians 1:1 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:10 1:12 – 14 1:13 1:15 – 19 1:16 1:18 1:19 1:22 1:23 1:27 1:27 – 30 1:28 1:29 1:29 – 30 2 2:3 – 5 2:6 – 11 2:7 2:8 2:12 – 13 2:14 – 15 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:17 – 18 2:19 – 21 2:22 2:25 2:27 2:29 2:30 3 3:1 – 2 3:1 – 3 3:2

303 304 342 210 63 81 293 – 309 301 293, 298 301 293 298 293 293 294, 295 293 299 296 299 295 294, 298, 304, 308 295 297, 309 297 296 296 294 296 301 297 301 296 309, 362 298 301 299 295 301 299, 301 295, 301, 303 296 299 302, 303, 308 294 293, 297, 298 299

3:3 3:4 – 16 3:9 3:10 3:13 3:17 3:17 – 20 3:18 3:19 3:20 4:2 – 3 4:3 4:13 4:14 4:15

421

293, 300(2), 303, 307, 308 302 303 297 360 296n4, 299 297, 302 295 309 300n8, 304, 308 293n1 299, 315n15 63 294n3 293n1

1 Thessalonians 2:13 4:8 5:3 5:12

64 71 76 320 63

2 Thessalonians 2:13 3:15

64 323n39 63

1 Timothy 1:3 2:6 2:10 3:1 3:14 – 16 3:15 3:16 4:13 4:14 4:16 5:6 – 10 5:10 5:17 – 20 5:25 6:18

334 334 341n19 341n19 341 333n3 268 333n3 333n3 333n3 341 341n19 341 341n19 341n19

2 Timothy 1:5 1:6 – 7

331 – 350 335 333n3, 340

422

1:7 2:9a 2:15 – 19 2:21 3 3:1 – 9 3:10 – 13 3:11 3:14 3:14 – 15 3:14 – 17 3:15 3:15 – 17 3:16

3:16 – 17 3:17 4:2 4:4

Scripture Index

76 333 341 341n19 335 334, 335, 341 332, 333, 334 332 333, 335(2), 344 336 333(2), 343 334, 335(3), 336 334, 348 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 336n8, 339, 342, 344 336, 347, 350 333, 334, 335, 336, 339(2), 341, 341n19 333 333

Titus 1:3 1:16 2:7 2:14 3:1 3:1 – 8 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8

333n3 341n19 341n19 341n19 341n19 269 269, 307n15 269 269 341n19

Hebrews 1:1 – 3 3 3–4 3:7 3:7 – 8 3:7 – 11 3:9 3:9 – 10 3:12 3:15 3:17 4:3

199n37, 284 – 292, 371 348 286, 290 289 287(2) 284, 287 285 286, 289 286 287, 290 287n29 286 287n29

4:7 4:11 6:9 8:10 – 12 9 9:6 – 9 9:6 – 10 9:8 9:9 9:11 – 12 10 10:15 – 17 10:15 – 18 10:16 – 17 10:17 10:24

287n29 287 289 286 289, 290 285, 287, 289 288n30 287 288 288, 290 286(2), 289 285 288 286 287 65

1 Peter 1:1 1:14

288 288

2 Peter 1:12 – 21 3:15 3:15 – 16 3:16

335 335 335, 335n6, 336 335 335

1 John 1 1:1 1:1 – 3 1:1 – 4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 – 11 1:10 2:1 2:1 – 2 2:3 – 5 2:4 2:5 2:8 2:9 2:9 – 10 2:10

80, 184, 204, 219 – 229 226 224 83 171, 175, 178, 184 187 74(2), 225(2) 212 74, 225, 226(2) 187 74(2), 225, 226(2) 182, 223 74, 212 74 74(2) 187 187 74 74 74, 79

Scripture Index

2:11 2:12 – 14 2:14 2:15 – 17 2:18 2:18 – 28 2:19 2:20

2:20 – 27 2:21 2:22 2:22 – 23 2:24 2:26 – 27 2:27

2:29 3 3:5 3:6 3:8 3:8 – 9 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:14 3:14 – 16 3:14 – 18 3:15 3:16 3:19 3:22 – 24a 3:23 3:24 (3:24b) 4:1 4:1 – 2 4:1 – 3 4:1 – 6 4:2

74 78 76 213 74, 187, 223, 226 185 73, 225, 228n17 73, 74, 76, 77(2), 78(2), 86, 185, 185n53, 186, 187, 203, 210 209 74, 187 74(3), 229 74, 223, 224 74, 76, 77, 78, 185, 186, 203 208 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80(2), 86, 185, 185n53, 186, 187, 202, 203, 210, 229(2) 74 226, 229 187 74, 226(2) 74 74 226(2) 74(2) 220 74 187 227 74 227 187 228 74, 220, 228 74, 75, 76, 187, 221, 228 209, 210, 221, 222 202, 203 209 77, 185, 225n11, 345 187, 210, 211(2), 212(2), 221(2), 222, 223, 224, 227

4:2 – 3 4:3 4:3 – 5 4:4 4:5 – 6 4:6 4:7 – 8 4:8 4:9 – 10 4:11 4:11 – 12 4:12 4:12 – 13 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:19 4:19 – 21 4:20 4:21 5 5:1 5:1 – 3 5:2 5:2 – 3 5:5 5:6 (5:6b) 5:6 – 8 5:6 – 12 5:8 – 20 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:11 – 12 5:13 5:15 5:16 5:18 5:19 5:20 2 John 2 5

423

74, 211 74, 210, 212, 221(3), 222(2), 223 213 78, 220 74 78, 183, 187, 210(2), 221(4), 223, 225 74 74 212 220 74 220 221 75, 76, 77, 187 212 74 74 74 74 74 228 58 74 74 187 74, 228 74(2) 75, 80, 183, 220, 221 57, 186 186n55 187 221 208 74 212 184 187 226 74 74 191 219n2 76 220

424

Scripture Index

5–6 7 7–8 9 10 – 11 3 John 10

184, 228 223 186 186(2) 228n18 219n3 176

12 Revelation 1:19 2–3 11 12:2

184 229, 346 – 347 345 345 346 320

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Wisdom of Solomon 15.11 16 Sirach (Ben Sira) 2.12 – 14 3.21 – 24 3.23 4.6 4.9 4.17 – 18 4.18 5.9 5.11 6.18 – 22 6.18 – 37 6.19 6.23 – 31 6.28 6.32 – 37 7.11 9.9 15.18 16.17 16.24 – 25 16.25 17.11 24 24.1 – 12 24.2 24.8 24.10 24.13 – 17 24.14 – 17 24.19

291, 371 156 160 160 151 151 159 160, 164 151 151 160 160 161 161 161 161 151 151n6 161 151 161 151 214n26 156, 158, 158n33, 163, 164(3) 157n27, 158 157 157 157 158 163 159

24.19 – 21 24.19 – 22 24.23 24.24 24.25 – 27 24.27a 24.28 24.28 – 31 24.28 – 34 24.29 24.30 – 32 24.32 24.32 – 33 24.32 – 34 24.33 27.27 29.3 30.15 34.14 36 36.1 – 22 38.23 38.24 – 34b 38.24 – 39.11 38.34 – 39.8 38.34c–39.3 38.34c–39.5 38.34c–39.11 39 39.1 39.1 – 5 39.4 39.5

161, 214n26 158, 214n26 157, 158, 158n33, 159, 163 158n32 158, 159 158n33 158n33 158 159 159 158 155(3), 163 160, 161 154, 158 155(3), 157, 158, 159, 163 334 334 151(3) 151(2) 156 156n24 151(2) 149 149 149 – 150, 164 162 157 149, 163 156, 158, 164(3) 162(3) 162, 164 163 163, 163n48

Scripture Index

39.6

39:6 – 7 39.6 – 8 39.7 39.8 39.9 – 11 39.12 – 15 39.13 – 14 39.16 – 21 39.28 39.32 – 35 41.8 – 9 42.15 42.17 42.18 42.18 – 19 42.18 – 21 42.19

149, 150, 151(2), 152, 152n10, 153(3), 153n14, 154(2), 157, 158(2), 159(2), 162, 163(3), 163n48, 164, 165 291n34 3, 153n12, 157, 159, 159n34 154, 165 163(3) 163, 165 161, 163, 163n49 163 163 151(3) 161 156 161, 162, 162n44 161 161(2) 159 161 161, 164

43.11 43.15 – 45.33 43.17 43.20 43.28 43.32 43.32 – 33 43.33 44.1 – 16 44.23 f–45.5 45.5 46.1 48.12 48.22 48.23 48.24 48.25

161 159 151(2) 151 161 160, 162n44 161, 162 162n44 156 214n26 156 151(4), 151n7, 152(2), 152n9, 164 151, 153 153 151(3), 152, 153(4), 153n13, 153n14, 164 160

2 Maccabees 7.24 12.25

334 334

Joseph & Asenath 19.11

206n12

Jubilees 25.14

206n12

Letter of Aristeas

326n48

Jewish Pseudepigrapha Ahiqar 94b

132

1 Enoch 1 – 36 7.3 – 6 9.1 – 3a 9.10

316, 318, 319 318 318 318

4 Ezra 7.1 – 4 14.20 – 44 14.37 – 38

291, 338 316 291n34 338

Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 206n12 Testament of Judah 20.5 206n12

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts 206n12, 210n23 1QH XII, 27

274

XX, 11 – 12 1QS III, 18 – 19

425

3 222

426

Scripture Index

IV, 21 – 23

206n12

IV, 23

222

Philo Judaeus On the Cherubim (Cher.) 27 – 29 4 48 282n24 On the Creation of the World (Opif.) 23 205 165 205 That Every Good Person is Free (Prob.) 114 326n48 On Flight and Finding (Fug.) 18.9 214n26 Who is the Heir? (Her.) 39.191 214n26 On the Life of Joseph (Ios.) 239 204 – 205 Allegorical Interpretation 1, 2, 3 (Leg.) 3.162 – 164 214n26 On the Life of Moses 1, 2 (Mos. 1, 2) 2.134 205 2.264 – 265 206 3.39 334n5

On the Change of Names (Mut.) 44.259 – 260 214n26 On the Migration of Abraham (Migr.) 34 – 35 281(3), 282 34 – 37 280 35 280 On Dreams 1, 2 (Somn.1, 2) 283 2.251 281 2.252 4, 281, 282 On the Special Laws (Spec. 1, 2, 3, 4) 3.1 – 2 3.1 – 6 3.2 3.3 – 4 3.4 3.5 – 6 3.6

1, 2, 3, 4 282 3, 280n20, 282 282 282 282 282, 282n24 282, 282n24, 284

On Planting (Plant.) 22 – 24 282n24 On Giants (Gig.) 53 – 54

282n24

Josephus Jewish Antiquities (A.J.) 2 6.56 2 6.76 2 9.35 – 36 2 12.27 – 28 326n48

Proem 3, 10.10.4 Jewish War (B.J.) 3.352 – 353 4.33

334n5

1n1 2

Ancient Greek and Roman Authors Aulus Gellius Attic Nights (Noctes Atticae) 5.19.1 – 3 325n44

Gaius Institutiones (Inst.) 1.134

326n45

Scripture Index

3.83 – 84 4.38

326n46 326n46

Plato Phaedrus (Phaedr.) 246A–253C

282 282n23

Early Church Fathers Augustine The Confessions (Conf.) 351 – 365 I.1.1 352 II.1.1 352 IV.12.18 352, 353 IV.12.19 353 V.14.24 356 VI.1.1 353n6 VIII.7.17 352 VIII.5.10 352 VIII.5.11 352 X.3.4 353(2) X.8.15 354 X.11.18 354n8 X.16.25 354 X.17.26 354, 354n8, 355 X.26.37 359 X.33.50 354 XI.3.5 355 XI.20.26 356 XII.15.18 356 XII.31.42 356 XII.32.43 356 XIII.13.14 – 15.16 360 XIII.14.15 361

XIII.15.17 XIII.15.18 XIII.18.22

356 356(4), 358n24 362, 364(2)

Teaching Christianity (Doctr. chr.) I.xi – xiii 357n14 Enarrations on the Psalms (Enarrat. Ps.) 41.13.8 361n34 57.1 353 Tractates on the Gospel of John (Tract. Ev. Jo.) 18.10 353n7 Irenaeus Against Heresies (Haer.) 1.26.1 225 Tertullian The Apparel of Women (Cult. fem.) 1.3 338n11 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (Hist. Eccl.) 6.1.14 13n8

427