Page 3 :
Originally published as Paulus: Leben und Denken, © 2003 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin / New, York. All rights reserved., English translation © 2005 by Baker Publishing Group, Published by Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group, P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287, www.bakeracademic.com, The publication of this work was supported by a grant from the, Goethe-Institut.
Page 4 :
Ebook edition created 2014, All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any, form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy,, recording—without the prior written permission of the, publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed, reviews., ISBN 978-1-4412-4200-6, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at, the Library of Congress, Washington, DC., Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New, Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, copyright ©, 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National, Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by, permission.
Page 5 :
Contents, Cover, Title Page, Copyright Page, Translator’s Preface, Preface to the German Edition, Abbreviations, Part One: The Course of Paul’s Life, and the Development of His Thought, 1. Prologue: Paul as Challenge and, Provocation, 1.1 Approaching Paul, 1.2 Reflections on Historiography, 1.3 Methodological “Handle”: Meaning, Formation in Continuity and Change, 2. Sources and Chronology for Paul’s, Life and Work: Definite and, Hypothetical, 2.1 Absolute Chronology, 2.2 Relative Chronology, 3. The Pre-Christian Paul: Open-Minded, Religious Zealot, 3.1 Background and Social Status
Page 6 :
4., , 5., , 6., , 7., , 3.2 Paul: Pharisee in the Diaspora, 3.3 The Religious and Cultural, Background of Paul’s Thought, 3.4 The Persecutor of the Earliest, Churches, The Call to Be Apostle to the Gentiles:, The New Horizon, 4.1 The Reports about the Damascus, Event, 4.2 Significance of the Damascus Event, The Christian Paul: A Volcano Begins, to Rumble, 5.1 Rehearsal and Coaching: Paul and, Early Christian Tradition, 5.2 Paul’s Bible, 5.3 First Steps as a Missionary, 5.4 Paul as Missionary of the Antioch, Church, The Apostolic Council and the, Incident at Antioch: The Problems, Remain Unresolved, 6.1 The Apostolic Council, 6.2 The Antioch Incident, Paul’s Independent Mission: The, Volcano Erupts, 7.1 Presuppositions of the Pauline Mission
Page 7 :
7.2 Beginnings of the Independent, Mission, 7.3 The Pauline School and the Structure, of Paul’s Work with the Churches, 7.4 The Self-Understanding of the Apostle, to the Gentiles, 7.5 The Development of Early Christianity, as an Independent Movement, 8. Paul and the Thessalonians:, Consolation and Confidence, 8.1 Prehistory and Initial Preaching, 8.2 The Theology of 1 Thessalonians, 8.3 The Ethic of 1 Thessalonians, 8.4 First Thessalonians as a Document of, Early Pauline Theology, 9. First Corinthians: High and True, Wisdom, 9.1 Conflict in Corinth, 9.2 The Wisdom of the World and the, Foolishness of the Cross, 9.3 The Power of the Spirit and the Purity, of the Community, 9.4 Freedom and Obligation in Christ, 9.5 The Power of the Spirit and Building, Up the Church, 9.6 The Resurrection of the Dead, 9.7 The Cross, Justification, and the Law
Page 8 :
10. Second Corinthians: Peace and War, 10.1 The Events between 1 and 2, Corinthians, 10.2 The Unity of 2 Corinthians, 10.3 Paul’s Life as Apostolic Existence, 10.4 The Glory of the New Covenant, 10.5 The Message of Reconciliation, 10.6 The Fool’s Speech, 11. Paul and the Galatians: Discovery in, Conflict, 11.1 Prehistory, 11.2 The Galatian Crisis, 11.3 The Doctrine of the Law and of, Justification in Galatians, 11.4 The Ethic of Galatians: Freedom, Active in Love, 11.5 Inclusive and Exclusive Doctrine of, Justification in Paul, 12. Paul and the Church in Rome: HighLevel Encounter, 12.1 The History and Structure of the, Roman Church, 12.2 The Letter to the Romans as a, Contextualized Document, 12.3 The Gospel of Jesus Christ, 12.4 Knowledge of God among Jews and, Gentiles
Page 9 :
12.5 The Righteousness of God, 12.6 Paul and the Old Testament, 12.7 The Presence of Salvation: Baptism, and Righteousness, 12.8 Sin, Law, and Freedom in the Spirit, 12.9 Paul and Israel, 12.10 The Shape of the New Life, 13. Paul in Rome: The Old Man and His, Work, 13.1 Prehistory: Paul en Route to Rome, 13.2 Philippians, 13.3 The Letter to Philemon, 13.4 Paul the Martyr, Part Two: The Basic Structures of, Pauline Thought, 14. The Presence of Salvation: The, Center of Pauline Theology, 15. Theology: The God Who Acts, 15.1 The One God Who Creates and, Concludes, 15.2 God as the Father of Jesus Christ, 15.3 God as the One Who Elects, Calls,, and Rejects, 15.4 The Gospel as God’s Eschatological, Good News of Salvation
Page 10 :
15.5 The Newness and Attractiveness of, the Pauline Talk of God, 16. Christology: The Lord Who Is Present, 16.1 Transformation and Participation as, the Basic Modes of Pauline, Christology, 16.2 Jesus Christ as Crucified and Risen, 16.3 Jesus Christ as Savior and Liberator, 16.4 Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son, 16.5 The Substitutionary Death of Jesus, Christ “for Us”, 16.6 The Death of Jesus Christ as Atoning, Event, 16.7 Jesus Christ as Reconciler, 16.8 Jesus Christ as God’s, Righteousness/Justice, 16.9 God, Jesus of Nazareth, and Early, Christology, 17. Soteriology: The Transfer Has Begun, 17.1 New Being as Participation in Christ, 17.2 The New Time between the Times, 18. Pneumatology: The Spirit Moves and, Works, 18.1 The Spirit as the Connectional, Principle of Pauline Thought, 18.2 The Gifts and Present Acts of the, Spirit
Page 11 :
18.3 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 19. Anthropology: The Struggle for the, Self, 19.1 Human Being and Corporeality: σῶμα, and σάρξ, 19.2 Sin and Death, 19.3 The Law, 19.4 Faith as the New Qualification of the, Self, 19.5 Centers of the Human Self, 19.6 The New Freedom, 20. Ethics: The New Being as Meaning, Formation, 20.1 Life within the Sphere of Christ:, Correspondence as Basic Ethical, Category, 20.2 The New Being in Practice, 21. Ecclesiology: The Church as a, Demanding and Attracting Fellowship, 21.1 Primary Vocabulary and, Foundational Metaphors of Pauline, Ecclesiology, 21.2 Structures and Tasks in the Church, 21.3 The Church as the Realm of Freedom, from Sin, 22. Eschatology: Expectation and, Memory
Page 12 :
22.1 The Future in the Present, 22.2 The Course of the Final Events and, Life after Death, 22.3 The Destiny of Israel, 22.4 Eschatology as Time Construal, 23. Epilogue: Pauline Thought as, Enduring Meaning Formation, , Selected Bibliography, I. Texts, II. Lexica, Dictionaries, Concordances,, Reference Works, III. Commentaries, Monographs, Essays,, Articles, Index of Subjects, Index of Greek Words and Phrases, Index of Modern Authors, Index of Ancient Sources, Notes, Back Cover
Page 13 :
Translator’s Preface, In recent years Udo Schnelle has perhaps, become best known for his works on the, Gospel and Letters of John.[1] Udo Schnelle’s, doctoral dissertation, however, was a study, of Paul’s theology of baptism, Gerechtigkeit, und Christusgegenwart: Vorpaulinische und, paulinische Tauftheologie (Göttinger, Theologische Arbeiten 24; Göttingen:, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983); and he has, never ceased to be interested in the life,, letters, and theology of Paul, as attested by, his numerous articles listed in the, bibliography of this book and by the, extensive section on Paul in his introduction, to the New Testament, The History and, Theology of the New Testament Writings, (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis:, Fortress, 1998). Now he has brought, together his work on Paul in a, comprehensive study that will take its place, among the standard works in the field. In my, judgment, it is the best single volume on, Paul’s life and work, providing to students
Page 14 :
and teachers at all levels a thorough survey, of all major issues, integrating a careful and, judicious engagement with the vast primary, and secondary literature and his own, balanced interpretation. I am thus very, pleased to facilitate its use in the Englishspeaking world., At the author’s and the publisher’s request,, I have augmented the bibliography with, English books and articles, mostly listing, books and articles comparable to the ample, German bibliography already present, for the, benefit of students who do not read German., I have also complied with the author’s and, publisher’s request that I occasionally, provide translator’s notes on the German, text reflecting the European context with, which the reader might not be familiar. In, both cases, I have kept my own contributions, to a minimum., A valuable aspect of the volume is its, extensive use of primary sources from the, Hellenistic world. After the death of Georg, Strecker, Schnelle assumed the editorship of, the Neuer Wettstein: Texte zum Neuen, Testament aus Griechentum und Hellenismus, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996). His citation of
Page 15 :
such texts as are found there and insight into, their relevance for New Testament, interpretation greatly enrich this study of, Paul. Except where otherwise indicated,, translations of Aelius Aristides, Apostolic, Fathers, Apuleius, Cicero, Dio Chrysostom,, Diogenes Laertius, Epictetus, Euripedes,, Eusebius, Homer, Iamblichus, Josephus,, Lucian, Menander, Musonius Rufus, Ovid,, Philostratus, Plato (Gorgias, Resp.), Plutarch,, Quintilian, Res gestae divi Augusti, Seneca,, Sophocles, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Xenophon, are from the Loeb Classical Library editions, listed in the bibliography., This translation has been read by the, author, Udo Schnelle, and by James Ernest,, Joe Carey, and Paul Peterson for Baker, Academic, all of whom have made helpful, suggestions for which I hereby express my, heartfelt thanks.
Page 16 :
Preface to the German Edition, The goal of this book is to present a, comprehensive introduction to the life and, thought of the apostle Paul. It is intended as, a textbook that takes a didactic perspective, on the material as a whole and documents all, important positions in Pauline research. At, the same time, it is an independent, contribution to the ongoing debate, outlining, my own position on disputed points., Since each section can be read as an, independent unit, intended to be, understandable on its own, some overlapping, and repetition were unavoidable. I have, attempted to reduce these to a minimum,, although experience has taught that, textbooks are usually not read straight, through—and thus some repetition is in fact, necessary and helpful., I here express my gratitude to Dr. Michael, Labahn and Dr. Manfred Lang, my coworkers, at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, for, their continuing expert advice as well as for, their help in correcting the proofs. I am, grateful to Dr. Claus-Jürgen Thornton not
Page 17 :
only for his customary good care regarding, publication details but also for his, discussions regarding the contents of this, book., Halle, November 2002, Udo Schnelle
Page 18 :
Abbreviations, General, Abbreviations, , ca., ch(s)., col(s)., diss., ed(s)., e.g., enl., esp., ET, et al., exp., f(f)., frg., i.e., ibid., lit., LXX, NF, NIV, NRSV, p(p)., , circa, chapter(s), column(s), dissertation, editor(s), edited by, exempli gratia, for example, enlarged, especially, English translation, et alii, and others, expanded, and the following one(s), fragment, id est, that is, ibidem, in the same place, literally, Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament), Neue Folge, New Series, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, page(s)
Page 19 :
par., passim, pl., rev., sc., v(v)., viz., , parallel (to indicate textual parallels), here and there, plural, revised (by), scilicet, namely, verse(s), videlicet, namely
Page 20 :
Primary Sources
Page 21 :
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, , As. Mos., 2 Bar., 1 En., 2 En., Jos. Asen., Jub., L.A.B., L.A.E., Let. Aris., Pss. Sol., Sib. Or., T. Benj., T. Dan, T. Iss., T. Jos., T. Levi, T. Naph., T. Sim., , Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse), 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse), 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse), Joseph and Aseneth, Jubilees, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo), Life of Adam and Eve, Letter of Aristeas, Psalms of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles, Testament of Benjamin, Testament of Dan, Testament of Issachar, Testament of Joseph, Testament of Levi, Testament of Naphtali, Testament of Simeon, , Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts, , CD, 1QH, , Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus, Document, Hodayot or Thanksgiving Hymns
Page 23 :
Philo, , Abraham, Alleg. Interp., 1, 2, 3, Confusion, Creation, Decalogue, Dreams 1, 2, Drunkenness, Embassy, Flaccus, Flight, Giants, Heir, Migration, Moses 1, 2, Names, Planting, Posterity, Prelim., Studies, QE 1, 2, Sobriety, Spec. Laws 1,, 2, 3, 4, Unchangeable, Virtues, Worse, , On the Life of Abraham, Allegorical Interpretation 1, 2, 3, On the Confusion of Tongues, On the Creation of the World, On the Decalogue, On Dreams 1, 2, On Drunkenness, On the Embassy to Gaius, Against Flaccus, On Flight and Finding, On Giants, Who Is the Heir?, On the Migration of Abraham, On the Life of Moses 1, 2, On the Change of Names, On Planting, On the Posterity of Cain, On the Preliminary Studies, Questions and Answers on Exodus 1, 2, On Sobriety, On the Special Laws, That God Is Unchangeable, On the Virtues, That the Worse Attacks the Better
Page 26 :
New Testament Apocrypha and, Pseudepigrapha, , Ep. Paul, Sen., , Epistles of Paul and Seneca
Page 27 :
Other Early Christian Writers
Page 31 :
Classical Authors
Page 67 :
2, Sources and Chronology for Paul’s, Life and Work Definite and, Hypothetical, , Every event is bound to a particular place, and time. The extant Pauline letters,, however, name neither the place nor time of, their composition.[1] Acts, it is true, gives, extensive descriptions of Paul’s missionary, work, but here too we find no information on, when and where Paul composed his letters., Luke does not place events important for, early Christian history such as the apostolic, council and the call of Paul in a chronological, framework. Likewise we can only infer, indirectly the year when the apostle to the, Gentiles was born and the year he died. This, is why it is so difficult to establish a, chronology for Paul’s life and work and why, scholarly opinion on this issue is so, divergent. Nonetheless, any presentation of, the life and work of the apostle Paul,
Page 68 :
including any treatment that attempts to deal, only with its content, will depend on some, implicit or explicit chronology, and so we, must begin by discussing this topic. As we, develop this presentation, the goal is to, establish a temporal framework within which, we can integrate the central events of the, vita Pauli and his letters., In terms of method,[2] the historian’s point, of departure is the self-evident principle that, primary sources always receive priority. We, should thus always prefer the chronological, data that one can glean from the undisputed, Pauline letters when they are in tension or, contradiction to other New Testament, reports. We are not thereby disparaging the, historical value of Acts, but when Acts and, the undisputed Pauline letters contradict, each other, we should follow the letters. On, the other hand, when the information from, Acts and Paul’s letters can be combined, we, obtain a solid basis for Pauline chronology., When Acts is the only source for events from, the life of Paul, then one must probe the, extent to which Luke transmits reliable older, tradition or whether his presentation derives, from his own redactional composition.
Page 69 :
The obvious starting point for ascertaining, an absolute chronology consists of the few, places where the New Testament mentions, events that make contact with the general, data of world history documented by, extracanonical sources or archaeological, discoveries. This absolute chronology then, provides the foundation on which we may, construct the relative chronology of Paul’s, life and work., 2.1 Absolute Chronology Two events, enable us to reconstruct an, absolute chronology of Paul’s, activity: the expulsion of Jews, from Rome by Claudius (cf. Acts, 18:2b) and the date when Gallio, served as proconsul in Achaia., The Edict of Claudius Suetonius, (Divus Claudius 25.4) reports that, the emperor Iudaeos impulsore, Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma, expulit (expelled the Jews from, Rome because, instigated by, Chrestus, they were constantly
Page 70 :
creating disturbances).[3] This, event was dated by the later, Christian historian Orosius (fifth, century CE) to the ninth year of, Claudius’s reign (49 CE).[4] When, Claudius died in October 54 CE, the, edict was annulled.[5], The Gallio Inscription The time, when Lucius Gallio, the brother of, Seneca, was in office as the, proconsul of Achaia may be, determined with a fair degree of, accuracy from an inscription, documenting a letter from the, emperor Claudius to the city of, Delphi. The text correlates the date, of its composition with the twentysixth acclamation of Claudius as, emperor. Although the twenty-sixth, acclamation itself cannot be exactly, dated, data from other inscriptions, document that the twenty-seventh, acclamation had already taken, place by August 1, 52 CE.[6] The, letter is addressed to Gallio’s, successor (Gallio is mentioned in
Page 71 :
the text in the nominative case; cf., line 6 from the top, Γαλλίων)[7] and, must therefore have been written, in the summer of 52. Since, proconsuls of senatorial provinces, were usually in office one year, we, may infer that Gallio was proconsul, of Achaia from the early summer of, 51 to the early summer of 52.[8], Since Prisca and Aquila were, expelled from Rome and came to, Corinth “not long” before Paul, (Acts 18:2, προσφάτως), the apostle, himself came to Corinth in the year, 50. If one combines this with the, information in Acts 18:11, Paul, stayed one and a half years in, Corinth. Assuming that the Jews, would have brought complaints, against Paul soon after the new, proconsul entered office, we can, date the Gallio scene of Acts 18:12–, 16 to the summer of 51.[9], 2.2 Relative Chronology Paul’s, arrival in Corinth at the beginning
Page 72 :
of the year 50 provides a firm, point from which the relative, chronology of Paul’s activity can, be calculated both forwards and, backwards. The goal is to establish, a temporal framework within, which the central events of the, vita Pauli and his letters can be, integrated., Events Prior to Corinth We must, begin with a reconstruction of the, events prior to Paul’s arrival in, Corinth. In the Acts account Paul’s, stay in Corinth was part of the, great Pauline mission in Asia Minor, and Greece (the second missionary, journey of Acts 15:36–18:22). We, can reconstruct a list of individual, missionary stations on the basis of, the traditions reworked by Luke., Their journey first took Paul and, Silas to the congregations that, already exist in Syria and Cilicia, (cf. Acts 15:40–41; also 15:23/Gal., 1:21). Then Paul came to Derbe, and Lystra, where he converted
Page 73 :
Timothy (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17)., Thereafter Paul and his coworkers, proceeded through Phrygia and the, Galatian country (Acts 16:6); from, there they launched their mission, in Europe. Philippi was the first, station (Acts 16:11–12a; Phil., 4:15ff.); from there Paul proceeded, to Thessalonica (Acts 17:1), then, via Beroea to Athens (cf. Acts, 17:10, 15). Early in the year 50, Paul journeyed from Athens to, Corinth (cf. Acts 18:1). Paul’s, letters confirm the basic outline of, these travels. Paul himself reports, that he founded the congregation, in Thessalonica after coming from, Philippi (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2). His stay, in Athens is also documented by 1, Thess. 3:1, so that both Acts and 1, Thessalonians confirm the, following order of stations on, Paul’s journey: Philippi,, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth.[10], The missionary activity here, portrayed occupied about a year, and a half,[11] which brings one
Page 74 :
very near to the time of the, incident in Antioch and the, apostolic council, which preceded, it. We can date these two events to, the first half of 48 CE.[12], According to Paul’s account in Gal. 2:1–14,, the Antioch incident occurred in direct, proximity to the apostolic council. Granted,, Paul does not explicitly place the two events, in chronological order, but the sequencing of, the text in Galatians and the Pauline line of, argument suggest a strictly temporal, succession of events. The Antioch incident, thus falls in the summer of 48, after Paul and, Barnabas had returned from Jerusalem and, were staying in Antioch (cf. Acts 15:35)., In the portrayal of Paul’s activities from his, conversion to the apostolic council, there is, considerable divergence between Acts and, the undisputed Pauline letters. In Gal. 1:6–, 2:14 Paul gives a survey of his missionary, work up to the apostolic council. In the first, place, he emphasizes (Gal. 1:17) that after, his conversion he did not go directly to, Jerusalem but to Arabia and then returned to, Damascus.[13] The apostle wants this
Page 75 :
comment to underscore his independence, from the original congregation in Jerusalem,, and so the temporal connection in Gal. 1:18, (ἔπειτα µετὰ ἔτη τρία [three years later]), probably refers to his conversion. It was only, after this relatively long period that Paul, came to Jerusalem, where he stayed only, fifteen days with Cephas and also saw James, the Lord’s brother. After this first Jerusalem, visit Paul remained in Syria and Cilicia, far, from Jerusalem, and only “afterwards,, fourteen years later” (Gal. 2:1, ἔπειτα διὰ, δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν), did he visit Jerusalem for, the second time, with Barnabas and Titus on, the occasion of the apostolic council. The, reference to “fourteen years” in Gal. 2:1, probably refers to the first Jerusalem visit., [14] Paul confirms this himself by the, comment that he “went up again” (πάλιν δὲ, ἀνέβην) to Jerusalem. Since, in the ancient, calculation of time, the year that had begun, was counted as a full year, we may construct, the following outline of Paul’s activities from, his conversion to the apostolic council. The, apostolic council in the spring of 48 was, preceded by missionary activity in Syria and, Cilicia for about thirteen years, which had
Page 76 :
two phases: Paul probably remained for, about six years in the area of Tarsus and, Cilicia and then about 42 CE joined forces, with the missionary program sponsored by, the church in Antioch.[15] Paul’s first visit to, the church in Jerusalem falls in the year 35, CE. His visit to Arabia probably took place in, 34, so that two years elapsed between his, conversion in 33 and his first visit to, Jerusalem. The year 33 as the date of Paul’s, call and commissioning near Damascus fits, well with the presumed date of the death of, Jesus, the 14th of Nisan (April 7) of 30 CE., [16] This date for Jesus’ death is supported, by two arguments: (1) both the calculations, based on astronomy and the traditions about, the date of Jesus’ death support the, hypothesis that in 30 CE the 14th of Nisan, fell on a Friday; (2) according to Luke 3:1–2,, John the Baptist made his public appearance, in 27/28, and this was also the date of the, beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, which, lasted two or three years. A period of about, three years between Jesus’ crucifixion and, Paul’s conversion corresponds to the, missionary history of early Christianity, for, Paul’s actions as a persecutor presuppose a
Page 77 :
progressive expansion of the Christian, movement., The contradictions between the data in, Gal. 1–2 and the testimony of Acts pose the, central problem for a chronology of Paul’s, life and work: although Paul in Gal. 1:17, emphasizes that after his conversion he did, not go directly to Jerusalem, according to, Acts 9:26 he goes to Jerusalem immediately, after his flight from Damascus. The portrayal, in Acts corresponds to Luke’s ecclesiology,, for the evangelist is interested in the unity of, the developing church, which is here, expressed in an exemplary fashion by Paul, immediately establishing contact with the, Jerusalem apostles.[17] Whereas in Gal. 1:18, Paul speaks of only one trip to Jerusalem, prior to the apostolic council, in Acts he had, already been in Jerusalem a second time, before the council (11:27–30). Here, too, we, should follow Paul’s own testimony,, especially since this second trip fits in with, Luke’s ecclesiology. In Acts 11:27–30 Luke is, reworking individual elements of tradition in, a way that emphasizes the continuity of, salvation history and the unity of the church., Since in Acts 11:19–26 he has just reported
Page 78 :
on the founding of the congregation in, Antioch, he now immediately adds in 11:27–, 30 that contacts were established between, the new congregation in Antioch and the, original church in Jerusalem.[18] For Luke,, Paul’s journeys to Jerusalem are a, compositional strategy used to illustrate the, spread of the gospel in the world. They stand, in the service of his ecclesiology and provide, the framework within which Luke reworked, the extensive traditions available to him. The, one great trip of Jesus to Jerusalem in the, Gospel of Luke (cf. Luke 9:51–19:27), the five, trips to Jerusalem by the missionary to the, Gentiles (Acts 9:26; 11:27–30; 15:2, 4; 18:22;, 21:15), and the journey of the martyr Paul to, Rome form a unity for Luke. Historically,, however, Paul’s own testimony that as a, Christian missionary he was in Jerusalem, only three times is no doubt correct., Whereas in Gal. 1:21 Paul speaks only of, missionary activity prior to the apostolic, council in the region of Syria and Cilicia,, Acts 13–14 reports missionary work on, Cyprus and in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and, Lycaonia in Asia Minor. Is Acts’ report of a, first missionary journey thus only a “model
Page 79 :
mission”?[19] This is not a clear “yes or no”, question. Although we must regard a, missionary project on Cyprus as, improbable[20] and we cannot easily, harmonize the Pauline mission in Pamphylia,, Pisidia, and Lycaonia with Gal. 1:21.[21], Paul, on the other hand, is not intending in, the Galatian passage to provide an extensive, discussion of the individual stations of his, mission but is only emphasizing his, independence from Jerusalem. Moreover, the, Lukan account in Acts 13–14 contains, numerous traditions that speak for the, historicity of the first missionary journey in, the years 45–47.[22], Events after Corinth If the Gallio, scene provides a point of departure, for the absolute chronology and, thus facilitates a relatively sure, dating of the main stations of, Paul’s missionary work as far back, as his conversion, on this basis we, may now sort out the chronology of, the Pauline mission in relation to, Paul’s stay in Corinth as pictured, in Acts 18:1–17. The summarized
Page 80 :
travel report in Acts 18:18–23,, however, already raises big, problems. Paul at first remains, some days in Corinth, then travels, to Syria. He leaves the married, couple Prisca and Aquila in, Ephesus, has discussions with Jews, in the synagogue, turns down their, suggestion to remain in Ephesus, for missionary work, and leaves, Ephesus. Although Acts 18:18, names Syria as the actual, destination of Paul’s journey, in, 18:22 he lands in Caesarea, “goes, up” (ἀναβάς) to Jerusalem, and then, proceeds from Jerusalem to, Antioch.[23] Up to the point when, Prisca and Aquila move from, Corinth, these junctures in Paul’s, travels are undocumented in Paul’s, own letters. We also cannot find, there a satisfactory explanation for, the route and motivation for this, trip. Why would Paul leave his, successful mission work in, Macedonia and Asia Minor in order, to make a trip to Antioch? Nor is
Page 81 :
there an explanation for Paul’s, landing in Caesarea and visiting, Jerusalem, when according to Acts, 18:18 Syria is his destination and, Acts 18:22 gives Antioch as his real, goal. Explaining the landing in, Caesarea as due to unfavorable, winds[24] is hardly more than a, makeshift solution. Moreover, the, fourth Jerusalem visit in Luke’s, enumeration can hardly be, historical,[25] for it is opposed to, Paul’s own statements in the, letters. But what justification is, there for striking Jerusalem from, Acts 18:22 and still maintaining, Caesarea and Antioch as original?, On the other hand, the pre-Lukan, tradition spoke of a trip by the, apostle to Antioch, from where he, visited the Galatian country and, Phrygia en route to Ephesus. After, all attempts to connect the, traditions reworked in Acts 18:18–, 23 to a different Jerusalem trip, have proven unsuccessful,[26] one, must be satisfied with the insight
Page 82 :
that, according to the tradition, available to Luke, Paul, in, connection with his stay in Corinth,, first returned to Antioch and from, there made his way to Ephesus., Even if we should regard these, particulars as historical, we cannot, see this trip as including a visit to, Jerusalem., The reconstruction of Paul’s mission in, Ephesus is burdened with less uncertainty, (Acts 19). The trips described in Acts 18:18–, 23 occupied the time from summer 51 to, spring 52, after which Paul remained in, Ephesus about two years and nine months, (cf. Acts 19:8, 10; 20:31), from the summer, of 52 until the spring of 55. Paul then left, Ephesus in order to make the trip through, Macedonia to Corinth, gathering the, collection for the poor Christians in, Jerusalem and Judea. According to Acts, 19:21 and 1 Cor. 16:5, Paul intended to, travel through Macedonia to Corinth. Acts, 20:1–3 also gives Corinth as Paul’s, destination, where Paul arrived early in 56, and remained three months (cf. Acts 20:3).
Page 83 :
Originally Paul intended to travel by ship, directly to Syria. Some Jews hindered this, plan, and so he had to backtrack through, Macedonia. This information in Acts 20:3 is, in tension with Rom. 15:25, where Paul, announces a trip back to Jerusalem in order, to deliver the collection. Romans 15:25,, however, does not speak of a trip directly, from Corinth to Jerusalem, so that one need, not understand the information in Acts as, contradicting Paul’s own testimony., According to Acts 20:6, Paul traveled from, Corinth to Philippi, then to Troas, and from, there via Assos to Miletus. He then continued, his trip to Caesarea by ship in order to reach, Jerusalem by Pentecost of 56 CE (cf. Acts, 20:16).[27], The date Festus succeeded Felix as, procurator, as described in Acts 24:27, is, decisive for establishing the later Pauline, chronology. According to Acts 24:10, Felix, had already been procurator for some years,, and Paul had already spent two years in, prison when Festus began his administration., Felix’s time in office probably began in 52/53, (cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.247),[28] but the date of, his departure is disputed (either 55,[29] 58,
Page 84 :
or 59 CE[30]). Josephus (J.W. 2.250–270), dates the events associated with Felix to the, reign of Nero. If Nero began to rule in, October 54, it would have been necessary for, all the events mentioned by Josephus to, happen very quickly in order to have been, complete by 55.[31] It is therefore better to, assume that Festus’s administration began in, 58,[32] which also fits well with Acts 24:1,, since the high priest Annas (Ananus), mentioned there was in office about 47–59., [33] Since Paul had appealed to Caesar, during his trial before Festus (cf. Acts, 25:11), it was probably still in 58 that he was, sent to Rome on a prisoner transport led by a, centurion (cf. Acts 27:1–28:16).[34] If the, trip to Rome fell in the winter of 58–59, then, Paul would have entered the capital of the, empire in the spring of 59.[35] Acts 28:30, indicates that Paul as a prisoner was, relatively free and that he preached in his, residence for two years without hindrance., The year of Paul’s death is unknown; one can, only suppose that during the persecution of, Christians under Nero in the year 64, Paul, died as a martyr in Rome (cf. 1 Clem. 5.5–7)., [36]
Page 85 :
Chronology of Paul’s Life and Work, Death of Jesus, , 30, , Conversion of Paul, 33, First visit to Jerusalem, 35, Paul in Cilicia, ca. 36–42, Paul in Antioch, ca. 42, First missionary journey ca. 45–47, Apostolic council, 48 (spring), Incident in Antioch, 48 (summer), Second missionary, 48 (late summer)–51/52, journey, Paul in Corinth, 50/51, Gallio in Corinth, 51/52, Trip to Antioch, 51/52, Third missionary journey 52–55/56, Stay in Ephesus, 52–54/55, Paul in Macedonia, 55, Last stay in Corinth, 56 (early in the year), Arrival in Jerusalem, 56 (early summer), Imprisonment in Caesarea 56–58, Change of office,, 58, Felix/Festus, Arrival in Rome, 59, Death of Paul, 64
Page 86 :
4, The Call to Be Apostle to the Gentiles, The New Horizon, , Unanticipated events accelerate the course, of history. What has gone before suddenly, looses its attraction; something new begins, to move people and comes on stage as a, surprise., 4.1 The Reports about the Damascus, Event, What happened to Paul in the year 33 CE, in the neighborhood of Damascus?[1] Can it, be shown from the apostle’s own statements, that his whole future theology was already, contained in the Damascus experience,, embryonically or even already clearly, visible? Only the passages in which it is clear, that Paul is referring back to the Damascus, event can provide the textual basis: 1 Cor.
Page 87 :
9:1; 15:8; 2 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:12–16; Phil., 3:4b–11.[2] What stands out about these, texts is their almost stenographic brevity., Not only does Paul only rarely mention this, event, which turned his whole life around;[3], he reduces its content to the language of, visionary prophecy.[4], Paul’s Own Testimony to His Call, Paul speaks for the first time about his, Damascus experience in 1 Cor. 9:1. He does, not do this on his own initiative; it is clearly, the Corinthian dispute about his apostleship, that forces him to do so. In terms of text, pragmatics, 1 Cor. 9:1ff.[5] and 15:1ff.[6], must be read as Paul’s defense of his, apostleship (cf. 1 Cor. 9:2a; 15:9–10); this is, why they give information about the event on, which his apostleship is based. In 1 Cor. 9:1, Paul defends his legitimation as an apostle, above all by claiming that he had seen Ἰησοῦν, τὸν κύριον (Am I not free? Am I not an apostle?, Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?). In Corinth, his apostleship was disputed because, among, other reasons, he had never seen the Lord; it, is no longer clear whether his opponents
Page 88 :
referred to the earthly or resurrected Jesus., [7] Paul connects his claim to have “seen”, Jesus with the risen Lord, giving the content, of the Damascus experience as Ἰησοῦν τὸν, κύριον ἡµῶν ἑώρακα (I have seen Jesus our, Lord). Paul provides no information about, date and place; moreover, it remains unclear, whether the apostle saw the Lord in heaven, or on earth. In 1 Cor. 15:8 the apostle, includes himself in the series of witnesses to, the resurrection and derives his apostleship, from an appearance of the Lord that was, granted to him as it was to the others, mentioned (Last of all, as to one untimely, born, he appeared also to me). We see this in, the parallel uses of ὁράω (see) in 15:5, 7, and, 8 and in the way 15:8 is connected to the, rest of the paragraph. The altered, perspective and linguistic formulation in, contrast to 1 Cor. 9:1 probably reflects 1, Cor. 15:3–5 and its background in the, tradition.[8] It is to Paul as the least of all the, apostles that Christ has appeared, which, means that here also, as in 1 Cor. 9:1, the, ὁράω must have an exclusively, christologicalsoteriological meaning. Both 1, Cor. 9:1 and 15:8 manifest a firm connection
Page 89 :
between vision/appearance and election to, apostleship; that is, his call serves as Paul’s, proof of his (theological and financial), independence.[9], Galatians 1:12–16 points in the same, direction: In response to the attacks on his, gospel and his apostleship, Paul objects in, Gal. 1:12 that he did not receive his gospel, from any human being ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (but through a revelation of, Jesus Christ).[10] On the basis of 1:16a, “to, reveal his Son to me,” this “revelation of, Jesus Christ” is to be construed as an, objective genitive, that is, “a revelation about, [not ‘from’] Jesus Christ.”[11] This revelation, impelled Paul to break with his splendid past, as a Jew and persecutor of the church of, God. In 1:15–16 Paul describes his call,, installation into office, and commissioning as, a preacher of the gospel: “But when God,, who had set me apart before I was born and, called me through his grace, was pleased to, reveal his Son to me, so that I might, proclaim him among the Gentiles. . . .”, Echoes of the call stories of Old Testament, prophets are clearly recognizable (compare, 1:15b with Jer. 1:5; Isa. 49:1, 5; Gal. 1:16b
Page 90 :
with Isa. 49:6);[12] it is even possible that, Paul here takes up a stereotyped schema of, prophetic calls based on the Old Testament., [13] Paul clearly understands his call,, installation, and commissioning in analogy to, the great prophets of the Old Testament,, with a particularly close connection to, Deutero-Isaiah (cf. Isa. 49:1–6).[14] Paul is, now to fulfill the proclamation—announced, in the Old Testament but not yet carried out, —of the saving will of God that includes the, Gentiles. As apostle of Jesus Christ and, proclaimer of the gospel to the Gentiles, Paul, understands himself to be a prophet called, by God.[15] Like Amos and Jeremiah (cf., Amos 3:8; Jer. 20:9), his whole life stands, under the compulsion to proclaim the, message he has received from God (cf. 1 Cor., 9:16). As the Servant of the Lord in DeuteroIsaiah was separated from his mother’s, womb and dedicated to the task of bringing, light to the Gentiles (cf. Isa. 49:1, 6), so Paul, sees himself as called by God to be the, apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Gal. 1:16; Rom., 1:1ff.). In Gal. 1:15a εὐδόκησεν (it pleased, [God]) emphasizes the soteriological, dimension of the event for the person of
Page 91 :
Paul, and God’s separating him for the, ministry of preaching the gospel among the, Gentiles emphasizes the universal aspect of, this event. Galatians 1:16a, where ἐν ἐµοί (in, me) is to be translated as the simple dative,, refers to the event of the call itself.[16] The, content of the revelation granted to Paul is, restricted to the reality of Jesus as the “Son, of God,”[17] which suggests an exclusively, christologicalsoteriological interpretation of, the Damascus event.[18] Paul describes, neither his call nor commissioning in the, usual terminology of justification that he, employs elsewhere in his polemical, argumentation in Galatians, which one would, expect if the origin of the Pauline critique of, the Torah had already been present in his, Damascus experience. According to the, testimony of the Galatian letter, we should, not interpret the Damascus event in the, categories of law/Torah versus Christ; its, scope is limited to the revelation of the, identity of Christ as such, which forms the, basis for Paul’s call and commissioning., Whether there is a reference to the, Damascus event in 2 Cor. 4:6 is a disputed, point: “For it is the God who said, ‘Let light
Page 92 :
shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our, hearts to give the light of the knowledge of, the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”, The plural formulation ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡµῶν (in, our hearts) could indicate that Paul is not, referring to a particular event but to what is, typical for the preacher of the gospel and all, believers. The light that illuminates the, believer comes from God, who has already, revealed his light at creation.[19] To be sure,, in 2 Corinthians Paul often uses the plural, when speaking of himself (compare, e.g.,, 2:12 with 2:15; 3:1; 4:1 and passim)., Moreover, 2 Cor. 7:3 shows clearly that the, expression “in our hearts” can stand for Paul, himself. The following observations speak in, favor of a connection between 2 Cor. 4:6 and, the Damascus experience:[20] (1) The aorist, ἔλαµψεν refers to a particular event in the, past. (2) The light metaphor appears in, numerous Old Testament texts in the context, of calling and commissioning (cf. esp. Isa., 42:6 LXX: “I, the Lord God, have called you, . . . to be a light to the nations”; cf. also Isa., 42:16; 60:1–3). (3) As in Gal. 1:16, 2 Cor. 4:6, is concerned with an internal event, an inner, “seeing.” (4) The context of 2 Cor. 4:6 deals
Page 93 :
with the founding and essential nature of, Paul’s apostleship and his gospel. From the, viewpoint of the history of traditions, the, motif of the glory of the chosen one points to, a throne room vision (cf. Ezek. 1:26, 28; 1, En. 45:1–6; 49:1–4). At Damascus God, revealed his glory in the face of Jesus Christ., Thus Paul attained the insight that Christ, belongs to the realm of God’s throne. The, exalted one, as the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (image/icon, of God, 2 Cor. 4:4), is the continuing bearer, of the divine δόξα (glory; cf. also 1 Cor. 2:8)., In Phil. 3:4b–11 Paul debates with Jewish, Christian opponents, holding up to them, as, the “gain” he once had, his own Jewish origin, and his activity as a persecutor. All this has, now for him become “loss” for the sake of, Christ (3:7). The purely, christologicalsoteriological dimension of the, Damascus event becomes completely visible, in 3:8, where Paul describes it as τῆς γνώσεως, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου µου (knowing Christ, Jesus my Lord). This expression is found only, here in Paul and has a very personal, character.[21] The knowledge of Christ, effects a radical new orientation through the, power of the present Lord. In 3:8–10 the
Page 94 :
doctrine of justification and ontological, teaching about redemption, juridical and, participatory ways of thinking, cannot be, separated from each other:[22] “I regard, everything as loss because of the surpassing, value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For, his sake I have suffered the loss of all things,, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I, may gain Christ and be found in him, not, having a righteousness of my own that comes, from the law, but one that comes through, faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, based on faith. I want to know Christ and the, power of his resurrection and the sharing of, his sufferings by becoming like him.” If, on, the one hand, Paul speaks of being found ἐν, αὐτῷ (in him), on the other hand, faith in, Jesus Christ appears as the effective basis of, his “own righteousness” (ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην)., Grammatically, 3:9 is to be understood as a, parenthesis;[23] accordingly the passage in, Philippians 3, from late in Paul’s career,, supports the interpretation “that Paul did not, originally understand his call in the, categories of the doctrine of justification but, in a christological-ontological sense, as the, beginning point of his knowledge of Jesus
Page 95 :
Christ the Lord.”[24] Moreover, the abrupt, antithesis ἐκ νόμου / ἐκ θεοῦ (from the law /, from God) is obviously conditioned by the, situation in Philippi and may not be simply, projected back onto the Damascus event.[25], Gerd Theissen interprets Rom. 7:7–23 and, Phil. 3:4–6 from a psychological perspective,, as Paul’s working through his subconscious, conflict with the law: “The thesis defended, here . . . is that Phil. 3:4–6 reflects the, consciousness of the pre-Christian Paul,, while Romans 7 depicts a conflict that was, unconscious at the time, one of which Paul, became conscious only later.”[26] Gerd, Lüdemann argues similarly that Paul’s, subconscious “Christ complex” was “formally, brought to the boil by the Christians whom, he persecuted.” “He wanted to find release, by fighting an external enemy. That became, his ‘destiny.’ And Saul became Paul.”[27], Doubtless a call also includes psychological, dimensions,[28] but these can be understood, as reactions to the prior act of God. When, explanatory psychological models go beyond, this and claim to be able to explain in thisworldly terms not only the repercussions but, also the ultimate cause of the event, they
Page 96 :
confuse call with conversion, deny the, possibility of God’s acting in history, and, make absolute claims. The subjective, personal experience of the exegete is, projected beneath the text and presented as, “objective” knowledge. Moreover, the, psychological theories used for such, explanations have themselves recently been, subjected to massive criticism within the, field of psychology regarding both their, presuppositions and their practical, application (authoritarian self-preservation, mechanisms), raising questions about their, scientific validity.[29] The following holds, true for Paul: (1) Before the Damascus event, he was blameless with regard to the law; a, (conscious or subconscious) conflict with the, law cannot be inferred from the texts. (2) At, Damascus something happened to him at, God’s initiative, he saw the one who had, been crucified had been raised, and he, acknowledged the crucified Jesus of, Nazareth to be the Messiah. No, interpretation can get behind this statement, of recognition and faith; the experienced, reality of God can neither be confirmed nor, disproved by psychology or history. Paul
Page 97 :
understood the resurrection of Jesus, obviously as an authentic event sui generis,, not subject to historical demonstration as an, event in space and time., Paul never speaks voluntarily of the, Damascus event; he always brings up the, subject only when provoked by his, opponents. All the texts show that Damascus, is to be interpreted in, christologicalsoteriological terms and is, centered on the overwhelming revelation, that Jesus Christ belongs to the realm of God, and on the call of Paul to be an apostle.[30], From the Damascus event Paul derived his, right to belong to the circle of the original, Jerusalem disciples, a group firmly fixed in, history and bound to a particular place, even, though in fact he was a wandering apostle., [31] The legitimacy of his apostleship was, disputed throughout his life: he had not, known the historical Jesus, he appealed to a, prophetic revelation and call, he in fact, operated as a missionary scribal teacher, —“All in all, the exact opposite of what had, previously been understood as an, apostle.”[32]
Page 98 :
The Testimony of Acts, Three times Luke pictures the great turn in, the life of Paul that transformed him from, persecutor to preacher of the gospel (Acts, 9:3–19a; 22:6–16; 26:12–18),[33] thereby, signaling the epoch-making importance of, this event. It is likely that behind Acts 9:3–, 19a there lies an earlier legend about Paul,, current in the church of Damascus, which, told how Paul, the persecutor of Christians,, near Damascus had been brought to a new, realization of the identity of Jesus Christ and, how his traveling companions had brought, him to Damascus (cf. Acts 9:11).[34], Nonetheless, serious tensions between the, testimony of Acts and Paul’s own statements, cannot be overlooked: (1) According to 1, Cor. 9:1; 15:8, Paul himself understands the, Damascus event as an Easter Christophany,, of which there is nothing in Acts 9. For Luke,, the period of Easter appearances obviously, came to an end with Jesus’ ascension, so that, at Damascus Paul only saw a bright light and, heard a voice[35] but saw no face and, encountered no person. (2) The commission, to preach, which was for Paul constitutive of
Page 99 :
the Damascus event (cf. Gal. 1:16b), is, absent from Acts 9:3–19a and is only, appended in a modified form in Acts 9:20. (3), The fundamental connection between the, Damascus event and his apostleship, so, important for Paul, does not appear in Acts, 9.[36], But had not Paul persecuted parts of the, Christian community because of its critical, stance toward the Torah? Did he not first, become aware of the Christian message in, the form purportedly advocated by the, Stephen group, so that Paul’s own later, theology, with its critical stance toward the, Torah, must go all the way back to, Damascus? The answer to these questions, can only come from Acts 6:8–15, which, reports the appearance of Stephen on the, scene.[37] According to Acts 6:1–6[38] and, the summarizing note in 6:7,[39] the, charismatic leader Stephen emerges in 6:8, with hardly any transition. By placing him in, this context, Luke seems to number Stephen, among the “Hellenists,” though he is never, specifically identified as such.[40] Hellenistic, Jews emerge as Stephen’s opponents, but, they are not able to withstand him, a
Page 100 :
fulfillment of the promise of Luke 21:15.[41], Then men are instigated to make libelous, charges against Stephen. Here we should, note two things: (1) It is not the disputants, themselves who libel Stephen but men who, have not even heard him. (2) Luke explicitly, designates the charges as libel, showing he, considers them to be untrue.[42] In 6:13–14, false witnesses appear again, in a passage, that clearly represents Lukan redaction., They are the false witnesses whom Luke, leaves unmentioned at the trial of Jesus, (compare Mark 14:55–60 with Luke 22:66–, 67). Luke has also intentionally relocated the, purported saying of Jesus about the, destruction of the temple into this passage,, since here—as the testimony of false, witnesses, dissociated from Jesus—there is, no longer any need to tone it down or get, around it (cf. Mark 14:58; Matt. 26:61; John, 2:19).[43] The charge of attacking Mosaic, tradition goes back to texts such as Mark, 2:23ff.; 7:14; 10:5–6. Proceeding from this, basis in the tradition, Luke places the, statement in Acts 6:13b, that Stephen had, spoken against the temple and the, law/Torah, and the summary of 6:14 in the
Page 101 :
mouth of the false witnesses (not Stephen’s;, cf. also Acts 7:48–50). He composes 6:15 in, view of the following speech, also, anticipating the vision report in 7:55–56,, which manifests parallels to Luke’s portrayal, of Jesus’ transfiguration (cf. Acts 6:15/Luke, 9:29; Acts 7:55–56/Luke 9:32)., In summary, it may be said that in Acts, 6:8–15 Luke intentionally reworks material, from his tradition of the trial of Jesus in, order to present the trial of the first martyr, in this same light.[44] Here we also see an, additional Lukan interest: “According to, Luke, Stephen advocates the same basic, position that will later be adopted by Paul, (compare 6:13–14 and 7:48 with 21:21, 28;, 7:58 with 9:29).”[45] Especially the, redactional agreements between Acts 6:13, and 21:28[46] indicate that Acts 6:13, represents the Lukan view of the event, not, an old, historically reliable tradition. It is, obvious that by drawing parallels between, Stephen and Paul, Luke wants to emphasize, the salvation-historical continuity in early, Christian theology and mission. The, generally redactional character[47] of Acts, 6:8–15 and the inconsistencies in its content
Page 102 :
mean we cannot consider it a reliable, historical report of the theology of Stephen, or the “Hellenists.”, It is not demonstrable that the narrative of, Stephen and the “Hellenists” represents a, stance more critical of the Torah than what, would have been possible in Judaism at the, beginning of the Christian era, a position, that would have justified persecution. Thus, we must consider improbable the claim that, they were driven out of Jerusalem because of, this anti-Torah stance, and it is unlikely that, Paul received his own Torah-critical attitude, standpoint from them.[48] The better view is, that what led to persecution of the new, movement, including Paul’s own activity as a, persecutor, was the proclamation of the, crucified Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of, Israel, in connection with the movement’s, critical view of the temple[49] and the, growing independence of its organizational, structure and missionary practice.[50], 4.2 Significance of the Damascus, Event
Page 103 :
Several interpreters have regarded, Damascus as the origin of the whole of Paul’s, theology, especially of his doctrine of, justification. They identify his new decision, regarding Christ with a new decision, regarding the Torah,[51] and Rom. 10:4 then, describes the content of the Damascus event., [52] By attributing Pauline theology to the, Damascus experience and seeing it as, nothing else than the explication of this, event, they can consider its unity a proven, fact. They then see all changes as, developments of this primal event or as, applications of it, conditioned by particular, situations. Paul’s own statements, however,, do not support the claim for such sweeping, implications. Paul never mentions any, biographical details of the event at, Damascus; he stamps his presentation with, standard expressions and refers strictly to, his new knowledge of Jesus Christ and the, founding of his apostleship. In Paul’s own, writings there are no terms or concepts for, the interpretation of the Damascus event,, and in no passage where he is developing his, theology does he appeal to Damascus.
Page 104 :
The New Knowledge, It is clear from the apostle’s own, statements that we must understand, Damascus as a gracious act of God that, granted Paul new knowledge on four, fundamental points:[53], (1) Theological knowledge: God again, speaks and acts; at the end of the age God, reveals his saving act in a new way. Through, God’s intervention, completely new, perspectives are opened up in and for, history., (2) Christological knowledge: The crucified, and risen Jesus of Nazareth now belongs, forever at God’s side; he is God’s, representative who takes his place in heaven, as the “second power.”[54] As “Lord” (1 Cor., 1:9, κύριος), “the Anointed One” (1 Cor. 15:3,, Χριστός [Christ, Messiah]), “Son” (Gal. 1:16,, υἱός) and “image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4, εἰκὼν τοῦ, Θεοῦ), Jesus Christ is the permanent mediator, of God’s power and revelation. His exaltation, and proximity to God reveal the honor of his, unique office., (3) Soteriological knowledge: In the, present, the exalted Christ already grants
Page 105 :
believers participation in his reign. They are, already incorporated within a process of, universal transformation that began with, Christ’s resurrection, continues in the power, of the Spirit, and will soon move to its, climactic conclusion at the parousia and, judgment., (4) The biographical dimension: God has, elected Paul and called him to announce this, unheard-of good news to the nations. Paul, himself thus becomes an integral element in, God’s plan of salvation, for he is the one, through whom the gospel must be delivered, to the world in order to save those who, believe., The texts have only a minimum to say, about the way in which this new knowledge, came to Paul. The Damascus experience no, doubt had both external (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), and internal (Gal. 1:16; 2 Cor. 4:6), dimensions, possibly including an audition, (cf. καλέω [call] in Gal. 1:15). But any, additional interpretation of the content or of, the psychology involved is lacking in Paul, so, that we should draw no further conclusions, beyond what these texts themselves say.[55]
Page 106 :
The Consequences, If the contents of the Damascus event were, Christophany and induction into office,, apostolic call and commissioning,[56] so that, from Paul’s own point of view his recognition, that Jesus Christ belongs to the category of, deity and his concept of apostleship give the, key to understanding the Damascus event,, then we cannot simply equate the, significance of the Damascus event with the, doctrine of justification found in the Galatian, and Roman letters, written decades later, or, with Pauline theology as a whole. There can, be no dispute, however, that Damascus must, have had an effect on the Pauline, understanding of the law/Torah and, justification and on Paul’s thought as a, whole.[57] But every reconstruction that, goes beyond Paul’s own statements is, misguided, for such reconstructions, represent a later stage of Pauline theology, when Paul’s whole line of argument had been, conditioned by later situations, a theology, that cannot simply be traced back point by, point to the Damascus experience.[58] First, Thessalonians and the Corinthian
Page 107 :
correspondence, in which νόµος (law) either is, entirely absent or does not appear in the, reflective sense found in the Galatian and, Roman letters, confirm this understanding of, the Damascus event. And the considerable, tensions between the ways the law is, understood even in Galatians and, Romans[59] indicate that there can be no, talk of a unified doctrine of the law already, conveyed at Damascus.[60] Granted, the, radical turn in the course of Paul’s life at, Damascus and the fundamentally new, orientation could not, in the long run, remain, without consequences for the former, Pharisee Paul, but a point-for-point, identification of Paul’s new knowledge of, Christ at Damascus with his critique of the, law cannot be found in the Pauline texts.[61], Paul certainly had already thought about the, significance of the law/Torah for Gentile and, Jewish Christians before his composition of, the letters to the Galatians and Romans.[62], But whether he had always thought about, this in the categories found in Galatians and, Romans must remain an open question. The, subject matter of justification and law had, always been present with Paul since his
Page 108 :
conversion, but not the doctrine of, justification and law as found in Galatians, and Romans., Damascus as Experience of, Transcendence, When understood in this way, the, significance of the Damascus event for, Pauline theology is by no means belittled. On, the contrary, the overwhelming experience, of the risen Jesus Christ determined the life, of the apostle from that point forward,, without being reducible to statements of, theological doctrine. At the beginning of, every foundational religious experience, stands the sense of being grasped, the, experience of participation, but not, systematic analysis. Damascus is an external, experience of transcendence[63] that lays, the foundations for a new identity. The, concept of identity is particularly appropriate, as a means of grasping the content of the, Damascus experience and its consequences., [64] God acts to open new horizons for Paul:, human judgment on the crucified Jesus was, nullified; Jesus had not died on the cross as
Page 109 :
one under God’s curse, but he belongs at, God’s side, he is God’s representative, the, bearer of God’s glory who continues forever., Paul experiences Damascus as the, intersection of two worlds—the Son of God, appears to him in the world of space and, time. Seeing the risen one leads Paul to, surrender his former “I,” a “divesting of, self”[65] that is the negative presupposition, for the new being in Christ. Paul is given the, knowledge that with the resurrection of, Jesus Christ from the dead, God has opened, up the decisive epoch of salvation history, an, epoch in which Paul himself is incorporated, as preacher of this gospel.[66] Paul, experienced Damascus as participation in the, Christ event, which gave him a new identity, and at the same time compelled him to, restructure his picture of himself and the, world. God granted him a new knowledge of, the person of Jesus Christ and gave him a, new assignment: to proclaim the gospel of, Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.[67] Paul, understood his apostolic office on the basis, of this event. Paul did also take up elements, from his former symbolic universe into his, new identity, but in this process they were
Page 110 :
reevaluated within the new system of, coordinates.[68] From the perspective of, temporal theory, identity is necessarily a, process of constant reformation;[69] from, the viewpoint of identity theory, we must, also regard it as improbable that at, Damascus Paul already had at his disposal all, the elements in his later symbolic universe as, represented in Galatians and Romans., Nonetheless, Damascus is undoubtedly the, fundamental point of departure for Pauline, meaning formation. Whereas he could, formerly understand the proclamation of the, crucified Messiah only as provocation, the, Damascus experience led him to the insight, that the cross was filled with the inherent, potential for unexpected meaning. Paul now, combines biographical thinking with, universal perspectives, for he stands before, the task of taking his experience and, interpretation of a past event that happened, to one individual and erecting a meaning, structure that provides orientation in the, present and hope for the future.[70] A mere, historical fact such as the crucifixion is not in, itself a bearer of meaning; it requires an, additional constructive procedure in order to
Page 111 :
“clothe facts with meaning and significance,, to create from the chaos of meaningless, factuality a cosmos of meaningful and, significant history.”[71] From the religious, certainty of the Damascus event, Paul sets in, motion a process of universalistic meaning, formation that was to have unparalleled, effects, making it possible for all people to, understand their own existence within the, whole scheme of things. He constructs and, presents a network of meaning that relates, one’s individual existence to its social, obligations, and binds together one’s secure, everyday world and crucial experiences with, transcendent reality.
Page 112 :
6, The Apostolic Council and the, Incident at Antioch The Problems, Remain Unresolved, Some events promise clarification and, resolution but in fact are only the occasion, for new conflicts. Agreements can be, understood differently by the parties, involved; when viewed in a later perspective,, many things do not look the same as they, originally did., 6.1 The Apostolic Council After, completing their mission in Syria, and parts of Asia Minor, Barnabas, and Paul returned to Antioch.[1], Here “certain individuals” came, down from Judea who “were, teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you, are circumcised according to the, custom of Moses, you cannot be, saved’” (Acts 15:1). This resulted, in a fierce debate between the
Page 113 :
strict Jewish Christians on the one, side and Barnabas and Paul on the, other. The Antioch congregation, then decided to send Paul,, Barnabas, and some other, coworkers to Jerusalem to resolve, the issue in discussion with the, earliest church (cf. Acts 15:2; Gal., 2:1). Paul himself in Gal. 2:2a, gives a somewhat different picture, of the concrete occasion of the, Jerusalem trip: “I went up in, response to a revelation.”[2] He, thus no longer represents his, presence at the apostolic council, within the framework of the, mission program of the Antioch, church. One can suppose that it is, the Lukan view of history that, causes Luke to place the, connection of Barnabas and Paul, to the Antioch church in the, foreground at the apostolic, council. On the other hand, Paul, himself also formulates his own, portrayal tendentiously, for he, wants to emphasize his
Page 114 :
independence from Jerusalem and, the other churches. Furthermore,, he discloses his own, understanding of why he, participated in the apostolic, council: µή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραµον, (in order to make sure that I was, not running, or had not run, in, vain, Gal. 2:2). Torah-observant, Jewish Christians had intervened, in the congregations founded by, the apostle, took note of their, freedom (from the Torah), and, come to the apostolic council to, insist that Gentile Christians be, circumcised (Gal. 2:4–5).[3] Paul, had been conducting a mission to, the Gentiles in which circumcision, was not required to become, Christians (which strict Jewish, Christians then saw as in fact, Torah-free).[4] Paul was obviously, afraid that the agitation of these, opponents would influence the, Jerusalem leaders to reject his, mission and thus cause it to be, nullified. This would mean that his
Page 115 :
apostolic commission to found, churches could not be carried out, (cf. 1 Thess. 2:19; 1 Cor. 9:15–, 18:23; 2 Cor. 1:14). Even more, drastic: the apostle saw that if he, were to fail in the task to which he, alone had been commissioned, his, glory on the day of Christ, his, eschatological salvation, was in, danger (cf. Phil. 2:16).[5], The apostolic council is also indirectly a, result of significant changes in the history of, the early Jerusalem church. In the, circumstances related to Agrippa I’s, persecution in 42 CE, James the son of, Zebedee was killed (Acts 12:2) and Peter, gave up the leadership of the Jerusalem, church and left the city (Acts 12:17). It is, clear that James the Lord’s brother (cf. Mark, 6:3) took over Peter’s position, as indicated, by a comparison of Gal. 1:18–19 with Gal. 2:9, and 1 Cor. 15:5 with 1 Cor. 15:7 and by the, last words of Peter in Acts 12:17b (“Tell this, to James and to the [Jerusalem] believers”), and the picture of the church in Acts 15:13;, 21:18.[6] Although Peter himself probably
Page 116 :
had a liberal stance on the question of, accepting uncircumcised Gentiles into the, new movement (cf. Acts 10:34–48; Gal. 2:11–, 12) and was later a sympathetic participant, in the Gentile mission (cf. 1 Cor. 1:12; 9:5),, we must see James and his group as, representatives of a strict Jewish Christianity, (cf. Gal. 2:12a) that consciously understood, itself as a part of Judaism and considered, Torah observance a requirement for, acceptance into the new movement.[7] James, adopted this position not only as a political, necessity but as a matter of conviction.[8] He, rejected table fellowship between Jewish, Christians and Gentile Christians (Gal. 2:12a), and was obviously highly respected by the, Pharisees. Josephus reports that after the, martyrdom of James in the year 62 CE, the, Pharisees bitterly demanded the deposition, of Ananus, the high priest who was, responsible for James’s death.[9] Very likely, those who advocated the circumcision of, Gentile Christians felt that their demand was, strongly supported by the theological, position of James.
Page 117 :
The Issue The issue at the apostolic, council is clear: which criteria, must be fulfilled in order to belong, to the elect church of God and at, the same time maintain continuity, with the people of God of the first, covenant?[10] Should circumcision,, as the sign of God’s covenant (cf., Gen. 17:11) and thus of, membership in the elect people of, God, also be a general requirement, for Gentile Christians?[11] Must a, Gentile who wants to become a, Christian first become a Jew?, Since, from the Jewish perspective,, a person became a proselyte and, thus a member of the elect people, of God only by circumcision and, ritual immersion, it seemed clear, from the strict Jewish Christian, point of view that the new status, among the redeemed people of God, came only by baptism in the name, of Jesus Christ and by, circumcision.[12] The problem that, occupied the apostolic council (and, the conflict at Antioch) thus
Page 118 :
emerged in a time when the, definition of what Christianity, required on the ritual and social, level had not been fully decided., Neither the Christian identity, markers nor the lifestyle that this, implied had yet been clarified., Could Gentile Christian churches, be recognized as belonging to the, same church as Jewish Christians,, who for the most part still, participated in the life of the, synagogue? Previous Jewish selfunderstanding had considered it, fundamental that one’s nationalcultural community and one’s, religious community were one and, the same—must this now be given, up? Does maintaining the codes of, holiness and ritual purity matter?, How do believers in Jesus come to, participate in the people of God,, and how do the promises of God’s, covenant with Israel come to apply, to them? To what extent should the, markers of Jewish identity such as, circumcision, table fellowship only
Page 119 :
with one’s own people, and Sabbath, observance also apply to the, emerging Gentile churches? Does, the fundamental change of status, that has already occurred when one, professes Christian faith entail, additional changes in one’s status, that must be worked out? Are, baptism and circumcision, obligatory initiation rites for all, believers in Christ, or does baptism, alone make possible full, acceptance into the people of God?, The successful mission work of the, Antioch church generated these, issues,[13] especially the mission, of Barnabas and Paul among the, Gentiles (cf. Gal. 2:2c). But the, Gentile mission of the Antioch, church was not the only one in, early Christianity, as shown by the, founding of the Roman church and, the appearance of Apollos of, Alexandria in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor., 3:4ff.; Acts 18:24–28).
Page 120 :
The difficulty of finding a solution to this, problem was intensified by the fact that the, Torah contains no clear statements about, Jews (or Jewish Christians) and Gentiles (or, Gentile Christians) living together outside, the land of Israel. The young churches, composed of Jewish and Gentile Christians, were an entity sui generis; the Torah had not, foreseen such a situation and made no, provisions for it.[14] As instruction for Israel,, the Torah had no validity for Gentiles (cf., Exod. 34:10–17; Lev. 20:2–7). No text in it, calls for Gentiles to keep the command of, circumcision or Sabbath, since it was, acknowledged that Yahweh had assigned the, gods of other peoples to them (cf. Deut., 4:19). The solution attempted by the, apostolic decree regulated the relations, between Jewish Christians and Gentile, Christians in a manner analogous to those, between Israel and foreigners living in the, land, but this could not be a permanent, solution. The commands regarding resident, aliens (cf. Lev. 17–18, and esp. Exod. 12:43–, 49; 20:10; 23:12; Lev. 16:29; 20:2; 22:18–20;, 24:10–22; Num. 9:14; 15:30; 19:1–11) do not, facilitate their living together on an equal
Page 121 :
basis but throughout have an overtone of, subordination., What Happened at the Council?, We can reconstruct the basic outline of the, course of events at the apostolic council from, Acts 15:1–34 and Gal. 2:1–10,[15] even, though the two reports have variations in, details: (1) Paul and Barnabas came to, Jerusalem as authorized delegates of the, Antioch church (Acts 15:2, 4; Gal. 2:1, 9). (2), The agenda of the conference was the, fundamental justification for the Gentile, mission, and the practical procedures for, carrying it out (Acts 15:12/Gal. 2:2, 9). (3) At, the conference one group insisted on the, circumcision of Gentile converts (Gal. 2:4–5,, “false brethren”; Acts 15:5, Christian, Pharisees). (4) The conference proceeded on, two levels: a plenary meeting of the whole, church (Acts 15:12/Gal. 2:2a) and discussions, within a smaller circle (Acts 15:6, apostles, and elders; Gal. 2:9, the “pillars”). Paul’s, account of the council reflects this division of, responsibilities, for Gal. 2:3–5 reports the, events of the plenary session and Gal. 2:6–10
Page 122 :
refers to the agreement with the leadership, of the Jerusalem church. (5) According to, both reports, the council recognized the, Gentile mission that did not require, circumcision (Acts 15:10–12, 19/Gal. 2:9)., The Lukan presentation does deviate sharply, from Paul’s own account. According to Luke,, the Jerusalem church bound its basic, approval of the Gentile mission to the, condition that Gentiles observe a minimum of, ritual prescriptions (Acts 15:19–21, 28–29;, 21:25)—abstinence from idol worship, meat, from animals that have been strangled,, blood, and sexual immorality. These four, abstinence prescriptions are oriented to the, prescriptions for Jews and resident aliens in, Lev. 17–18 and were understood as a model, for how Jewish Christians and Gentile, Christians could participate together in the, same congregations.[16] Luke also fails to, mention the dispute about the Gentile, Christian Titus (Gal. 2:3) and postpones the, agreement about the collection (Gal. 2:10; cf., Acts 11:27–30). Furthermore, in Luke’s, portrayal of the apostolic council, Paul plays, only a minor role, for it is Peter (Acts 15:7–
Page 123 :
11) and James (Acts 15:13–21) who make the, real decisions., The matter is portrayed differently in Gal., 2:1–10, where the real decision takes place, in the discussion between Paul on the one, side and James, Peter, and John on the other., Whereas Acts 15:5ff. recounts a discursive, explanation of the problem, Paul’s own, account contains no indication that the, content of his gospel received by revelation, was a matter for debate. He emphasizes,, rather, that the Jerusalem authorities, acknowledged his gospel qualitatively, in, terms of a theology of revelation (καὶ γνόντες, τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν µοι [recognizing the grace, that had been given to me], Gal. 2:9),[17] so, that the basis of the accord they sought was, given in a revelation to Paul. According to, Paul, this agreement included an, ethnographic division of the world mission:, “agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:9c). But, did this arrangement in fact result in the, unity of the people of God?, The Gospel of Uncircumcision and, the Gospel of Circumcision Are the
Page 124 :
Pauline εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας, (gospel of uncircumcision) and the, Petrine εὐαγγέλιον τῆς περιτοµῆς (gospel, of circumcision) actually congruent, in terms of their content? On the, basis of Gal. 2:8–9c (εἰς τὰ ἔθνη . . . εἰς, τὴν περιτοµήν [to the Gentiles . . . to, the circumcised]), the genitive case, of τῆς ἀκροβυστίας and τῆς περιτοµῆς are, to be understood as “the gospel for, the uncircumcised . . . the gospel, for the circumcised.” At first the, contents of these two formulations, seem to manifest great agreement:, both sides certainly understand the, nucleus of the gospel as it is, transmitted in, for example, 1 Cor., 15:3b–5: “that Christ died for our, sins in accordance with the, scriptures, and that he was buried,, and that he was raised on the third, day in accordance with the, scriptures, and that he appeared to, Cephas, then to the twelve.”, Furthermore, the typical marks of, Jewish identity, such as, monotheism and numerous ethical
Page 125 :
admonitions, were not disputed., After all, everyone concerned, presupposed that salvation for, those who believed in Jesus was, attained only in continuity with, Israel., At the same time, the difference between, these two formulae may not be passed over, too lightly, for Paul usually speaks of the, “gospel of Christ” (on εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, cf., Gal. 1:7 and also 1:6, 11, 12) or the “gospel, of God” (εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ).[18] These two, formulae probably reflect the wording to, which those engaged in the apostolic council, had agreed.[19] Distinctive details in, language and content point to the traditional, character of Gal. 2:7–8: (1) only here do we, have “Peter and Paul” as a contrasting pair;, in Gal. 2:9 Paul returns to his normal usage, of the name Cephas; (2) the terms εὐαγγέλιον, τῆς ἀκροβυστίας and εὐαγγέλιον τῆς περιτοµῆς, appear only in Gal. 2:7 in Paul, and they are, not found elsewhere in the whole literature, of antiquity; and (3) stylistically, Gal. 2:7–8 is, a parenthesis (ὅτι πεπίστευµαι . . . εἰς τὰ ἔθνη [that, I had been entrusted . . . to the Gentiles]).
Page 126 :
The decisive difference in their content, certainly lay in the way circumcision was, evaluated in terms of salvation history and, the extent of Torah observance to be inferred, from this. Circumcision was by no means to, be considered an adiaphoron (matter of, indifference), for it was the entrance gate to, the whole law (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.1ff.). It, documents Israel’s special status among the, nations, was a guarantee of this identity (cf., Jub. 15:25–34),[20] and at the same time, separated Israel from all other peoples (cf., Josephus, Ant 1.192; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.2). For, strict Jewish Christians, there was a natural, connection between faith in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, circumcision as a mark of, belonging to God’s chosen people, and, of, course, observance of the Torah. For them,, baptism did not take the place of, circumcision, and salvation did not occur as, something that transcended the law. The, incident at Antioch, the position of Pharisees, who had come to faith in Christ (Acts 15:1,, 5), and the demand made in Galatia and, Philippi that Gentile Christians be, circumcised point in this direction.[21] In, contrast, Paul can point to the obvious work
Page 127 :
among the Gentiles by God who shows no, partiality (Gal. 2:6).[22] By baptism and, reception of the Spirit, Gentile Christians are, already full and equal members in the people, of God (cf. Gal. 3:1–5, 26–28; Acts 10:44–48),, and so any additional legitimizing signs, would put in question God’s previous saving, acts among the Gentiles. Thus James,, Cephas, and John acknowledge the grace, conferred on Paul (Gal. 2:9a), and for his, part, he accepts both the responsibility for, the collection (Gal. 2:10) and the “gospel to, the circumcision.” We can no longer, determine with certainty whether the, singular formulation in Gal. 2:7 was coined, at the apostolic council or whether it goes, back to Paul himself. The decisive factor for, interpretation, however, continues to be the, realization that εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας and, εὐαγγέλιον τῆς περιτοµῆς are not simply identical,, that this singular contrast does not deal with, the “one” Pauline gospel.[23] This is, indicated in no small way by the expression, φοβούµενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτοµῆς (for fear of the, circumcision faction) in Gal. 2:12. “Certain, people from James” demand that the “gospel, for the circumcision” be maintained, and
Page 128 :
charge Peter with violating its identity, markers., The Interpretations At the, apostolic council, both sides, recognized that the one God calls, people through the gospel in more, than one way and that believers, serve the will of God in different, ways.[24] Although differing, concepts of mission were advocated, at the apostolic council, the council, did not unite these into a single, view but acknowledged each as a, legitimate expression of Christian, faith. It was the equal status, not, the identity, of each version of the, gospel that was confirmed at the, apostolic council.[25] For Paul, this, was already clear, for he was the, real innovator; before Paul and, during the time of his mission with, the Antioch church, the obvious, marks of belonging to the people of, God were circumcision, Torah, observance, and faith in Jesus of, Nazareth as the Messiah.
Page 129 :
We should probably explain the differing, evaluations of circumcision[26] at the, apostolic council in terms of the differing, backgrounds of the negotiating partners., Whereas in Palestinian Judaism a strict, practice of circumcision prevailed,[27] in the, Diaspora only a portion of those who were, won over to Judaism became members of the, Jewish community in the fully legal sense, by, circumcision and ritual immersion (along, with sacrifice).[28] It even appears that there, was a small stream within the Judaism of the, Hellenistic Diaspora that did not regard, circumcision as absolutely necessary. Philo, reprimanded some allegorizers (Migr. 89–93), [29] who probably belonged to such a group,, taking the law in a symbolic sense and, neglecting its literal practice. In the context, of his critique of this position, Philo mentions, circumcision: “It is true that receiving, circumcision does indeed portray the, excision of pleasure and all passions, and the, putting away of the impious conceit, under, which the mind supposed that it was capable, of begetting by its own power: but let us not, on this account repeal the law laid down for, circumcising” (Migr. 92). Although Philo
Page 131 :
13:16, 26; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7, 13).[30], When Paul abandoned the requirement of, circumcision for Gentile Christians, he who, had previously been a Pharisee of the, Diaspora was maintaining continuity with his, background—and the same is true of his, opponents., From Paul’s perspective, the apostolic, council not only sanctioned the Gentile, mission without reservations; Paul also, understood it to have confirmed the special, status of the apostle to the Gentiles as an, equal partner with the Jerusalem “pillars.”, This interpretation of the apostolic council,, however, was by no means uncontested, as, shown by the Antioch incident, the later, agitation by Judaists in the Pauline churches,, and especially by the Lukan tradition of the, apostolic decree.[31] Whereas Paul’s reading, of the agreements at the apostolic council, regarded them as binding obligations, these, other streams within early Christianity saw, them merely as a temporary concession for, one particular situation or interpreted them, in a completely different sense. The parallel, coexistence of ultimately incompatible, concepts of identity was only sanctioned, not
Page 132 :
overcome. And finally, we must remember, that the apostolic council was in fact only a, meeting involving the churches of Antioch, and Jerusalem; to what extent other, churches subscribed to the results of the, council remains unclear. Thus after the, apostolic council there were at least three, different positions on the question of the, validity of the Torah for Gentile Christians:, (1) freedom from the requirement of, circumcision, which in fact meant freedom, from the Torah as such with the exception of, its ethical core (Paul, parts of the Antioch, church? Apollos?); (2) limited observance of, the Torah but without the requirement of, circumcision (the apostolic decree); and (3), the comprehensive validity of the Torah,, including circumcision, as binding also on, Gentile Christians (the Jewish Christian, missionaries in Galatia and Philippi who, opposed Paul; parts of the Jerusalem, church)., The Origin of the Different Reports, How did it come about that Paul, and Luke produced different, versions of the apostolic council?
Page 133 :
Students of early Christianity have, always noticed the connection, between the minimal ritual, requirements of Acts 15:20, 29;, 21:25 and the issues at stake in the, Antioch incident: (1) Which rules, must Gentile Christians observe in, order to maintain the state of ritual, purity required by God? The, apostolic decree sees the solution, of this problem to be the, observance of a minimum of the, purity laws. (2) In Acts 15:20 James, first formulates the apostolic, decree; then, according to Gal., 2:12, it is “certain people from, James” who call for the separation, of Jewish and Gentile Christians in, Antioch. (3) The limited purview of, the apostolic decree in Acts 15:23, (Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia), coincides with the, Antiochene/Pauline mission, territory (cf. Acts 13–14; Gal. 1:21);, the decision at the apostolic, council regarding the freedom of, Gentile Christians from the
Page 134 :
requirement of circumcision was a, matter of principle, without, geographic restrictions. One could, thus easily imagine that Luke has, intertwined two originally separate, issues:[32] (1) the settlement, agreed upon at the apostolic, council, according to which Gentile, Christians need not be, circumcised, and (2) the apostolic, decree formulated in the context of, the Antioch incident, intended to, regulate the common life of Jewish, and Gentile Christians in the, territory of the Antiochene/Pauline, mission. We can still recognize, traces of this fusion of the two, traditions in Acts 15:1–29. It, accords with Lukan redaction that, the account, harking back to Acts, 10:1–11:15, has Peter make the, first speech and then has James, present the solution to the, problem, with Paul virtually silent., [33] Peter’s speech once again, provides the fundamental and, unrestricted legitimization for the
Page 135 :
Gentile mission without the, requirement of circumcision (cf., Acts 15:10). It climaxes in the, declaration, with a Pauline tone,, “we believe that we will be saved, through the grace of the Lord, Jesus, just as they [the Gentile, Christians] will.” The legitimization, of the Pauline position is placed in, the mouth of Peter, who affirms a, mission in which Gentiles are, accepted into the Christian, community without the, requirement of circumcision or any, other stipulations of the law—a, declaration that clearly stands in, tension with the following apostolic, decree. Also, the line of argument, followed by James in Acts 15:19, 29, still shows traces of his original, agreement made at the apostolic, council, acknowledging a Gentile, mission unconditionally free from, the requirement of circumcision, (15:19, “Therefore I have reached, the decision that we should not, trouble those Gentiles who are
Page 136 :
turning to God”; 15:28, “For it has, seemed good to the Holy Spirit and, to us to impose on you no further, burden [except for . . .]”). Thus the, restrictive combination with the, conditions of the apostolic decree, would stem from Lukan redaction., The content of the earlier tradition, in the Lukan version thus confirms, Paul’s own account. The, negotiating partners were Paul on, the one side and James and Peter, on the other. The agreed-upon, settlement stated that it is not, necessary for Gentile Christians to, be circumcised in order to become, full members of the people of God., 6.2 The Antioch Incident The Antioch, incident occurred in proximity to, the apostolic council, both in, chronological terms[34] and, regarding the disputed issues. The, apostolic council recognized both, missionary models: the Jewish, mission of the Jerusalem church
Page 137 :
and the Gentile mission not, requiring circumcision. The, contending parties there also, worked out an agreement about, the division of missionary, territory, but the problems of, mixed churches composed of both, Jewish Christians and Gentile, Christians were clearly not on the, agenda. These problems emerged, in Antioch, where the assumed, practice of the church was, obviously table fellowship between, Jewish Christians and, uncircumcised Gentile Christians, who were considered ritually, unclean in terms of Jewish law., Different Concepts of Purity, According to Gal. 2:11, Peter, participated in the integrated table, fellowship in Antioch. He thereby, documented that the Jewish food, laws and prescriptions for ritual, purity did not apply to Gentile, Christians, that Jewish Christians, could not simply place Gentile
Page 138 :
Christians in the same category as, Gentiles per se. This liberal, attitude suddenly changed with the, arrival of τινες ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου (certain, people from James).[35] Peter, withdrew, and abandoned his, previous practice of table, fellowship with Gentile Christians., He separated himself, as, recommended in Jub. 22:16: “And, you also, my son Jacob, remember, my words, and keep the, commandments of Abraham your, father. Separate yourself from the, gentiles, and do not eat with them,, and do not perform deeds like, theirs. Because their deeds are, defiled, and all their ways are, contaminated, and despicable, and, abominable.”[36] The food laws, (cf., e.g., Deut. 14:3–21) at this, time were a central focus of Jewish, (and thus also of Jewish Christian), understanding of the law,[37] so, that the simple fact of their, existence led the James people to, reject the idea of eating together
Page 139 :
with Gentiles.[38] The application, of the demand for ritual separation, from the unclean to the relation, between Gentile Christians and, Jewish Christians would have, effectively equated Gentile, Christians with unbelieving, Gentiles (heathen) and would have, made eucharistic table fellowship, between the two groups impossible., The motive Paul gives for Peter’s, momentous decision and resulting, conduct is φοβούµενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτοµῆς., [39] It was obviously the consistent, Jewish Christian standpoint of the, Jerusalem church as led by James, that prompted Peter to change his, conduct. For James and his, followers, a Christian could remain, within Judaism only by consistent, observance of the Torah. Although, Peter’s previous practice in Antioch, indicated he had already, abandoned this standpoint (cf. also, Acts 11:3), he now returned to it., This is why Paul charges him with, being condemned by his own
Page 140 :
conduct (Gal. 2:11b). Peter’s, inconsistency now causes the other, Jewish Christians, including even, Barnabas, to assume this, hypocritical stance and abandon, their previous table fellowship with, Gentile Christians (2:13). Paul, evaluates this conduct as, theological inconsistency because, thereby the actual fellowship, between Gentile and Jewish, Christians is abolished. This is why, Peter, Barnabas, and the other, Jewish Christians were not living in, accord with the truth of the gospel, (2:14), just as had been done, previously by the “false brothers”, at the apostolic council who, attempted to make circumcision, compulsory for Gentile Christians, (cf. 2:4–5). The verb ὀρθοποδέω (to, walk on the right way/path/road), and the expression ἀλήθεια τοῦ, εὐαγγελίου (the truth of the gospel), show very precisely that both for, Paul and his opponents, practical, and theological issues are always
Page 141 :
woven together. The truth of the, gospel does not call for Gentiles to, obey the ritual requirements of the, Jewish law (cf. 2:5, 14). Thus Paul, tells Peter to his face, “If you,, though a Jew, live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, how can you, compel the Gentiles to live like, Jews?” Jews are not to be, compelled to give up their own way, of life, but at the same time, the, Jewish way of life is not to be, imposed on Gentiles (ἰουδαΐζειν). The, context (2:12, συνήσθιεν [he used to, eat with]) indicates that compelling, Gentiles to live in the Jewish way, refers primarily to the keeping of, the Jewish food laws. The same, subject matter as the apostolic, decree is clearly in view. It is still, debatable, however, whether the, apostolic decree authorized by, James was the trigger for the, Antioch conflict[40] or its result., [41] On the other hand, it is clear, that the Antioch conflict led Paul to, separate from Barnabas and the
Page 142 :
Antioch mission (cf. Gal. 2:13/Acts, 15:39) and the apostolic decree, continued to be valid in the, territory of this mission and its, sphere of influence (Acts 15:23)., Paul and his opposing partners were not so, different in the material content of their, respective understandings of purity;[42] it, was a matter of how each party understood, its own foundational structure. Paul demands, from his churches a sanctification of life,, expressed especially by avoiding πορνεία, ([sexual] immorality; cf. 1 Thess. 4:3–4, 7; 1, Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Rom. 1:24;, 6:19, 22). In 1 Thess. 4:7 (For God did not, call us to impurity but in holiness) and Rom., 6:19, ἁγιασµός (sanctification) appears as the, counterpart to ἀκαθαρσία (impurity), so that, for Paul sanctification includes the aspect of, purity. The basis for this demand for purity is, not the Torah but the separation from the, power of sin accomplished in baptism (cf. 1, Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21–22). In contrast, the, understanding of purity presupposed in the, apostolic decree is something in addition to
Page 143 :
baptism and thus reduces its exclusive, importance., The Perspective from Which the, Account Is Presented The, rhetorical formation of Paul’s, account of the Antioch incident, shows clearly that he is reporting, the events in Antioch in the light of, the Galatian crisis. In Gal. 2:14, Paul makes the transition into the, actual context of the dispute with, the Galatian church. The “James, people” were insisting not on some, sort of ἰουδαΐζειν (Judaizing) of, Gentile Christians in the, comprehensive sense[43] but, merely that Peter and the other, Jewish Christians maintain their, separation from (ritually unclean), Gentile Christians. Paul’s, opponents in Galatia, however,, advocated that the status of Gentile, Christians be that of proselytes;, they insisted on a compulsory, Jewish way of life for Gentile, Christians.[44] Galatians 2:15 also
Page 144 :
alludes to the current situation in, Galatia.[45] Paul summarizes the, main points of Jewish (and Jewish, Christian) self-understanding on, which both the separation in, Antioch and the agitation in Galatia, were based. Paul, like Peter and, the other Jewish Christians,, belonged from his birth to the elect, people of God (Ἡµεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι);, they belong to the righteous, whereas Gentiles eo ipso are, numbered among the sinners. This, “natural” Jewish selfunderstanding is then transcended, and relativized in that Paul adds, adversatively,[46] “yet we know, that a person is justified not by the, works of the law but through faith, in Jesus Christ. And we have come, to believe in Christ Jesus, so that, we might be justified by faith in, Christ, and not by doing the works, of the law, because no one will be, justified by the works of the law”, (Gal. 2:16). With the expression ἐξ, ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ
Page 145 :
(2:16d), Paul goes far beyond the, agreement at the apostolic council, and the disputed issue in the, Antioch incident. The agreement in, Gal. 2:9d (ἡµεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν, περιτοµήν [we to the Gentiles, they to, the circumcised]) does contain for, the Gentiles the affirmation of, freedom from the law of, circumcision, but at the same time, Paul also accepts the basic, obligation of Jewish Christians to, observe the regulations of the, Torah. He also took this position at, the Antioch incident, for he does, not criticize the “James people” but, only the inconsistent conduct of, Peter and those who followed his, example.[47] At both the apostolic, council and the Antioch incident,, the only issue was whether the, Torah was binding on non-Jews,, and the consequences that follow, from this decision.[48] The status, of Jewish Christians remained, unchanged; it is exclusively the, ritual status of Gentile Christians
Page 146 :
that was at issue. The exclusive, doctrine of justification found in, the letters to the Galatians and to, the Romans goes a decisive step, further in that it also poses the, issue of the jurisdiction of the, Torah for Jewish Christians. There, is no special status granted by, circumcision; Jewish Christians and, Gentile Christians stand before God, in the same situation. Paul did not, advocate the fundamental, affirmation of Gal. 2:16d, that no, one can be justified by works of the, law/Torah, either at the apostolic, council in Jerusalem or in Antioch,, nor could he have done so at that, time. The parties involved could, hardly have reached an agreement, if Paul had already at that time, disputed the importance of the, Torah for Jewish Christians, as he, does in Gal. 3 or in the sharply, formulated thesis statement of, Rom. 3:21a: Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόµου δικαιοσύνη, θεοῦ πεφανέρωται, “But now, apart from, law, the righteousness of God has
Page 147 :
been disclosed.” The gift of the, Torah still established election and, righteousness (Deut. 4:8, “And, what other great nation has, statutes and ordinances as just as, this entire law that I am setting, before you today?”). The, commandments are still easy to, fulfill, and Israel chooses the path, of life when it places itself under, the blessing of the Torah (Deut., 30:11–14, “Surely, this, commandment that I am, commanding you today is not too, hard for you, nor is it too far away., It is not in heaven, that you should, say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for, us, and get it for us so that we may, hear it and observe it?’ Neither is it, beyond the sea, that you should, say, ‘Who will cross to the other, side of the sea for us, and get it for, us so that we may hear it and, observe it?’ No, the word is very, near to you; it is in your mouth and, in your heart for you to observe”).
Page 148 :
The “pillars” could not have extended their, hand to Paul if at the apostolic council he, had already claimed that the Torah was, secondary to the promise, both temporally, and in its essential function (cf. Gal. 3:17,, 19), that it was enslaving (cf. Gal. 3:23–24),, that through the Torah comes (only) an, awareness of sin (Rom. 3:20b), or that the, Torah as the presupposition for sin had, (merely) “come in between [in a temporary, status]” (Rom. 5:20). The history of early, Christian theology and missions also, suggests such an interpretation. At the, beginning, faith in Christ and observance of, the Torah belonged in the same united, category, and the new convert Paul never, questioned this regarding Jewish Christians., He merely hesitated to make the Torah, binding on Gentile Christians. Thus it is a, mistake to connect the origin of the Pauline, doctrine of justification in the exclusive, sense with the apostolic council or the, Antioch incident.[49] The foundational thesis, of Gal. 2:16 does not accord with the, outcome of the apostolic council, nor does it, represent the issue that was debated at the, Antioch incident. At that time Paul defended
Page 149 :
the view that his churches were clearly free, from the requirement of circumcision (while, observing the nucleus of the Torah’s ethical, requirements), but at the same time he, acknowledged the obligation of the Jewish, Christians to the Torah. In contrast, at the, time Paul wrote Galatians, there was for him, only one gospel, his gospel that was critical, of the law/Torah, the gospel that was valid, for Gentiles and Jews. In reaction to the, challenge to his mission work, Paul expands, his identity concept, for now the Torah has, constitutive significance for neither Jew, (Jewish Christians) nor Gentile (Gentile, Christians).
Page 150 :
7, Paul’s Independent Mission
Page 151 :
The Volcano Erupts, , History is also made by human beings. While, it is true enough that Paul is not the “second, founder of Christianity,” it is also true that, without his accomplishment and ability a, Jewish renewal movement would hardly have, become, with breathtaking speed, a world, religion with great drawing power., 7.1 Presuppositions of the Pauline, Mission, The events relating to the apostolic council, and the conflict at Antioch led to a parting of, the ways between Paul and Barnabas and to, a final separation of the apostle from the, Antioch mission. We must consider the way, this is presented in Acts as unhistorical on, two points: (1) The conflict over John Mark,, which obviously was a personal matter (cf., Acts 15:36–39), could hardly have been the, real cause of the split between Paul and, Barnabas. It is more likely that the Antioch
Page 152 :
incident was the occasion for the separation,, for Paul and Barnabas obviously advocated, differing understandings of purity. (2) In Acts, 16:4 Paul appears as the leading protagonist, in behalf of the apostolic decree, which from, Luke’s perspective has validity beyond the, territory in which the Antioch mission was, influential (Acts 15:23). We cannot be sure, whether Paul actually knew the apostolic, decree; his conduct during the Antioch, conflict, however, speaks in favor of his, having known it, for he strictly rejects its, presupposed concept of purity. Paul, in, contrast to Barnabas, did not accept the, apostolic decree, which was regarded as, authoritative in the territory of the Antioch, mission, and this difference was probably the, cause of their separation. The course of, events drove Paul westward. Strengthened, by the decisions of the apostolic council and, now having lost his home within the area of, his previous mission work when the churches, in that area accepted the apostolic decree, at, the end of the year 48 CE Paul began an, independent mission.
Page 153 :
Greek as a World Language, The external conditions for this mission, work were very good,[1] for in the Roman, Empire of the first century CE there existed, a well-developed communications, infrastructure, basically made possible by the, linguistic situation. In the first place,, inscriptions show that in Palestine of the first, century CE two different linguae francae, overlapped.[2] Alongside Aramaic, Koine, Greek was widespread, and Greek was, spoken in even the most uncultured social, classes.[3] A comparable linguistic situation, was found in Syria; here also both Aramaic, and Greek were prevalent.[4] After the, conquests of Alexander, Asia Minor lay under, Greek influence, with the result that here, also Greek was the dominant language in the, first century.[5] Local dialects were, preserved alongside Greek (cf., e.g., Acts, 2:5–11; 14:11). Greek was, of course, the, primary language in Greece and Macedonia,, but the circumstances in Italy and Rome are, difficult to evaluate. Educated Romans knew, Greek, just as did the large number of slaves
Page 154 :
who had been brought to Rome from the, east. There is thus a limited sense in which, Rome can also be considered bilingual.[6], Thus Paul could get along in “his” world with, one language and communicate with all, social classes. The language of Diaspora, Judaism of the Mediterranean world likewise, was Greek. Alongside Paul and other New, Testament authors, one thinks here, especially of Philo, who refers to Greek as, “our language.”[7]
Page 155 :
Transportation, Paul’s mission work was made easier by, the excellent possibilities for travel available, in the Roman Empire of the first century CE., [8] The network of roads comprised about, 186,000 miles, of which 56,000 miles were, improved highways.[9] The quality of this, network of Roman roads is indicated by the, fact that the system as a whole was still, intact in the High Middle Ages and that some, roads built by the Romans are still in use, today. Paul and his coworkers traveled either, on foot or by ship; there is no reference in, the New Testament to Paul’s traveling by, wagon. An overland traveler could cover, about nineteen miles a day through normal, terrain.[10] When traveling by ship with a, favorable wind, the average speed was about, 4.5–6 knots, so that, for example, one could, travel from Corinth to the Roman harbor, Puteoli in four or five days. There were many, travelers in the first century. These included, merchants and peddlers as well as people, traveling for educational value. Groups, traveled from city to city, and Jews were not
Page 156 :
the only group for whom pilgrimages were a, normal part of life.[11] And finally, the, wandering Cynic philosophers[12] were an, important factor in shaping the way, Christian missionaries were perceived. They, traveled throughout the Hellenistic-Roman, world, bringing their message of moral, renewal,[13] preaching especially on the, streets and public squares, at the entrances, of theaters and temples. As was the case for, Paul, it was the cities that provided the real, setting for the work of the Cynic preachers., [14] Their unconventional appearance (cloak,, satchel, staff, long unkempt hair) and, especially their addressing current themes, and problems of everyday life gained them, general respect but also often evoked, opposition from the ruling class.[15] Many, wandering philosophers had no permanent, address; they traveled barefoot, begged for, their food, and slept on the floors of public, buildings. In the ancient world, Christian, missionaries were not the only wandering, preachers who proclaimed their message in, public settings.
Page 157 :
Religious Pluralism, The religious pluralism and tolerance of, the Roman Empire in the first century CE, was also propitious for the spread of, Christianity. Greeks and Romans generally, did not doubt that other gods besides their, own existed; this perspective contributed to, the coexistence and amalgamation of, different religions.[16] Thus the Greek, mystery cults (Eleusis, Dionysus, Attis) were, open to the integration of Egyptian (Osiris,, Isis, Sarapis) and oriental (Mithras) deities., [17] The classical Roman and Greek gods, were in part identified with these new gods,, alongside whom some of the healing gods,, such as Asclepius, attained great importance., Finally, within this syncretism the worship of, stars and sun continued to play a, considerable role, as did magic and, superstition.[18] Oracle shrines were heavily, visited,[19] and faith in such oracles was, widespread. It was not merely a particular, social class that tolerated and fostered this, religious pluralism; merchants, soldiers,, slaves, and travelers all propagated their
Page 158 :
deities and organized themselves into private, cultic associations., The pax romana, The Romans attempted to hold together,, restrict, and channel the variety of religious, and cultural streams within their empire, through a common bond: the pax romana, (Roman peace).[20] Since Augustus,[21] at, the center of this image had stood the person, of the emperor, who as pontifex maximus, guaranteed the continued existence and, cohesion of the Roman Empire as a sacrallegal reality; in this image the empire was, held together by the emperor, who by astute, politics provided peace and prosperity.[22], The political unity of the empire, its, economic growth, and its legal stability were, all gifts of the pax romana, which was based, on Rome’s military might. Peace in external, affairs made possible an intact infrastructure, and a thriving trade between the eastern and, western parts of the empire, and these also, enhanced the spread of the gospel by, business people, travelers, and slaves. The, economic upturn also included social
Page 159 :
mobility; the boundaries between social, classes became more relaxed, and the, possibilities of upward mobility for the lower, classes were improved.[23] Paul respected, the pax romana (cf. Rom. 13:1–7), for it was, an essential presupposition for the successful, earlier mission: the boundaries of linguistic, and cultural circles could be crossed without, difficulty, and new views quickly found, interested hearers. So long as the (for, Christians) critical threshold of emperor, worship was not crossed, the pax romana, provided the framework for the success of, the early Christian mission.
Page 160 :
Diaspora Judaism, Within this complex historical and cultural, setting, Judaism maintained its character as, a national religion. It was precisely for this, reason that as Christianity became a, missionary religion, it found Judaism to be its, first conversation partner. In the first, century the Jewish Diaspora[24] comprised, about five or six million people.[25] Outside, Palestine more Jews lived in Egypt than in, any other country; Philo gives the number of, Egyptian Jews as approximately one million., [26] Other centers of Jewish population were, Cyrene, Syria, and Phoenicia. Antioch and, Damascus in particular were home to large, Jewish communities. In Asia Minor hardly a, city was found without a Jewish community., For example, Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesus,, and Tarsus were centers of Diaspora, Judaism. Southern Italy and Rome also were, home to important Jewish communities. In, the first century CE, the center of Diaspora, communities was the synagogue.[27] In the, larger cities the synagogue was located, within the Jewish residential section or at
Page 161 :
least on a Jewish street. As portrayed in Acts,, upon his arrival in a new town, Paul always, went first to the Jewish synagogue, where he, recorded his first missionary successes (cf., Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14–43; 14:1–2; 17:1–3; 18:4;, 19:8). This procedure was readily available,, since as a Diaspora Jew Paul was familiar, with the communication structures of the, synagogue, and as Christianity developed, it, began to separate from Judaism.[28] The, synagogue was the center of all the activities, of the Jewish community. Here people, gathered for common worship,[29] with, prayer, Scripture readings, sermons, lessons,, and blessings, and for community meetings, and other public events. The importance of, the synagogue as a cultural and, communication center was increased even, more by libraries, schools, hostels, and, homes for the aged. Pilgrimages from the, Diaspora to Jerusalem not only fostered the, connection with the temple and the holy city, but thereby facilitated a lively exchange of, reports and information between Palestine, and the various centers of the Diaspora., Diaspora Jews also may have engaged in, missionary work, as indicated by Matt. 23:15
Page 162 :
and Horace, Sermones 1.4.142–143., However that may be, the existing, communication system of the Jewish, Diaspora communities presented Paul with, the first opportunity to proclaim his new, message. Those addressed by this message, included, besides ethnic Jews and proselytes,, especially the God-fearers. Paul probably, received a significant response to his, missionary preaching from within this, segment, for—like Judaism—Christianity, offered them a monotheistic faith and an, appealing ethic but without denying them, full membership in the community. Gentiles, who had no previous contact with the, synagogue constituted another central target, group of the Pauline mission.[30] This is, indicated by texts such as 1 Thess. 1:9–10;, 2:16 (Paul speaks polemically against the, Jews because they hinder him from, preaching the gospel τοῖς ἔθνεσιν [to the, Gentiles]); 1 Cor. 12:2; Gal. 2:3 (Τίτος ὁ σὺν, ἐµοί, Ἕλλην ὤν [Titus, who was with me, . . ., though he was a Greek]); 4:8–9; 5:2–3; 6:12;, Rom. 1:13–15, 18ff.; 10:1–3; 11:13 (Ὑµῖν δὲ, λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· ἐφ᾽ ὅσον µὲν οὖν εἰµι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν, ἀπόστολος [Now I am speaking to you Gentiles.
Page 163 :
Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the, Gentiles . . .]), 17–18, 24, 28, 30–31; 15:15–, 16, 18; Acts 28:28. We cannot understand, the numerous conflicts in Corinth[31] and, Rome (cf. Rom. 14:1–15, 13) unless those, who had previously been Gentiles were, involved in them. The abolition of the, distinction between Jews and Gentiles (cf. 1, Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28, οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ, Ἕλλην [There is no longer Jew or Greek]), makes sense only on the presupposition that, the churches included both Gentile, Christians and Jewish Christians. Finally, we, can adequately explain neither the unique, dynamic of the early Christian mission, history nor the stormy debates that, accompanied it, unless Paul had converted, Gentiles in appreciable numbers. Among, these Gentiles were both those who had, previously been sympathizers with Judaism, and those who had no previous relationship, with Judaism.[32], 7.2 Beginnings of the Independent, Mission
Page 164 :
After the directions for the future had been, set at the apostolic council and the debates, in Antioch and the separation from Barnabas,, Paul began his own full-scale independent, missionary work. He crossed the boundaries, established by the previous Antioch mission,, which had been confined to the areas of, Palestine, Syria, and southeast Asia Minor,, and devoted himself to proclaiming the, Christian message in western Asia Minor and, Greece. He took the gospel to the cultural, centers of the world of that time., Luke traces the individual stations of this, missionary expansion and thus generates the, image of the tireless missionary. In company, with Silas and Timothy, Paul’s way leads, from Syria through Cilicia and Phrygia to, Galatia and from there to Troas, whence they, set out for Macedonia and for the first time, set foot on European soil. By portraying the, arrival of the gospel in Europe as the result, of direct revelation (Acts 16:9–10), Luke, underscores the significance of Paul’s, decision for salvation history., In Philippi Paul begins his mission work in, the context of the synagogue and converts, Lydia, a God-fearing businesswoman who
Page 165 :
dealt in purple goods.[33] The powerful, appeal of the Jewish faith had produced a, situation in which many people had, abandoned worship of the pagan gods and,, as worshipers of the one God, had accepted, Jewish monotheism, though they were not, formally converts to Judaism by circumcision., Particularly in Asia Minor, Paul could, evidently win many converts to the new faith, from within this group. It is also to be noted, that the well-to-do Lydia decided to join the, Christian community. The success of Paul’s, missionary work in Philippi had already, resulted in the mistreatment of the apostle, and his coworkers. Although the narrative in, Acts 16:16–40 has legendary, embellishments, its historical kernel is, confirmed by 1 Thess. 2:2 (though we had, already suffered and been shamefully, mistreated at Philippi). From Philippi Paul, proceeded westward along the Via Egnatia to, Thessalonica. The account in Acts and the, data in 1 Thessalonians agree on two basic, points: (1) Paul had great missionary success, (cf. 1 Thess. 1:6–10; Acts 17:4), and (2) the, Jews responded with persecutions, which in, Acts 17:5ff. affect Paul, and in 1 Thess. 2:14–
Page 166 :
16 strike the church in Thessalonica. Acts, 17:5ff. pictures Paul spending barely a, month in Thessalonica. A different picture is, given in Phil. 4:15–16, according to which, the church in Philippi twice sent financial, support to Paul while he was in Thessalonica., While there, Paul and his coworkers also, supported themselves by their own work in, order not to burden the church (1 Thess., 2:9). Each of these details speaks in favor of, a somewhat longer stay of about three, months.[34] After his departure, Paul, attempted to visit the new church again but, without success (cf. 1 Thess. 2:17–18). Paul, also had a successful mission in Beroea, and, later someone from this church accompanied, him on the trip to Jerusalem to deliver the, offering (Acts 20:4, Sopater [cf. Rom., 16:21]). From Beroea Paul and his coworkers, went to Athens (cf. 1 Thess. 3:1–2). Paul, spent a longer time there, and from Athens, he sent Timothy to Thessalonica. Except for, the fact that he was there, Paul gives no, other information about his work in Athens., Paul himself does not mention Luke’s, accounts of his preaching to Jews and, Gentiles in Athens, his encounters with
Page 167 :
Greek philosophers, and his impressions of, the many idols and pagan altars in the city., Paul could hardly have given a speech such, as the Areopagus address of Acts 17:22–31., [35] In particular, the idea of a relationship, between God and human beings based on, natural theology, as recounted in Acts 17:28–, 29, is inconceivable for Paul, since the point, of departure for his own theology is the, human alienation from God because of, human sin. Presumably Paul’s missionary, work in Athens had only minimal success., Acts 17:32–34 confirms this assumption, for, only Damaris and Dionysius the Areopagite, are mentioned by name as having become, Christians. Paul appears in Athens as one, among many wandering preachers, and his, preaching there seems to have had no lasting, effect. The tradition says nothing about a, church being established in Athens. Among, the Pauline churches in Greece, and in the, broader history of early Christianity, Athens, plays no role, and it is only about 170 CE, that we have reports of a Christian, community there (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 4.23.2–3).
Page 168 :
7.3 The Pauline School and the, Structure of Paul’s Work with the, Churches, To grasp the theological and historical, complexity of Paul’s life and thought, one, must consider that his ministry was, embedded in a complex of school traditions., Paul was certainly the outstanding, theologian of his time, who developed a new, theology that was to have powerful effects., At the same time, he both came from a, school tradition and founded a new school, himself. Both the undisputed and the, deutero-Pauline letters, in their different, ways, show this to have been the case.[36], As a Pharisee, Paul himself had developed, his faith and theology within the tradition of, a particular school,[37] and this influence, continued throughout his life.[38] Moreover,, his letters indicate that within his context of, Diaspora Judaism he incorporated a large, body of authentic Hellenistic material into, his educational development and that he was, familiar with the ancient philosophical, schools. There are unmistakable similarities, between these schools and the Pauline
Page 169 :
school:[39] a founder,[40] the discussion and, interpretation of written documents, table, fellowship, the ideal of friendship, the, establishment of identity by marking itself off, from the outside world, teaching activity in, different locations, traveling in the company, of disciples, and the founding of circles of, sympathizers.[41] After all, Paul did not, become a Christian simply as an individual, but after his conversion was introduced into, the basics of the Christian faith by the group, of coworkers in the Antioch mission, in which, Paul himself worked for some time. In 1 Cor., 11:23a and 15:3a he emphasizes the, importance of early Christian traditions for, his own thought and documents his solidarity, with earlier traditions by adopting, eucharistic (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23b–25) and, baptismal traditions (cf. 1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11;, 12:13; 2 Cor. 1:21–22; Gal. 3:26–28; Rom., 3:25; 4:25; 6:3–4), by integrating, christological traditions (cf. Rom. 1:3b-4a),, and by taking up early Christian hymns (cf., Phil. 2:6–11).
Page 170 :
Structures of the Pauline School, In varying degrees of intensity, school, traditions had played a formative role in, Paul’s development prior to his own, independent mission, and so it is not, surprising that he founded a school himself., Several observations point to the existence of, such a school:, (1) Paul makes his appearance on the stage, of history as one who receives revelations, (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:1, 12, 15–16), as a, model example for his followers (cf. 1 Thess., 1:6–7, 1 Cor. 4:16; 7:7–8, 11:1; 2 Cor. 4:2;, 6:11–13; Gal. 4:12; Phil. 4:9), and as an, inspired teacher (cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–16; 4:17;, 7:40; 14:6, 19, 37–38; Gal. 1:8–9; Phil. 3:15)., [42] The apostle is a prime example of one, commissioned to mediate the gospel (1 Cor., 9:23); his ministry is part and parcel of God’s, own act of reconciliation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19–20)., [43], (2) To a considerable extent, it is Paul’s, coworkers who carry on the work of the, Pauline mission, who place their own stamp, on it.[44] The undisputed Pauline letters
Page 171 :
mention about forty people as the apostle’s, coworkers. Barnabas was the first member of, this inner circle, replaced by Silvanus and, Timothy when the independent mission, began, and later Titus. Silvanus (1 Thess., 1:1) and Timothy (1 Thess. 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:1; 2, Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Philem. 1:1) serve as cosenders of letters (cf. also Sosthenes in 1, Cor. 1:1), which documents their joint, responsibility for the work of the different, Pauline churches. In particular, Timothy and, Titus emerge as independent missionaries,, sent at Paul’s behest to resolve problems in, the mission churches (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Cor., 8). There were also independent missionaries, and teachers, both men and women, who, worked alongside Paul and with whom the, apostle worked from time to time. Apollos, (cf. 1 Cor. 1–4; Acts 18:24) and the married, couple Prisca and Aquila (cf. 1 Cor. 16:9;, Rom. 16:3–4; Acts 18:2, 26) are particular, examples of such teachers and mission, workers. The majority of Paul’s coworkers, mentioned in the letters were envoys sent by, various churches. They came out of churches, founded by the apostle, and they participated, in the Pauline mission as delegates of these
Page 172 :
churches (e.g., Erastus, Gaius, Aristarchus,, Sosipater, Jason, Epaphras, and, Epaphroditus). They maintained contact with, their home churches, supported Paul in, various ways, and carried on their, independent mission work in the environs of, the churches founded in the Pauline, enterprise. As the mission continued to, expand, Paul himself could maintain only, occasional contact with the churches. His, letters indicate how dissatisfied the churches, were with what they perceived as minimal, attention from Paul and how difficult it was, for him to provide cogent arguments that, would mollify their annoyance (cf. 1 Thess., 2:17–20; 1 Cor. 4:18)., (3) There is a causal connection between, the large number of church envoys and, Paul’s new missionary method. He did not, continue the previous practice of missionary, journeys but developed an independent, mission center. Whereas other missionaries, or early Christian prophets wandered from, place to place, Paul attempted to found a, church, that is, one or more house churches,, in each provincial capital. He remained in, each location long enough for the church to
Page 173 :
develop its own leadership structure, and his, own presence was no longer necessary.[45], Out of the Pauline mission center there grew, independent congregations that in turn, provided the basis for the broader Pauline, mission and took responsibility for their own, missionary work (cf. 1 Thess. 1:6–8)., (4) Within this large circle of coworkers, it, is not likely that Paul’s own work was limited, to matters of organization. The συνεργοί, (coworkers) were not commissioned by Paul, but called into service by God (cf. 1 Cor. 3:9)., Like Paul, they are committed to the same, “work” of preaching the gospel among the, Gentiles (cf. 1 Thess. 3:2; 1 Cor. 3:5–9;, 16:10, 15–18; 2 Cor. 8:16–23; Phil. 2:22). We, can presume that this work included, intensive theological reflection, especially, within the inner circle of coworkers.[46], Texts in the Pauline corpus that stand out, from their context by their form, theology,, and location confirm this supposition. Thus 1, Cor. 13 manifests only a loose connection, with its context, and the transition from 1, Cor. 12:31 to 14:1 is seamless.[47] The, content also manifests distinctive features,, for the charismata of faith, hope, and love
Page 174 :
here stand above all other spiritual gifts., First Corinthians 13 had clearly been drafted, before the composition of the letter itself; it, points to the theological work of the Pauline, school. Comparable texts are found in 1 Cor., 1:18ff.; 2:6ff.; 10:1ff.; 2 Cor. 3:7ff.; Rom., 1:18ff.; 7:7ff. All these texts are typified by, their nonpolemic character, their thematic, unity and compactness, and their rootedness, in the tradition of Hellenistic Judaism. Their, proximity to wisdom literature suggests that, here too Paul picks up the thread of his preChristian period.[48], (5) The deutero-Paulines (Colossians,, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, the Pastorals), [49] explicitly confirm the existence of a, Pauline school that continued after the death, of the apostle. This legacy, found in the, writings of four of Paul’s disciples, makes, clear how Pauline theology was further, developed and applied in changed situations., In all the deutero-Paulines, Paul’s emphasis, on the doctrine of justification, as found in, Galatians and Romans, remarkably subsides., [50] Apocalyptic motifs in Christology, likewise decline in importance, and an, emphasis on present eschatology prevails.
Page 175 :
The focus is on matters of church order and, problems of ethics that have emerged, because of the altered situation in the life of, the church (the appearance of false teachers;, coming to terms with the fading expectation, of the parousia). In this situation Paul the, sufferer (Colossians, Ephesians, and 2, Timothy present themselves as written from, prison) becomes the authority of the, foundational period. Paul’s students appeal, to their teacher and attempt to develop his, theology within changed circumstances., Although the deutero-Paulines deviate from, Paul’s own theology in essential points, they, still manifest familiarity with the apostle’s, thought. The Pauline school tradition,, especially Romans, had a deep influence on, the author of Colossians in particular. He, probably acquired his knowledge of the basic, themes of Pauline theology in the Pauline, school and then developed them, independently in accordance with the, challenges of his own time. Acts, too, must, be read as a document of the Pauline school, tradition. Paul is the true hero of the story, and repeatedly steps forth as the teacher, who sets the agenda (cf. Acts 11:26; 13:12;
Page 176 :
15:35; 17:19; 18:11; 20:20; 21:21, 28; 28:31)., [51], Ephesus is the most likely candidate for, the location of the Pauline school.[52] This, multicultural city (the Artemis temple,, mystery religions, an important Jewish, community, the emperor cult, Hellenistic, philosophy) was the center of the early, Christian mission.[53] Among those who, worked here are Prisca and Aquila (cf. Acts, 18:19–21; 1 Cor. 16:19), the Alexandrian, Apollos (cf. Acts 18:24–28; 1 Cor. 16:12), and, Paul himself from the summer of 52 until the, spring of 55. In no other city did Paul spend, as much time as in Ephesus, where he, gathered a large staff and, according to Acts, 19:9–10, preached for two years in the, lecture hall of Tyrannus the rhetorician. Paul, wrote 1 Corinthians in Ephesus, and it is, likely that some of the deutero-Paulines were, also written there (Colossians, Ephesians [?],, the Pastorals)., Paul provided his coworkers and churches, with solutions to disputed issues, with, corrective theological reflections, and with, ethical instructions, and at the same time his, own thought was being strongly influenced
Page 177 :
by his coworkers and the changing situations, in the churches. When all is said and done,, the hypothesis of a Pauline school grants, insight into the process of theological, formation, as reflected in the Pauline letters, by the interweaving of arguments, conditioned by particular situations, general, instruction, and foundational tradition.
Page 178 :
Mission Strategies, Some passages in Paul’s letters afford us a, detailed view of how the mission was carried, out.[54] Paul proclaimed the gospel not only, in the local synagogues but also in private, houses (cf. Acts 18:7–8; 20:7–11; 28:30–31;, also Rom. 16:23),[55] in public places (cf., Acts 17:16–34),[56] and in prison (cf. Acts, 28:30–31; Phil. 1:12ff.; Philemon). He rented, halls open to the public (cf. Acts 19:9–10)[57], and also made use of his craftsman’s, occupation as a context for his missionary, work (cf. 1 Thess. 2:9).[58] His own labor, assured his financial independence (cf. 1, Cor. 9:18) and freedom of thought, so that he, was as independent as the Cynic preachers., [59] Finally, his close contact with his, coworkers served the cause of the gospel, for, Paul trained them to carry on their own, missionary work.[60] The initial preaching of, the Christian message led to the founding of, new congregations.[61] According to Rom., 15:20, Paul saw his specific task to be, proclaiming “the good news, not where
Page 179 :
Christ has already been named, so that I do, not build on someone else’s foundation.”, The methods by which the gospel was, communicated were appropriate to the, content of the gospel itself. Promotion of the, gospel and zeal for the Christian message, (cf. 2 Cor. 11:2; Gal. 4:18) must correspond, to the proclamation of the crucified Christ, (cf. 1 Cor. 1:17; 2 Cor. 13:4). The conduct of, the apostle has nothing to do with secrecy,, cunning, or the profit motive (cf. 2 Cor. 4:1–, 2; 7:2; 11:7–11). On the contrary, he cares, for his churches as a mother cares for her, children (cf. 1 Thess. 2:1–12; 1 Cor. 4:14–16;, 2 Cor. 12:14; Gal. 4:9). The restless life of, the apostle is moved by anxious care “for all, the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28). He deals with, his churches and their individual members, with pastoral care (cf. 1 Thess. 2:11); the, apostle’s words of encouragement and, comfort, and his corresponding deeds,, belong to the inner core of his missionary, work from the very beginning. He responds, to his congregations with candor and love, and fights for them when they are in danger, of being led away from the truth of the, gospel (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4, 29; Gal. 3:1–5).
Page 180 :
Although Paul is driven by the fear that he, may have worked in vain for his churches (cf., 1 Thess. 3:5; Gal. 2:2; 4:11; Phil. 2:16), his, mission is not merely oriented toward, “success.” He does not depend on human, approval; his sole obligation is to carry out, his call as apostle to the Gentiles (cf. 1, Thess. 2:4, 6; 1 Cor. 9:16; Gal. 1:10). Paul, has confidence in the truth’s own power of, persuasion, and this is exactly why he works, tirelessly for the truth (1 Thess. 2:13). This, dimension of depth gives stability to his, restless life., The lasting significance of the initial, preaching of the Christian message is, documented in 1 Thess. 1:6–10; 2:1; 4:2ff.; 1, Cor. 3:6, 10–11; 4:15; Gal. 4:13; 5:21; Phil., 1:5; 4:15. Paul reminds the churches of this, founding event and derives his own authority, from it. As ambassador of the gospel (cf. 2, Cor. 5:19–21; Rom. 10:14–17), he found, access to people’s hearts because it was the, gospel of Jesus Christ that itself persuaded, his hearers (cf. 1 Cor. 15:11). It is the Spirit, that makes the apostle’s preaching effective, (cf. 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Cor. 2:4–5; 4:19–20; Gal., 3:5). Proclamation of the word and the
Page 181 :
demonstration of power are clearly a single, event (cf. 1 Thess. 1:5; 1 Cor. 2:4–5; 4:19–20;, 2 Cor. 6:7; 12:12; Gal. 3:5; Rom. 15:18–19)., The word δύναμις (power) appears in 2 Cor., 12:12 and Rom. 15:18–19 in connection with, σημεῖα (signs) and τέρατα (miracles). Paul too, works miracles in his churches, and they, confirm his apostolic authority., The new churches experienced the, multidimensional event of the initial, preaching as decisive for their future life., The communication of the gospel to them, was an event with several layers of meaning,, in which foundational faith experiences were, combined with cognitive elements. The act of, baptism, directly related to conferral of the, Spirit, was an existential event. As a, symbolic-ritual act, it mediated the new, being founded in Jesus Christ and, as, baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus,, introduced believers into a new existence, determined by the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 1:21–22;, Gal. 3:26–28; Rom. 6:3–4). The induction of, converts into the kind of conduct called for in, the new Christian life (cf. Gal. 5:21) played a, central role in founding a new church (cf., Gal. 5:21). On the positive side, the love
Page 182 :
command stood at the center; negatively,, avoidance of immorality was primary.
Page 183 :
House Churches, Since the household was the center of, religious life within this general frame of, reference, the house became the natural, starting point for early Christian, communities, especially since they did not, have public buildings available to them. The, house as the central location of religious life, had a long tradition in antiquity; private, cultic associations, groups of initiates in the, mystery cults, and philosophical schools, chose this location.[62] Furthermore, Jewish, congregations also sometimes met in house, synagogues,[63] and the Christian mission, began in the synagogue context. It is thus, not surprising that Paul’s letters presuppose, the existence of house churches (cf. the, expression ἡ κατ᾽ οἶκον ἐκκλησία [the church, that meets in their house] in 1 Cor. 16:19;, Rom. 16:5; Philem. 2; cf. also Rom. 16:14–15,, 23; Acts 12:12; 18:7; Col. 4:15).[64] To, outsiders, the Christian congregations, like, the Hellenistic Jewish synagogue, congregations, appeared to be clubs or, associations.[65] Just as the social life of
Page 184 :
Hellenistic-Roman antiquity was carried on, in social clubs[66] and had its center and, high point in the fellowship of common, meals,[67] so also the life of the Christian, congregation was structured around the, common meal. The establishment of a new, group[68] could have taken place only within, the framework of regular meetings and, common meals in private homes., We can only guess the size of these first, congregations. From 1 Cor. 11:20 and 14:23, we may infer that the whole Corinthian, church gathered in one place, that is, in a, private house. The atrium of a residence, could accommodate thirty to fifty people,[69], and these figures would also define the, approximate size of a new congregation;, where several house churches existed in, larger cities, such as Rome, the total number, of members of the church would be larger., The house church was an exceptional place, within a somewhat hostile environment, a, place where Christians could cultivate and, practice their faith. Here they prayed (cf., Acts 12:12), preached the word (cf. Acts, 16:32; 20:20), celebrated baptisms and the, Eucharist, and provided for traveling
Page 185 :
missionaries (cf. Acts 16:15). First, Corinthians 14:23 speaks of gatherings of, the congregation in a house, and Pauline, letters were read aloud to the congregation, gathered in house churches (cf. 1 Thess., 5:27; Col. 4:16). The house church, as a, center of early Christian mission, thus, permitted a relative undisturbed practice of, religious life and facilitated an efficient, competition with synagogue congregations, and cultic associations. Finally, the house, church also offered a setting for breaking, through the conventions of social structure, and value systems and for living out the new, identity in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:26–28). Within, the Christian house churches, the differences, between people lost their importance. God, had torn all of them out of their old life and, placed them in a new reality, which Paul, describes as being in Christ. Faith in Jesus, Christ did not separate; it tore down the old, walls and built no new ones. Believers really, became one in Jesus Christ. The struggle, between poor and rich, slave and free, male, and female did not determine the reality of, the early Christian house churches, but, mutual participation in the unity of the one
Page 186 :
community established by Christ. In the, house churches, the new identity was not, merely announced or postulated; it was, really lived. The attractiveness of the house, churches within the Pauline mission was, probably due to the fact that here believers, no longer had to separate their Christian life, and their social life but here could really live, the new, liberating life of being in Christ., Small, manageable units with a high level of, individual participation of the members on, the social, emotional, and intellectual levels, were sure to produce results. The young, churches broke through the ancient norms, by their orientation to the dawning new age,, by their self-designation ἐκκλησία, by their, lack of official structure, and by their, inclusive spectrum of members (women,, slaves).[70] The expression ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλη (the, whole church) in 1 Cor. 14:23 and Rom., 16:23 indicates that in larger places, such as, Corinth or Rome, there was a “whole church”, that included a number of house churches., [71], For the most part, social stratification in, the Pauline house churches reflected the, society in which they were located.[72] None
Page 187 :
of the elite upper class (senators, governors,, members of the emperor’s family) belonged, to the early churches, but their membership, likely included some high-ranking local, officials (cf. Erastus as “city treasurer” in, Rom. 16:23;[73] members of the familia, Caesaris [“Caesar’s household”], Phil. 4:22)., Members of upper-class families are greeted, in Rom. 16:10–11. Among the wealthy class, in their own cities are Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14;, Rom. 16:23), Phoebe (Rom. 16:1–2),, Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15, 17), and, Philemon (Philem. 2). They owned houses,, some of them owned slaves, and, most, important, they provided financial support, for the church as its patrons.[74] The, collection for Jerusalem organized by Paul is, inconceivable apart from the inclusion of, patrons of the congregation. When Paul, emphasizes in 1 Cor. 1:26 that the church, did not have “many . . . wise by human, standards, not many . . . powerful, not many, . . . of noble birth,” this presupposes that, there were some who were wealthy and, influential.[75] Like Paul himself,, handworkers and merchants especially can, be regarded as belonging to the middle class
Page 188 :
(cf. Prisca and Aquila, Rom. 16:3; Acts 18:2,, 18, 26; cf. also the members mentioned in 1, Thess. 4:11–12).[76] Still, most of the, membership of the early churches did belong, to the lower socioeconomic class, including, numerous slaves (cf. 1 Cor. 7:21–24; Gal., 3:28; Philemon; the slave names in Rom., 16:8–9, 22).[77], Paul’s church visitations and letters both, were means of proclaiming the Christian, message and for working out conflicts. He, often laments the difference between being, present with the congregations and being, away from them,[78] for he longed to be with, his churches in person.[79] Both care for his, churches and anxiety about them[80] drove, Paul to try to visit his congregations despite, the difficulties of doing so. The goal of his, visits was to encourage and comfort the, churches, to support and admonish them;, [81] Paul was concerned about not only their, survival but their unity as the body of Christ., Paul also intervened in the spirited life of his, congregations with the written word, to, guide and lead them and win them over to, his point of view. His letters were not only a, substitute for his personal presence; the
Page 189 :
apostle also employed letters as a special, means of preaching the gospel. On certain, subjects, the letters were a better means of, conflict resolution than face-to-face speech., [82], 7.4 The Self-Understanding of the, Apostle to the Gentiles, We can only understand Paul’s letters, his, missionary work, and the conflicts involved, in it when we recognize that the apostle’s, self-understanding was the driving force of, his life. At least from the time when he began, his independent Gentile mission, Paul’s life, was marked by a certain view of world, history and his role in how it was unfolding, a, view that we can see reflected in basic, outline within his letters. Paul was convinced, that there is only one God and that this God, is carrying out a grand historical plan, through Jesus Christ. God had chosen Paul as, the apostle to the Gentiles to carry out this, plan (cf. Gal. 1:16)., In view of the imminent judgment of God, on all people, which would occur with the
Page 190 :
return of Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9–10), Paul, was obligated to fulfill the special task of, proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ’s cross, and resurrection in order to save at least, some (1 Cor. 9:16, “If I proclaim the gospel,, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an, obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do, not proclaim the gospel!”; cf. also 1 Thess., 2:16; 1 Cor. 9:22). Paul considered himself to, be especially qualified for this task. In 1 Cor., 15:9 he acknowledges that he is least of all, the apostles because of his previous, persecution of the church, but then, continues: “But by the grace of God I am, what I am, and his grace toward me has not, been in vain. On the contrary, I worked, harder than any of them—though it was not, I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1, Cor. 15:10). Paul is doubtless correct when, he counts himself among the best of the, apostles (cf. also 2 Cor. 11:5, 21–23; Gal., 1:13–14; Phil. 3:4–6), and he successfully, undertook the task of proclaiming the gospel, to the ends of the world as then understood., Paul repeatedly explains to his churches, that they owe their existence to his bringing, the gospel to them (cf. the begetting and
Page 191 :
birth metaphors in 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 3:6–, 11; 9:1–2; 2 Cor. 2:14–3:3; 10:14–16; Rom., 15:18–21).[83] He especially values his, coworkers, who work hard at the missionary, task just as he himself does (cf. 1 Cor. 16:16;, Rom. 16:6), and expects the Gentile converts, to follow his lead without reservations in, both their proclamation of the Christian, message and in their ethical conduct. Thus, not only can he appeal to the Corinthians,, “be imitators of me!”[84] (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1);, [85] he can also in the realm of sex ethics, express his wish “I wish that all were as I, myself am” (1 Cor. 7:7). As founder of the, churches and their example to be followed,, Paul is the model of what it means to be a, follower of Christ (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 11:1–2; 2, Cor. 6:11–13; 7:2–4a; Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17)., Paul is himself a participant in the gospel he, proclaims (cf. 1 Cor. 9:23). Of course, it is, not the life of the apostle in and of itself that, is representative but only as derived from, and within its relation to Christ (cf. 2 Cor., 12:9–10; Phil. 3:7–8). The metaphor of the, Roman triumphal procession in 2 Cor. 2:14, expresses with great poignancy and power, Paul’s understanding of himself and the
Page 192 :
nature of reality (Thanks be to God, who in, Christ always leads us in triumphal, procession, and through us spreads in every, place the fragrance that comes from knowing, him):[86] Christ is the triumphant victor over, the anti-God powers and now leads Paul, through the world as a conquered prisoner, so that he can announce the victory, everywhere. Paul is thus not only one who, bears the incense within the victory parade;, [87] he understands that he himself is the, incense emanating from the procession (2, Cor. 2:15, “For we are the aroma of Christ to, God among those who are being saved and, among those who are perishing”). The gospel, he proclaims separates saved and lost., In view of his unswerving commitment to, the gospel, it is not surprising that for Paul, the most alarming possibility was that he had, worked in vain and that at the last judgment, he could not point to any churches he had, founded or at least influenced in the right, direction (cf. 1 Thess. 2:19–20; 3:5; 1 Cor., 3:10–17; 2 Cor. 1:13–14; Gal. 4:11; Phil., 2:16). For him, the churches are “the seal of, my apostleship” (1 Cor. 9:2). Paul drew from, the Spirit the strength and endurance for his
Page 193 :
indefatigable missionary work. Like the, prophets, he understood himself to be one, grasped by the πνεῦμα,[88] one who, possessed the Spirit and who lived and, worked by its guidance (cf., e.g., 1 Cor., 1:10ff.; 14:1, 18, 37–38; Gal. 6:1; Phil. 3:15)., 7.5 The Development of Early, Christianity as an Independent, Movement, In the first two decades of their existence,, the successful mission of believers in Christ, increasingly led to conflicts with the Jewish, mother religion but also to disputes between, Romans and Jews and between Romans and, the new movement itself as it became, increasingly more distinct from Judaism,, developing its own shape and self-definition., This development is only natural, for, “intersubjective reconstructions of, experiences of transcendence are potentially, dangerous for the existing social order., ‘Other’ realities can disturb or even explode, the assumed order of everyday life.”[89] The, successful mission of Jewish believers in
Page 194 :
Christ, and later of Gentile believers, was, such a “reconstruction of experiences of the, transcendent” and had important religious, and political aftereffects.
Page 195 :
The Parting of the Ways, The increasing period of conflict, leading, toward separation, that began about 50 CE, had multiple causes:[90], (1) At a time when ancient Judaism was, seeking to preserve its religious and ethnic, identity, early Christianity, in the process of, formation, was consciously and, programmatically crossing ethnic, cultural,, and religious boundaries.[91] It propagated a, universal plan of messianic redemption that, included people of all nations and cultures., The early Christian mission was not, characterized by the demarcation of a, particular group from others but by, acculturation (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20–22) and, enculturation as well as transethnic, conceptions (cf. Gal. 3:26–28). The, missionary message of early Christianity was, consciously transnational and transcultural, and transcended class distinctions. It has no, analogy in antiquity regarding its magnitude,, speed, and results.[92] Early Christianity, created a new cognitive identity that in part
Page 196 :
took up previous cultural identities and at, the same time fundamentally reformed them., (2) Early Christianity offered the same, attractions as Judaism—a monotheistic, message and a high ethical standard—but, did so without Judaism’s restrictions and, hurdles. On the one hand, the early Christian, identity concept integrated and transformed, basic Jewish convictions even as, on the, other hand, it separated them from the, classic pillars of Judaism (election, Torah,, temple, and land)., (3) The proclamation of the crucified and, risen Messiah clearly had a deeply attractive, power for the God-fearers. When they, became Christians, the synagogue lost, numbers of wealthy and politically influential, people (cf. Acts 16:14–15; 17:4) and thus an, important connection to pagan society. In, many places this would disturb the delicate, balance in Jewish-Gentile relations., (4) The edict of Claudius had far-reaching, effects on the relations between Christianity, and Judaism and on the whole history of the, early Christian mission. It prevented an early, trip to Rome by Paul (cf. Rom. 1:13; 15:22), and changed the constituency of the Roman
Page 197 :
church. But above all, the success of the, early Christian mission among Gentile, sympathizers of the synagogue in Rome (and, in other areas of the empire) led to a, defensive reaction within Judaism. This, became so fierce in Rome that it attracted, the attention of the emperor, who intervened, in order to prevent even greater disruptions., Although the edict of Claudius probably did, not result in the expulsion of all Jews and, Jewish Christians from Rome,[93] numerous, leaders of both groups were forced to leave, the world capital.[94] This produced a, dangerous situation for Judaism. If at the, heart of the Roman Empire Judaism was, being looked upon as a notorious disruptive, influence, it would be only a small step for, the Romans to institute harsher measures, against Jews—for example, to drive all Jews, from Rome and to declare Judaism a, collegium illicitum. Although Claudius had, confirmed the special rights granted the, Jews by Augustus,[95] further disturbances, could lead to the loss of these privileges.[96], Moreover, the emperor’s action would, quickly become known in the provinces, so, that it would no longer be only a matter of a
Page 198 :
local conflict. There were thus adequate, grounds for the Jews to clarify their, relationship to the new movement so as not, to precipitate even more dangerous conflicts., From their perspective, Jews had to regard, Christian beginnings as a destabilizing, element: Christians obtained many of their, members from people associated with the, synagogue, and so long as the new group, was considered a segment of Judaism, it, endangered the sensitive relationship, between Jews and the Roman government. In, particular, the expulsions of Jews from Rome, that are known to us always occurred in the, context of missionary-syncretistic activities., [97] The expulsion of 139 BCE, mentioned by, Valerius Maximus,[98] happened when some, syncretistic Jews in Rome began propagating, a cultic mixture of Judaism and religious, ideas and practices from Asia Minor.[99] As, a result of aggressive proselytizing, propaganda,[100] in 19 CE Tiberius expelled, the Jews from Rome as part of a general, action against oriental cults.[101] From the, Roman perspective, the edict of Claudius was, in line with this previous action, and, especially statements critical of Judaism in
Page 199 :
Cicero[102] and Seneca indicate that the, ruling class in Rome was inclined to keep its, distance from Judaism. Especially revealing, are the statements of Seneca, a, contemporary of Paul, handed on by, Augustine with the comment that already at, that time the Christians were hated enemies, of the Jews. Seneca says of the Jews, “The, ways of this ignominious people have, attained such influence that they have found, their way into almost every country. The, conquered have given laws to the, conquerors.”[103] The dangerous political, and cultural constellation as a whole must, have led the Jews to see that Christianity, appeared to the Romans to be an aggressive, missionary and syncretistic movement and, that Jews needed to distance themselves, from it., Some passages in Paul’s letters and Acts, indicate, however, that even after the edict, of Claudius the local Jewish communities, took actions against the new Christian, movement. Acts 17:1–9 gives an account of, the Pauline mission in Thessalonica and the, related conflicts. Paul was in Thessalonica, around the turn of the year from 49 to 50
Page 200 :
CE[104] and won over a considerable, number of people who had been previously, related to the synagogue (Acts 17:4). This, resulted in tumults instigated by Jews, and, Christians were dragged before the city, authorities and charged with two political, offenses: Christians had thrown the whole, world into turmoil (Acts 17:6), and they, violated the “decrees” (δόγματα) of the, emperor. The plural δόγματα probably refers, to the edict of Claudius,[105] which in this, context also makes understandable the, charge that Christians were upsetting the, whole world. When the early Christians, preached that, in view of the near parousia of, Christ, Roma aeterna would also pass away,, the Roman authorities were also concerned., [106] First Thessalonians 2:14–16 confirms, the Acts reports of actions against Paul and, his coworkers, in which Jews also were, involved.[107] Only so can the sharp antiJewish polemic in 1 Thess. 2:15–16 be, explained. It seems clear that Jews lodged, charges against the apostle with the Roman, authorities, charging him with disturbing the, peace and violating the religious policy of, Claudius.[108] The explosiveness of Paul’s
Page 201 :
missionary success for the political stability, of Judaism clarifies a narrative unit that Luke, places immediately before Thessalonica. In, Philippi Paul’s preaching had led to, economically motivated countermeasures, from the Gentiles that climaxed in their, charge of disturbing the peace: “These men, are disturbing our city; they are Jews and are, advocating customs that are not lawful for us, as Romans to adopt or observe” (Acts, 16:20b–21). For Jews, such charges were, dangerous in a double perspective: (1) Jews, were identified with the new movement of, believers in Christ and regarded as also, responsible for the agitation they were, causing, and (2) the message and practice of, the new movement was classified as, politically explosive and anti-Roman. On both, counts the Jews must have had grounds for, distancing themselves from the new, agitators., Galatians 6:12 also documents the conflict, between the Pauline mission and the Jews., Regarding the motivation of his Jewish, opponents, Paul says, “It is those who want, to make a good showing in the flesh that try, to compel you to be circumcised—only that
Page 202 :
they may not be persecuted for the cross of, Christ.” This verse contains two items of, valuable historical information: (1) The real, occasion for the arrival of Judaists in Galatia, was the pressure of Judaism on Jewish, Christians, especially in Jerusalem. The, Judaists evidently were convinced that the, problem could be avoided only by a full, integration of the Gentile Christians into the, broader framework of Judaism. (2) By using, the word μόνον (only), Paul points to a, decisive difference between himself and his, Judaist opponents. They pervert the gospel, only so that they will not be persecuted; that, is, Paul too is persecuted by Jews, but, without letting it cause him to betray the, gospel. A reflection of these events is also, found in Gal. 4:21–31, where Paul alludes to, the current state of relations between Jews, and Christians, especially in 4:29: “But just, as at that time the child who was born, according to the flesh persecuted the child, who was born according to the Spirit, so it is, now also.” The expression οὕτως καὶ νῦν (so it, is now also) alludes to the present, persecutions of Jewish Christians by Jews., Galatians 5:11 must also be understood
Page 203 :
within this context: “my friends, why am I, still being persecuted if I am still preaching, circumcision? In that case the offense of the, cross has been removed.” Only the reality of, persecution testifies to the truth of the, Pauline message of the cross. In contrast to, his opponents, Paul does not falsify the, gospel under the pressure of persecution., The Pauline Gentile mission, free from the, requirement of circumcision and thereby in, fact free from the Torah (except for its core, of ethical requirements), was obviously, attacked from two sides, which also opposed, each other. The Jews put pressure not only, on Paul but also on his Judaist opponents., Their goal was probably to prohibit the new, movement from being regarded as a part of, Judaism with its privileged status and to, expose it as a collegium illicitum. The events, related to the fire in Rome in 64 CE permit, us to suppose that they were successful in, achieving this goal. Christians were now, seen as an independent movement that one, could charge with responsibility for the, trouble without reason and without, opposition.
Page 204 :
The Situation of the Earliest, Jerusalem Church, This situation was especially dangerous for, the original Jerusalem church. It had been, subject to pressures from the Jewish side, from the very beginning, and these increased, after the persecutions associated with, Stephen in the early 40s (Acts 8:1–3). Acts, 12:1ff. reports the execution of James son of, Zebedee and the imprisonment of Peter by, Agrippa I, who from 41 to 43/44 CE ruled the, whole realm that had once been subject to, Herod the Great. He advocated a political, program that was consciously religious and, national in character[109] and persecuted, segments of the early Jerusalem church., Apparently Agrippa I regarded the new, movement as a destabilizing factor for, Diaspora Judaism and also saw it making, problems for Jewish relations with Rome., [110] He thus probably moved against the, parts of the original church that had no, objection to the acceptance of Gentiles into, the new movement without requiring, circumcision. In contrast, James the brother, of Jesus was spared, since on this issue he
Page 205 :
adopted a negative or at least hands-off, stance. The success of the Pauline mission,, however, hampered the Jerusalem church’s, strategy for remaining within Judaism., Obviously the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, placed themselves under suspicion within the, synagogue, for they maintained their, contacts with an ever-growing number of, “unclean” Gentile Christians. Two, fundamental changes in contrast to the, situation at the time of the apostolic council, clarify this development: (1) As war with the, Romans drew nearer and nearer, Jewish, nationalism intensified under influence of the, Zealot movement,[111] which meant, increasing separation from Gentiles. (2) The, rapidly growing number of Gentile Christians, and their claim to be members of the elect, people of God without meeting the, requirement of circumcision must have been, understood in the synagogue as provocation, and threat. Thus, under the leadership of, James the brother of Jesus, the Jerusalem, church probably decided to shift its ground, from the agreements made at the apostolic, council or to activate a reservation it always, had with regard to the Pauline position. So
Page 206 :
that Christians would continue to be, regarded as a group within Judaism, a, countermission to the Pauline mission was, launched with the goal of compelling Gentile, Christians to be circumcised and to adopt the, Jewish festival calendar. Galatians, Romans,, and Philippians must be read against this, background. The Jerusalem church now, categorized the Gentile mission’s not, requiring circumcision as theologically, dangerous and politically illegitimate. The, distant attitude of the Jerusalem Christians, toward Paul is also seen in their refusal to, accept the collection and their failure to give, Paul any support during his final trials by the, Romans.[112] Nonetheless, this pointed, dissociation of itself from Paul was unable to, improve the relation of the Jerusalem church, to Judaism, as shown by the death of James, and other members of the Jerusalem church, in 62 CE (cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.197–203)., [113], The Pauline Gentile mission was thus, carried on within the framework of extremely, complex political and religious conditions, and to no small degree accelerated the, separation of Christianity from Judaism. The
Page 207 :
success of the Gentile mission with no, requirement of circumcision considerably, aggravated the competitive situation that, had actually been present from the very, beginning. Judaism’s defensive reaction then, accelerated the new movement’s process of, self-definition and thus also its separation, from Judaism, for, as a rule, the identity of a, group as perceived from outside strengthens, the internal process of self-discovery. The, persecutions show that also from within, Judaism there were those who perceived, believers in Christ to be foreign and, threatening, which is to say that the, separation was not a matter of fate but an, unavoidable conclusion consciously drawn by, each side. Not only did the Christianity being, formed separate from Judaism; Judaism, separated itself from emerging Christianity., Judaism was not interested in being brought, into direct connection with a movement that, regarded as the Son of God one who had, been executed by the Romans as a rabblerouser.[114]
Page 208 :
An Independent Movement, The development of early Christianity as an, independent movement and the separation, from Judaism this process entailed doubtless, included reciprocal actions. For an extended, period, various options had existed on each, side, but developments were simultaneously, under way that irrevocably determined the, course of events. Especially the successful, Gentile mission of the Antioch church,, followed by that of Paul and his school,, which was followed in turn by reactions from, the Jewish side, influenced and accelerated, both early Christian identity formation and, the separation of the Χριστιανοί from the, Judaism within which Christianity had, originated., At what point can we begin to speak of the, Christians as an independent and identifiable, movement? When did Jewish and Gentile, believers in Christ become Jewish and, Gentile Christians? It is difficult to pinpoint a, precise date, but lines of historical, development can be identified:
Page 209 :
(1) The persecution of Christians in Rome, in 64 CE, in contrast to the edict of Claudius, (49 CE), presupposes a comprehensive, process of differentiation between Jews, on, the one hand, and Jewish and Gentile, Christians, on the other. There were two, aspects to this process: (a) As the proportion, of Jewish Christians within the Roman, church declined, Gentile Christians became, more influential, and this forced the, separation of Jewish congregations from the, church in Rome. (b) The dominance of, Gentile Christians probably also led to a, situation in which the Roman authorities, began to identify Christians as an, independent movement distinguishable from, Judaism. Moreover, the “enormous mass” of, Christians who were arrested during the, Neronian persecution (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.4), presupposes that the Roman church had, grown very quickly. If Nero, without further, argument and with the applause of the, population, could charge the Christians with, responsibility for the fire in Rome, then the, new movement must have come to public, attention some time before and was already, popularly regarded as blameworthy.[115] A
Page 210 :
development (which Paul’s letter to Rome, attempted to guide) must already have been, in its final stage at the end of the 50s: the, separation of the predominantly Gentile, congregations in Rome from the synagogue., Thus early Christianity in Rome and, undoubtedly elsewhere was recognizable and, known as an autonomous movement, and it, was now headed for conflicts with the claims, of the Roman state., (2) When did this development begin, when, did a messianic reform group within Judaism, become a recognizably independent, movement? Just as the year 64 CE marks the, first decisive endpoint, the designation, Χριστιανοί about 40 CE in Antioch marks the, beginning point. The geographical separation, from Jerusalem, Judea, and Galilee, partially, corresponding to a difference in substance,, made the formation of a new identity, somewhat easier, and Jewish and Gentile, believers in Christ became Jewish Christians, and Gentile Christians. In the context of the, progressive extension of the mission (e.g., to, Rome and North Africa), individual groups of, believers in Christ modulated into a, movement with its own identity and a
Page 211 :
network with a variety of interconnections,, both of which were indispensable, presuppositions for its success. In Antioch, about 40 CE all necessary conditions were, fulfilled for speaking of an independent and, identifiable movement:[116] believers in, Christ appealed to their founder as authority,, had a name, emerged in public with a, provocative and controversial doctrine, were, well organized, had an international network,, and carried on an organized campaign for, members, that is, engaged in mission., (3) It is no accident that the growth of, Gentile Christianity in Syria, Asia Minor,, Greece, and Rome greatly strengthened the, independence of the new movement, for in, Paul we already find a clearly recognizable, consciousness of the theological and, sociological independence of Christians: (a), Early Christians have formed their own, concept of identity, targeted at overcoming, the Greek and Jewish identity concepts (Gal., 3:26–28, “here there is neither Jew nor, Greek”). (b) Paul and the early churches, choose for their self-description not συναγωγή, (synagogue) but the political term ἐκκλησία, (church) (both mean literally “gathering,”
Page 212 :
“assembly”). (c) According to 1 Thess. 2:14–, 16, God has condemned the Jews for, hindering the efforts of Paul and his, coworkers in proclaiming the saving message, to the nations. (d) Paul protests that the, concept and terminology of freedom belong, exclusively to the new movement (cf. Gal., 4:31; 5:1). (e) The “new covenant” is not an, improved version of the old one but a, qualitatively new event characterized by the, Spirit and unsurpassable glory (2 Cor. 3:6,, 10). Only what was previously together can, experience separation. But the Pauline, churches in the urban centers of the, Mediterranean world existed from the very, beginning mainly outside the realm of the, synagogue and also represented something, new and independent over against the early, Palestinian church. They assured their, existence by insisting that newly converted, members must be loyal exclusively to their, new faith,[117] by a high religious and, intellectual level,[118] by a social network,, and by a new way of life within the churches, that transcended previous social status,, relating to each other as brothers and sisters, of one family.
Page 213 :
(4) New forms of meaning formation such, as early Christianity can only originate if, they have the capacity to unite with existing, historical realities.[119] Pre-Pauline and, Pauline Christianity manifested this unitive, capacity, for it integrated ideas from, traditional Palestinian Judaism, Hellenistic, Judaism, and Greco-Roman religion and, culture, simultaneously transforming them., (5) Paul took materials and ideas that had, already been developed and gave them a, systematic quality: the schema of an event of, universal judgment and salvation with no, distinctions, into which those who believe, and are baptized are incorporated.[120] With, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the, dead, God inaugurated a process of universal, transformation in which Christians already, fully participate, a process God will soon, bring to its consummation at the parousia., (6) This theological concept of a universal, plan of God cannot be combined with a, theology oriented to particular Jewish, identity based on election, Torah, temple,, and land.[121] Instead, faith in Jesus Christ, as the only ground of salvation, along with, membership in the worshiping Christian
Page 214 :
community, shapes the awareness that,, already in the present, believers participate, in God’s eschatological act of salvation., (7) The lingering Jewish identity concepts, partially adopted by some first-century, Christian authors (e.g., Matthew, James) is, not evidence against the thesis that, Christianity became an independent, movement rather early.[122] The, development took place in different ways and, at different speeds in different geographical, areas and periods, but in the course of a, painful process of separation, the, Christianity that bore a Pauline stamp, and, the Judaism that differentiated itself from, such Christians, set the unavoidable, directions for the future. Later authors partly, repeated in their own ways what had, essentially already been decided. This is a, natural process, for identity formation, always occurs with others in view; they are, needed as a foil in order to articulate one’s, own sense of identity.[123], (8) Paul is the decisive representative of, the formation of early Christianity as an, independent movement.[124] If, as in 1 Cor., 9:20–21, he can become a Jew to Jews and a
Page 215 :
Gentile to Gentiles, then he is neither Jew, nor Gentile in the full sense of either word, but the representative of a new movement, and religion. The awareness of early, Christians that they were a “third race” of, humanity alongside Jews and Greeks also, comes to expression in 1 Cor. 1:22–23 and, 10:32. In 1 Cor. 9:22–23 Paul designates the, theology of the cross as the decisive, difference between Christian faith and the, symbolic universes of both Jews and Greeks., The message of the cross is not compatible, with these symbolic universes and therefore, must appear to the Jews as an offense and to, the Greeks as foolishness. In 1 Cor. 10:32, Paul admonishes the Corinthian church not, to cause any offense to the Jews, the Greeks,, and the ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ (church of God). Paul, positions the church as a whole[125] as an, independent reality alongside Jews and, Greeks and expresses this semantically, through the neologism ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ.[126], (9) Historical meaning formations are thus, only successful if they are combined with, attractive identity concepts. It is especially, Paul who developed and practiced a new, universal identity concept: “being in Christ,”
Page 216 :
which transcends all traditional religious, privileges. This transnational and, transcultural concept, ritually transmitted, (by baptism),[127] was not integrable into, the Jewish and Greco-Roman identity, structures and consequently led to the, formation of early Christianity as an, independent movement.
Page 217 :
9, First Corinthians High and True, Wisdom, Sometimes the course of events takes on a, dynamic of its own. In Corinth, not only did, the Pauline gospel fall on fertile soil in, Corinth; the Corinthians took it into their, own hands., 9.1 Conflict in Corinth Like no other, letters in the Pauline corpus, 1, Corinthians presents the reader, with insight into the line of, argument Paul follows when, thinking through and applying his, theology. The letter reveals a, church existing within the, conflicting force fields of its new, faith and the omnipresent pagan, religiosity, in a setting where the, prevailing ethical norms and, social conditions continue to have, validity and must be taken into, account. It is in this setting that
Page 218 :
we see it struggling to find its own, identity., Corinth: The City In Paul’s time, Corinth had become, as the capital, of the Roman province of Achaia, a, very Roman city. The city had been, destroyed in 146 BCE. Although the, site continued to be populated,, Caesar had refounded it in 44 CE as, a Roman colony for military, veterans.[1] In 27 BCE the city, then became the capital of the, senatorial province of Achaia., Alongside the influential Roman, element, the proportion of Greeks, and people from the eastern, Mediterranean must have been, large. Philo indicates there was a, noteworthy Jewish colony in, Corinth (Philo, Embassy 281), and, Acts 18:4 reports the presence of a, synagogue.[2] The unique location, of the city with its two harbors,, Cenchrea and Lechaeum, explains, the importance of Corinth as a, commercial center between Asia
Page 219 :
and Rome/Greece. It was, considered a wealthy city that, thrived on commerce, banking, and, skilled trades,[3] a city in which, numerous Hellenistic-oriental cults, flourished. In the second century, CE, Pausanias reports that Corinth, had altars and shrines to Poseidon,, Dionysus, Isis and Sarapis, and the, Ephesian Artemis and a temple to, Asclepius.[4] Apuleius portrays an, initiation ceremony into the Isis, cult as taking place in Corinth, (Metam. 11.22.7ff.).[5] Corinth was, certainly a hub of the Cynic, movement, which experienced a, revival in the first century CE. The, city had been one of the favorite, places of Diogenes (Dio, Chrysostom, De tyrannide [Or. 6], 3), and the famous Cynic, Demetrius[6] lived and taught, there (cf. Lucian, Bis accusatus 19;, Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.25)., Moreover, Corinth was the site of, the Isthmian Games (cf. 1 Cor., 9:24–27), which were second only
Page 220 :
to the Olympic Games in all of, antiquity. Finally, to the north of, the city, an Asclepius temple has, been excavated; its three banquet, halls illustrate the problematic, behind 1 Cor. 8–10.[7], The Church Paul founded the, church in the year 50 CE, after his, work in Philippi, Thessalonica,, Beroea, and Athens.[8] He came, alone to Corinth (cf. Acts 18:5),, followed soon by Silvanus and, Timothy. Paul remained there, about a year and a half (cf. Acts, 18:11), and Corinth developed, alongside Ephesus as a center of, the Pauline mission. The, Corinthian church reflected the, cultural, religious, and social, pluralism of the city. The majority, of church members were Gentile, converts from pagan religions (cf. 1, Cor. 12:2; 8:10; 10:27), as indicated, by the deplorable state of affairs in, the congregation (participation in, cultic festival meals, going to court
Page 221 :
before pagan judges, prostitution)., The account of the conversion of, Crispus, an official in the, synagogue, and the effect of this, event (cf. Acts 18:8) as well as 1, Cor. 1:22–24; 7:18; 9:20; 10:32;, Rom. 16:21 document the existence, of a significant Jewish Christian, element in the church. Proselytes, and God-fearers had also joined the, community (cf. Acts 18:7), which, was composed primarily of the, lower social classes (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26;, 7:21; 11:22b). But there were also, some rich Christians in Corinth,, such as the synagogue official, Crispus, already mentioned (cf. 1, Cor. 1:14), and Erastus, who, occupied a high city office in, Corinth (cf. Rom. 16:23)., Corinthian Christians owned, houses (cf. 1 Cor. 1:16; 11:22a;, 16:15ff.; Rom. 16:23; Acts 18:2, 3,, 8), and the church made a, substantial contribution for the, saints in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1–, 4; 2 Cor. 8:7ff.; 9:1ff.; Rom. 15:31).
Page 222 :
[9] The Corinthian Christians were, organized in several house, churches (cf. 1 Cor. 14:23, plenary, gatherings of the church; 1:16;, 16:15, Stephanas; 16:19, Prisca and, Aquila; Rom. 16:23, Gaius, Erastus;, Acts 18:7–8, Titius Justus, Crispus)., [10] We can only speculate about, the size of the whole church; it may, have consisted of about a hundred, members.[11] The organizational, structure of the church may also, shed some light on the church’s, internal conflicts, for its division, into several house churches could, have contributed to the formation, of separate groups., Structure of the Letter The, complex situation within the, church is reflected in the structure, of 1 Corinthians and in its line of, argument; in contrast to the other, Pauline letters, it cannot be divided, into two major sections. The, situation in Corinth and the, preceding communication between
Page 223 :
apostle and church shape Paul’s, line of argument. In 5:9 Paul, mentions a letter to the, Corinthians that has not been, preserved and to which the church, had obviously responded. Their, letter had contained a series of, questions that the apostle takes up, and answers one by one. This, section of the letter begins at 7:1,, with each item signaled by the, phrase περὶ δέ (now concerning): 7:1, (marriage and celibacy), 7:25, (virgins), 8:1 (eating food, sacrificed to idols), 12:1 (spiritual, gifts), 16:1 (the collection for, Jerusalem) and 16:12 (Apollos). In, addition, Paul has oral information, (cf. 1:11; 5:1; 11:18), which, especially shapes his argument in 1, Cor. 1–4, 5, and 6, and 11:17–34., One of the peculiarities of 1, Corinthians is that it has no single, connected line of thought. Instead,, beginning with the παρακαλέω (I, appeal to you) clause of 1:10, we, already find the kind of paraenesis
Page 224 :
that characterizes the letter as a, whole.[12], In the first major section (1 Cor. 1–4), Paul, relativizes the Corinthians’ striving after, wisdom, then goes into the questions of their, letter and the current problems in the church, (1 Cor. 5; 6:1–11, 12–24; 7; 8–10). First, Corinthians 11 is closely related to 1 Cor., 12–14; on the compositional plane, 1:7–8 has, prepared for the sequence charismatic gifts–, eschatological expectation (1 Cor. 12–14 to 1, Cor. 5). There is a clear connection between, the subject matter of 1 Cor. 12–14 and 1 Cor., 15, for the exaggerated pneumatic, enthusiasm of the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor., 15:46) triggers the discussion of the future, resurrection., The numerous partition hypotheses, regarding 1 Corinthians raise a possibility at, the most but in no case offer a compelling, argument. Put positively, two considerations,, in addition to arguments based on particular, passages, support the literary integrity of 1, Corinthians: (1) The particular manner of, argumentation represented by stringing, together loosely connected sections
Page 225 :
corresponds to the particular communication, situation between apostle and church. (2), The sequence 1 Cor. 12–14 to 1 Cor. 15, (spiritual gifts–parousia) is already, anticipated in the structure of 1:4–6 to 1:7–8., [13], Tensions in the Church The, Corinthian church experienced, numerous tensions because of, theological, ethical, and social, questions.[14] Thus in 1 Cor. 1–4, Paul grapples with the issue of, belonging to theologically, motivated groups, connected to, particular understandings of, baptism, that had led to divisions, within the church. In 1 Cor. 5 the, apostle deals with someone who, had grossly violated the, community’s sexual standards, and, 6:1–11 presupposes that Corinthian, Christians were taking each other, to court before pagan judges. The, warning against widespread, (cultic) prostitution (6:12–20) is, followed in 1 Cor. 7 by
Page 226 :
recommendations on sexual, asceticism and remaining in one’s, present status. Religious and social, reasons have evoked the conflict, between “strong” and “weak” (cf., esp. 8:1–13; 10:14–23). In contrast, to the Cynic wandering preachers,, [15] Paul accepted no pay for his, missionary work among them; the, Corinthians evidently considered, this a violation of social norms and, disparagement of their willingness, to support him (cf. 1 Cor. 9; 2 Cor., 11:7–8).[16] In 1 Cor. 11:17–34, Paul criticizes abuses of the Lord’s, Supper; in Corinth the sacramental, celebration was included in the, context of an ordinary meal (cf., 11:23–25), reflecting the original, practice, in which sharing the, bread and the cup formed the, framework for the meal (cf. 11:25,, µετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι [after supper]). In, Corinth this earlier practice had, given way to having a festive meal, prior to the sacramental, observance itself. In this manner
Page 227 :
the difference between poor and, rich members of the congregation, became painfully evident, for some, feasted and others went hungry (cf., 11:21–22, 33–34). As in the pagan, cultic meals involving sacrificial, meat, table fellowship groups were, formed among the wealthy from, which the poor were excluded., Disputes also existed in Corinth, about the relative significance of, the various spiritual gifts (cf. 1, Cor. 12–14). Obviously, segments of, the church considered glossolalia, very important, regarding ecstatic,, unintelligible speech directed to, God as the highest spiritual gift (cf., 1 Cor. 14); other spiritual gifts, were devalued accordingly. Paul, stands this scale on its head,, placing prophecy above glossolalia,, and love as the spiritual gift par, excellence (1 Cor. 13). Finally, the, future resurrection of the dead was, a disputed issue among the, Corinthian Christians. Some were, teaching that “there is no
Page 228 :
resurrection of the dead” (ἀνάστασις, νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν, 15:12)., No other letter provides us such a window, into the diversity within the Pauline churches, as does 1 Corinthians, and shows how, forcefully Paul’s fundamental convictions and, situationally conditioned arguments interact, in his theology.[17], 9.2 The Wisdom of the World and the, Foolishness of the Cross Paul, begins his communication with, the Corinthians by acknowledging, that the church is blessed with, spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:4–9). This, spiritual richness is God’s gift and, manifests itself in speech and, knowledge; God’s grace, strengthens the church in its, testimony to Christ.[18] Paul, builds into the letter’s opening, words a line from which he will, not deviate: the Corinthians are, rich only by God’s gracious act, among them. God has come to the, Corinthians in Jesus Christ, and so
Page 229 :
they are not lacking in any, spiritual gift. But in Corinth, numerous conflicts revolve around, the χαρίσματα (spiritual gifts; more, literally, gifts of grace), which, evidently are based on a specific, understanding of baptism and the, presence of the Spirit. With, rhetorical power, Paul places the, κοινωνία (fellowship) of the, Corinthians with Jesus Christ (1:9), over against the divisions that in, reality characterize the life of the, church. Paul thereby specifies the, theme of the letter as a whole: the, Corinthians’ quarrels and, divisions show that they are not, living up to their claim that the, Spirit is truly at work among, them., Groups in Corinth In 1 Cor. 1:10–17, Paul grapples with the problem of, the formation of groups within the, church; membership in such, groups is related to baptism. There, were four groups in Corinth,
Page 230 :
designated by the names of their, postulated heads—Paul, Apollos,, Cephas, and Christ.[19] In 1:12 ἐγὼ, δὲ Χριστοῦ (I belong to Christ) is, parallel to the preceding slogans., There is no particular accent within, the list, and so we must reckon, with a “Christ party” at Corinth., [20] Moreover, μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός;, (has Christ been divided?) in 1:13a, presupposes the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ of, 1:12. After all, Paul himself would, hardly have introduced the name of, Christ into the list of slogans, for, this would mean that he would be, putting Christ in the same category, as Peter, Apollos, and himself.[21], Evidently the particular, relationship of individual church, members to the one who baptized, them had led to divisions within, the body of Christ, into which they, had all been incorporated.[22], Individual candidates for baptism, probably understood the baptismal, act as introducing them into a, realm of spiritual wisdom
Page 231 :
essentially mediated by the one, who baptized them.[23] The, Corinthians thought it was, important to be known by, particular names, by which one’s, Christian identity was established;, in contrast, Paul points only to the, name of Christ. He subjects this, religiously motivated salvationindividualism to a series of, theological critiques based on the, substance of the Christian faith, itself. In the first place, he points, out that he himself had baptized, only a few members of the, Corinthian church. Even if there, were any value in the claim to have, been baptized by Paul, only a very, few could make that claim. He, emphasizes that, after all, Christ, had not sent him to baptize but to, preach the gospel. This is no, depreciation of baptism itself; Paul, is only clarifying his personal, commission as apostle and, missionary in view of the current, situation in Corinth.[24] With a
Page 232 :
sober evaluation of his own person, and role, Paul opposes the obvious, importance the Corinthians give to, baptism and who performed it. He, too considers baptism very, important, but without making it a, means of cultivating one’s own, individualistic image. Paul then, supplements this biographical, argument with two theological, viewpoints. In 1:13a he again takes, up the idea of the church’s unity,, already introduced with πάντες (all), in 1:10. In the form of a rhetorical, question, he points out that the, Christian community may not be, divided because Christ is not, divided. Thus ὁ Χριστός (Christ), in, connection with 12:22, makes clear, that in this opening section Paul, already has in mind the concept of, the church as σῶμα Χριστοῦ (body of, Christ).[25] Because baptism, means incorporation into the unity, of the church established by Christ,, it cannot be the object of divisive
Page 233 :
individualistic pursuits but can, only mean their defeat., The Cross as Epistemological, Criterion Finally, Paul introduces, the cross of Christ as the criterion, for knowledge of God, the world,, and oneself. The cross, of all, things, cannot be the object of, human self-assertion but rather is, that which destroys every καύχησις, (boasting, self-glorification,, overevaluation of oneself), which, Paul describes in 1:17 as σοφία λόγου, (eloquent wisdom), alluding to the, Corinthian’s theology. The truth is,, “For the message about the cross is, foolishness to those who are, perishing, but to us who are being, saved it is the power of God”, (1:18).[26] For Paul, the cross of, Christ is the decisive theological, criterion; he gives no argument for, the cross but speaks from the cross, as the axiomatic foundation of what, he has to say. Even more, the cross, of Christ is a present reality in the
Page 234 :
message of the cross (1:17–18). The, Scripture has already testified that, the content of God’s wisdom can, never be filled in from the wisdom, of the world (1:19); both must be, strictly distinguished from each, other, for they are not derived from, comparable sources of knowledge., It is not in the heights of human, wisdom and knowledge but in the, depths of suffering and death that, the father of Jesus Christ has, shown himself to be the God, hospitable to humanity. God’s act, in Jesus Christ is thus manifest as a, paradoxical event that both, anticipates and contradicts human, doing and human wisdom.[27] This, surprising and paradoxical act of, God on the cross comes to, expression in the election of the, church, for God has not chosen, many of the wise and mighty but, what the world regards as, foolishness. To shame the strong,, God chose things that are nothing, in order to reduce to nothing
Page 235 :
things that are (1:27–28). The, existence of the church is itself, already an application of the, theology of the cross. This reality, already excludes καύχησις: “Let the, one who boasts, boast in the Lord”, (1:31b). The Corinthians’ striving, after wisdom thus goes astray when, it orients itself to the heights of, what the world respects. God chose, to locate his wisdom at the cross;, here Jesus Christ becomes σοφία θεοῦ, (the wisdom of God) for the church., In 1:30 Paul utilizes traditional baptismal, language as a means of interpreting the, reality of the church in regard to the, paradoxical revelation of God on the cross., This is indicated not only by the expression, ὑµεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ (you are in Christ; cf. Gal., 3:28b) and the context, which concerns their, original call, but especially by the triadic, formulation in 1:30c. All three terms have a, soteriological function and portray the new, situation of the church in light of the, paradoxical revelation of God in Jesus Christ., Whereas in the exclusive doctrine of
Page 236 :
justification as found in Galatians and, Romans the significance of δικαιοσύνη, (righteousness) is determined by the, connection to νόµος (law) and πίστις (faith),, here it refers to the righteousness grounded, in Jesus Christ and characteristic of the, church. Sin, which had afflicted people, before faith, had been removed in baptism,, and they are really righteous.[28] Ἁγιασµός, (sanctification) appears elsewhere in, baptismal contexts, designating the holiness, mediated by baptism (cf. 6:11; Rom. 6:19,, 22). Again, we should think here of a real, change, for it is not only one’s status before, God that is changed; the one who has been, sanctified is now essentially separated from, the world.[29] The term ἀπολύτρωσις, (redemption) is firmly anchored in the, tradition (cf. Rom. 3:24; Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7;, Heb. 9:15).[30] Paul uses this word only, rarely, in places where he is making a, particular emphasis (Rom. 3:24; 8:23); in 1, Cor. 1:30c it points to the redemption, effected by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and, made real for the church in baptism.
Page 237 :
True Wisdom In the context of, pneumatic enthusiasm, Paul, consciously points to baptism as, the locus of redemption and, righteousness, which come from, beyond ourselves. In baptism God, constitutes the new reality of εἶναι ἐν, Χριστῷ (being in Christ), something, the Corinthians did not attain but, which has been given to them., Righteousness and holiness are, gifts of God, not attributes of, intensified human self-realization., Paul’s point of departure is the, status of the Corinthians as, persons who have been baptized, and are therefore justified,, sanctified, and redeemed. He then, appeals to their experience in order, to make clear that they must, renounce boasting about, themselves, which, after all, only, leads to divisions within the, church, and must now live out their, new existence constituted in, baptism. The “depths of God” (1, Cor. 2:10) cannot be fathomed by
Page 238 :
exaggerated ecstatic experiences., Whereas the Corinthians’ “way of, wisdom” misunderstands the Spirit, as the instrument of individualistic, participation in salvation and as, the guarantor of insight into, hidden divine mysteries, Paul had, preached, from his initial founding, visit onwards, only Jesus Christ as, the crucified one (cf. 2:2).[31] The, apostle had intentionally made his, appearance in Corinth “in, weakness,” and his message came, to them “not with plausible words, of wisdom, but with a, demonstration of the Spirit and of, power, so that your faith might rest, not on human wisdom but on the, power of God” (2:4b–5). Thus God, himself is the ground, agent, and, goal of a revelatory event in which, the Spirit of God gives the human, spirit insight into the saving plan, of God in Jesus Christ (cf. 2:12)., Paul knows that he himself and his, preaching have been this, foundational event and that in his
Page 239 :
letter to the Corinthians, as in his, other teaching, he is interpreting, spiritual things as himself a person, endowed with the Spirit (πνευµατικοῖς, πνευµατικὰ συγκρίνοντες of 2:13 is best, translated “in that we interpret, spiritual things by spiritual, means”). Paul’s preaching of the, gospel is thus not merely a matter, of words but a revelation of the, Spirit and power of God. Pauline, proclamation is not oriented to the, superficial rules of rhetorically, skilled communication; Paul, ignored the effect of his external, appearance[32] and renounced, systems of thought that flattered, the human intellect. His preaching, was oriented exclusively to the, subject matter: the cross.[33], Nevertheless, the apostle’s, preaching was not ineffective, for, God himself was and is at work in, it. That this work was not at Paul’s, own disposal is seen precisely in, the paradoxical course of events, through which it moves, for the
Page 240 :
word has its effect by the power of, the Spirit despite the inadequacy of, the methods used by the preacher., The Corinthians can recognize, cause and effect here, namely, that, they owe their faith not to human, wisdom but to the power of God., Paul knows that his own life has, always been enveloped and grasped, by this power of God, and he by no, means thinks lightly of the Spirit of, God and the Spirit’s gifts., Thus he can say great things about the, wisdom of God, the Spirit of God, and people, who are filled by the Spirit (cf. 2:6–16).[34], God’s wisdom is hidden from the world, because world and divine wisdom are, structured in opposition to each other: the, wisdom of the world is based on what is, visible and superficial, but the wisdom of, God emerges from hiddenness and works in, a manner hidden from human wisdom. In, 2:6–16 Paul falls back on the motif of the, preexistent, hidden wisdom sent by God (cf., Prov. 8:22–31; Sir. 1:4; 24:9; Job 28:12–14,, 20–23; Wis. 9:13–18)[35] in order to
Page 241 :
emphasize the fundamental difference, between God’s acts and human criteria., Human wisdom is incapable of recognizing, the wisdom of God because it can grasp the, event of the cross only superficially, as, foolishness (2:8). In contrast, God has, revealed it to those who are spiritually, mature (2:6) διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος (through the, Spirit, 2:10). Paul counts himself among the, spiritual, just as the Corinthians so regard, themselves (πνευματικοί, 2:15–16). Both base, their self-understanding on the gift of the, Spirit that comes from God, which makes, them fundamentally different from those who, are only ψυχικοί (NRSV, “unspiritual”; NIV,, “without the Spirit”; more literally, psychic,, having only a human soul; cf. 2:14–15)., Although Paul and the Corinthians have in, common this fundamental concept of the, Spirit, in each case it is bound up with a, different anthropological conception. The, Corinthians, too, attributed the noetic, capacities of the spirit-endowed person to, the Spirit of God (2:12b, “understand”; 2:13,, “taught,” “interpret”; 2:14–15, “discern”),, but at the same time understood and, employed them individualistically. Paul and
Page 242 :
the Corinthians proceeded on the basis of, analogical knowledge, according to which, the Spirit can only be recognized by those, who have the Spirit, but they made different, applications of this basic idea.[36] The, Corinthians integrated the revealed divine, wisdom into the creaturely abilities of human, beings in order to make them more powerful., As they understood the matter, divine, wisdom and knowledge worked as movens, (mover, inciter, inspirer) of human, intellectual power. Thereby the real basis of, divine wisdom, the event of the cross, fell, into the background while human intellectual, powers stepped into the foreground. Paul, and the Corinthians had differing, understandings of the “mystery of God”, (µυστήριον θεοῦ; cf. 2:1, 7; 4:1). As the “Lord of, glory” (2:8, κύριος τῆς δόξης), Christ was, evidently regarded by the Corinthians as the, prototype of the “divine man,” who by, baptism had transformed the Spirit-endowed, into the life of the transcendent world even, while they still lived by faith in this present, world. In contrast, Paul binds the “mystery of, God” exclusively to the cross, for, in the form, of the crucified one as the “Lord of glory,”
Page 243 :
the “wisdom of God” (σοφία θεοῦ) prevails over, the “wisdom of human beings” (σοφία, ἀνθρώπων). The Corinthians do not eliminate, the cross,[37] but they neutralize it in that, they see the death of Jesus as the transitional, passageway to that true spiritual existence, from which the preexistent one came. By this, means they provide a rational basis for the, unfathomable acts of God and make their, own wisdom equal to that of God., Paul demonstrates to the Corinthians their, inadmissible paralleling of divine and human, wisdom by pointing out to them the actual, situation in their church. When jealousy and, strife characterize the life of the church, the, Corinthians still actually belong to the, “fleshly” and “immature” (cf. 3:1–4). If the, reality of their congregational life is, dominated by slogans such as “I belong to, Paul” or “I belong to Apollos” (3:4), then the, Corinthians have not at all attained a true, knowledge of God. The wisdom of God may, not be confused with the wisdom of this, world, since only the crucified Jesus Christ is, the wisdom of God. Thus the wisdom of God, cannot lead to the formation of such groups, in the church, where individuals claim the
Page 244 :
deepest revelations for themselves. Paul,, Apollos, and Peter are merely fellow laborers, who belong to God, not architects in the, construction of truth. The truth of the matter, is that “no one can lay any foundation other, than the one that has been laid; that, foundation is Jesus Christ.” If the Corinthians, place their confidence in some other, foundation, this will be revealed in the, judgment. In this judgment by works (cf., 3:13–15), the quality of what everyone has, done will be tested by fire.[38] The one who, is tested can lose his or her work (and body), but will still share in the eschatological, σωτηρία (salvation). Paul bases this on the, reality that believers are the temple of God, in whom God’s Spirit dwells (3:16). The, πνεῦµα (Pneuma, Spirit) given in baptism, evidently confers an irrevocable quality that, endures even through the judgment., Backgrounds: Cultural History The, Corinthian feeling of superiority, and perfection (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8,, “Already you have all you want!, Already you have become rich!, Quite apart from us you have
Page 245 :
become kings!”;[39] cf. also 2:6;, 4:10, 18, 20; 5:2; 6:12; 10:1ff., 23;, 15:12) manifests a variety of partly, overlapping religious, cultural, and, social influences. Hellenistic, Jewish wisdom thought is seen in, the sophia theology of 2:6–16, the, σάρξ/πνεῦµα (flesh/spirit) dualism, the, high priority placed on knowledge, (cf. 8:1–6; 13:2), the disdaining of, the body (cf. 6:12–20), and the, concept of the two archetypal, human beings in 15:45.[40] Philo, indicates that only the wise are the, “free,” “lords,” (Posterity 138, ὁ, σοφὸς µόνος ἐλεύθερος τε καὶ ἄρχων) and, “kings” (Dreams 1.2, µόνος ὁ σοφὸς, ἄρχων καὶ βασιλεύς; cf. Names 152;, Sobriety 57; Migration 197). Only, the wise receive the designation, τέλεια (perfect, Sobriety 9); only they, are “rich” and “mighty” (Sobriety, 56).[41], The influence of Hellenistic Jewish wisdom, thought was strengthened by the great, respect already accorded sages and wisdom
Page 246 :
in the Greco-Roman intellectual tradition., Cicero repeats a fundamental conviction of, the ancient thought world: “Only the wise, man is free, and every fool is a slave.”[42], Epictetus can speak of the Cynic’s kingdom, (Diatr. 3.22.79, ἡ δὲ τοῦ Κυνικοῦ βασιλεία);[43], for him, the sage participates in Zeus’s own, rulership.[44] Seneca states, “Everything, belongs to the wise.”[45] Whereas an, ordinary person on the way toward wisdom, can be thrown back at any time, it can be, said of the one who has perfected wisdom,, “The wise person cannot fall back, can never, again get sick.”[46] According to the Cynic, Epistles, Diogenes taught “that everything, belongs to God [πάντα τοῦ θεοῦ], and since, friends share everything in common,, everything belongs to the wise as well.”[47], That which is due the ideal ruler is claimed, by the Corinthians for themselves:, everything is permitted.[48], The Corinthians’ beliefs also have some, points of contact with the way salvation is, understood in the mystery religions.[49] In, both instances there is a deep interest in the, possibilities and means of illuminating one’s, own nature, a concern for one’s self that
Page 247 :
finds fulfillment in the realization of one’s, true self. In the face of blind, raging destiny, and the inevitability of suffering and death,, the initiates hope to participate in the, dramatized destiny of a god who has, experienced death as the passageway to new, life. After fulfilling the rites of the cult, the, initiate is “reborn” to a happy and successful, new life that already begins in the present, (cf. Apuleius, Metam. 11.16.2–4; 21.7)., Finally, we should not underestimate the, influence of pagan ethics and the social, conduct related to it.[50] In the ancient, world, religious identity was always, connected with social identity, that is, group, identity (family, polis [city]), and so Paul, expects the Corinthians not only to adopt a, new faith but to change their whole pattern, of life. Some members of the Corinthian, church had not yet taken this step, still living, within their usual ethical and social customs., [51] They were either unwilling to accept a, complete break with their previous social, relationships and/or believed that their new, faith and the old pattern of life could be, combined.
Page 248 :
Differing Concepts of Identity On, the basis of the wisdom theology, that had taken over their, understanding of the Christian, message, the Corinthians had, evidently come to regard salvation, as something “already” present in a, comprehensive way, as indicated by, the repeated ἤδη (already) of 1 Cor., 4:8. Paul and the church agree in, thinking very highly of the Spirit, and of baptism.[52] Both are, convinced that in baptism believers, fully participate in the death and, resurrection of the deity, that here, the door to new life is opened. In, contrast to Paul, however, the, Corinthians understand the gift of, the Spirit primarily as the, overcoming of the limitations of, their previous creaturely being, as, increasing their vital forces and life, expectancy.[53] In the context of, their present and individualistic, beginnings in this new life,, suffering is expected to fade away,, and they have only a minimal
Page 249 :
understanding of the nature of sin., The central idea is the, intensification of life’s possibilities, through a deity whose destiny has, already overcome the limitations of, death and who now guarantees the, reality of the transcendent world in, the present life. Thus the, Corinthians can skip over the, boundaries set by the Creator as no, longer applying to them and, degrade God to a means of, religious fulfillment. They fail to, recognize the basic maxim of, Christian anthropology, “What do, you have that you did not receive?”, (4:7a). Their pursuits go beyond, what is written, and people relate, to each other in terms of inflated, egos (4:6b).[54] The Corinthians, want to evade their creaturely, limitations, and not humility but, exaltation and lordship appear to, them as the appropriate expression, of their redeemed state.
Page 250 :
In contrast to this, the apostles are “fools, for Christ’s sake” (4:10). They provide a, different model of the saved life in that, for, the sake of the church, they conduct their, ministry in weakness, danger, and poverty, (cf. 4:11–13). They thus represent the, category of the truly wise, who know, themselves to be independent of all external, evaluation, obligated only to their, commission and their message. Thus Paul, can call the Corinthians to be imitators of, him: μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε (be imitators of me,, 4:16b). This is an appeal to their reason: they, are not to imitate his person but appropriate, for themselves the God-given new, understanding of existence they see in Paul’s, life. In contradiction to human expectations,, God chooses the weak and destroys the, strong. The God who elects through the, gospel has given his self-interpretation on, the cross and crossed out human ideas and, expectations., The identity concepts held by Paul and the, Corinthians are both based on the life-giving, power of God, who raised Jesus Christ from, the dead. At the same time, however, they, differ on a central point: Paul understands
Page 251 :
the cross to be an identity marker that, includes suffering and lowliness in one’s, relation to God and expects visible glory, (only) at the parousia, which is to arrive in, the near future., 9.3 The Power of the Spirit and the, Purity of the Community The, Corinthians also grounded their, consciousness of freedom in their, understanding of Spirit, enthusiasm. They evidently, understood freedom as a matter of, each individual’s right as a, Christian, which was maintained, in continuity with their social, identity outside the church. Thus, they did not present their legal, disputes before a forum within the, church but before pagan courts, (6:1–11).[55] Paul issues a, fundamental challenge against, this conduct: if the saints are, going to judge the world and even, the angels, then why are they, looking to pagan courts for
Page 252 :
justice? The apostle suggests a, different way of dealing with such, problems: they should be resolved, under the chairmanship of a σοφός, (wise person, sage) within the, church. In fact, this is not Paul’s, final word in regard to such, problems in the future, for in 6:7, he questions whether there should, be such legal disputes among, Christians at all. Insisting on one’s, rights is the real mistake.[56], Christians must be ready to suffer, injustice and to divest themselves, of their rights. Renunciation of, one’s rights is the Christian’s, appropriate response in legal, matters. The Corinthians must not, attempt to establish their right, before the courts, for it has, already been granted them. To, clarify this fundamental state of, affairs, in 6:11b–c the apostle, harks back to a baptismal, tradition[57] that defines the new, being of Christians in contrast to, their old existence (6:9–11a): “But
Page 253 :
you were washed, you were, sanctified, you were justified in, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” The, adverbial qualifiers refer to all, three verbs and define the, baptismal event more closely. The, preposition ἐν (in, by) has here its, instrumental function: the, invocation of the name and the, presence of the Spirit effect the, washing, sanctification, and, justification.[58] The invocation of, the name corresponds to the, assurance of the Lord’s presence,, made real in the conferral of the, Spirit on the baptismal candidate., The Spirit is given in baptism, and, the sacramental effect of baptism, is effected by the Spirit.[59] The, baptized person now is, incorporated by baptism into the, number of those who invoke the, name of Christ and belong to the, eschatological community of, salvation (1:2). Because the, Corinthians have not lived up to
Page 254 :
the status of holiness and, righteousness conferred on them, by baptism, Paul calls on them to, live lives that correspond to their, new being., From Paul’s point of view, the Corinthian, motto πάντα µοι ἔξεστιν (All things are lawful, for me, 1 Cor. 6:12; cf. 10:23) raises the, question of the relation of freedom and, responsibility. Responsibility is located, concretely in bodily life and thus also in, human sexuality. The freedom attained by, wisdom and knowledge evidently allowed, some members of the Corinthian church to, treat the body as a matter of indifference., Thus the Corinthians tolerated a serious, instance of incest among them, in which a, member of the church was sexually involved, with his stepmother (cf. 5:1–5).[60] Instead, of excluding the offender, the church boasted, of this demonstration of sexual libertinism., [61] Not only was the social status of the, church thereby set at risk;[62] the ritual, purity of the church itself was at stake (cf., 5:6), for this case affected the holiness of the, church at its very core. Paul sees himself
Page 255 :
compelled to take immediate action and, makes a decision that opposes the tolerance, (or indifference) of the church: they must, immediately exclude the offender by, assembling, with Paul also present in the, Spirit,[63] and in the name of the Lord, delivering the person to Satan (5:4–5).[64], The execution of the sentence clearly takes, place by the power of the Spirit and with, Paul’s own participation, even though he is, not present in person.[65] In this judgment, “flesh” (σάρξ) and “spirit” (πνεῦµα) are, distinguished, with the goal of saving the, inner self of the offender, which had been, renewed and embraced by the Holy Spirit, given in baptism.[66] In 1 Corinthians,, penalty is not a matter of vengeance but is, for the salvation of both the offender and the, church., A comparable argument is found in 3:5,, where Paul speaks of a judgment in which, the Christian can in fact be punished for his, or her works but nevertheless still shares in, eschatological σωτηρία. Paul bases this on his, view that the community of believers is the, temple of God in which God’s Spirit dwells, (3:16), so that God’s power can also be
Page 256 :
present in it to destroy: “If anyone destroys, God’s temple, God will destroy that person., For God’s temple is holy, and you [pl.] are, that temple” (3:17). Here, too, in Paul’s view, the Spirit conferred in baptism evidently has, an irrevocable quality that endures even, through the final judgment. An additional, impressive example of the realism of Paul’s, sacramental understanding is found in 11:30:, because the Lord’s Supper was eaten in an, unworthy manner, there are many who “are, weak and ill, and some have died.” Here Paul, makes a direct connection between, partaking of the sacrament and what, happens to one physically. Doubtless in the, background of this statement is the idea that, when the Lord’s Supper is eaten in an, unworthy manner, the sacrament itself has, deadly results.[67] As portrayed in 15:29, an, inner power resides in the sacrament that, operates independently of human acts,, whether for good or for ill., In yet another way, the Corinthians negate, bodily existence as the place where life is, lived in holiness and obedience to God. Even, after becoming Christians, they continued, their previous practice of visiting prostitutes
Page 257 :
(cf. 6:13b, 15b, 16, 18), since sexual activity, did not involve the internal spiritual self but, only the body (which belongs to a lower, order of existence).[68] Paul, in contrast,, uses σῶµα as a comprehensive term for the, whole person. Precisely because human, beings have bodies and are bodies, God’s, saving act in Christ includes and determines, the concrete existence and history of the, person as a whole.[69] The body is, then,, essentially much more than eating and, drinking (6:13a); it is not defined merely in, terms of biological functions but itself, belongs to the Lord (The body is meant not, for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord, for the body, 6:13b). As the locus of sexuality, (cf. 6:18; 7:4; Rom. 1:24), the body may not, be defiled. Because the whole bodily, existence of believers belongs to the Lord,, they belong together as members of the body, of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15). Therefore fornication, belongs to a different category than other, types of misconduct, for, since it involves the, body, it involves the unity of believers with, each other and with Christ (6:18) and, endangers the purity of the church as the, body of Christ.[70] Thus bodily existence
Page 258 :
appears as the locus where faith attains, visible form. As the dwelling of the Holy, Spirit, the body is no longer available for, one’s individual, independent desires (6:19)., [71] The self-centered “I” no longer has, charge of the body because God has claimed, the body as the place where he is to be, glorified: δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώµατι ὑµῶν, (therefore glorify God in your body, 6:20; cf., also Phil. 1:20). Because the body is the, intersection between the point where human, beings interact with the world and the point, where God deals with human beings, it is, necessary to resist temptation and conduct, one’s life in holiness. The apostle wishes that, all people would choose to abstain from, sexual activity entirely, as he had done, but, not all have this gift (χάρισµα, 1 Cor. 7:7)., Whoever can live in celibacy should take, advantage of this possibility; but those who, cannot resist temptation should choose, marriage as the natural setting for sexuality, (cf. 7:8–9, 25–28). The massive degree to, which the apostle thinks of holiness and, spiritual things in tangibly realistic terms is, indicated by 7:14: “For the unbelieving, husband is made holy through his wife, and
Page 259 :
the unbelieving wife is made holy through, her husband. Otherwise, your children would, be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”[72], Paul obviously thinks of the communication, of holiness in such wise that the unbelieving, spouse and children of the Christian partner, are included within the objective holiness of, the believer and are thereby included within, the realm where the Spirit is effective. They, are thus snatched from the clutches of the, other powers, but they do not yet share in, eschatological σωτηρία (7:16)., Paul does not advocate the view of the, church as a corpus permixtum (mixed body);, [73] for him, the church is, rather, the realm, of purity and holiness within which those, who have been baptized live, separated from, the power of sin. Thus, both for their own, sake and for the sake of the church, evildoers, must be excluded., 9.4 Freedom and Obligation in Christ, The understanding and use of, Christian freedom also comes to, expression in the conflict between, the “strong” and the “weak” in
Page 260 :
Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1–13; 10:14–, 33). The issue was triggered by, practical questions about life, together in the Christian, community, questions in which, social, ethical, and theological, aspects were interwoven: May, Christians purchase meat from the, public marketplace (10:25)? May, Christians accept invitations to, dinner parties given by their nonChristian friends and neighbors?, Can belief in the new faith be, combined with participation in, banquets (8:10) or even cultic, celebrations in pagan temples, (10:14–22)?[74] Paul discusses the, questions in a manner that allows, the church to become aware of the, basic conflict that lies behind, them., The “Strong” and the “Weak”, The “strong” in Corinth doubtless belonged, in part to the upper social class, who could, sometimes be freed from traditional religious
Page 261 :
ideas by religious knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1,, 4; 10:23).[75] We should not, however,, simply identify these strong Christians with, the upper class, for the knowledge that there, is only one God and that gods and demons, have no real existence is the expression of a, monotheism that could be adopted by people, of all social classes, Jews and Gentiles alike, (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9–10). Cynic traditions could, also have been important, since the Cynics,, like elements of the Corinthian church, also, made their monotheistic confession the basis, of their freedom to ignore dietary taboos and, eat anything.[76] Thus Gentile Christians as, well as liberal Jewish Christians could be, numbered within the group of the strong., Without giving it a thought, they ate meat, that had been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:9;, 10:25–30), continued to be invited to pagan, banquets (10:27), and even participated in, pagan cultic celebrations (14:20–21). Their, social position alone was enough to make it, impossible for them to completely avoid, eating meat sacrificed to idols. The strong, justified their practice by appealing to their, “knowledge” (cf. γνῶσις, 8:1–2, 4). They, evidently understood the gospel and its
Page 262 :
message of freedom primarily as individual, independence, as emancipation from the, conventions of religion and morality.[77], The “weak” in the Corinthian church were, clearly a minority composed mostly of, Gentile Christians (cf. 8:7).[78] Some in this, group probably abstained from eating any, meat that had been sacrificed to idols, from, fear of the gods that they considered to be, real. Others struggled with the economic, necessity of participating in public religious, festivals and eating idol meat within such, cultic settings, which gave them a bad, conscience.[79] Still others were misled by, the practice of the strong to eat idol meat, despite the reservations of their own, conscience, while the strong continued to, participate in the cultic sacrificial meals, unproblematically for themselves but also, without consideration of the others., The Pauline Model Paul discusses, the disputed issues in their, paradigmatic dimensions; it is not, only a matter of particular, practices but of understanding, what the gospel requires on this
Page 263 :
issue. The contrast between γνῶσις, (knowledge) and ἀγάπη (love) made, in 1 Cor. 8:1 has already, established the basic principle., Knowledge trusts in one’s own, strength, but love “builds up”, because it takes into consideration, the weakness of the other. Paul, thereby pulls the rug out from, under the motto of the strong, just, as he relativizes it and makes it, more precise in 10:23: “‘All things, are lawful,’ but not all things are, beneficial. ‘All things are lawful,’, but not all things build up.”, Christian freedom finds its, authentic expression not in, limitless self-affirmation and selfrealization but rather is essentially, a relational concept: it attains its, real character only in relation to, one’s fellow Christians and the, Christian community. Freedom can, thus not be understood as an, attribute of an autonomous subject, but discovers its boundary in the, conscience of the other: “But take
Page 264 :
care that this liberty of yours does, not somehow become a stumbling, block to the weak” (8:9). The, freedom of the strong to eat idol, meat without distress must not, lead to a situation in which the, weak thereby are no longer free., Unlimited freedom leads inevitably, to loss of freedom because it does, not observe the boundaries set for, it by the neighbor. Above all, such a, concept of freedom denies and, disdains the death of Jesus Christ,, who died for the weak brother and, sister (8:11). Paul defines Jesus’, existence-for-others as the, embodiment of his love.[80] The, salvation of the strong is not based, on their knowledge but only on the, cross and resurrection of Jesus, Christ. Paul understands ἐλευθερία, (freedom) in strictly christological, terms: “But when you thus sin, against members of your family,, and wound their conscience when it, is weak, you sin against Christ”, (8:12). The Pauline concept of
Page 265 :
freedom becomes clear in this, admonition to the strong. For Paul,, Christian freedom is the freedom, won for us by Jesus Christ, so that a, misuse of this freedom is an, offense not only against one’s, fellow Christians but against, Christ. Paul thus issues the, Corinthians a strong warning,, reminding them of the fate of the, wilderness generation (10:1–13)., [81] As their Israelite ancestors fell, in the wilderness, so the Corinthian, Christians will also fall if they, absolutize the sacraments and the, gifts they confer. The salvation, mediated by the sacraments does, not happen apart from expression, in concrete ethical decisions;, rather, “the sacramental good is, rendered invalid by unethical, conduct.”[82], By binding freedom to Christ and orienting, it to the neighbor, Paul gains some, maneuvering room as he attempts to resolve, the complex problem posed by eating
Page 266 :
sacrificial meat. Although he himself, basically inclines toward the position of the, strong (cf. 8:4–6), Paul extends two, guidelines: (1) for Christians, actual, participation in pagan sacrificial and cultic, meals is excluded (cf. 10:21), and (2) when,, at a private dinner party, meat sacrificed to, idols is explicitly designated as such,, Christians should not eat it (cf. 10:26). Either, case would be an offense against the honor, of the one true God (cf. 10:31).[83] Within, these clear limits, one need not inquire more, closely; one can buy meat in the marketplace, and accept invitations to private dinner, parties (cf. 10:25, 27). The Corinthians are, guided toward a kind of conscious,, intentional action that must always decide, from case to case, taking into consideration, and balancing the current situation, the, conscience of one’s Christian brothers and, sisters, and one’s own knowledge. Paul, formulates his agreement with the position of, the strong without withdrawing his positive, valuation of the weak, thus facilitating, dialogue between the two groups as equals., Moreover, the Pauline model of resolving, such issues secures the church its place
Page 267 :
between Jews and Greeks (cf. 10:32). With, regard to the Jews, the offensive nature of, participating in the pagan sacrificial cults is, avoided; with regard to the Greeks,, Christians are not excluded from being able, to accept dinner invitations from their nonChristian friends.[84], Freedom as Service The service, character of the Pauline concept of, freedom is further developed in 1, Cor. 9.[85] Here Paul discusses the, relation of freedom to personal, rights, using himself as an, example. As an apostle of Jesus, Christ, he is free and has the right, to be supported by the, congregations he has founded (cf., 9:4–6, 12–18). He intentionally, waives this right, however, in order, not to place any obstacle in the way, of the proclamation of the gospel, (9:12, 15–16). Paul takes up, standard themes of the Socratic, tradition:[86] just as the true, philosopher accepts no pay for his, instruction and thus presents
Page 268 :
himself as truly independent and, persuasive, so Paul foregoes the, support he is due from the church, in Corinth, in order to preach the, gospel freely. The apostle even, goes a step further—he uses his, freedom to make himself a slave to, others. In 9:20–22 Paul describes, his freedom as proclaimer of the, gospel paradoxically as the service, of a slave, a service that comes to, expression among the Jews as, being under the Torah, “though I, myself am not under the law”, (9:20). In the same way, he can live, as one without the Torah to those, without the Torah, “though I am, not free from God’s law but am, under Christ’s law” (9:21)., Paradoxically, freedom is the result, of being bound by the “law” of, Christ (cf. Gal. 6:2).[87] Here “law”, cannot refer to the Torah, for in, the previous statement it is the, variable that may be observed or, not.
Page 269 :
Whereas in antiquity freedom and slavery, were for the most part considered mutually, exclusive alternatives, for Paul they condition, each other: the apostle’s freedom comes to, expression precisely as bondage to the, gospel (1 Cor. 9:19). Waiving his right to, support by the church only serves the, unhindered extension of the gospel; Paul can, be a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentiles in, order to win them to the gospel. Here, too,, freedom is a concept that has to do with, relationships. It can express itself, paradoxically as the service of a slave, because its essence and content are, determined by Christ, who himself assumed, the form of a slave (Phil. 2:6). It is not that, slavery as such can claim on its own to, define itself as a kind of freedom, but the, freedom manifest in Jesus Christ is fulfilled, in the mode of slavery to the gospel. For Paul, the missionary, this means, “I do it all for the, sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its, blessings” (1 Cor. 9:23)., The Question of Slavery The issue, of slavery brings up the socialethical dimension of the Pauline
Page 270 :
concept of freedom. In 1 Cor., 7:21b, does Paul advise slaves to, strive to obtain their freedom, or, should they be content to remain in, their status as slaves?[88] It is not, clear grammatically whether the, aorist verb χρῆσαι (make use of), refers to τῇ δουλείᾳ (service as a, slave) or ἐλευθερίᾳ. The conjunction, introducing 7:21b (ἀλλά [but, even]), can be understood as introducing a, clause contrasting with the, preceding, which would then be, translated with “however” or, “nevertheless” and would speak for, “freedom” as the object of the verb., [89] On the other hand, ἀλλά can, function to further strengthen the, following clause, in the sense of, “and not only but also” or “yes,, even,” which suggests that the, meaning is that the slave should, remain a slave.[90] The context,, 7:17–24, speaks clearly in favor of, the latter interpretation, where the, emphasis of the paraenesis is on, “remaining” in the status in which
Page 271 :
one was called (µένω [“remain”],, 7:20, 24; also 7:8, 11, 40; cf. κλῆσις, [“calling”], 7:20; καλέω (to call) in, active forms, 7:15, 17; and in, passive forms, 7:18 (bis), 20, 21,, 22, 24). The explanatory 7:22 also, points in this direction: “For, whoever was called in the Lord as a, slave is a freed person belonging to, the Lord, just as whoever was free, when called is a slave of Christ.”, Paul here defines freedom as an, inner freedom made possible by, Jesus Christ and having its only, goal in him. Social structures are, not very important for this concept, of freedom because they can, neither grant freedom nor remove, slavery., Here Paul clearly stands close to Stoic, ideas.[91] Thus Seneca can say of the slave,, “He is a slave—but perhaps free in his soul., He is a slave—will that hurt him? Show me, someone who is not a slave: one is a slave to, his sensuality, another to his greed, another, to his ambition, all are slaves to hope, all to
Page 272 :
fear. I will show you a man who was once a, consul who is now the slave of an old woman;, I will show you a rich man, who is enslaved, to his young female slave; I will show you, highly distinguished gentlemen who are, slaves, and that of stage-actors. No slavery is, more despicable than slavery to one’s own, will” (Ep. 47). For Epictetus, freedom is, identical with inner independence: “You, must let go of everything, body and property,, your good reputation and your books,, society, office, and your private life. For, wherever your inclination attracts you, there, you become a slave, there you are subjected,, bound, compelled, in short: you are, completely dependent on the other” (Diatr., 4.4.33; cf. Ench. 11). Just as no one can give, anything to the Stoic, so no one can take, anything away. The goal is to live in harmony, with oneself and thereby to fit into the, harmony of the cosmos., In the cosmos that is passing away (cf. 1, Cor. 7:29–31), Paul counsels an internal, freedom over against the things of this, world[92] and advises people to remain in, the state in which they were called. The, distancing from the world bound up with the
Page 273 :
cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, demands neither conformity to the world nor, flight from it. It maintains the believer’s, freedom over against the powers that want, to enslave human beings to themselves. It is, not an unchanging cosmic order given to the, world by God that calls for such conduct but, God’s present and future saving act., Whereas the Corinthians’ understanding of, freedom focuses on the rights of the, individual as a means of self-realization, Paul, regards ἐλευθερία as a relational concept. It is, not the potential of my own “I” but the needs, of the “you” that shape Paul’s understanding, of freedom. Human beings are not freed from, their permanent fixation on themselves and, their sense of self-worth until they commit, themselves to God as Lord and master. Only, service to God places human life in the realm, of freedom, where people find their true, selves, where they discover other human, beings as their fellow creatures, and where, they learn to respect the creation itself as, the gift of God.
Page 274 :
9.5 The Power of the Spirit and, Building Up the Church For Paul, as for the Corinthians, the reality, of God in the world is the reality of, the Spirit.[93] God is always the, source of the πνεῦµα that manifests, the life-giving power of the, Creator (cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14). The, normal location for the Spirit’s, work is the ἐκκλησία θεοῦ, (church/congregation of God). The, Corinthians had a deep and lasting, experience of the manifold power, of the Spirit, but at the same time, their attempt at individualizing, the Spirit and making it the, instrument of their own agenda, threatened to destroy the, edification and unity of the church, (12:25, “that there may be no, dissension within the body, but, the members may have the same, care for one another”). Because of, their special evaluation of, themselves, the “Spirit-endowed”, (πνευµατικοί [spiritual], 12:1; cf., 2:13; 3:1; 14:37; Gal. 6:1)[94] were
Page 275 :
in danger of disdaining other, members of the church as less, important and separating, themselves from the rest of the, church as a special group. Thus, Paul warns the Corinthians by, referring to the fate of the, wilderness generation (1 Cor., 10:1–13). As their Israelite, ancestors fell in the wilderness, so, the Corinthian Christians will also, fall if they absolutize the, sacraments and the gifts they, confer, if they fail to recognize, that the new being they have, received is inseparably bound to, new actions. Clearly the prevailing, tendency in Corinth was to value, only the extraordinary gifts of the, Spirit and to regard the, inconspicuous gifts as secondrate. Their worship services, filled, with pneumatic phenomena,, threatened to lose their real, mission and function of, communicating the gospel of Jesus, Christ in a manner that could be
Page 276 :
understood (cf. 14:6, 26). As in 1, Cor. 8–10, so also in 1 Cor. 12–14,, Paul faced the task of affirming, the valid theological arguments of, the “spiritual” without putting a, damper on the work of the Spirit,, but at the same time resisting the, distortions of the Spirit’s effects, and developing his argument for, his own view of the gospel.[95], The apostle is no opponent of, spiritual gifts; ecstatic and, miraculous phenomena are for, him the obvious and expected, manifestations of divine activity in, and on the church.[96] We must, not confuse this positive, evaluation with an uncritical, enthusiasm for spiritual, phenomena as such, for Paul binds, the spiritual gifts to norms and, goals. For him, the primary mark, of having received the gift of the, Spirit is the confession Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, (Jesus is Lord), and only those who, join in this confession are inspired, by the Spirit (12:3).[97] The
Page 277 :
charismata of “utterance of, wisdom” (λόγος σοφίας), “utterance, of knowledge” (λόγος γνώσεως),, “healing” (χαρίσµατα ἰαµάτων),, “working of miracles” (ἐνεργήµατα, δυνάµεων), “prophecy” (προφητεία),, “discernment of spirits” (διακρίσεις, πνευµάτων), and “[speaking in], tongues” (γλῶσσα) are not, instruments of individualistic selfrealization but the expression of, the church’s diversity in unity, given and maintained by the Spirit, (12:8–11).[98], The Church as Body In 1 Cor., 12:12–31 Paul elaborates his view, of the integration of charismatic, gifts in the organism of the body of, Christ. He takes up the imagery of, the human organism that was, widespread and popular in, antiquity and applies it to the, situation of the church in Corinth:, as the body is one even though it, has many members, so the church
Page 278 :
has many members but is still one, body.[99] But not only does the, church stand in some relation to, the body of Christ; it is itself the, body of Christ: Ὑµεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶµα, Χριστοῦ (you are the body of Christ,, 12:27). It is this identification that, first permits the full application of, the organism imagery, for its, ethical implications function only, by equating the one body with, Christ himself. It is not the case, that the church must form the body, of Christ by its conduct; rather, the, church’s conduct must conform to, the reality of its being already in, his body. The organism metaphor, provides an excellent image for the, development of this metaphor, for, with its help both the church’s, relation to Christ and, based on, this, the relation of individual, Christians to each other can be, presented, the point of which is not, the similarity of members but that, they are all of equal value.[100] All, members of the body are equally
Page 279 :
important and equally necessary;, they are coordinated with one, another and depend on one, another., The church exists in and as the body of, Christ because its individual members have, been incorporated into his body by baptism, (12:13).[101] The body of Christ existed, before its individual members; it is not, brought into being by human decisions and, mergers but is a given reality existing before, them and providing their basis.[102] Baptism, does not constitute the body of Christ, but it, is the historical locus for incorporation into, this body and the concrete expression of the, church’s unity, grounded in Christ. Those, who are baptized are incorporated into the, body of Christ, whose reality and unity is, established by Christ; the believer is to live, up to this reality. In Corinth, baptism and the, possession of the Spirit had triggered, individualism, divisions, and seeking after, glory; Paul opposes to these centrifugal and, destructive tendencies his concept of the, unity of the church maintained in Christ,
Page 280 :
appropriated in baptism, a given unity that is, to be preserved in the church’s life., In 12:13b–c Paul takes up traditional, motifs (cf. Gal. 3:26–27) to interpret the, church’s unity, given in baptism and made, present in the Spirit, as the abrogation of, fundamental alternatives in the religious and, social world. The Jews have no advantage, based on salvation history, the Greeks are, not preferred on ethnic-cultural grounds, and, in the Christian community the distinctions, that have determined world history no longer, exist—the distinctions between servant and, lord, slave and free, oppressed and, oppressor. Rather, in baptism all were given, the one Spirit to drink,[103] the Spirit that, makes the given unity of the church a, concrete reality in the present and whose, visible expression is the abolition of those, distinctions. The church, as body of Christ,, lives from the closeness of God, which, created its unity, in baptism and from the, presence of Christ in the Spirit, which, maintains this unity—and it documents this, new reality also in its social form. It is only, through a common life beneficial to all and, serving the community of faith as a whole
Page 281 :
that the Corinthians live up to the new being, established in baptism., The Goal: Building Up the Church, The Spirit that proceeds from God, and is effective in Christ is, manifest in a variety of ways, but it, is always “one and the same Spirit”, (1 Cor. 12:4, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦµα). It, leads into a wealth of diversity but, not into the poverty of division. It, belongs to its essence to establish, unity, because it is itself ἕν πνεῦµα, (one Spirit). The Spirit’s unifying, work is seen especially in the fact, that it generates what benefits the, church (12:7, τὸ συµφέρον [the, common good]) and what serves its, οἰκοδοµή (edification, building up; cf., 1 Cor. 14). All charismatic gifts, must be measured by this, fundamental principle: πάντα πρὸς, οἰκοδοµὴν γινέσθω (Let all things be, done for building up, 14:26). Those, who speak in tongues[104] and, have received the ability to praise
Page 282 :
God in the language of angels, should pray that they can interpret, such heavenly language to the, church, for only this leads to, building up the church (14:4, 5)., Glossolalia, a charisma obviously, highly valued in Corinth and, limited to this church,[105] is not, rejected by Paul but is bound by, him to the critical goal of οἰκοδοµή, and thus can no longer be the, means of individualistic, showmanship. If glossolalia is, translated, it has the same, significance as prophecy: it, strengthens the brothers and, sisters in the faith (14:16–17),, serving the church and the, individual Christian., Like the Corinthians, Paul treasures the, gifts of the Spirit. At the same time, he, emphasizes that the Spirit wants to work, through the elements of order—of sober selfrestraint and lining up with the interests of, the church—and through consideration for, others and mutual help. The gifts of the
Page 283 :
Spirit are, then, only present in the church if, they can be shared. But Paul offers the, Corinthians an even more excellent way: the, way of love (ἀγάπη). It is no accident that 1, Cor. 13 stands between two chapters dealing, with the misuse of charismatic gifts.[106] In, 13:1–3 Paul makes clear that even the most, extraordinary charismatic gifts are of no use, if they are not pervaded by love. Their, ephemeral character also relativizes the, value of the gifts most treasured by the, Corinthians, for they stand under the, eschatological reservation (13:12). When the, charismatic gifts have passed away and, knowledge has ceased, love remains, which, surpasses even faith and hope, because love, is the most complete expression of God’s, essential being. Love is the very opposite of, individualism and egoism; it does not seek its, own good but reveals its nature precisely in, bearing evil and doing the good. The ἀγάπη, (love) of 1 Cor. 13 includes love for the, neighbor and love for the enemy; it is not, limited to ethics. Love is above all an, eschatological power: the love of God that, has appeared in Jesus Christ, which, determines the whole life of the believer. Its
Page 284 :
field of operations is the church; Paul pulls, the rug out from under the Corinthian, consciousness of fulfillment, for apart from, ἀγάπη there can be no real knowledge and no, real fulfillment., Paul structures his ecclesiology on a, christological model: Jesus Christ exists in, the church and as church, inasmuch as it is, the community of those called and led by the, Spirit, the realm in which the crucified and, risen works historically and concretely. This, does not mean that the ἐκκλησία is the, Christus prolongatus, the prolongation of the, Christ event, but the church is created and, determined by this Christ. Christ is present, there, and therefore it is σῶμα Χριστοῦ. Christ, creates his church himself, and the church is, only Christ’s church so long as it is, determined by the Spirit of Christ.[107], 9.6 The Resurrection of the Dead, First Corinthians 15 constitutes, the high point of the letter as, Paul, proceeding from the, cross/resurrection creedal, statement, elaborates on the final
Page 285 :
events at the Lord’s parousia. The, essential subject is the, temporality of the world and, human existence; Paul’s struggle, with this subject is tightly, interwoven with Christology,, anthropology, soteriology, and, eschatology.[108], The Foundational Story, Christianity’s christological, confession is the point of departure, and basis for his reflections. Paul, places the Corinthians under, obligation to the reality of the, gospel, the gospel that is accepted, by all and that alone can save. It is, the gospel that tells the JesusChrist-history, the gospel that has, bound author and readers to each, other since Paul’s initial preaching, in Corinth, which founded the, church. The pre-Pauline tradition, of 1 Cor. 15:3b–5 shows that five, elements form the basic framework, of the Easter event:[109] (1) a, statement about Jesus’ death (15:3,
Page 286 :
“Christ died for our sins in, accordance with the scripture”);, (2) a reference to the grave (15:4a,, “he was buried”); (3) a statement, about the resurrection (15:4b, “he, was raised on the third day in, accordance with the scriptures”);, (4) a report of an appearance, (15:5a, “he appeared to Cephas”);, (5) a report of appearing to a group, of disciples (15:5b, “then to the, Twelve”). The basic structure of, 15:3b–5 is clearly seen in the Greek, text, which is characterized by the, naming of each event, followed by
Page 287 :
its interpretation:, , The grammatical subject is Χριστός; the, sentence concerns the destiny of the decisive, figure of all humanity;[110] personal,, individual history and universal history are, united in one story. This is possible because, God is to be thought of as the actual subject, throughout, as indicated by the passive, forms of the verbs θάπτω (bury) and ἐγείρω, (raise) and the twofold interpretative κατὰ τὰς, γραφάς (according to the scriptures). The, series “dead–buried” and “raised–appeared”, names the events in their chronological and, objective order. The death of Christ is
Page 288 :
mentioned in general terms; there is no, suggestion of an explicit theological interest, in the tradition of the cross as the place and, means of Jesus’ death. That he was buried, underscores the reality of Jesus’ death and, indicates some knowledge of the events of, the burial. The tenses of the verbs are, significant, for the aorist forms of ἀποθνήσκω, and θάπτω designate an event completed in, the past whereas the perfect passive, ἐγήγερται[111] stresses the continuing effect, of the event.[112] Christ has been raised, from the dead, and the resurrection means, the continuing impact of Christ as the, crucified one. The passive ὤφθη in 15:5, in, connection with the Old Testament, theophanies, emphasizes that the, appearances of the risen one are according, to God’s will.[113] Within the line of, argument in the thought world of 1, Corinthians, ὤφθη points to eyewitness, testimony, which, combined with the other, groups of eyewitnesses, characterizes the, resurrection of Jesus Christ as a bodily event., [114] The fact that several independent, witnesses are mentioned speaks against the, supposition that we are dealing with a
Page 289 :
subjective vision in the modern sense.[115], That the first epiphany was to Cephas is, firmly anchored in the tradition (cf. 1 Cor., 15:5; Luke 24:34), as are the appearances to, the group of disciples (cf. Mark 16:7; Matt., 28:16–20; Luke 24:36–53; John 20:19–29)., The interpretation is based on the testimony, of Scripture; for the tradition, as for Paul,, Christology is expressed in the language of, Scripture.[116] The ὑπέρ-expression (for . . .), could be an allusion to Isa. 53:10–12; Ps., 56:14; 116:8, and the “third day” has several, hermeneutical possibilities (historical, memory; reference to Hos. 6:2; the, significance of the third day in ancient, cultures’ views of death).[117] In any case,, the essential content is a theological, statement about God’s saving act in the, crucifixion of Jesus. God acts to deliver Jesus, from the realm of death. Otherwise one must, say, “if Christ has not been raised, then our, proclamation has been in vain and your faith, has been in vain” (1 Cor. 15:14). If the, Corinthians accept the fact that God has, raised Christ from the dead (15:12a, 15),, then they cannot also say, “there is no, resurrection of the dead” (15:12:b).
Page 290 :
The line of argument of 15:3–10 as a whole, is determined by a constantly increasing, emphasis on the reality of the resurrection of, Jesus Christ from the dead. At the beginning, stands the witness of the tradition, then, follows an extensive listing of eyewitnesses,, in which the reference to more than five, hundred brothers and sisters is especially, significant: many of them are still alive and, can be interrogated. And after all, it is the, last witness to whom the risen one appeared, who is at this very moment writing them a, letter., The Denial of the Resurrection, Some members of the Corinthian, church denied a future, resurrection because they had a, different anthropology from Paul’s., [118] They probably thought of the, human person as a dichotomy,, distinguishing between the self, as, the invisible I-soul, and the visible, body.[119] In contrast to later, gnostic views, for the Corinthians,, the body was not as such regarded, negatively; rather, in their view, it
Page 291 :
was merely an earthly-temporary, entity excluded from the, eschatological redemption.[120] It, is only the higher part of the, person, the spiritual I-soul,[121], that has hope for a life beyond this, one. Since the body is the earthly, house for the soul, it has no, bearing on the matter of salvation,, and the Corinthians could regard it, as irrelevant; this way of thinking, could find expression both in, unbridled sexual license and in, sexual asceticism (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12–, 20; 1 Cor. 7). Because the body is, transitory and doomed to die[122], but the soul was thought of as, immortal, the Corinthians rejected, the idea of an eschatological bodily, resurrection. Evidently, for the, Corinthians, life is not finally, attained when death is overcome at, the Lord’s parousia but when the, Spirit is conferred at baptism;[123], this is the place where the essential, transformation of the self occurs., For them, the irrevocable gift of
Page 292 :
the Spirit was already the absolute, assurance of salvation because it, not only granted entrance into the, new being but was itself already, the new being. For the Corinthians,, the soul obviously already, participated in immortality through, the gift of the Spirit appropriated, in baptism. The apostle shares this, view of the objective reality of the, Spirit expressed in such ideas (cf., 5:5; 3:15–16); in contrast to the, Corinthian theology, however, Paul, cannot think of the human self as a, disembodied “I.” Human existence, is constituted in bodily terms; the, body is not excluded from God’s, saving acts in the present and, future. This was already true in, God’s saving act in Jesus of, Nazareth, for not only did the, crucified one have a body but the, risen one has a body as well (cf., 10:16; 11:27; Phil. 3:21). Baptism, grants incorporation into the whole, destiny of Jesus, both with the, bodily crucified one and with the
Page 293 :
bodily risen one. Thus Paul, intentionally defers until 1 Cor., 15:29 the strange practice of, vicarious baptism[124] because,, against the intention of the, Corinthians, it shows that a purely, spiritual understanding of the, resurrection does not square with, the essence of baptism. In Corinth,, Christians had themselves baptized, on behalf of their relatives who had, died without baptism, in the hope, that they too would benefit from, the power, operative in baptism,, that overcomes death. Thus, in, Paul’s view, the Corinthians’ own, practice confirms that the Spirit, must determine life after death., The salvific character of baptism, consists in the overcoming of, θάνατος (death), which begins with, the conferral of the Spirit and is, completed at the parousia of, Christ. Baptism by no means, protects one from natural death,, but it bears within it the promise, that at the eschaton the one who is
Page 294 :
baptized will be saved from death,, God’s eschatological opponent, the, “last enemy” (15:26)., Existence and the Body For Paul,, there is no human existence apart, from bodily existence, and so, reflection on life after death must, include the question of bodily life, after death. For him, the question, of the “how” of the resurrection, can thus be only the question of, what sort of body the resurrection, body will be (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35b)., [125] Paul opens this discussion in, 1 Cor. 15:35ff.,[126] but the, context is important. In 15:12–19, the dominant theme was the, correspondence between Christ and, Christians, who are connected by, an irreversible timeline, the, beginning of which is constituted, entirely by the resurrection of, Jesus Christ. This was, supplemented in 15:20 by the, designation of Christ as the “first, fruits of those who have died”
Page 295 :
(ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιµηµένων) and the, portrayal of the final events in, 15:23–28.[127] In 15:36–38 Paul, takes up the idea, widespread in, antiquity, that death is the, necessary condition of new life., [128] In 15:38 the apostle applies, the factor of discontinuity,, inherent in this view, to the free, creative act of God, who gives to, each its own σῶµα according to, God’s own will. God’s ability to, create earthly as well as heavenly, bodies is for Paul a sign of God’s, creative power (15:39–41), which is, the guarantee of the creation and, receipt of an individual body of, glory. In 15:42–44 Paul exploits, hermeneutically what he has just, said by interpreting the, resurrection of what has been, sown: just as the perishable is sown, and the imperishable rises, so the, σῶµα ψυχικόν (physical body) is sown, and the σῶµα πνευµατικόν (spiritual, body) is raised. Paul answers the, question of the “how” of the
Page 296 :
resurrection with this antithesis,, [129] in that, on the one hand,, bodily life is the basic, presupposition of the resurrection, and, on the other hand, the, resurrection body is defined as a, spiritual body and thus sharply, distinguished from the present, perishable world. In 15:45–49 Paul, provides the basis for his thinking, of the resurrection body as a σῶµα, πνευµατικόν. As a πνεῦµα ζῳοποιοῦν (lifegiving spirit), Christ creates the, spiritual resurrection body (15:45),, and as the originator of the new, being, he is at the same time its, prime example and model. Just as, the earthly state of the πρῶτος, ἄνθρωπος (first human being), Adam,, caused and determined the, perishable nature of humans, so, the heavenly state of the δεύτερος, ἄνθρωπος (second human being) will, cause and determine the future, imperishable being. In 15:50a Paul, summarizes the foregoing, anthropological argument: σάρξ
Page 297 :
(flesh) and αἷµα (blood), the, anthropological designation for the, perishable nature of creaturely, existence, cannot inherit the βασιλεία, τοῦ θεοῦ (kingdom of God) because, what is perishable cannot attain an, imperishable nature., With this antithesis of perishable and, imperishable, in 15:50b Paul refers to the, dominant (antithetical) line of argument, since 15:35 and prepares his resolution of, the problem. In 15:51 he presents an, application of this solution when he gives the, church instruction, as a mystery disclosed by, revelation, that not all will sleep but that all,, living and dead, will be transformed.[130], First Corinthians 15:52 gives a more precise, explanation of the relation of dead and living:, the dead will be raised in an imperishable, state, and “we” will be transformed. Since, ἄφθαρτοι (imperishable) already describes the, state of the future consummation (15:42, 50,, 53–54), ἡμεῖς ἀλλαγησόμεθα (we will be, changed) can only refer to those still living at, the parousia, among whom Paul counts, himself.[131] The explanation continues in
Page 298 :
15:53ff., again framed antithetically, in, which the metaphor of “putting on”, imperishability or immortality clearly, includes the element of identity between the, old and the new being. Paul’s argument, takes account of the changed situation since, writing 1 Thess. 4:13–18, for the death of, Christians before the Lord’s parousia is no, longer the exception but the rule (cf. 1 Cor., 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 29, 51).[132] Paul, deals with the problem constituted by thus, temporal prolongation by introducing the, motif of transformation,[133] which, emphasizes equally both continuity and, discontinuity between earthly life and life, after death and affirms the parity of those, who will have already died and those still, alive at the parousia, while providing, in, terms of his anthropological argument, the, answer the Corinthians had called for, regarding the “how” of the resurrection of, Christians. In the course of this explanation,, he is also affected by two central categories, of Greek philosophy and cosmology: polarity, and change.[134] The antitheses, perishable/imperishable, earthly/heavenly, are overcome through the work of the divine
Page 299 :
Spirit and transferred to the world of life, after death by means of the concept of, transformation.[135], Their cultural background causes the, Corinthians to exclude bodily existence from, the realm of immortality and to regard the, Spirit as the true realm of God’s activity. In, contrast, Paul adopts Greek models of, argument to include the body within the, realm of God’s act and reverses the, Corinthians order of things: “But it is not the, spiritual that is first, but the physical, and, then the spiritual” (1 Cor. 15:46). For him,, the Jesus-Christ-history is in several aspects, both the prototype and cause of the, Corinthians’ own history. The miraculous, creative power of God raised Jesus from the, dead, and it is God who will also act in the, resurrection of the dead and the, transformation of the Corinthians who are, still alive at the parousia. As with Jesus, Christ, so also with the Corinthians: God’s, creative power embraces the bodily, existence of both.
Page 300 :
9.7 The Cross, Justification, and the, Law We can give a relatively exact, description of both the theological, views prevailing in the Corinthian, church and the ways in which Paul, worked through the conflict. Paul, takes up the basic concerns of the, Corinthians in a positive manner,, understanding, like them, the, reality of the new being as the allembracing, effective work of the, Spirit.[136] At the same time, he, points to decisive theological, deficits: (1) Exclusive orientation, to the pneumatic Christ as the, “Lord of glory” neutralizes the, death of Jesus Christ on the cross., (2) Their consciousness of being, already in the fulfilled state of, salvation relieves the Corinthians, of their ethical responsibility and, negates the greatest spiritual gift, of all: love. (3) The saving,, creative act of God also includes, the body, and so the future, existence of believers will always, include bodily existence.
Page 301 :
Justification and Law in 1, Corinthians Within this line of, argument, what significance does, the thematic field “righteousness, and law” have? The verb δικαιόω, (justify, be/make righteous) is, found in 1 Cor. 4:4; 6:11.[137] In, 4:4 it means to be declared, righteous before the court; in 6:11, δικαιωθῆναι describes an act in the, past and is to be understood in the, sense of “make righteous.” This, making righteous has an effective, sense; those who are baptized are, righteous through baptism, their, sins are blotted out. Likewise, δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) in the prePauline baptismal tradition in 1:30, has no reference to the law; it, means the righteousness attained, in baptism that characterizes the, church, grounded in Jesus Christ., Νόµος (law) occurs in 1 Corinthians eight, times in four different passages.[138] In 9:9,, in the context of the defense of his, apostleship, Paul cites a law from Deut. 25:4
Page 302 :
originally intended as protection for animals., With the formula “in the law it is written,” in, 1 Cor. 14:21 the apostle cites a text from Isa., 28:11–12 (and thus not a text from the law), that agrees with neither the Hebrew nor the, Septuagint text.[139] In 1 Cor. 9:19–23 Paul, portrays his life as a missionary with, examples from the law/Torah (νόµος four, times). He describes his freedom as a, preacher of the gospel paradoxically as, service as a slave because, for him, service is, not a renunciation of freedom but its, concrete expression.[140] He expresses this, freedom when he is among Jews by being, under the Torah, although Paul himself does, not live under the Torah (9:20d). In the same, way, the apostle conducts himself without, the Torah in his dealings with Gentiles,, although before God he lives “within the law, of Christ” (ἔννοµος Χριστοῦ, 9:21). Depending, on the circumstances, Paul can sometimes, bind himself to the Torah and at other times, not do so. Such an accommodation does not, apply, however, to the “law” of Christ, which, is identical with the love command. Carrying, out the commission to preach the gospel in, obedience to Christ is the real driving power
Page 303 :
of Paul’s ministry.[141] Because he feels, himself to be wholly and exclusively bound to, Christ, Paul can adjust to different situations, without subjecting himself to a new norm., The norm of his freedom and identity is, exclusively Christ. With this paradox Paul, demonstrates his inner independence from, human judgment, the judgment of those with, whom he conducts his missionary labors., Like Diogenes, in every situation he knows, himself to be bound to God alone.[142] It is, not a matter of “freedom from the law”[143], but freedom ἐκ πάντων (9:19a, “from all”). The, theologically reflective, conceptually, accented, and essentially negative, understanding of the law found in Galatians, and Romans is not yet present in 1, Corinthians., To be sure, 1 Cor. 15:56 is already pointing, in this direction. In a piece of eschatological, instruction that concludes with a mixed, quotation from Isa. 25:8 and Hos. 13:14,, [144] 1 Cor. 15:56 is added to 15:51–55 as an, exegetical explanation: “The sting of death is, sin, and the power of sin is the law.” The key, words κέντρον (sting) and θάνατος are taken, from 15:55, but surprisingly ἁµαρτία also
Page 304 :
appears, and then, with no preparation, whatsoever, the word νόµος. Direct parallels, are found in Rom. 6:16–17; 7:7ff. (esp. 7:25);, these references, along with the feeling that, the verse is out of place here, has repeatedly, led interpreters to suppose that 1 Cor. 15:56, is a post-Pauline gloss.[145] Evidence for this, assumption is not compelling, for one can, make sense of 15:56 as a brief interjection in, which the spotlight briefly flashes on a theme, that will be explicitly treated in Romans: the, relation between sin, law/Torah, and death., Nonetheless, there are two weighty, differences between 15:56 and the doctrine, of justification extensively elaborated in, Galatians and Romans: (1) the constitutive, antithesis between “faith” (πίστις) and “works, of the law/Torah” (ἔργα νόµου) is missing in 1, Corinthians, and (2) the characteristic, contrast νόµος/πνεῦµα, which permeates the, deep structure of the doctrine of justification, found in Galatians and Romans, goes, unmentioned in 1 Corinthians—and this in a, letter in which Paul uses the word πνεῦµα, forty times. Moreover, it is not clear that the, Corinthians could have known what Paul was, talking about in this short, concentrated
Page 305 :
tangential comment. The complex, discussions in Galatians and Romans indicate, that this would have been very unlikely, unless one wants to assume that Paul had, already discussed these connections when he, was in Corinth.[146] Thus 1 Cor. 15:56, cannot be considered an exposition of the, doctrine of justification for Gentile Christians, (in the sense of Galatians and Romans), for, the essential ideas are missing (πίστις contra, ἔργα νόµου; faith contra works of the law) and, the thematic combination law/Torah–sin–, death is dealt with in a form unique in 1, Corinthians.[147] Why the law/Torah plays, an active role in the realm where sin rules, cannot be found elsewhere in the letter. In, sum, there emerges in 1 Cor 15:56 a partial, aspect of the argumentation of the Letter to, the Romans (not Galatians);[148] this verse, cannot be introduced as evidence that at the, time of the composition of 1 Corinthians,, Paul was already advocating the essentially, different doctrine of justification found in the, later letters to Galatia and Rome.[149], Paul speaks thematically of “the, commandments” in 7:19; he bases his, instruction to married people and slaves, that
Page 306 :
they should remain in the status in which, they were called, on the affirmation, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision, is nothing; but obeying the commandments, of God is everything” (ἡ περιτοµὴ οὐδέν ἐστιν καὶ, ἡ ἀκροβυστία οὐδέν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ)., [150] The word ἐντολαί (commandments), cannot here refer to the Torah, for, circumcision belongs to its central, commands.[151] Since Paul does not explain, how this keeping of the commands is in fact, carried out, it must refer to generally, accepted ethical principles, that is, God’s, commands that are directly available to, Christians. Comparable ideas are found in, Epictetus, according to whom the true, philosopher does not harken to human, commandments but to God alone: “What, instructions should I give you. Has not Zeus, already given you commandments? Has he, not already made available to you what really, belongs to you as an inalienable possession,, while that which does not belong to you, places serious impediments upon you?”, (Diatr. 1.25.3). As the philosopher has direct, access to knowledge, so the Christian knows, the will of God.[152] The variations in Gal.
Page 307 :
5:6 and 6:15 (cf. also 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:28), indicate that Paul has the love command in, mind as the fundamental orientation of the, new existence. A comparison with the later, statements in Galatians and Romans makes, clear how distant 1 Cor. 7:19 is from the, conceptually accented understanding of the, law and from that type of “doctrine of, justification.”, Something similar is true with regard to, the theme of freedom central to 1, Corinthians. Paul does not develop this, theme as “freedom from the law/Torah.”, Instead he falls back on ideas of freedom, current in the Hellenistic world in order to, define the true character of Christian, freedom as being bound to Christ and to, demonstrate the believer’s own, independence from conventional human, judgments.[153], An Independent Conception First, Corinthians turns out to have an, independent and coherent, conception of, righteousness/justification., Righteousness is understood as a
Page 308 :
new reality conferred through, baptism; in the sacrament, under, the invocation of the name of, Christ, the effective makingrighteous of the sinner takes place, as the making-present of Christ’s, saving work through the salvific, power of the Spirit. The Spirit thus, appears as both the means of, making-righteous and the, determining power of the new, being until the parousia of Christ., Believers and baptized are, incorporated into the realm of the, Kyrios, whereby they are snatched, from the power of sin and are really, righteous. Baptism thus appears, simultaneously as the locus of, liberation and the place where one, is taken into service as an obedient, slave to live according to God’s will., This doctrine of righteousness,, which has a causal connection with, baptism, has no antinomian point;, it had already been advocated in, early Christianity prior to Paul and, presents a coherent theological
Page 309 :
conception in and of itself. It can, be designated an inclusive doctrine, of righteousness/justification, because it is not primarily oriented, outwardly but inwardly, to the new, being of the baptized.[154] This, inclusive doctrine of justification, needs no supplementation by the, exclusive doctrine of justification, found in Galatians and Romans,, which has a primarily outward, orientation, nor is it the case that, it simply exhibits their basic ideas, in a different form.[155] The, understanding of the cross and the, righteousness bound to it found in, 1 Corinthians should be read in its, own terms, without dragging in, basic ideas derived elsewhere.[156], In this central issue, the, perspective of the reader is, decisive: If 1 Corinthians is read, under the auspices of the later, letters, then it is not difficult to, point out anticipations and, structural analogies to them. But if, one reads within the limitations of
Page 310 :
the concrete historical location of, the letter itself, one comes to a, very different conclusion: the world, within which the argument of 1, Corinthians takes place is complete, in itself. Over against the, Corinthians’ identity concept, related to the potency of the Spirit,, Paul sets a different, nuanced, model, which develops the, transformation of Jesus Christ and, the baptized and Spirit-endowed, believer’s participation in this, event in both its grandeur and its, lowliness.
Page 311 :
12, Paul and the Church in Rome HighLevel Encounter, As Paul’s work in the eastern part of the, empire came to an end, the church in Rome, assumed an increasing priority in his, thought. He hoped to receive material and, spiritual support from it and sensed that, Rome would play a portentous role in his, own life., 12.1 The History and Structure of the, Roman Church The beginnings of, Christianity in Rome cannot be, understood apart from the history, of the Roman Jewish community,, mentioned for the first time in 139, BCE. The Jews had experienced a, varied and eventful history in, Rome, full of ups and downs. The, community grew very rapidly;, Josephus mentions that eight, thousand Roman Jews met the
Page 312 :
Jewish delegation sent to Rome, after the death of Herod (Ant., 17.300). Augustus treated the, Jews well, respected their, customs, and sanctioned the legal, status of their communities as, collegia licita.[1] Dio Cassius, 60.6.6. reports that in 41 CE,, because of their large numbers,, Claudius had not expelled the Jews, from Rome but that he had, withdrawn their right of assembly., The Jews in Rome had organized, themselves into independent, congregations with their own, assembly rooms and their own, administration.[2] They were hard, hit by the expulsions that occurred, in 19 CE under Tiberius[3] and, under Claudius in 49 CE.[4] The, edict of Claudius presupposes, disputes in Rome between Jews, and Christians about “Chrestus”, and documents the success of, Christian missionaries in the, synagogues.[5]
Page 313 :
As had previously been the case with, Judaism, Christianity came to Rome via the, trade routes. It is hardly accidental that prePauline churches are found in Puteoli (Acts, 28:13) and in Rome itself (Rom. 1:7; Acts, 28:15). Not only were large Jewish, communities found in both locations; in, addition, the main trade route between the, eastern part of the empire and the city of, Rome ran through Puteoli. Unknown early, Christian missionaries who were engaged in, business or commerce probably brought the, gospel to Rome. The edict of Claudius not, only affected the Roman Jews but was also, important in several respects for the, Christian community there: (1) The edict, effected the final separation of Christians, from the synagogue. (2) The expulsion of, Jews and Jewish Christians from Rome had a, decisive effect on the composition of the, Christian congregations there. Before the, edict, the majority had been Jewish, Christians, but after 49 CE they were the, minority. In the persecution of Christians, under Nero in 64 CE, the authorities made a, distinction between Jews and Christians.[6], (3) The edict had probably prevented Paul
Page 314 :
from coming to Rome earlier (cf. Rom. 1:13;, 15:22). (4) The edict made it clear to the, young Christian community that they would, have to find their own way in the field of, conflicting forces between the synagogue, and the Roman authorities., At the time when Paul wrote to the Roman, church, Gentile Christians already formed, the majority (cf. Rom. 1:5, 13–15; 10:1–3;, 11:13, 17–32; 15:15, 16, 18). At the same, time, one must reckon with a considerable, and influential minority of Jewish Christians, within the Roman church, as indicated, particularly by Rom. 9–11 and 16:7, 11, (Andronicus, Junia[s], and Herodion as, συγγενεῖς, Paul’s fellow Jews). Jewish, Christians were also a factor in the conflict, between “strong” and “weak” (cf. Rom. 14:1–, 15:13), and many Gentile Christians had, doubtless belonged to the group of Godfearers., Romans 16:3–16 is particularly informative, regarding the social levels represented in the, Roman church, since the chapter refers to, twenty-eight different persons, twenty-six of, them by name.[7] Thus Prisca and Aquila, (16:3–4) were independent business people
Page 315 :
who may have had employees or slaves, working for them.[8] Romans 16:10b, 11b, names as fellow Christians members of the, households of Aristobulus and Narcissus,, which may refer to slaves or freedmen who, worked in the household of a non-Christian, master. Analysis of the names in 16:3–16 that, also occur in Roman inscriptions reveals that, of thirteen comparable names, four refer to a, freeborn origin, and nine to a slave origin,, for the name holder.[9] Women looked after, many tasks in the life of the church, for it is, said only of them that they “worked very, hard” (κοπιάω, 16:6, 12; cf. also 13b). Of the, twenty-six persons named in 6:3–16, twelve, came to Rome from the east and are, personally known by Paul, indicating there, was a significant influx of Christians from the, east into the Roman church., Romans 16:3–6 also provides information, about the organizational structure of the, Roman Christians. Not only does Paul, mention the house church of Prisca and, Aquila (16:5); at least 16:14–15 documents, the existence of several independent house, churches in Rome.[10] After his arrival in, Rome, Paul’s apartment, too, became a
Page 316 :
meeting place for Christians (cf. Acts 28:30–, 31). Thus the Roman church at this time did, not consist of a single congregation that met, in one large assembly room. Paul therefore, does not direct his letter to a single ἐκκλησία, in Rome but to “all God’s beloved in Rome,, who are called to be saints” (Rom. 1:7a)., At the time of the composition of Romans,, the Christian community in Rome must have, already become very large, since Paul, expected from them both monetary support, and coworkers to help in his mission. The, persecution of Christians under Nero in 64, CE also presupposes a growing Christian, movement known throughout the city., 12.2 The Letter to the Romans as a, Contextualized Document Romans, was written at the decisive turning, point in Paul’s missionary career., The apostle regards his work in, the eastern part of the empire as, finished and now wants to, continue his proclamation of the, gospel in the west, especially in, Spain (cf. Rom. 15:23–24). But
Page 317 :
first he must immediately make, another trip to Jerusalem to, deliver the offering from the, churches in Macedonia and Achaia, (cf. 15:28–29)., Romans was probably written in Corinth,, where Paul dictated the letter in the spring, of 56 CE while staying in the house of Gaius, (cf. Acts 20:2–3; Rom. 16:1, 22–23; 1 Cor., 1:14).[11] Presumably the letter was, delivered by Phoebe, deacon in the nearby, congregation of Cenchrea (cf. Rom. 16:1–2)., The Situation of Paul The occasion, and goal of the Letter to the, Romans are closely related to, Paul’s own situation. In order to, carry out his planned mission to, Spain, the apostle needs the, support of the Roman church both, financially and in terms of, personnel. Thus he introduces, himself to the Roman Christians,, most of whom he does not know, personally, by means of an, extensive presentation of his own
Page 318 :
theology. Along with this motive,, which he straightforwardly, declares in the letter itself (Rom., 15:24), there are two other problem, areas that gave Paul reason to, compose the Letter to the Romans., Paul is clearly not sure that the, Jerusalem church will accept the, offering he is bringing, for only on, this presupposition can we, understand his request for the, prayers of the Roman church and, the doubts that continue to plague, him (cf. 15:30, 31). The apostle, understands the collection as, material support for needy, Christians in Jerusalem and at the, same time as an acknowledgment, of the preeminence of the original, Jerusalem church in the history of, salvation (cf. 15:27). Above all, the, offering is intended to strengthen, the bonds between Jewish, Christians and Gentile Christians, and thus reinforce the agreements, made at the apostolic council (cf., Gal. 2:9). The intensifying agitation
Page 319 :
by his Judaist opponents, including, within churches Paul himself had, established, shows that after the, apostolic council the position of, these groups had gained in, importance—especially in, Jerusalem—so that Paul sees, himself compelled to renew his, opposition to these streams. Thus, Romans, too, must be read as, evidence of this debate, for Paul’s, line of argument is still visibly, shaped by the disputes with the, Galatians in the immediate past,, and the church in Rome will also, have already heard reports about, Paul and his gospel from the, mouths of his opponents (cf. Rom., 3:8, 31a; 6:1, 15; 7:7 [16:17–18?])., When Paul takes up the conflict, between “strong” and “weak”, (14:1–15:13), there is most likely, some sort of connection to the, works of the rigorous Jewish, Christians.
Page 320 :
The Situation of the Church The, church in Rome was also probably, subject to increasing pressure from, both the Jewish and the Roman, sides. In the period between the, edict of Claudius (49 CE) and the, persecution of Christians under, Nero (64 CE), the Roman house, churches experienced considerable, growth and became identifiable to, outsiders as a distinct group. This, development did not happen, without an increase in external, pressures, as indicated by Rom., 12:9–21.[12] Both the exhortation, “Bless those who persecute you;, bless and do not curse them” in, 12:14 and the command to forego, revenge in 12:19–21 cannot be seen, as simply part of the conventional, paraenesis-oriented tradition. What, we have here is rather the, reflection of conflicts with Roman, Judaism, which, after the negative, experiences of the edict of, Claudius, sought to keep believers, in Christ distant from the ambit of
Page 321 :
the synagogue and to indicate to, the Roman authorities that the, Christians were an independent, and hostile group. The house, churches at the time when Romans, was written had not yet been, declared to be heretics or, criminals. The admonitions in 13:1–, 7, however, show that the relation, to the state was a debated point in, the churches. The juxtaposing in, Rom. 13 of basic affirmation of the, state (13:1–2) and instructions, related to current issues (13:6–7), suggests that a variety of opinions, existed on these issues in the house, churches. Possibly Suetonius, Nero, 16.2, is a reflection of increased, pressure on Christians by the, Roman state. In a listing of the, measures Nero had taken to deal, with various issues in the early part, of his reign (e.g., prohibition of the, sale of certain foods; prohibition of, chariot drivers from harassing the, population with their abusive, behavior), we suddenly find this:
Page 322 :
“Punishment was inflicted on the, Christians, a sect devoted to a new, and mischievous superstition.” This, note is usually related to the fire in, Rome, for the Christians were, blamed, as in Tacitus, Ann. 15.44., [13] This is not at all necessary,, however, for Suetonius, Nero 38.1–, 3, reports the burning of Rome, without mentioning the Christians., Perhaps the Christians had already, come into the sights of the Roman, authorities, and Romans reflects, the beginnings of this, development., Problems of Pauline Thought, Finally, yet another element was a, factor in shaping the apostle’s, argumentation: problems in the, logic and/or presentation of his, thought, which evidently led to, misunderstandings and allegations., Thus the apostle’s wresting in Rom., 9–11 with the issue of Israel follows, logically from his doctrine of, justification. When Paul proclaims
Page 323 :
faith in the one God who justifies, the ungodly (4:5), the question is, forced on him with unrelenting, sharpness: What about those to, whom God has made promises?, Does Paul’s doctrine mean that God, is unfaithful? Another question: In, Paul’s doctrine of justification,, what is the relation of divine grace, to human responsibility? If all are, guilty as they stand before God’s, judgment (2:1) and if no one can, appeal for justification to his or her, own deeds, what is the meaning, and function of ethical conduct?, One’s deeds have no positive, significance in regard to salvation,, but at the same time one can, forfeit salvation by his or her, deeds!, Major Positions in the History of, Scholarly Research The modern, discussion of Paul’s reason(s) for, writing Romans began with the, work of F. C. Baur.[14] Baur, surmised that there was an anti-
Page 324 :
Pauline party in Rome that rejected, Paul’s universalistic message and, wanted to exclude Gentiles from, the grace of the gospel. Paul wrote, Romans to oppose the false, particularism of this Jewish, Christian group.[15] The classic, position of Baur generated a, discussion that has been, maintained until today with no end, of hypotheses, only a few of which, can be named here:[16] (1) From, the fact that ἐκκλησία terminology is, missing from Rom. 1–15, G. Klein, infers that for Paul the Roman, congregations still needed an, apostolic foundation and that, Romans is to be understood as, Paul’s proleptic act of the apostolic, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (evangelizing) that is, yet to be accomplished.[17] Against, this view is the objection that Paul, acknowledges Roman Christianity, with no reservations and that the, letter has no indication of such a, deficiency in the Roman, congregations. (2) G. Bornkamm, J.
Page 325 :
Jervell, and U. Wilckens see the, whole letter to be overshadowed by, the concern, expressed in 15:30–31,, [18] that the opposition by Judaist, Christians in Jerusalem could, influence the Jerusalem church to, decline the offering Paul is, bringing. Paul would, then, have, conceived the Letter to the Romans, as a kind of speech for the defense, he intended to give in Jerusalem., Jerusalem would, then, be the, secret addressee of the letter. This, is in fact an important factor in the, composition of the letter, but this, view overrates its significance. (3), M. Kettunen and P. Stuhlmacher, understand Romans as the, apostle’s comprehensive apologetic, against his Judaistic rivals. The, Judaists follow him everywhere,, and he must assume that they have, already been agitating against him, in Rome. Romans would, then, be, the apostle’s attempt to neutralize, the objections brought against him, by his opponents in Rome and
Page 326 :
thereby to win the Roman church, over to support his planned mission, to Spain. (4) K. Haacker interprets, Romans in the context of the, increasing tensions between Rome, and Jerusalem that would lead to, the war of 66–73/74 CE. The, Pauline thesis of the equality of, Jews and Gentiles is to be, understood “as intended to be a, message of reconciliation in a time, of growing polarization between, Jerusalem and Rome.”[19] (5) E., Lohse understands Romans as a, “summary of the gospel” and thus,, to a certain degree, a timeless, exposition of the Christian faith, determined only by this subject, matter.[20] Here Paul presents a, critical accounting of the way he, has been preaching the gospel,, without really going into particular, current problems. (6) A. Reichert, applies an intensified textlinguistic method as a means of, clarifying the intention of Romans, and arrives at this result: “By
Page 327 :
writing this letter, Paul wanted to, form the disparate groups of, addressees into a united Pauline, church, forestall any hindrance in, carrying out his further missionary, work, and qualify them to develop, his gospel further on their, own.”[21] Paul is interested in a, potential mission of the Roman, church in the western part of the, empire and is equipping the church, for it., The Letter to the Romans is not a timeless, elaboration of Pauline theology but a writing, thoroughly conditioned by the situation in, which it was written. Five factors shape its, composition and its goal: (1) the help Paul, needs from the Roman church for his, planned mission to Spain; (2) the apostle’s, desire for their prayers (and support) in the, debate he anticipates in Jerusalem when he, presents the offering; (3) the agitation of, Judaist opponents to Paul’s work, whose, influence he must presuppose both in, Jerusalem and Rome; (4) the increasing, distress of the church brought on by the
Page 328 :
Jewish community in Rome, and the conflict, with the state already beginning to develop;, and (5) problems inherent in understanding, Paul’s theology: only by neutralizing Jewish, objections and by a persuasive presentation, elaborating his own position could Paul count, on the Jerusalem church accepting the, offering and the Roman church adopting, “his” gospel as their own., 12.3 The Gospel of Jesus Christ In, the letter to the Romans, Paul, gives a comprehensive exposition, of the εὐαγγέλιον, the central, concept of his theology of, revelation and mission. God called, Paul to be an apostle and, separated him for the mission of, preaching the gospel (Rom. 1:1)., Like the prophets Jeremiah (Jer., 1:5), Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 49:1),, and Moses (As. Mos. 1:14), Paul, knows that he has been chosen by, God. From the very beginning, this, election was for the purpose of, Paul’s preaching the gospel
Page 329 :
among the Gentiles,[22] a, fulfillment of the will of God, already expressed in the prophets, (Rom. 1:2–5)., The Gospel: Origin and Content, The gospel is about the Son of God,, Jesus Christ, and his twofold origin:, God declared Jesus of Nazareth,, descended from David, to be Lord, and Christ through his resurrection, from the dead. The Jesus-Christhistory is a striking parallel to, Paul’s own life. “Just as by the, revelation at Damascus Paul, became what he was destined to be,, so by the resurrection the human, being Jesus became what God had, declared him to be. Each had been, previously appointed to his, respective office by God (Paul,, ἀφορίζειν [‘set apart for’]; Jesus,, ὁρίζειν [‘declare to be’]). Neither, exercised his office from birth but, was installed in his respective, office by a particular, miraculous, act of God (Paul, καλεῖν [‘call’];
Page 330 :
Jesus, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν [‘by, resurrection from the dead’]).”[23], By this paralleling of himself and, Jesus and with the attributes, mentioned in Rom. 1:1, Paul is not, only emphasizing the continuity in, God’s saving acts. He is suggesting, to the Romans that they see in the, letter more than Paul’s own, introduction of himself; they, should read it as the development, and realization of the gospel, instituted by God in Jesus Christ., The gospel did not come to Paul, through human mediation but was, revealed to him directly by God, through the Christ event. Therefore, the gospel is not at his own, disposal; rather, Paul may and, must serve it, and what he is to do, with his life is already determined, for him by the gospel. Paul, formulates this priestly dimension, of his ministry in 15:15–16, where, he returns to the theme of the, prescript: “Nevertheless on some, points I have written to you rather
Page 331 :
boldly by way of reminder, because, of the grace given me by God to be, a minister of Christ Jesus to the, Gentiles in the priestly service of, the gospel of God, so that the, offering of the Gentiles may be, acceptable, sanctified by the Holy, Spirit.” In contrast to the Levitical, priests in the Jerusalem temple,, Paul brings no material sacrifice to, the altar; the Gentile believers are, the acceptable offering he presents, to God. Paul understands God’s, establishment of the gospel and, God’s calling of Paul to be apostle, to the Gentiles to be acts of God’s, grace in salvation history that, precede and initiate the faith of, Jews and Gentiles. The apostle, develops this fundamental insight, in the thesis of the Letter to the, Romans: “For I am not ashamed of, the gospel; it is the power of God, for salvation to everyone who has, faith, to the Jew first and also to, the Greek. For in it the, righteousness of God is revealed
Page 332 :
through faith for faith; as it is, written, ‘The one who is righteous, will live by faith’” (1:16–17)., The Gospel as Saving Power Paul, defines the gospel as δύναµις θεοῦ[24], and thereby designates its, theocentric nature as the decisive, structural feature of his, Christology. In the powerful event, of Jesus Christ, God definitively, reveals who he is. In the linguistic, usage of both the Greek world and, the Old Testament, power is a, characteristic of deity. Psalm 67:12, LXX (Ps. 68:11)[25] is very close to, the Pauline argumentation: “With, much power the Lord will give his, word to those who announce the, good news” (κύριος δώσει ῥῆµα τοῖς, εὐαγγελιζοµένοις δυνάµει πολλῇ). In Rom., 1:17 the apostle cites Hab. 2:4, and, so he could also have had Hab. 3:19, LXX in mind: κύριος ὁ θεὸς δύναµίς µου, (God the Lord is my power). Finally,, the common use of δύναµις and
Page 333 :
σωτηρία points to Ps. 139:8 LXX (Ps., 140:7): κύριε κύριε δύναµις τῆς σωτηρίας µου, (O Lord God, the strength of my, salvation). The plethora of, allusions and citations shows, clearly that behind Rom. 1:16–17, stands the Scripture, read from, Paul’s christological point of view., Paul finds it declared already here, that God’s message comes in, power. The apostle brings this idea, to a sharp point: the gospel is not, mere information about God’s, saving plan but is itself a part of, that plan because it is the powerful, earthly representation of the God, who saves. God’s saving act takes, place in the gospel, whose goal is, the σωτηρία (salvation, deliverance), of Jews and Gentiles. Paul thereby, designates the decisive motif of his, evangelistic ministry and his, concept of worldwide mission. In, view of the fact that all humanity, has fallen under the power of ἁµαρτία, and the wrath of God already being, revealed, the gospel must be
Page 334 :
proclaimed to all nations, throughout the world so that they, can be saved. This is why Paul, orchestrates his missionary, program, which extends from, Jerusalem to Illyricum (15:19b),, [26] then via Rome to Spain, (15:28). He does this with the, consciousness that it is the risen, Christ who acts in Paul’s word and, deed (15:18), for the preaching of, the gospel takes place “by the, power of signs and wonders, by the, power of the Spirit of God” (15:19a,, ἐν δυνάµει σηµείων καὶ τεράτων, ἐν δυνάµει, πνεύµατος). The power of God, which, has already raised Jesus Christ, from the dead, now continues to, work visibly through signs and, wonders in the apostle’s worldwide, preaching of the gospel.[27], Human beings respond in faith to God’s, loving action on behalf of the world through, the gospel (1:16–17). The apostle, understands faith as a saving and thus lifegiving power and gift of God that attains its
Page 335 :
goal when human beings accept the gospel, according to God’s will. The gospel changes, the soteriological status of those who hear it,, for faith comes by hearing the good news, and knows itself to have been created by the, gospel. With the phrase Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ, Ἕλληνι (to the Jew first and also to the Greek), in 1:16, Paul views humanity in its polarity as, a matter of salvation history, whereby Ἰουδαίῳ, τε πρῶτον (to the Jew first) already signals the, problematic of Rom. 9–11. The promise of, God distinguishes Israel from all other, peoples, it stands in a special relation to God,, so that God’s eschatological act of salvation, in Jesus Christ raises the question of the, destiny of Israel in a way that cannot be, avoided. Only the saving gospel grants the, believer the righteousness of God, which, excludes any righteousness based on doing, the works of the law.[28] In 1:16–17 Paul, brings the concept of, righteousness/justification directly into the, image of God and makes it the basis of his, argumentation. The present-tense, ἀποκαλύπτεται indicates that this righteousness, is not a reality that will appear only in the, future but is already revealed in the here and
Page 336 :
now: in the Pauline preaching of the gospel, of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, Christ. To show that these claims are, scriptural, Paul again cites Hab. 2:4 (cf. Gal., 3:11). In contrast to Jewish tradition, the, apostle does not refer the prophet’s word to, the intentional keeping of the laws, from, which righteousness would then follow.[29], For him, human righteousness is, rather, the, result of the righteousness of God, encountered in the gospel and accepted in, faith. As in Gal. 3:11, here also Paul makes a, sharp distinction between observance of the, Torah and faith, thereby annulling a, fundamental conviction of ancient Judaism., The thesis expressed in Rom. 1:16–17, makes clear that the whole letter is to be, read as a comprehensive unfolding of the, Pauline gospel. With this thesis Paul, prepares the reader to understand what, follows, where the gospel of Jesus Christ will, be developed as the righteousness by faith, that leads to life. The Letter to the Romans, should be read as an unfolding development, of the various aspects of an irreversible line:, gospel–faith and justification/righteousness–, life.
Page 337 :
12.4 Knowledge of God among Jews, and Gentiles In Rom. 1:18–3:20, Paul turns to the question of the, addressees of his worldwide, preaching of the gospel.[30] There, is a striking parallel between the, revelation of the righteousness of, God (1:17) and the wrath of God, (1:18), but this in itself does not, indicate that they have the same, scope. Paul does not understand, the revelation of God’s wrath as an, aspect of the gospel, for wrath, does not come from the gospel but, “from heaven.” The apostle can, describe the gospel without, speaking of God’s wrath., Certainly, the humanity to whom, this gospel is directed is in a state, of cognitive and ethical, perversion. But for all that, the, immoral conduct of human beings, is merely a symptom of their truly, disastrous state: humans fail to, acknowledge God and in this very, way bring about the ruination of, their own existence.[31] They
Page 338 :
suppress the truth (1:18) and, thereby reveal the boundlessness, of their own evil, for whoever, disdains the truth knows what it, is, but is not willing to, acknowledge it. Humanity sets, itself against what is clearly, revealed: the revelation of God, through and in the creation. God, does not keep himself hidden, either from his creatures or in, creation, and so human beings are, in a position to perceive this, revelation. The knowledge of God, thus appears not merely as a, possibility but as the reality in, which the whole world already, finds itself. Paul is not concerned, to prove the existence of God; for, him, this is the self-evident, presupposition that demonstrates, the godlessness of humanity Those, who believe in the gods while they,, however, deny honor to the one, God reveal their own godlessness., In 1:18–32 Paul shows this by, taking up the critique of Gentile
Page 339 :
life already elaborated by, Hellenistic Diaspora Judaism.[32], The Blindedness of Gentiles In, their foolishness and blindness, the, Gentiles fail to recognize who is the, only true God. In their false, worship, they turn to transitory, idols and exchange the glory of the, one true God “for images, resembling a mortal human being, or birds or four-footed animals or, reptiles” (Rom. 1:23). This, astonishing conduct of humanity, calls for an explanation, which Paul, attempts to provide on several, levels. He begins with the assertion, that sin leads to more sin., Individual transgressions release, the power of sin and lead to, enslavement under sin. The apostle, goes a step further: according to, 1:24–27, God himself gives, humanity over to blindness. God, not only permits humanity to go, astray but actively effects it himself, (cf. Jer. 2:5; Ps. 93:11).[33] Wrath
Page 340 :
is thus inherently present in the, revelation of God, and not only, when it is seen simply as the, negative foil for God’s, righteousness. God reacts to, humanity’s inconsistent conduct;, God does not want human beings to, come to him with such inconsistent, conduct, for God is the Creator.[34], Paul’s demonstration that, in view of the, present revelation of the righteousness of, God in Jesus Christ, the Gentiles are without, excuse is based on his fundamental, anthropological and cosmological, convictions.[35] For Paul, persons first, become what they essentially are as human, beings when they stand in their proper, relation to God as creatures to Creator., People miss their life’s goal and lose the, standard by which they conduct their lives, when they do not let God be for them the, only true God. A false understanding of God, results in a false understanding of what it, means to be human. With this is associated a, specific understanding of the nature of, reality. Because for Paul Creator and
Page 341 :
creation belong most closely together, the, creation in its present being can be, recognized only in view of its having-beencreated. For Paul, there is no knowledge of, “nature” apart from God the Creator. Such a, view would mean the destruction of nature, because nature would be separated from its, origin. When they deny their origin, which, can be so clearly perceived, human beings, and nature are equally alienated from God., For Paul, the godless world is a profoundly, chaotic, dreadful world because humanity, and nature have turned away from the power, of God, who alone grants life., The Blindedness of Jews The gospel, addresses not only the Gentiles in, their blindness to the knowledge of, God but also the Jews imprisoned, in their sin (cf. Rom. 2:1–3:8). Paul, attempts to prove to them that, possession of the Torah by no, means saves them from the wrath, of God. In doing so, he employs the, typical pattern of thought he had, previously used in his dialogue with, the Gentiles. If the Gentiles
Page 342 :
disqualify themselves by their, polytheism, the Jews do the same, by their fundamental contradiction, between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, (cf. 2:3). The contrast between, their advantages, which Paul does, not deny, and their failure leads to, the judgment of God for Jews just, as in the case of the Gentiles (cf., 2:5–10). Because God will repay, according to each one’s deeds, (2:6),[36] Israel’s priority, based on, the gift of the Torah, turns out, ultimately to be a disadvantage, because Israel does not keep its, commands. By taking up the, concept of judgment according to, one’s works, Paul adopts an idea, widespread in ancient Judaism (cf., Prov. 24:12; Pss. Sol. 9:5),[37] but, he applies it in a specific way. For, example, whereas in Pss. Sol. 2:16–, 18 judgment according to one’s, works is understood as God’s, righteous dealing with the, Gentiles,[38] Paul now turns this, idea against the Jews themselves.
Page 343 :
Precisely because God is no, respecter of persons and judges, people according to their works,, only those will be justified who do, the law/Torah (cf. Rom. 2:13b). In, 2:13b Paul acknowledges the, possibility of one who does what, the law requires, but how is this, possibility related to the concept, that dominates the letter as a, whole, that justification comes by, faith alone without works of the, law/Torah? The problem becomes, sharper in 2:14, for Gentiles too, can be doers of the law, since the, law is written on their hearts, and, can thus attain salvation apart, from the redemptive act of Christ, (cf. also 2:26). This tension, clarifies the position from which, Paul makes his argument. He is not, finally concerned with the, theoretical possibility of fulfilling, the requirement of the law, even if, he acknowledges this is possible, for both Jews and Gentiles, but only, with the actual reality that the
Page 344 :
efforts of all human beings are, doomed by the law/Torah. This, doom is the result of sin, as shown, by 3:9: προῃτιασάµεθα γὰρ Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ, Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ᾽ ἁµαρτίαν εἶναι (we have, already charged that all, both Jews, and Greeks, are under the power of, sin; cf. also 3:20). From this point, of view, it becomes clear that, judgment according to works and, justification by faith alone without, works belong together. Since,, because of the power of sin, human, beings can exhibit in the judgment, no works that will justify them,[39], salvation comes exclusively, through faith in Jesus Christ, the, resurrected Son of God. God alone, effects the justification of human, beings by his grace because human, beings are and remain sinners and, are therefore always in need of, God’s justifying pronouncement of, acquittal.[40] Standing before God, in the judgment, no human being, can achieve this pronouncement of, acquittal by his or her own
Page 345 :
accomplishments but can only, receive it as something freely, granted in the gospel and given by, faith in the saving act of God in, Jesus Christ. This faith manifests, its effective presence in love, and, so the Christian’s responsibility to, give account for his or her life to, the future Judge is not rendered, superfluous.[41] The external, possession of the law/Torah is not, decisive in this happening if the, hearer of the law is not at the same, time a doer of the law. This, fundamental principle applies to, Jews and Gentiles alike., In order to point out to the Jews their true, situation, in 2:14–15 Paul takes up the GrecoRoman idea of the νόµος ἄγραφος (unwritten, law).[42] This concept was also widespread, in Hellenistic Judaism, where it affirmed that, there are orders in nature, established by, God and accessible to reason, that are, identical with the commands of the Torah., With the help of reason, people can comply, with God’s will by observing the νόµος φύσεως
Page 346 :
(natural law), even though they do not, possess the Torah. The law here appears as a, constituent element of an orderly world, so, that it gives Jews no advantage over, Gentiles. Neither the Jews, who possess the, law/Torah as an external object, nor the, Gentiles, who have the law written on their, hearts, are actually doers of the law/Torah,, and therefore they fall under God’s righteous, judgment. So, too, circumcision does not, justify a special place for the Jews, for,, according to 2:25, ἡ περιτοµή σου ἀκροβυστία, γέγονεν (your circumcision has become, uncircumcision). In 2:28–29 Paul even goes, so far as to redefine the term Ἰουδαῖος: “For a, person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor, is true circumcision something external and, physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is, one inwardly, and real circumcision is a, matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not, literal.” Thus physical circumcision does not, make one a Jew; only circumcision of the, heart, a spiritual reality, indicates who is a, Jew and who is not.[43] “The true Jew is thus, —the Christian convert.”[44] What, then, is, the basis for Israel’s special relation to God?, It is the promises of God that form the
Page 347 :
foundation for Israel’s special status (3:1)., Israel is and remains the chosen people of, God but no longer has any soteriological, priority in comparison with the Gentiles., Instead, for both Jews and Gentiles,, subjection to the power of sin reveals the, difference between what one should be and, what one is (cf. 3:9). For Paul, this, fundamental anthropological state of affairs, appears to be already clearly expressed in, the Scripture (cf. 3:10–18).[45] When Paul, concludes his wide-ranging argumentation, with a combination of texts from the Old, Testament, he incorporates God’s previous, authoritative pronouncements in order to, legitimate and clarify his own main points., The reality of every human being is, characterized by its hostility to God., In 2:1–3:8 Paul places the Jewish selfunderstanding radically in question., Although he acknowledges the special, position of Israel to which the Scripture, testifies, he in fact limits it to the past. In, order to make this argument work, the, apostle constructs a redefinition of the law, and circumcision.[46] Both gifts that, originally distinguished Israel from all other
Page 348 :
peoples are universalized and spiritualized:, the knowledge of the νόμος ἄγραφος and the, practice of circumcision of the heart place, Israel and the Gentiles in the same status., Now both the promises and the law/Torah, are under the power of sin and become the, Jews’ accusers, and they paradoxically attain, their goal not among the Jews but among the, Christians as those spiritually “circumcised.”, Paul thus claims that God’s original and, eschatological will is fulfilled among the, Christians alone. It is difficult to imagine a, sharper criticism and challenge to Jewish, self-understanding than 2:1–3:8. Paul never, questions the validity of God’s promises, but, he does challenge the special status of Israel, inferred from these promises. In practice this, amounts to a reversal of the promises, since, they now are fulfilled among Christians and, become an accusation against Israel. For, Jews and Jewish Christians, such an, interpretation of the history of salvation as, the history of disaster for Israel was, unacceptable, and so, despite Rom. 9–11,, Romans must be read as a document, contributing to the separation of the early, Christians from the synagogue.
Page 349 :
12.5 The Righteousness of God The, theological depth of the concept of, sin expressed in Rom. 1:18–3:20, poses the unavoidable question of, how Jews and Gentiles as sinners, can escape the impending wrath of, God or whether they are already, delivered from it. Paul turns to, this question in 3:21–31, taking up, the expression previously used, only in 2 Cor. 5:21, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, and making it into the key, theological concept of the whole, letter., Major Positions in the Scholarly, Discussion The meaning of δικαιοσύνη, θεοῦ is a disputed point in recent, research.[47] Whereas R., Bultmann and H. Conzelmann, understand δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in the, anthropological context as gift,, that is, as, righteousness/justification imputed, through faith (cf. Phil. 3:9),[48] E., Käsemann and P. Stuhlmacher
Page 350 :
interpret δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as a terminus, technicus already present in Jewish, apocalyptic that Paul takes into his, own theology.[49] As a key term in, the Pauline doctrine of, justification, it is crucial for how, this doctrine is to be understood,, and is thus decisive for Pauline, theology as a whole.[50] They, rightly object, against Bultmann, and Conzelmann, that an, interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, oriented primarily to the individual, neglects the universal aspects of a, theology of creation and history., But there are also significant, objections to be raised against the, approach of Käsemann and, Stuhlmacher. The question of God’s, righteousness was indeed already, raised for Paul from the Old, Testament[51] and the literature of, ancient Judaism,[52] but δικαιοσύνη, θεοῦ was not a terminus technicus, of traditional Jewish apocalyptic., The phrase “righteousness of God”, is found in Jewish texts (cf. Deut.
Page 351 :
33:21; T. Dan 6:10; 1QS 10:25;, 11:12; 1QM 4:6), but not as a fixed, formula.[53] The statements in the, Qumran literature about the, righteousness of God do present a, parallel to Paul’s but cannot be, considered a presupposition of the, apostle’s own doctrine of, justification.[54] There was, intensive reflection on the subject, of righteousness at Qumran, on the, basis of a radicalized image of, humanity and God, but this did not, result in using “righteousness of, God” as the predominant terminus, technicus for God’s act in, establishing righteousness.[55], What is striking is, rather, that at, Qumran divine and human, righteousness was described in, several different ways., “Righteousness of God” as a, Multidimensional Concept The data, in the Pauline texts shows that, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is a multidimensional, concept. In 2 Cor. 5:21 the gift
Page 352 :
character of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, predominates; the “of” represents a, genitivus auctoris (genitive of, source).[56] Believers participate, in the substitutionary death of, Jesus Christ and are transferred by, baptism and the gift of the Spirit, into a new realm of existence. The, character of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as power, is clear in Rom. 1:17,[57] indicated, linguistically by ἀποκαλύπτεται (is, revealed).[58] Now Jesus discloses, God’s eschatological saving will,, which makes itself known, powerfully in the gospel of the, righteousness of God in Jesus, Christ for those who believe. In, Rom. 3:5 human righteousness and, the righteousness of God, (subjective genitive) stand opposed, to each other in a legal dispute., Here it is not a matter of the, righteousness of God being, revealed in the gospel,[59] but a, quality of God’s nature, who, establishes his, righteousness/justice in the
Page 353 :
judgment and proves the, unrighteousness of humanity. In, 3:21–22 δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ appears twice,, but each instance has a different, connotation. Δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 3:21 is, to be read as a revelatory concept,, meaning that in the Christ event, God has made himself known as the, one who makes (others) righteous, and establishes justice. Here the, term “righteousness of God” does, not communicate something about, God, but in it God’s revelation, takes place as an event. It is to this, epoch-making event that the law, and the prophets bear witness, so, that the law itself confirms its own, end as the source of righteousness., In 3:22 Paul is thinking of δικαιοσύνη, θεοῦ in its anthropological aspect., Faith in Jesus Christ is the form in, which the righteousness of God, (i.e., the righteousness that comes, from God) is appropriated. By faith,, Jesus is the righteousness of God, for all who believe. Whereas the, righteousness of God appears in
Page 354 :
3:21 as the universal power of God,, in 3:22 the character of God’s, righteousness as gift is the, predominant meaning.[60], Romans 3:25 is of particular significance, for understanding δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and the, Pauline doctrine of justification as a whole., [61] In 3:25–26a Paul quite intentionally, integrates a baptismal tradition[62] into the, decisive line of argument of the Letter to the, Romans in order to relate the universal, saving act of God expressed in 3:21–22 to the, personal experience of the individual, Christian. The baptismal reference is, indicated by the Pauline framework (3:24,, δικαιόω, ἀπολύτρωσις, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; 3:26, ἐν τῷ, νῦν καιρῷ) and by the concept of the once-forall forgiveness of sins found in the traditional, material. Paul takes up terminology with, ritual overtones as a way of relating the, ritual experiences of the Roman church to, his exclusive doctrine of justification. The, subjective genitive in δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ does not, merely designate a quality of God but means, the righteousness appropriate to the God, who reveals himself universally in the event
Page 355 :
of the cross, the righteousness realized in the, remission of prior sins that takes place in, baptism. Universal significance and, individual appropriation of the saving event, are seen as conditioning each other: God’s, saving act in Jesus Christ can be believed as, universally true only when it is experienced, in the particularity of one’s own existence., The tradition highlights this conjunction in, that, transcending any particular critique of, the law, it holds together these two, dimensions—God’s universal act on the, cross, and God’s presence experienced in, baptism—as the forgiveness of sins that, makes righteous., The universal dimension of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is, also seen in 10:3. Here Israel is reproached, for seeking its own righteousness, not the, righteousness that comes from God. The, chosen people closes itself off from the will, of God revealed in Jesus Christ and does not, submit to the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (subjective, genitive).[63] Instead Israel undertakes the, hopeless task of wanting to establish its own, righteousness by works of the law. God’s, action here concerns peoples, so that an, interpretation of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ focusing
Page 356 :
exclusively on the individual and neglecting, its cosmological dimension would not square, with the textual data.[64] At the same time,, Phil. 3:9 lets us see clearly that a choice, between the individual and cosmic, dimensions of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ would be just as, wrong. There Paul refers the justifying act of, God entirely to the individual existence of the, believer (Phil. 3:9a, καὶ εὑρεθῶ ἐν αὐτῷ [and be, found in him], i.e., Christ). The righteousness, of God (genitive of source: righteousness, from God) does not result from the law/Torah, but is given to human beings through faith in, Jesus Christ., Depending on the context, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is, thus to be interpreted as a universal-forensic, concept (Rom. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 25; 10:3) and as, a concept expressing transfer and, participation (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:22; Phil., 3:9). The “righteousness of God” concisely, designates both the revelatory act and the, act of the believer’s incorporation and, participation in God’s justifying/rightwising, act in Jesus Christ. The limited use and, application of the expression,[65] the, restrictive function apparent in the, predominantly negative formulations,[66] its
Page 357 :
concentration in the letter to the Romans,, and the variety of meanings, depending on, the particular context in which the term is, found, show clearly that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is not, the key concept of Pauline theology as a, whole.[67] Paul can fully set forth his, theology without having to fall back on the, expression δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ. In the Letter to the, Romans, “righteousness of God” does, function as a major theological concept, because, in the wake of the Galatian crisis, and in view of the delivery of the collection in, Jerusalem, Paul must give his Christology a, theocentric profile and provide a solution to, the problematic of the law: the Christ event, manifests the righteousness that comes from, God and is appropriated by faith, the, righteousness that alone allows human, beings to stand justified before God and that, thus removes any soteriological significance, from the law/Torah (cf. Rom. 6:14b). Since, designating the righteousness of God as, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ χωρὶς νόµου (the righteousness of, God apart from law, 3:21) has abrogated the, law/Torah as a way to salvation, in Romans, Paul can arrive at a partially new evaluation, of the law/Torah. This new evaluation can be
Page 358 :
interpreted, on the one hand, as purely, antinomianism endangering the Christian, community and, on the other hand, as, preserving the central theological values, resulting from his dispute with the Galatian, Judaists., The Law of Faith In Rom. 3:27, in, contrasting the hopeless situation, of humanity enslaved to sin (3:20), with the saving potential of the, righteousness of God that has, appeared in Jesus Christ (3:26–21),, there suddenly appears an, expression significant for Paul’s, understanding of the law, νόµος, πίστεως (the law of faith). Does νόµος, here mean the Old Testament, Torah, or is the word here used in, the sense of “rule/order/norm”?, [68] A decision can be made only, on philological grounds, and on the, basis of the data found in 3:27, itself, not by bringing in one’s prior, understanding of Paul’s theology of, the law. Philologically, the question, διὰ ποίου νόµου; (through what sort of
Page 359 :
law?) presupposes a generic, understanding of νόµος; that is, Paul, here assumes there are a number, of different kinds of laws.[69] This, linguistic observation already, indicates that νόµος here cannot, refer to the Torah given at Sinai., Regarding its content, νόµος appears, in 3:27 as the means (διὰ) through, which boasting is excluded., Moreover, the verb ἐκκλείω in the, aorist passive (it has been, excluded; NRSV, “it is excluded”), refers to a single event in the past., The acting subject in this event is, God, for it is not the right conduct, of the believer with respect to the, law/Torah or the revitalization of, the law/Torah through faith that is, up for discussion but νόµος as a, means of a single event that, excludes καύχησις (boasting). Then, νόµος πίστεως can only mean God’s, saving act in Jesus Christ, for the, Old Testament Torah is not the, means chosen by God to exclude, human boasting once and for all.
Page 360 :
Νόµος must thus here be translated, as “rule/order/norm.”[70] Faith, appears as the new norm to which, Christians are committed and that, excludes any boasting of one’s own, achievements before God., In 3:28 the expression νόµος πίστεως is taken, up and continued with the words δικαιοῦσθαι, πίστει ἄνθρωπον (a person is justified by faith), and interpreted under the aspect of works, (χωρὶς ἔργων νόµου [apart from works, prescribed by law]). The righteousness that, comes through works of the Torah does not, justify the person; faith in the justifying act, of God in Jesus Christ opens to the person, the status of δικαιοῦσθαι (being justified). The, event of justification is thereby withdrawn, from the sphere of human action; it occurs in, the Christ event and can only be accepted by, faith. Paul emphasizes the universal, significance of this event by using the word, ἄνθρωπος (person, human being), and, righteousness/justification does not have the, character of deed but that of a gift. Why?, The immediate context provides no answer to, this question, but Paul continues his
Page 361 :
argument under the premise of 3:20:, because the law/Torah has been taken over, by the power of sin, no one can be justified, by the law/Torah. Paul emphasizes the, universal dimension of this event in 3:30 with, the affirmation of the one God (εἷς ὁ θεός [God, is one]) who justifies both Gentiles and Jews, by faith. Paul does not thereby deny the, election of Israel but abolishes the, particularism of salvation, for now the, Gentiles, too, participate by faith in God’s, gift of election. Finally, if God is one, then all, who believe in God, both Jews and Gentiles,, are one. Does this removal of the barriers, that had signified the exclusive election of, Israel mean a removal of the law/Torah, itself? In 3:31 Paul emphatically denies this, inference, which seems to lie so close at, hand, and affirms the opposite: µὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ, νόµον ἱστάνοµεν (By no means! On the, contrary, we uphold the law). This tensionfilled line of argument becomes clear only, when one observes Paul’s overriding goal: he, must integrate the Torah into his argument, as the gift of God without thereby detracting, from the exclusive soteriological function of, Christology. He attains this through two
Page 362 :
arguments: (1) The Scripture itself says in, Gen. 15:6 (cf. Rom. 4:3) that righteousness, comes by faith. We may learn from the figure, of Abraham that faith does not destroy the, Torah.[71] (2) For Paul, the love command is, the content, center, and fulfillment of the, law/Torah (cf. Rom. 13:8–20). By pointing to, ἀγάπη (love), the law/Torah changes its, character and its original significance, for, now it is determined by love and summed up, in the one love commandment.[72] Through, this transformation of the Torah into the love, commandment, Paul reclaims fulfillment of, the Torah for Christians without attributing, to it any sort of soteriological quality., Moreover, the Torah as concentrated into the, concept of love can now be combined with, the Hellenistic conception of law and thus be, integrated into the world of Gentile, Christianity.[73], 12.6 Paul and the Old Testament For, Paul, the Old Testament (the, Septuagint) is Holy Scripture that, narrates the story of Israel as the, saving activity of God. The new
Page 363 :
evaluation of God’s dealing with, Israel, necessitated by Paul’s, Christ hermeneutic, allowed him, to interpret the Old Testament, within a new framework of, understanding that the Christ, event had altered. He reads the, Old Testament christologically,, approaching it with the question, of how it bears witness to the, Christ event. Since he claims the, Scripture as a witness for the, gospel (Rom. 1:16; 3:21),[74] he, must concentrate on the texts,, images, and characters in the Old, Testament that can be understood, as announcements or, prefigurations of the Christ event., This approach brings Hab. 2:4b, and the figure of Abraham into, prominence. For Paul, they, represent a theological program,, and by means of them, he, illustrates the historical and, theological anchoring of his, doctrine of justification in the Old, Testament.
Page 364 :
Two Key Texts Paul’s interpretation, of Gen. 15:6 and Hab. 2:4b means, that all the other texts in the Old, Testament are virtually invalidated., [75] He understands Hab. 2:4b LXX, in Gal. 3:11 and Rom. 1:17 in such, wise that πίστις (faith, faithfulness), refers not to the faithfulness of, God to the righteous who live by, the Torah but to faith in Jesus, Christ as the justifying event. Paul, presents the figure of Abraham to, prove that Paul’s exclusive doctrine, of justification is according to the, Scripture[76] and to show that, Abraham is already represented, paradigmatically in the Bible as an, authoritative model of justification, by faith. The whole of ancient, Judaism identified with Abraham as, representing God’s election,[77], for not only Israel (cf. 4 Ezra, 3:13ff.) but also the proselytes have, him as their father.[78] Before, Israel received the written Torah,, Abraham was already following it, (cf. Gen. 26; 2 Bar. 57:2; T. Benj.
Page 365 :
10:4). After all, Abraham had been, repeatedly tested by God and each, time found to be faithful and, righteous (cf. Neh. 9:8; Sir. 44:20;, Jub. 17:15–18; 18:16; 19:9)., Because Abraham did the will of, God, he received the attribute, “righteous” (cf. Jub. 21:2–3)., Especially his response to the, command to sacrifice Isaac (Gen., 22) was regarded as an act of, faithfulness and righteousness., Paul extracts from the Abraham, traditions only what fits the goals, of his argument, namely, the, pronouncement of righteousness in, Gen. 15:6, the promises in Gen., 15:5 and 17:5, and the sequence of, the pronouncement of, righteousness (Gen. 15:6) and, circumcision (Gen. 17). Differently, than in Judaism, Abraham was not, credited with righteousness on the, basis of the unity of Torah and, works, faith and obedience,, obedience and reward, earnings, and blessing.[79] In contrast,
Page 366 :
because Abraham trusted the, promise of God, this was reckoned, to him as righteousness (Rom., 4:3b). In contrast to Jewish, tradition (cf. Jub. 30:17–23; 1, Macc. 2:52; Ps. 69:28–29), Paul, dissolves the connection between, being reckoned (λογίζεσθαι) as, righteous and human achievement., For him, everything depends on the, sovereign act of God. There are no, claims on God but only an, appropriation of God’s promise by, faith. This was the way Abraham, himself acted, against all human, experience trusting the promise of, God that his descendants would be, as numerous as the stars. The, innermost essence of faith is an, unconditioned trust in the God who, justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5)., The act of faith is found precisely, in acknowledging the righteous, judgment of God on ungodly, human beings. The grammatical, form of ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει (lit. he, was made strong in faith; NRSV,
Page 367 :
“he grew strong in his faith,” 4:20), is a divine passive, signaling that it, was God who gave Abraham the, power to trust in God’s promise, against all external appearance. So,, too, on the issue of circumcision,, Abraham functions for Paul as a, witness to God’s justifying action, through faith alone (cf. Rom. 4:9–, 12). For Paul, the chronological, gap between Gen. 15:6 and Gen. 17, has theological significance., Whereas, from the Jewish, perspective, circumcision was, considered a comprehensive proof, of Abraham’s faithfulness in, response to God’s command, Paul, separates circumcision from the, event of Abraham’s being justified, by faith. Justification by faith, preceded circumcision, so that, circumcision can be understood as, only a later acknowledgment and, confirmation of the justification by, faith Abraham had already, received. Paul radicalized this view, in Rom. 4:11b, where Abraham is
Page 368 :
first of all the father of the, uncircumcised, so that he only, becomes father of the circumcised, somewhat belatedly in Rom. 4:12., Even here this happens not because, they are circumcised but when they, live by faith. Paul thus here, presents a sharp contradiction to, the thinking that was current in, ancient Judaism about salvation, history.[80], “Promise” as a Key Category Paul’s, abolition of Israel’s understanding, of election necessarily raises the, question of the function of the, Torah. To respond to this pressing, question, Paul again takes up the, concept of ἐπαγγελία (promise) he, had already used in Gal. 3:[81] the, promise becomes a prototype of the, gospel. Abraham did not receive, the promise through the Torah but, only as believer and hearer.[82] For, Paul, Torah obedience and, attaining the promise are mutually, exclusive actions (Rom. 4:14).
Page 369 :
Because no human being is in the, situation of being able to fulfill the, Torah, it turns against those who, practice it: “For the law brings, wrath; but where there is no law,, neither is there violation” (4:15)., Inheriting the promise is bound to, faith, for in his word God himself, has opened up the gospel to all, peoples (4:13, 16). Righteousness, therefore comes by faith, and, Abraham becomes the archetype of, all believers, both for Jewish, Christians and for Gentile, Christians (4:16–17).[83] The, contemporizing tendency of Paul’s, handling of the Old Testament, becomes clear in 4:23–25.[84], Genesis 15:6 is aimed at, contemporary believers; it was for, their sake that the text was written, (Rom. 4:24, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι᾽ ἡμᾶς [but for, ours also]). What happened to, Abraham as an outstanding, individual figure of prehistory is, now put into effect in the, eschatological time.[85] Not only
Page 370 :
Jews but Gentiles, too, now come to, faith in the God who raised Jesus, Christ from the dead., The Old Testament opens up to Paul in the, light of the revelation in Christ, with the, concept of promise as the determining, hermeneutical category. He demonstrates, this fundamental reality with the figure of, Abraham. God is now fulfilling the promises, made to Abraham, since the promise of many, descendants is being fulfilled in the vast, number of Gentiles who are coming to faith., Abraham functions not only as precedent for, justification by faith but as father of the, Pauline Gentile mission.[86] But Paul does, not explicitly take up the promise/fulfillment, schema; the figure of Abraham is, rather, an, anticipatory representation of what is now, achieving its goal in the Christ event. This, does not mean that Paul is here the advocate, of one continuous line of salvation history,, for the sole point of comparison is the stance, of faith shared by Abraham and Christians of, the present. The continuum between then, and now does not run through history but is, grounded exclusively in the act of God, who
Page 371 :
then as now justifies the ungodly by faith., The only historical continuum is established, by the promises of God; that is, only the, divine “I” constitutes the continuity between, the Old Testament and the New Testament., [87] For Paul, there is no history of salvation, but only saving events that occur in history, and give it direction and meaning. Precisely, the figure of Abraham shows that God acts, contingently and that it is not possible for, any group to claim God’s action exclusively, for itself. Everything rests in God’s own, hands, whose promises may be trusted now,, as they were then, despite all appearances to, the contrary., 12.7 The Presence of Salvation:, Baptism and Righteousness The, new reality of salvation in Jesus, Christ proclaimed by Paul leads, unavoidably to this question:, where is this salvation concretely, available, and how can it be, experienced in a world that stands, under the continuing power of sin, and death? The fundamental
Page 372 :
change in the world situation and, the new individual existence of the, believer likewise call for a, universal and biographical, verification. Why does the world, stand under the power of sin, how, does the change of lordships from, death to life take place, how do, believers come to participate in, this event, what is the power that, determines the new life? Paul, poses these questions in Rom. 5–8, in a very complex train of thought., [88] At the beginning stands the, postulate of the new being:, justification by faith is a definitive, reality that determines the, actuality of the Christian’s life, (5:1). Jesus Christ makes possible, access to God and thus to grace, and salvation. Assurance of the, new being eludes any attempt at, demonstration by this-worldly, criteria and knows itself to be, borne by hope alone (cf. 5:2–4)., Hope attains its power from God’s, love granted to the believer as a
Page 373 :
gift (5:5), which provides the, courage to believe despite all, appearances to the contrary. From, this comes Paul’s perspective:, “For if while we were enemies, we, were reconciled to God through, the death of his Son, much more, surely, having been reconciled,, will we be saved by his life” (5:10)., [89], The Adam/Christ Typology In view, of this surpassing hope, the, pressing question becomes even, more urgent than before: how is, the reality of death in the world to, be understood? Paul turns to this, fundamental problem, addressing it, with the Adam/Christ typology of, Rom. 5:12–21.[90] It answers the, question of how death came into, the world and how it was overcome, and surpassed by Christ’s, redemptive act. Here Adam and, Christ are antitheses sharply, juxtaposed to each other, for they, are contrasted in time, space, and
Page 374 :
being.[91] Through Adam sin, entered the world, and thereby, came death (5:12ab). All humanity, and the cosmos itself are negatively, determined by this event (5:12c),, so that inevitably the reality of the, power of sin in the world led to the, concrete participation in sin in the, case of every human life prior to, the coming of Christ (5:12d).[92], The character of sin as a concrete, act is the result of its character as, unavoidable destiny.[93] Adam and, Christ are antithetical figures in, both their essential reality and, their actual acts. Whereas Adam is, the representative of sin, death,, and the fallen state of humanity in, subjection to these powers, the, possibility of eschatological life is, revealed in and through Christ (cf., 5:17, 18, 21). The term τύπος (type,, antitype, counterpart) in 5:14, signals the understanding Paul, intends: “Adam is for Paul a τύπος,, an advance presentation, through, which God intimates the future
Page 375 :
Adam, namely, Christ in his, universal work of salvation.”[94], The argumentation is determined, by antithesis and discontinuity,, such that death and life, Adam and, Christ are mutually exclusive, realms of being that have only their, opposites in common.[95] The, law/Torah stand on the side of, Adam by provoking and increasing, sin (cf. 5:13, 20).[96] It does not, initially entangle humanity in the, web of sin and death, but it does, activate it and make human beings, aware of this entanglement. The, sovereignty of Christ breaks the, sovereignty of sin and death (cf., 5:17–21), so that now life reigns in, Jesus Christ. It is this affirmation, of the presence of new life that is, the real goal of what 5:12–21 wants, to say. This then raises the, question of how Christians enter, into this new life beyond the ruling, power of θάνατος καὶ ἁµαρτία (death and, sin). The universal-mythical, representation needs to be
Page 376 :
concretely individualized. The, relation of 5:12–21 and Rom. 6 is to, be stated as follows: 5:12–21 is the, factual and argumentative, presupposition for Rom. 6, and, Rom. 6, in turn, is the necessary, explication of 5:12–21.[97], Baptism as Transfer Event Both the, dethroning of sin and concrete, incorporation into the realm where, the soteriological, ecclesiological,, ethical, social, and biographical, dimensions of this event are, effective happen as discrete, oncefor-all historical events. Cross,, resurrection, and baptism are, related to each other not only as, cause and effect but the original, event is constantly present in its, effects. The point of departure for, the Pauline line of argument in, Rom. 6 is the relation of sin and, grace.[98] They stand antithetically, over against each other, for the, Christian lives in the realm of χάρις, (grace) and is thus dead to sin.
Page 377 :
Paul justifies this claim by, appealing to baptism, which, functions as baptism into the death, of Jesus and means that the, Christian has also died to sin. Paul, attempts to illustrate this decisive, event in the Christian life with the, help of traditional material (6:3b–, 5).[99] The expression ὅσοι, ἐβαπτίσθηµεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (all of us, who have been baptized into Christ, Jesus) designates the incorporation, of the baptized into the saving, work of Jesus Christ and into the, realm where this salvation is, operative. That the εἰς (into) should, be understood in terms of an, objectively real space is indicated, by the parallel formulations εἰς τὸν, θάνατον (into [his] death) in 6:3b and, 4a and the expression in 6:2, πῶς ἔτι, ζήσοµεν ἐν αὐτῇ; (how can we . . . go on, living in it [sin]?), which, presuppose a force field or sphere, of influence.[100] The images of, incorporation and participation, take up and expand the idea of a
Page 378 :
transfer from one legal sphere to, another.[101] The death of Jesus, Christ is made present in baptism,, so that the individual Christian can, understand what takes place in the, baptismal event as a sacramental, reexperiencing of the death of, Jesus present in this event. Only, the death of Jesus Christ ultimately, overcame sin; it is now present and, effective in baptism through the, power of the Spirit, effecting the, death of the Christian to sin as, something that happens in reality, (not merely “in symbol”). The, death of Jesus Christ on Golgotha, is not identical with the, sacramental reexperiencing of this, death resulting in the Christian’s, own death, but baptism is indeed, the place where the salvific, meaning of the death of Jesus, becomes reality for the Christian., Here the body of sin is destroyed, and the new life is constituted, a, life that is lived κατὰ πνεῦµα, (according to the Spirit).
Page 379 :
Romans 6:4 enhances the image of, participation already developed in 6:3b,, because both the prefix σύν (with) and the, explanatory ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως clause (just as . . ., so) points to a substantial parallel between, Christ and the one who is baptized. The, expression συνετάφηµεν . . . αὐτῷ (we have been, buried with him) emphasizes the fully salvific, character of baptism, for baptism is effective, participation in the whole saving event,, which includes the resurrection of Jesus, Christ. This is clearly indicated by the, purpose clause in 6:4b–c, introduced by ἵνα, and structured by ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως. The idea, that what happens to believers corresponds, to Christ’s resurrection in terms of both its, actuality and its place on the time scale, would have required that the initial part of, the formulation be carried through, consistently: ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐγερθῶµεν (just as . . . so we also have been, raised from the dead).[102] Paul does not, draw this conclusion but determines the, present and future being of the Christian, with the expression οὕτως καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐν καινότητι, ζωῆς περιπατήσωµεν (so we too might walk in, newness of life)—characterizing the new life
Page 380 :
of the Christian in terms of ethics and, oriented to the future.[103] The result of, dying to sin is not a change in the substance, of which human life is composed. People are, not taken out of their previous network of, connections; they continue to live under the, conditions of a world that is passing away., The new reality of freedom from sin stands, under an eschatological reservation; it is not, demonstrable by this-worldly criteria and, must be maintained within the conditions of, history. Those who believe and have been, baptized are not yet risen, but they still, participate in a real way in the powers of, Jesus’ resurrection, which permeate and, transform the whole cosmos (cf. 8:18ff.). By, no means, however, does this qualification, relativize the real transformations in the life, of the baptized.[104], The ideas developed in 6:3–4 point to the, mystery cults as their milieu in cultural, history.[105] The following text was stamped, on two small gold leaves found in a woman’s, grave from the late fourth century BCE:, “Now you have died, and now you are born,, thrice blessed, on this day. Say to, Persephone that Bacchus himself redeems
Page 381 :
you. You are speeding to the milk like a bull., You are hurrying quickly to the milk. You, rush to the milk like a ram. You have wine,, you blessed one, without measure. And, solemnities await you beneath the earth,, with the other blessed ones.”[106] Apuleius, reports, in the context of an Isis initiation, “I, drew near to the confines of death, treading, the very threshold of Proserpine. I was borne, through all the elements and returned to, earth again. At the dead of night I saw the, sun shining brightly. I approached the gods, above and the gods below, and worshipped, them face to face.”[107] Firmicus Maternus, transmits the saying of a priest of the, mysteries: “‘Rejoice, O mystai! Lo, our god, appears as saved! And we shall find, salvation, springing from our woes.’”[108], The connection between these texts and, Rom. 6:3–4 lies in the concept of an, identification of the initiate with the destiny, of the deity. Although the New Testament, ideas are not derived from these texts in, terms of genealogy or analogy,[109] they do, illustrate the intellectual milieu within which, the imagery and concepts developed in 6:3–4, could be thought out and received.[110]
Page 382 :
The idea that a uniform pattern embraces, baptized believers and the destiny of Jesus, Christ is continued in 6:5 by σύμφυτος (grown, together with / united with) and ὡμοίωμα, (likeness).[111] Baptism is the place of, effective and full participation in the Christ, event. In 6:6 Paul underscores the starting, point for this line of thought, separation from, sin, by speaking now of the παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος, (old human being; NRSV, “our old self”),, whose body of sin is destroyed in baptism., Said positively, a life in righteousness follows, being freed from sin. Paul gives a variation, on this thought in 6:7 by again interpreting, death in baptism as liberation from the, power of sin. Romans 6:8–11 then, summarizes the new situation of the, baptized: because Jesus Christ has died and, been raised from the dead and believers, have been made by their baptism to share, completely in this saving event, they are also, freed from the sphere of influence ruled by, death and sin. As those who have died to sin,, they now live for God. This new life of the, Christian has been made possible through, the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Page 383 :
appropriated in baptism and lived out in the, power of the Spirit., The Counterpart to the “New, Being”, In 6:11 Paul urges the church, with the, first imperative in the letter, to live a life that, corresponds to its new being: “So you also, must consider yourselves dead to sin and, alive to God in Christ Jesus.” Because what, happens in baptism makes a difference in the, way one lives, in 6:12–23 Paul’s numerous, imperatives emphasize the ethical aspect of, the new being. Christians must not obey, fleshly desires, for they are called to present, their bodies as weapons of righteousness at, God’s disposal, not as weapons of, unrighteousness in the service of sin (6:12–, 13). Have not those who have been baptized, died to sin, as 6:2 explicitly claims? Yes,, Christians have died to sin—but sin is not, dead. Sin continues as a destructive power in, the world, tempting the body and the spirit., It is our “old self” and the “body of sin” that, have died (6:6), not sin as such.[112] Sin no, longer rules over those who have believed
Page 384 :
and been baptized; for them, sin’s power is a, thing of the past. At the same time, sin, continues to exist in the world and exercises, its dominion over all those who do not live in, the realm of Christ’s rule. With the, expression ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας (as those who, have been brought from death to life) in, 6:13, Paul takes up the basic concern of 6:3–, 4: in baptism the Christian has in reality died, to sin, and a righteous life must follow from, the conferral of righteousness that happens, in baptism.[113] Paul himself evidently, cannot derive this proof of freedom from sin, —a proof that is decisive for his exclusive, doctrine of justification—from the abstract, formulation δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (righteousness of, God / justification from God), which does not, appear in Rom. 6, and so we may not drag it, in here. Paul quite intentionally points to the, rite of baptism in order to designate the, actual presence of the new reality and the, place where it becomes effective. The, explicit emphasis on righteousness in 6:12ff., must be understood as a challenge to those, who have been baptized to allow the act of, God in the ritual to correspond to their own, acts in everyday life. This is the
Page 385 :
presupposition of the heavy emphasis on, obedience (6:13, 16, 18, 20), and on, sanctification as what follows from δικαιοσύνη, (6:19, 22). As δικαιοσύνη already in 6:13, means right human conduct, so the, expression ὑπακοὴ εἰς δικαιοσύνην in 6:16 points, in the same direction: obedience leads to, righteousness. That is, δικαιοσύνη means the, right conduct of those who are baptized, the, life lived corresponding to and maintaining, the gift they have received in baptism.[114], Chapter 6 has a key function within the, structure of Romans: here Paul makes clear, where the transfer into the new being takes, place. The characteristic feature of Paul’s, theology that thinks of salvation in terms of, participation is indicated semantically in, Rom. 6 by the frequency of the preposition, σύν and words compounded with σύν (6:4, 5,, 6, 8). The change to the new life in the power, of the Spirit has already begun, not only as a, change in the way the world is perceived but, in an objectively real sense. Through baptism, believers are placed in a new realm, and, entrance into eternal life has already taken, place (6:23). Freedom from sin and the, powerfully effective beginning of the new
Page 386 :
being include freedom from the law/Torah:, “For sin will have no dominion over you,, since you are not under law but under grace”, (6:14)., 12.8 Sin, Law, and Freedom in the, Spirit With the determination of, the believer’s status declared in, Rom. 6:14 there is associated an, almost unsolvable problem of, Pauline thought: How is the, election of Israel and the gift of, the law/Torah related to the new,, final, unsurpassed revelation of, God in Jesus Christ? What, function can the law/Torah still, have? Whereas in Galatians this, question received an almost, completely negative answer, in, Romans Paul’s argument is more, nuanced. Here, too, however, the, point of departure is the basic, conviction that life comes not, through the law/Torah but, through faith in Jesus Christ (cf., 3:21). Why is the law/Torah unable
Page 387 :
to comply with its original, assignment? Paul attempts to, resolve this decisive problem in, Romans 7–8 by determining the, relation of sin, law/Torah, and the, Spirit.[115] One might expect at, the outset that this attempt will, involve secondary rationalizations,, lack of conceptual and, terminological sharpness, and, risky constructions., By Way of Introduction: One, Example In Rom. 7:1–4 Paul, chooses as his starting point an, example from Jewish marriage law, in order to illustrate the working of, the law/Torah and define its limit., [116] Because death always results, in release from the requirements of, the law (cf. 7:2–3), so also the, death of Christ and the Christian’s, dying with him in baptism free, from the law/Torah. Baptism is not, only a dying to sin but also a dying, to the law/Torah, which has now, lost its claim on those who are
Page 388 :
baptized. Romans 7:4 antithetically, summarizes the new reality, which, is marked by the sharp contrast, between the law/Torah and God. In, 7:5 Paul represents this now past, situation from the perspective of, faith, then in 7:6 describes the, believer’s new form of existence, grounded in the Christ event. In, 7:5 he characterizes the being of, the person prior to faith as a being, in the flesh. The flesh appears as, the point of attack for the “sinful, passions” (τὰ παθήµατα τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν), that are aroused by the law/Torah., Sin does not simply approach one, as an external power but takes up, residence in him or her (7:17, 20, ἡ, οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐµοὶ ἁµαρτία [sin that dwells, within me]) in order to completely, dominate the person. As a result of, sin thus taking over, death, appears. In 7:6 Paul marks the, eschatological turning point with, the phrase νυνὶ δέ (but now; cf., 3:21). Through the gift of the, Spirit, the Christian is taken out of
Page 389 :
the realm of the law/Torah and is, thereby freed from sin and death., Christians now know that they are, led by the living Spirit, not by the, perishable letter.[117] Paul will, develop in Rom. 7:7–25a and Rom., 8:1ff. the “once”/“now” schema at, the basis of 7:5–7., Paradise Lost Paul must first,, however, in Rom. 7:7 vigorously, ward off the identification of νόµος, as itself ἁµαρτία, an inference one, might make from his previous, statements.[118] He himself had, repeatedly associated law/Torah, and sin very closely (cf. 3:20; 4:15;, 5:13b; 7:5), so that it would not be, a big step simply to equate νόµος, and ἁµαρτία, which would be fatal for, his exclusive doctrine of, justification—especially for his, Jewish Christian opponents. For, Paul, however, the law/Torah is not, to be identified with sin, but it does, have an important function in the
Page 390 :
process of the revelation of sin and, one’s coming to know and, experience sin. In order to clarify, the actual connection of law and, sin in human experience, Paul, takes up the story of paradise[119], and introduces the category of, ἐπιθυµία ([evil] desire) as an, anthropological category.[120] Sin, is able to gain a foothold in human, life because it can make desire, serve its own will. The law/Torah, comes to the aid of sin in this, regard, in that that it creates the, necessary presuppositions whereby, human desire can be aroused by sin, and used for its own purposes., According to 7:7, the relation of, sin, law/Torah, and desire is to be, described in the following manner:, The knowledge of sin comes, through the law/Torah because the, law/Torah becomes concrete in a, particular command and sin, becomes concrete in a particular, desire. The law/Torah is itself not, sin, but one would have never
Page 391 :
known sin as a particular desire if, the command had not been there., In this event sin plays a most active, role, for it uses the law/Torah, or, the command, in order to pervert, what God wills into its opposite, (7:8). Precisely through the, command, sin calls forth what the, command forbids: the desire. Here, it already becomes clear that the, law/Torah and sin are opposed to, each other and that the law/Torah, has precedence both temporally, and substantively. At the same, time, the concept of “desire” turns, out to be the conceptual key that, makes it possible for Paul to speak, positively of the law/Torah despite, its proximity to sin (cf. 7:12)., In 7:7ff. Paul leans heavily on the story of, the Garden of Eden as a way of, characterizing the situation of people before, they come to Christian faith. The “I” of 7:7ff., includes Adam and the whole human race,, including the Jews.[121] The essential reality, of sin cannot be described in a way that
Page 392 :
limits it in either time or space; it is a reality, that infects and determines all human beings, of all times and places prior to and apart, from faith. Sin and law appear as transindividual powers that are at work in, individual events and circumstances. Paul, intentionally chooses mythological language, as a means of representing a general, anthropological state of affairs. Sin already, existed before the law/Torah and apart from, the law/Torah, but it is through the, law/Torah that sin first became a, condemning power. Sin did not originate, through the law/Torah and is thus not, identical with it, but the power of sin first, became manifest when the law aroused evil, desire, desire that sin was able to coopt into, its own service in order to rule in human life., Thus the encounter with the law dominated, by sin takes place when one deals with the, individual commandment., Paul expresses the universality of this, event by the way he uses the terms ἐντολή, (command) and νόμος in 7:8–11.[122] While, ἐντολή refers to God’s command to Adam in, Eden and νόμος means the Torah given at, Sinai, Paul does not dwell on the point, for in
Page 393 :
Rom. 7 he is describing a fundamental, conflict that applies to every kind of law. For, him, there has never been an epoch in which, sin did not use the commandment, or the, law/Torah, as a means of provoking evil, desire. The human “I” in every period of, history always finds itself to be an “I” already, dominated by sin. The active role of sin in, this process is explicitly emphasized in 7:11,, where the history of the human “I” is not a, history of salvation but by the power of sin, has become the exact opposite. Through this, line of argument, Paul is able to avoid a, direct identification of the νόµος or ἐντολή, with sin (7:12, “So the law is holy, and the, commandment is holy and just and good”),, for sin is the real cause that what is good, (the law) has the final result of bringing, about death (7:13). Sin can even pervert, what is good into its opposite, which clearly, shows how powerful it is. Thus, according to, Paul, the law/Torah does not have the power, to overcome sin. It can reveal the situation of, humanity without being able to change it., The Imprisoned Self This, fundamental insight is the basis for
Page 394 :
the apostle’s anthropological, argumentation of Rom. 7:14–25a,, [123] which elaborates the way in, which the power of sin inescapably, ensnares the human “I,” to show, that the law/Torah is not itself, responsible for its ungodly effects, in the world. In 7:14 Paul names, the general circumstance that, prevails in the present world:, human beings, as creatures of, flesh, are enslaved to sin. The term, σάρκινος (fleshly, belonging to the, material world) refers to life as, separated from God and in, rebellion against God in contrast to, the law/Torah, which belongs to the, spiritual realm. The pair of, contrasting modifiers πνευµατικός/, σάρκινος indicates that anthropology, is the real level on which Paul, develops his argument.[124] For, Paul, this antithesis defines the two, categories of human existence;, here he is clearly already, anticipating 8:1ff. The universality, of the foundational statement in
Page 395 :
7:14 underscores the ἐγώ (ego, I). It, uses the first person singular as a, literary device, parallel to the, usage in the psalms of lament (cf., Ps. 22:7–8) and in the Qumran, literature (cf. 1QH 1:21; 3:24–25;, 1QS 11:9ff.).[125] This literary, style of the first person singular as, well as the general character of, 7:14 and the reference to 8:1ff., suggest that the “I” should be seen, as an exemplary, general “I,” which, portrays from the perspective of, faith the situation of humanity, before and apart from faith.[126], In 7:15 Paul explains that human, beings simply find themselves to be, already sold under the power of sin:, the “I” finds itself in a fundamental, conflict with itself, not doing what, it wants to do but what it hates., Here Paul lays hold of the general, human experience of the difference, between one’s good intentions and, actual deeds, which the GrecoRoman tradition associates with, the name Medea[127] and which is
Page 396 :
also found independently in Jewish, tradition (cf. 1QS 4:20–21; 11:5)., [128] From this contradiction Paul, infers in 7:16 that the law/Torah in, itself is good, for it is sin that, brings about the contradiction, between willing and doing. Paul, underscores the character of sin as, a power in 7:17 with the metaphor, of the indwelling of sin in human, beings. Here, too, the reference to, Rom. 8 is unmistakable, for in 8:9–, 10 Paul says that the Spirit of God,, the Spirit of Christ, or Christ dwells, in the believers (all three, expressions are equated). Sin and, Christ appear as two competing, powers, and the human being, seems to function only passively as, the place where powers dwell that, may bring either life or death.[129], If sin prevails in human life, one, comes to ruin, whereas Christ / the, Spirit grants the person life (cf., 8:11).
Page 397 :
In 7:18–20 Paul emphasizes the absolute, hopelessness of the situation of humanity, apart from faith, once again developing the, contradiction between willing and doing., Although human beings can in fact will the, good, they are not able to accomplish it, because of the sin that dwells within them. In, 7:21 the “I” itself draws up a summary, account and confirms that an inherent law is, in effect: the good will manifests itself, concretely in an evil act. Here ὁ νόµος does, not mean the Old Testament Torah but, describes an inherent law[130] that will be, explained in 7:22–23. Two sets of opposite, laws clearly stand over against each other:, νόµος τοῦ θεοῦ (the law of God) and νόµος, ἁµαρτίας (the law of sin); νόµος τοῦ νοός µου (the, law of my mind) and ἕτερος νόµος ἐν τοῖς µέλεσίν, µου (another law in my members); and ἔσω, ἄνθρωπος (my inmost self) and ἔξω ἄνθρωπος, (my external self).[131] The law of God and, the law of sin each have found vulnerable, points in human life where they may launch, their respective attacks, and a battle ensues, (7:23, ἀντιστρατεύοµαι [struggle, fight];, αἰχµαλωτίζω [take captive]) for control of the, person. In this discussion the term νόµος by
Page 398 :
no means has a consistent referent (e.g., the, Sinai Torah), but its meaning in each case is, determined by its modifiers. The phrase νόµος, τοῦ θεοῦ in 7:22 includes the Sinai Torah but, probably extends beyond that to mean the, law manifest in creation, given by God to the, Gentiles (cf. 1:19ff.; 2:14–15).[132] Such an, interpretation is found already in 7:7–13,, where Paul also speaks of the same basic, circumstances that apply to Jews and, Gentiles. The content of the phrase νόµος τοῦ, θεοῦ is the original will of God, with which, human beings agree in their innermost, being. The ἔξω ἄνθρωπος (external person), strives to fulfill this will of God. In 7:23 νόµος, τοῦ νοός stands, on the one hand, in continuity, with νόµος τοῦ θεοῦ in 7:22 and at the same, time in sharp antithesis to ἕτερον νόµον ἐν τοῖς, µέλεσίν µου and the νόµος ἁµαρτίας. Here Paul is, playing with variations of the meaning of the, term, for he is not referring to the Old, Testament Torah but is designating, structural qualities. This is obviously the, case with νόµος ἁµαρτίας, where νόµος cannot, refer to God’s law given on Sinai. As a power, opposing the original will of God, the term
Page 399 :
must here be understood in the sense of an, inherent principle: sin is contrasted with the, law of the Spirit (8:2) and enslaves those, who are outside the realm of faith.[133], Human beings are not able by their own, power simply to choose the good and reject, the evil because the sin dwelling and battling, within completely dominates them. So also, νόµος τοῦ νοός µου and νόµος ἐν τοῖς µέλεσίν µου, designate the conflict that characterizes, human existence between reason itself and, the powers that subjugate it. Thus 7:23, portrays a fundamental anthropological state, of affairs: human beings are torn in two and, of themselves are not in the situation to, restore their own integrity.[134] This is the, reason the natural human being is in a, hopeless situation, resulting in the apostle’s, cry in 7:24: “Wretched man that I am! Who, will rescue me from this body of death?” The, inner logic of Rom. 7 permits only one, answer: “No one.” For Paul, this is not the, last word, as 7:25a indicates.[135] The, deliverance of humanity from this hopeless, situation has appeared in Jesus Christ;, therefore Paul thanks God for the, deliverance from the realm of sin’s rulership,
Page 400 :
a deliverance accomplished in Jesus Christ, and made available through the Spirit., Romans 8 appears as the appropriate, continuation of the Pauline argument in, 7:7ff., indeed as its presupposition, for the, perspectives elaborated by Paul in Rom. 8, have already been the basis for all that he, says in Rom. 7., The Liberated Person In Rom. 8:2–3, Paul describes the present reality, of the believer living in the realm, where the power of the Spirit, prevails. It is no accident that the, problems of the Pauline, understanding of the law culminate, here, for in Paul’s thought the, relation between nomology and, pneumatology is filled with, tensions. Just as in 3:20; 4:15; 6:14;, 7:7–11 Paul comes close to, equating the law/Torah with sin, and then in the countermove of, 7:12 emphatically endorses the, holiness of the law/Torah, so he, now speaks of a νόµος τοῦ πνεύµατος, (law of the Spirit) that effectively
Page 401 :
determines and empowers the life, of the believer. What does Paul, mean by this expression?, Linguistically, one could easily, think in terms of a particular use of, the genitive case, such that νόµος τοῦ, πνεύµατος τῆς ζωῆς (law of the Spirit of, life) and νόµος τῆς ἁµαρτίας καὶ θανάτου, (law of sin and of death) are, construed as “genitives of direction, and purpose,” and the meaning, would be “of the Spirit, which leads, to life” and “of sin, which leads to, death.”[136] It is clear regarding, their content that the genitives, qualify how the νόµος is to be, understood in each case. By no, means can νόµος be understood as a, consistent quantity with the same, meaning in each case, for the verb, ἠλευθέρωσεν clearly expresses that the, one νόµος liberates one from the, other. Clearly πνεῦµα and ἁµαρτία here, stand over against each other, and, the νόµοι (laws) with which they are, associated also are related
Page 402 :
antithetically. Thus νόµος must here, be translated with the “rule/norm”, or “principle” that belongs to the, Spirit or to sin, which means that, in 8:2 νόµος does not refer to the, Sinai Torah.[137] The first, reference to the Sinai Torah is, found in 8:3a, where Paul, emphasizes the inability of the, Torah to liberate from the power of, the σάρξ. Here it becomes, completely clear that νόµος in 8:2, cannot mean the Old Testament, Torah, for then 8:3a would take, back what has just been said in 8:2:, liberation from the power of sin, and death. Because Christ himself, entered into the realm of ἁµαρτία, by, his resurrection he overcame the, power of sin and death. This, liberation takes place in the life of, the Christian through the power of, the Spirit[138] and is present in, the Spirit, as indicated in 8:4. With, the sending of the Son, the legal, claim of the law/Torah was fulfilled., But what is meant by the phrase
Page 403 :
δικαίωµα τοῦ νόµου (NRSV, “just, requirement of the law”)? The, answer is given in 13:8, which, explicitly emphasizes that the, law/Torah is fulfilled in keeping the, love commandment.[139], According to the programmatic, statements in 7:1–6, “fulfillment”, here can mean neither the, fulfillment of the legitimate claims, of the Old Testament Torah nor its, restitution.[140] It is, rather, the, case that here νόµος is to be, understood in the same sense as in, Gal. 6:2—through the act of God’s, love in Jesus Christ, the power of, sin was broken, and the law/Torah, was fulfilled and at the same time, transformed. The new being does, not lead to lack of all restraints or, to “lawlessness,” for Paul knows, himself to be constrained by love in, living by the Spirit’s norm., Flesh and Spirit In Rom. 7:7–8:4, Paul elaborates his understanding, of the basic structures of human
Page 404 :
existence as they are revealed, retrospectively from the point of, view of faith. Prior to and apart, from faith, human beings always, find themselves under the power of, sin. In relation to the, commandment or the will to do the, good, sin always has both a, temporal head start and a, functional advantage: it was in the, world before the commandment, and with the help of the law/Torah, deceives human beings by, perverting into its opposite their, striving after the good. As, creatures who belong to this world, of flesh, human beings are helpless, against the power of sin. Sin sets in, motion a legal situation from which, no one can extract himself or, herself. Only the resurrection of, Jesus Christ from the dead, which, overcomes the power of death and, sin, frees human beings from their, hopeless situation. This can be, perceived and experienced only by, those who through the power of the
Page 405 :
Spirit in faith allow this saving act, to be valid for them. Believers, know that they are thereby, delivered from the realm of the, flesh and subject to the norm of the, Spirit. Paul sets this forth in, exemplary fashion in 8:5–8.[141], Here σάρξ and πνεῦµα stand over, against each other as two mutually, exclusive powers that surround, human life and in each case take it, into their service, whether a service, that leads to life or a service that, leads to death (8:5, “For those who, live according to the flesh set their, minds on the things of the flesh,, but those who live according to the, Spirit set their minds on the things, of the Spirit”). Neither any sort of, mediation between the two realms, nor a natural transition from one to, the other is possible, for two force, fields, understood in ontological, terms, stand sharply opposed to, each other. The antithesis between, σάρξ and πνεῦµα results from their, respective goals: death, on the one
Page 406 :
hand, and life, on the other (8:13)., Because the Spirit of God or Christ, is actively at work in believers, (8:9), they still live ἐν σαρκί but no, longer κατὰ σάρκα. Their previous, hostility to God is abrogated, and, they live lives in accord with the, new being through the work of the, Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:22). In contrast,, human beings in their natural state, apart from faith are delivered over, to the works of sin in the flesh:, sexual immorality, idolatry,, quarrels, factions, and such (Gal., 5:19b–21)., Paul had received the σάρξ/πνεῦµα way of, thinking from Hellenistic Judaism, such as, that found in the pre-Pauline tradition of, Rom. 1:3b–4a but also Gal. 5:16ff.; 1 Pet., 3:18, and 1 Tim. 3:16.[142] From the historyof-religions perspective, the Jewish wisdom, literature is probably the starting point for, this antithetical pair (cf. Wis. 7:1–6, 7b–14;, 9:5, 15, 17).[143] A carefully considered, σάρξ/πνεῦµα dualism is found in Philo.[144], The flesh appears as the container for the
Page 407 :
real person (Virtues 78), is a burden to it, (Giants 31), is the coffin of the soul, (Migration 16). In contrast, God belongs to, the incorporeal, fleshless world, so that, turning to God means turning away from the, flesh, with the result that one enters into the, spiritual world. There are thus two classes of, human beings and two ways of life: one, leading to salvation and one leading to, destruction (cf. Unchangeable 140–183)., While the perfect proceed on the way opened, by wisdom, the “comrades of the flesh” avoid, this way (Unchangeable 143). Because they, are imprisoned in the flesh, they cannot, attain divine knowledge; “because they are, flesh, the divine Spirit cannot dwell in them”, (Giants 29)., In Paul the σάρξ/πνεῦµα antithesis, represents a historical dualism, not a, metaphysical one. Since there is no human, existence outside the flesh and God’s dealing, with human beings takes place in the flesh,, the flesh appears as the place where human, beings either harden themselves in selfcenteredness or let themselves be placed in, God’s service through the power of the, Spirit. God’s new reality thus opens itself to
Page 408 :
human beings as the reality of the Spirit. The, turn from the yoke of the σάρξ, which brings, death, to the life-giving ministry of the Spirit, takes place in baptism. This is a fundamental, change, for entrance into Christ’s life-giving, realm has the dimension of a new creation, (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). God’s creative act for, human beings is not limited to the one-time, act of being called into life, but by the gift of, the Spirit God grants human beings, participation in God’s own creative power., Baptized believers live according to the norm, of the Spirit, which gives them assurance of, present salvation and the first installment of, the full redemption still to come. The Spirit is, both power (ἐν πνεύµατι [in/by the Spirit]) and, norm (κατὰ πνεῦµα [according to the Spirit]) of, the new life and makes it possible for, Christians to continue to be what they have, already become., Christians find themselves in a new, situation and in a new time: the time of the, Spirit. The changed reality in which, Christians live, as the reality of the Spirit,, thus determines past and present just as it, determines the future. Romans 8:11, “If the, Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead
Page 409 :
dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the, dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you.” Here, the resurrection of the believer appears as, an act of creation in which God, so to speak,, continues and completes a creative act, already begun, in continuity with the divine, reality already present in the Christian life:, the Spirit conferred in baptism and dwelling, in the Christian appears as the continuum of, divine life-giving power. Through the power, of the Spirit, God grants believers, participation in the creative act of God, already achieved in the Christ event., 12.9 Paul and Israel The question of, the validity of the promises to, Israel in view of the revelation of, the righteousness of God apart, from the law/Torah is already, raised in Rom. 1:16 and 2:9–10, (Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον [to the Jew first]),, is also the theme of 3:1–8,[145], and is then taken up in Rom. 9–11, and dealt with at some length., Whereas the apostle seems to have
Page 410 :
previously devaluated the, prerogatives of Israel, 3:1–8 for, the first time raises the question, of Israel’s advantages. Paul, explicitly and emphatically affirms, the exceptional status of Israel, (πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον [much, in, every way]), naming as the first of, Israel’s privileged gifts the, promises and instructions of the, Scripture (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ [the, oracles of God]). Paul himself then, immediately raises an objection, resulting from the previous, chapter: the faithfulness of God is, not nullified by the unfaithfulness, of some of his people. The, truthfulness of God abides despite, human unrighteousness. The, apostle presents variations on this, basic affirmation in the form of a, dialogical style of argument,, attempting to show the absurdity, of inferences his opponents might, make.[146] His line of argument,, however, is not tight and does not, proceed step by step (the πρῶτον µέν
Page 411 :
[in the first place] of 3:2 is not, continued), for 3:9 then sharply, negates the positive answer to the, question of the advantages of the, Jews in 3:2a. This indicates that, 3:1–8 is something of an excursus;, [147] here Paul deals with the, theme in a very streamlined, manner that does not fit very well, into his present train of thought, (the contrast between sin and, God’s righteousness). On the other, hand, 1:16, 2:9–10, and 3:1–8, make clear that the problematic of, Rom. 9–11 was in view from the, very beginning of the conception, of the letter.[148] Paul sees the, appropriate place for dealing with, this theme as following the section, that looks forward to God’s final, redemption of creation and, humanity (8:18–39), for the, destiny of Israel is a constituent, element in the eschatological act, of God.
Page 412 :
God’s Freedom and Faithfulness, The overarching theme of Rom. 9–, 11 is the question of the, righteousness of God that has, appeared in Jesus Christ, and thus, the faithfulness of God in view of, the promises made to Israel, (9:14ff.; 10:3ff.).[149] If the, election of Israel, the promises to, the fathers, and the provisions of, the covenant are no longer valid,, then God’s righteousness is at, stake (9:6). Then the word of God, would in fact have failed (9:6)., Paul, of course, claims the, opposite. The election of Israel, continues, the promises are still, valid, but in view of God’s, revelation in Jesus Christ, Israel, faces a crisis. As the theological, point of departure for the, discussions in Rom. 9–11, this, revelation is the crisis for every, single privilege when these are, falsely understood. Thus Paul is, concerned to show that, in view of, the faithfulness of God and the
Page 413 :
unfaithfulness of Israel, God stands, in unbroken continuity with his, promises, proves his faithfulness, despite the unfaithfulness of Israel,, is a righteous and just God. Paul, presents this in a train of thought, that is dialectically determined,, constantly takes up new points of, view, and varies the ways it deals, with the subject., The hardening of the majority of Israel in, unbelief in the face of the ultimate revelation, of God in Jesus Christ causes Paul deep pain, (9:1–2). With profound rhetorical impact, the, assurance of salvation and the hymnic praise, in 8:28–39 is set over against the apostle’s, willingness to sacrifice himself for the, salvation of Israel. He is willing to be, excluded from salvation himself if by doing, so he could achieve the salvation of his own, kindred people (9:3). Israel is the people, chosen by God, to whom belongs the, “adoption” (ἡ υἱοθεσία), the “glory” (ἡ δόξα), the, “covenants” (αἱ διαθῆκαι), “the giving of the, law” (ἡ νομοθεσία), “the worship” (ἡ λατρεία),, and “the promises” (αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι). If large
Page 414 :
segments of Israel reject the revelation in, Christ, one could then conclude that the, promises of God have failed. But with a, series of arguments in 9:6ff., Paul refutes, this possible conclusion. He proceeds on the, basis of his axiomatic conviction that it is not, possible for God’s word to fail (9:6a). Instead, the fact of the matter is that empirical Israel, is not identical with those who have received, the promises of God (Rom. 9:6b, οὐ γὰρ πάντες, οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ [For not all Israelites, truly belong to Israel]),[150] and so Israel is, not defined ethnically.[151] For Paul, the, true Israel is identical with those who accept, God’s promises and acknowledge that God’s, saving purpose is fulfilled in Jesus Christ., The Old Testament promises do not apply to, the part of Israel that rejects the revelation, in Christ, because it is not Israel in the, theological sense. By redefining the people of, God as the people of the promise in this, sense,[152] Paul gains the room he needs for, his argument to show that in view of God’s, contingent acts in history, God is indeed, faithful., In 9:7–9 Paul gives additional support to, his thesis stated in 9:6b. In the sense of
Page 415 :
salvation history, the true descendants of, Abraham are only those descended from, Isaac. Genetic descent alone by no means, guarantees a special status within the history, of salvation, for only the τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, (the children of the promise) are counted as, descendants. Because for Paul the promises, of the old covenant have been realized in, Jesus Christ, they are inherited only by those, who grasp them through faith. Since the, relation of Isaac to Ishmael already shows, that it is the sovereignty of God over Israel, that is the focal point, in 9:10–13 Paul, provides a further illustration of the freedom, exercised by the Creator God. Although, Jacob and Esau have the same mother and, father, God chose one and rejected the other., Even before Jacob and Esau were born,, before they could have done anything either, good or evil, God’s choice was already firmly, made. Paul gives the basis for God’s behavior, in 9:11b–12 (“so that God’s purpose of, election might continue, not by works but by, his call”). The call is entirely a matter of, God’s decision, not on the basis of works. All, statements in Paul about divine
Page 416 :
predestination must thus be regarded as the, result of his doctrine of justification., Both the exclusive doctrine of justification, and the statements about predestination are, directed toward a single affirmation:, everything depends on God’s gracious act., [153] This act of God occurs in divine, freedom; no one can influence God or require, that God act in a certain way on the basis of, one’s origin or achievements. The freedom, and sovereignty of God prevail over against, every human being, including the chosen, people, Israel. The Scripture already takes, note of the election of Jacob and the rejection, of Esau (cf. Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2 LXX in Rom., 9:12–13).[154] In Rom. 9:14 Paul takes up, the obvious human objection, that God is, unjust. He parries this objection in 9:15 by, quoting Exod. 33:19 LXX: “I will have mercy, on whom I have mercy, and I will have, compassion on whom I have compassion.”, We find here a central feature of Paul’s, argumentation. For Paul, the Scripture, announces and confirms the divine, predestination. In the Scripture God himself, has made known his will, which human, beings can hear and learn but not call in
Page 417 :
question.[155] In Rom. 9:16 Paul emphasizes, once again God’s independence, in what is, virtually a dogmatic formula: “So it depends, not on human will or exertion, but on God, who shows mercy.” In 9:17 Paul provides the, scriptural grounding (Exod. 9:16) for the, preceding thetical statement, then in Rom., 9:18 again summarizes: “So then he has, mercy on whomever he chooses, and he, hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.”, Again, God’s being as God is the only basis, for the way God acts., In 9:19–21 Paul deals with an additional, possible objection, since from his previous, argument one could draw the conclusion that, the arbitrary rule of God to which no one, may object means that human beings are not, responsible for their own actions or for their, own destiny.[156] Why does God blame, sinners and condemn them if everything, depends on God’s arbitrary will anyway and, human beings cannot do anything to change, their own destiny? Paul responds to this, objection in 9:19–21 by holding the, objectors’ creatureliness before their own, eyes and thus ruling the question itself out of, order. Such questioners, consciously or
Page 418 :
unconsciously, place themselves on the same, level as God, but they are God’s creatures, and thus have no “right” to bring charges, against God. Paul here anchors anthropology, in creation theology: the qualitative, distinction between Creator and creature, cannot be abrogated and is the positive basis, for the sovereign act of the Creator, who can, choose and reject according to God’s own, will.[157] Every presumption of the creature, to be master of his or her own fate is always, already an offense against the appropriate, role and purpose of a human being and an, illegitimate rejection of the will of the, Creator, who reveals himself in a double, manner as wrath and mercy (9:22–23). Over, against those Jews who insist on their, privileges, Paul makes clear that God is free, to act as God pleases, completely free to call, or reject both Jews and Gentiles, just as the, Scripture has prophesied (cf. 9:25–29).[158], Within the argumentation of Romans, Paul, advocates a double predestination,[159] for, salvation and destruction are not matters for, the creature to decide but for the Creator—, who has already decided.
Page 419 :
Israel’s Conduct A new perspective, in Paul’s argument emerges in, Rom. 9:30–10:21, where he turns, his eye to the conduct of Israel. He, first contrasts the righteousness of, the Gentiles through faith with the, righteousness of the Jews through, the law/Torah (9:30–33). Paul, explains the failure of the Jews to, attain righteousness in the terse, statement that Israel wanted to, attain righteousness by works, not, through faith. Christ thus became a, stumbling stone to Israel because, it went the way of the law/Torah,, not the way of faith. In contrast to, 9:1–29, there is no more talk of the, act of God that is not at human, disposal; Paul instead speaks of the, boundless possibilities of faith to, obtain salvation or of unbelief to, miss it. Nonetheless, the apostle, once again solemnly avows his wish, for Israel’s salvation (10:1), and, confirms Israel’s zeal for God but, also its lack of insight (10:2). This, is revealed in its attempt to
Page 420 :
establish its own righteousness, instead of submitting itself to the, righteousness of God (10:3). For, believers, in contrast, Christ is, their righteousness, so that Christ, is at the same time the end of the, law/Torah, that is, to the extent, that the law facilitates the vain, attempt to establish one’s own, righteousness before God.[160] In, 10:4[161] there can be no talk of, Jesus Christ as the “end and, goal”[162] or “goal”[163] of the, law/Torah, or of a “fulfillment of, the Torah” by Christ.[164] Against, this view is the juxtaposition of ἰδία, δικαιοσύνη (their own righteousness), and δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in 10:3,[165] the, grammatical structure of 10:4 (εἰς, δικαιοσύνην [lit. for righteousness],, which is to be connected to the, following participle [so that a, somewhat literal translation would, read, “for righteousness to every, believing person”], at the same, time referring to the whole, preceding verse),[166] and the
Page 421 :
function of 10:4 as the basis for, what is said in 10:5–8.[167], Especially the contrasting of the, righteousness that comes through, the law/Torah (10:5)[168] with, righteousness that comes from, faith (10:6)[169] underscores the, fundamentally antithetical, structure of the argumentation of, the whole section. Righteousness, through the law/Torah is indebted, to the principle of one’s own doing,, and the promise appears to be the, result of one’s own deed; but for, the personified righteousness that, comes from faith (10:6a), its word, comes near to human beings in the, proclamation of the gospel and, calls for nothing but saving faith., [170] Again, it is not “lawlessness”, that is here meant; rather, Paul is, reducing the productive capacity of, the law/Torah and making it more, precise: Jesus Christ alone is the, place of life and righteousness,, which are made available through, faith.
Page 422 :
In 10:5–13 Paul again goes to the Scripture, for proof that righteousness does not come, through doing the law/Torah. Paul presents, his proof that salvation comes only through, the word of faith by having the personified, figure of justification by faith introduce itself., Paul intentionally takes a text that originally, referred to the Torah and plays it off against, the law/Torah, since, for him, salvation, comes only through faith in Jesus Christ,, which has attained tangible form in the, Christian confession. Because messengers of, the gospel were presently under way,, preaching the message of justification by, faith in every land (10:14–17), Israel has no, excuse. Then, why is not Israel converted?, Once again the answer comes from, Scripture, for the Torah and the prophets, had already predicted that the ignorant, Gentiles, a nonpeople, would someday, overtake and surpass Israel (10:18–21). God, has gone to a lot of trouble for his people,, whose lack of knowledge consists in a willful, ignorance of God’s will. Israel has refused to, cooperate and is thus itself responsible for, its present disastrous situation. This logic of, personal responsibility clearly stands in
Page 423 :
tension with the apostle’s argumentation in, 9:1–29.[171] Whereas there the, unquestionable act of God is in complete, control, here human beings are charged with, being able to make a positive decision but, not doing so. The tension between sovereign, divine predestination and personal human, responsibility is not merely the expression of, a logical weakness in the Pauline, argumentation; it is grounded in Paul’s, objective situation. He must explain, something that is not really explainable. Why, has the chosen people rejected the ultimate, saving act of God in Jesus Christ? The, mystery of unbelief that is the subject of, debate eludes every human effort at a, consistent explanation, for its resolution is, found exclusively in God. Paul introduces, every imaginable argument in his effort to, make the paradoxical present situation, understandable., Moreover, talk of predestination also, always has a social function, in that it, explains to a group why it has not been, successful in converting others. Both are, necessary in a missionary situation: coming, to terms with the actual situation by appeal
Page 424 :
to divine hardening, and the human, possibility of making right or wrong, decisions in order to be able to change the, situation through preaching. Therefore Paul, can regard neither God’s negative, predestination nor Israel’s own negative, decision as the last word on the matter, as, Rom. 11 shows., Israel’s Salvation In Rom. 11:1–2, Paul solemnly avows that under no, circumstances will God “reject his, people whom he foreknew.” The, apostle judges his own life to be, evidence for this claim (11:1b). The, Scripture also points to this, conclusion, for, just as in Elijah’s, time, so also now there is “a, remnant chosen by grace” (λεῖµµα, κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν, 11:5). Paul, here returns to the argumentation, of 9:6ff., that the majority of Israel, has been hardened according to, God’s own will. By his own grace, God chooses the Jewish, Christians[172] as a remnant while, the rest of Israel is hardened. Thus
Page 425 :
Israel is divided into two categories, (9:7), “the elect” (ἡ ἐκλογή) and “the, rest” (οἱ λοιποί). God himself brings, about this division, for, according, to 9:8, God has given those who are, hardened “a sluggish spirit” that, has prevented their hearing and, understanding the gospel. The, remnant concept provides Paul, evidence for his thesis that Israel is, and remains the elect people, that, it can never be entirely rejected., On the other hand, the vast, majority of Israel does remain at, present in its state of having been, hardened according to God’s own, will. According to this line of, argument, it is still a long way to, the salvation of Israel as a whole., Romans 11:11–32 occupies a special, position within this argumentation, where, Paul thematizes the salvation of Israel in an, augument divided into four subsections, (11:11–16, 17–24, 25–27, 28–32).[173] In, 11:11 he emphasizes that the hardening of, Israel has a positive purpose in God’s plan.
Page 426 :
Israel’s stumbling provides the opportunity, for salvation to come to the Gentiles as well., Israel’s ἥττημα (defeat, loss, damage), becomes riches for the Gentiles because in, this way the Gentiles come to participate in, God’s salvation alongside Israel. In contrast, to the preceding argumentation, Israel’s, situation appears in a positive light, since it, is playing its assigned role in its salvation,, albeit with delays and detours. In 11:13–14, Paul defines his apostolic office in a new way, and adapts it to the understanding of history, expressed in Rom. 11. It is precisely as, “apostle to the Gentiles” (11:13, εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν, ἀπόστολος) that he now preaches, explaining, that the goal of his mission to the Gentiles is, in the service of the salvation of Israel in that, he provokes Israel to “jealousy” of Gentile, Christians in order to save some of the, people of Israel. This interpretation of his, apostolic ministry hardly fits Paul’s original, understanding of his apostleship, for,, according to Gal. 1:15–16, Paul received his, call in order to win the Gentiles. According to, Gal. 2:9, he was explicitly not a missionary to, Israel. Here we have a “belated, rationalization,”[174] which Paul sees
Page 427 :
himself compelled to adopt in view of the, actual course of early mission history. In, addition, in this way he can neutralize the, charge that his stance toward the law has, prevented Israel from accepting the, Christian faith (cf. Acts 21:21, 28). It is, probably the case that in the final phase of, his missionary career, Paul developed from, his reading of Deut. 32:21 the expectation, that Israel would still be saved after all by, becoming jealous of the Gentiles (cf. Rom., 10:19; 11:11, 14). The great hopes he, associated with this view are indicated in, Rom. 11:15: “For if their rejection is the, reconciliation of the world, what will their, acceptance be but life from the dead!” The, history of Israel’s election goes on despite, their present rejection; if Israel’s rejection, results in the reconciliation of the world to, God, then Israel’s acceptance introduces the, eschatological events., With the picture of the holiness of the roots, and the resulting holiness of the branches, (11:16), Paul makes the transition to the, analogy of the olive tree (11:17–24). Here, Israel appears in its original role as people of, God whereas Gentile Christians merely join
Page 428 :
with the status of proselytes.[175] As the, noble olive tree, Israel is the root of all, salvation, including that of the Gentiles, (11:18b). Although a few branches have been, broken off this tree and branches from wild, olive trees have been grafted in, Israel, remains the real people of God. When, Gentile Christians are accepted into the tree,, they have no grounds for boasting. With this, warning Paul is possibly reacting to a, disdainful attitude of Gentile Christians in, Rome to Jews and Jewish Christians there., The present status of Gentiles is not, definitive, for they are likewise assigned, their place by the gracious act of God. If God, has the power to break branches off and, graft them in again, they, too, can be broken, off if they abandon the way of faith and love, (11:20–22). Once again human wrongdoing, serves to explain the current situation, so, that giving up one’s unbelief can introduce a, new dimension in God’s saving acts. Paul, explicitly emphasizes this possibility in, 11:23–24: if the branches that originally, belonged to the olive tree do not persist in, their unbelief, they will be regrafted into, their “own” olive tree. The hardening of a
Page 429 :
part of Israel has a temporal limit, lasting, only until the fullness of the Gentiles are, converted, and so[176] πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, (all Israel will be saved, 11:26a).[177] This, pointedly maximal statement of Pauline, eschatology and soteriology generates, numerous problems.[178] First, there is not, very much dispute about the time to which, the stated event refers, since 11:26b points, to the coming of Christ at the parousia (cf. 1, Thess. 1:10).[179] In the interpretation of πᾶς, Ἰσραήλ (all Israel), the decisive clues are, given by the immediate context and the, corresponding expression πλήρωµα τῶν ἐθνῶν, (full number of the Gentiles, 11:25). Romans, 11:20 names unbelief as the reason for the, present exclusion of Israel from salvation;, according to 11:23, this must be overcome as, the condition for the entrance of Israel into, salvation. Thus especially 11:23 makes, unlikely an interpretation of 11:26a as, something that happens apart from Christian, faith.[180] In 11:25b πλήρωµα does not refer, to the full number of Gentile Christians, for, only then do the Pauline concept of faith and, the apostle’s preaching of judgment maintain, their validity. So also πᾶς Ἰσραήλ does not
Page 430 :
simply imply ethnic Israel but only that part, of Israel that comes to Christian faith in the, eschatological acceptance of God’s salvation., In addition to 11:23, this interpretation is, also suggested by the distinction between, the Israel of the promise and the Israel, according to the flesh of 9:6, as well as the, apostle’s remark in 11:14b that he hopes to, save some of his own people (καὶ σώσω τινὰς ἐξ, αὐτῶν).[181], Finally, the use of σῴζω/σωτηρία, (save/salvation) makes clear that, for the, apostle, there is no salvation apart from, faith.[182] In 1:16 salvation applies only to, those who believe, to the Jews first and also, to the Greeks. The determination of σωτηρία, by δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ and πίστις in the foundational, theological statement of 1:16–17 is definitive, for further understanding. In 5:9–10, righteousness by faith is parallel to the blood, of Christ, which makes possible salvation, from the coming wrath. The form σωθήσεται in, the Isaiah quote in 9:27 is revealing, since it, is explicitly applied only to the remnant of, Israel and thus prejudices the understanding, of σωθήσεται in 11:26a. Moreover, 10:9–13, emphasizes specifically that salvation is
Page 431 :
guaranteed through faith in Jesus Christ, and, there alone. According to 10:12, there is no, distinction between Jews and Gentiles; Christ, is the Lord of both. Why should Jews be, provoked to jealousy by Gentile Christians if,, in any case, Israel already has what the, Gentile Christians are just now receiving?, Why is Paul so deeply troubled (9:2–3; 10:1), if Israel could bypass Christ and still attain, salvation?, According to 11:25–27, Paul expects an act, of God in the final events of history that will, lead Israel to conversion and thus to, salvation.[183] He sees in this the, maintenance of God’s identity and, faithfulness, who does not reject Israel, forever but who subjected Jews and Gentiles, alike to disobedience in order to be merciful, to both in Jesus Christ (11:32). God is, righteous; it is up to human beings to decide, whether they will open themselves to God’s, righteousness or harden themselves in, unbelief., Paul as Prophet The multilayered, character of Paul’s argumentation, in Rom. 9–11 results from the
Page 432 :
complexity of the issue. Paul is the, first within early Christianity to, pose the basic question, a question, that is finally unsolvable: how is, God’s fundamental and continuing, promise of salvation to Israel, related to God’s ultimate promise, of salvation in Jesus Christ? Paul, had to balance and hold together, two competing orders of salvation,, two different soteriologies, each, with an absolute claim to authority., This is an impossible venture: Paul, had to be creative, to rationalize, to, speculate, in order to prevent his, argument from being completely, derailed. The Pauline line of, argument in Rom. 9–11 reflects, this theological but also, intellectual dilemma and attempts, to overcome it with three different, types of solutions: God has, hardened the major part of Israel, but also has elected a part (9:6–29;, 11:3–10); Israel has rejected God’s, revelation in Jesus Christ (9:30–, 10:21); and God will save his elect
Page 433 :
people in his own eschatological, act (11:1–2, 11–36). The third, answer represents the attempt to, overcome the partial solutions, represented in the concepts of, hardening and remnant. Paul, speaks in 11:25b–26a obviously as a, prophet, who shares knowledge, that is not derived by inferential, arguments from the kerygma.[184], Prophecy provides Paul with a way, of gaining theological knowledge in, order to fill an empty space left by, theological reflection (1 Thess., 4:13–18). Continuity between the, individual models is found only in, the freedom, faithfulness, and, selfhood of God, who in each case, remains the director of the whole, scenario. Paul is profoundly, convinced that the decision made, in God’s unfathomable wisdom, applies both to God’s elect people, Israel and to the new people of God, composed of both Jews and, Gentiles. He accepts the tensions, that are necessarily present in the
Page 434 :
argument of Romans because the, dominant conception, in Rom. 1–8, and 12, of the participation of, believers in the Christ event cannot, be logically combined with the, prophetic expectations of Rom. 11., 12.10 The Shape of the New Life In, Rom. 12:1ff. Paul again takes up, the idea already formulated in, 6:11ff., that obedience to God is, realized in bodily service,[185], and now develops his, understanding of the Christian life, in its relation to God, its reality in, the community of faith, and its, relation to the world., Reasonable Ethic according to the, Will of God The four-chapter, section Rom. 12–15 begins with a, caption, 12:1–2,[186] which makes, clear the dialectical character of, Christian existence: on the one, hand, Paul challenges the Roman, Christians to a worship
Page 435 :
corresponding to the essence of, λόγος (word, reason) and thus to, conducting their lives in a way that, is reasonable and devoted to the, world;[187] on the other hand, at, the same time he makes it just as, clear that this does not mean an, accommodation to the essential, values and perspectives of this, world but a life that corresponds to, the will of God, which can also be, discerned in the world. This way of, thinking is based on the ancient, concept of offering a sacrifice to, the gods as grateful response for, some manifestation of divine, deliverance. Paul summarizes the, whole life of the Christian as such a, thank offering, defined as λογικὴ, λατρεία (reasonable service). As in, the ancient world in general, so, also in Paul: religion and intellect, are not contrasted but penetrate, each other, each able to interpret, the other. Therefore it is by no, means the case that the revelation, of God’s will in Jesus Christ can be
Page 436 :
perceived only within the limited, area of the church, for its content, is also fulfilled in the world ethos, in a way that can be perceived by, all, as τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον, (what is good and acceptable and, perfect, 12:2).[188] Paul thus takes, up the Hellenistic tradition of piety, governed by reason and acting, according to reason. Precisely in its, orientation to the Spirit/spirit, the, Christian ethic for Paul is also a, reasonable ethic, for the Spirit, takes away the defect in reasoning, caused by the power of sin and thus, restores it to its true self. Because, the will of God is identical with the, ethical good, the apostle is able to, integrate the general human, knowledge of good and evil into the, Christian ethic and at the same, time opens it up to the world ethos, without thereby grounding it in, reason or in a particular ethical, tradition. Instead Christians are, challenged to discern which ways
Page 437 :
of living one’s life derive from the, will of God.[189], In 12:3–15:13 Paul illustrates how such, ethical reflections might look. Paul first, focuses his attention on internal problems of, the community (12:3–8) and follows with, more general instructions in 12:9ff.,, continued in 13:8–14, then in Rom. 14–15, turns back to primarily inner-church issues., The love commandment, central in both, 12:9ff. and 13:8ff., thus shows that Paul’s, instructions are by no means limited only to, the realm of church life; the Christian lives of, church people can serve as models for the, transformation of the world., In 12:3 Paul first instructs the charismatics, not to transgress the established limits,, which also apply to them, but to conduct, themselves in a level-headed and, circumspect manner.[190] The philosophical, cardinal virtues of φρόνησις (insight) and, σωφροσύνη (level-headedness, composure),, under the heading of the “renewing of your, minds” (through the Spirit), are at the same, time the cardinal ecclesial virtues.[191] With, μέτρον πίστεως (measure of faith) Paul guides
Page 438 :
the train of thought in the direction of faith, that comes to expression as defined in a, particular instance and defined in a, particular manner, a faith that must be, aware of its boundaries; he does not want, faith to slide off into effusive rapturous, experiences. The differences of gifts and, responsibilities must not be allowed to, become divisive; instead the members of the, community are as a whole ἕν σῶμα ἐν Χριστῷ, (one body in Christ), although as individuals, they conduct themselves in relation to each, other as members. In Paul, as in the use of, the imagery in the ancient world generally,, the concept of an organism is directed, toward order. Differently than in 1 Cor., 12:28, however, the point here is not priority, in rank but the diversification of the, charismatic gifts. Within the listing in Rom., 12:6–8, central offices and functions may be, discerned: to the sphere of worship belong, prophecy, service (at the table), teaching,, and exhortation, while administration of, charity, leadership, and care for the sick are, in the area of church organization. For Paul,, to have a spiritual gift means that one must, decide how to use it in the service of others.
Page 439 :
Paul rings the chimes on this basic idea in, Rom. 12:9–21. At the beginning stands the, programmatic word about Christian love as, the functional center of all spiritual gifts (cf., 1 Cor. 13). The following chain of, instructions provides a rich description of life, within the Christian community that knows, itself to be determined exclusively by love., Some admonitions are directed to insiders: to, love one another (Rom. 12:10), contributing, to the needs of one’s brothers and sisters in, the faith, to show hospitality (12:13), and to, manifest unity (12:15–16). Here Paul, challenges the Roman Christians to “be, ardent in the Spirit” (12:11b). The way of life, that prevails within the Christian community, is also to be directed outward in its relation, to the world.[192] The renunciation of, vengeance (12:17, 19), the ability to live in, peace with all other human beings (12:18),, and finally the call to love even one’s, enemies (12:20) encourage the community of, faith to allow the power of the Spirit to work, without restraint in all areas of its life. Just, as with the other admonitions, the, fundamental principle “Do not be overcome, by evil, but overcome evil with good” (12:21)
Page 440 :
appeals to the experience of love and is not, merely one of a list of commands. The, exhortation not to repay evil with evil, presupposes that the Roman church is faced, with considerable pressure from outside., [193] The edict of Claudius in 49 CE most, likely caused the Jewish community in Rome, to distance itself from the emerging, Christianity and at the same time to oppose, it as a potential source of danger. But one, can also easily imagine that pressures were, arising from the Roman state, for this, presupposition provides an explanation for, the surprising instructions in 13:1–7., In the Shadow of the Roman, Imperial Power In Rom. 13:1–7, Paul deals with the relation of the, Christian to the state. The section, is intentionally permeated with, secular terms and concepts, which, make a direct christological, interpretation impossible.[194] The, Roman church should fit itself into, the created structures of the world., Romans 13:1b emphasizes the, divine origin of all authority, and
Page 441 :
13:2 draws the consequence that, whoever resists the authority, resists the order God has, established. Romans 13:3–4 explain, the function of the divinely, established authority. Because the, authorities have the responsibility, to punish evil, no one who does, good need fear them. By punishing, evil, the authorities are God’s, servants and are executing God’s, wrath. Therefore, so 13:5 declares,, one must be subject to these, authorities “not only because of, wrath but also because of, conscience.” The general, admonition calling for obedience is, concretized with the example of, 13:6: the Romans pay taxes and, thereby acknowledge the, authorities established by God. The, imperial officials in charge of taxes, and customs carry out their work, as nothing less than λειτουργοὶ θεοῦ, (God’s servants). In 13:7 Paul, concludes his instruction with a, generalization: “Pay to all what is
Page 442 :
due them—taxes to whom taxes are, due, revenue to whom revenue is, due, respect to whom respect is, due, honor to whom honor is due.”, The interpretation of this disputed, passage must attend carefully to its, location within the structure of, Romans: it is paraenesis, not, dogmatics.[195] Since the state, accepts the tasks of administering, and putting into effect the power, assigned it by God, then Christians, are responsible to support it in, these tasks. Moreover, 13:1–7, manifests a political connotation, currently relevant to Paul’s, readers, for his instruction to, acknowledge the political, authorities is probably to be, understood against the background, of the increasing tensions between, the Roman authorities and the, independent movement that was, developing into a recognizably, Christian community.[196] The, Romans are beginning to perceive, the Christians as a group that
Page 443 :
worships an executed criminal as a, god and that proclaims the, imminent end of the world. The, Neronian persecution that, occurred only eight years after, Romans was written shows that, there must have been increasing, tensions between the Christians, on, the one side, and the authorities, and the population of Rome, on the, other.[197], With the keyword ἀγάπη (love), Paul takes, up the thread of the instructions in 12:9–21,, at the same time drawing a significant, relationship between ἀγάπη and νόµος, (law/Torah), for, according to the general, understanding of antiquity, love comprises, everything with which the law/Torah is, concerned.[198] Love appears in 13:8a as, the obligatory fundamental norm of all, Christian conduct, and 13:8b then supplies, the basis for this demand: ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν, ἕτερον νόµον πεπλήρωκεν (for the one who loves, another has fulfilled the law).[199] With this, concentration of the law into the concept of, love, Paul stands in the tradition of Jewish
Page 444 :
and Jewish Christian exposition of the, Scripture (cf. Matt. 5:43; 7:12; 19:19; 22:39;, Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:27).[200] Romans, 13:9 functions as an explanation; Paul cites, first, in abbreviated form, four prohibitions, (cf. Exod. 5:17–20, 21; Exod. 20:13–15, 17), as preliminary to introducing Lev. 19:18b as, the positive testimony of Scripture., According to Paul, the individual commands, should be understood in the light of the love, command. Then Rom. 13:10b draws the, programmatic concluding inference: πλήρωμα, οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη (therefore, love is the, fulfilling of the law). In 13:8–10 Paul chooses, three fundamental points where his train of, thought regarding the law comes to crucial, junctures: (1) He precisely specifies and, reduces the Torah by orienting it completely, to the love command[201] and claims that in, this way it is fulfilled by Christians in its, entire extent. There is thus no distinction, between commands that are still valid and, commands that have been annulled, although, in fact the ritual laws are no longer observed, (cf. 14:14, 20). Paul is concerned with the, claim of the whole Torah. Through this line, of argument Paul avoids the objection that
Page 445 :
his theology negates the Torah as divine, revelation. From the Jewish perspective,, however, this objection continues to be valid,, for, in contrast to Jewish tradition, the rest of, the commands and prohibitions of the Torah, completely lose their importance for Paul., [202] This also applies to the Decalogue, for, in 13:9 Paul does not cite the Decalogue but, only illustratively from the Decalogue., Through this line of argument, the apostle, leaves his Jewish thinking behind, for the, claim to fulfill the whole Torah by keeping, one command while failing to observe all the, other commands is not imaginable and not, verifiable in the Jewish thought world., (2) Paul attempts to resolve the, problematic of the law through a new, definition of the law/Torah. He thinks he can, appeal to a scriptural text for support (Lev., 19:18) and is persuaded that he can thereby, do justice to both the continuity and the, discontinuity of God’s actions., (3) Through the transformation of the, law/Torah into the love command, Paul, succeeds in taking up the nucleus of both, Jewish and Greco-Roman thinking about the, law and thus in providing a means by which
Page 446 :
all groups in the community could find his, understanding of the law acceptable.[203], Just as the concept of love already forms, the functional center of Rom. 12:9–13:14, so, it also determines the apostle’s, argumentation in the conflict between the, “strong” and the “weak” in 14:1–15:13.[204], It is no accident that the term ἀδελφός, (brother/sister) is found especially often in, this section (14:10, 13, 15, 21), for it is the, love of brothers and sisters who accept one, another within the one family of God, in, which the love for neighbor Paul is calling for, assumes concrete shape. Paul shares the, position of the “strong” (14:14, 20; 15:1) but, for love’s sake requires that the strong be, considerate of the “weak.” Both groups live, from the fact that Christ has welcomed them;, therefore they should welcome each other., The inclusio of 14:3 and 15:7, which, determines this whole section, highlights, mutual acceptance as a fundamental, ecclesiological principle. But the principle of, mutual acceptance is not to be identified, with the modern concept of tolerance,[205], for what is at stake here has to do with the, differing evaluation of cultural
Page 447 :
presuppositions, not christological or, sociological issues, about which Paul does, not leave open a range of options. Each, person has the right to remain committed to, his or her own lifestyle (cf. 14:1–2), but, because the brother or sister who thinks and, acts differently on such matters has been, welcomed by God, “Welcome one another,, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you,, for the glory of God” (15:7). When love, expresses itself in the concrete form of, welcoming those who think differently,, judging each other is excluded (cf. 14:4, 10,, 13). Judgment is the prerogative of God, alone (14:10–11), but every individual must, give account to God (14:12). The unity of the, church of Jewish Christians and Gentile, Christians may not be obscured or even, placed at risk by third-rate issues, for only, then does the church maintain its drawing, power for outsiders (15:8ff.).
Page 449 :
The historiographical insight already, developed,[1] namely, that no event is, meaningful in and of itself but its meaning, potential must first be inferred and, established, provides the point of departure, for the following considerations. This, potential must be transferred from the realm, of chaotic contingency into “an orderly,, meaningful, intelligible contingency.”[2] The, fundamental construct that facilitates this is, narration, for narrative sets up the meaning, structure that makes it possible for human, beings to come to terms with historical, contingency.[3] Narrative brings things into, a factual, temporal, and spatial relationship;, “it arranges things ex post facto in a, plausible structure that shows they, necessarily or probably happened that, way.”[4] Narrative establishes insight by, creating new connections and allowing the, meaning of the event to emerge. Paul, achieves this in the macrogenre of the letter, with his Jesus-Christ-history,[5] for his, encounter with the risen Christ near, Damascus made it impossible to avoid, restructuring the meaning of things. Paul, transferred the chaotic contingency of cross
Page 450 :
and resurrection into a meaningful narrative, argument-, and meaning-structure. It is now, our task to delineate the load-bearing, foundations of this intellectual structure, and, the materials, the connections, the realms of, meaning, and the principles by which it was, erected. As we do this, the historical and, theological results of part 1 are presupposed, throughout.
Page 451 :
16
Page 452 :
Christology, The Lord Who Is Present, Unlike the Gospels, Paul does not set forth, his Christology as a narrative Jesusology., Instead he chooses a variety of christological, leitmotifs, takes up metaphors used in, Christian preaching from a number of, semantic fields and their related imagery, in, order to elaborate the meaning of the Christ, event in all its dimensions and interpret why, the historical “once for all” became the, eschatological “always.” Paul’s polyphonic, christological language has a clear point of, departure: the conviction that Jesus Christ, and his cruel fate represent and portray the, love of God as God’s saving will for, humanity. He liberates from the slavery to, sin and death and already in the present, grants authentic life. For Paul, Christology is, the manifold conceptual-theological, interpretation of the significance of an event, at the same time unique and universal: the, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Page 453 :
16.1 Transformation and, Participation as the Basic Modes, of Pauline Christology One, fundamental idea characterizes, Paul’s Christology: God has, transferred the Jesus who was, crucified and dead into a new, mode of being. A change of status, occurs here: Jesus of Nazareth did, not remain in the status of those, who are dead and distant from, God’s presence, but God conferred, on him the status of equality with, God. This overwhelming, experience and insight were, granted to Paul at Damascus, and, his letters reflect the variety of, ways Paul had pondered the, significance of this transfer of, Jesus from the realm of death to, life with God. As was already the, case with the earliest Christian, tradition, so also for Paul, the, conviction that God had raised, Jesus from the dead was, fundamental (e.g., 1 Thess. 1:10; 2, Cor. 4:14; Rom. 8:11). God and
Page 454 :
Jesus Christ were thought of, together; the Son participates, fully in the deity of the Father., Thus, already before Paul,, christological reflection had, extended the change in Jesus’, status from the resurrection to, include preexistence. It was only, Jesus’ own willingness to descend, to the way of the cross that, granted him his exalted status as, Lord of the universe; that is, even, the preexistent one underwent a, transformation in order to become, what he was to be (cf. Phil. 2:6–, 11)., The goal of the transformation of Jesus, Christ is the participation of believers in this, fundamental event: “For you know the, generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he, became poor, so that by his poverty you, might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9); “For our, sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin,, so that in him we might become the, righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).[1]
Page 455 :
Easter is an act of God involving not only, Jesus but disciples and apostles, for God has, made them know that the one who was, crucified now lives. The resurrection of Jesus, Christ from the dead is thus for Paul a oncefor-all act, but its effects continue and have, effected a fundamental change in the world., The God of the resurrection is the one who, “gives life to the dead and calls into, existence the things that do not exist” (Rom., 4:17b). God so identifies himself with the, crucified Jesus of Nazareth that the lifegiving power revealed in the resurrection, continues to be effective: “For to this end, Christ died and lived again, so that he might, be Lord of both the dead and the living”, (Rom. 14:9). The power of the resurrection of, Jesus Christ is at work in the present and, generates its own assurance: “But if we have, died with Christ, we believe that we will also, live with him” (Rom. 6:8; cf. 2 Cor. 1:9; 5:15)., Christ was “handed over to death for our, trespasses and was raised for our, justification” (Rom. 4:25). When Paul himself, was near death, his participation in the, power of the resurrection was the ground of, his hope of attaining the resurrection from
Page 456 :
the dead (Phil. 3:10–11). With the, resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, a, universal dynamic was set in motion that, affects not only the destiny of the individual, believer but the whole cosmos (cf. Phil. 3:20–, 21). As the way of salvation, the way of, Christ is aimed at the believers’, participation; as the prototype, the way of, Jesus Christ from death to life opens up the, way for humans to follow the same way and, makes it possible for them to do so.[2], According to Paul’s conviction, this way, introduces a new epoch, at the end of which, stands the universal transformation when, God will be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28)., 16.2 Jesus Christ as Crucified and, Risen Paul is the last direct, witness of the transformation of, Jesus of Nazareth from death to, life. At Damascus he was granted, an Easter appearance: “Last of all,, as to one untimely born, he, appeared also to me” (1 Cor., 15:8). God’s grace was revealed to, him, the small one (Latin paulus
Page 457 :
[small]), the least among the, apostles (1 Cor. 15:9, ἐλάχιστος,, superlative of μικρός [small]). The, appearance of the risen one made, Paul certain that Jesus had not, remained in death as a crucified, transgressor of the law but that he, has taken his rightful place at, God’s side (cf., e.g., 1 Thess. 4:14;, 2 Cor. 4:14; Rom. 6:9; Phil. 2:6–, 11). The resurrection of Jesus, Christ from the dead is therefore, the factual presupposition for the, theological relevance of the cross,, which means that the person of, the crucified one is first revealed, in the light of the resurrection.[3], We must therefore first deal with, the Pauline understanding of the, resurrection before the cross can, come into view as historical locus, and thematic theological symbol, of God’s act., 16.2.1 Jesus Christ as the Risen One The, resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is, at once the central content of Paul’s
Page 458 :
meaning formation and its most disputed, element, never accepted as entirely, credible.[4] Luke had already presented the, Epicureans and Stoics as ridiculing Paul’s, preaching of the resurrection (cf. Acts, 17:32). When it comes to integrating the, idea of resurrection from the dead into, human thought, the deficiency in the world, of human experience requires that we, proceed in an exploratory manner in three, progressive stages: we will ask what reality, content Paul ascribes to the resurrection of, Jesus Christ from the dead, present relevant, explanatory models, and finally discuss our, own model for understanding the, resurrection., The Reality Content of the, Resurrection Event Paul leaves no, doubt about the significance of the, resurrection as the foundation of, Christian faith: “if Christ has not, been raised, then our proclamation, has been in vain and your faith has, been in vain” (1 Cor. 15:14); “If, Christ has not been raised, your, faith is futile and you are still in
Page 459 :
your sins. . . . If for this life only we, have hoped in Christ, we are of all, people most to be pitied” (15:17,, 19). For Paul, there is an, irreversible series of resurrection,, appearance, kerygma, and faith. In, 1 Cor. 15 Paul gives a literary, elaboration of this chronological, series of events. Although he is, himself an authentic witness of the, resurrection, here too he anchors, his Christology in church tradition, (cf. 15:1–3a), in order to make, clear that the resurrection of Jesus, Christ from the dead is the, foundation of faith for all, Christians. The gospel has a, definite form, and only in this form, does it manifest itself for the, Corinthians as a gospel that saves,, and so believers must hold fast to, the confession “that Christ died for, our sins in accordance with the, scriptures, and that he was buried,, and that he was raised on the third, day in accordance with the, scriptures, and that he appeared to
Page 460 :
Cephas, then to the twelve” (15:3b–, 5).[5] Neither Paul nor the, Corinthians can simply have their, own version of the gospel; both are, directed to the one gospel already, given. The content of the gospel is, the tradition of the death and, resurrection of Christ. Jesus Christ, died for our sins according to the, will of God; the statement about his, burial functions to confirm the, reality of his death. The event of, Jesus’ death as a whole, including, his burial, has its counterpart in, the event of Jesus’ resurrection as, a whole, including the, appearances. This resurrection, overcomes death, understood both, as God’s last enemy and as the end, of every individual life. Both the, idea of Jesus’ burial and the idea of, the visible appearances of the, resurrected one point to the fact, that both Paul and the tradition, understand the death and, resurrection of Jesus as bodily, events in space and time.[6]
Page 461 :
Likewise Paul’s extension of the list, of witnesses (15:6–9) functions to, demonstrate the bodily, and thus, verifiable, resurrection of Jesus, Christ from the dead,[7] since, many of the five hundred brothers, and sisters are still alive and can, be interrogated. Bultmann rightly, understands the intention of this, text when he emphasizes, “I can, understand this text only as an, attempt to make the resurrection, of Christ credible as an objective, historical fact.”[8] But he then, continues, “And I see that Paul is, betrayed by his apologetic into, contradicting himself. For what, Paul says in 15:20–22 of the death, and resurrection of Christ cannot, be said of an objective historical, fact.”[9] What Paul understood as, historical event Bultmann wants to, relegate to the realm of myth in, order to maintain the credibility of, the gospel in the modern world., Paul, the only witness to the, resurrection from whom we have
Page 462 :
written reports, however, obviously, understood the resurrection of, Jesus Christ from the dead as an, event within history, an event that, had completely changed his own, life. By citing the tradition in, 15:3b–5 and by filling out the list of, witnesses, Paul is also defending, his own authority as an apostle.[10], He brings the accepted tradition up, to the time when the risen Christ, appeared personally to him, and, thus makes clear to the Corinthians, that he saw the risen one in the, same way as the other witnesses,, including Cephas. Paul thereby, touches on three problem areas:, (1) the bodily resurrection of Jesus,, (2) his own testimony to this event,, and (3) an understanding, derived, from this, of the bodily, resurrection from the dead. For, Paul, this understanding of the, resurrection is not a question of, interpretation but a constituent, element of the gospel itself. Only if, Jesus Christ was raised bodily, and
Page 463 :
therefore in reality, from the dead, can Christians place their hope in, God’s eschatological act of, salvation., This is by no means contradicted by the, fact that both Paul and his tradition also, argue in a restrictive manner:[11] the, resurrection event itself is never described;, the materiality of the event remains, unmentioned. Paul understands Easter, strictly as a revelatory act (Gal. 1:15–16), in, which God revealed Jesus to him (1 Cor. 9:1;, 15:8). This revelation occurred as at once an, event within the world of human experience, and as an event that transcends space and, time, an event that fundamentally changed, those who accepted it. The act of God at, Easter includes the disciples and apostles,, for God had made known to them that the, crucified one is now alive. The power of life, that became manifest in the resurrection of, Jesus Christ continues to work, transforming, those who believe (cf. Rom. 6:8; 2 Cor. 1:9;, 5:15). Paul understands the bodily, resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as, the act of God for the crucified one, which
Page 464 :
introduces the eschatological age and thus, becomes the foundation for a new view of the, world and history. Moreover, the, resurrection of Jesus Christ visibly changed, his own life, so that for Paul its reality, content not only consists in a new evaluation, about the act of God for Jesus of Nazareth, but also expresses a new and experiential, reality.[12], Explanatory Models The, experiences of Paul near Damascus, are not our own; his worldview does, not belong to everyone.[13] How, can one speak of the resurrection, of Jesus Christ from the dead, within the terms of the modern, world? How is it possible to affirm, the truth of the good news of the, resurrection of Jesus Christ from, the dead in a time when truth, claims are exclusively bound to the, rationalism of the methods of, (natural) science?[14] What, plausibility do the arguments of the, disputers and the advocates of the, reality of the resurrection possess?
Page 465 :
Three interpretative models are, significant in the current, discussion., Projections of the disciples as the, cause of the resurrection faith, (subjective-visions hypothesis), David Friedrich Strauss (1808–, 1874) presented arguments, against the Easter faith that have, set the agenda for the discussion, up to the present day.[15] He, strictly distinguished between the, appearance tradition and the, tradition of the empty tomb. In, his opinion, the historical origin, of the Easter faith lies in the, visions of the disciples in Galilee,, far removed from Jesus’ burial, place, which first became the, empty tomb in a secondary, legend. The appearance stories, point to visions of the disciples, that were evoked by their pious, charismatic experiences and their, stressful situation. Strauss is, thus an advocate of the
Page 466 :
subjective-vision hypothesis,, according to which the disciples’, visionary experiences can be, rationally explained on the basis, of their specific historical, situation., Consternation at the execution of their master had scared, them far from the dangerous metropolis, to their native, Galilee; here they may have held secret meetings in honor, of his memory, they may have found strength for their faith, in him, have searched Scripture through and through, and, strained every nerve to reach unto light and certainty;, these were spiritual conflicts which, in Oriental and, especially female natures of an unbalanced religious and, fanatical development, easily turned into ecstasies and, visions. . . . Thus the disciples, by elaborating the, conception of the resurrection of their slain master, had, rescued his work; and, moreover, it was their honest, conviction that they had actually beheld and conversed, with the risen Lord. It was no case of pious deception, but, all the more of self-deception; embellishment and legend,, of course, although possibly still in good faith, soon became, intermingled with it.[16], , The significance of this line of argument is, found not only in the reversal of cause and, effect of the resurrection faith but above all, in its dissolution of the coincidence of reality, and truth. To a considerable degree, Strauss, makes Jesus’ historicity evaporate into the, realm of myth, with the result that a
Page 467 :
cavernous gap appears between the reality, of the historical event and the truth claim of, the resurrection faith. Strauss hoped to, resolve the tension he had thereby created, by transferring the core of the Christian faith, from the realm of history to the realm of, ideas.[17] This is a deceptive hope, for the, apparently positive results stood before a, fundamental deficit: If the disciples are the, cause and subject of the resurrection faith,, then this event can be integrated into our, understanding of reality. But it thereby loses, its claim to be the truth, for in the long run, truth cannot be maintained when unrelated, to historical reality.[18], Various levels of objections are to be raised, against this derivation of resurrection faith, from internal psychological processes: (1), The historical argument: G. Lüdemann, follows Strauss in regarding the traditions of, the empty tomb as late apologetic legends., Lüdemann supposes that even the earliest, Christian community did not know the, location of Jesus’ grave.[19] This is a, thoroughly questionable historical argument,, for Jesus’ crucifixion clearly attracted much, attention in Jerusalem. Thus neither Jesus’
Page 468 :
opponents nor his disciples and sympathizers, would have been unaware of the place where, Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus (Mark, 15:42–47).[20] When, shortly after this event,, Jesus’ disciples emerged in Jerusalem with, the message that Jesus had been raised from, the dead, then the issue of Jesus’ tomb must, have occupied a place of central importance, from the very beginning. The disciples’, preaching could easily have been refuted by, pointing to a tomb that still contained Jesus’, body., (2) The history-of-religions argument:, There are no parallels from the history of, contemporary religion to the concept of a, person who had died appearing to his or her, associates.[21] If the appearances are, understood exclusively on the basis of, internal psychological phenomena, then, there would have been other models for, conceiving the event in order to express, Jesus’ special position. From the history-ofreligions perspective, the eschatological, affirmations of the early Christians are a, unique combination., (3) The methodological argument: Strauss, and Lüdemann in no way present an
Page 469 :
“objective” and historically cogent, representation of the resurrection event but, necessarily their own history with Jesus of, Nazareth. Their argument is determined by, their epistemologically unfounded, assumption that their analysis of the literary, process by which the event was, communicated is completely authoritative in, deciding its reality. Such an analysis,, however, can produce no assured results, for, it does not apply to the event itself but, always only to its literary interpretations as, found in particular texts, and the way these, are interpreted is in turn dependent on the, exegete’s understanding of reality and, history, which inevitably determines the, actual results. The decision about the reality, and truth content of the resurrection event, thus always occurs within the premises of, the worldview and the life history of the, interpreters; these premises set forth the, normative worldview and guiding interests of, the interpretation and spring from within the, interpreters themselves. In the subjectivevision hypothesis, the argument is based, especially on psychological assumptions,[22], and historical postulates derived from them,
Page 470 :
without their advocates having thought, through the hermeneutical deficits involved, in this approach.[23], Resurrection dissolved into the, kerygma Following the (negative), results of the nineteenth, century’s quest for the historical, Jesus, Bultmann intentionally, abandoned the attempt to, illuminate the Easter faith by, historical methods: “The church, had to surmount the scandal of, the cross and did it in the Easter, faith. How this act of decision, took place in detail, how the, Easter faith arose in individual, disciples, has been obscured in, the tradition by legend and is not, of basic importance.”[24], Bultmann understands Easter as, an eschatological event, that is,, an event that puts an end to all, previous history, an event whose, source is God, who brings in a, new world and a new time. As an, eschatalogical event, Easter is
Page 471 :
misunderstood when one, attempts to understand it by thisworldly criteria, for the, resurrection is not a miracle that, can be certified by evidence. This, basic hermeneutical decision, Bultmann finds in the New, Testament itself, for there the, crucified one is not proclaimed in, such a way “that the meaning of, the cross is . . . disclosed from, the life of Jesus as a figure of, past history, a life that needs to, be reproduced by historical, research. On the contrary, Jesus, is not proclaimed merely as the, crucified; he is also risen from, the dead. The cross and the, resurrection form an inseparable, unity.”[25] But how exactly are, cross and resurrection related to, each other? The resurrection is, nothing else than “an attempt to, convey the meaning of the, cross.”[26] This eschatological, event, once set in motion by God,, continues to happen as the word
Page 472 :
is proclaimed and faith is, generated. Thus it is correct to, say that Jesus “has risen into the, kerygma,”[27] inasmuch as the, proclamation of the word is the, continuation of God’s, eschatological act effective for, believers. There is a way to, apprehend an eschatological, event only when one is inducted, into the new world, that is,, eschatological existence, and, confesses in faith “that the cross, really has the cosmic and, eschatological significance, ascribed to it.”[28], This procedural concept, specifically, obligated to the thinking of the modern age,, raises two necessary questions: (1) In this, coordination of cross and resurrection, what, reality content is attributed to the, resurrection? If the resurrection is “an, attempt to convey the meaning of the cross,”, then it is not a matter of making a judgment, about its objective reality but a reflective, judgment of a subject, a judgment that marks
Page 473 :
the subject’s own hermeneutical standpoint., [29] A reflective judgment that does not refer, to anything that really happened finally, evaporates, even if it is often discussed and, reformulated.[30] Just how Bultmann thinks, of Jesus having risen into the kerygma, remains unclear. The reality of the, resurrection and one’s confession of it are, intentionally no longer distinguished and are, thus effectively identified as the same thing., We have here an elegant but vague, formulation that consciously veils the reality, affirmed.[31] Precisely at the spot where the, fundamental relation between history and, truth needs to be clarified, “the meaning of, each delimiting statement remains stuck in, unresolved ambiguity.”[32], (2) It is not possible to renounce the, analysis of the historical dimensions of the, resurrection event because both the oldest, tradition and Paul himself understand the, resurrection event as an event bound to, space and time. Moreover, if the powers of, the resurrection continue at work in, Christian faith, they must have a historical, beginning point. Whoever does not pose the, question of the historical dimensions of the
Page 474 :
resurrection of Jesus Christ lags behind what, had already happened in the New Testament., [33], Resurrection as real event W., Pannenberg understands the, Easter appearances as the, objective expression of the, manifestations of the risen one., [34] He opposes the, reductionistic worldview of, modern times, which, dogmatically excludes God from, the world of reality. “Historicity, does not necessarily mean that, what is said to have taken place, historically must be like other, known events. The claim to, historicity that is inseparable, from the assertion of the facticity, of an event simply involves the, fact that it happened at a specific, time. The question whether it is, like other events may play a role, in critical evaluation of the truth, of the claim but is not itself a, condition of the actual truth
Page 475 :
claim the assertion makes.”[35], If the possibility of God’s acting, in time and history is held open,, then there are also weighty, historical arguments for the, credibility of the Easter, narratives. For Pannenberg, the, tomb tradition, regarded, historically, is just as original as, the appearance tradition but is, independent of it regarding the, facts reported. It was first in the, light of the appearances that the, empty tomb became a witness of, the resurrection; apart from the, appearances, it remains, ambiguous. There are thus two, mutually confirming witnesses, for the Easter event, which vouch, for the objectivity of the event., “And in fact, not the report of the, discovery of the empty tomb,, taken by itself, but rather the, convergence of the independent, appearance tradition originating, in Galilee with the Jerusalem, tomb tradition has considerable
Page 476 :
weight in forming a historical, judgment. In making historical, judgments—to speak in general—, the convergence of different, findings has great, importance.”[36] Pannenberg, does not avoid historical inquiry, and argument and thus, necessarily moves into the realm, of judgment calls influenced by, life history and worldview. The, conclusiveness of two witnesses, that he presupposes[37] may not,, however, be able to bear the, burden of proof, for Pannenberg, himself thereby remains within, the thought patterns of modern, historical positivism.[38], Resurrection as Transcendent, Event The historicization of, thought in modern times and its, associated subsuming of the, concept of truth under the rational, methods of the prevailing science, have effected a fundamental, change in the way biblical texts and
Page 477 :
their claims are perceived., “Historicization has removed the, Bible into the far distant temporal, context of its origin, so that, between the past of its origin and, its present meaning there opens a, temporal gap that—and this is the, decisive point—cannot be closed, with the same methodological, means.”[39] The spotlights of the, history of research have revealed, decisive strategies for avoiding this, dilemma or for constructing a, bridge across the chasm that, separates past record and present, meaning. Some resulting, methodological insights are these:, (1) The problems cannot be, resolved by declaring that the, inquiry about the resurrection from, the dead is historically impossible, or theologically illegitimate. In, each case, one simply avoids the, question of whether the accounts, of the resurrection event refer to, something real; faith and reality, are torn apart. The resurrection
Page 478 :
remains among the rubble of past, history,[40] and faith becomes, merely an ideological assertion if it, severs the connection to the, original event. (2) Hermeneutical, and historiographical reflections, must precede the necessary, historical inquiry, for they, determine the respective, constructions of reality and the, concept of truth associated with, each. With these methodological, presuppositions, the following, discussion attempts to understand, the resurrection as a transcendent, event., Hermeneutical and, historiographical considerations, When dealing with the topic of, the resurrection, one must think, in a special way about the, question of the range and, capability of historical, knowledge, for it is beyond our, experience of reality.[41], Historical knowledge always
Page 479 :
takes place in view of a temporal, gap from the event itself. This, temporal gap cannot be bridged—, not by the availability of good, sources, not by an intuitive grasp, of historical events. On the, contrary, historical, understanding always takes place, only as an act of getting as close, as possible to the past events, without ever actually being in, their presence. It is impossible to, visualize a past event in such a, way that it, so to speak, repeats, itself under the control of the, historian. Hypotheses about the, origin of traditions and texts, cannot decide about what really, happened., In addition to the temporal gap, there is, the fact that historical events must always be, interpreted, which constitutes the relativity, of all historical knowledge. History is first, constructed in the interpretation of the, knowing subject; history is always a, constructed model of what really happened,
Page 480 :
a mock-up of the event itself. In this process, the worldview of the historian necessarily, serves as the lens through which the data, are viewed; that is, the understanding of, reality accepted by the historian, his or her, religious or areligious disposition,, necessarily determines what can and what, cannot be counted as historical.[42] The, prevailing worldviews are themselves subject, to a constant process of change. No, worldview can claim for itself a special place, in history,[43] for it undergoes unavoidable, changes, can never be an absolute, but itself, always belongs to the relativities of history., Pointing out the differences between the, contemporary worldview and that of the New, Testament is not therefore an adequate, argument to demonstrate its deficient, character because every generation must, articulate its understanding within its own, worldview. And there is no reason to think, that following generations can derive some, sort of absolute cognitive advantage from, their later, differing worldview., History is never simply there for all to see, but is always constructed only through the, retrospective view of the knowing subject. In
Page 481 :
modern times, this process of construction is, oriented to particular methods as markers of, scientific rationality, so that the prevailing, truism is, “No meaning without method.”[44], Method breaks the spell of the meaning, potential of historical memory and levels, everything out to a uniform mass. In the case, of the resurrection, this freeing of history, from its magic spell goes under the name of, “analogy.” Historical events can be properly, evaluated only when they have analogies,, when they can be understood within the, nexus of cause and effect.[45] This is not the, case with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, from the dead, for—regarded historically—it, deals with a singular phenomenon. This, immediately raises the question whether, such a unique event is historically credible., The answer to this question depends on the, theory of history[46] accepted by each, exegete. Followers of nomological, conceptions will declare everything, unhistorical that lies outside the realm of law, as defined by themselves. In contrast, if one, sees the constitutive element of history in, temporal experiences, this changes the, horizon of one’s perceptions. “For the sake of
Page 482 :
its orientation function, historical thinking, takes recourse to temporal experiences that, are disregarded within the schema of, nomological explanation: experiences of, changes that do not fit the internal regularity, where change is always caused by the things, themselves. It is a matter of temporal, experiences that, in contrast to things, perceptible from the nomological approach,, have the status of contingency.”[47] For our, question, this means that the appearances of, the risen Jesus and the resurrection events, that lie behind them may not be proved by, historical method, but neither can they be, excluded if one includes the experiential, category of contingency in one’s construction, of history. In addition, there is the, fundamental epistemological insight that, in, general, events of the past are not directly, available to us, so that history, as a, secondary interpretation of what happened,, cannot claim the same reality content as the, events from which it derives.[48] We can, only say for historically certain that after the, crucifixion and death of the Jewish itinerant, preacher Jesus of Nazareth, some of his, followers claimed that he had appeared to
Page 483 :
them as alive from the dead. Claims about, the reality content of the resurrection event, that go beyond this, in the case of both those, who believe them and those who reject them,, move equally on the level of life history, experiences, epistemological positions, and, historical considerations., Resurrection as transcendent, event If one’s theory of history, allows the possibility of the, resurrection of Jesus Christ from, the dead, and admits that the, following appearances of the, risen one must be granted the, same possible reality content as, other events of the past, then the, question arises as to the event’s, actual relation to reality., Although it cannot be placed, within the categories of human, reality, it can be classified with, reference to them. It cannot be, placed within human categories, because for Paul, as for the New, Testament as a whole, the, resurrection is always understood
Page 484 :
strictly as the exclusive act of, God (cf. 1 Thess. 4:14; 1 Cor., 6:14a, 15; Gal. 1:1; Rom. 4:24–25;, 6:9; 8:11; 10:9).[49] The acting, subject in the resurrection is, God; that is, all talk of the, resurrection of Jesus Christ is, first of all a statement about God, himself.[50] As the creative act of, God on the crucified and dead, Jesus of Nazareth, the reality of, the resurrection must therefore, be distinguished from human, experiences, appropriations, and, expressions of this reality.[51] If, one combined and identified, these two (divine act and its, human experience and, expression), then the question of, the reality of this event could no, longer be answered, and the, possibility of divine act would be, dependent on human confession., Certainly, regarding the resurrection as, God’s act on Jesus of Nazareth does not do, away with the question of the relation of this
Page 485 :
event to reality. Claiming that God himself, speaks in the resurrection event and that, God’s act as such is not described but can, only be confessed[52] must again be, considered only an elegant avoiding of the, problems. How is something supposed to be, the foundation of my faith and thus of my, understanding of reality if it cannot be, brought into some relation to my reality? In, my opinion, this necessary coordination is, achieved with the concept of transcendence., The resurrection is first of all and essentially, an event that goes beyond (transcendere), normal experience, an event that originates, in God. It does not emerge, however, as the, transcendence of the absolutely Holy One or, as the distancing monotheism of God the, wholly Other but rather as the act of the God, who transcends his own eternity and,, without giving up his freedom, enters into, the realm of the creaturely world, of which, God is the Creator and which belongs to him., [53] Within the created world, human beings, are the creatures whose being is permeated, by experiences of transcendence. Human, beings live in a world that is ultimately out of, their reach, a world that was there before
Page 486 :
them and will be there after they are gone., [54] They can experience the world but not, simply fuse themselves with it. The, differences between experiences of one’s, own “I” and experiences that transcend one’s, self result not only in experiences of, difference but in experiences of, transcendence. Every experience at its core, points to something absent and foreign to, oneself, which evokes an experience of, transcendence along with the experience of, “ordinary” things. Thus, for example, love, and pain (through the separation or death of, a loved one) are experiences that are beyond, us and nevertheless permeate and determine, our lives; they transcend our previous, experience of reality and evoke both the, capacity and the necessity of meaning, formation. Thus a somewhat oversimplified, typology of experiences of transcendence can, be formulated: In the first place, when what, is not directly experienced in present, experience is just as experientially real as, what is presently experienced, we can speak, of “small” transcendent elements within daily, life. In the second place, when the present is, basically only indirectly, never directly,
Page 487 :
experienced but is nonetheless experienced, as a constituent element of the same, everyday reality, we can speak of “medium”, transcendent elements. In the third place,, when something is experienced only as, pointing to a different reality outside, everydayness, a reality that cannot be, experienced as such, we speak of “large”, transcendent elements.[55], To these large transcendent elements,, alongside sleep and crises, belongs above all, death,[56] whose reality cannot be doubted, but nevertheless cannot be experienced. As, the boundary situation of life, death is the, location where resurrection, the, transcendent event that proceeds from God,, encounters the first witnesses’ experiences, of transcendence. God’s creative act on the, crucified and dead Jesus of Nazareth evokes, in the first witnesses and also in Paul, experiences of transcendence of its own, kind.[57] The decisive experience and insight, is that in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, from the dead, God has made death the place, of his love for human beings., These special experiences of, transcendence cannot be subsumed
Page 488 :
[einordnen] under the categories of our, reality, but they can be coordinated, [zuordnen] with them, for our reality is, permeated throughout with different sorts of, experience of transcendence. If one does not, restrict the concept of experience to the, natural sciences,[58] the experiences of the, early witnesses of the resurrection are by no, means so categorically different from, “normal” experience as is commonly, supposed. In particular, the early Christians, processed their special experiences of, transcendence in the way that experiences of, transcendence fundamentally must be, constructively processed: through meaning, formation.[59], A Plausible Historical Course of, Events If one’s worldview allows, the possibility of regarding the, resurrection as an act of God, then, the main features of a historically, plausible course of events comes, into view. A comparison of the, Easter narratives in the Gospels, with 1 Cor. 15:3b–5 reveals that the, basic structure of the Easter
Page 489 :
narrative is composed of three, elements: a tomb narrative (in Paul, at 1 Cor. 15:4, “and he was, buried”); an appearance report (in, Paul at 1 Cor. 15:5a, “and that he, appeared to Cephas”); and an, appearance to a group of disciples, (in Paul at 1 Cor. 15:5b–7)., Like the Gospels (cf. Mark 16:1–8 par.;, John 20:1–10, 11–15), Paul too presupposes, the empty tomb.[60] He does not specifically, mention it, but the logic of Jesus’ burial and, resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:4 (and also being, “buried with him” in Rom. 6:4) points to the, empty tomb, for Jewish anthropology would, presuppose a bodily resurrection.[61] In, addition, there is the argument already, mentioned: the message of the resurrection, could not have been so successfully preached, in Jerusalem if Jesus’ corpse had remained in, a mass grave or in an unopened tomb.[62], Neither Jesus’ opponents nor his disciples, would have been unaware of the location of, Jesus’ burial.[63] Precisely when one thinks, historically, the success of the Easter, message in Jerusalem is inconceivable
Page 490 :
without an empty tomb. The discovery in, Jerusalem of the remains of a victim of, crucifixion from the time of Jesus shows[64], that the corpse of an executed criminal could, be handed over to his relatives or friends for, burial. The empty tomb by itself remains, ambiguous, however, and only the, appearances of the risen one reveal its, significance.[65], The point of departure for the appearance, traditions[66] is the primary epiphany of, Jesus to Peter (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5a; Luke 24:34),, since it is the basis for the distinctive, position of Peter in early Christianity.[67] In, the Gospel of John, the appearance tradition, begins with the appearance to Mary, Magdalene (John 20:11–18), and it is only, after this that Jesus appears to his male, disciples (John 20:19–23). Mark announces, that Jesus will meet his disciples in Galilee, (Mark 16:7), without recounting this event in, the narrative itself. In Matthew Jesus, appears first to Mary Magdalene and the, other Mary (cf. Matt. 28:9–10), and in Luke, to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke, 24:13ff.). Still, the accounts suggest that, Jesus probably appeared first to Peter and
Page 491 :
Mary Magdalene or several women. The, appearance accounts obviously pursue no, particular apologetic slant,[68] for, although, women were not fully qualified to be, witnesses according to Jewish law, they play, an important role in almost all the reports of, appearances found in the Gospels. After, appearing to individuals, Jesus appeared, before different groups of disciples, to the, Twelve or to the group of more than five, hundred (1 Cor. 15:7).[69] These group, appearances were followed by other, individual appearances, such as those to, James and finally to Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 15:7–8)., [70], On the basis of these reflections, the, discernible historical data may be quickly, summarized. After Jesus’ arrest, the disciples, fled, probably back to Galilee. Only a few, women dared to witness the crucifixion (from, a distance) and later to seek out the grave., Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea., Jesus’ first appearances took place in Galilee, (cf. Mark 16:7; 1 Cor. 15:6[?]), and there, may also have been appearances in, Jerusalem (cf. Luke 24:34; John 20). Peter, probably regathered the members of the
Page 492 :
Twelve and other disciples, both men and, women, to whom Jesus then appeared., Further individual appearances followed,, such as those to James and to Paul. The, appearance tradition was connected very, early to the tradition of the empty tomb; in, the light of the Easter appearances, this, grave, located near the place of execution,, became itself a witness of the resurrection., What was the nature of the appearances?, From the history-of-religions and history-oftraditions points of view, they are understood, as visions in the context of apocalyptic ideas,, according to which in the end times God will, grant insight into his acts to a few chosen, individuals.[71] Because of the paucity of, available materials, the reality content of the, appearances cannot be understood in, psychological terms, nor is an interpretation, of the appearances as faith experiences, adequate,[72] for this would minimize the, special status of the appearances as forming, the basis of faith. Like the resurrection itself,, the appearances are to be understood as a, transcendent event deriving from God that, generated the disciples’ transcendent, experiences. Such experiences of
Page 493 :
transcendence can be processed and, reconstructed in a twofold manner:, “narratives, in which the experiences of, transcendence are communicatively, structured and prepared for retelling, and, rituals, in which such experiences are, commemorated and with which the, transcendent reality is ritually invoked.”[73], Both the formula traditions and the narrative, traditions do this; in each case they are, necessarily consolidated in a variety of forms, conditioned by their own times and made, available for the intersubjective discourse of, the churches. Baptism, the Lord’s Supper,, and worship were ritual locations in which, the experiences were renewed and, confirmed., Easter thus became the foundational story, of the new movement.[74] The texts disclose, to us what the events set in motion and the, significance ascribed to them. Historically, and theologically, it is most important to note, that as an authentic witness of the, appearances, Paul’s transcendental, experience is portrayed in a very restrained, manner and points to the decisive theological, realization: the crucified one is risen. The
Page 494 :
appearances of the risen one, as a particular, kind of transcendent experience, become the, basis for the sure conviction that God, through his creative Spirit (cf. Rom. 1:3b–4a), has acted in Jesus Christ and has made him, to be the decisive eschatological figure., 16.2.2 The Cross in Pauline, Theology For Paul, the risen, one is the crucified one (2 Cor., 13:4, “For he was crucified in, weakness, but lives by the, power of God”). The salvific, significance of the resurrection, casts the death of Jesus in a, new light. For Paul, there is an, interaction between death and, resurrection. The resurrection, is the objective grounding for, the saving significance of, Jesus’ death, while at the same, time the resurrection kerygma, in Paul’s hermeneutic presents, the ultimate meaning of the, cross. Even after the, resurrection, Jesus remains the, crucified one (the perfect
Page 495 :
passive participle ἐσταυρωµένος, 1, Cor. 1:23; 2:2; Gal. 3:1).[75], “The risen one still bears the, nail prints of the cross.”[76] In, Paul, a biographical experience, attains theological quality. He, persecutes Jesus’ followers, because of their claim that the, Messiah is one who has been, crucified.[77] In the context of, Deut. 21:22–23, this message, must be resisted as blasphemy., Paul was convinced that the, curse pronounced by the Torah, applied to one who had been, crucified (Gal. 3:13). The, revelation at Damascus, reversed the coordinates of this, theological system. Paul, recognized that the accursed, one on the cross is the Son of, God; that is, in the light of the, resurrection, the cross was, transformed from the place of, the curse to the place of, salvation. Thus Paul can call, out to the Corinthians, “we
Page 496 :
proclaim Christ crucified, a, stumbling block to Jews and, foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor., 1:23). In Paul’s letters the, cross appears as the historical, location of the death of Jesus,, as an argumentativetheological theme, and as a, theological symbol.[78], The Cross as Historical Place, Theology always permeates Paul’s, talk of the cross. This does not, mean, however, that Paul detaches, it from history but that his, beginning point is the cross as the, place of the death of Jesus of, Nazareth. By using the expression, σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ (scandal /, stumbling block of the cross, 1 Cor., 1:23; Gal. 5:11), Paul refers to the, concrete, degrading manner of the, crucifixion, which identifies, someone as a criminal, not as Son, of God. To revere a victim of, crucifixion as Son of God appeared, to the Jews as theologically
Page 497 :
scandalous,[79] and to the GrecoRoman world as lunacy.[80] The, central place of the crucified one in, the Pauline symbolic universe, meant that every current cultural, plausibility was stood on its head,, for now the cross is the signum of, divine wisdom.[81], Crucifixion was regarded as a degrading, punishment.[82] The offender was often, forced to carry the crossbeam to the site of, crucifixion,[83] was nailed to it (cf. John, 20:25, 27),[84] and usually died only after a, long and painful struggle.[85] The, executioners had developed various means of, prolonging or shortening the life of the, victim.[86] Death could come within three, hours or be delayed for three days. As a rule,, death resulted from a combination of the, following factors: traumatic shock;, orthostatic collapse (blood settling into the, lower part of the body because of the, victim’s vertical position); insufficient oxygen, (suffocation); and blockage of the, pericardium (collection of fluids around the, heart).[87] In Palestine only the Roman
Page 498 :
officials could be responsible for a, crucifixion, which was their preferred, punishment for slaves and rebels.[88] In, Palestine during the period between 63 BCE, and 66 CE, the Romans carried out all the, crucifixions of rebels and their sympathizers., [89], Paul holds fast to the cross as the historical, location of the love of God. He resists a, complete kerygmatizing of the unique, historical event. God’s time-transcending act, identifies itself as salvific because it has a, real place and a real time, a name and a, history.[90] Pauline theology’s concentration, on the exalted and present Kyrios Jesus, Christ is based on his identity with the, crucified and dead Jesus of Nazareth. Faith, cannot flee into the mythical realm because, it is rooted in this world by the cross, as the, Pauline addition in Phil. 2:8c (θάνατος δὲ, σταυροῦ) makes clear. The concrete, once-forall uniqueness of the saving event and its, unmistakable character (cf. Rom. 6:10) are, indispensable for the identity of Christian, faith. Thus Paul asks the Corinthians, “Was, Paul crucified for you?” (1 Cor. 1:13a). If, Pilate had known who Jesus of Nazareth truly
Page 499 :
is, he would not have crucified the “Lord of, glory” (1 Cor. 2:8).[91] The offense of the, cross has continuing effects; Paul is, persecuted because he proclaims the cross, (Gal. 5:11), while his opponents avoid, persecution and thus abolish the scandal of, the cross (Gal. 6:12; Phil. 3:18). Through the, unique event of the past, the cross becomes, the eschatological event, that is, the event, that transcends time. The presence of the, cross in preaching presupposes that only the, crucified one is the risen one, and so the, significance of the cross is always bound to, its historical location., The Cross as Argumentative and, Theological Theme The cross, appears in several Pauline contexts, as an argumentative and, theological theme: (1) In Corinth it, has to do with rightly determining, the identity of God’s wisdom.[92], Paul attempts to make clear to this, church striving for present, fulfillment that wisdom is revealed, at the place where human beings, suppose only foolishness is to be
Page 500 :
found (1 Cor. 1:18ff.). God’s way of, working can be read off the cross,, as the God who has chosen the, weak and despised (1 Cor. 1:26–29), and who has led the apostle to a, way of life and thought determined, by the Lord (1 Cor. 2:2). If some in, the church suppose that they are, already in the state of fulfillment, that is to occur only at the end of, history (1 Cor. 4:8), then they have, exchanged God’s wisdom for their, own or for the wisdom of the world., In contrast to Paul, they do not, distinguish consistently between, God’s Spirit and the human spirit,, between divine and human, knowledge. Only the Spirit of God, leads into the “deep things of God”, (1 Cor. 2:10); the Spirit does not, reveal special teachings about, God’s essence but the event of the, cross as the deepest basis of divine, wisdom.[93] The resurrection can, only be declared as the, resurrection of the one who was, crucified; there are no wisdom and
Page 501 :
glory that can bypass the crucified, one (1 Cor. 2:6ff.)., (2) The cross in Galatians also appears in a, polemical context. Against the demand for, circumcision advocated by his Jewish, Christian opponents, Paul emphasizes that it, is precisely the crucified one who has, liberated baptized believers from the law, (Gal. 3:13; 5:11). In his death on the cross, as, our substitute (3:13, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν [for us]),, Christ took upon himself the curse, pronounced in the law, the curse that applies, to everyone who wants to gain life from the, law. If the law characterizes the crucified, one as accursed, the law cannot at the same, time be the obligatory basis of the Christian, life. Those who preach circumcision want to, resolve this contradiction so that they will, not be persecuted (by Jews) “for the cross of, Christ” (6:12). The cross of Christ and the, law are mutually exclusive alternatives, for, the saving gift of the Spirit comes through, faith in the crucified one (3:1–5)., (3) In paraenetic contexts, reference to the, cross serves as the basis for the believer’s, new being. The radical change in the
Page 502 :
believer’s life is causally related to the cross,, for transfer into the new realm of being takes, place as the believer participates in Christ’s, crucifixion at baptism. The old self, crucified, with Christ, is dead and delivered from sin, (Gal. 2:19; Rom. 6:6). The new existence of, baptized believers bears the sign of the, cross., The Cross as Symbol In every place, where the cross is introduced into, Paul’s argumentative contexts, it is, also a symbol. Because it first of all, continues to be a historical, location, the cross is able to be, both fact and symbol at the same, time.[94] It has a referential, character, pointing to an actual, event of the past, but through the, power of the Spirit, this past event, is also made real in the present. As, the place of the once-for-all, transfer of Jesus Christ into the, new realm of being, the present, existence of the believer is also, stamped with the reality of the, cross. In each case it designates
Page 503 :
the crossing over from death to life, and attains its present dimension, in a twofold ritual context: (1) In, baptism, the believer is, incorporated into the event of, Christ’s crucifixion and, resurrection in that here the power, of sin and death is overcome and, the status of the new being is, conferred. The perfect passive verb, συνεσταύρωµαι (I have been crucified, with) in Gal. 2:19, like σύµφυτοι, γεγόναµεν (united with him in a death, like his) in Rom. 6:5, underscores, the reality and power of the, baptismal event in which the, believer is crucified with Christ, a, power at work in the present and, determining it anew., (2) In Galatians Paul develops a critique of, the Judaists’ demand for circumcision, a, critique based on his theological, understanding of the cross. Circumcision was, made a competitor with baptism as the, initiation ritual into the people of God and, thereby became a competitor with the cross.
Page 504 :
Circumcision maintained the ethnic, differences between Jews and other peoples, whereas the cross symbolized the, transvaluation of all previous values and, baptism specifically abolished all previous, privileges (Gal. 3:26–28). The cross, symbolizes God’s surprising act that puts all, human standards out of commission. The, wisdom of the cross is incompatible with the, wisdom of the world. The cross radically calls, into question every human self-assertion and, individualistic striving after salvation, because it leads to weakness rather than, power, to mourning rather than celebration,, to shame rather than to glory, to the lostness, of death rather than the glory of salvation, already fulfilled in the present. This, foolishness of the cross cannot be identified, with any ideology or philosophy and refuses, to be made the instrument of any program, because it is grounded solely in the love of, God., This language of the cross is a distinctive, element of Pauline theology. The apostle, does not develop it from church tradition but, from his own biography: at Damascus God, revealed to him the truth about the crucified
Page 505 :
one, who did not remain in the realm of, death. The word of the cross designates the, foundational transformation process in the, Christ event and in the lives of baptized, believers, and so it leads directly to the, center of Pauline thinking.[95] The theology, of the cross appears as a fundamental, interpretation of God, the world, and life; it is, the midpoint of the Pauline symbolic, universe. It instructs one to interpret reality, by beginning with the God who reveals, himself in the crucifixion of Jesus and to, orient one’s thinking and acting by this, revealed reality. Human values, norms, and, categories receive a new interpretation in, the light of the cross of Christ, for God’s, values are the revaluing of all human values., The gospel of the crucified Jesus Christ, grants salvation through faith because this is, where God reveals himself, the God who, wants to be the savior of human beings, precisely in their lostness and nothingness., In the cross, God reveals his love, which is, able to suffer and therefore able to renew.
Page 506 :
16.3 Jesus Christ as Savior and, Liberator As the crucified and, risen one, Jesus Christ is for Paul, the central figure of the end time., He completely determines the, apostle’s understanding of reality, “For his sake I have suffered the, loss of all things, and I regard, them as rubbish, in order that I, may gain Christ” (Phil. 3:8). Paul, sees the world, life and death,, present and future, all from the, perspective of the Christ event,, and it is already true that “all, things are yours, whether Paul or, Apollos or Cephas or the world or, life or death or the present or the, future—all belong to you, and you, belong to Christ, and Christ, belongs to God” (1 Cor. 3:21–23)., Paul’s symbolic universe is, definitively shaped by the, conception that in the end time, Jesus Christ acts first of all as, Savior and liberator; Savior from, the coming wrath of God and
Page 507 :
liberator from the power of death., [96], The Savior Only the Son of God,, Jesus Christ, saves believers from, the wrath of God in the coming, judgment (cf. 1 Thess. 1:10). It is, not God’s will that believers be, subject to wrath; they will receive, salvation through the Lord Jesus, Christ (1 Thess. 5:9; Rom. 5:9).[97], The gospel is the power of God for, the salvation of believers (Rom., 1:16). Paul prays for the people of, Israel, that they too will be saved, (Rom. 10:1). He himself lives in the, awareness that salvation is now, nearer than the time when he and, the Roman Christians became, believers (Rom. 13:11). Because, God has raised Jesus Christ from, the dead, those who have been, called to faith confidently hope for, salvation at the imminent parousia, (cf. 1 Thess. 4:14; 5:10). Thus, Christians will be found blameless, and holy when the “day of the
Page 508 :
Lord” arrives without warning (1, Thess. 3:13; 5:23; 1 Cor. 1:7–8;, Phil. 1:6). Paul looks forward with, great solemnity to the day of, judgment, when the perfection of, the church will be manifest. At the, beginning of his letters, he often, names the salvation of the, churches in the context of the, thanksgiving. The initial section of, the communication is especially, important, for it sets up the new, common understanding of reality, and essentially determines the, mutual understanding between, apostle and church for which he, strives.[98] In his letter to the, Thessalonians, Paul reminds them, of their election as the, presupposition of their salvation (1, Thess. 1:4). He assures the, Corinthians that Jesus Christ will, “strengthen you to the end, so that, you may be blameless on the day of, our Lord Jesus Christ. God is, faithful; by him you were called, into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus
Page 509 :
Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:8–9). On, the “day of the Lord” the, Corinthian Christians will be Paul’s, boast (2 Cor. 1:14), and it is this, confidence alone that comforts him, in his present troubles (2 Cor. 1:5)., Paul thanks God, “who in Christ, always leads us in triumphal, procession, and through us spreads, in every place the fragrance that, comes from knowing him” (2 Cor., 2:14). Although the thanksgiving is, missing from the Letter to the, Galatians, Paul nonetheless, extends the greeting formula in his, characteristic manner: “Grace to, you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave, himself for our sins to set us free, from the present evil age,, according to the will of our God, and Father” (Gal. 1:3–4). Only, through faith in the Son of God,, Jesus Christ, do human beings have, access to God and thus to salvation., Apart from this faith, rulership is, exercised by “the god of this world”
Page 510 :
(2 Cor. 4:4) and by unbelief, which, leads to ruin. In Phil. 1:5–6 the, apostle explicitly portrays the, temporal framework of God’s act in, the past and present up to the, future judgment: “because of your, sharing in the gospel from the first, day until now. I am confident of, this, that the one who began a good, work among you will bring it to, completion by the day of Jesus, Christ.” With the expression “from, the beginning to the completion”, Paul evidently adopts a, conventional terminological pair, (cf. 2 Cor. 8:6, 10–11; Gal. 3:3); on, the “day of Jesus Christ,” God will, complete the act begun in the call, to faith (Phil. 1:9–11; cf. 1:6). The, apostle and his churches are, convinced that their election,, visibly manifest in baptism, and, their call as participants in the, gospel maintain their validity into, the eschaton.
Page 511 :
The Liberator The Christ event, strips the power from death,, personified as God’s eschatological, antagonist (cf. 1 Cor. 15:55), and, Jesus Christ is manifest as the, liberator from the power of death, and the powers associated with it,, σάρξ and ἁµαρτία.[99] As the last, enemy, at the end of time death, will be subjugated to Christ (1 Cor., 15:26), then the creation itself will, be set free from its “bondage to, decay” (Rom. 8:21). Paul develops, these ideas extensively in his, Adam/Christ typology (Rom. 5:12–, 21),[100] which is stamped with, the conception of two figures that, determine humanity as a whole:, Adam and Christ. As death entered, the world through the, transgression of the first central, figure, so the power of death is, reversed and destroyed by God’s, gracious act in Christ. Of course,, death continues to exist as a, biological reality, but it has lost its, eschatological dimension as a
Page 512 :
power that separates from God., Although, as individual figures,, Adam and Christ each determine, the destiny of humanity as a whole,, at the same time Jesus surpasses, Adam, for the disaster Adam, brought about is more than, abolished through God’s, eschatological gift of grace. So also, the idea of ransom/redemption, (ἀπολύτρωσις, Rom. 3:24; ἐξαγοράζω,, Gal. 3:13; ἀγοράζω, 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23), concisely expresses the liberating, act of Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ, took upon himself what held, human beings in bondage; he paid, “for us” the price of our, liberation[101] from the powers of, sin and death., With liberation from death Paul associates, deliverance from σάρξ and ἁµαρτία, powers, that belong to the realm of death. The, negative qualification of the flesh derives, from the σάρξ/πνεῦμα antithesis[102] already, present in Hellenistic Judaism and with no, dependence on Paul’s exclusive doctrine of
Page 513 :
justification.[103] Human beings whose lives, are oriented to themselves and trust in their, own resources Paul relegates to the realm of, the flesh.[104] “Sarkish” (fleshly, belonging, to the world of the flesh) people are, characterized by self-centeredness and selfsatisfaction; they rely on their own, capabilities and make their own knowledge, the standard of what is reasonable and what, is real. Thus they do not perceive that it is, precisely they who are helplessly delivered, over to the all-dominating power of sin and, death (cf. Rom. 7:5). A life κατὰ σάρκα means, being imprisoned by what is earthly and, transient, living a life without God.[105] The, real subject of this life is sin and its, unavoidable consequence, everlasting death, (cf. Rom. 7:5). No human being can escape, this fateful intertwining of sin and death on, his or her own resources and abilities. God, alone can liberate from the powers of sin and, death and place believers in a new reality, determined by the Spirit.[106] This liberation, was brought about by the sending of the Son, in that Jesus took upon himself the fleshly, mode of existence in which the lordship of, sin over humanity exercised its power (cf.
Page 514 :
Rom. 8:3, ἐν ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας [in the, likeness of sinful flesh]). Jesus stripped sin of, its power in the very place where its power, was effective: in the flesh. As the sinless one, (2 Cor. 5:21), he entered into the realm of sin, and overcame it. The consequence of the, freedom obtained by Christ is σωτηρία, (salvation, deliverance). In worship, the, congregation invokes Jesus Christ as, “Savior,” who as Cosmocrator will transform, the earthly and transient body (Phil. 3:20–, 21). Salvation will occur at the imminent, parousia of the Lord (Rom. 13:11); it is the, consequence of repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) and, the content of the Christian hope (1 Thess., 5:8–9). Salvation is already present in the, proclamation of the apostle (2 Cor. 6:2) and, takes place in the call of believers (cf. 1, Thess. 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor. 2:15)., The church can live in the confidence that, their faith and their confession will save, them (Rom. 10:9–10). The present, experience of salvation and the confidence of, future salvation collapse into each other:, “For in hope were we saved” (Rom. 8:24, τῇ, γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθηµεν).
Page 515 :
In the end time, Jesus Christ exercises his, universal lordship in his function as Savior, and liberator. His sovereignty relativizes all, other claims, for it is not the emperor or the, cult deities who save.[107] Paul lives in the, certainty that God has acted in Christ for the, salvation of humanity. Through their, liberation from the powers of sin, the flesh, and death, believers participate in the turn of, the ages brought about by God in the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christians, may go to meet the coming judgment in, confidence because they live in the, assurance that the Savior Jesus Christ will, not surrender them to eternal damnation., 16.4 Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Son, Paul expresses Jesus’ status as the, risen one and his function as, eschatological judge and liberator, by the use of specific, christological titles. The use of, such titles belongs to the central, means by which the Christ event, was interpreted; they declare who, and what Jesus is for the
Page 516 :
community of Christian faith.[108], The christological titles contain, the basic ideas of Pauline, Christology in concentrated form., Whereas central complexes of, Pauline thought, such as the, themes of reconciliation and, justification, are limited to, individual letters or segments of, their text, the christological titles, are documented throughout the, Pauline letters in remarkable, density. Thus, of the 531, occurrences of Χριστός (Christ) or, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (Jesus Christ) in the, New Testament, 270 are found in, the undisputed letters of Paul (1, Thessalonians, 10; 1 Corinthians,, 64; 2 Corinthians, 47; Galatians,, 38; Romans, 66; Philippians, 37;, Philemon, 8).[109] Κύριος is found, 719 times in the New Testament, as a whole, 189 of them in Paul;, that is, more than a fourth of all, the instances are in Paul’s letters, (1 Thessalonians, 24; 1, Corinthians, 66; 2 Corinthians, 29;
Page 517 :
Galatians, 6; Romans, 44;, Philippians, 15; Philemon, 5)., [110] The title υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Son of, God) appears relatively seldom in, Paul (15 times), but in very, significant contexts, so that this, term, too, is important for Pauline, Christology., “Christ”, The central christological title in the, undisputed letters of Paul is (Ἰησοῦς) Χριστός., [111] The title Χριστός derives from the royal, messianic tradition of ancient Judaism, as is, clear from such texts as Pss. Sol. 17–18; 1QS, 9:9–11; CD 20:1;[112] 1 En. 48:10; 52:4; 4, Ezra 12:32; 2 Bar. 39:7; 40:1; 72:2. The title, Χριστός is an integral element in the oldest, creedal traditions (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3b–5; 2 Cor., 5:19), combined with statements about the, death and resurrection of Jesus, which, express the Christ event as a whole (1 Cor., 15:3b–5 is a foundational text). Likewise, statements about Jesus’ crucifixion (1 Cor., 1:21; 2:2; Gal. 3:1, 13), death (Rom. 5:6, 8;, 14:15; 15:3; 1 Cor. 8:11; Gal. 2:19, 21),
Page 518 :
resurrection (Rom. 6:9; 8:11; 10:7; 1 Cor., 15:12–17, 20, 23), preexistence (1 Cor. 10:4;, 11:3ab), and earthly life (Rom. 9:5; 2 Cor., 5:16) are combined with the Christ title., From such foundational statements, which, refer to the Christ event as a whole, Χριστός, affirmations then branch off into different, areas. Thus Paul speaks of πιστεύειν εἰς Χριστόν, (to believe in Christ, Gal. 2:16; cf. Gal. 3:22;, Phil. 1:29) and of the εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (the, gospel of Christ; cf. 1 Thess. 3:2; 1 Cor. 9:12;, 2 Cor. 2:12; 9:13; 10:14; Gal. 1:7; Rom., 15:19; Phil. 1:27) and understands himself as, apostle of Christ (cf. ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ, 1, Thess. 2:7; 2 Cor. 11:13). For Paul, Χριστὸς, Ἰησοῦς is a titular name, both title and name., The apostle knows that Χριστός was originally, an appellative and that Ἰησοῦς is the real, nomen proprium, for he never speaks of a, κύριος Χριστός. When combined with Ἰησοῦς,, Χριστός is thus to be understood as a, cognomen (surname) that also always has, the overtones of its original titular, significance. At the same time, the title is, fused so closely with the person of Jesus and, his specific destiny that it soon became
Page 519 :
simply a name for Jesus and the basis of the, epithet later applied to Christians (Acts, 11:26)., It is no accident that the title Χριστός is used, without further ado in letters to, predominantly Gentile churches, for the, addressees could appropriate Χριστός from its, usage in their cultural background in the, context of ancient anointing rituals. The, anointing rituals widespread in the whole, Mediterranean area point to a linguistic, usage common to antiquity in general,, according to which, “when someone or, something is anointed, that person or thing, becomes holy, near to God, given over to, God.”[113] Thus both Jewish Christians and, Gentile Christians could understand the, word Χριστός as affirming Jesus’ unique, holiness and nearness to God, so that, precisely in its capacity as a titular name,, Χριστός (or Ἰησοῦς Χριστός) became for Paul the, ideal missionary term., “Lord”, Paul brings a different perspective to the, κύριος title.[114] By speaking of Jesus as
Page 520 :
“Lord,” believers place themselves under the, authority of the exalted Lord, who is present, in the life of the church. It is most likely that, Ps. 109 LXX (Ps. 110) played a key role in the, adoption of the Kyrios title into the, developing Christology:[115] “The Lord says, to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make, your enemies your footstool.’” Here the early, Christians found the definitive scriptural, evidence for Jesus’ heavenly status and, function: he had been exalted to God’s right, hand, participates in the power and glory of, God, and from there exercises his lordship., In this context, where God was commonly, addressed as “Lord,” the early Christians, very early applied the title to Jesus (cf. the, adoption of Joel 3:5 LXX [Joel 2:32] in Rom., 10:12–13; see also 1 Cor. 1:31; 2:16; 10:26; 2, Cor. 10:17) and thereby expressed his unique, authority, marking it off from other claims., [116] The increasing religious reverence for, the Roman emperor was combined with the, Kyrios title (especially in the eastern part of, the empire; cf. Acts 25:26; Suetonius,, Domitianus 13.2), and κύριος (or the feminine, κυρία) acclamations are also found in the, mystery cults.[117] The Jewish background
Page 521 :
of the Kyrios title[118] was often combined, with critical thinking in the Hellenistic, reception: in the early Christian mission, the, κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστος crossed the path of many, gods, male and female, of whom the title, “lord” was used; precisely for this reason, it, was necessary to make clear that, for, Christians, this title did not present Jesus as, one of many such lords. There is only one, God and only one Lord, Jesus Christ, as 1, Cor. 8:6 emphatically declares. In this prePauline tradition, the εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, (the one/only Lord Jesus Christ) appears as, the one through whom everything was, created and to whom everything is subject., [119], The presence of the exalted Lord in the life, of the church, an aspect associated with the, Kyrios title, is seen most clearly in two, anchor points of the tradition—the church’s, acclamation of Jesus as Lord and the, eucharistic tradition. By its acclamation of, Jesus as Lord, the church acknowledges the, status of Jesus as Lord and confesses its own, faith and obedience to him (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3;, Phil. 2:6–11). The God of the Christians, works through his Spirit, so that they cry out
Page 522 :
in the worship services κύριος Ἰησοῦς (Jesus is, Lord) and not ἀνάθεµα Ἰησοῦς (Jesus be, cursed). The title κύριος appears with, particular frequency in the eucharistic, tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20–23, 26ff., 32;, 16:22). The church assembles in the, powerful presence of the Lord, whose salvific, but also punitive powers are effective in the, celebration of the Lord’s Supper (cf. 1 Cor., 11:30). Alongside the liturgical dimension of, the Kyrios title, Paul also includes an ethical, component. The Kyrios is the ultimate, authority, the reference point for deciding all, the issues of daily life (Rom. 14:8, “If we live,, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to, the Lord; so then, whether we live or, whether we die, we are the Lord’s”). The, Lord’s power embraces every aspect of life;, there is no dimension of life not under his, authority. In particular, the lord/slave, metaphor expresses the dependence of, believers on their Lord (cf. Gal. 1:10; Rom., 1:1; Phil. 1:1). Paul can summarize the, content of his whole proclamation in these, words: “For we do not proclaim ourselves;, we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and
Page 523 :
ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake” (2, Cor. 4:5)., The title has additional connotations in, addition to the aspect of the Lord’s present, authority. Paul not only uses Kyrios for the, earthly Jesus (e.g., 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:15; 1 Cor., 9:5; Gal. 1:19) and for the resurrected Lord, (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:1) but also for the coming, Lord, to whose “day” he joyfully looks, forward. The Lord will come to judge the, world and to call those who believe in him to, participate in his lordship (cf. 1 Thess. 2:19;, 3:13; 1 Cor. 1:7–8; 5:5; Phil. 3:20; 4:5). For, the church, the exalted one who presently, rules in power is the one who is to come, the, one invoked in worship, “Our Lord, come!” (1, Cor. 16:22; cf. Rev. 22:20; Did. 10:6).[120], “Son of God”, The title υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is found only fifteen, times in Paul.[121] The apostle took it over, from the tradition (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9–10; Rom., 1:3b–4a); the formative history-of-religions, context of the Son Christology was most, likely provided mainly by Old Testament, ideas (cf. Ps. 2:7, “I will tell of the decree of
Page 524 :
the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son;, today I have begotten you’”; cf. also 2 Sam., 7:11–12, 14).[122] The central importance of, the Son title is seen in 2 Cor. 1:19, where the, Son appears as the content of the apostle’s, message: “the Son of God, Jesus Christ,, whom we proclaimed to you.” The, soteriological dimension of the Son title is, underscored in Gal. 1:16; the content of, Paul’s call vision at Damascus is the, revelation of God’s Son. The Son of God gave, himself for believers (cf. Gal. 2:20; Rom., 8:32). In Gal. 4:4 and Rom. 8:3 the sending of, the Son is combined with the concept of, preexistence (Gal. 4:4, “But when the, fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,, born of a woman, born under the law”). The, continuing significance of the saving event is, designated in Gal. 4:6; the presence of the, Spirit enables believers to understand, themselves as “sons”: “And because you are, children [υἱοί, ‘sons’], God has sent the Spirit, of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba!, Father!’” God has acted through the Son for, the salvation and sonship of all humanity., The small number of occurrences of the Son, of God title says little about its actual
Page 525 :
significance for Pauline theology.[123] The, careful location of υἱός within the structure of, Paul’s arguments shows instead that he, attributed great theological importance to, this title. The Son title expresses both the, close relationship of Jesus Christ with the, Father and his function as the one who, mediates God’s salvation to human beings., The Text-Pragmatic Function of the, Christological Titles Within the, communicative dynamics of a, letter, the christological titles, designate the reality instituted by, God and present in the work of the, Spirit, the reality by which both, apostle and churches know they are, borne and determined. This is the, reason they appear in particular, density in the letter prescripts; the, titles belong to the, metacommunicative signals by, which communication is, established and universes of, meaning are defined. The, presupposition for a successful, epistolary communication is a
Page 526 :
common understanding of reality, between author and addressees., This reality, with its past, present,, and future dimensions, is, designated by the christological, titles, which are reaffirmed and, made present as the shared, knowledge derived from the, common faith.[124], Obviously, the christological titles are a, fundamental element of Pauline Christology, and theology. Their intentional and repeated, use shows that they are by no means only an, element of conventional, tradition-bound, communication and thus more like artificial, communication but are bearers of basic, theological convictions. As anchor points of, fundamental theological affirmations, they, formulate and actualize the new reality in, which church and apostle live. In every, Pauline letter except 1 Thessalonians, the, salutatio reads, “Grace to you and peace,, from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus, Christ” (1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Rom., 1:7b; Phil. 1:2; Philem. 3, χάρις ὑµῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).
Page 527 :
Thereby the religious dimension for each, letter is already explicitly invoked in the, prescript; the communication initiated with, the prescript occurs within the framework of, the reality determined by God and Jesus, Christ. God and the present Lord are, projected into the text as those who make, communication possible; they are constantly, implied as the communication partners in the, conversation between apostle and church., Thus the christological titles designate the, real center of Pauline theology: in Jesus, Christ, the Son of God and Lord of the, church, salvation is present., 16.5 The Substitutionary Death of, Jesus Christ “for Us”, Paul makes use of differing interpretative, models in order to portray the salvific, meaning of the death of Jesus. The dominant, basic model is the concept of substitution,, [125] which is concisely expressed in the, concept of Jesus’ proexistence.[126], Semantically, however, the term, “substitution”[127] itself is not unequivocal
Page 528 :
but points to a whole range of meanings that, includes christological, soteriological, and, ethical motifs. The concept combines, phenomena that may be distinguished but, cannot always be separated. In particular,, the relation atonement/substitution is a, problem in Pauline thought,[128] for Paul’s, terminology does not correspond precisely to, the German word Sühne or the English word, “atonement.”[129] At the same time,, “substitution” is associated with such motifs, as forgiveness of sins, sacrifice, and suffering, for others, which could be among the images, of atonement included in the interpretative, horizon of the word. So also linguistically,, speaking of the death of Jesus “for”, (ἀποθνήσκειν ὑπέρ) can be accentuated, differently, for the preposition ὑπέρ with the, genitive[130] can have the derived meaning, “for the benefit of,” “in the interest of,” “for, the sake of,” or “in place of, instead of.”[131], In order to avoid prejudicing the content, the, relevant texts must be analyzed individually,, beginning with the pre-Pauline tradition. We, will therefore presuppose the following, understanding of “substitution: “to do, something for others, and thus also doing it
Page 529 :
in their stead, in order to produce a salvific, effect.”[132], In the pre-Pauline tradition of 1 Cor. 15:3b,, the substitutionary formulation refers to the, removal of the sins of the confessing, community (Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν, ἡµῶν [Christ died for our sins]).[133] Because, Christ is named as the specific subject of the, event and there is no mention of sacrificial, categories, we should not here speak of, atonement.[134] Jesus’ giving of himself, ([διδόναι] ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν) in Gal. 1:4 is for, the liberation of human beings from the, power of the present evil age.[135] The, apocalyptic motif again speaks for an, interpretation that avoids bringing in the, concept of atonement (as found in the, Priestly document): Jesus Christ’s giving of, himself results in liberation from “our”, imprisonment within the old aeon, an, imprisonment evidenced by our sins.[136], The “handing over” formula in Rom. 4:25 is, probably influenced by Isa. 53:12 LXX,[137], without bringing in the atonement theology, of the Priestly document:[138] Jesus Christ’s, substitutionary self-giving removes the, negative effects of “our” transgressions, just
Page 530 :
as his resurrection makes possible “our”, justification., Coming from the pre-Pauline to the Pauline, level, 1 Thess. 5:10 already shows the, apostle’s fundamental concept: Jesus’ death, “for” makes possible the new creation and, salvation of human beings. Jesus Christ died, “for us [ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν], so that whether we are, awake or asleep we may live with him.” The, substitutionary concept can also have, ecclesiological dimensions (1 Cor. 1:13, “Was, Paul crucified for you?”) and ethical aspects, (Jesus died for the weak brother or sister; 1, Cor. 8:11, δι᾽ ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν [for whose, sake Christ died]) without making use of the, sin/atonement language and imagery. The, substitutionary concept in the strict sense, (instead of, in the place of) is found in 2 Cor., 5:14b–15, “we are convinced that one has, died for all; therefore all have died. And he, died for all, so that those who live might live, no longer for themselves, but for him who, died and was raised for them.” Christ “loved, me and gave himself for me [ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ]” (Gal., 2:20), and so the present reality is this: “He, who did not withhold his own Son, but gave, him up for all of us, will he not with him also
Page 531 :
give us everything else?” (Rom. 8:32). In Gal., 3:13 Paul combines the imagery of, substitution with that of redeeming someone, from slavery: “Christ redeemed us from the, curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, [ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν].” Those who once were slaves, have now become sons and daughters (Gal., 3:26–28; 4:4–6). Christ died in the place of, the sinner in that “For our sake [ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν] he, [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin,, so that in him we might become the, righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).[139], Jesus’ death is not some sort of heroic, achievement (cf. Rom. 5:7, “Indeed, rarely, will anyone die for a righteous person—, though perhaps for a good person someone, might actually dare to die”) but a dying for, the godless (Rom. 5:6), “for us,” for sinners, (Rom. 5:8).[140] God sent his Son—“to deal, with sin, he condemned sin [περὶ ἁµαρτίας, κατέκρινεν]” (Rom. 8:3)—who entered into the, realm where sin held the power in order to, overcome it. From the point of view of the, history of traditions, the mission Christology, (Christ as the sent one) stands in the, background (cf. Gal. 4:4–5; 1 John 4:9; John, 3:16–17), so that the connotation is probably
Page 532 :
a general image of atonement, not the, specific sacrificial cult of the Old Testament., [141] So also the idea that Christ’s death is, for our benefit (in the interest of, for the, advantage of), in that it sets aside our sins,, allows room for introducing the idea of, atonement as a heuristic category. “Often it, is the case that the two aspects can be, separated only with difficulty. The, substitutionary death is a dying for the, benefit of those who are spared, and the, Christ who dies for the benefit of human, beings takes upon himself what should apply, to them, so that his atoning death is also a, substitutionary death.”[142], We should strictly distinguish from the, preceding imagery the tradition-historical, background of the “for us” statements, which, have nothing to do with the cultic offering of, a sacrifice.[143] The idea of cultic atonement, by no means forms the tradition-historical, background of the Pauline ὑπέρ statements,, [144] since it is precisely the characteristic, expression of the Septuagint’s Leviticus,, ἐξιλάσκεσθαι περί (to make atonement for / on, behalf of), that Paul does not employ as his, term for atonement for sin (cf. Lev. 5:6–10
Page 533 :
LXX).[145] Instead it is much more likely, that the Greek idea of the substitutionary, death of the righteous, whose death effects, the expiation / taking away of sin, is the, starting point for the formation of this, tradition.[146] It is especially this idea that, had already deeply influenced Jewish martyr, theology, as we find, for example, in 2 Macc., 7:37–38; 4 Macc. 6:27–29; 17:21–22. In prePauline Hellenistic Jewish Christianity,[147], the eucharistic tradition (1 Cor. 11:24b, τοῦτό, µού ἐστιν τὸ σῶµα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑµῶν, lit. “this is my, body for you”) had also influenced, with a, limited adoption of the language of Isa., 53:11–12 LXX,[148] the development of the, idea of the death of the righteous as a, substitute for all, which breaks the, irresolvable connection between sin and, death and thereby makes possible a new and, authentic life. This idea is particularly, concentrated in the formulae of death (cf. 1, Thess. 5:10; 1 Cor. 1:13; 8:11; 15:3b; 2 Cor., 5:14–15; Gal. 2:21; Rom. 5:6–8, 14–15) and, self-giving (cf. Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Rom. 4:25;, 8:32);[149] Paul adopts it and emphasizes, the universal dimensions of the event: the, crucified one suffers the violence of death for
Page 534 :
humanity in order to deliver humanity from, the ruinous powers of sin and death., 16.6 The Death of Jesus Christ as, Atoning Event The structure of, Pauline theology does not include, as a part of its load-bearing, framework the concept of, atonement as understood in its, context of temple and sacrifice., [150] Paul takes it up only once,, though it is in a central, theological passage; in Rom. 3:25–, 26 he speaks of Jesus Christ,, “whom God put forward as a, sacrifice of atonement [ἱλαστήριον,, ‘place or means of atonement’] by, his blood, effective through faith., He did this to show his, righteousness, because in his, divine forbearance he had passed, over the sins previously, committed; it was to prove at the, present time that he himself is, righteous and that he justifies the, one who has faith in Jesus.” Which
Page 535 :
conceptual horizon provides the, background for this pre-Pauline, Jewish Christian tradition?[151], At the center of the task of, answering this question stands the, term ἱλαστήριον,[152] whose, traditional origin and theological, significance are both disputed., Two explanatory models have, become important in recent, exegesis:[153], (1) In terms of tradition history, ἱλαστήριον, is derived from the cultic ritual on the great, Day of Atonement (cf. Lev. 16; further Ezek., 43). Christ would then be associated with the, kapporet (mercy seat) of the Day of, Atonement, which, as the golden plate on the, ark of the covenant, is the place of, atonement and (in a nonobjectifying sense), the location of Yahweh’s presence. Christ, becomes the theological location of, eschatological atonement. A polemical, accent would then be included, for the place, of atonement is transferred from the temple, to the cross, and the hiddenness of the, kapporet and the yearly sacrifice on the Day
Page 536 :
of Atonement are invalidated. God has set, forth Christ openly “as the place where his, saving righteousness is made present.”[154], There are weighty objections to this model:, (a) A personal dimension is integral to the, death of Jesus, which involves one who gave, his life for other human beings in a way that, effects atonement or forgiveness of sins; this, is an aspect not straightforwardly derived, from Lev. 16. (b) In addition, a typological, interpretation of Lev. 16 leads to paradoxical, imagery, so that if Christ is identified with, the mercy seat, Christ as mercy seat would, be sprinkled and cleansed with his own, blood.[155] (c) Finally, the cultural horizon, of the Roman church, composed, predominantly of Gentile Christians, would, certainly have suggested the idea of a heroic, death for the people more readily than subtle, allusions to the rites of Yom Kippur.[156], (2) Romans 3:25 is to be understood, against the background of 4 Macc. 17:21–22,, where atoning power is attributed to the, sacrificial death of martyrs.[157] Like the, martyrs, Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for, others, and this substitutionary death has, atoning potency. This model fits both the
Page 537 :
personal dimension of the event and the, context of the Roman church for, appropriating this image. In addition, Paul’s, own proximity to the martyr tradition, supports this view (cf. Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14;, Phil. 3:6), and his lifelong self-understanding, corresponds more to the martyr tradition, than to cultic categories. But this, explanation, too, has its problems: (a) Fourth, Maccabees belongs in the first century CE, and may not have been written until after 70, CE.[158] (b) The adjective ἱλαστήριος in 4, Macc. 17:22 LXX does not contribute much, to the exact understanding of ἱλαστήριον in, Rom. 3:25 because ἱλαστήριον is by no means, a word whose meaning is determined by its, cultic associations, but is semantically a, complex term whose meaning is provided, only by its context from case to case.[159], The breadth of the meaning of the word, ἱλαστήριον and the problems of deriving its, meaning from a unilinear understanding of, its tradition history show that it is, appropriate to understand ἱλαστήριον in Rom., 3:25 in the broad sense of “means of, atonement.”[160] It is God who created the, possibility of atonement by setting forth
Page 538 :
Jesus Christ as the means of atonement. Both, the tradition and Paul himself emphasize the, theocentricity of the event, that the point, from which salvation proceeds is the act of, God. This reveals continuity with the Old, Testament’s basic perspectives regarding, atonement. It by no means suggests a, sadistic image of a deity who demands a, sacrifice as satisfaction for the sins of, humanity. On the contrary, atonement is the, initiative of God himself: “For the life of the, flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to, you for making atonement for your lives on, the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that, makes atonement” (Lev. 17:11). God alone is, the acting subject in the event of atonement,, who provides the sacrifice through which, humanity is ritually set free from sin and who, breaks the ruinous connection between the, sinful act and its consequences.[161] At the, same time, the early Christian tradition, already breaks through the Old Testament, framework, within which sin was understood, in multiple ways: whereas in the Old, Testament cultus the atoning effect of the, sacrifice was restricted to Israel, the Christ, event brings universal forgiveness of sins;
Page 539 :
the sacrificial ritual of the Old Testament, required yearly repetition, but Jesus’ death, on the cross is the eschatological, once-forall, event. What happened on the cross within, salvation history is made real for the, individual in baptism: forgiveness of previous, sins. This is where the tradition attains its, soteriological high point, for here it is a, matter not only of proclaiming the Christ, event but of its soteriological dimension, made real in the believer’s own experience:, the forgiveness of sins that occurs in, baptism.[162] The significance of the saving, event and its individual appropriation are not, seen here as alternatives but in their, interrelatedness. The universality of God’s, saving act in Christ can be believed only, when it is experienced in the particularity of, one’s own existence. The tradition indicates, this connection by thinking of God’s, universal saving act on the cross and God’s, justifying act together. Paul takes up these, fundamental ideas from the tradition and, extends them through anthropological, universality and ecclesiological specificity., Faith, as a human stance and outlook made, possible by God, grants participation in the
Page 540 :
saving event. This faith, like its content, is, universal, not bound to any sort of, ideological preconditions, and as God’s gift,, it is still a human decision. In faith the, person experiences a new purpose and, orientation; in the forgiveness of sins, received in baptism, the person is justified., The resulting righteousness, the being-right, with God, was already understood in the prePauline tradition not as a habitus, a static, mode of life, but rather as an assignment to, be fulfilled, corresponding to the act of God, that had already occurred for the person., The reference to baptism, which Paul, strengthens contextually,[163] emphasizes, the ecclesiological locus of the righteousness, of God. The church [Gemeinde] of the, baptized is the community [Gemeinschaft] of, those justified through faith., Is the atonement model capable of, adequately expressing the theological, intentions of the tradition and the apostle? In, particular, is the image of sacrifice an, appropriate way of grasping the saving effect, of the death of Jesus? These questions have, arisen not only within the modern horizon, but above all from the fundamental
Page 541 :
differences between Old Testament, atonement theology and Rom. 3:25–26a.[164], For the atonement ritual, the laying on of, hands by the one making the offering and the, blood ritual enacted by the priest are, constitutive (Lev. 16:21–22). Moreover, a, ritual transfer of identity to the animal, follows, and it is only through this that the, killing of the animal becomes a sacrifice., There is nothing in the crucifixion of Jesus, that really corresponds to these fundamental, elements of the sacrificial ritual. The cross, has God as its exclusive acting subject, throughout; God acts on his own initiative at, the cross and incorporates humanity into this, event without any activity or previous, achievement from the human side.[165] Paul, never understands the death of Jesus as an, appeasement of the wrath of God. It is not, necessary for human beings to make contact, with the holy; in Jesus Christ, God comes to, human beings. Sacrifice stands for, something different; it points to something, different from itself that mediates between, two parties, whereas at the cross only God, himself is involved. In Jesus’ death at the, cross God is totally present, and therein he is
Page 542 :
present with human beings. The Philippians, hymn (Phil. 6:2–11) shows that—in the, categories of sacrificial offering—we must, speak of God’s offering himself. But Paul, does not speak of the cross in these terms, because the cross has abolished the, soteriological relevance of every sacrificial, cult. The concept of sacrificial offering is, thus structurally inappropriate for the, Pauline thought world, and it can hardly be, an accident that it is only in the tradition, found in Rom. 3:25–26 that Paul takes up a, text that thinks in the categories of, atonement and sacrifice. Here the reason for, this reception is not the apostle’s interest in, this form of thought but a matter of textual, pragmatics, for it functions to support the, case the apostle is making to the Roman, church for his exclusive doctrine of, justification. The Jewish Christian baptismal, tradition in Rom. 3:25–26a indicates where, χωρὶς νόµου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (apart from law, the, righteousness of God, 3:21) is manifest for, individuals, where they can effectively, experience it. The universal saving act of, God declared in Rom. 3:21–22 needs to, become concrete within the horizon of the
Page 543 :
experience of the individual Christian so that, it will not remain a mere abstract thesis but, will become lived/experienced reality., 16.7 Jesus Christ as Reconciler, Another model by which the, salvation mediated by Christ and, its results may be visualized is the, image of reconciliation. The noun, καταλλαγή (reconciliation, 2 Cor., 5:18, 19; Rom. 5:11; 11:15) and, the verb καταλλάσσω (reconcile, 1, Cor. 7:11; 2 Cor. 5:18; Rom. 5:10), are found in the New Testament, only in Paul’s letters. The, derivation of the term, “reconciliation” from within the, history of the tradition and its, exact semantic determination are, both disputed points., According to C. Breytenbach, Paul adopted, essential elements of his statements about, reconciliation from the language and thought, world of Hellenistic diplomacy.[166] In, classical Hellenistic texts, both διαλλάσσω and
Page 544 :
καταλλάσσω signify a reconciling action in, political, social, and family contexts, without, any religious or cultic component. “The, Pauline καταλλάσσω concept and the Old, Testament כפרtradition do not have any, tradition-historical connection that could, form the basis for biblical theological, conclusions.”[167] In contrast, O. Hofius, emphasizes the—in his opinion—firm, connections asserted in the Old Testament, between “reconciliation” and cultic, “atonement,” especially as found in DeuteroIsaiah (cf. Isa. 52:6–10; 52:13–53:12).[168] In, this view, Paul follows a linguistic usage, already present in ancient Judaism. “The, Pauline concept of reconciliation is . . ., decisively stamped by the message of, Deutero-Isaiah.”[169], The textual data speak in favor of a, differentiation between καταλλάσσω and, ἱλάσκοµαι (atone) regarding both their, respective histories and their semantic, domains, since the two terms derive from, different worlds of thought.[170] Whereas, καταλλάσσω describes the event of, reconciliation on the human plane, ἱλάσκοµαι, indicates an event in the sacred realm. To be
Page 545 :
sure, there is a fundamental difference in, content between the postulated background, in Hellenistic tradition and the Pauline, concept of reconciliation: it is God himself, who grants reconciliation as the creative, acting subject. This is, in every way, more, than a mere offer of reconciliation or an, appeal for reconciliation.[171], The point of departure for the affirmations, in 2 Cor. 5:18–21 is the new reality of, baptized believers as καινὴ κτίσις ἐν Χριστῷ (new, creation/existence in Christ, 5:17a). Paul, points to God, whose reconciling act has, made possible a change in God’s relationship, to humanity. Paul develops the structure of, this new relationship with the concept of, reconciliation, which is thought of in strictly, theocentric terms (5:18a, τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, [all this is from God]) and is established, christologically (διὰ Χριστοῦ [through Christ])., The overcoming of sin as the power that, separates God and humanity requires God’s, initiative, for only God can put an end to sin, (5:19). Within this reconciling event, the, Pauline apostolate is given a special role. In, 5:20, Paul designates it with the verb, πρεσβεύω, which belongs to Hellenistic
Page 546 :
ambassadorial terminology.[172] Just as the, ambassador plays a decisive role in the, signing of a treaty of reconciliation, the, message and office of the apostle are part of, God’s own reconciling work.[173] As a called, apostle, Paul can proclaim to the world that, God has acted in Jesus Christ to reconcile the, world to himself (5:19).[174] God himself has, thus created the presupposition for Paul’s, office, not only to announce to the world that, reconciliation is possible but to make his, appeal in Christ’s stead: “be reconciled to, God” (5:20b). In 5:21 Paul brings in the, soteriological relevance of the Christ event, as the basis that makes this surprising, entreaty possible. God brings sin and, righteousness into a new relationship in that, Christ has taken our place: he becomes sin, and in him we become God’s righteousness., The parallelism of these two clauses speaks, in favor of understanding ἁµαρτία as “sin,” not, in the sense of “sin offering.”[175] Because, Christ is in no way affected by the realm, where sin is dominant, he can represent us in, becoming sin, in order thereby to effect our, incorporation into the realm where he is, Lord.[176] It is not the idea of sin that
Page 547 :
dominates 5:21 but that of the righteousness, of God—manifesting itself in the death of, Jesus, sacramentally experienced in baptism., All the stress is placed on the ontological, statement of 5:21b, whereby ἐν αὐτῷ (in him, in the spatial sense) is decisive for, interpreting the verse: in Christ the believer, participates in the substitutionary death of, Jesus, is separated from sin and separated to, the righteousness of God; that is, in Christ, the believer receives a new existence whose, essential distinguishing characteristic is the, righteousness of God., Whereas Paul does not in 2 Cor. 5 directly, connect reconciliation and sin, Rom. 5:1–11, extends the line of argument, already made, in Rom. 3:21ff., about God’s justifying act, through the atoning death of Jesus and, places justification, atonement, and, reconciliation in relation to each other.[177], Justification by faith is seen in 5:1 as a, definitive reality that determines the present, life of Christians. It grants the peace of God, that becomes reality in the gift of the Spirit, (cf. 14:17). As those who have been baptized,, believers stand in the grace of God and now, have access to God (5:2). This presence of
Page 548 :
salvation gives the church the power not only, to bear the troubles of the present but to, attain a living hope stamped by faith and, patient endurance. The existence of those, who are justified and reconciled is thus, simultaneously an existence in θλῖψις, (troubles, sufferings) and an existence in, hope that is shaped by its view of the, eschatological act of God. Believers are not, saved from the contradictions of life, the, temptations and challenges to one’s own, existence and to one’s faith, the threats of, hopelessness and doubt, but the essence of, faith reveals itself in the fact that believers, can bear up under these threats and come, through them. The power to do this comes, from the Holy Spirit, received by believers at, baptism, the Spirit that thenceforth, effectively and powerfully determines the life, of Christians (5:5). God’s love is revealed in, the death of Jesus “for us,” which makes, possible the justification of the sinner and, reconciliation with God (5:6–8). In 5:9 Paul, explicitly refers back to 3:25 by using the, expression ἐν τῷ αἵµατι αὐτοῦ (through his, blood). The atoning death of the Son effects, both justification and reconciliation (5:9–10).
Page 549 :
Both justification and reconciliation are thus, ways of designating the new relation of, human beings to God made possible by, destroying the power of sin in the atoning, death of Jesus Christ. Through it the godless, become those who are justified, and God’s, enemies become those who are reconciled., Both 2 Cor. 5 and Rom. 5 show that, Christ’s death “for us” makes possible the, new relationship to God that Paul designates, as reconciliation. (1) Reconciliation for Paul, is the act of God alone.[178] It is not human, beings who propitiate God, encourage God to, adopt a new attitude to us, or reconcile God, to us through any of our own acts;[179], instead the new relationship to God and the, resulting new being of those who are, baptized, justified, and reconciled are due, only to the once-for-all and continually, present act of God in Jesus Christ.[180] (2), God’s reconciliation with the world is an act, of universal peace (2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 11:15)., It is limited neither to Israel nor to believers, but is intended to apply to all human beings, and the whole creation.[181] (3), Reconciliation occurs concretely in the, acceptance of the message of reconciliation,
Page 550 :
the gospel. (4) This acceptance effects a, transformation in the whole person. Those, who were previously alienated from God now, have access to God and are granted the, privilege of life in the power of the Spirit., [182], 16.8 Jesus Christ as God’s, Righteousness/Justice In all high, cultures and in every effective, religion, “Righteousness/Justice”, is one of the names of deity. God is, no more conceivable apart from, righteousness/justice than is any, form of culture, philosophy, law,, or religion. These fundamental, connections determine not only, central sections of the Old, Testament but also classical, Greece and Hellenism.[183], 16.8.1 Cultural and Historical Milieu, Paul’s statements about, righteousness and justification, stand in a complex cultural, context.
Page 551 :
Old Testament In the Old, Testament, central theological, themes cluster around the term, צדקה/δικαιοσύνη.[184] The connection, between righteousness and right, [justice and just] is obvious, for one, cannot think of God’s, righteousness apart from God’s, acting on behalf of what is right., [185] “The Lord works vindication, and justice for all who are, oppressed” (Ps. 103:6; cf. 11:7). In, the assembly of divine beings,, Yahweh holds court, judging the, other gods, and demands: “Give, justice to the weak and the orphan;, maintain the right of the lowly and, the destitute” (Ps. 82:3). Among, the basic instructions of the Torah, is found this: “You shall not render, an unjust judgment; you shall not, be partial to the poor or defer to, the great: with justice you shall, judge your neighbor” (Lev. 19:15)., The obligation to create justice for, his people and to protect them, from oppression rests especially on
Page 552 :
the king (cf. Jer. 22:3; Ps. 72:4;, Prov. 31:8–9). Justice serves to, preserve the integrity of, community life and determines the, relation of people to each other and, to the society as a whole. Thus God, intervenes against everything that, obstructs this relationship, acting, on behalf of those who suffer, injustice, those who are, economically oppressed and who, suffer social discrimination (cf., Amos 5:7, 10–15; Isa. 1:23; 10:1–2;, Jer. 22:13–17; Deut. 10:17–19). It is, only consistent with this, fundamental perspective that, among the top priorities of the, Messiah is that of establishing, justice (Isa. 11:3b–4a), and the, eschatological Prince of Peace will, preside over a kingdom of justice, and righteousness (Isa. 32:1, 15–, 17). The practice of righteousness, and justice develops powers full of, blessings: “Whoever is steadfast in, righteousness will live, but whoever, pursues evil will die” (Prov. 11:19).
Page 553 :
The effective realm of God’s justice, extends over the righteous life: “Those who, have clean hands and pure hearts, who do, not lift up their souls to what is false, and do, not swear deceitfully . . . will receive blessing, from the Lord and vindication from the God, of their salvation” (Ps. 24:4–5). The idea of, righteousness as the beneficial gift of God is, directly connected with universal images,, and so justice and righteousness become, elements of the divine epiphany. “The Lord is, king! Let the earth rejoice; let the many, coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick, darkness are all around him; righteousness, and justice are the foundation of his, throne. . . . The heavens proclaim his, righteousness; and all the peoples behold his, glory” (Ps. 97:1–2, 6). Also God’s creative, power and his continuing intervention for the, good of creation are expressions of his, righteousness (cf. Ps. 33:4–6; 85:10–14), so, that the cosmic order is described as, righteousness, which “unites cosmic,, political, religious, social, and ethical, aspects.”[186] Salvation and, righteousness/justice become synonymous, with the universal acts of God, which include
Page 554 :
the nations. This idea is found in numerous, psalms (cf. Ps. 98:2, “The Lord has made, known his victory; he has revealed his, vindication [( צדקהrighteousness, justice)] in, the sight of the nations.” This is especially, the case in Isa. 40–66. Deutero-Isaiah, impressively proclaims to Israel the nearness, of the righteousness/justice/vindication of, God, who is now fulfilling his promises (Isa., 45:8, “let the earth open, that salvation may, spring up, and let it cause righteousness to, sprout up also; I the Lord have created it.”, Cf. also Isa. 46:12–13; 51:5–8). Monotheism, and universalism combine to form a view of, history in which God’s righteousness appears, as kingship, gift, claim, power, and salvation., “There is no other god besides me, a, righteous God and a Savior; there is no one, besides me” (Isa. 45:21–22). The prophet, explicitly demands that his message be, accepted: “Listen to me, you stubborn of, heart, . . . I bring near my deliverance []צדקה,, it is not far off, and my salvation will not, tarry” (Isa. 46:12–13). In the tradition of the, suffering servant, the concept of suffering on, behalf of others is combined with statements, about righteousness. Despite his shameful
Page 555 :
end, the prophet is an innocent righteous, person who even makes righteous the many, who are guilty: “The righteous one, my, servant, shall make many righteous, and he, shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11b).[187], In a later and different historical situation,, Trito-Isaiah intensifies Deutero-Isaiah’s, declarations of salvation and explicitly, connects them with the demand for active, human righteousness: (cf. Isa. 56:1, “Thus, says the Lord: Maintain justice, and do what, is right []צדקה, for soon my salvation will, come, and my deliverance [ ]צדקהwill be, revealed”).[188] He confronts Israel with the, social situation after the exile (cf. Isa. 58:6–, 9) and sharply attacks injustice until the time, that righteousness again streams forth from, Jerusalem: “The nations shall see your, vindication []צדקה, and all the kings your, glory” (Isa. 62:2)., In addition to these universal tendencies in, the Psalms, Paul is also strongly influenced, by the themes of sin and righteousness,, which the Psalms reflect in a variety of ways., The sinner praises God for the election of, Israel, and places his hope on the goodness, and righteousness of Yahweh (Ps. 65, 85); so
Page 556 :
also the righteous praise the goodness and, righteousness of the Lord, whose actions are, characterized by justice: “He loves, righteousness and justice; the earth is full of, the steadfast love of the LORD” (Ps. 33:5; cf., 51:14; 71:15). In Psalm 130 the sinner prays, for mercy; may grace take precedence over, justice because only so will the one burdened, with guilt be able to live. In Ps. 51 the, worshipper turns to God in prayer, asking, unconditionally for God’s grace and, goodness: “Have mercy on me, O God,, according to your steadfast love; according, to your abundant mercy blot out my, transgressions” (Ps. 51:1). It is not by chance, that Paul cites Ps. 51:4 and 143:2, in which, the insight of one’s own lostness is combined, with a prayer for justification by God in the, judgment.[189] Finally, Gen. 15:6 and Hab., 2:4 are of exceptional importance as key, texts for the Pauline doctrine of justification,, for here “faith” and “righteousness / being, righteous” are found together. Abraham is, held up as an example for the Israelites of all, time because of his attitude, for against all, external appearances he held fast to the, faithfulness of God.[190] In the way in which
Page 557 :
Paul appropriates this text, the coordinates, are shifted;[191] under the influence of Gen., 15:6 LXX, Abraham appears as the acting, subject who believes, and Yahweh appears as, the acting subject who credits something to, his account. God responds to Abraham’s, persistent attitude with a declaration of, Abraham’s righteousness. So also in Hab., 2:4, faithfulness is an outstanding indication, of righteousness. It takes the form of, adherence to Yahweh’s instruction; that is,, righteousness and law are a unity according, to the Old Testament understanding. The law, is the saving gift of Yahweh, the expression, of Israel’s unmerited election (Deut. 6:24–25;, 7:6ff.), and Israel continues in righteousness, by obedient fulfillment of the law., Ancient Judaism Ancient Judaism, was decisively stamped by the, profound transformations following, the Babylonian exile. The, consciousness of being the elect, people of God, the hope in God’s, continuing faithfulness, the Torah, as the saving gift of God, and the, associated attempt of the Jewish
Page 558 :
people to redefine themselves by, ritual demarcation from all other, peoples became central elements of, the Jewish religion.[192] God’s, binding himself to his people is, expressed by the gift of the Torah,, [193] which was understood as a, gracious gift of God and as the, document validating God’s, covenant (cf., e.g., Sir. 24; Jub., 1:16–18). The Torah is far more, than rules for life or social order;, by observing it, one enters into, God’s kingdom to acknowledge the, rule of God and to enlist in its, service. Loyalty to the Torah, as, observing and respecting the will of, God, is thus the response expected, from Israel to God’s election. The, Torah does not mediate the, relation to God; it is, rather, the, divinely given guide within the, divine order of creation. Within, this comprehensive conception of, things, righteousness is not the, result of human achievement but, God’s promise to humanity (cf. Jub.
Page 559 :
22:15, “And may he renew his, covenant with you, so that you, might be a people for him,, belonging to his inheritance, forever. And he will be God for you, and for your seed in truth and, righteousness throughout all the, days of the earth” [trans. O. S., Wintermute, OTP 2:98]; cf. 1 En., 39:4–7; 48:1; 58:4). Precisely, because God “loves, righteousness/justice” (Let. Aris., 209) and is a just judge, the, religious person can expect, righteousness only from God (cf. 2, En. 42:7, “Happy is he who carries, out righteous judgment, not for the, sake of payment, but for justice,, not expecting anything whatever as, a result”). The standard for divine, and human righteousness is the, law. Moses gave the law “for, unblemished investigation and, amendment of life for the sake of, righteousness” (Let. Aris. 144); “all, the regulations have been made, with righteousness in mind” (Let.
Page 560 :
Aris. 168; cf. 147). Faithfulness to, the Torah preserves righteousness, and life.[194], Particularly at Qumran a deepened, understanding of sin (cf. 1QH 4:30; 1QS, 11:9–10) was combined with an elitist, consciousness of election and a radicalized, Torah obedience (cf. CD 20:19–21).[195] The, community’s repentance for ritual and, ethical offenses responds to the gracious, working of the righteousness of God in the, end time through the revelation of his will, among those predestined. Nevertheless,, those who are faithful to their religious, duties still need God’s mercy; the, righteousness of God is God’s faithfulness to, his covenant and his people, from which, human righteousness springs up in response:, “I said in my transgression, I am abandoned, by Your covenant. But, when I remembered, the power of Your hand together with the, abundance of Your mercies, I stood upright, and firm and my spirit grew strong to stand, against affliction. For [I] rested in Your, mercies and the abundance of Your, compassion. For You atone for iniquity and
Page 561 :
purif[y] man from guilt by Your, righteousness” (1QH 12:35–37, trans. Wise, et al.); “And what shall a man say concerning, his sin? And how shall he plead concerning, his iniquities? And how shall he reply to, righteous judgment? For thine, O God of, knowledge, are all righteous deeds” (1QH, 1:26–27, trans. Vermès, 192; cf. further 1QH, 3:21; 1QS 10:25; 11:11ff.). The confession of, guilt points to dependence on God’s, righteousness and mercy, which God will, reveal in the judgment (cf. 1QS 10:1ff.)., God’s righteousness leads to obedience to, the law, but without thereby making it a, matter of earning merit before God. Rather,, God alone grants the devout assurance of, salvation that comes from their belonging to, the chosen people.[196], The Psalms of Solomon, a collection of, writings originating in Pharisaic circles in, Palestine about the middle of the first, century BCE, are particularly relevant for, evaluating the theological content of the, Pauline doctrine of justification.[197] They, represent a kind of thinking that revolves, around God’s election, mercy, and, righteousness. The linguistic data already
Page 562 :
points to their exceptional interest in the, theme of righteousness: δίκαιος (righteous), appears thirty-four times and δικαιοσύνη, (righteousness) twenty-five times. How do, human beings attain righteousness? The, Psalms of Solomon set forth a complex, answer to this fundamental religious, question.[198] The basic idea turns out to be, the insight that those who trust in God, receive righteousness through God’s mercy:, “Praise God, you who fear the Lord with, understanding, for the Lord’s mercy is upon, those who fear him with judgment. To, separate between the righteous and the, sinner, to repay sinners forever according to, their actions, and to have mercy on the, righteous” (Pss. Sol. 2:33–34, trans. R. B., Wright, OTP 2:654). God is righteous, and, God has mercy on those who subject, themselves to his righteous judgment (8:7)., The plumb line for God’s mercy is the law,, which provides the criteria for God’s, righteous judgment and in which his, righteousness is revealed. “The Lord is, faithful to those who truly love him, to those, who endure his discipline, to those who live, in the righteousness of his commandments,
Page 563 :
in the Law, which he has commanded for our, life. The Lord’s devout shall live by it forever;, the Lord’s paradise, the trees of life, are his, devout ones” (14:1–3). Thus the righteous, are those who are willing to live according to, the law and to trust in God’s mercy. What, really makes righteousness possible,, however, is that the devout belong to the, elect people of God. The mercy of God to the, devout and the gift of life that comes through, the law are the expression and result of, Israel’s election (cf. 9:6, 10; 10:4). The basis, for the theological thinking of the Psalms of, Solomon is a contrasting pair: Israel as the, righteous and Gentiles or unfaithful Jews as, sinners (cf. 13.7–12).[199] The righteousness, of the devout is a status concept that, fundamentally separates them from the, Gentiles. Admittedly, the devout also sin, but, God’s faithfulness and mercy is by no means, abolished by unintentional sins. Instead God, cleanses them from their sins and thus, brings the repentant sinner to a righteous, life oriented to the law (cf. 3:6–8; 9:6, 12;, 10:3). Sin does not lead to the destruction of, the righteous, for they continue to be sons, and daughters of the elect people of God.
Page 564 :
Whereas sin has the character of an, unchangeable status for the Gentiles and, apostate Jews, for the devout it is only one, aspect of the way God deals with them.[200], Consistent with this, the devout who commit, sins are never referred to as “sinners” or, “lawless,” for through God’s provision of, atonement and reconciliation the possibility, is provided for the righteous to maintain, their status even though they sin., Classical Greece and the, Hellenistic World Classical Greece, and the Hellenistic Greek World, are also profoundly stamped by, reflection on the meaning of, righteousness and justice.[201] In, the early period of thought on the, law, the right, and justice[202], under Draco and Solon (seventh to, sixth centuries BCE),[203] the, written law was established as the, decisive norm that surpassed and, was meant to determine all other, regulations of the polis. In each, new case, just/righteous actions for, the good of the community are now
Page 565 :
oriented to adjusting conflicting, interests by means of the relevant, laws, thus going beyond the, principle of retribution and the, laws and customs carried over from, past times.[204] At the same time,, this development makes possible, the first beginnings in the direction, of equality and democracy. The, ideas of righteousness and justice, play an important role in the, constitutional theories of the fifth, century BCE, for the question of, monocracy, democracy, or, oligarchy was directly related to, the distribution and validity of, rights (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 3.80ff.;, Thucydides 4.78). Fundamental, insights on the nature of, righteousness/justice are found in, Plato and Aristotle.[205] Whereas, Socrates holds fast to the νόμοι of, the polis, although he became their, victim (cf. Plato, Crito 50a–54d),, Plato, affected by the destiny of his, teacher, anchored the norms of, justice in the unchangeable order
Page 566 :
of being itself. Thereby the central, issue is the relation of law and, justice/righteousness, for justice is, the norm of the law. In the myth of, the origin of culture, justice and, law are the presupposition for the, participation of all human beings, in justice and righteousness.[206], The lawgiver instructed by Zeus, will be a person who “will always, and above all things in making laws, have regard to the greatest virtue;, which, according to Theognis, is, loyalty in the hour of danger, and, may be truly called perfect justice”, (Plato, Leg. 1.630c; cf. Phaedr., 277de; Epistulae 7.351c; Aristotle,, Pol. 1281a). Justice stands in first, place among the cardinal virtues,, [207] for it has a key role as both a, social and a universal category and, is thus supremely important for, ordering both the individual soul, and the state. Aristotle does not, distinguish between law and ethics;, righteousness/justice as the, general ordering principle
Page 567 :
comprehends both (Eth. nic., 5.1130a, “Justice in this sense,, then, is not part of virtue but virtue, entire”).[208] In terms of content,, the laws define what is right, for,, “since the lawless man was seen to, be unjust and the law-abiding man, just, evidently all lawful acts are in, a sense just acts” (Eth. nic., 5.1129b).[209] Because what is, lawful is identified with what is, just, it follows that violation of the, law is an offense against justice (cf., Eth. nic. 5.1130b). Particularly for, Aristotle, it was true that, for, human beings, righteousness and, justice means living according to a, particular norm, that is, conduct, regulated by law. The law grants, the polis and its members, righteousness/justice and life.[210], Justice thus grows from the laws, and is their effect, for just actions, are oriented to the law and create, justice.[211] In Hellenistic, philosophy, in a culture that was, taking on worldwide dimensions
Page 568 :
and thus focusing less on the polis, and more on the individual, one of, the effects was a shift in the, understanding of justice itself. In, this process, justice/righteousness, and piety became in part synonyms, without abolishing the connection, with the law.[212], The fundamental continuity between right,, justice/righteousness, law, and a successful, life also determined ethical thinking at the, beginning of the first century CE. For Cicero,, this was an unchangeable relationship:, “Therefore Law is the distinction between, things just and unjust” (Leg. 2.13)., Righteousness/justice, indeed, is far more, than behavior motivated by fear of, punishment or expectation of reward. It is, the virtue and comes from insight into the, nature of things. “Thus all things honorable, are to be sought for their own sake” (Leg., 1.48)., A pessimistic view of culture emerges, when this order appears to be dissolving:, “And in all probability the disappearance of, piety toward the gods will entail the
Page 569 :
disappearance of loyalty and social union, among men as well, and of justice itself, the, queen of all the virtues” (Cicero, Nat. d. 1.4)., At the same time, trust in justice as the, power that orders life continues unbroken: It, follows then, O Apollonius, that rightly, judged, it is not the man who abstains from, injustice that is just, but the man who, himself does what is just, and also influences, others not to be unjust; and from such justice, as his there will spring up a crop of other, virtues, especially those of the law-court and, of the legislative chamber. For such a man as, he will make a much fairer judge than people, who take their oaths upon the dissected, parts of victims, and his legislation will be, similar to that of Solon and of Lycurgus; for, assuredly these great legislators were, inspired by justice to undertake their work., Justice was also a central element of the, pax romana; Augustus in particular, connected his rule with this attribute. In 13, CE the temple of Iustitia Augusta was, dedicated, and his imperial autobiography, states, In my sixth and seventh consulates, (28–27 B.C.E.), after putting out the civil, war, having obtained all things by universal
Page 570 :
consent, I handed over the state from my, power to the dominion of the senate and the, Roman people. And for this merit of mine, by, a senate decree, I was called Augustus and, the doors of my temple were publicly clothed, with laurel and a civic crown was fixed over, my door and a gold shield placed in the, Julian senate-house, and the inscription of, that shield testified to the virtue, mercy,, justice, and piety, for which the senate and, Roman people gave it to me. After that time,, I exceeded all in influence, but I had no, greater power than the others who were, colleagues with me in each magistracy. (Res, gestae divi Augusti 34)[213], It is informative to compare Paul with the, reflections of Dio Chrysostom (Dio of Prusa),, an intellectual and rhetorician who is, representative of the intellectual elite of the, period only a little later than Paul. For Dio,, the ideal king receives his rulership from, Zeus and, “keeping his eyes upon Zeus,, orders and governs his people with justice, and equity in accordance with the laws and, ordinances of Zeus” (1 Regn. 45; cf. De lege, 1). The law grants not only to both the, society and the individual the justice and
Page 571 :
protection to which they are entitled; it is, also true that “such is the righteousness and, benevolence which pervades the law, that for, the unfortunate it has proved even more, helpful than blood relatives” (De lege 6). The, divine unity of law and justice includes, person and institution; as the ordering, principle, justice always has an importance, that is both an individual-moral and a, universal principle.[214] These connections, make it possible for Hellenistic Jewish, thinkers such as Philo of Alexandria and, Josephus to form a synthesis that combines, Greek thinking about law and, justice/righteousness with Jewish traditions., Philo combines the Greek doctrine of virtue, with the Decalogue: “For each of the ten, pronouncements separately and all in, common incite and exhort us to wisdom and, justice and godliness and the rest of the, company of virtues” (Spec. Laws 4.134)., Philo can reduce the innumerable individual, Jewish laws to two basic principles: “one of, duty to God as shown by piety and holiness,, one of duty to men as shown by humanity, and justice” (Spec. Laws 2.63; cf. 2.13–14)., The Torah is subject to a strong ethical
Page 572 :
impulse that corresponds to the Greek and, Hellenistic concentration on the concept of, justice/righteousness but without giving up, its universal aspect.[215], 16.8.2 The Genesis of the Pauline, Doctrine of Justification All, relevant religious,, philosophical, and political, symbols and symbolic stories of, antiquity are stamped with the, comprehensive connection of, law-justice-life. Paul did not, want to break out of this, foundational model of, plausibility—and could not, have done so if had wanted to—, for the theme of, righteousness/justification was, a given in his cultural, situation. At the same time, he, had to make new, classifications and, combinations, for his Christ, hermeneutic demanded that, the three key concepts, lawrighteousness-life, be brought
Page 573 :
together in a new system of, coordinates., How did Paul develop the theme, righteousness/justification? Do the letters, allow us to recognize a general and, consistent doctrine of justification, or must, we introduce terminological and conceptual, differentiations into their content in order to, do them justice?[216], The linguistic data provides a first pointer, in responding to this question:, , Note for above table.[217], , It is evident that Paul speaks extensively, about righteousness/justification only where, he is at the same time engaged in intensive, reflection on the significance of the law. How, can the concentration of this thematic in the, letters to the Galatians and Romans be, explained? A first answer would seem to be
Page 574 :
that in each case the historical situation calls, for increased engagement with this complex, of problems.[218] Can we infer from this that, Paul merely took up a program he had, already thought out and made it available to, each church situation? The analysis of the, textual data above speaks against this, for it, reveals two important points: (1) Paul does, not generally connect the theme, righteousness/justification with the question, of the law as he does in Galatians and, Romans. It may therefore not be reduced to, the structure of the argument he follows in, each of these two letters. (2) The statements, about justification and the law in Galatians, and Romans are not consistent with, themselves or with each other; such, contradictions[219] are a clear pointer that, this variation of the theme is new and has, been conditioned by its own situation., A Diachronic Model, Righteousness/justification in Paul, is obviously a complex phenomenon, that calls for an explanatory model, on the diachronic plane.[220]
Page 575 :
Within Pauline theology, righteousness is, primarily bound to the baptismal traditions, (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21–22; Rom., 3:25–26a; 6:3–4; 4:25).[221] The ritual, anchoring of the righteousness thematic is, no accident,[222] for baptism is the place, where the fundamental change of status for, the Christian occurs, the place where one is, transferred from the realm of sin into the, realm of righteousness. The baptismal, tradition not only deals with the theme of, righteousness but develops a self-consistent, sacramental-ontological doctrine of, justification: in baptism, as the place of, participation in the Christ event, the Spirit, effectively separates believers from the, power of sin and grants them the status of, righteousness so that, looking forward to the, parousia of Jesus Christ, they can live a life, corresponding to the will of God. This, doctrine of justification can be described as, inclusive because, without any criteria of, exclusion, it aims at making the individual, righteous and incorporating him or her into, the church. Faith, the gift of the Spirit, and, baptism constitute one holistic event: in, baptism the believer enters the realm of the
Page 576 :
spiritual Christ, personal communion with, Christ is established, and redemption has, really begun, which then continues in, righteousness in a life determined by the, Spirit.[223] This form of the doctrine of, justification in the context of baptism is, organically connected with the constitutive, foundational views of Pauline Christology:, transformation and participation. Through, his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ, has entered the realm of God’s life and, power, and in baptism he grants to believers,, through the gift of the Spirit, participation in, the new being already in the here and now., Baptized believers live as those who have, been delivered from the power of sin in, Christ’s realm of salvation,[224] where the, Spirit holds sway, and their new being ἐν, Χριστῷ is comprehensively determined by the, life-giving powers of the risen one. As a ritual, of status transformation, baptism brings into, being not only a new perception of reality;, those who are baptized are truly changed, as, is reality itself.[225], Within this conception, the law/Torah has, neither a negative nor a positive function; it, is not a constituent element of the basic
Page 577 :
structure of the inclusive doctrine of, justification. In contrast, it is nomology (a, doctrine of the law) that determines the, argumentation of the letters to the Galatians,, the Romans, and the Philippians.[226] This, shift results from the current situation in, each of the churches, not from a deficiency, in the inner logic of the inclusive doctrine of, justification. The demand of the Galatian, Judaists that Gentile Christians also be, circumcised not only represented a breaking, of the agreements made at the apostolic, council, and placed in question the success, of the Pauline mission, but was directed, against the fundamental principle of all, Pauline theology: the locus of life and, righteousness is Jesus Christ alone. If the, law/Torah could give life (so, e.g., Sir. 17:11, LXX, προσέθηκεν αὐτοῖς ἐπιστήµην καὶ νόµον ζωῆς, ἐκληροδότησεν αὐτοῖς [He bestowed knowledge, upon them, and allotted to them the law of, life]); cf. also Sir. 45:5), then Christ would, have died in vain. For Paul, there can be only, one form of the end time that is relevant for, salvation: Jesus Christ. When the law is no, longer regarded as an adiaphoron, as had, been the case previously (as, e.g., in 1 Cor.
Page 578 :
9:20–22), but receives a status that matters, for salvation, then the issue of whether the, law is in fact able to provide salvation must, be moved to the center of the argument. Paul, decides this in the negative, for “the, scripture has imprisoned all things under the, power of sin, so that what was promised, through faith in Jesus Christ might be given, to those who believe” (Gal. 3:22; cf. Rom., 3:9, 20). It corresponds to the will of God, that the power of sin is stronger than the, ability of the law/Torah to deliver from it., The law/Torah may no longer be thought of, as the foundation of the special position of, Israel in the history of election, and so the, hamartiological differentiation between Jews, and Gentiles is also invalidated “because no, one will be justified by the works of the law”, (Gal. 2:16; cf. Rom. 3:21, 28)., Universalizing In Galatians,, Romans, and Philippians, Paul, extends the basic views of the, inclusive doctrine of justification, connected with baptism to an, exclusive doctrine of justification, characterized by universalism and
Page 579 :
antinomism (a polemic against the, law).[227] On the sociological, plane, it was directed at, establishing the equality of Gentile, Christians; in response to the, Judaistic challenge, it guaranteed, Gentile Christians, as baptized, believers, unqualified membership, in the elect people of God.[228], Theologically, the exclusive, doctrine of justification not only, negated every sociological function, of the law/Torah and summarized, its ethical relevance in the love, command;[229] it also removed, every particularistic or national, element from the consciousness of, election and formulated a universal, image of God: entirely apart from, considerations of race, sex, and, nationality, God gives to every, human being through faith in Jesus, Christ his sin-conquering, righteousness. Thus the stance, expressed in Gal. 2:19; 3:26–28;, Rom. 3:25; 4:25; 6:3–4 shows that, Paul intentionally plays off the
Page 580 :
inclusive and exclusive doctrines of, justification against each other. He, thus guards his exclusive doctrine, of justification, based on a, radicalized anthropology and a, universalized understanding of, God, from becoming an, otherworldly abstraction by, declaring baptism to be the place, where God’s universal saving act in, Jesus Christ can be experienced in, the particularity of one’s own, existence. Making-righteous and, declaring-righteous thus collapse, into two aspects of one event.[230], An indirect confirmation of the, interpretation presented above is provided in, the history of effects of the exclusive, doctrine of justification of Galatians and, Romans, as these were interpreted in the, later church. The receding of this doctrine in, the deutero-Pauline letters need not be seen, as caused primarily by the giving up of, apocalyptic ideas and the increasing, importance of problems of ethics and church, structure;[231] it is also due to the polemical
Page 581 :
sharpening of Pauline theology related to the, particular situation. Because the exclusive, doctrine of justification of Galatians and, Romans is not the center of Pauline theology, as a whole, the authors of the deuteroPaulines did not adopt it in this form. On the, other hand, the deutero-Paulines manifest a, remarkable continuity with Paul, for they, generally deal with the theme of justification, in connection with baptismal texts (cf. Col., 2:12–13; Eph. 2:5, 8–10; Titus 3:3–7; 2 Tim., 1:9–11).[232], 16.8.3 The Theological Content of, the Doctrine of Justification If, one keeps the Pauline, statements on righteousness, and justification as a whole in, mind, then one sees a way of, thinking that, with all its, historical and theological, distinctions, still has a, systematic quality. The point of, departure for such a line of, thought is the insight,, revolutionary in the ancient, world, that righteousness is not
Page 582 :
essentially a matter of doing, but a matter of being., In the realm of Greek culture, actions, defined righteousness/justice; Aristotle, formulated the issue in exemplary fashion:, “It is well said, then, that it is by doing just, acts that the just man is produced, and by, doing temperate acts the temperate man;, without doing these no one would have even, a prospect of becoming good.”[233], Righteousness/justice appears as the highest, human virtue, which is attained by one’s, actions. In ancient Judaism there was, undoubtedly the basic conviction that sinful, human beings are dependent on the mercy, and goodness of God. The covenant idea, as, the central form of expression of Israel’s, relation to God, is based on God’s prior, election of Israel. Nevertheless, the question, of salvation continued to be connected to, human actions inasmuch as God was, expected as the righteous judge, the one who, is merciful to the righteous and punishes the, lawless and lawbreakers. Even in the, theological conceptions of the Psalms of, Solomon[234] and the Qumran writings,[235], God’s mercy, as the ultimate ground of one’s
Page 583 :
relation to God, does not exclude a positive, function for works, for they also are the basis, of righteousness/justification. In these, writings, righteousness is thus equally a, matter of doing and a matter of being. A, further fundamental difference from Paul is, that belonging to the realm of righteousness, is determined differently. In the Psalms of, Solomon, righteousness is a status concept,, and righteousness is the result of belonging, to the elect people of God.[236] Likewise at, Qumran, participation in the righteousness, of God finally is based on belonging to the, elect people of God and the community that, represents it.[237], Paul knows the fundamental difference, between Israel as the righteous and the, Gentiles as sinners (cf. Rom. 9:30) but does, not make it the foundation of his system of, thought. Instead he completely redefines the, relation between righteous and sinners: no, one belongs to the group of the righteous,, and everyone, Gentiles and Jews, belong to, the group of sinners (cf. Rom. 1:16–3:20)., But by faith in Jesus Christ, both Jews and, Gentiles can attain righteousness. The, Pauline status-schema is marked by a
Page 584 :
universal beginning point: all human beings, are hopelessly subject to the power of sin (cf., Gal. 3:22; Rom. 3:9–10); that is, all human, beings have the status of sinners even if they, belong to a privileged group and practice, justice. Righteousness can come only, through the transfer from the realm where, sin rules into the realm of Christ. In Jewish, thought, deep insight into the power of sin,, the consciousness of dependence on God’s, mercy, belonging to the elect people of God,, and observance of the Torah all together, necessarily form a unity in which each of, these elements supplements the other., Righteousness is radically understood as, coming from God, but at the same time,, religious privileges in contrast to other, peoples remain in place. In contrast, Paul, negates every special religious status, for his, Christ hermeneutic allows no distinctions at, all regarding either sin or righteousness. The, universality of the liberating act of God, corresponds to the previous universality of, bondage to sin. There can no longer be any, ethnic or national prerogatives;, righteousness is no longer grounded in, belonging to a particular people and the
Page 585 :
privileges connected therewith but only in, the act of faith. For Paul, righteousness is, the result of the new life constituted by, Christ in baptism. God grants participation in, his life-giving power in that he annihilates, sin by the gift of the Spirit and establishes, the existence of baptized believers anew., The basic thesis of Paul’s doctrine of, justification thus rests on a theocentric and, christological concentration, a deepening of, hamartiology, and a universalizing of, anthropology: God himself has constituted, Jesus Christ as the place of his righteousness, for all human beings; only by faith in Jesus, Christ do Jews and Gentiles attain an equal, freedom from the powers of sin and death., [238] The revelation of Jesus Christ has, fundamentally changed the situation of all, human beings before God, since from God’s, side it has revealed God’s universal saving, will and from the human side it has revealed, both the need for, and the possibility of,, salvation for all human beings. For Paul the, Christian, the situation of human beings, before God is placed in a completely new, light: the question of salvation has been, answered once and for all through the death
Page 586 :
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Human, beings are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and have peace with God (Rom. 5:1)., Thereby all past, present, and future efforts, of human beings to obtain salvation from, other sources or to realize it on their own, have lost all significance. The Christ event, likewise brings into being both the, fundamental turning point in time and the, new existence of human beings. Since Paul, interprets the righteousness of God as a, gift[239] but not as a rule or demand, he, separates the question of salvation from, human activity. Truth does not come to, human beings from their own actions but is, the gift of God.[240] Human beings no longer, live out of their own resources; they owe, their new life to the death of Jesus Christ, an, event of great importance for both the, relation of God to the world and for human, self-understanding. God alone is the one who, changes the human situation through his, saving act in Jesus Christ, so that human, beings now find access to God through faith., Historically, the exclusive doctrine of, justification found in Galatians represents a, new response to a new situation. To this
Page 587 :
extent the statement of W. Wrede about the, Pauline doctrine of justification holds true:, “It is the polemical doctrine of Paul, is only, made intelligible by the struggle of his life,, his controversy with Judaism and Jewish, Christianity, and is only intended for this. So, far, indeed, it is of high historical, importance, and characteristic of the, man.”[241] So also the famous dictum of, Albert Schweitzer sees the matter rightly:, “The doctrine of righteousness by faith is, therefore a subsidiary crater, which was, formed within the rim of the main crater—, the mystical doctrine of redemption through, the being-in-Christ.”[242] Both Wrede and, Schweitzer, however, unjustly relate these, appropriate observations on the origin of the, exclusive Pauline doctrine of justification to, evaluations of its importance. Although it did, indeed originate in the disputes with Judaism, and Jewish Christianity, its theological, capacity cannot be restricted to this dispute., Within the Pauline symbolic universe, the, doctrine of justification formulates, fundamental insights that maintain their, validity to this very day.[243] Its point of, departure is the insight into the gift
Page 588 :
character of all being. Through faith in Jesus, Christ, God grants participation in the new, being. Human beings thus stand before God, as undeserving recipients of a gift, as, persons who are no longer compelled to find, their own way in this world back to God and, salvation. Rather, as those justified by faith, and having their origin in God, they can do, God’s will in the world. With Paul,, justification always designates the “prior”, reality of God’s own act. God has already, acted in Jesus Christ, before human beings, have done anything. Paul strictly separates, and distinguishes this prior act of God from, human deeds, which always follow.[244] It is, only this previous act of God that creates, salvation and meaning for human beings., Humans are thus relieved of the impossible, task of having to create meaning and, salvation for themselves. Human life receives, a new reference point, and humans are freed, for the tasks that they can in fact accomplish., Also, before God, the human being is not the, sum of his or her acts; people are, distinguishable from their works. It is not the, deed that defines what it means to be a, human being but only one’s relation to God.
Page 589 :
Righteousness/justification, like life itself,, can be received only and exclusively by faith, in Jesus Christ., The doctrine of justification is related to, fundamental ecclesiological, ethical, and, anthropological insights, but above all and, originally, it is a soteriological model with a, core consisting of the theoretical, understanding of one’s own selfhood: the, subject knows itself to be grounded directly, on God’s prior act; it is constituted by its, reference to God and understands itself as, embraced and maintained by God., 16.9 God, Jesus of Nazareth, and, Early Christology How could Paul, and the churches hold fast to, Jewish monotheism and at the, same time regard the resurrected, Jesus of Nazareth as the central, figure of the end time? Pauline, theology is in continuity with the, basic affirmation of Jewish faith:, God is one, the Lord, the Creator, who made the world and, continually maintains it in being.
Page 590 :
Traditions within ancient Judaism, made it possible for Paul to hold, together monotheism and, Christology.[245] As noted above,, there is only one God, according to, Jewish thought, but God is not, alone. Numerous heavenly, mediating figures,[246] such as, Wisdom (cf. Prov. 2:1–6; 8:22–31;, Wis. 6:12–11:1),[247] the Logos,, [248] or the name of God, are at, home in immediate proximity to, God. Biblical patriarchs, such as, Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:18–24)[249] or, Moses, and the archangel, Michael[250] surround God and, now work at God’s command. They, testify to God’s interest in the, world and God’s relation to it and, show that God’s power is, everywhere present and that, everything is under God’s control., As participants in the heavenly, world, they are subordinate to God, and in no way endanger faith in, the one God. As created and, subordinate powers, they do not
Page 591 :
compete with God; as divine, attributes, they describe, in the, language of human hierarchy,, God’s activities for the world and, in the world. At the same time,, however, weighty differences are, clear:[251] (1) The personified, divine attributes were not persons, on a par with God, with their, independent spheres of activity., (2) They were not the objects of, cultic worship. (3) Within the, multiplicity of Jewish ideas, it was, inconceivable that of all people,, someone who had died a shameful, death would be reverenced as, divine., Genuine Greek-Hellenistic ideas must also, have influenced the origins of early, Christology and facilitated its reception.[252], The idea that gods can become human and, that human beings can become divine is a, Hellenistic idea, not a Jewish one.[253] The, mark of Greek religion is precisely an, anthropomorphic polytheism.[254] Divine, beings in human form already stand at the
Page 592 :
center of classical Greek thought; Homer, reports, “And we know that the gods go, about disguised in all sorts of ways as people, from foreign countries, and travel about the, world to see who do amiss and who, righteously.”[255] The origins of culture are, traced back to the interventions of the gods,, so that, for example, Zeus sends Hermes to, teach humanity justice and shame;[256], Hermes, Hercules, and Apollo, as, messengers of the gods, assume human form, or are active among human beings as gods., [257] Gods in human form can be thought of, as originating from this world or as coming, from the eternal world. Plutarch can report, on the origin of Apollo: “For my native, tradition removes this god from among those, deities who were changed from mortals into, immortals, like Heracles and Dionysus,, whose virtues enabled them to cast off, mortality and suffering; but he [Apollo] is, one of those deities who are unbegotten and, eternal.”[258] Hercules, as a son of the god, Zeus, in obedience to Zeus destroys injustice, and lawlessness on the earth.[259] Mythical, figures of the primeval period such as, Pythagoras[260] and famous miracle workers
Page 593 :
such as Apollonius of Tyana[261] appear as, gods in human form, who use their divine, powers in the service of humanity., Empedocles travels around as an immortal, god, healing people and doing them good., [262] The hero cult continued in the ruler, cult, which finally passed into the Roman cult, of the emperor;[263] in the great cultural, accomplishments and victories of history,, deities are revealed in human form.[264] For, Jews, however, the idea was intolerable that, human beings such as the Roman Caesar, would presume to consider themselves divine, and would actually be worshiped.[265], Plutarch’s reflections are informative as he, ponders the nature of the numerous real or, ostensible gods: Better, therefore, is the, judgment of those who hold that the stories, about Typhon, Osiris, and Isis, are records of, experiences of neither gods nor men, but of, demigods [δαιµόνων µεγάλων], whom Plato and, Pythagoras and Xenocrates and Chrysippus,, following the lead of early writers on sacred, subjects, allege to have been stronger than, men and, in their might, greatly surpassing, our nature, yet not possessing the divine, quality unmixed and uncontaminated, but
Page 594 :
with a share also in the nature of the soul, and in the perceptive faculties of the body,, and with a susceptibility to pleasure and pain, and to whatsoever other experience is, incident to these mutations, . . . Plato calls, this class of beings an interpretative and, ministering class, midway between gods and, men [ὅτε Πλάτων ἑρµηνευτικὸν τοιοῦτον ὀνοµάζει, γένος διακονικὸν ἐν µέσῳ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων], in, that they convey thither the prayers and, petitions of men, and thence they bring, hither the oracles and the gifts of good, things. (Is. Os. 360–361) In the context of a, growing (pagan) monotheism, Plutarch, postulates a group of intermediate beings, that maintain contact with the true deities, and fill an indispensable function for human, beings.[266] The concept of intermediate, beings that were both divine and human was, also acceptable to non-Jews on the basis of, their own cultural background., Within this complex of traditions already, available in the culture, early Christians even, prior to Paul could speak of the preexistence,, incarnation, exaltation, and unique status of, Jesus Christ the Son of God (cf. Phil. 2:6–11)., Jesus was not honored as a “second” god but
Page 595 :
was included in the worship of the “one God”, (Rom. 3:30, εἷς θεός). God is God in such a way, that he reveals his essential being and, character as the Χριστός, κύριος, and υἱός. In, Jesus, God is encountered; God defines, himself christologically. Paul advocates an, exclusive monotheism in binitarian form. He, does not reflect on the relation of God to, Jesus in ontological categories but rather, makes the experience of God’s act in and, through Jesus the beginning point for his, thinking.[267], The formation of early Christology did not, occur in discernible spatial or temporal, stages; on the contrary, within a very, compressed period of time, the different, christological views emerged alongside each, other and partially interrelated with each, other. There was no development from a, “low” Jewish Christian Christology to a, Hellenistic syncretistic “high” Christology., [268] It is rather the case that from the very, beginning, central concepts were available, within Hellenistic Judaism that were, important for early Christianity’s new, deployment of intermediate beings and titles., Moreover, the central christological titles
Page 596 :
and the concept of a mediator between God, and humanity were open to an independent, Hellenistic reception. All essential, christological statements about Jesus, associated with titles of majesty had already, been formed some time before Paul and were, adopted by him from Christian tradition: the, resurrected Jesus is the Son of God (1 Thess., 1:10; Gal. 1:16; Rom. 1:4); the name of God, had been conferred on him (Phil. 2:9–10). He, is identified with God or is the image of God, (Phil. 2:6; 2 Cor. 4:4) and bearer of God’s, glory (2 Cor. 4:6; Phil. 3:21). As preexistent,, he had participated in the divine act of, creation (Phil. 2:6; 1 Cor. 8:6); expressions, and citations that properly refer to God are, applied to him (cf. 1 Cor. 1:31; 2:16; Rom., 10:13). His place is in heaven (1 Thess. 1:10;, 4:16; Phil. 3:20) at the right hand of God, (Rom. 8:24), and from there he exercises, universal dominion (1 Cor. 15:27; Phil. 3:21),, which includes the heavenly powers (Phil., 2:10). Sent from God, he is presently at work, in the church (Gal. 4:4–5; Rom. 8:3); he is, God’s authorized representative at the last, judgment, which will take place at his
Page 597 :
parousia (1 Thess. 1:10; 1 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor., 5:10)., These views can neither be systematized, nor traced back to a uniform, cohesive, milieu. On the contrary, we should realize, that early Christian communities in different, places were originators and transmitters of, these ideas, for the Jesus event was, understood and appropriated in earliest, Christianity in a variety of ways. The, inclusion of Jesus in the worship of God, originated from the overwhelming religious, experiences of the earliest Christians,, especially the resurrection appearances and, the present working of the Spirit. The, worship practice of the earliest churches, must also be counted among the essential, factors within this process. First Corinthians, 16:22 (Marana tha [Our Lord, come!]) shows, that the unique status and significance of the, exalted Christ characterized congregational, worship from the very beginning (cf. also 1, Cor. 12:3; 2 Cor. 12:8).[269] Liturgical, practice included instruction to “glorify the, God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, (Rom. 15:6). Baptism, Eucharist, and, acclamation stand in an exclusive relation to
Page 598 :
the name of Jesus; this multiplicity of, perspectives points to the new and, revolutionary religious experience on which, they are based. Alongside theological, reflection, the liturgical invocation and ritual, worship of Jesus were further points of, contact for the construction, development,, and expansion of christological ideas.
Page 599 :
19
Page 600 :
Anthropology, The Struggle for the Self, In the formation of philosophical and, religious symbolic universes of antiquity, one, issue was omnipresent: what does it mean to, be a human being?[1] Paul understood the, meaning of human existence from the, perspective of his Christ hermeneutic, which, resulted in new insights and solutions., Because only Christ has overcome the hostile, powers of sin and death, the idea prevailed, within the Pauline symbolic universe that, human life by nature exists within a, comprehensive set of connections. People, cannot live out of themselves, on their own, resources, for they always find themselves in, a previously existing force field where, various powers already hold sway. As a, creature, the human being is not autonomous, but is exposed to the powers that prevail in, creation: God, and evil in the form of sin.[2], 19.1 Human Being and Corporeality:, σῶμα and σάρξ
Page 601 :
For Paul, corporeality constitutes the, essence of human existence in its, creatureliness.[3] Because of the reality of, sin, corporeality for Paul also always means, endangered corporeality, and so he, distinguishes between σῶµα and σάρξ., “Body”, The key term σῶµα (body, corporeality), appears in Paul with three contextual, meanings:[4], (1) Paul uses σῶµα as a neutral designation, of the human physical constitution.[5], Abraham had a body that was already, practically dead (Rom. 4:19). When Paul, issues his condemnation of the immoral, person in Corinth, he is absent in body (1, Cor. 5:3, ἀπὼν τῷ σώµατι; cf. also 2 Cor. 10:10), but present in spirit. Paul bears the marks of, Jesus on his body (Gal. 6:17), such as from, wounds that he had received in beatings, during his mission work (cf. 2 Cor. 11:24–, 25). In a marriage each partner has a claim, on the body of the other (1 Cor. 7:4, “For the, wife does not have authority over her own, body, but the husband does; likewise the
Page 602 :
husband does not have authority over his, own body, but the wife does”). As the place, of human desires and weaknesses, the body, must be tamed (1 Cor. 9:27). Even giving, one’s body to be burned in martyrdom is of, no use if one does not have love (1 Cor., 13:3). In 1 Cor. 15:38, 40 Paul elevates σῶµα, existence to being essential to all existence, as such, for God gives to every creature a, body that fits its particular nature., (2) Paul also uses σῶµα in a negative sense., In Rom. 6:6 the apostle speaks of the, destruction of the body of sin in baptism., Here σῶµα τῆς ἁµαρτίας (body of sin) means, nothing different from σῶµα τοῦ θανάτου (body, of death) in Rom. 7:24: the human being, totally exposed to the powers of sin and, death. Even after they have been freed from, these powers through the Christ event, Paul, can challenge his readers not to let sin reign, in their σῶµα θνητόν (mortal body; cf. Rom., 6:12). In Rom. 8:10 (σῶµα νεκρόν [the body (is), dead]) and 8:11 (σῶµα θνητόν), σῶµα is used in, very much the same sense as σάρξ, describing, the human body as it confronts the power of, sin. Can Paul simply equate σάρξ and σῶµα?, This seems to be indicated by their parallel
Page 603 :
use in 2 Cor. 4:11 and Rom. 8:13, where,, analogously to σῶµα θνητόν, Paul speaks of, “our mortal flesh” (θνητὴ σάρξ ἡµῶν; cf. 2 Cor., 5:4). So also ἐπιθυµίαι ([evil] desires) can have, their source in the σῶµα (Rom. 6:12) as well, as the σάρξ (Gal. 5:16–17, 24). Nonetheless,, to simply equate the two misses Paul’s own, understanding, for in Rom. 8:9 the apostle, explicitly emphasizes the change of existence, that transpires in baptism from the realm of, σάρξ into the realm of the πνεῦµα (Spirit). Thus, Rom. 8:10–11, 13 can no longer speak of, being determined by σάρξ but only of being, confronted by σάρξ. Σῶµα as such has not, become a slave to the alien powers of σάρξ, and ἁµαρτία[6] and thus deprived of its own, will, yet it finds itself in the constant danger, of being taken over by them again. Those, who have been baptized have really died to, sin (cf. Rom. 6:1ff.), but sin is not dead. It, lives on in the world and continues to tempt, and test the body. This is why Paul can speak, of the σῶµα θνητόν or the σῶµα τῆς ἁµαρτίας, without abolishing the fundamental, distinction between σάρξ and σῶµα. Σῶµα is the, person himself or herself whereas σάρξ is an
Page 604 :
alien power claiming power over human, beings., (3) Paul uses the term σῶµα in a positive, sense as his comprehensive expression for, the human self.[7] The body is essentially, much more than food and drink (1 Cor., 6:13a); it is not defined by biological, functions but, rather, belongs to the Lord (1, Cor. 6:13b, “The body is meant not for, fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for, the body”). As the locus of sexuality (cf. 1, Cor. 6:18; 7:4; Rom. 1:24), the body may not, be defiled through sexual immorality; on, earth Christians must instead place their, bodies at the disposal of their Lord as “a, living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,, which is your spiritual worship” (θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑµῶν,, Rom. 12:1b). It is precisely in bodily, existence that faith acquires visible form. As, the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, the, body is no longer available for one’s own, arbitrary disposition (1 Cor. 6:19). The, autonomous “I” is no longer in control of the, body of the believer because God himself has, established the body as the place where he, will be glorified: δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώµατι
Page 605 :
ὑµῶν (glorify God in your body, 1 Cor. 6:20;, cf. Phil. 1:20). It is precisely in bodily, existence that indicative and imperative,, God’s affirmation of us and God’s claim upon, us, are fused into a unity,[8] because that is, the place where the new being is called to, faithful obedience.[9] To withhold the body, from the Lord’s service is to withhold oneself, completely., For Paul, there is no human identity apart, from bodily existence, and so he also thinks, of the resurrection reality and thus, postmortal existence in bodily terms.[10] Just, as believers on earth are connected bodily to, Christ, so the resurrected one effects the, transition and transformation of human, beings from pre-mortal to postmortal, existence.[11] God’s life-giving power,, present in the Spirit, overcomes even death, and creates a spiritual body (σῶµα πνευµατικόν), into which the pre-mortal human self and, thus one’s personal identity are taken up into, a qualitatively new mode of existence (cf. 1, Cor. 15:42ff.).[12] When Paul speaks of the, redemption of our present body (Rom. 8:23),, he is not expressing any hostility toward, present bodily existence but longs for
Page 606 :
unbroken, enduring communion with the, resurrected Christ. The present “body of our, humiliation” (Phil. 3:21, τὸ σῶµα τῆς ταπεινώσεως, ἡµῶν) will be conformed “to the body of his, glory” (τῷ σώµατι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ). What, happened to Christ as “the first fruits of, those who have died” (1 Cor. 15:20) will also, happen to believers., The σῶµα is the interface between the, givenness of human existence in the world, and the act of God for human beings., Precisely because a human being both is a, body and has a body,[13] God’s saving act in, Jesus Christ embraces and determines the, body and thereby the person’s concrete, existence and history. As the comprehensive, definition of the human self, the σῶµα marks, the place where the powers of the transitory, world and God’s saving intention for human, beings encounter each other. Through the, Spirit, believers are snatched away from, their previous unredeemed history and, placed in God’s new reality grounded in the, resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, a, history that begins concretely, for the, individual, in baptism and that will be, fulfilled in the eschatological gift of the σῶµα
Page 607 :
πνευµατικόν. For Paul, therefore, σῶµα means, both bodily existence, as one’s selfunderstanding in the present world, and, being incorporated into God’s creative saving, act.[14], “Flesh”, Just as with σῶµα, Paul can use σάρξ (flesh,, materiality) first in a neutral sense, to, designate the physical aspect of the human, condition.[15] Sicknesses are described as, ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός (lit. “weakness of the, flesh”; NRSV, “physical infirmity,” Gal. 4:13), or “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7, σκόλοψ τῇ, σαρκί). Circumcision takes place “in the, flesh,” there is a “distress in this life” (so, NRSV; θλῖψιν δὲ τῇ σαρκί [lit. distress in the, flesh], 1 Cor. 7:28), and there are different, kinds of flesh (1 Cor. 15:39, humans, fish,, cattle, birds). In 1 Cor. 9:11 the “material, benefits” to which the apostle can, legitimately lay claim are called σαρκικός (cf., also Rom. 15:27). In the genealogical sense,, σάρξ stands for membership in the people of, Israel (Gal. 4:23, 29; Rom. 4:1; 9:3; 11:14).
Page 608 :
The term σάρξ receives an explicitly, negative connotation in the places where, Paul assigns to the realm of the flesh those, who live out of their own resources and trust, in themselves.[16] He calls the Corinthians, “fleshly” (σάρκινος), immature children in, Christ (1 Cor. 3:1). They orient their lives to, the superficial and external world, let, themselves be blinded by what is merely, visible to the physical eye, are incapable of, penetrating through it to the hidden reality, of God, which controls everything. Their, discernment and evaluation of things takes, place on the earthly level (2 Cor. 1:12). Paul, designates the transient reality excluded, from the kingdom of God as “flesh and, blood” (σάρξ καὶ αἷµα, 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16;, cf. also 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 4:11; Rom. 6:19)., [17] The apostle speaks several times in, negative form of a “life in the flesh” (cf. 2, Cor. 10:3; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:22, 24; Philem., 16). Fleshly people are characterized by selfcenteredness and self-satisfaction, relying on, their own abilities, making their own, knowledge the standard of what is, reasonable and real. They do not perceive, that, precisely by doing so, they are
Page 609 :
helplessly delivered over to the power of sin., A life κατὰ σάρκα means life without access to, God, a life imprisoned in what is earthly and, transient. Paul speaks for the person living, without faith when he says, ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰµι, πεπραµένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁµαρτίαν (but I am of the, flesh, sold into slavery under sin, Rom., 7:14b). Here σάρξ no longer merely describes, physical existence but becomes the summary, expression for a life separated from, and, opposed to, God.[18] The real acting subject, of life is sin, which results in death (Rom., 7:5, “While we were living in the flesh [ἐν τῇ, σαρκί], our sinful passions, aroused by the, law, were at work in our members to bear, fruit for death”)., On their own, human beings are unable to, escape this fateful interplay of flesh, sin, and, death. God alone can set them free from, themselves and the powers of sin and death, and set them in the new reality determined, by the Spirit.[19] This liberation took place, fundamentally in the sending of the Son “in, the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3, ἐν, ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁµαρτίας). Jesus, assumed the very mode of existence in which, sin exercises its power over human beings.
Page 610 :
The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, disarmed sin of its power in the very place, where it is effective: in the flesh. Although, believers continue to live ἐν σαρκί, they no, longer live κατὰ σάρκα (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3, “we live, as human beings [ἐν σαρκί], but we do not, wage war according to human standards, [κατὰ σάρκα]”). Believers know that they have, been snatched away from the realm of the, flesh and subjected to the work of the Spirit, (cf. Rom. 8:5–8). In Paul the σάρξ/πνεῦµα, contrast is not a metaphysical but a, historical dualism. Because there is no, human existence outside the flesh and the, act of God occurs for human beings in the, realm of the flesh, the flesh appears as the, location where human beings either, stubbornly persist in their self-centeredness, or through the Spirit let themselves be, placed in the service of God. For Paul, it is, precisely not the case that in their earthly, existence believers are removed from the, flesh; rather, the Spirit overcomes the, natural self-assertion inherent in the flesh, and blocks the access to sin.
Page 611 :
19.2 Sin and Death The distinctive, features of the Pauline, understanding of sin are manifest, in the apostle’s linguistic usage., [20] Paul characteristically uses, the term ἁµαρτία in the singular, (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 15:56; 2 Cor. 5:21;, Gal. 3:22; Rom. 5:21; 6:12; 7:11)., Plural forms are found in prePauline traditional formulations, outside the Letter to the Romans, (cf. 1 Thess. 2:16; 1 Cor. 15:3, 17;, Gal. 1:4). In Romans, a document, in which Paul reflects intensively, on the nature of sin, the singular, ἁµαρτία clearly dominates, with only, three instances of the plural (the, citations from the Septuagint in, Rom. 4:7 and 11:27; and Rom. 7:5,, qualified by τὰ παθήµατα). The, distribution of the word is, striking: of the 173 occurrences of, ἁµαρτία in the New Testament, 59, are in the undisputed Pauline, letters; of these, 48 are found in, Romans (1 Thessalonians, 1; 1, Corinthians, 4; 2 Corinthians, 3;
Page 612 :
Galatians, 3; the word is missing, from Philippians and Philemon)., In 1 Thessalonians Israel is, considered to be rejected because, of its transgressions/misdeeds (1, Thess. 2:16),[21] but the basic, idea of the Pauline doctrine of sin, first clearly emerges in 1, Corinthians: Christ “died for our, sins” (1 Cor. 15:3b; cf. 15:17); that, is, he overcame the power of sin, through the cross and, resurrection. In passing and, without systematic reflection, 1, Cor. 15:56 states that sin is the, sting of death and gains its power, through the law.[22] According to, 2 Cor. 5:21, God made the, nonsinner Jesus Christ to be sin, for us “so that in him we might, become the righteousness of God.”, The anarthrous ἁµαρτία in 2 Cor., 11:7 is to be understood in the, sense of “mistake, error” (NRSV,, “Did I commit a sin . . . ?” = “Did I, do something wrong . . . ?”).[23], The logic that becomes
Page 613 :
characteristic of Romans already, appears in Galatians: according to, the will of the Scripture (and thus, of God), the Jews, too, stand under, the power of sin, to which, everything is subject, in order that, the promises might be given to, those who believe (Gal. 3:22). If, the Galatians want to have, themselves circumcised, they fall, short of the liberating power of, the death of Jesus “for our sins”, (Gal. 1:4). Christ cannot be a, servant of the power of sin (Gal., 2:17),[24] for through him it, becomes clear that the law/Torah, cannot set people free from sin. In, Romans the connection between, the extensive treatment of the, righteousness/law theme and the, doctrine of sin is obvious. When, Paul gives a comprehensive, statement of his nomology and, declares the hamartiological, equality of Jews and Gentiles, (Rom. 1:18–3:20), he must also
Page 614 :
reflect on the nature and function, of sin., Sin as Antecedent Power Two, aspects are characteristic of the, Pauline understanding of sin:, concentration on the absolute use, of the term ἁµαρτία and the refusal, to make distinctions or, differentiations within the concept, of sin. Sin is an antecedent power, with fateful character in every, human life. In the linguistic usage, of the apostle, the fundamental, insight becomes clear that human, beings in their natural state stand, under the power of sin, from which, there is no escape, and that this, power determines their actions., Thus the plural “sins” (ἁµαρτίαι) in 1, Cor. 15:17/Rom. 7:5, the, declarations of inexcusability in, Rom. 1:20; 2:1, and the, descriptions of the human, condition in Rom. 3:23 (“all have, sinned and fall short of the glory of, God”) and Rom. 14:23b (“whatever
Page 615 :
does not proceed from faith is sin”), all refer to sinful acts /, transgressions without thereby, neutralizing the importance of ἡ, ἁµαρτία as the antecedent force field, in which every human being lives., [25] The power of sin precedes and, is the basis of individual sinful acts, (cf. 5:12: “Therefore, just as sin, came into the world through one, man, and death came through sin,, and so death spread to all because, all have sinned”).[26] The, character of sin as a particular act, has no substantial or temporal, independence over against its, fateful character.[27] Sin is much, more than some sort of defect in, the way one lives one’s life. It has, the character of an inescapable, power (cf. 7:14–25a) to which every, person apart from faith is enslaved., [28] Sin is even able to, commandeer the law/Torah and to, pervert its intended function as, implementing the life-giving will of, God into its opposite.[29] Paul thus
Page 616 :
ends up saying something he does, not really intend: God’s first, covenant was not able to restrain, the spreading power of sin and, death. Living in the realm where, sin rules, human beings are, delivered into the hands of death, and nothingness (cf., e.g., 5:12;, 6:16, 21, 23; 8:2)., What caused Paul to develop such a, hypostatization of sin? The point of departure, for his reflections can hardly be found in his, anthropology,[30] for his view of the human, condition pictured above is not available for, objective observation but can only be seen by, faith. On the contrary, here too the logic is, shaped by the fundamental idea of the, Pauline Christ hermeneutic: only faith in, Jesus Christ saves, and so alongside him no, other authority can have a salvific function., [31] Not anthropology but Christology and, soteriology provide the foundation for the, Pauline doctrine of sin. In Galatians and, especially in Romans, Paul had to explain, why the law/Torah is not able to deliver the, life it promises. Paul attempted to support
Page 617 :
his thesis with the argument, unacceptable, for Jews (and conservative Jewish, Christians), that the law/Torah was, secondary to sin both chronologically and, substantially. The Pauline doctrine of sin is, thus in practice the attempt at a later and, supplementary rationalization for the already, firmly fixed conclusion of an argument. Also,, the relation between the character of sin as a, power/fate and a particular deed, a problem, that cannot finally be resolved, results from, Paul’s cognitive starting point: the, magnitude of the saving act by which all, human beings can be saved must correspond, to the magnitude of the fate in which all, human beings are enmeshed., The Origin of Evil The Pauline, doctrine of sin cannot simply be, reduced to nomology[32] or, apologetics, however, for it also, makes an original contribution to a, debate that was carried on both in, Judaism and in the Gentile, Hellenistic world: the question of, the origin of evil and the cause of, defective human conduct.
Page 618 :
According to Paul, sin is the real cause for, the fact that the good intentions of human, beings are perverted into their opposite,, which can finally result only in death (Rom., 7:13). From this basic insight comes the, apostle’s anthropological argumentation in, 7:14–25a, in which he elaborates on the, ego’s inescapable entanglement in the web, of sin. In 7:14 Paul names a general, circumstance that still applies in the present:, as a physical being, every human is subject, to the power of sin. Apart from faith, an, awareness of this situation is just as, impossible as is escape from it, for sin, perverts the goodwill of human beings into, its negative. Epictetus (Diatr. 2.26.1) also, reflects on this typical difference between, what one really wants to do and what one, actually does:[33] “Every error [πᾶν ἁµάρτηµα], involves a contradiction. For since he who is, in error [ὁ ἁµαρτάνων] does not wish to err,, but to be right, it is clear that he is not doing, what he wishes [ὃ µὲν θέλει οὐ ποιεῖ].” A little, later Epictetus says (Diatr. 2.26.4–5), “He,, then, who can show to each man the, contradiction that causes him to err, and can, clearly bring home to him how he is not
Page 619 :
doing what he wishes, and is doing what he, does not wish [πῶς ὃ θέλει οὐ ποιεῖ καὶ ὃ µὴ θέλει, ποιεῖ], is strong in argument, and at the same, time effective both in encouragement and in, refutation. For as soon as anyone shows a, man this, he will of his own accord abandon, what he is doing. But so long as you do not, point this out, be not surprised if he persists, in his error; for he does it because he has an, impression that he is right.” For both Paul, and Epictetus, there is a contradiction within, the human person between the intention of, the act and the practical carrying out of the, intention. But there is a fundamental, difference between Paul and Epictetus when, they explain the reason for this, contradiction. For Epictetus, wrong conduct, can be overcome by right knowledge. Here, we have an optimistic picture of human, nature, a picture in which reason, as the, standard of action, makes it possible to, overcome such wrong conduct.[34] Paul does, not share this confidence, since for him the, acting subject is really sin, not the, knowledgeable human being. Human beings, by nature are not at all able to see what their, situation actually is, for Jesus Christ alone is
Page 620 :
able to free human beings from this situation, through the gift of the Spirit., In a way different from Epictetus’s, Cicero,, in the context of his critique of the Stoic, theology, reflects on the question of whether, the evil in the world is the work of the gods., “For if the gods gave man reason, they gave, him malice” (Nat. d. 3.75). Human beings, use the divine gift of reason not for the good, but in order to betray each other. It would, thus have been better if the gods had, withheld reason from humans (cf. Nat. d., 3.78). But now, when good people have, troubles and things go well for bad people,, stupidity prevails, and we find that “we, for, whose welfare you say that the gods have, cared most fully, are really in the depth of, misfortune” (Nat. d. 3.79). The gods must, therefore be subject to this charge: “They, should have made everyone good, if they, were really concerned for humanity” (Nat. d., 3.79). Seneca, a contemporary of Paul, has a, predominantly pessimistic evaluation of the, human situation. Both humanity as a whole, (Ep. 97.1, “No epoch is free from guilt”) and, individual human beings (Ira 2.28.1, “Not, one of us is without guilt”) fail to attain true
Page 621 :
insight and moral goodness. Experience, teaches that even the most circumspect, transgress (cf. Ira 3.25.2), so that this insight, is unavoidable: “We have all sinned, [peccavimus omnes]—some in serious, some, in trivial things; some by deliberate, intention, some by chance impulse, or, because we were led away by the wickedness, of others; some of us have not stood strongly, enough by good resolutions, and have lost, our innocence against our will and though, still clinging to it” (Clem. 1.6.3). The law as, the norm of conduct and common life offers, no protection: “Who is the man who can, claim he has never violated any law? . . . How, much is required by the sense of duty, love, for humanity, generosity, righteousness, [iustitia], loyalty [fides], all of which stand, outside the written laws” (Ira 2.28.2). No one, can pronounce his or her own acquittal;, everyone is guilty when they examine their, own conscience (cf. Ira 1.14.3). The unerring, judgment of Seneca the philosopher and the, experiences of Seneca the psychologist force, the conclusion on him that human beings, never live up to their potential.[35]
Page 622 :
In a completely different cultural context,, namely, in 4 Ezra (after 70 CE), we also find, a pessimistic argument about the state of the, world and the human situation.[36] Although, God has given the law/Torah, sin and, ignorance still prevail. “For this reason,, therefore, those who live on earth shall be, tormented, because though they had, understanding, they committed iniquity; and, though they received the commandments,, they did not keep them; and though they, obtained the law, they dealt unfaithfully with, what they received” (4 Ezra 7:72). There are, only a few righteous (4 Ezra 7:17–18, 51), because the rule of sin is so pervasive, and, so the question forces itself on the author,, “For who among the living is there that has, not sinned, or who is there among mortals, that has not transgressed your covenant?” (4, Ezra 7:46). The author obviously has no, confidence that the law can change this, situation:[37] “For all who have been born, are entangled in iniquities, and are full of, sins and burdened with transgressions” (4, Ezra 7:68). Here an anthropological, pessimism prevails (4 Ezra 4:38; 8:17, 35),, which, although it does not infer from the
Page 623 :
given evil situation of the world and history, that God is absent, evil, or incapable of, changing things, nonetheless appears to take, a somewhat skeptical stance toward the, divine promises and saving acts., Finally, in this regard the Qumran texts, also manifest great similarities to Paul.[38], Here, too, the human creature is flesh and, thus separated from God and delivered, inescapably into the power of sin; the “flesh”, belongs to the dominion of sin (cf. 1QS 4:20–, 21).[39] Not only blatant sinners but even, the devout author of the Qumran community, belong “to wicked mankind, to the company, of unjust flesh” (1QS 11:9]), and has in his, flesh the perverse spirit (1QS 4:20–21), for, the flesh is sin: (1QH 4:29–30, trans., Vermès], “But what is flesh [to be worthy] of, this? What is a creature of clay for such, great marvels to be done, whereas he is in, iniquity from the womb and in guilty, unfaithfulness until his old age?”). The “work, of iniquity and deeds of deceit” prevail in the, human race (1QH 1:27; cf. 1QS 4:10; 1QM, 13:5, “their service of uncleanness”). Human, beings are not able on their own to choose, the good and reject the evil, but sin that
Page 624 :
dwells and struggles within them dominates, them fully (cf. 1QS 4:20–21). Righteousness, is thus not a human possibility that one can, simply decide to choose and do. Rather,, everything depends on God, who “shapes the, [human] spirit” (1QH 15:22) and through the, Holy Spirit (1QS 4:21) wipes out the spirit of, wickedness that resides in human flesh., Unreserved observance of the Torah (cf.,, e.g., 1QS 2:2–4; 5:8–11), along with complete, dependence on the grace of God, makes it, possible for the devout to follow God’s will, and to practice righteousness (1QS 11:12)., The Essenes did not expect the ultimate, destruction of the power of sin (including, that within the Qumran community) to occur, until the last judgment, still to come (cf., 11QMelch 2:6b–8a; CD 14:17–19)., The position of Paul within the religious, and philosophical debates about the origin of, evil and its conquest demonstrates, originality not in its analysis but in its, resolution. Like many of his contemporaries,, the apostle sketched a gloomy picture of the, human condition.[40] He derived this, evaluation, however, not by observing the, given situation or by insight into the inner
Page 625 :
nature of human beings but from God’s, liberating act in Jesus Christ. The magnitude, of the saving act corresponds to the hopeless, situation of those who were to be saved. The, Pauline solution is distinguished by two, components: (1) It takes up the, contemporary religious-philosophical, discourse and shows itself to be an attractive, and competent conversation partner. (2) It, opens up to human beings an insightful and, practicable possibility of being freed from, their situation. Paul differs from all other, systems by the thesis that, for Christians, sin, has already been overcome in baptism,[41], so that those who are baptized are, essentially already liberated from the, enslaving power of sin. Human beings are, delivered from the deficiency and selfcenteredness of their own thinking only, when they anchor their existence in God; this, means that the new life cannot be a mere, extension of the old, for a change of lordship, brings about a changed life. This possibility, is opened up by the Christ event, which, becomes concretely present in baptism, frees, one from the power of sin, and places one in, the freedom given by the Spirit.
Page 626 :
19.3 The Law Paul grew up in a, cultural context already familiar, with numerous models of the, positive function of the law or, laws, not only in his Jewish mother, religion but also in the originally, Greco-Roman realm.[42] There, was already a given connection, between law,, righteousness/justice, and life., The Law in Greco-Roman Thought, Within the political communities of, antiquity, the law[43] is the norm, that fosters respect for the, gods[44] and justice between, human beings, thus making life, possible.[45] According to, Xenophon, Mem. 4.6.6, Socrates, says, “We are rightly advised when, we confirm that those are just who, know the legal rules of relating to, other human beings.” According to, Aristotle, justice receives its, internal purpose and determination, from the laws, so that he can state,, “Whoever disdains the laws is
Page 627 :
unjust, and as we have seen those, who respect them are just. This, means therefore: everything lawful, is in the broadest sense of the word, just” (Eth. nic. 5.1138a).[46], Human justice results from living, in accordance with a norm; a, righteous life is a life that, corresponds to the law. The laws,, as the norms of justice, enable, people in the polis to live together, in a reasonable manner, and, whoever violates the laws acts, against the polis.[47] As the “gift, of the gods” (Demosthenes, Or., 25.16, δῶρον θεῶν) and a power that, establishes and promotes culture,, [48] the laws preserve the life of, the individual and the polis as a, whole from destruction;[49] the, laws have a life-giving and salvific, function (cf. Demosthenes, Or., 24.156, οἵ τε γὰρ σῴζοντες τὴν πόλιν εἰσὶ, νόµοι [The salvation of the state is, its laws]).[50] The laws also, regulate the relation of human, beings to the gods. Piety results
Page 628 :
from relating to the gods according, to the laws (cf. Socrates, “Thus, whoever knows the legally, prescribed conduct in relation to, the gods can well honor the gods, this way” (Xenophon, Mem. 4.6.4;, cf. Plato, Leg. 10.885b).[51] In the, ancient Greco-Roman world, there, was no realm that was not, determined by the wholesome, authority and function of the laws., It is only the laws that grant to the, individual and to the polis justice,, unity, prosperity, happiness, and, continued existence., In the first century there was also a, widespread awareness that in addition to the, countless individual laws, there is one law:, “For Justice is one; it binds all human, society, and is based on one Law, which is, right reason applied to command and, prohibition” (Cicero, Leg. 1.42).[52] The law, includes much more than rules, for it is the, presupposition established by the gods for a, successful life (Cicero, Leg. 1.58, “But it is, certainly true that, since Law ought to be a
Page 629 :
reformer of vice and an incentive to virtue,, the guiding principles of life may be derived, from it. It is therefore true that wisdom is the, mother of all good things; and from the, Greek expression meaning ‘the love of, wisdom’ philosophy has taken its name. And, philosophy is the richest, the most bounteous, and the most exalted gift of the immortal, gods to humanity”). The true law already, existed before the fixing of particular laws in, writing, for it proceeds from reason, which, originated at the same time as the divine, spirit. “Wherefore the true and primal Law,, applied to command and prohibition, is the, right reason of supreme Jupiter” (Cicero,, Leg. 2.10)., The one, true, and valid law is the “law of, nature” (ὁ µὲν τῆς φύσεως νόµος), for it alone, grants freedom (Dio Chrysostom, Lib. 4–5)., The awareness of a distinction between the, original law and the written law (cf. Cicero,, Leg. 1.42; 2.10; Dio Chrysostom, Consuet. 1–, 2) was just as widespread as the insight that, numerous written laws do not correspond to, the intention of the law (cf. Cicero, Leg. 2.11;, Dio Chrysostom, Consuet. 2–4; Lib. 5;, Pseudo-Diogenes, Epistulae 28.1).[53]
Page 630 :
Likewise the idea is frequently found that, laws do not bring justice but injustice, not, freedom but restriction.[54] Despite such a, spectrum of experiences,[55] the unwavering, conviction persisted that life for the, individual and the community can only be, attained when insight into the order willed, by the gods is attained.[56] Thus Dio, Chrysostom can launch into a song in praise, of the law: “The law is a guide to life . . . , a, good rule for how to live” (De lege 1; cf. Lib., 5). The gods themselves serve the law, for it, guarantees order in the cosmos.[57] It goes, without saying that law and, justice/righteousness belong together, for, both are the guarantors of life.[58] In GreekHellenistic thinking, the true law is seen as a, power and ordering principle in being itself, that facilitates and sustains life.[59], The Law in Ancient Judaism There, is, of course, no question about the, outstanding position held by the, Torah[60] within ancient Judaism., [61] Still, within ancient Judaism, there was a spectrum of theologies, of the law[62] (e.g., cultural
Page 631 :
[Diaspora Judaism influenced by its, Hellenistic environment];, apocalyptic; political-theological, [the differing views of Pharisees,, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots]),, and isolated individual voices that, may have challenged the law’s, ability to deliver what it promised., [63], Philo’s understanding of the law is, important; in it he fuses into a unity the Sinai, Torah, the creation Torah, and the law of, nature.[64] In Philo’s view, both φύσις, (nature), as the world principle, and the, Torah both go back to the Creator God of the, Old Testament, so that both must be, considered together. Because the creation of, the world and the giving of the law both, occurred together “in the beginning,” the, law of nature is just as divine as the Torah:, “His [Moses’] exordium, as I have said, is one, that excites our admiration in the highest, degree. It consists of an account of the, creation of the world, implying that the world, is in harmony with the Law, and the Law, with the world, and that the man who
Page 632 :
observes the law is constituted thereby a, loyal citizen of the world, regulating his, doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in, accordance with which the entire world itself, also is administered” (Creation 3). The, written Sinai Torah is essentially much older,, for both Moses, as the “living law,”[65] and, the concept of the νόμος ἄγραφος (Migration 3–, 6)[66] allow Philo to emphasize, through the, idea of a protological creation-Torah, the, continuity of God’s activity both temporally, and in terms of its content. Philo makes no, distinction between ritual and ethical, commands, but the “ten words” (δέκα λόγοι,, the Decalogue) constitute the foundation and, summary of the individual ritual commands, (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.1). Philo consistently, interprets the individual commands as, formulations of the Decalogue, which in turn, are interwoven with natural law. By means of, the idea of (natural) morality, Philo is able to, understand both the natural law and the, individual commands of the Torah in ethical, terms and thus accomplishes a major effort, at synthesizing Jewish and Greek-Hellenistic, thought.[67]
Page 633 :
In their cultural context it was absolutely, inconceivable that Paul and his churches,, according to their self-understanding, would, live “lawlessly,” that is, without life-giving, and salvific norms. As with, righteousness/justice, so also the theme of, the law was already a given in his cultural, milieu. At the same time, the course of Paul’s, life from zealous Pharisee to battle-scarred, apostle to the Gentiles is broken by, numerous fault-lines, which have also, influenced his statements about the, law/Torah. It is thus necessary to distinguish, between a diachronic and a synchronic, approach to this thematic complex. We shall, first step along the path of the apostle’s life, in connection with his statements about the, law/Torah, which will enable us then to, approach the issue on the synchronic plane, and ask whether and how one may speak of a, comprehensive, integrated, and/or changing, Pauline understanding of the law., 19.3.1 Diachronic Analysis From the, diachronic point of view, we, must first note the statements, in which Paul speaks of his
Page 634 :
past life as a Pharisee.[68] The, autobiographical statements in, Gal. 1:13–14 and Phil. 3:5–9, permit three conclusions: (1), Paul was a zealot for the Torah, who perceived himself as, blameless regarding Torah, observance and surpassed all, his contemporaries in his, dedication to the traditions of, the fathers. This selfcharacterization is congruent, with what we otherwise know, about the understanding of the, law by the Pharisees, who, followed the traditions of the, fathers in a special way,, distinguishing themselves by, the exact manner in which they, interpreted and obeyed the law., [69] (2) If, as a ζηλωτής (zealot),, Paul tended toward the radical, wing of Pharisaism, then he, was thoroughly at home in the, world of the Torah and its, interpretation. It is very, probable that he knew the
Page 635 :
whole spectrum of Jewish, exegesis of the law,[70] and so, the thesis that Paul, misunderstood or, misrepresented the Jewish, understanding of the law[71], must be considered very, improbable. (3) His rootedness, in Pharisaic tradition would, lead us to expect that the, problem of the law continued, to be an important and, sensitive theme for the apostle, to the Gentiles., The Early Period It is thus all the, more noticeable that there is no, direct criticism of the law in Paul’s, own accounts of his call at, Damascus[72] to be apostle to the, Gentiles.[73] What we have instead, is that God revealed to Paul the, persecutor that the crucified Jesus, of Nazareth is now exalted as Son, of God at the Father’s side where, he belongs, where he continues to, reign, and from where he exercises
Page 636 :
his saving power. If the core of the, Damascus event is to be, interpreted in, christologicalsoteriological terms,, this naturally raises the question of, what consequences such a, revolutionary event must have for, the former Pharisee’s, understanding of the law. For the, earliest period of the apostle’s, work, speculations are all that are, possible;[74] Paul joined the, Antiochene Gentile mission, which, was already expanding (cf. Acts, 11:25–26), and so the beginning, point is his adoption of the theory, and practice of evangelism already, in practice there.[75] To begin, with, the position of the Antiochene, believers in Christ who had come, from Hellenistic Judaism (cf. Acts, 11:20–21) was critical of the, temple, not critical of the law.[76], They made the overwhelming, discovery that God also gives the, Holy Spirit to the Gentiles (cf. Acts, 10:44–48; 11:15), so that a
Page 637 :
reevaluation of the place in, salvation history for believers in, Christ from paganism was, unavoidable. They then abandoned, the requirement of circumcision,, [77] a decision that carried with it, an indifference to the Torah, regarding the question of salvation., The fact that believers in Christ, who had come from Judaism and, paganism made the same, confession, κύριος Ἰησοῦς (Jesus is, Lord; cf. Acts 11:20), overruled, previous criteria of precedence and, subordination. What role did the, Torah play in this context of the, Gentile mission, which no longer, required circumcision? Here we, must distinguish between the, ethical core of the Torah and ritual, commands. The abandonment of, circumcision was connected with, giving up the ritual laws (cf. Acts, 10:14–15, 28; 11:3), but on the, other hand, the ethical core of the, Torah (the Decalogue) was, unproblematically adopted by
Page 638 :
Gentile Christians (including the, God-fearers; cf. Rom. 7:7; 13:9)., Moreover, when Gentile Christians, oriented their lives by the “law of, Christ” (Gal. 6:2), the “law of faith”, (Rom. 3:27), or the “law of the, Spirit” (Rom. 8:2), they were not,, according to their own selfunderstanding, without rules or, norms and thus also not without, law., The Apostolic Council The apostolic, council with its apostolic decree, (Acts 15:29) tends to confirm this, picture.[78] Those at the apostolic, council who insisted on, circumcision for Gentile Christians, were unsuccessful, and the, apostolic decree represents the, attempt of some Jewish Christian, circles to at least maintain a, minimum of the ritual law as still, in force for Gentile Christians,, which in turn means they had not, previously been observed by, Gentile Christians. Traditions such
Page 639 :
as 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:26–28; 5:6;, 6:15 emphasize the new status of, all baptized believers before God,, quite apart from circumcision or, uncircumcision. Paul himself, likewise makes it clear that life, together in the churches is not to, be regulated by specific, prescriptions of the law (cf. 1 Cor., 10:33; Gal. 2:18; 4:12; Rom. 14:14,, 20).[79] His stance toward the, Torah in the early and middle, periods of his missionary work thus, seems to be that Gentile Christians, are included in the people of God, through faith and baptism, not by, circumcision and the ritual, observance of the Torah that would, follow. Faith and the Spirit, which, include an orientation to the basic, ethical tradition of the Old, Testament, come forward as new, norms regulating the relation of, God to human beings. Baptism, not, circumcision, functions as the, decisive initiation rite. According, to their own understanding, Paul
Page 640 :
and his churches were never, “lawless,” even though this is the, way they were seen from the, perspective of militant Jewish, Christians and Jews., Paul’s understanding was that the, apostolic council confirmed this, arrangement, but at the same time Paul, accepted the older, strict Jewish Christian, way practiced by the Jerusalem church and, its sympathizers. The distinction between the, Pauline “gospel for the uncircumcised” and, the Petrine “gospel for the circumcised” (Gal., 2:7)[80] is not a new arrangement that first, came into force in 48 CE but the, continuation of different concepts of mission, that had already been practiced for some, time. This means for Paul’s understanding of, the law that as the real newcomer, he, acknowledged the full scope of the, coexistence of different initiation rites and, thus of different conceptions of the law that, had been in place for some time and were, already a part of Christian history when he, came on the scene. Acts 11:3 and the conflict, at Antioch indicate that the difference in
Page 641 :
these two conceptions concerned primarily, the evaluation of the food laws and their, consequences (e.g., regarding the, eucharistic celebrations). Moreover, the, Jerusalem church increasingly found itself in, a completely different cultural and political, situation than did Paul. Its goal was to find a, way to remain within Judaism; it thus wanted, and needed to attach a different importance, to the Torah than was the case for Paul., The compromise at the apostolic council,, then, turned out to be only a pseudo-solution,, for it was either interpreted differently by, opposite sides of the issue or only, provisionally accepted. Moreover, the, agreement did not resolve the problems of, mixed congregations (cf. the Antioch, conflict), and for the Jerusalem church, it, increasingly aggravated the political, pressure against its continuing acceptance of, the Gentile mission that did not require, circumcision and for renouncing its, connection to the—in Jewish eyes—apostate, Paul. With at least the endorsement of the, Jerusalem church, a countermission began, with the goal of accepting Gentile Christians, into proselyte status on the condition that
Page 642 :
they be circumcised, thus leaving the whole, new movement of believers in Christ in, Judaism or, as the case may be, integrating, them into it., The Galatian Crisis The unresolved, or repressed problems surfaced, with full force in the Galatian, crisis, and Paul saw that he was, challenged to think through and, resolve the problematic of the law, under changed presuppositions., Thus a differentiation is, unavoidable: Until the Galatian, crisis, Paul acknowledged two, streams of early Christianity, with, the Jerusalem church (and its, sympathizers) on the one side and, the younger, predominantly Gentile, Christian churches on the other, side, each with its own way of, relating to others and with its own, evaluation of the Torah. Paul and, his churches were free from the, requirement of circumcision; the, ethical core of the Torah in the, form of the Decalogue was
Page 643 :
acknowledged without question,, and the new norms of faith and the, Spirit provided orientation for, Christians’ lives together, so that, in practice the multitude of, individual commandments of the, Torah played only a subordinate, role or none at all.[81] The data of, the letters themselves confirms, this assessment, for in 1, Thessalonians and the Corinthian, letters, the law/Torah is either not, mentioned at all (1 Thessalonians,, 2 Corinthians) or only referred to, in passing. Except for the allusion, in 1 Cor. 15:56, Paul makes no, reference to the function of the, law/Torah; that is, Paul felt no need, for a doctrine of the law because, the law/Torah was not an urgent, topic. Ethical instruction was not, based primarily on the Torah,[82], and the new concept of, righteousness was connected not, with the Torah but with baptism., The Galatian crisis changed the, situation abruptly and dramatically
Page 644 :
because now the problem of the law, was massively forced upon them, from outside. In the predominantly, Gentile churches also, the Torah, shifted from the periphery to the, center, and Paul saw himself, compelled to do what the Jerusalem, Christians had already done: to, abandon the concept that there, were different ways to deal with the, issue of the law and to provide a, fundamental clarification of the, significance of the Torah for Jews, and Gentiles., The downright breathtaking, highly, emotional, and tense argumentation of, Galatians, like the corrections to it provided, in Romans, shows that in the Letter to the, Galatians Paul for the first time advocates, this form of a doctrine of justification and the, law.[83] Paul universalizes and demotes the, Torah in that he evaluates it as secondary, both chronologically (Gal. 3:17) and, materially (3:19–20). Its role in history was, only to be a custodian and disciplinarian (cf., 3:24). This time of bondage has now come to
Page 645 :
an end in Christ, who liberated human, beings into the freedom of faith (Gal. 5:1)., Believers from both Judaism and paganism, are legitimate heirs of the promises to, Abraham on another basis than circumcision, and the Torah (3:29). In Galatians Paul, abolishes the privileged hamartiological, status of Jews and Jewish Christians (2:16), and places them in the same category as, humanity as a whole—in a history, determined by sin (cf. 3:22)., Compared with Galatians, Paul’s letter to, the Romans manifests substantial changes on, three levels:[84] (1) Paul introduces, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (righteousness/justification, of/from God) as a major theological term in, order to underpin the theological, substructure of the argument in Galatians, (cf. Rom. 3:21, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ χωρὶς νόμου [the, righteousness of God apart from law]; cf. also, Rom. 6:14b; 10:1–4). (2) This makes it, possible for him to have a partially new, evaluation of the law/Torah (cf. Rom. 3:31;, 7:7, 12; 13:8–10); the law/Torah is no longer, criticized as such but has itself now become, primarily the victim of the power of sin. (3), Paul fundamentally rethinks the relation of
Page 646 :
God’s righteousness to the election of Israel., These changes derive from the apostle’s, particular historical situation in relation to, the Jerusalem and Roman churches (delivery, of the collection; mission to Spain) but also, from the polemically one-sided argument of, the Letter to the Galatians. The Letter to the, Philippians takes up the results of the, doctrine of justification as set forth in, Romans (cf. Phil. 3:5, 6, 9), and its, understanding of the law also stands in, continuity with that preceding letter., This diachronic sketch shows how closely, each stage of Paul’s understanding of the law, is connected with the course of his life and, ministry. We cannot, therefore, speak of the, understanding of the law held by the apostle,, for Paul necessarily and appropriately, worked out the application of the theme of, the law in different ways corresponding to, his historical situation.[85] The letters to the, Galatians and to Rome document a late, phase of this process, which represents a, final stage of development both, chronologically and materially. They provide, the point of departure for the synchronic, analysis of Paul’s understanding of the law.
Page 647 :
19.3.2 Synchronic Analysis Is it, possible to summarize the, apostle’s statements about the, law/Torah in a consistent, doctrine of the law? The, answer to this question has, considerable consequences for, the systematic capability of, Pauline thought.[86], Statements about the Law/Torah, We begin with the observation that, Paul speaks in very different ways, about the law/Torah: (1) Paul, makes positive statements about, the character of the law (Rom., 7:12, “So the law is holy, and the, commandment is holy and just and, good”; cf. also Rom. 7:16b, 22) and, the possibility of obeying it (Gal., 3:12, “Whoever does the works of, the law will live by them”; Rom., 2:13, “the doers of the law . . . will, be justified”; cf. also Gal. 5:3, 23;, Rom. 2:14–15). Galatians 5:14 and, Rom. 13:8–10 explicitly emphasize, the positive connection between
Page 648 :
the love commandment and, fulfilling the law., (2) He also makes negative statements, about the law/Torah, regarding its character, and its function. The law/Torah is deficient in, both its substance (cf. Gal. 3:19, 23, 24; 4:5;, 5:4; Rom. 6:14b, “you are not under law but, under grace”) and its chronological status, (cf. Gal. 3:17, 430 years after the promise;, Gal. 3:24, a “custodian/disciplinarian” until, Christ came; Rom. 5:20a, “But law came in, [later]”; Rom. 7:1–3), in contrast to the, promise fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The, law/Torah is contrasted with the Spirit (Gal., 3:1–4; 5:18), faith (Gal. 3:12, 23), the, promise (Gal. 3:16–18; Rom. 4:13), and, righteousness (Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 21; 5:4; Rom., 3:28; 4:16). It has the function of revealing, sin (Rom. 3:20–21a, “For ‘no human being, will be justified in his sight’ by deeds, prescribed by the law, for through the law, comes the knowledge of sin. But now, apart, from law, the righteousness of God has been, disclosed”; Rom. 4:15b, “where there is no, law, neither is there violation”; cf. 1 Cor., 15:56; Rom. 5:13, 20; 7:13).[87] Thus it is
Page 649 :
true that Christ, as the only locus of, righteousness and life, is the “end” of the, law/Torah (Rom. 10:4). Additional functional, descriptions of the law/Torah are these: “For, the law brings wrath” (Rom. 4:15a); the, law/Torah evokes sinful passions (7:5); the, law/Torah imprisons (7:6a, “But now we are, discharged from the law, dead to that which, held us captive”). The law/Torah is the, standard in the coming judgment (2:12–13;, 3:19); Israel was given the Torah (9:4), but, through its present conduct subjects itself to, the law’s condemning judgment (2:17–29), and did not attain the righteousness based, on the law (9:31)., The law/Torah is incapable of breaking, through the power of sin. What was once, given to provide life (cf. Deut. 30:15–16) now, shows itself to be the accomplice of death., According to Gal. 3:22, this corresponds to, the Scripture and the will of God; in contrast,, Rom. 7:14ff.; 8:3, 7 only affirms the, weakness of the law/Torah over against the, power of sin., Is the law/Torah itself sin? In Rom. 7:7, Paul himself raises this objection, which had, been suggested by his own argument, so that
Page 650 :
he may emphatically reject it. All the same,, Rom. 4:15; 5:13; 7:5, 8, 9 does evoke this, inference, for here Paul attributes an active, role to the law, which activates sin and thus, sets the fateful process in motion that ends, in eschatological death., (3) Paul makes paradoxical statements, about the law, in which a law/rule/norm is, described that does not refer to the Torah, (Gal. 6:2, “the law of Christ”; Rom. 3:27, “the, law of faith”; Rom. 8:2, “the law of the Spirit, of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from, the law of sin and of death”)., (4) We also see texts in which the term, νόµος does not explicitly appear but that, touch on the problem of the law thematically, (1 Cor. 7:19, “Circumcision is nothing, and, uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the, commandments of God is everything”; cf., also 1 Cor. 10:23–33; 2 Cor. 3)., (5) Paul uses νόµος in the neutral sense as a, description of Jewish life (cf. Gal. 4:4; Phil., 3:5) or to introduce a quotation (cf. 1 Cor., 9:8–9; 14:21)., Can these different series of statements be, brought together conceptually without, harmonization, or must we simply say that
Page 651 :
Paul has differing doctrines of the law?[88], Are Paul’s positions on the law/Torah, perhaps even in such conflict with each other, that a comprehensive view is impossible, so, that one can only relegate them to the status, of later rationalizations?[89] The attempt to, resolve this problematic complex should, proceed in two steps: First, one must have in, view the conceptual problems Paul faced., One must then ask how the individual lines of, Paul’s understanding of the law are related, to each other and whether they can be, brought together into a consistent overall, understanding., Conceptual Problems The objective, beginning point for Paul’s, understanding of the law is the, knowledge that God’s ultimate will, for humanity is its salvation in, Jesus Christ. But then how is God’s, initial revelation in the Torah, related to the Christ event? Paul, could not affirm a direct or even a, gradual contrast between the two, revelations unless he also wanted, to accept irreconcilable
Page 652 :
contradictions in his image of God., Was the first revelation inadequate, to grant life to humanity?[90] Why, did God first concern himself with, the people of Israel, and only later, with the whole world? What value, is there in the Torah if Gentiles can, completely fulfill the will of God, even without circumcision? These, and other questions forced, themselves on Paul, for he wanted, to hold fast to both convictions: the, validity of the first revelation and, the exclusive salvific character of, the second revelation. Paul stood, before two opposing fundamental, principles, neither of which he, could give up: (1) a valid divine, institution had already been, established, and (2) only faith in, Jesus Christ can save. Paul thus, stood before an unsolvable, problem; he both wanted and, needed to prove a continuity that, did not exist: the continuity of the, saving act of God in the first, covenant with that of the second
Page 653 :
covenant. For “if God’s own people, must be converted in order to, remain the people of God, then the, previously established covenant, cannot be satisfactory as, such.”[91] The conceptual, problems were intensified by open, questions in the praxis of the, attempts of Jewish Christians and, Gentile Christians to establish a, common life. This situation, which, the Torah did not foresee and for, which it provided no regulations,, thus meant that conflicts were, preprogrammed. Moreover, the law, problematic played a central role in, the separation of early Christian, congregations from Judaism. Thus, the law problematic also brought, pressure on Paul and his churches, from outside, for both militant Jews, and Jewish Christians stood in, opposition to Paul., The specific historical situation of the, apostle Paul consisted of the fact that he was, the first within early Christianity to see
Page 654 :
himself confronted with the full scope of this, problem and therefore had to find a solution, for it.[92] In the process, he had to maintain, the freedom of the Gentile Christians from, the requirement of circumcision, the ritual, and soteriological inadequacy of the Torah, for both Jewish and Gentile Christians, at the, same time postulating that the law/Torah is, also fulfilled by Christians. Only so was it, possible to affirm the continuing validity of, the first covenant and the exclusive salvific, character of the new covenant. Moreover, it, was necessary for him to refute the charge of, “lawlessness” that had certainly been raised, by the line of argument pursued in Galatians., This unique beginning point, bound up with, almost unsolvable problems inherent in the, subject matter itself, should keep us from, accusing Paul too quickly of distorting the, Jewish understanding of the Torah or of, inconsistencies or contradictions within his, own understanding of the law., Solution by Redefinition The, different lines followed by Paul’s, statements on the law/Torah, cannot simply be harmonized or
Page 655 :
explained exclusively by attributing, them to the different church, situations to which they were, addressed. Paul struggled with the, issue that had been forced upon, him and arrived at a solution that,, though incomplete, was moving in, the direction of integration and, consolidation. This solution, consisted in redefining the, essential nature of the law. A first, step in this direction is represented, by Gal. 5:14: “For the whole law is, summed up in a single, commandment, ‘You shall love your, neighbor as yourself.’” This idea, first attains a systematic quality in, the Letter to the Romans, in which, Paul has gained some distance, from the polemical agitation of, Galatians and can also describe the, positive importance of the, law/Torah for Christian believers., Romans 13:8–10 is a key text in this, regard; the thesis that love is the, fulfilling of the law/Torah (Rom., 13:10, πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη)
Page 656 :
secures the Pauline argument in a, fourfold perspective: (1) It permits, the claim of bringing the law to full, validity in its innermost essence, and fulfilling it, without attributing, any sort of soteriological function, to it. (2) At the same time, this idea, facilitates the necessary reduction, of the law/Torah into this one, principle in view of the Gentile, mission that did not require, circumcision. (3) Both by, concentrating the law/Torah into, one command or a few basic ethical, principles[93] and by defining the, essence of the law as love, Paul, stands within the tradition of, Hellenistic Judaism. There the, tendency prevailed to identify the, commands of the Torah with a, doctrine of virtue oriented to, human reason,[94] an approach, that allowed Hellenistic Judaism, both to preserve the Torah and to, open it up to a more universal, application. Εὐσέβεια (piety, religious, devotion), as the highest form of
Page 657 :
virtue, included the virtue of love,, and so love of God and love of, neighbor were directly related.[95], Their cultural background thus, made it easier for Jewish Christians, and proselytes to appropriate the, Pauline solution to the problem, posed by the law.[96] (4) But also, in the Greco-Roman cultural, context, the conviction was, prevalent that kindness and love, represent the true form of, righteousness/justice and the, fulfilling of the laws:[97] “And also, when nature prescribes that one, should care for his fellow men”, (Cicero, Off. 3.5.27).[98] The law, that is identical with reason and in, harmony with nature can be no, different in Rome from that in, Athens, for “one eternal and, unchangeable law will be valid for, all peoples and all times” (Cicero,, Resp. 3.22). Those who attend to, the law of reason can do no harm, to their fellow human beings; they, are in harmony with God, nature,
Page 658 :
and themselves. This law of nature, is not simply identical with laws, promulgated by human beings,, which can lead to bondage rather, than freedom (cf. Dio Chrysostom,, Lib. 5, ὁ μὲν οὖν τῆς φύσεως νόμος ἀφεῖται, [The law of nature is eclipsed for, you]).[99] The differentiation, between enslaving legal rules and, the true meaning of law is also an, insight of enlightened ancient, philosophy., At the stage when he was composing, Romans, Paul developed an understanding of, the law that took account of the demands of, the current historical situation and at the, same time could be appropriated by both, Jewish and Gentile Christians. For Paul, the, law/Torah continued to be the word and will, of God but not a basis or condition for, salvation. Negatively, he repealed the, soteriological dimension of the law by his, claim that the law itself was under the, domination of sin (cf. Gal. 3:22; Rom. 7:8);, positively, he formulated the abiding, significance of the law in the love
Page 659 :
commandment (cf. Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:8–10)., Concentrating on the concept of love made it, possible for Paul to continue to advocate in, Romans the theological position he had, developed in Galatians, but without being, branded as “lawless.” Moreover, by speaking, in Rom. 3:27 of the “law of faith” and in Rom., 8:2 of the liberating “law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus” (cf. also Gal. 6:2, “law of, Christ), he provides norms that in this, intentionally open-ended form could be, appropriated within both Jewish and GrecoRoman cultural contexts. Since Christians, were already living by these norms, Paul, could also claim that they have by no means, overthrown the law/Torah but uphold it, (Rom. 3:31). Paul sets out a new definition in, that he formulates his interpretation of the, Torah (partially from his own strict Jewish, perspective) as “the law,” thus at the same, time integrating the Torah into an overriding, concept of law that was equally accessible to, Jewish and Gentile Christians on the basis of, their respective cultural backgrounds. By, means of the concept of love, the apostle, synthesizes Jewish and Greco-Roman, understandings of law and thus attains a
Page 660 :
consistent, well-rounded integration of the, law thematic within his project of meaning, formation.[100] By this rewriting of the basic, terminology, Paul manages to combine what, cannot be combined, in order to provide the, necessary means for communicating his, message within his cultural situation., It is helpful to note that Paul also follows, this path when dealing with other central, theological questions. In Rom. 2:28–29 he, redefines what it means to be a Jew and what, circumcision is: “For a person is not a Jew, who is one outwardly, nor is true, circumcision something external and, physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is, one inwardly, and real circumcision is a, matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not, literal.” In Rom. 4:12 he takes up this new, definition of circumcision when he states, that Abraham became “the ancestor of the, circumcised who are not only circumcised, but who also follow the example of the faith, that our ancestor Abraham had before he, was circumcised.” And finally, in Rom. 9:6–7, Paul issues a new definition of Israel: “It is, not as though the word of God had failed., For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel,
Page 661 :
and not all of Abraham’s children are his true, descendants.” Redefinition, which means, rewriting the basic vocabulary with new, content, is always necessary when symbolic, universes are incompatible as previously, formulated but must be brought together on, a higher plane., 19.4 Faith as the New Qualification, of the Self By faith the person, enters the realm of God’s love for, the world; faith is a new, qualification of the self. The, foundation and possibility of faith, are given in God’s saving initiative, in Jesus Christ., Faith as Gift Faith does not rest on, human decision but is a gift of, God’s grace.[101] This was already, true for Abraham: “For this reason, it depends on faith, in order that, the promise may rest on grace [Διὰ, τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως, ἵνα κατὰ χάριν] and be, guaranteed to all his descendants,, not only to the adherents of the law
Page 662 :
but also to those who share the, faith of Abraham (for he is the, father of all of us . . .)” (Rom., 4:16). The basic structure of the, Pauline concept of faith is clearly, revealed in Phil. 1:29: “For he has, graciously granted you the, privilege [ὅτι ὑµῖν ἐχαρίσθη] not only of, believing in Christ [οὐ µόνον τὸ εἰς, αὐτὸν πιστεύειν], but of suffering for, him as well.” Faith is numbered, among the fruits of the Spirit (cf. 1, Cor. 12:9; Gal. 5:22), for “no one, can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the, Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3b).[102], Faith, like love, cannot be, commanded, but only received,, experienced, and lived out. Faith, opens up a new relationship to God,, a relationship human beings can, only gratefully receive. The gift, character of πίστις/πιστεύω, (faith/believe) also determines the, close relationship between faith, and preaching in Paul’s thought., Faith is ignited by the gospel, the, power of God (Rom. 1:16). It
Page 663 :
pleased God, “through the, foolishness of our proclamation, to, save those who believe” (1 Cor., 1:21). Early on, the word was, spread about the apostle: “The one, who formerly was persecuting us is, now proclaiming the faith he once, tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23)., According to Rom. 10:8, Paul, preaches the “word of faith” (τὸ ῥῆµα, τῆς πίστεως). Faith grows out of, preaching, which in turn goes back, to the word from/about Christ, (Rom. 10:17, “So faith comes from, what is heard, and what is heard, comes through the word of, Christ”). Thus Christ himself in, active in the word of preaching;, “the hearing of faith” takes place, in the preaching of the gospel (Gal., 3:2, 5, ἡ ἀκοὴ πίστεως; NRSV,, “believing what you heard”). In 1, Cor. 15:11b Paul concludes his, basic instruction with the words, “so we proclaim and so you have, come to believe.” It is not the, rhetorical arts of the preacher or
Page 664 :
the enthusiastic human “yes” in, response that leads to faith but the, Spirit and power of God (cf. 1 Cor., 2:4–5). The Spirit mediates the gift, of faith and at the same time gives, its content a characteristic stamp,, thus giving unity to the church., Spirit and faith are related in, Paul’s thought as cause and effect, inasmuch as the Spirit opens the, door to faith and the believer then, leads his or her life in the power of, the Spirit. Thus Paul testifies, “For, through the Spirit, by faith, we, eagerly wait for the hope of, righteousness” (Gal. 5:5). Finally,, Gal. 3:23, 25 indicates that for Paul, “faith” has dimensions that go far, beyond the individualistic comingto-believe: “coming” to faith, possesses a quality related to, salvation history, for faith replaces, the Torah as a soteriological entity, and opens up for humanity a new, access to God.
Page 665 :
The basic structure of the Pauline concept, of faith as a saving and thus life-giving power, and gift of God shows that it is inappropriate, to understand faith as a “condition,”[103], “free deed of obedience . . . this sort of, decision,”[104] “reception and preservation, of the message of salvation,”[105], “communication process,”[106] or “desired, human response to the Christian missionary, message”[107] or even “to speak of faith as, though it had the character of a meritorious, achievement.”[108] Such language does in, part name important aspects of the Pauline, concept of faith, but at the same time it, reverses cause and effect, for it is God’s act, that first makes faith possible.[109] It is God, who “is at work in you, enabling you both to, will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil., 2:13). Thus faith originates from God’s, saving initiative; it is God who calls human, beings into the service of preaching the, gospel (cf. Rom. 10:13–14, “For, ‘Everyone, who calls on the name of the Lord shall be, saved.’ But how are they to call on one in, whom they have not believed? And how are, they to believe in one of whom they have, never heard? And how are they to hear
Page 666 :
without someone to proclaim him?”)., Whoever comes to faith has always already, begun to believe and traces this faith back to, God. God alone is the giver, and human, beings are receivers, so that Paul can, consistently contrast life that comes from, faith and life that comes from the law/Torah, (cf. Gal. 2:16; 3:12; Rom. 3:21–22, 28; 9:32)., Justification διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (through, faith in Jesus Christ) takes place as a gift, through the grace of God (Rom. 3:24, δωρεὰν, τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι). As the gift of God’s grace,, faith is that which is absolutely new, which, opens up to human beings the possibility of, letting God’s act be effectively valid and thus, of entering into the realm of this act., A vigorous debate rages around the, meaning of the expression πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, (see Gal. 2:16, 20; 3:22; Rom. 3:22, 26; Phil., 3:9).[110] Should we understand it as, genitivus subjectivus (“the faith of Jesus, Christ,” in the sense of his obedience to God), [111] or as genitivus objectivus (“faith in, Jesus Christ”)? The most likely meaning is, genitivus objectivus:[112] (1) in the genitivus, subjectivus we should expect the definite, article; (2) the context of the respective
Page 667 :
passages points clearly to faith in Jesus, Christ; and (3) in no Pauline text does Jesus, Christ ever receive the predicate πιστός, (faithful).[113], Structural Elements of Faith Faith, attains its form in the act of, confession, as programatically, formulated by Paul in Rom. 10:9–, 10: “if you confess with your lips, that Jesus is Lord and believe in, your heart that God raised him, from the dead, you will be saved., For one believes with the heart and, so is justified, and one confesses, with the mouth and so is saved.”, Faith is thus only faith when it is, confessed. There is no neutral, stance toward the content of the, faith—it can only be confessed or, denied. Precisely in the act of, confession, the believer turns away, from himself or herself and turns, toward God’s saving act, so that the, believer begins to participate in the, ultimate salvation of the future., Faith does not remain by itself but
Page 668 :
communicates itself, stepping over, boundaries. Thus the believer, cannot keep silent; rather, “‘I, believed, and so I spoke’ [Ps. 115:1, LXX (Ps. 116:10)]—we also believe,, and so we speak [καὶ ἡµεῖς πιστεύοµεν,, διὸ καὶ λαλοῦµεν]” (2 Cor. 4:13b)., For Paul, the content of faith is not to be, separated from the act of faith, which brings, one into relationship with God and others. If, the content of faith is the resurrection of, Jesus Christ from the dead (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13;, 1 Cor. 15:14), then the acceptance of this, saving message does not occur in a detached, manner separate from one’s own existence;, rather, “faith in Jesus Christ” means to, acknowledge him as Lord and to enter into a, personal relationship with him. Closely, connected with the content of faith is the, knowledge included in faith, as Paul, frequently reminds his churches (cf. 1 Thess., 4:13; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:1–11, 15–16, 19; 10:1;, 12:1; 2 Cor. 5:1; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 1:13; 11:25;, and passim)., As a gift of God, faith always at the same, time includes the individual factor of each
Page 669 :
particular person’s religious life and, activates human responsibility.[114] Paul, frequently speaks of “your faith” (1 Thess., 1:8; 3:2, 5–7, 10; 1 Cor. 2:5; 2 Cor. 1:24;, 10:15; Rom. 1:8, 12; Phil. 2:17; and passim),, by which he emphasizes especially the, missionary dimension of the faith of the, churches of Thessalonica and Rome. For the, apostle, there was a “growing in faith” (2, Cor. 10:15); new insights and knowledge, increase, purify, and change faith. Faith is, subject to changes but does not abandon its, fundamental convictions. In Rom. 12:3 Paul, admonishes the charismatics not to go, beyond the boundaries to which they too are, subject but to think with sober judgment, according to the measure of faith (µέτρον, πίστεως) that God has assigned.[115] Thus, Paul introduces the idea of a faith that, realizes itself in a particular place in a, particular way, a faith that must remember, its limitations, for he does not want faith to, slide off into an enthusiastic, exaggerated, evaluation of itself. Believers must discern, and assess which gifts they have been given,, and each must find his or her appropriate, place in the life of the church.
Page 670 :
Faith is grounded in the love of God made, known in Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 5:8), so that, love appears as the active and visible side of, faith. Because love is the essential, characteristic of faith, all that does not come, from faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Paul insists on, concord between thinking and acting,, conviction and deed.[116] At the same time,, he is aware that believers sometimes fail, (Gal. 6:1), speaks of those who are “weak in, faith” (Rom. 14:1), promises the Philippians, progress in faith (Phil. 1:25), and challenges, his readers to stand fast in the faith (1 Cor., 16:13; 2 Cor. 1:24; Rom. 11:20). Faith does, not confer on people any visibly new quality, but sets them into a historical movement and, situation where they can demonstrate it,, resulting in obedience (Rom. 1:5, “we have, received grace and apostleship to bring, about the obedience of faith among all the, Gentiles for the sake of his name”). In turn,, the obedience of faith manifests itself in the, acceptance and preservation of the gospel., “Faith/Believing” in Cultural, Contexts When Paul and early, Christianity used the terms πίστις/
Page 671 :
πιστεύω to describe one’s relation to, God, they adopted and adapted a, vocabulary and conceptuality that, already had a wide range of, connections. Thus the Septuagint, regularly translates the, Hebrew/Aramaic root אמןwith the, Greek πιστ- word group, in which the, predominant meanings are “believe, in” and “place confidence in.”[117], Philo takes up this linguistic usage, of the Hellenistic Jewish wisdom, tradition (Jesus ben Sirach,, Wisdom of Solomon, 4 Maccabees), [118] and develops it further, so, that faith now appears as the, highest virtue.[119] “How should, one come to believe in God [πῶς ἄν, τις πιστεύοµαι θεῷ]? By learning that all, other things change but He is, unchangeable” (Alleg. Interp., 2.89). Trust in God is set over, against trust in the world of, external appearances, and, Abraham is seen as the prototype, of this kind of trust. In his, interpretation of Gen. 15:6, Philo
Page 672 :
emphasizes, “Faith in God [πρὸς θεὸν, πίστις], then, is the one sure and, infallible good, consolation of life,, fulfilment of bright hopes, dearth, of ills, harvest of goods,, inacquaintance with misery,, acquaintance with piety, heritage, of happiness, all-around, betterment of the soul which is, firmly stayed on Him Who is the, cause of all things and can do all, things yet only wills the best”, (Abraham 268).[120] In the Greek, world, the words “faith” and, “believe” are first of all associated, with more than fifty oracle shrines., [121] The reality of oracles had, been a widespread cultural, phenomenon from around the, seventh or sixth centuries BCE and, continued to have an influence on, all realms of public and private life, into late antiquity. In this context,, “faith” meant “to believe in, revelations from the gods”[122], that served to interpret the future, destiny of a person, especially in
Page 673 :
crisis and times of upheaval.[123], The trial of Socrates is an, especially good example of the, extent to which faith in oracles was, also connected to political options;, Xenophon portrays Socrates as a, model Greek who acknowledged, the gods and was himself an, unparalleled advocate of the art of, fortune-telling: “But in such, circumstances, what else could one, do than call on the gods? Thus he, trusted in the gods [πιστεύων δὲ θεοῖς]., So how could he have believed that, the gods did not exist [as his, opponents charged]?” (Mem. 1.5)., Oracles are the expression of a, personal relation to deities, for, they presuppose faith that the gods, are involved in the fate of human, beings and are concerned about, their affairs; happiness and, unhappiness, good luck and bad, are perceived as the effect of the, power of the gods. That πίστις/πιστεύω, had strong religious, connotations[124] in the non-
Page 674 :
Jewish Hellenistic world is seen in, Lucian and especially in Plutarch,, who about 95 CE took over the, office of one of the two high priests, in the oracle shrine of Apollo in, Delphi. For Plutarch, faith is selfevident, for the gods are the, guarantors of social and individual, stability; he refers to “the, reverence and faith implanted in, nearly all mankind at birth” (Mor., 359–360). The content of faith is, the foreknowledge of the gods and, their help for human beings,, especially in times of distress or in, the border situations of life, such, as sickness and death. In the whole, of human life, the gods are those, who “witness and direct, who lead, and help us” (Mor. 757D). Thus, atheism is criticized just as sharply, by Plutarch as is superstition; both, result from an inadequate, knowledge of the deities (cf. Alex., 75; Mor. 164E). It is a matter of, finding true piety between these, two extremes, the “true religion
Page 675 :
that lies in between” (Mor. 171F;, these are the closing words of De, superstitione)., New Accents Both the early, Christian missionary proclamation, and Paul go beyond the boundaries, of the linguistic usage of, Hellenistic Judaism and pagan, Hellenism in that they make πίστις/, πιστεύω the central and exclusive, description of one’s relation to, God.[125] A second distinctive, characteristic is the orientation of, faith to Jesus Christ. For Paul, faith, is always faith in the God who has, raised Jesus Christ from the dead, (cf. Rom. 4:17, 24; 8:11). Jesus, Christ is at one and the same time, the one who generates faith and, the content of this faith.[126] The, center of faith is thus not the, believer but the one believed in., Because faith grows out of the, preaching of the gospel, it is, ultimately the act of God, grounded, only in the Christ event. Therefore
Page 676 :
faith cannot be the means by which, human beings create the, presupposition for God’s saving, act. Rather, God places human, beings in faith and sets them on a, new way, the ground and goal of, which is Jesus Christ. Although for, human beings faith is not, something they can generate by, themselves, it is something that, can be lived, experienced, and, carried out in one’s own deeds., Faith thus appears as a creative act, of God in human beings, which in, turn makes possible human action, —indeed demands such action., Doubtless, faith also includes, biographical and psychological, elements and the factor of human, decision, but it is preceded by, God’s fundamental decision. God’s, facilitating act of grace precedes, and leads to the acceptance of the, gospel, an acceptance that in turn, is to be seen as a gift of God., Whoever comes to faith can only be, grateful to the gospel that comes
Page 677 :
from God, the gospel that seeks, acceptance and powerfully, overcomes the resistance it finds in, human beings., Believers thus understand their own, decision as an act of God’s grace.[127] Faith, does not close off human decisions but, incorporates them and gives them a new, orientation. In faith human beings, understand themselves and the world anew., A new relation to the world is opened, up[128] because now God’s reality in Jesus, Christ is the standard of knowledge and, action. This is confirmed by the phenomenon, of doubt, which originates in the opposition, between the hidden reality of faith (2 Cor., 5:7, “for we walk by faith, not by sight”) and, the criteria of the world as generally, perceived. Faith can orient itself only to the, promises of the gospel message, and it, receives from there the power to accept the, hiddenness of its truth. Faith always takes, place in the tension-filled interweaving of the, experience of God and the world, whereby, God’s saving act in Jesus Christ is seen as
Page 678 :
the basis of all reality and is resolutely set in, relation to the empirical world., 19.5 Centers of the Human Self Paul, designates and characterizes the, innermost self of human beings in, different ways. In the process, he, can make connections with both, Old Testament and Greco-Roman, ideas., “Conscience”, At the center of human self-awareness is, the conscience. The term συνείδησις, (conscience) appears thirty times in the New, Testament, fourteen of them in Paul. The, most intensive concentration (eight times) is, found in the dispute about food sacrificed to, idols in 1 Cor. 8 and 10. There are three, more occurrences of συνείδησις in 2, Corinthians and in Romans; one instance of, the verb σύνοιδα is found in 1 Cor. 4:4.[129], The Old Testament and ancient Judaism, know no linguistic equivalent for the Greek, term συνείδησις.[130] Analogous functions can
Page 679 :
be expressed, however, with the word לב, (heart). Thus the pounding of the heart can, be regarded as the expression of a bad, conscience (1 Sam. 24:5; 2 Sam. 24:10),, one’s heart can be pure or stained (T. Jos., 4:6a; T. Benj. 8:2), and the heart can accuse, (Job 27:6). Paul probably adopted the term, συνείδησις from popular Hellenistic, philosophy. Here συνείδησις mostly means the, awareness that one’s own actions are, morally condemned or approved.[131], Because the gods have given wisdom to, human beings, they are capable of selfawareness. “For he who knows himself will, realize, in the first place, that he has a divine, element within him, and will think of his own, inner nature as a kind of consecrated image, of God; and so he will always act and think in, a way worthy of so great a gift of the gods”, (Cicero, Leg. 1.59). Since God has equipped, human beings with their own inherent, capabilities, they are able to distinguish, between good and evil, for God has “placed a, monitor at the side of each one of us, namely, the guardian angel [δαίµων] of each person, a, monitor who never slumbers, and who, cannot be gotten around” (Epictetus, Diatr.
Page 680 :
1.14.12; cf. Diatr. 2.8.11–12; Seneca, Ep., 41.1–2; 73.76). So also the phenomenon of a, bad conscience (cf., e.g., Seneca, Ep. 43.4–5;, 81.20; 105.8) points to an authority resident, in each person, intertwined with virtue and, reason, that insists on conduct that accords, with the law of nature: “We should,, therefore, have a guardian, as it were, to, pluck us continually by the ear and dispel, rumors and protest against popular, enthusiasms” (Seneca, Ep. 94.55). At the, turn of the first century CE, a deepening of, moral self-awareness can be clearly, perceived; the moral autonomy that began to, solidify in human consciousness is, understood as the divine representative in, the human self and thus as a being and, acting in harmony with reason and nature., The central complex of texts that, communicates the Pauline meaning of, συνείδησις is the dispute about eating meat, sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. 8 and 10.[132] In, these passages Paul means by συνείδησις, neither “bad conscience”[133] nor, “consciousness of God”;[134] rather,, συνείδησις appears as the authority of making, one’s own judgments. The subject about
Page 681 :
which conscience makes judgments is human, conduct, which is tested regarding its, agreement with traditional norms.[135], When the “strong” make use of the freedom, available to them by continuing to eat meat, that has been sacrificed to idols, they, mislead the “weak” into doing the same. This, brings the weak into an internal conflict of, conscience, who now themselves eat meat, consecrated by pagan sacrificial rituals even, though this does not correspond to their own, will and self-understanding. When the strong, thus sin against their brothers and sisters,, they sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:13), who, also died for the weak members of the, community (8:12). The freedom of the, individual is clearly limited by the conscience, of the other person, who must not be placed, in such a stressful circumstance. Paul can, assure the strong that they need not search, their own consciences every time they go to, the meat market, for “the earth and its, fullness are the Lord’s” (10:26). Likewise,, when invited to a dinner party among nonChristian Gentiles, the Christian need raise, no questions of conscience but can eat, whatever is served in good conscience. At
Page 682 :
the same time, however, if a weak Christian, points out that the meat has been sacrificed, to idols and if by eating it the strong would, burden the conscience of the weak, then, strong Christians are called upon to forego, their own freedom. Συνείδησις thus does not, here describe a feeling, a state of, consciousness, or a capacity for making, religious or moral judgments but an, authoritative court that judges the person’s, conduct by given norms.[136], In 2 Cor. 1:12, Paul must respond to, objections from the Corinthian church about, his own person. Some charge that he is, unreliable, that he changes his travel plans,, and that he is not to be trusted. Paul brings, forward his conscience as an independent, witness for the truth of his statements, so, that here the overtones of the original, meaning (coknowledge) can still be heard., [137] The apostle speaks the truth not only, subjectively but also objectively, for his, conscience evaluates positively his way of life, and his missionary work in the Corinthian, church. In 2 Cor. 4:2 συνείδησις is used in a, similar way: “We have renounced the, shameful things that one hides; we refuse to
Page 683 :
practice cunning or to falsify God’s word; but, by the open statement of the truth we, commend ourselves to the conscience of, everyone in the sight of God.” Paul sets, himself before the Corinthians’ decision in all, candor and appeals to their conscience as a, human court of appeal (cf. 2 Cor. 5:11)., In Rom. 2:14–16 συνείδησις appears as a, universal human phenomenon: “When, Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do, instinctively what the law requires, these,, though not having the law, are a law to, themselves. They show that what the law, requires is written on their hearts, to which, their own conscience also bears witness; and, their conflicting thoughts will accuse or, perhaps excuse them.” Here conscience, as, an awareness of norms, includes the capacity, to make moral judgments about one’s own, conduct, one’s knowledge about one’s self, and one’s conduct.[138] As a phenomenon, inherent in human beings, conscience, confirms for Paul the existence of the law, among the Gentiles. In Rom. 9:1–2 the, apostle expresses the truthfulness of his, feelings as a solemn vow: “I am speaking the, truth in Christ—I am not lying; my
Page 684 :
conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit—I, have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in, my heart” (cf. also 2 Cor. 1:23; 2:17; 11:38;, 12:19). Here conscience steps forth as an, independent, personified witness for the, truth and examines the agreement between, convictions and conduct. According to Rom., 13:5,[139] insight into the meaning of, political power and order should lead, Christians to subject themselves to, institutionalized authority: “Therefore one, must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience.” Inasmuch as, it resists evil and promotes good, political, authority originates in the will of God. As in, Rom. 2:15, Paul is here thinking about the, conscience resident in every human being,, not about a specifically Christian conscience., Responsibility to the order established by, God and reasonable insight into the necessity, of the function of the state in maintaining, law and order are already enough to cause, the conscience to affirm the existence of this, office., Paul understands συνείδησις as a neutral, authority for evaluating actions already done, (both one’s own acts and those of others), on
Page 685 :
the basis of values and norms that have been, internalized. For Paul, conscience does not, itself contain the basic knowledge of good, and evil but rather a coknowledge, a, knowledge-with, of norms that serve as the, basis for making judgments that can be, either positive or negative.[140] As a, relational concept, the conscience does not, itself set norms but makes judgments as to, whether given norms are in fact observed., Neither can conscience be seen as distinctive, of Christians, pagans, or Jews; it is a general, human phenomenon. Its function is the same, for all human beings, but the norms that are, presupposed in making judgments can be, very different. Love, and reason renewed by, the Spirit—these are the relevant and, decisive norms for Christians, on the basis of, which they make judgments about their own, conduct and that of others., “Icon”, Paul expresses the special dignity of, human beings with the εἰκών (image,, reflection, prototype) motif. The εἰκών, concept receives fundamental theological
Page 686 :
significance by being used in speaking of, Christ as the image of God. In 2 Cor. 4:4 the, apostle explains how it came about that the, gospel is veiled to unbelievers;[141] the god, of this age has blinded their minds “to keep, them from seeing the light of the gospel of, the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, [ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ].” Here εἰκών appears as, a category of participation: the Son, participate in the δόξα of the Father; in him, the true nature of God becomes visible, because he is the image of the God who is, compassionately concerned for humanity., Parallels to the εἰκών concept are found, particularly in the wisdom literature.[142], Thus wisdom is the “pure emanation of the, glory of the Almighty” (Wis. 7:25). She/it is, “a spotless mirror of the working of God, and, an image of his goodness” (Wis. 7:26 LXX, καὶ, εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ). For Philo, the Logos, as God’s Son is also God’s image; cf. Flight, 101, αὐτὸς [λόγος θεῖος] εἰκὼν ὑπάρχων θεοῦ (He is, himself the image of God); cf. also Alleg., Interp. 1.31–32; Creation 25; Confusion 62–, 63, 97. In pagan debates about the, philosophy of religion, the concept of a, relationship of human beings with God also
Page 687 :
played an important role. Thus, according to, Cicero, the gods implanted the soul in human, beings: “Moreover, virtue exists in man and, God alike, but in no other creature besides;, virtue, however, is nothing else than Nature, perfected and developed to its highest point;, therefore there is a likeness between man, and God [est igitur homini cum deo, similitudo].”[143], All the statements about the relation of, believers to the image of Christ are based on, the concept of Christ as the image of God. In, 1 Cor. 15:49 Paul emphasizes, in contrast to, the Corinthians’ understanding of salvation,, an understanding oriented to the present,, that they will not bear the image of the, heavenly man Jesus Christ until the, eschatological event, for the earthly man, Adam still determines the present.[144] At, the resurrection believers will be stamped, with the image of the risen one and thereby, participate in his immortal nature. According, to Rom. 8:29, the goal of God’s election is, that believers “be conformed to the image of, his Son, in order that he might be the, firstborn within a large family.” Although this, event first takes place at the future
Page 688 :
resurrection of believers, it has a present, dimension as well, for in baptism believers, already participate in the reality of Christ as, the image of God (Rom. 6:3–5). The subject, matter of 2 Cor. 3:18 is very close to Rom., 8:29.[145] Through the work of the Spirit,, believers see the glory of the risen one “as in, a mirror” and are thereby being changed into, the image of their Lord. The divine glory, rests on the risen one in all its fullness, so, that he is at once both the prototype and the, goal of the Christian’s transformation. Paul, does not explain this as a material, transformation[146] but as a historicaleschatological event, for the power of God is, already at work in the life of the believer, the, power that will be fully revealed and, effective at the eschaton., If the declaration of Gen. 1:26–27 that, human beings are created in God’s image, already stands in the background in Rom., 8:29 and 2 Cor. 3:18, in 1 Cor. 11:7–8 Paul, refers explicitly to this idea: “For a man, ought not to have his head veiled, since he is, the image and reflection of God; but woman, is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not, made from woman, but woman from man.”
Page 689 :
Paul directs this statement against the, custom, evidently widespread in Corinth, of, women participating in worship without the, customary head covering. He is probably, dealing with a new practice, unknown in, other congregations (cf. 1 Cor. 11:16), which, may have originated in efforts toward, women’s emancipation by segments of the, Corinthian church, efforts they saw as, directly inspired by the Spirit.[147] Paul, argues against this abolition of previous, conventions on the basis of creation, theology, basing the distinction between men, and women and its practical consequences, on the fact that the man was created in the, image of God. The man participates in the, glory of God, is the “reflection” of God. In, contrast, the woman is the “reflection” of the, man because she was created from man (cf., Gen. 2:22). Paul’s interpretation of Gen. 1:27, follows the Jewish exegesis of his time, in, which the tension between the statements, about one person in Gen. 1:27a–b (“So God, created man in his own image, in the image, of God he created him”) and the statement of, 1:27c (“male and female he created them”) is, resolved in favor of the first half of the verse.
Page 690 :
[148] That exegesis observed that creation in, the image of God is spoken of only in 1:27a–b, (regarding the man), not in 1:27c (regarding, the male and the female). This interpretation, does not do justice to the intended meaning, of the original, for אדםin 1:27a must be, understood as a collective term for humanity., Thus 1:27a–b and 1:27c mutually interpret, each other and must be seen as a functional, unity.[149] The statement that, man/Adam/humanity is made in the image of, God is not gender-specific but a statement, that transcends gender., The εἰκών concept is for Paul a category of, participation: the participation of the Son in, the glory of the Father is completed in the, believers’ participation in the glory of Christ., Christ, as εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (2 Cor. 4:4),, incorporates believers in a historical process, at the end point of which stands their own, transformation. In their relationship to, Christ, human beings each attain their own, destiny as the εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ they were created, to be. The meaning of being human is not, exhausted in mere creatureliness; only in, becoming like God do human beings realize, their intended purpose of being made in
Page 691 :
God’s image, the course that was set for, them by their creation and made possible, through faith in Jesus Christ as the image of, God., “Heart”, In Pauline thought, the καρδία (heart) is, another center of the human self.[150] The, love of God is poured out into human hearts, through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). God sent, the Spirit of his Son “into our hearts” (Gal., 4:6), and in baptism gave us the Spirit “in, our hearts” as the ἀρραβών (first installment,, 2 Cor. 1:22). Baptism leads to an obedience, from the heart (Rom. 6:17), and human, beings stand in a new relationship of, dependence that brings salvation: they now, serve God, which means righteousness and, justice. There is a circumcision of the heart,, a circumcision that is spiritual and not literal, (Rom. 2:29), an inner change within the, person from which a new relationship with, God grows. The church in Corinth is a letter, of Christ, written not with ink but with the, Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of, stone but on tablets of human hearts (2 Cor.
Page 692 :
3:3). Faith is located in the heart, and into, the heart God has sent “the light of the, knowledge of the glory of God in the face of, Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). Hearts are, strengthened by God (1 Thess. 3:13), and the, peace of God, “which surpasses all, understanding, will guard your hearts and, your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:7).[151], The heart can open itself to the saving, message of Jesus Christ or close itself off, from it (2 Cor. 3:14–16). Repentance and, confession begin in the heart: “if you confess, with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe, in your heart. . . . For one believes with the, heart and so is justified, and one confesses, with the mouth and so is saved” (Rom. 10:9–, 10). Here mouth and heart are related to, each other on the one side as are the acts of, confession and faith on the other; that is, the, saving act of God in Christ grasps the whole, person., Precisely as the innermost organ, the heart, determines the whole person. In both the, positive and the negative sense, the heart is, the center of one’s being; there crucial, decisions are made (1 Cor. 4:5). The heart, knows the will of God (Rom. 2:15); it stands
Page 693 :
fast in resisting the passions (1 Cor. 7:37), and is eager to help the needy (2 Cor. 9:7)., All the same, the heart can also be darkened, and without understanding (Rom. 1:21; 2:5), and can be hardened (2 Cor. 3:14–15). God, searches and tests the heart (1 Thess. 2:4;, Rom. 8:27), and reveals its intentions (2 Cor., 4:5). The heart is the seat of feelings and, perceptions, the place of anxiety (2 Cor. 2:4),, of love (2 Cor. 7:3), of candor, and of earnest, longings (Rom. 9:2; 10:1). The especially, close relation of the apostle to the, Philippians is manifest in the fact that he has, them in his heart (Phil. 1:7). In contrast to, his opponents, Paul makes no use of letters, of recommendation. The Corinthian church, itself is his letter of recommendation,, “written on our hearts, to be known and read, by all” (2 Cor. 3:2). Paul’s opponents in 2, Corinthians boast in matters of external, appearance, not of the heart (2 Cor. 7:2). He, opens his heart to the church (2 Cor. 6:11), and assures them, “you are in our hearts, to, die together and to live together” (2 Cor., 7:3). When Paul uses the word καρδία, he, designates the deepest inner core of the, person, the seat of the understanding,
Page 694 :
feelings, and will, the place where the, ultimate decisions of life are made and where, God’s act through the Spirit begins., “Psyche”, Relatively seldom (eleven times) do we find, the term ψυχή (life, person, soul) in Paul. In, the Septuagint it appears mainly as the, translation of ( נפשׁsoul, life, person). Paul,, too, can use ψυχή to mean a living being as a, whole (Rom. 2:9) or the life of all human, beings (Rom. 13:1). Ψυχή appears frequently, in contexts that speak of giving one’s life; for, example, Paul is ready to give his life for the, church (2 Cor. 12:15). Epaphroditus risked, his life for the work of Christ and almost died, (Phil. 2:30). Prisca and Aquila risked their, necks for Paul’s life (Rom. 16:4). In 2 Cor., 1:23 Paul offers the Corinthians his life as a, guarantee that his invocation of God as, witness for his plans is true. In the quote, from 1 Kings 19:10, 14 in Rom. 11:3, Elijah’s, enemies are seeking his life. Paul grants the, Thessalonians a share of his life when he lets, them participate in his gifts and his ministry, (1 Thess. 2:8). In 1 Cor. 15:45a the first man
Page 695 :
Adam, in contrast to Christ, is described as a, living psyche (ψυχὴ ζῶσα) and thus as a mortal, being. The natural, physical human being, (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος) is incapable of perceiving, the works of God through the Spirit (1 Cor., 2:14). Parallel to ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύµατι (in one Spirit), stands µιᾷ ψυχῇ (one psyche; NRSV: “one, mind”) in Phil. 1:27, in the sense of “as one, person, unanimously.”, A particular problem of Pauline, anthropology is presented by 1 Thess. 5:23:, “May the God of peace himself sanctify you, entirely; and may your spirit and soul and, body be kept sound and blameless at the, coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This, expression, which seems to echo a tripartite, understanding of human being (τὸ πνεῦµα καὶ ἡ, ψυχὴ καὶ τὸ σῶµα) is not based on the, Hellenistic anthropology that divides human, being into body, soul, and spirit. Paul is, merely emphasizing that God’s saving work, affects the whole person. This interpretation, is suggested both by the use of the adjectives, ὁλοτελής (entirely) and ὁλόκληρος (completely), as well as by the observation that in 1, Thessalonians πνεῦµα is for Paul not a, constituent part of human nature but
Page 696 :
expresses and signals the new, creative act, of God in and for human beings. By ψυχή and, σῶµα, Paul means only the individual human, being as a whole, what constitutes each, individual as a whole person. That which is, really new and determinative here is the, Spirit of God.[152] In his use of ψυχή, Paul, stands in the tradition of the Old Testament,, where נפשׁdesignates the person as a whole., [153] A human being is not the sum of, individual parts; rather, the whole can be, concentrated in each “part.”, “Nous”, The Hebrew language has no equivalent, for νοῦς (thinking, reason, mind,, understanding), a central term in Hellenistic, anthropology.[154] Paul uses νοῦς in 1 Cor., 14:14–15, in his discussion of glossolalia as, the authority of critical reason in contrast to, the uncontrolled and unintelligible speaking, in tongues. Prayer and praise take place both, in the divine Spirit and in the human mind, (14:15). In 14:19 νοῦς means a clearly, understood communication by which the, church is instructed: “In church I would
Page 697 :
rather speak five words with my mind, in, order to instruct others also, than ten, thousand words in a tongue.” In Phil. 4:7 νοῦς, designates the rational mind, the human, capacity for understanding, which is, surpassed by the peace of God. In 1 Cor., 1:10 Paul appeals for the unity of the, Corinthian church, that they have one mind, and one purpose. Paul speaks in 1 Cor. 2:16, of the νοῦς Χριστοῦ (mind of Christ) and in, Rom. 11:34 of the νοῦς κυρίου (mind of the, Lord), in each case referring to the Holy, Spirit, which transcends human judgment., [155] In the context of the dispute between, the “strong” and “weak” in Rome, Paul, challenges each group “to be fully convinced, in their own minds” (Rom. 14:5). According, to Rom. 7:23, the law in one’s members, fights against the law of the mind. Regarding, content, the νόµος τοῦ νοός (law of my mind), corresponds to the νόµος τοῦ θεοῦ (law of God), in Rom. 7:22 and means the person who is, oriented to God. In the mind, this person, wants to serve God, but the sin dwelling, within shatters these good intentions. In, Rom. 12:2 Paul warns the church not to, accommodate itself to this sinful and
Page 698 :
transient world but to let God work a, transformation in its whole existence, which, takes place as a renewing of the νοῦς.[156], By νοῦς Paul here means reasonable knowing, and thinking that maintain a new orientation, through the work of the Spirit. Christians, receive a new power and capacity for making, judgments that enable them to discern the, will of God. Human beings can perceive, God’s invisible nature because God himself, has graciously turned to them and has given, them this revelation (Rom. 1:19). The mind, cannot renew itself out of its own resources, but is dependent on the initiative of God,, who places the mind in his service, for which, it was originally intended.[157], “Inner” and “External” Person With, the distinction between the ἔσω, ἄνθρωπος and the ἔξω ἄνθρωπος,[158], Paul makes use of an image from, Hellenistic philosophy.[159] It, enables him to take up a, philosophical ideal of his time and, at the same time recoin it in terms, of his theology of the cross.
Page 699 :
It is not possible to delineate a clear, tradition-historical derivation of the ἔσω/ἔξω, ἄνθρωπος imagery.[160] The beginning point, is probably Plato, Resp. 9.588A–589B, where, he states in 589A: “To him the supporter of, justice makes answer that he should ever so, speak and act as to give the man within him, [τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος] the most, complete mastery over the entire human, creature” (trans. Jowett). In Hellenistic, philosophy around the beginning of the first, century CE, the idea was prevalent that the, authentic, thinking person, who can, distinguish the essential from the, unessential, lives a disciplined life free from, the passions and makes himself or herself, inwardly independent from external, circumstances. In contrast, the “external”, person is imprisoned by the senses of the, external world, with the result that he or she, is dominated by passions and anxiety. Thus, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of religion, Philo of Alexandria, can say, “This ‘man,’, dwelling in the soul of each of us . . . convicts, us from within (Philo, Worse 23; cf. also, Prelim. Studies 97; Planting 42). In Seneca, there are repeated references to the internal
Page 700 :
divine power, which preserves and builds up, the fragile body: “If you see a man who is, unterrified in the midst of dangers,, untouched by desires, happy in adversity,, peaceful amid the storm, who looks down, upon men from a higher plane, and views the, gods on a footing of equality, will not a, feeling of reverence for him steal over you?, Will you not say: ‘This quality is too lofty to, be regarded as resembling this petty body in, which it dwells? A Divine power has, descended upon that man.’”[161], In contrast to Hellenistic anthropology,, Paul does not understand the distinction, between the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος and the ἔξω ἄνθρωπος, as an anthropological dualism. Instead the, apostle regards the life of the believer from, different perspectives.[162] In the context of, a peristasis catalogue (2 Cor. 4:8–9), Paul, says in 2 Cor. 4:16,[163] “So we do not lose, heart. Even though our outer nature [ἔξω, ἄνθρωπος] is wasting away, our inner nature, [ἔσω ἄνθρωπος] is being renewed day by day.”, Externally the apostle is being worn away by, the many sufferings entailed in his mission, work. But at the same time the δόξα θεοῦ, (glory of God, 4:15) works in the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος,
Page 701 :
so that believers in their inner selves know, that their lives are determined by the Lord, who is present with them, who strengthens, and renews them. They can thus bear, external suffering and hardship because they, participate in the life-giving power of the, risen one and so overcome the troubles and, decline of the body.[164] In Rom. 7:22 the, ἔσω ἄνθρωπος agrees joyfully with the will of, God and thus lives in peace with himself or, herself. The power of sin, however, perverts, the actual existence of believers, who in their, striving after the good are subject to the, “law of sin” in their members. With the term, ἔσω ἄνθρωπος Paul designates the “I” within, the human self that is open for the will of, God and the work of the Spirit.[165], 19.6 The New Freedom The, formation of a sense of individual, freedom belongs among the, outstanding cultural achievements, of Hellenism.[166] It became the, hallmark of the philosopher to live, a life of freedom from external, constraints (cf. Epictetus, Diatr.
Page 702 :
2.1.23); it was thus said of, Diogenes that “the manner of life, he lived was the same as that of, Hercules when he preferred, liberty to everything” (Diogenes, Laertius 6.71). In the context of, Stoic-Cynic and middle Platonic, concepts of freedom, Paul’s, mission could only flourish if it, could give a plausible basis for, how human freedom can be, obtained and lived out., The Ultimate Starting Point Paul, has no unified, consistent doctrine, of freedom but can deal with the, theme of freedom in different, social and theological contexts,, making use of a variety of, traditions.[167] At the same time, a, single idea lies at the basis of all, his statements: freedom is the, result of a liberating event., Christian freedom results from the, act of God in Jesus Christ that frees, from the powers of sin and death,, an act concretely appropriated in
Page 703 :
baptism. Freedom is not a matter, of human potential; human beings, can neither attain it for themselves, nor provide it to others, for the, universal power of sin excludes, freedom as a goal of human, striving. It is true that human, beings can have a feeling of, individual freedom and deny the, existence of powers hostile to, human life, but this changes, nothing regarding their actual, servitude to the lordship of sin and, death over their lives. Only the, saving act of God in Jesus Christ, can be grasped as an event of, comprehensive liberation because, only here are the powers that, oppress human life overcome. In, baptism, as a once-in-a-lifetime, historical act, human beings, become participants in the, liberating act of God in Jesus, Christ, and they themselves are, now liberated from sin’s, domination. The new identity of, believers does not stop at the
Page 704 :
freedom of the individual, for its, goal is the overcoming of the, ethnic, gender, and social, distinctions that dominate life., From this ultimate starting point,, Paul deals with the theme of, freedom in its different, dimensions:[168], Freedom as love in the service of, Christ Especially in his debate, with the Corinthians, Paul makes, clear that freedom is not the, realization of individual potential, but can be expressed only in love, for others. This ethical dimension, of the Pauline concept of freedom, shapes his argument with the, Corinthians in the conflict about, eating meat sacrificed to idols, (cf. esp. 1 Cor. 8:1–13; 10:33)., [169] Paul takes up the motto of, the “strong,” πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν (All, things are lawful for me), only in, order to immediately relativize it, and make it more precise (6:12,, “‘All things are lawful for me,’
Page 705 :
but I will not be dominated by, anything”; 10:23, “‘All things are, lawful,’ but not all things build, up”).[170] The goal of Christian, freedom is not indifference, for it, is essentially a term of, participation and relationship:, baptized believers participate in, the freedom attained through, Christ, a freedom that only, becomes authentic in relation to, other Christians and the, Christian community. The model, for this concept of freedom is, given by Jesus Christ as the, crucified one, the one who died, for his brothers and sisters (cf., 8:11; Rom. 14:15, “If your, brother or sister is being injured, by what you eat, you are no, longer walking in love. Do not let, what you eat cause the ruin of, one for whom Christ died”)., Christian freedom is for Paul the, freedom given by Jesus Christ as, a gift, so that a misuse of this, freedom, as a sin against one’s
Page 706 :
fellow Christians, is at the same, time a sin against Christ., In 1 Cor. 9, Paul presents himself as a, model for the kind of freedom that is willing, to give up its own rights for the sake of, others. The apostle does not claim his, legitimate right to support by the churches,, so that thereby he might further the, preaching of the gospel (cf. 9:12, 15–16)., Whereas in antiquity freedom and servitude, were mutually exclusive alternatives, for, Paul they mutually condition and, complement each other, which is to say that, the way Paul handles his social freedom is, christologically grounded.[171] The apostle’s, freedom is realized precisely in the service of, the gospel, which means active love for, others (cf. 9:19; Gal. 5:13). Here, too,, freedom is attained first of all through, participation in Christ; paradoxically, it can, realize itself in servitude because it receives, its essence and content from Christ, who, himself entered into a life of servitude (Phil., 2:6–7). Servitude as such does not constitute, freedom, but freedom in Christ takes place in, the mode of service to the gospel.
Page 707 :
The free and the slave The social, reality of the churches required, that Paul think through the, relation of social/political, freedom and theological freedom., [172] In so doing, he could make, contact with a broad stream of, ancient thought in which true, freedom was understood as, internal freedom. “It is not, possible that that which is by, nature free should be disturbed, or thwarted by anything outside, itself” (Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.7)., Therefore, the threats of tyrants, to imprison one in chains brings, no fear: “‘If it seems more, profitable to you to do so, chain it, [my leg].’ ‘Do you not care?’ ‘No,, I do not care.’ ‘I will show you, that I am master.’ ‘How can you, be my master? Zeus has set me, free’” (Diatr. 1.19.8–9). For Paul,, slaves should remain in their, social status (1 Cor. 7:21b), for in, Christ and in the church the, fundamental alternatives
Page 708 :
presented by society have long, since been abolished (cf. 1 Cor., 12:13; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:26–28;, 5:6; 6:15).[173] The letter to, Philemon shows, however, that, Paul’s recommendations are not, ideologically bound, for there he, by no means excludes the option, of freedom for a Christian slave., But when Christian slaves do gain, their freedom, they still know, that they have long since been set, free in Christ., Freedom from the world within a, world that is passing away, Because, through the Christ, event, the present is already, proleptically qualified by the, future (1 Cor. 7:29–31), Paul, challenges Christians to bring, their self-understanding and, ethical conduct into line with the, eschatological turn of the ages., The ordering structures of this, world, which is passing away,, must still be acknowledged in
Page 709 :
their historical reality, but at the, same time Paul calls for an inner, freedom and independence.[174], Baptized believers should thus, remain in their present social, status, but without attaching any, great importance to it. The, institution of marriage, like the, status of slaves, belongs to the, structures of the old age., Whoever still allows himself or, herself to be too involved in them, has not understood the signs of, the times (cf. 7:1, 8); on the other, hand, those already married, should remain so (cf. 7:2–7). The, Pauline ὡς μή (as if not) aims at, participation in this world, but, with a certain distancing of, oneself from it; participation in, the life of the world without, falling victim to it—a kind of, freedom from the world while, living in the world. Because what, is to come already shapes the, present, the present loses its, determinative character.
Page 710 :
Freedom as the liberation of, creation The universalapocalyptic dimensions of the, Pauline concept of freedom are, manifest in Rom. 8:18ff.,[175], where the liberation of believers, and the liberation of creation, converge and are embedded in a, comprehensive perspective on the, future. Through Adam’s, transgression, the creation was, involuntarily subjected to futility,, but still with hope (Rom. 8:20; cf., 4 Ezra 7:11–12). Creation itself, participates in the hope of, believers: “the creation itself will, be set free from its bondage to, decay and will obtain the freedom, of the glory of the children of, God” (Rom. 8:21). The present, δουλεία (bondage) and the future, ἐλευθερία (freedom) stand in, opposition to each other as, “decay” and “glory.” God’s, eschatological creative act will, include not only believers but the, whole creation (8:22, πᾶσα κτίσις).
Page 711 :
Like creation itself, believers, groan under the futility and, decay of this-worldly, earthly, reality. They long for the, redemption of their body (8:23), and look forward to the transition, into God’s very presence. The, assurance of this future event is, given by the Spirit, which, as the, initial gift, is not only the pledge, and guarantee that the Christian, hope is authentic but also comes, to the help of believers who, struggle to hold on to their hope, in difficult situations (8:26–27)., The Spirit intercedes for the, saints before God in a language, commensurate with the situation., The confidence of faith makes it, possible for Paul in 8:28–30 to, give a comprehensive portrayal of, the “glorious liberty of the, children of God”: “We know that, all things work together for good, for those who love God, who are, called according to his purpose., For those whom he foreknew he
Page 712 :
also predestined to be conformed, to the image of his Son, in order, that he might be the firstborn, within a large family. And those, whom he predestined he also, called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom, he justified he also glorified.”, God himself will call for the, freedom of the children of God,, which will attain its goal in the, believers’ participation in the, glory of God that has appeared in, God’s own Son. Although for Paul, the relation of present and past is, determined by discontinuity,, present and future stand in the, continuity of the Spirit. To, believers and to the whole, creation, God himself opens a, perspective that leads to God as, the source and fulfiller of all that, is., Freedom from the disastrous, results of the law/Torah In no, text in the Corinthian letters is
Page 713 :
freedom understood as “freedom, from the law.”[176] Neither is, this idea found in Galatians and, Romans, for Paul knows no, “freedom from the law” in a, general sense,[177] but he does, have a conviction about, liberation, through the Spirit,, from the disastrous consequences, brought about by sin’s use of the, law.[178] In sharply polemical, terms, Paul deals with this, fundamental connection for the, first time in his letter to the, Galatians[179] with its exclusive, doctrine of justification:[180], human beings are not able to, keep all the commands of the, Torah, and this failure brings, them under its curse (Gal. 3:10–, 12). Christ has redeemed us from, the curse of the Torah by taking, its curse upon himself (3:13)., This annuls the Torah itself, so, that it no longer has power over, us, for we have died with Christ., Those who have been crucified
Page 714 :
with him in baptism have died to, the law/Torah and now live for, God alone (2:19–20). The, Galatians received the Spirit not, from the law/Torah but from the, preaching that calls for faith, (3:1–5). As those who have, received the Spirit (πνευµατικοί,, 6:1) and as new creatures in, Christ (6:15), the Galatians are, no longer under the law/Torah, (5:18). If they want to be under, the Torah (4:21), then they lag, behind the status of salvation and, freedom they have already, reached. What matters now is, this: “Now you, my friends [so, NRSV; ἀδελφοί (brothers and, sisters)], are children of the, promise, like Isaac” (4:28). At the, same time, the Galatians are, thereby τέκνα τῆς ἐλευθέρας (children, of the free woman, 4:31),[181] so, that everything depends on, preserving the freedom grounded, in the Christ event, appropriated, in the gift of the Spirit, and
Page 715 :
confirmed by the Scripture and, on not perverting it into its, opposite through observance of, the Torah. The essence of the, Christian life is freedom: Τῇ, ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡµᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν (For, freedom Christ has set us free,, 5:1; cf. 5:13). Despite his sharp, critique of the Torah, in, Galatians, too, Paul does not, understand himself to be, “without law,” for he is bound to, the “law of Christ” (6:2) and thus, to the norms of the Spirit and of, love., In Romans, a derivative of the word, “freedom” appears for the first time in 6:18,, 22, whereby this passage, as also the passive, form of ἐλευθερόω (set free) receive a, programmatic character. Freedom from sin,, as liberation by God through Jesus Christ,, also includes for Paul a liberation from the, negative effects of the law/Torah. Paul, develops this theme extensively in Rom. 7,, [182] where freedom appears as the, impossible possibility for human beings in
Page 716 :
the situation between sin and Torah. Human, beings are torn between the powers of sin,, the commandeered Torah, and death; their, will to do good is frustrated and perverted, into its opposite. They are embedded in an, enslaving pattern from which they cannot, extricate themselves. Only the saving act of, God in Jesus Christ can free them from their, hopeless situation (cf. Rom. 8:2). The Spirit, breaks through the legal pattern that leads, to disaster and places persons in a new, pattern: the pattern of life that has appeared, in Jesus Christ. At the center of his letter to, the Romans, Paul uses the term ἐλευθερόω to, designate precisely the breakthrough from, the level of the law/Torah, dominated by sin,, to the level of the Spirit, a breakthrough that, was accomplished on Golgotha and was, appropriated to the individual believer in, baptism and freedom from sin and freedom, from the inadequacies of the law/Torah. Now, this holds true: οὐκ ἐσµὲν ὑπὸ νόµον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ, χάριν (we are not under law but under grace,, Rom. 6:14b)., Ancient Theories of Freedom Paul, removes freedom from the sphere
Page 717 :
of human activity; for him it has, the character of a gift, not an act., From this point of departure, the, apostle advocates an independent, position in the ancient debate, about freedom. At the very same, time early Christianity was, developing, two theories about the, nature of freedom were having, powerful effects:[183] Epictetus, composed an entire book entitled, Περὶ ἐλευθερίας (About Freedom, in, Diatr. 4.1), and three of Dio, Chrysostom’s speeches were on, slavery and freedom (De servitute, et libertate 1, 2 [Or. 14, 15]; De, libertate [Or. 80]). Both Epictetus, and Dio began with a popular, understanding of freedom: freedom, as freedom to act without any, constraints.[184] They chose this, point of departure for their, reflections in order to destroy an, externally oriented concept of, freedom.
Page 718 :
Epictetus put forward arguments based on, experience and insight: a rich senator is still, the slave of the emperor (Diatr. 4.1.13), and, any free man who falls in love with a, beautiful young slave becomes her slave:, “Did you never cozen your pet slave? Did you, never kiss her feet? Yet, if someone should, compel you to kiss the feet of Caesar, you, would regard this as insolence and most, extravagant tyranny” (Diatr. 4.1.17). Who, can be free when even the kings and their, friends are not free? Because freedom is not, adequately understood in terms of external, freedom, what matters is to distinguish, between the things we can control and the, things over which we have no power (Diatr., 4.1.81). The given circumstances of life are, not really at our disposition, but we can have, control over our attitude to them., Purify your judgments, for fear lest something of what is, not your own may be fastened to them, or grown together, with them, and may give you pain when it is torn loose. And, every day while you are training yourself, as you do in the, gymnasium, do not say that you are “pursuing philosophy”, (indeed an arrogant phrase!) but that you are a slave, presenting your emancipator in court; for this is the true, freedom. This is the way in which Diogenes was set free by, Antisthenes, and afterwards said that he could never be, enslaved again by any man. How, in consequence, did he
Page 719 :
behave when he was captured? How he treated the pirates!, He called none of them master, did he? And I am not, referring to the name! It is not the word that I fear, but the, emotion, which produces the word. (Diatr. 4.1.112–115), True freedom is thus inner freedom from things; it, manifests itself in my attitude to the given realities of life., The only free people are those who are not slaves to their, passions and have not been imprisoned by their desires for, external, material things. Socrates and Diogenes were, really free[185] because they lived in harmony with the will, of God and nature; they recognized which goods God had, entrusted to them, and the things over which they had no, control.[186], , Dio Chrysostom argued similarly when he, refused to define freedom and slavery as, objective states concerning one’s birth or, external, clearly perceivable circumstances., [187] “And so when a man is well-born in, respect to virtue, it is right to call him, ‘noble,’ even if no one knows his parents or, his ancestors either. . . . We should make no, distinction between the two classes. Nor is it, reasonable to say that some are of ignoble, birth and mean, and that others are slaves”, (2 Serv. lib. 31). Whoever turns away from, the true law, the law of nature, perhaps still, observes tables of written law but no longer, lives in freedom (Lib. 5). Such people are,, rather, the slaves of laws and conventions, so, that they inevitably go to ruin, burdened
Page 720 :
down with all the things on which they, depend., Epictetus and Dio Chrysostom represent a, broad stream of tradition in the history of, ancient philosophy that flows through the, Stoics and Epicureans all the way to the, Skeptics:[188] true freedom is the inner, independence of the wise, those who have, made peace with their own feelings, (ἀταραξία), who have placed themselves under, the will of God (and thus the law of nature), by a knowledge of their own emotions and by, refusing to be dominated by them. Paul takes, up this concept of inner freedom but makes, decisive modifications in its meaning, structure. He describes freedom as a, supporting reality external to a person: God., Paradoxically, the only true freedom comes, by being tied down to God, that is, being, committed to God as Lord of one’s life, for, freedom in the full sense of the word belongs, to God alone—the concept of God and the, concept of freedom determine each other., Freedom is not located in human beings, themselves but has an external basis., Freedom does not come as the result of one’s, own resolute decision but is a gift that can
Page 721 :
only be received from God and is realized in, love. The norm for freedom is love.[189], Those set free by God and placed in the, expanse of freedom live their lives by the, standard of love that has appeared in Jesus, Christ. Love recognizes other human beings, as God’s children and orients itself to what, they and the world need. The, acknowledgment of this freedom bestowed, from outside oneself thus becomes an, integrating factor in one’s own freedom., Freedom is more than being able to do what, I choose; it is revealed in acts of loving, concern for others. Thus the truth of the, matter is this: only those are truly human, who become fellow human beings with, others.
Page 722 :
23
Page 723 :
Epilogue, Pauline Thought as Enduring Meaning, Formation, , The preceding discussions indicate that the, formation of symbolic universes can only, begin, become successful, and endure if they, manifest plausibility, the ability to make, contact with and incorporate new concepts,, and the capacity for renovation and renewal., This is doubtless the case with Paul, for the, apostle belongs to the small group of human, beings of the last two thousand years whose, life and thought have made lasting changes, in the world. Which elements in the Pauline, dynamic of meaning formation have these, particular abilities and are constitutive for, the religion of the future? This question can, be answered only in debate with the, dominant intellectual streams of our epoch., Epochs creep in without fanfare, entering, history at first unnoticed and letting their, effects first be seen in retrospect. This is also
Page 724 :
true of postmodernism, but—in accord with, its nature—much more quickly.[1] One, feature is common to the Enlightenment of, the early days of the modern world, the, modernism of the nineteenth and twentieth, centuries, and the postmodernism of the, present: they define themselves from an, anthropocentric standpoint; for them all,, human being itself is the basis of its own, subjectivity and freedom. The human spirit, understands itself as its own project, to be, managed under its own responsibility., The study of Paul takes us back into, another world. He anchors the ground of all, being in God and shapes his understanding, of humanity exclusively in terms of its, relation to God. This is an intriguing, contrast: here the deontologization,, deconstruction, and deregulation of, entangled postmodernism; there a person of, antiquity who portrays reality on the basis of, a theocentric symbolic universe and feels at, home within it. Is it worthwhile in the, twenty-first century to hear the voice of a, man who lived in a mythological symbolic, universe but who, at the same time, by his, life and thought became an enabler of
Page 725 :
modern subjectivity and freedom? The, question of the significance of the Pauline, meaning formation for the religion of the, future culminates precisely in this, understanding of freedom and the images of, God, the world, and humanity bound up with, it. Freedom is the central promise of all, meaning-formation. It grounds every, particular way of experiencing life and each, individual’s pathway through life in the, postmodern world. But what is the real basis, of individual freedom, and how can it be, distinguished from its counterfeits, which, only make people dependent and lead them, into bondage? How can the worth of creation, and thus of humanity be protected from, human aggression?, In the modern age, freedom has been, understood as in principle a human product,, as breaking out of dependence for which, human beings themselves are responsible, as, the overcoming of binding traditions and, authorities, including the Bible.[2] This, process is historically understandable, for, the modern freedom movement has in fact, taken place in the liberation from oppressive, structures. But what does this mean for the
Page 726 :
concept of liberation itself if it is understood, as a human product? Is the human subject, independent? Of course not, for it is, determined by its biological features and its, life history. Freedom must necessarily be, adapted to the given realities of each case. If, freedom is located exclusively in the human, subject, it then ultimately falls victim to, dependence on this subject. The history of, the last three hundred years teaches that, when the human subject becomes the norm, of freedom, it always tends to extend its own, territory. It succumbs to the compulsion to, live a life with no restrictions, no boundaries,, a life that must assert itself against nature, and against its own creatureliness. This, means that human beings always attempt to, extend their own maneuvering room and, understand this as freedom but at the same, time can no longer anticipate and assess the, results of their action for the world and for, the concept of freedom itself.[3] The, restriction of the understanding of humanity, and the concept of freedom to the autonomy, of the subject leads to a constant effort to, perfect and extend production. The idea of, production and consumption dominates
Page 727 :
society, so that freedom is shown in the, capacity for production and the necessity for, consumption. Humanity understands the, whole of creation as raw material for, production and consumption and does not, exclude other human beings from this, perspective. The operations of science and, research, with promises of the good life and, ever new consumer demands, increasingly, accelerate the reduction of human beings to, their function as consumers and producers., In view of this ever more efficient human, attack on human freedom, what can be the, basis for inherent human dignity and worth?, A Philosophical Model, J. Habermas presents an important attempt, to respond to this question.[4] The point of, departure for his reflections is the question, of how it is (still) possible to justify moral, judgments in a postmodern world.[5] The, perceiving and acting subject’s will toward, morality is no longer adequate by itself to, put its ethical judgments into practice and to, make them last. Also, the postmetaphysical, hesitation regarding the nature of human
Page 728 :
being leads to an evaporation of moral, standards. Modern philosophy, in contrast to, its early history among the Greeks, no longer, trusts itself to make any normative, statements about how individuals or societies, should conduct their lives. According to, Habermas, the social changes that have, come about as the result of biomedicine have, brought about a fundamental cultural, turning point. But the previous hesitation can, no longer be maintained “as soon as, questions of a ‘species ethics’ arise. As soon, as the ethical self-understanding of, language-using agents is at stake in its, entirety, philosophy can no longer avoid, taking a substantive position.”[6] Not only, the individual self-understanding as one who, belongs to a particular culture but the, identity of the individual as a member of the, human species is endangered when the latest, biotechnological interventions continue to, move the boundary between what has, inherent worth (and thus may not be used for, other purposes) and what may be, manipulated. The concept “species ethic”, functions for Habermas as a description of, anthropological principles and boundaries
Page 729 :
regarding the question of how far and how, broadly humanity as a human community, may push its own making of itself into a, means (rather than an end) when the, members of this community still want to, understand themselves as autonomous and, equal beings., Finally, with the possibilities and, limitations of individual autonomy—the, authoring of one’s own life story—the issue, of freedom itself becomes a debatable issue., When the distinction between “the grown”, and “the made”[7] is changed—a distinction, that is crucial for the concept of freedom—, then the issues of what it means to have, “grown” and what it means to be an object, that can be used for other purposes stand in, a new relation to each other, for then it is not, only the self-understanding of an individual, that is at stake but also the species “human, being.”[8] The possibility of human selfoptimization and the use of evolution as a, tool of human self-realization dissolves the, distinction between subject and object,, between what grows according to its own, nature and what is manufactured, resulting, not only in a new self-description of the
Page 730 :
individual but in a redefinition of the whole, species.[9] The subjection of human nature, to technology gives rise to the misgivings, that genetically manipulated human beings, will be limited in their own freedom to act, and develop as they will, in contrast to those, whose natural birth plays a decisive role., Habermas works through the fundamental, problems of the modern concepts of the, autonomous subject and freedom and brings, them sharply into focus. The decisive, question is: in the future, what kind of, arguments can be given as the basis for, understanding human life as something that, cannot be made the object of some other, purpose, for the right to compose one’s own, life story? According to Habermas, religious, arguments with a universal claim are, prohibited in a postmodern pluralistic, society.[10] The concept of a “species ethic”, provides a substitute basis for a plausible, solution: humanity as a species can remain, human only if it recognizes its specific, essential nature in the face of the biomedical, epoch and refuses to inscribe alien,, nonhuman intentions into the genetic, program of life histories. If the human race
Page 731 :
does not continue to follow the kind of, thinking oriented to the concepts of freedom,, self-determination, and the refusal to be, disposed of for other purposes, then it will no, longer be what it has been in the past., Do these arguments deliver what they, claim? Can the concept of a “species ethic,”, understood as a normative self-description of, what it means to be human, provide the basis, for establishing and maintaining human, freedom? The answer must be in the, negative because the insights connected with, the concept “species ethic” are by no means, unchangeable. When the majority of the, species prefers a different ethic from what, Habermas would like, then the “species, ethic” is likewise changed. The concept of, the self-optimizing of humanity is based on, the logic of self-determination as the sole, and all-controlling factor, which no longer, permits any sort of moral boundaries. The, logic of (genetic-engineering) progress is not, only consistent but unavoidable because it, promises an even greater fulfillment of, human potential. The “species ethic” as the, metalevel need give no ultimate justification, for itself and cannot ward off abuses because
Page 732 :
it is itself subject to changing cultural, standards. If the idea that the characteristics, of a particular human being may be, engineered before birth gains social, acceptance, then the postulated “species, ethic” is unable to hinder the limitation of, human freedom that is involved., Habermas’ inspiring proposal, carried out, with religious overtones, is defeated by the, fact that once again all the attributes of, human being are anchored in the human, subjects themselves. But the idea of the, inviolable dignity and freedom of human, beings cannot be derived from the subjects, themselves; they can only be postulated. The, fact is that the ultimate grounding of these, attributes can be found only in God., God as Meaningful Ultimate, Explanation, The Pauline construction proves itself quite, capable of holding its own even in this, postmodern world. By anchoring human life, in God, he preserves its inherent worth and, does not allow any human life to be at the, disposable of some “higher” purpose. To put
Page 733 :
the matter in only slightly exaggerated, terms: it not only is theologically valid but, also makes philosophical sense to fall back, on God as the ultimate authority and the, unquestionable guarantor of human freedom., The critique, made by one form of the, Enlightenment, that explains religion as, entirely a private affair but at the same time, tolerates its evaporation as a resource for, the life of humanity is inadequate to ward off, the powers of postmodernism that destroy, every tradition. So long as the idea of God as, the guarantor of human reality is allowed to, fade out, the idea that human beings cannot, be made into objects cannot be established., Where God no longer appears as the one who, gives freedom and meaning, human beings, must find a new orientation. Humans then, unintentionally (or, increasingly,, intentionally) step into God’s place and, realize themselves in the process of active, formation, domination, and consumption of, the world. The problem with the modern, concept of freedom is its anchoring in the, individual subject, thought of as without, relations to others. Since the Enlightenment,, human beings have believed that they are
Page 734 :
the creators of good and thus the creators of, freedom., In contrast, Paul portrays freedom as the, revelation of an alien, powerful, external, reality: God. Freedom has an external, foundation; it is not located in human beings, themselves. Freedom is not one’s own, individual power to act but the gift granted, by God. The “new humanity” must not be, constructed and thus manipulated by human, beings, for the new humanity has already, become reality in Jesus Christ (cf. Gal. 3:26–, 28). All the attributes that human beings in, the postmodern world ascribe to their own, subjectivity are anchored by Paul in God:, love, freedom, justice, and meaning. Paul, thinks in paradoxes; for him, true subjectivity, is a gift and not something attained and to, which one may appeal. Only God, as the, ground of human existence that rests on, something outside itself, is able to establish, and preserve the freedom and dignity of the, human subject. Thus, for Paul, the “for us” of, the salvation obtained in Jesus Christ, becomes a basic form of his theological, grammar. Paul presents human beings with, the idea that if they would truly be
Page 735 :
themselves and truly be free, they must, anchor themselves in God., This understanding of the concept of, freedom makes it possible to include ethical, dimensions in one’s view and to determine, the relation of freedom and love. Only a, concept of freedom that is not a priori, corrupted by one’s own interests will not find, it necessary to create the conditions of its, own realization itself—only such a freedom, can uninhibitedly and productively take up, the needs of the world about it, and do so in, love. Love is the norm of freedom. The, person liberated by God and set by God in, the sphere of freedom acts by the standard, of love. Love perceives other human beings, as God’s creatures and orients itself to the, needs of other people and the world., Freedom does not consist in the power of, choice but in a life governed by love. Love is, not a limitation on human freedom but its, consistent outcome. Within the Christian, picture of what it means to be human, love, thus becomes the critical principle of, judgment to which every action is to be, aligned and that is the norm and judge of, every action. Christian freedom thus means
Page 736 :
to be productive for others and not merely, for oneself. The outside world is not, perceived as the limitation of my own, freedom but as the field of operation in, which love can be active. Love is not oriented, to the consumer principle; it does not, perceive the world and humanity as, something that must be changed in order to, become more perfect. Love, rather,, understands that God has equipped this, creation with everything that humanity and, nature need in order to live. Love refrains, from expanding the human ego in order to, make it easier to enforce one’s own power, and create one’s own reality. It respects, what has “grown” as the gift of God, and is, not interested in the “made.”, The future of the human species will, depend on whether it will again anchor its, identity in its origin: in God. Paul was and is, the standard-bearer of this conception, and, his thought possesses the quality of a lasting, symbolic universe because it points to, freedom granted as a gift, to righteousness, freely conferred, and to love as the ground of, all being.
Page 737 :
Selected Bibliography, , I. Texts, Aland, Barbara, et al., eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th, ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994., Apuleius. Metamorphoses. Translated by John Arthur Hanson., 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard, University Press, 1989., Aristotle. Generation of Animals. Translated by A. L. Peck. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1943., ———. History of Animals: Books VII–X. Translated by D. M., Balme. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard, University Press, 1991., ———. Meteorologica. Translated by H. D. P. Lee. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1952., ———. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb, Classical Library. New York: Putnam, 1926., ———. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Great, Books 9. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952., ———. On Sophistical Refutations; On Coming-to-Be and, Passing Away. Translated by E. S. Forster. Loeb Classical, Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955., ———. Politics. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical, Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944., ———. Politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Great Books 9., Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952.
Page 738 :
Barrett, C. K. The New Testament Background: Selected, Documents. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1987., Boring, M. Eugene, et al., eds. Hellenistic Commentary to the, New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995., Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament, Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983–1985., Cicero. 28 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard, University Press, 1969., Dio Chrysostom. Translated by J. W. Cohoon and H. L. Crosby., 5 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard, University Press, 1932–1951., Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Translated, by R. D. Hicks. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge:, Harvard University Press, 1931, 1972., Ehrman, Bart D., trans. The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 2003., Epictetus. The Discourses, as Reported by Arrian. Translated, by W. A. Oldfather. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928., Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp, Lake. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard, University Press, 1926., Herodotus, The History, and Thucydides, The History of the, Peloponnesian War. Translated by George Rawlinson and, Richard Crawley. Great Books 5. Chicago: Encyclopaedia, Britannica, 1952., Holmes, Michael W. Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker,, 1992., Homer. Iliad. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1999., ———. Odyssey. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1995., Iamblichus. On the Pythagorean Way of Life. Translated by, John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell. Edited by Hans Dieter
Page 739 :
Betz and Edward N. O’Neill. Texts and Translations: GraecoRoman Religion 29/11. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991., Lake, Kirsopp, trans. The Apostolic Fathers. Loeb Classical, Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970., Lohse, Eduard. Die Texte aus Qumran. 4th ed. Darmstadt:, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986., Maier, Johann, and Kurt Schubert, eds. Die Qumran-Essener:, Texte der Schriftrollen und Lebensbild der Gemeinde., Munich: Reinhardt, 1973., Malherbe, Abraham J. The Cynic Epistles: A Study Edition., Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 12., Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977., Meyer, Marvin W., ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook., San Francisco: Harper, 1987., O’Neill, Edward. Teles (The Cynic Teacher). Texts and, Translations: Graeco-Roman Religious Series 11/3. Missoula,, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977., Philo. Translated by Francis Henry Colson et al. 12 vols. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press and, London: Heinemann, 1929–1962., Plato. The Dialogues. Translated by Benjamin Jowett and J., Harward. Great Books 7. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica,, 1952., Plato. The Republic. Translated by Paul Shorey. 2 vols. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1943., Plutarch. Lives. Translated by Bernadotte Perrin. 11 vols. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1914–1926., ———. Moralia. Translated by F. C. Babbitt. 15 vols. Loeb, Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1914–1926., Robinson, James M., ed. Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd, ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988., Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed. New Testament Apocrypha., Translated by R. McL. Wilson. 2nd ed. Louisville:, Westminster John Knox, 1991.
Page 785 :
Ergängzungsband zum Alten Testament 3. Würzburg:, Echter, 1990., Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Popular Philosophers., Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989., ———. The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation, with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 32B. New, York: Doubleday, 2000., Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in, Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians. Wissenschaftliche, Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2/23. Tübingen:, Mohr Siebeck, 1987., Martin, Luther H. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction. New, York: Oxford University Press, 1987., Martin, Ralph P. An Early Christian Confession: Philippians, 2:5–11 in Recent Interpretations. London: Tyndale, 1960., ———. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary 40. Waco:, Word Books, 1986., Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with, Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33A. New York:, Doubleday, 1997., Marxsen, Willi. Introduction to the New Testament: An, Approach to Its Problems. Translated by G. Buswell., Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968., ———. The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Philadelphia:, Fortress, 1970., ———. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. Zurich:, Theologischer Verlag, 1979., Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World, of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983., Meggitt, Justin J. Paul, Poverty, and Survival. Studies of the, New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998., Meier, John P. Companions and Competitors. Vol. 3 of A, Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Anchor Bible, Reference Library 3. New York: Doubleday, 2001., Mell, Ulrich. Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche, und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz, paulinischer Theologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.
Page 818 :
Index of Subjects, , Abraham, 109, 270 (table), 401, 457, 514, 525; in Galatians,, 274, 286–87, 290, 292–93, 300, 565, 590; in Romans, 323–, 26, 344, 521, Acts of Paul and Thecla, 58n4, Acts of the Apostles: as a document of the Pauline school, 44,, 151; value for Pauline biography, 48; and Luke’s, ecclesiology, 52; on the Damascus road event, 94–96. See, also contradictions between Paul and Acts, Adam: as type of Christ, in Romans, 327–28, 335, 436; as type, of Christ, in 1 Corinthians, 584; mortal, in 1 Corinthians,, 535; in the image of God, inclusive of male and female, 533;, effects of the sin of, 74, 277, 394, 532, 541, 579, Agrippa I, 113n47, 119n75, 122, 165, 275, Agrippa II, 55n30, Albinos (procurator), 55n32, Alexander Janneus, 65, allegory, 109, 130, 590, Ananias, 112, Ananus. See Annas, Andronicus, 304, 571, Annas (Ananus), 55, 123, anthropology, 336, 346, 494–545, 562n13; of Paul’s Corinthian, opponents, 225, 250; and the Spirit, 488–89, Antioch (on the Orontes): Paul’s return to, from Macedonia, 53;, geography of, 113; founding of the church at, 113–15;, significance in early Christian theology, 116–118. See also, Paul, life of: Antioch incident, Antioch in Pisidia, 119, Antipatrus of Tarsus, 59, Antony, Mark, 59, 366
Page 819 :
Apollonius of Tyana, 59, 441n122, 474, Apollos, 124, 131, 149, 151, 170n124, 195, 198, 203, 204n40,, 571, apostleship, Paul’s, 88–90; in Paul’s self-understanding, 115,, 158–59, 375–77; in 2 Corinthians, 245–51, apostolic council, 121–37, 275; date of, 50–51, 56 (table);, Barnabas’s role at, 115; consequences of, for Paul’s mission,, 138, 145; and the separation of Christianity from Judaism,, 165; issue unresolved at, 189; aftermath at Galatia, 275–78,, 301; and the offering for Jerusalem, 305, 361, 467; in the, development of Paul’s anthropology, 512–13, Aquila. See Prisca and Aquila, Arabia, 50–51, 84, 111, 114n51, Aretas IV, King, 51n13, 112, Aristarchus (Paul’s coworker), 149, Artemis, 151, 193, Asclepius, 142, 193, Athens, 50, 146, 194, atonement, 443–54, Attis, 141, Augustine, 26, Augustus, 59, 78, 142, 405, 441n122, 463; and the Jews,, 62n29, 161, 302. See also Res gestae divi Augusti, authentic letters, 41, , baptism: in Jewish-Christian understanding, 127; pre-Pauline, tradition regarding, 105, 148; and righteousness, in, Galatians, 300–301; and righteousness, in Romans, 326–33, Barnabas, 50, 51, 52n20, 113–20, 121–25, 132n33, 134, 138–, 39, 145, 149, 268, Benjamin, tribe of, 57–58, 64, 368, Beroea, 50, 146, 194, binitarian theology, 475, body and bodily existence, 495–98; in 1 Corinthians, 226–29;, after death, 587–88
Page 820 :
body of Christ: in 1 Corinthians, 199, 210, 219–21; and, baptism, 479; as basic metaphor for the church, 562, 563–, 64; and the “people of God” motif, 566n24, , Caesarea, 53–54, 363–64, 367, 369, 378n72; date of, imprisonment at, 56 (table), carmen Christi, see Christ hymn, Cephas, 51, 112, 126–28, 198, 223–24, 413, 414, 427, 434. See, also Peter, charisma and office, 569–70, charismata. See gifts of the Spirit, Christ hymn (Phil. 2:6–11), 372–75, 548, Christ, titles of, 434–443; liberator, 436–37; Lord, 439–41;, mediator, 396–98; messiah (Christ), 438–439; savior, 434–35;, Son of God, 441–442; pre-Pauline conceptualization of, 476., See also image of God, “Christians,” 114–15, Christology, 396–98, 410–77; and the Spirit, 487–88. See also, Christ, titles of, chronology of Paul’s life, 56 (table): as basis for interpretation, of his writings, 40–42; absolute, 48–49; relative, 49–56. See, also Paul, life of, church, the: Paul’s words for, 560–62; Paul’s basic metaphors, for, 562–66; structures and tasks in, 566–73; offices in, 570–, 73. See also ecclesiology, Cicero, 82; governor of Cilicia, 59; on Judaism, 162; as writer if, invective, 244; on God’s essence, 392; on the gods, 407;, ethics of, 462, 556n41; on evil in the world, 503; on law,, 507–8; on immortality of the soul, 594; on death, 595, Cilicia, 50, 51, 52, 53n21, 58–59, 113, 114n51, 119, 131, 145,, 266n6, circumcision, 44, 99nn57–58, 160, 189, 232, 261, 316, 324,, 390, 393, 498, 511–12, 553, 564–55, 590, 592; Paul’s, 64;, God-fearers and, 145; apostolic council’s ruling on, 121–37,, 512–13; and the separation of early Christianity from
Page 821 :
Judaism, 160–66; mentioned by Tacitus, 180n29; and the, Galatian crisis, 272–301 passim, 432, 433, 467, 500, 513–14;, in Romans, 361; in Philippians, 375–76; and Paul’s, understanding of the Law, 517–21; of the heart, 534, citation technique, 109. See also Scripture in the writings of, Paul, Claudius, Emperor: expels Jews from Rome (49 CE), 48, 161–, 64, 181, 275, 303, 306, 355; in the Gallio inscription, 49; and, the date of 1 Thessalonians, 172; curtails rights of Jews at, Rome (41 CE), 303, 1 Clement: on the martyrdom of Paul, 382n82, 384–85, collection for the poor, 54; delivery of, 69; according to Luke,, 126; agreed at apostolic council, 128; and wealthy patrons,, 156–57; rejection by Jerusalem Christians, 165, 360–62; in 1, Corinthians, 195; in 2 Corinthians, 236, 237, 240, 242–45;, and the Galatians, 266, 270–71; in Romans, 305, 321, 360–, 62; not mentioned in Philippians, 367; and divine grace, 483,, 554; and continuity of church with Israel, 564, 592, Colossians, a deutero-Pauline writing, 41n75, 44, 150–51,, 569n30, conscience, 528–31; Greco-Roman background of, 79, 82n127;, in 1 Corinthians, 212–14; and subjection to the state, 355, constructivism, 39–40, contradictions, alleged contradictions, and tensions in Paul’s, thought, 42–43, 180, 242–43, 293, 299, 314, 322, 339, 348,, 352, 465, 517–18, 591, contradictions between Paul and Acts, 48, 51–54, 94, 112n44, Corinth: Paul’s arrival at, 49; Paul’s visit (Acts 18), 53–54, 118;, history and geography of, 193; founding of church at, 194;, church’s meeting-place at, 155–56, 1 Corinthians, 192–234; OT quotations in, 110; structure of,, 194–96; as window on local conflicts, 196–97, 2 Corinthians, 235–64; OT quotations in, 110; events, precipitating the writing of, 235–37; composition (unity) of,, 237–45. See also “tearful letter, the”, Cornelius, 119
Page 822 :
coworkers (of Paul), 33, 44, 63, 148–52, 158, 187, 304, 377,, 386, 571, creedal tradition, 105–6, 222, 397nn22–23, 438, Crispus, 194, cross, the, 429–34; significance in Pauline theology, 85; view, of, change at Damascus, 100–102; historical facticity of, 106–, 7; and persecution, 164; as the distinctive Christian, message, 170; in 1 Corinthians, 199–205, 207, 222–24, 229,, 233; in 2 Corinthians, 247, 255–58, 262, 264; in Galatians,, 285, 293; in Romans, 320; in Philippians, 372–74; in Paul’s, understanding of God, 398, 400, 401, 404, 406; in Paul’s, Christology, 411, 412, 419; as locus of atonement, 447–50;, believers’ participation in, 479, 485; and victory over sin,, 500; and Paul’s anthropology, 537; ethical significance of,, 548–49, 551; ecclesiological significance of, 561, 563,, 566n25, 578, cultural context of Paul’s thought and activity, 81–83, 139n1,, 145, 194, 204–5, 273, Cynics, 140–41; on marriage, 58n3, 553; on manual labor, 61,, 152n59; radical lifestyle of, 76; and diatribe, 77;, independence of, 152; teaching by example, 158n84; at, Corinth, 193; acceptance of pay, 196; on freedom, 204–5,, 212, 538; as social progressives, 292n96; and leadership, roles, 573n40; on life after death, 596, Cyprus, 52, 114, 119, Cyrene, 114, 115, 143, , Damaris, 146, Damascus, 51–52, 84, 111–12, 114n51, 143, 170n124, Damascus road event, the, 35, 41, 51, 85, 103, 256n69, 297,, 388, 412, 415, 430, 433, 441, 511; in Paul’s writings, 88–94;, in Acts, 94–96; significance of, for Paul’s theology, 97–102, Daniel (OT book), 108, deliverance, 310, 338–39, 360, 391, 436–37, 484–85, Derbe, 50, 266, 267n7
Page 823 :
deutero-Pauline writings, 41n75, 44, 147, 150–51, 468, development (in Paul’s thought), 41, 42n79, Dionysius the Areopagite, 146, Dionysus, 141, 172, 193, 474, 475n266, divorce, 104, 553, early Christian tradition in Paul’s writings. See pre-Pauline, tradition, ecclesiology, 559–76; Luke’s, 52, 362; contrast with Matthew’s,, 211; christologically based, 222. See also church, the, election: corollary of Jewish monotheism, 70–71; at Qumran,, 75; and apostleship, 89, 309; in Jewish theology, 109, 136,, 160n91, 161, 169, 458–60; in 1 Thessalonians, 174–75, 176–, 77, 178, 180, 185, 190, 435, 564; in 1 Corinthians, 200; in, Galatians, 283, 287; in Romans, 322, 324, 325, 333, 343,, 349, 590–91; and salvation, 390; in Paul’s understanding of, God, 400–403; manifest in baptism, 435; in the Old, Testament, 456–57; basis of the covenant idea, 469; and, God’s righteousness, 515; the goal of, 532; and the church,, 561, Eleusis, 141, Elijah, 66, 85, 348, 535, Epaphras, 149, Epaphroditus, 149, 366, 369, 535, Ephesians, a deutero-Pauline writing, 44, 150–51, 569n30, Ephesus, 53, 54, 143, 367, 154n64, 194, 236, 239, 269, 304n7,, 367–68, 369n43, 378n72; Paul’s residence in, 56 (table),, 118; likely location of the Pauline school, 151, Epictetus, 58, 77, 80, 82n127, 215n87, 217, 232, 502–3, 544–, 45, 588, 595, Erastus, 149, 156, 194, eschatology, 577–97; and the Spirit, 490, Essenes, 65, 69n67, 509; on resurrection, 72n80; zeal for, Torah, 85; eschatology, 505, ethics, 546–58; in Romans, 332–33, 352–58; in 1 Thessalonians,, 185–88; in Galatians, 295–96; and the Spirit, 489–90
Page 824 :
Eucharist, 155, 220n103, 383, 476–77, 513, 573–74; prePauline tradition regarding, 104, 105–6, 148, 440, 446, 563, exegetical methods used by Paul, 109–10, external person, 537–38, Ezekiel (OT book), 108, 255n64, , facts (historical), 28, faith, 521–27, Felix, 54–56, 363, Festus, 54–56, 363, 364n17, 386n98, fiction and history, 30–31, first missionary journey, 52–53, 56 (table), 118, 119–20, 266, flesh, 436–37, 498–499; the realm of sin, 74; absent from 1, Thessalonians, 188; in 1 Corinthians, 203, 204, 209, 217n93,, 227; in 2 Corinthians, 256n69, 262; in Galatians, 278, 285–, 86, 293, 295–96, 550; in Romans, 334, 336, 340–42; in Paul’s, Christology, 437; opposed to life in the Spirit, 489; and, “body,” 496; at Qumran, 504–5. See also Israel: “according, to the flesh”, freedom, 538–45; in 1 Corinthians, 211–17; in Galatians, 295–, 96; of God, in Romans, 343–46; from sin, in the church, 573–, 76, , Gaius (Paul’s coworker), 149, 156, 194, 266, 305, Galatia, 54, 135, 145, 164; identify, history, and geography of,, 265–68; founding of church at, 268–69, Galatians, 265–301; date of writing, 41, 269–71; OT quotations, in, 110; region (North Galatian) hypothesis, 265–66; province, (South Galatian) hypothesis, 265–67; crisis precipitating the, writing of, 271–77; ethic of, 295–96, Gallio, 48–49, 53, 56 (table), 172, Gamaliel I, 68–69
Page 825 :
Gentiles: blindedness of, in Romans, 313–14; beginning of, mission to, 119–20; Christian, 121–37 passim, Geschichte, 26n5, gifts of the Spirit, 490–92; and the Pauline school, 150; in 1, Corinthians, 195–96, 197, 202, 218–19, 221–22; in Romans,, 354; eschatological significance, 396; and divine grace, 483;, anthropological significance, 489; ordering of, 524; and the, body of Christ, 564; and church office, 569–70. See also, glossolalia, glossolalia, 197, 219, 221, 263, 536, 569, 570, 572, Gnosticism, 116, 173n9, 225, 260, God, 392–409; as creator and concluder, 393–95; as Father of, Jesus Christ, 395–96; binitarian understanding of, 475; and, the Spirit, 487; as Trinity, 492–93, God-fearers, 120, 130, 144, 145, 161, 194, 298, 304, 366, 512,, 558, gospel: origin of, 403–4; content of, 404–5; as politico-religious, term, 405–6. See also Romans: the gospel in, “gospel of Christ,” 126, 189, 439, “gospel of circumcision,” 126–28, “gospel of God,” 178, 189, 310, 403, “gospel of uncircumcision,” 126–28, grace, 482–84, Greek language: as lingua franca, 139–40, , hapax legomena, 174, 182, 241, 248n38, 365n25, 452n172, Hasidim, 64–65, heart, 533–34, Hellenism, 36, 81n125, 82, 454, 526, 538, 554, 597; as, background of Paul’s thought, 75–81, Hellenists. See Stephen and “Hellenist” Christians, Herakles. See Hercules, Hercules, 76n96, 78, 444n122, 474, 475n266, 538, 587, Herod the Great, 65, 165, 302, Herod the tetrarch, 115
Page 826 :
Herodion, 304, Hillel, 68, 69, 110, historicism, 27, Historie, 26n5, historiography, 26–33, history-of-religions perspectives, 28n16, 45, 116, 341, 373,, 390n4, 396n19, 399, 417, 428, 441, 481n12, 531n142, house churches, 153–57; formation of, 115, 149; at Corinth,, 194; at Rome, 304, 306; leadership of, 573, icon. See image of God, Iconium, 119–20, 267n7, identity formation, 36–38, 70, 101n68, 166, 169, 301, image of God, 98, 245, 311, 398, 468, 476, 531–33, 556, imitation of Paul, 148; as mediated imitation of Christ, 568–69;, in 1 Thessalonians, 177–79, inner person, 537–38, interpretive stance, 45, introductory formulae (for OT quotations), 109, Isaac, 109, 293, 324, 344, Isaiah, including Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah, 89, 90, 108,, 160n91, 309, 451, 456, Ishmael (high priest), 55n30, Ishmael (son of Abraham), 111n37, 344, 565, 590, Isis, 141, 172, 193, 331, 407, 437n107, 440n117, 475, Israel: in Romans, 342–52; “according to the flesh,” 351, 564,, 590–91; eschatological destiny of, 588–92. See also Jews;, Judaism, , James of Jerusalem, 133–36, 165–66, 275, 361, 428, James, Letter of, 169, James, son of Zebedee, 122, 165, Jason, 149, 173, Jeremiah (OT book), 90, 108, 255n64, 309
Page 827 :
Jerusalem: Paul’s first postconversion visit to, 51, 52; Paul’s, fourth visit to, according to Acts, 54, Jerusalem council. See apostolic council, Jesus: date of death, 51; significance for Paul, 105–8; as model, for the church, 567. See also Christology; cross, the; sayings, of Jesus, Jews: and Rome, 62, 161n95; expelled from Rome by Claudius,, 161–64; and God’s wrath (in 1 Thessalonians), 179–81;, blindedness of, in Romans, 314–17. See also Israel, John (the apostle), 126, 128, John Hyrcanus, 65, 67, John Mark, 52n20, 119, 138, John the Baptist, 51, Jonathan (high priest), 65, 287, Judaism, 36; in the Diaspora, 143–45; and Christianity, 398–, 400; separation of Christianity from, 114, 159–70, Judas of Gamala, 66, Junia[s], 304, 571, justification: by faith alone, not in 1 Thessalonians, 188–89; and, law, in 1 Corinthians, 229–34; and law, in Galatians, 277–95;, inclusive doctrine of, 300; exclusive doctrine of, 301; the, formation of Paul’s doctrine of, 464–68; theological content, of, 468–72, , Latin language: Paul’s knowledge of, 63n36; and the term, “Christians,” 114; opinion of Josephus regarding, 140; and, the name “Paul,” 412, law, 506–21; in Greco-Roman thought, 506–8; in ancient, Judaism, 508–10; development of Paul’s view of, 510–15;, synchronic analysis of Paul’s view of, 515–21, law of Christ, 105, 215, 230, 279n44, 293, 297, 512, 516, 520,, 543, 557, law of faith, 279n44, 321–23, 512, 516, 520, law of the Spirit, 279n44, 338, 339, 512, 516, 520, letter and spirit, 251–52
Page 828 :
letters, function of Paul’s, 157, Leviticus, 109, 446, liberator. See Christ, titles of, linguistic mediation of history, 29–30, Lucius Lentulus, 62n29, Lucius of Cyrene, 115, Luther, Martin, 26, 285, Lycaonia, 52–53, 119, 265–67, 474n257, Lydia, 145, Lystra, 50, 120, 267n7, 474n257, , Maccabean revolt, 64–65, Macedonia, 53–54, 56 (table), 139, 145, 235–36, 240, 242, 244–, 45, 266, 269, 271, 305, 311n26, Malta, 55n34, 364, Manaen, 115, Mark Antony. See Antony, Mark, Matthew, Gospel of, 169, meaning formation, 30, 35–38, 598–603, meat sacrificed to idols, 70, 125, 197, 211, 212–14, 298, 529,, 539, 553, mediator. See Christ, titles of, midrash, 110, 182, mind, 536, Mithras, 141, monotheism: as a defining feature of Jewish theology, 70, 126,, 130, 145, 393; in Hellenism, 139n1, 408; as a basis of, popular appeal, 212, 407; and Pauline Christology, 392–93,, 398, 400, 425, 456, 472–77, Moses, 251, 253–54, 289, 290, 309, 393, 473, 509, 565, 589, Musonius Rufus, 77, 556–57, mystery religions, 151, 205
Page 829 :
Nabataea, 51, 111–12, narrative, 35n48, Nero, Emperor, 48n5, 55–56, 142n22, 154n66, 167, 177n18,, 303, 304, 306, 374, 381–86, new covenant, 252–55, Nicholas, 114, , objectivity (historical), 28, Old Testament: as background of Paul’s thought, 70–75; in, Romans, 323–26. See also Scripture in the writings of Paul, opponents (of Paul), 44, 88, 91, 93, 122, 130, 134; in 2, Corinthians, 237, 239–40, 244, 251, 259, 260–63, 300, 534;, in Galatians, 135, 164, 266, 271–77, 574, 590; in Romans,, 305, 308, 334, 361, 592; in Philippians, 368, 375–77, Orosius, 48, Osiris, 141, 225n120, 407, 475, outer person. See external person, Pamphylia, 52–53, 119, 265, paraenetic topoi, 105, parousia (return of Jesus): in 1 Thessalonians, 177, 181–85,, 551; in 1 Corinthians, 196, 207, 222, 225–26, 228–29, 233; in, 2 Corinthians, 241, 248–51, 579; in Galatians, 300; in, Romans, 350; in Philippians, 371, 377; christological, significance, 476; in Paul’s eschatology, 581, 579–87; and, Israel, 591, participation: as the goal of Pauline Christology, 411–12; in, baptism, 479–81; in Christ, 481–82, 578–80, partners. See coworkers, Paul, life of: ancestry, 57–58; birth, 57; education, 61, 62, 63,, 67, 68–69, 77, 79, 81, 82n127, 147, 267n8; marital status,, 58; health, 58; physical appearance, 58n4; social status, 57–, 63; manual labor, 61, 62–63; Roman citizenship, 60–62; as a, Pharisee, 32, 61, 64–69, 81, 83, 99, 110, 147, 180, 183, 288,
Page 830 :
375–76, 510–11; as persecutor, 83–86; Damascus road event,, 88–102; the “dark years,” 41; early missionary career, 111–, 13; as missionary of the Antioch church, 113–20; Antioch, incident, 50, 117–18, 132–37; begins independent mission,, 145–46; final journey to Jerusalem, 360–62; arrest and trial,, 55, 362–63; journey to Rome, 364; at Rome, 365; martyrdom,, 381–86. See also apostleship, Paul’s; chronology of Paul’s, life; Damascus road event, the; first missionary journey;, second missionary journey; third missionary journey, Pauline school, 146–53; structures of, 148–51; mission, strategies of, 151–53; later literature of, 579, pax romana, 60n18, 142–43, 177n18, 184, 463, Pentateuch, 108, Perga, 119, pesher commentary, 110, Peter, 112, 114n51, 122, 123, 126–28, 129n24, 132, 133–36,, 165, 189, 198, 203, 284, 382n82, 385, 415n15, 418, 427–28,, 574. See also Cephas, Pharisees, Pharisaism, 64–69, 509; on resurrection, 72, 183; on, free will, 74; zeal for Torah, 85, 288; and James of Jerusalem,, 123; on circumcision for Gentile converts, 130; Christian, Pharisees, 125, 127; and the Psalms of Solomon, 459, Philemon (Paul’s convert), 156. See also Philemon, Letter to, Philemon, Letter to 377–81; setting, 377–78; lack of OT, quotations in, 110; theology of, 379–81, Philippi, 50, 54, 92, 128, 131, 145, 146, 154n63, 163, 556, 573;, history and geography, 366, Philippians, 366–77; lack of OT quotations in, 110; setting, 367–, 69; theology of, 369–77, Phinehas, 66, 85, Phoebe, 156, 305, Pisidia, 52–53, 119, 265–67, pneumatology, 174, 486–93; in 1 Thessalonians, 187; in, Galatians, 294; in Romans, 339. See also Spirit, the, Porcian law, 61, Poseidon, 193
Page 831 :
preexistence of Christ, 35, 106n15, 202–3, 373–74, 39–97, 399,, 411, 439, 442, 475, 476, 487, 563, 565, pre-Pauline tradition, 103–8, 148, 476. See also Eucharist: prePauline tradition regarding, Prisca and Aquila, 48n553, 49, 53, 62, 149, 151, 157, 172, 194,, 304, 535, Priscilla. See Prisca and Aquila, promise in Romans, 325–26, Psalms (OT book), 108, purity regulations: at the apostolic council, 131; disagreement, at Antioch, 133–35, , Qumran community, 65, Qumran texts, 242, 458–59; and calendrical issues, 274; on, faith and law, 288; first-person expression in, 336; and free, will, 75; interpretation of Habakkuk, 288; on distinctions, within Israel, 344n151; and messianic concepts, 438n112;, and resurrection, 72n80; and righteousness, 73, 318, 469;, and sin, 74, 458, 504–5; “son of God” in, 441n121, , reconciliation, 255–58, 451–54, religion, 40, religious pluralism in the Roman world, 141–42, Res gestae divi Augusti, 78n104, 142, 483n20, resurrection: Pharisaic belief in, 68, 72; of Christ, Paul a, witness to, 88; in the Damascus road event, 93, 101; of, Christ, in universal transformation, 98, 169; of Christ, in prePauline tradition, 105–6; in 1 Thessalonians, 181–85, 191; in, 1 Corinthians, 195, 197, 206, 222–29; in 2 Corinthians, 254,, 256, 264; in Galatians, 285, 300; in Romans, 309, 311, 329,, 330, 332, 340, 342; in Philippians, 374, 376–77; of Christ, at, the center of Paul’s theology, 389; in Paul’s understanding of, God, 395, 400, 405; in Paul’s Christology, 410–15; in modern
Page 832 :
historical interpretation, 415–29; and the cross, 429, 430,, 432; and the Christ title, 438–39; as the condition of, justification, 444; liturgical participation of believers in, 466,, 476, 479–80; effected by the Spirit, 487–88, 493; of, believers, bodily, 497–99; and conformity to the image of the, Son, 532; in Paul’s eschatology, 579–86, revelations, 148, righteousness/justice of God: in Romans, 317–23; in the Old, Testament, 455–57; in ancient Judaism, 457–60; in classical, and Hellenistic sources, 460–63. See also justification, Roman Empire, the: and Christian ethics, 355–58, Romans, 302–58; historical conditioning of, 42; OT quotations, in, 110; setting and date of, 305–9; the gospel in, 309–12, Rome: date of Paul’s arrival, 55; history and structure of the, church at, 302–4, Romulus, 587, , Sabbath, 66, 124–25, 130, 147n37, 161n95, 280, Sadducees, 65, 66–67, 68, 72n80, 509, Salome Alexandra, 65, 67, salvation, 478–85; as present reality, 107, 389–91; the center of, Paul’s thought, 109; in Jewish-Christian thought, 127; basis, of, in the independent mission, 169; in 1 Thessalonians, 176–, 79, 181, 188, 189; in 1 Corinthians, 203, 205, 206, 226, 250,, 254, 256–57, 262; in the mystery religions, 205; in Galatians,, 280, 283–84, 288; in Romans, 310, 314–15, 321, 326–33,, 346, 348, 360; of Israel, 348–52, 589–91; in Philippians, 372,, 376–77; in Paul’s understanding of God, 397–406; in Paul’s, Christology, 434–37, 443, 449; and the righteousness of God, (OT), 455–57; and the Spirit, 488, 493; and the church, 559., See also deliverance, Sarapis, 141, 193, savior. See Christ, titles of, sayings of Jesus, 104–5
Page 833 :
Scripture in the writings of Paul, 108–11; number of citations,, 108; in Romans 1, 310, second missionary journey, 50, 56 (table), 268, Seneca, 49, 76, 77, 79–80, 162–63, 204, 216, 381, 503–4, Septuagint, 108, Sergius Paulus, 119, Shammai, 69, Silas, 50, 145. See also Silvanus, Silvanus, 149, 172, 194, 240, Simeon Niger, 115, Simeon son of Gamaliel, 68, sin: in Romans, 333–42; and death, 499–505; freedom from, in, the church, 573–76, Sinnbildung, 30n26, slaves and slavery, 157; in Stoic understanding, 80; in 1, Corinthians, 215–17; in Galatians, 270 (table), 290, 291, 295,, 296, 590; in Romans, 498; Christ as liberator from, 410, 445,, 491; in ancient theory, 544–45, Sopater, 146, Sosipater, 149, Sosthenes, 149, soteriology, 478–85; and the Spirit, 488. See also deliverance;, salvation, soul, 535; as understood by Paul’s opponents at Corinth, 225–, 26; in 2 Corinthians, 250; in Philo, 341; in Greco-Roman, understanding, 584–88, 594–96; in Hellenistic Judaism, 588, Spirit, the: and purity, in 1 Corinthians, 207–11; and, edification, in 1 Corinthians, 217–19. See also gifts of the, Spirit; God; pneumatology, Stephanas, 156, 194, Stephen and “Hellenist” Christians, 84, 94–96, 97n52, 114,, 165, 279n46, 363, Stoics, Stoicism: in Tarsus, 59; and diatribe, 77; use of, antitheses, 78; on freedom, 80, 538, 545; on sexual, continence, 210n69; on slavery, 216–17; use of body, imagery, 219n99; and classification by polarities, 228n134;, on endurance and integrity, 248n35; and desire, 334n120;
Page 834 :
persecuted, 384; theology, 408; on resurrection (in Acts),, 412–13; on evil in the world, 503; on accepting one’s, circumstances, 553; ethical views, 556n41; on the soul, (mortality), 594, subjectivity (historical), 28, substitution (atonement), 443–46, Suetonius: on Claudius’s expulsion of Jews from Rome, 48; on, Nero’s persecution of Christians, 383–84, symbolic universes, 37–38, 41, 45, symbols, 37, Syria, 52, 53, 113, , Tacitus, regarding Nero’s persecution of Christians, 382–83, Tarsus, 51, 53n21, 58–60, 62, 63n34, 68, 69n65, 75, 81, 113,, 143, Teacher of Righteousness, 65, 287–88, “tearful letter, the,” 236, 238–40, 244, Teles, 77, tentmaking, 62–63, theology. See God, 1 Thessalonians, 33, 41; OT quotations in, 110; theology of,, 176–85, 188–91; ethic of, 185–88, 2 Thessalonians, a deutero-Pauline writing, 41n75, 44, 150, Thessalonica, 50; history and geography of, 171–72; founding, of church at, 172–76, third missionary journey, 54n27, 56 (table), 268–69, “thorn in the flesh.” See Paul, life of: health, Tiberius, Emperor, 162, 303, 382, time: eschatologically construed, 592–97, Timothy, Paul’s coworker: converted, 50; travels with Paul and, Silas, 145–46, 194; works at Thessalonica, 172, 173, 181;, works at Corinth, 240, 552; sent to Philippi, 366; in, Philemon, 377; co-sends letters, 149; sent on independent, missions, 149, 152, 236, 1 Timothy, a deutero-Pauline writing, 44, 569n30
Page 835 :
2 Timothy, a deutero-Pauline writing, 44, 150, 569; on the, martydrom of Paul, 385–86, Titius Justus, 194, Titus (Paul’s coworker): attends Jerusalem council, 51; Gentile, status of, 126, 144, 275; in Paul’s independent mission, 149;, agent at Corinth, 152n60, 236, 239–45, 360, Titus, a deutero-Pauline writing, 44, transcendence, experience of, 100–102, transformation: in Pauline Christology, 410–12; in Pauline, eschatology, 582–87, transportation in the Roman Empire, 141, trinitarian theology, 492–93, typology, 78, 109, 327–28, 436, 447, Tyrannus, lecture hall of, 148n41, 151, , Urchristentum, 33n39, , Via Egnatia, 145, 171, 366, 369, , wisdom: according to 1 Corinthians, 197–205, worldview, 38, , Zadduk, 66, 69, Zealots, 66, 68, 69, 165, 509
Page 875 :
8:5–8 341, 499, 8:7 289n84, 516, 8:8 180, 8:9–11 337, 487, 8:9 218n93, 487, 496, 8:9b 487, 8:10–11 496, 8:10 487, 495, 8:11 72, 342, 395, 405, 411, 424, 439, 490, 495, 527, 579, 585, 8:12–17 270, 8:13 218n93, 496, 8:14 487, 8:15–16 396, 487, 491, 8:15 493, 8:16 480, 8:17 479n3, 480, 491, 8:18ff. 395, 401, 493, 541, 8:18–39 343, 8:20 541, 8:21 436, 541, 8:22 541, 8:23 200, 485, 490, 497, 585, 8:24 250, 390, 437, 476, 579, 8:26–27 490, 8:27 493, 534, 8:28–39 344, 8:29–39 562, 8:29 398, 479n3, 480, 532, 8:30 401, 8:31–39 77, 8:32 395, 442, 443n130, 445, 446, 548, 8:33 71, 562, 8:35 549, 8:37 549, 8:38–39 394, 9–11 144, 144n28, 176, 180, 270, 304, 307, 311, 317, 342, 343,, 345n154, 352, 399, 401, 402, 403, 403n43, 565, 590, 591
Page 876 :
9:1–29 75, 346, 348, 9:1–2 344, 530, 9:2–3 351, 534, 9:3 344, 498, 9:4–7 75, 9:4–5 43, 590, 9:4 71, 289n84, 9:5 107, 394, 396, 439, 9:6ff. 349, 9:6–30 352, 9:6–13 270, 9:6–7 521, 9:6 351, 9:6a–b 344, 9:6b 343, 344, 9:7–9 344, 9:7 349, 9:8 349, 9:10–13 345, 9:11 176, 9:14ff. 343, 9:15 345, 9:16 401, 9:18–21 345, 9:19ff. 71, 9:19–21 346, 9:22–23 346, 9:25–29 346, 9:25–26 123n10, 343, 564, 9:27 351, 485, 9:30–10:21 346, 352, 9:30–33 346, 9:30 468, 9:32 523, 10:1–4 515, 10:1–3 144, 303, 10:1 343, 346, 351, 434, 485, 534
Page 877 :
10:2 346, 10:3ff. 343, 10:3–4 347n165, 368, 10:3 320, 320n65, 346, 347, 10:4 97, 347, 347n160, 516, 10:5–13 348, 10:5–8 347, 10:5 109, 281, 347, 10:6–8 110, 347, 10:7 182, 439, 10:8 522, 10:9–13 351, 10:9–10 523, 534, 10:9 424, 437, 485, 579, 10:12–13 440, 10:12 351, 10:13–14 523, 10:13 476, 485, 10:14–17 153, 348, 10:15–16 404, 10:17 522, 10:18–21 348, 10:19 349, 351, 10:21 564, 11 352, 11:1ff. 484, 11:1–24 77, 11:1–2 343, 348, 352, 564, 11:1 57, 352, 368, 11:1b 348, 11:2 71, 11:3–10 352, 11:3 535, 11:5 176, 348, 11:7 176, 11:11–36 352, 11:11–16 349
Page 878 :
11:13–15 349, 592, 11:13 144, 303, 11:14 485, 498, 11:14b 351, 11:15 349, 451, 454, 11:16 350, 11:17–32 303, 11:17–24 349, 350, 401, 11:17–18 144, 11:18–29 71, 11:18b 350, 11:20–22 350, 550, 11:20 525, 11:23–24 350, 11:23 351, 11:24 144, 11:25–27 349, 350n177, 351, 11:25–26 368, 591, 11:25b–26a 352, 11:25 350, 11:25b 351, 11:26 174, 360, 485, 11:26a 349–350, 351, 11:26b 350–351, 11:27 75, 499, 575n48, 11:28–32 349, 11:28–29 71, 11:28 144, 176, 11:30–31 144, 11:32 351, 351n180, 11:33 552n23, 11:34 536, 11:36b 70, 394, 12:1ff. 352, 12:1–2 353, 354n189, 554, 12:1 352, 394, 555, 12:1b 496
Page 879 :
12:2 536, 567, 576, 580n12, 12:3–15:13 354, 12:3–21 354, 12:3 354, 483, 524, 12:5 563, 564, 12:6–8 354, 570, 12:6 483, 492, 12:7b 572, 12:9–13:14 358, 12:9–21 306, 354, 356, 12:9–10 549, 12:10 567, 12:11b 355, 12:12 187, 353, 12:13 355, 567, 12:14–21 105, 12:14 306, 12:15–16 355, 12:15 567, 12:16 551, 590, 12:17–21 355, 12:17 187, 12:18 187, 12:21 187, 12–15 353, 12 352, 13:1–7 143, 306, 355–356, 394, 13:1 62, 535, 13:2–7 355, 13:5 530, 13:6–7 306, 13:8–20 323, 13:8–14 354, 13:8–10 270, 340, 357, 515, 516, 520, 557, 13:9–10 549, 13:9 109, 357, 512, 13:10b 355, 516
Page 880 :
13:11–14 576, 13:11 435, 437, 482, 13:13 105, 552, 554, 13:14 480, 13 306, 355, 14:1–15:13 306, 358, 592, 14:1–15:3 298, 304, 14:1–15 144, 14:1–3 358, 14:1 525, 14:3 358, 14:5 536, 14:8 440, 14:8b 585, 14:9 411, 579, 14:10–11 358, 14:12 358, 14:14–15 358, 14:14 67, 105, 357, 358, 512, 14:15 438, 443n130, 540, 549, 550, 14:17 453, 14:20 357, 358, 512, 14:21 358, 14:23 525, 14:23b 500, 15:1 358, 15:2ff. 567, 15:3 107, 438, 15:5 107, 551, 15:6 476, 15:7 298, 358, 550, 15:8ff. 358, 15:8 404, 549, 15:10 564, 15:14 567, 15:15ff. 570, 571, 15:15–16 144, 310, 483
Page 881 :
15:15 303, 15:16 127n18, 303, 403, 404, 493, 15:18–19 153, 174, 264, 15:18 144, 158, 303–304, 15:19 127n18, 311, 404, 439, 15:20 152, 15:22 161, 303, 15:23–24 305, 15:23 592, 15:24ff. 592, 15:24–28 369, 15:24 264, 268, 305, 368, 15:25–27 271, 15:25 54, 15:26 236, 245, 270, 561, 15:27 305, 498, 15:28–29 305, 15:28 311, 15:30ff. 396, 15:30–31 271, 308, 15:30 305, 15:31 84, 174, 194, 305, 16:1–2 156, 304, 305, 16:3–16 304, 16:3–4 304, 16:3 157, 16:4 535, 16:5 573, 16:6 158, 304, 16:7 94, 304, 570, 16:8–9 157, 16:10–11 156, 16:11 304, 16:12 304, 16:13b 304, 16:14–15 154, 304, 16:15 153
Page 882 :
16:16 560n6, 16:19b 304, 16:21 146, 194, 16:22–23 305, 16:22 54, 63, 16:23 151, 156, 194, 16:25–26 404, , 1 Corinthians, 1–4 149, 195, 195n12, 196, 1:1 149, 567, 1:2 123n10, 149, 208, 396, 560, 560nn4, 561, 562, 1:3 396, 441, 442, 483, 1:4–9 197, 1:4–6 196, 1:4 483, 492, 1:6–9a 174, 1:8–9 435, 1:8 106, 347n167, 1:9–10 212, 1:9b–10 174, 1:9 98, 1:10–17 198, 536, 564, 1:10 195, 199, 1:11 195, 1:12–14 487, 1:12 123, 198, 1:13 443n130, 445, 446, 563, 1:13a 199, 1:13b 431, 1:14 156, 194, 200, 305, 573, 1:16 156, 194, 1:17–34 196, 1:17 85, 152, 199, 405, 1:18ff. 401, 432
Page 883 :
1:18 85, 106, 199, 437, 485, 1:19 199, 1:20–22 467, 580n12, 1:21 438, 485, 522, 1:22–24 194, 1:22–23 170, 1:22 440, 1:23 85, 429, 430, 434n95, 1:26ff. 561, 1:26–29 432, 1:26 157, 194, 1:27–28 200, 401, 1:30 105, 135, 148, 200, 206n52, 258, 300, 465, 481, 482, 1:30c 200, 1:31 440, 476, 1:31b 200, 2:1 203, 2:2 85, 107, 201, 429, 432, 434n95, 438, 2:4–5 153, 493, 522, 2:4b–5 201, 2:4 174, 264, 2:5 524, 2:6ff. 150, 432, 2:6–16 202, 202n35, 204, 2:6–12 202n34, 2:6–9 202n34, 580n12, 2:6 204, 377, 2:7 203, 404, 561, 2:8 85, 90, 396, 431, 580n12, 2:9 571, 2:10ff. 218n93, 2:10 201, 432, 493, 2:12–16 148, 2:12–14 218, 2:12 91, 174, 196, 201, 435, 441, 483, 487, 488, 489, 2:12b 202, 2:13–16 202n34
Page 884 :
2:13 174, 201, 202, 218, 2:14–16 202, 2:14 535, 2:15 91, 218n93, 2:16 440, 476, 536, 3:1ff. 217–218n93, 3:1–4 203, 3:1 91, 218, 377, 498, 3:4ff. 124, 3:4 174, 203, 3:5ff. 571, 3:5–9 150, 209, 3:5 204n4, 209, 3:6–11 158, 3:6 153, 3:8 204n4, 3:9 149, 3:10–17 159, 3:10–11 153, 3:10 483, 3:11 559, 566, 3:12 58, 3:13–15 203, 3:14–15 71, 3:15–16 226, 249, 3:15 485, 3:16–17 488, 524, 561, 3:16 203, 209, 218n93, 3:17 209, 550, 3:17b 561, 3:18 580n12, 3:21–23 434, 3:23 395, 4:1 91, 203, 204, 4:4 229, 528, 4:5 71, 532, 4:6–15 77, 107
Page 885 :
4:6b 206, 4:7 174, 4:7a 206, 4:8 204, 432, 579, 4:9 58, 4:10 204, 568, 4:11–13 246, 4:12 61, 4:14–16 152, 4:15 127, 153, 404, 568, 4:16 148, 158, 549, 552, 567, 571, 4:16b 207, 4:17 50, 148, 149, 236, 240, 4:18 149, 204, 4:19–20 153, 174, 4:20 204, 404, 5–7 195, 552, 5 195, 195n12, 5:1–5 208, 5:1b 195, 552, 5:2 204, 498, 5:3 495, 5:4–5 209, 5:4 264, 489, 5:5 190, 226, 249, 394, 441, 485, 5:5b 573, 5:6 209, 5:7 489, 5:7b 549, 550, 5:9–11 194, 552, 5:9 174, 5:10–11 105, 554, 5:12 187, 5:14b–15 445, 5:17 541, 5:24 174, 6 195
Page 886 :
6:1–11 190, 195, 207, 524, 552, 6:9–11 208, 6:9–10 105, 480, 550, 552, 554, 6:11 105, 135, 148, 206n52, 229, 258, 300, 396, 465, 488, 493, 6:11b–c 207, 6:12–24 195, 6:12–20 77, 196, 204, 225, 553, 6:12 208, 298, 6:13 210, 496, 6:14b 424, 6:15–16 524, 6:15 210, 424, 563, 6:15b 210, 6:16 210, 6:17 218n93, 488, 6:18 210, 210n70, 496, 573, 576, 6:19 210, 218n93, 487, 488, 496, 524, 561, 6:20 211, 436, 496, 7 196, 225, 7:1 58, 194, 195, 541, 7:2–7 541, 7:4 495, 496, 7:5 576, 7:7–8 148, 7:7 159, 211, 492, 7:8–9 211, 7:8 58, 215, 216, 541, 7:10–11 104, 553, 7:11 215, 216, 7:11b 104, 451, 7:14 211, 7:15 216, 7:16 211, 485, 7:17–24 215, 216, 553, 7:18 194, 297, 7:19 232, 298, 512, 516, 590, 7:20–22 79, 80
Page 887 :
7:20 216, 7:21–24 157, 381, 7:21b 215, 216, 540, 7:21 157, 194, 216, 216n89, 7:22 216, 7:23 436, 7:24 216, 7:25–28 211, 7:25 195, 7:28 498, 7:29–31 80, 217, 541, 580, 7:29 551, 583, 7:31 551, 576, 7:37 532, 7:39 228, 583, 7:40 148, 215, 8:1–13 196, 211, 539, 8:1–6 204, 8:1 212, 213, 549, 567, 8:4 212, 393, 8:5 393, 397n22, 8:6 70, 105, 393, 394, 396, 397, 397n22, 399, 440, 476, 8:7 212, 8:9–13 550, 8:9 212, 213, 298, 8:10 194, 211, 298, 8:11 213, 438, 443n130, 445, 446, 8:12 213, 298, 8:13 298, 529, 8–10 193, 195, 567, 8–9 244, 8 528, 529, 9:1–27 61, 9:1–18 77, 9:1–2 158, 9:1 87–89, 88n8, 94, 98, 115, 148, 414, 9:2 159
Page 888 :
9:2b 158, 9:4–6 214, 9:5 58, 107, 123, 441, 9:6 115, 9:8–9 517, 9:9–10 110, 9:9 109, 230, 9:11 498, 9:12–18 214, 9:12 127, 404, 439, 540, 9:14 104, 9:15–18:23 115, 122, 123, 9:15–16 214, 540, 9:16 90, 153, 158, 404, 9:18 152, 9:19–23 230, 9:19 215, 548, 9:20–22 215, 298, 9:20–21 169, 9:20 194, 9:20d 230, 9:21 230, 9:22–23 170, 9:22 157, 158, 485, 9:23 148, 159, 215, 404, 568, 9:24ff. 58, 9:24–27 75, 193, 9:24–26 568, 9:26 182, 9:27 495, 9:30 58, 9 80, 196, 370, 10 528, 10–13 244, 10:1ff. 150, 204, 550, 579, 589, 10:1–13 213, 218, 564, 10:1–4 206n52
Page 889 :
10:1 182, 524, 10:2 182, 10:4 109, 399, 439, 487, 488, 565, 10:7 123n10, 553–554, 10:9 576, 10:11 347n167, 551, 583, 10:11c 482, 565, 10:13 576, 10:14–33 211, 10:14–23 196, 10:14–22 211, 10:16 226, 563, 10:17 440, 563, 564, 10:18 564, 590, 10:20–21 212, 10:20 393, 10:21 214, 10:23–33 517, 10:23–24 298, 10:23 204, 208, 212, 213, 298, 539, 10:24 548, 553n27, 567, 10:25–30 212, 10:25–29 79, 10:25 211, 213, 214, 10:26 213, 394, 397, 401, 440, 553–554, 10:27 194, 213, 214, 553n28, 10:31 214, 10:32–33 298, 10:32 123n10, 160, 170, 194, 214, 298, 560, 560nn4,6, 10:33–11:1 567, 10:33 485, 512, 539, 548, 11:1–2 148, 159, 11:1 107, 158, 549, 567, 571, 11:2 104, 11:3 395, 11:3a–b 439, 11:7–8 532
Page 890 :
11:7 61, 11:16 532, 560, 560n4, 560n6, 11:17–34 195, 196, 11:20–23 440, 11:20 155, 11:22 123n10, 194, 560, 560n4, 560n6, 11:23ff. 104, 11:23b–25 35, 104, 105, 106, 148, 11:23 105, 11:23b 103n1, 104, 105n7, 148, 11:24b 446, 11:25 75, 196–197, 565, 11:26ff. 440, 11:27 226, 563, 11:29–30 210n67, 480, 11:30 209, 228, 440, 583, 11:32 440, 12–14 195, 196, 197, 12:1–3 491, 492, 12:1 195, 524, 569, 12:2 144, 194, 12:3 218n93, 219, 440, 476, 486, 493, 12:3b 522, 12:4 492, 12:6b 492, 12:7 221, 12:8–11 219, 12:9 521, 12:11 493, 12:12ff. 564, 12:12–31 219, 570, 12:12–27 563, 12:12–13:13 77, 12:13 144, 148, 206n52, 220, 232, 482, 488, 492, 563, 12:13d 220n103, 12:25 218, 567, 12:26 567
Page 891 :
12:27 220, 563, 12:28–30 492, 12:28 94n31, 354, 560, 569, 570, 572, 13 150, 221, 354, 491, 492, 549, 567, 569, 13:1–3 221, 13:2 204, 13:3 495, 13:5 567, 13:11–13 244, 13:12 222, 250, 390, 579, 581, 13:13 541, 14 221, 14:3 492, 14:4 221, 14:5 221, 492, 572, 14:6 148, 218, 14:7–11 182, 14:8 58, 14:12 569, 14:14–15 536, 14:14 489, 14:16–17 221, 14:19 148, 14:20–21 212, 14:21 230, 278n44, 517, 554, 14:23 156, 194, 14:26 218, 492, 572, 14:29 572, 14:31 572, 14:33 561, 14:34 230n138, 14:37–38 148, 14:37 218, 15 195, 196, 586, 588, 15:1–10 88, 15:1–3b 103, 15:1–3a 413
Page 892 :
15:2 437, 485, 15:3ff. 493, 15:3–11 570, 15:3–10 224, 15:3b–8 113, 15:3–5 88, 404, 583, 15:3–4 404, 15:3b–5 35, 104, 105, 106, 126, 222, 406, 413, 414, 426, 438, 15:3 98, 107, 443n130, 499, 574n45, 15:3b 103n1, 136, 148, 443n130, 444, 444n136, 446, 500, 15:4 107, 427, 15:4b 578, 15:5–7 427, 15:5 123, 224, 15:6–9 414, 15:6 228, 229, 428, 571, 583, 15:7–8 428, 15:7 123, 428n70, 571, 15:8–9 58, 87–88, 15:8 88–89, 88n8, 94, 98, 148, 412, 414, 583, 15:9–10 88, 15:9 83, 123n10, 158, 412, 560, 560n4, 560n6, 15:10 158, 395, 483, 568, 15:11 153, 15:11b 522, 15:12–19 227, 395, 15:12–17 439, 15:12 197, 204, 224, 579, 15:13 123, 15:14 224, 413, 524, 15:15 224, 413, 15:17 413, 499, 500, 574n45, 15:18 228, 482, 583, 15:19 413, 15:20–28 395, 15:20–22 414, 578, 583, 15:20b 578
Page 893 :
15:20 227, 439, 482, 497, 551, 583, 15:21–22 583, 15:22–23 72, 15:22 482, 579, 583, 15:23–28 227, 396, 15:23 439, 15:24 347n167, 15:26 226, 436, 15:27 476, 15:28 394, 396, 412, 15:29–49 77, 15:29 206n52, 209, 226, 228, 583, 15:32 368, 397n22, 15:33 75, 15:35ff. 226, 15:35–56 583, 15:35 227, 15:35b 226, 15:36–38 227, 15:38 495, 15:39 498, 15:40 495, 15:42ff. 497, 15:42–44 227, 15:42 228, 15:44–45 490, 493, 15:44 488, 584, 15:45 204, 227, 254, 487, 15:45b 218n93, 535, 15:46 195, 229, 327n90, 15:49 531, 15:50 228, 480, 498, 15:50b 227, 15:51ff. 249, 584, 587, 15:51–56 231, 15:51–52 248, 15:51 227, 228, 583
Page 894 :
15:52–54 584, 15:52 182, 228, 15:53–54 228, 15:55 436, 15:56 333n115, 499, 500, 514, 516, 16:1–4 194, 16:1 195, 266, 270, 561, 16:3–4 271, 360, 16:3 483, 590, 16:5ff. 236, 16:5–8 369, 16:5 54, 16:8 47n1, 16:9 149, 16:10–11 240, 16:10 150, 152n60, 236, 16:11 151, 16:12 195, 204n4, 16:13 525, 16:15ff. 194, 16:15–18 150, 16:15–16 573, 16:15 156, 16:16 158, 16:17 156, 16:18 489, 16:19 154, 194, 573, 16:22 105, 440, 441, 476, 583, 16:23 483, , 2 Corinthians, 1–9 236n1, 237, 238, 239, 244, 245, 270n20, 1:1–2:13 237, 239, 241, 1:1 123n10, 236, 237, 240, 560, 560n6, 560nn4,5, 561, 567, 1:2 149, 396, 442, 483
Page 895 :
1:3–11 245n30, 1:4–6 157n81, 1:4b 241, 1:5 435, 1:7 568, 1:8–10 241, 248, 1:8 236, 248, 367, 396, 1:9 411, 415, 491, 1:10 174, 360, 1:11 245, 1:12 241, 483, 498, 529, 1:13–14 159, 1:14 122, 190, 435, 1:15–16 235, 369, 1:15 236, 1:16 84, 236, 240, 1:17 236, 1:19–20 245, 1:19 240, 441, 1:20 404, 1:21–22 105, 135, 148, 153, 245, 249, 273, 300, 465, 488, 1:22 486, 487, 490, 533, 1:23–2:4 240, 1:23 236, 530, 535, 1:24 524, 525, 2:1 235, 242, 2:3ff. 239, 251, 2:3–11 236, 2:3 236, 2:4 236, 240n15, 264, 534, 2:5–11 574, 2:6–10 574, 2:6–8 239, 2:11 394, 574, 2:12–13 236, 2:12 127n18, 236, 404, 439, 2:13 152n60, 237, 241, 489
Page 896 :
2:14–7:4 237, 238, 239, 241, 243n24, 2:14–6:13 237, 2:14–3:3 158, 244, 2:14 159, 245, 435, 479, 2:15 159, 401, 437, 2:17 239, 241, 251, 530, 3:1–5:12 272, 3:1–18 565, 565n21, 3:1–3 239, 3:1 273n27, 3:1b 251, 3:2 534, 571, 3:3 251, 252n54, 534, 3:6 75, 168, 251, 252, 565, 589, 3:7ff. 150, 252, 3:7 253, 3:9 253, 3:10 168, 3:11 187, 253, 3:12–18 253n56, 3:12 581, 3:13 347, 3:14–16 534, 3:14 253, 254n59, 3:16 174, 254, 3:16–18 255n65, 565, 3:16–17 254n59, 3:17 218n93, 254, 487, 3:17b 491, 3:18 254, 487, 532, 532n145, 3:25 571, 3–4 243, 3 251, 254, 255, 255n65, 517, 589, 589n47, 592, 4:1ff. 251, 4:1–6 404, 4:1–2 152, 4:2–5 239
Page 897 :
4:2 148, 241, 530, 4:3–4 404, 4:4–6 404, 4:4 91, 98, 127n18, 245, 398, 404, 435, 476, 531, 533, 580n12, 4:5 246, 441, 534, 4:6 70, 88, 90, 91, 98, 98n56, 246, 394, 476, 534, 4:6c 245, 4:7–18 571, 4:7–12 246, 390, 579, 4:8ff. 241, 4:8–9 78, 246, 537, 4:10–11 480, 550, 568, 4:10b–12 246, 4:11 496, 498, 4:13–18 248, 4:13b 524, 4:14ff. 72, 4:14 224n111, 251, 411, 412, 479n3, 480, 580, 4:15 245, 483, 568, 4:16 538, 538n164, 548, 4:17–18 248, 4:17b 411, 5:1–11 453, 5:1–10 241, 248, 250n48, 251, 584, 584n24, 588nn42,43, 5:1–2 248–249n38, 5:1 174, 248–249, 248n38, 524, 5:2 405, 5:2b 250n48, 5:3–4 249, 5:4 264, 496, 5:5 486, 487, 488, 5:6–10 250, 5:6–8 249n41, 5:6b 248n38, 5:7 250, 390, 525, 527, 548, 579, 5:8–9 437, 5:8b 248n38
Page 898 :
5:9–10 71, 5:9 240n12, 5:10 190, 251, 476, 5:11 530, 5:12 239, 241, 5:14–21 255, 5:14–17 256n67, 5:14–15 255n66, 445, 446, 550, 5:14 255, 256, 256n67, 443n130, 444n130, 549, 5:15 411, 415, 443n130, 444n130, 491, 493, 567, 5:16 106n14, 107n22, 256, 256n69, 439, 485, 5:17 71, 256, 256n70, 256n71, 342, 481, 482, 541, 548, 551,, 562, 590, 5:17a 452, 5:18–6:2 483, 5:18–21 452, 567, 5:18–20 257n73, 5:18–19 395, 451, 454n178, 5:18 257, 451, 5:18b 257, 452n174, 5:19–21 153, 5:19–20 148, 5:19 257, 438, 451, 454, 5:20 257, 404, 405, 5:21 107, 258, 317, 318, 320, 320n65, 411, 437, 443–444n130,, 445, 445n139, 453, 499, 500, 5:21b 481n12, 5 453, 6:1 550, 6:2 251, 437, 482, 485, 551, 6:2b 479, 6:3–10 241, 6:4–10 246, 6:4–5 568, 6:5 61, 6:7–10 247, 6:7 153
Page 899 :
6:9–10 480, 6:11–13 148, 159, 6:11 241, 245, 534, 6:13 242, 6:14–7:1 237, 241, 242, 242nn19,20, 6:14 464n217, 6:15 256n71, 6:16–17 218n93, 6:16 564n18, 7:1 239, 242, 489, 552n19, 7:2–4 159, 237, 7:2 152, 242, 534, 7:3 91, 534, 567, 7:4 241, 7:5 237, 7:5ff. 236, 7:5–16 237, 239, 7:5–9 236, 7:5–7 241, 7:6–7 152n60, 236, 7:7 157n80, 7:8 236, 7:10 437, 7:11 157n80, 7:12 236, 7:13–14 152n60, 7:14 240, 244, 7:16 241, 8 149, 237, 238, 242, 243n24, 8:1ff. 236, 242, 8:1–24 239, 8:1–5 236, 242, 8:1 483, 8:4 483, 561, 8:6–23 150, 8:6–7 483, 8:6 152n60, 240, 242, 435
Page 900 :
8:7ff. 194, 8:9 107, 246, 411, 483, 8:10–11 435, 8:10 243, 8:13–14 567, 8:15 554, 8:16–24 242, 243, 244, 8:16 152n60, 245, 8:18 404, 8:19–20 360, 8:19 271, 483, 8:20 244, 8:22 244, 8:23 94n31, 152n60, 9:1–15 239, 9:1 242, 242n23, 9:2ff. 242, 9:2 157n80, 237, 243, 9:3–5 243, 244, 9:3–4 236, 9:4–5 242, 9:6 71, 9:7 534, 9:8 483, 9:9 554, 9:12–13 245, 9:13 127n18, 404, 439, 9:14–15 483, 9 237, 238, 239, 242, 10–13 237, 238, 239, 240, 240n12, 243, 243n24, 244, 244n27,, 245, 258, 259, 259n79, 262, 270n20, 10–12 78, 10–11 435, 10:1–11 240, 10:1–10 259, 10:1–2 157n78, 237, 244, 246, 10:1 107, 240, 246
Page 901 :
10:3 262, 498, 499, 10:7 237, 261, 10:10 58, 63, 237, 240n12, 495, 10:11 157n78, 10:12 237, 239, 10:12–18 259, 10:14–16 158, 10:14 404, 439, 10:15 524, 10:16 404, 10:17 439, 440, 10:18 239, 262, 10:20 58, 11:1–12:13 262n88, 11:1ff. 262, 11:2–12:13 262n88, 11:2 152, 157n80, 11:4–5 237, 11:4 153, 237, 240, 488, 11:5 158, 260, 261, 571, 11:6 79, 259, 273, 11:7–11 152, 11:7–8 196, 11:7 61, 127n18, 403, 500, 11:10 237, 488, 11:12–18 237, 11:13–15 550, 576, 11:13 94n31, 239, 368, 375, 439, 571, 11:14 394, 11:15 71, 11:16–33 77, 11:16–21a 262, 11:16–12:10 77, 11:16 273, 11:17 403, 11:20 237, 11:21–23 158
Page 902 :
11:21b–12:10 262, 11:22–23 237, 11:22 261, 262, 287n72, 368, 11:23ff. 273n27, 11:23–29 78, 246, 11:23 246, 568, 11:24–25 61, 495, 11:25 120, 11:28 153, 11:30–33 263, 11:32–33 51n13, 112, 11:32 111, 11:33 246, 11:38 530, 12 239, 12:1–10 262, 263, 12:1 259, 261, 12:2 182, 12:4 182, 12:7–9 263, 12:7 58, 498, 12:8 396, 476, 12:9–10 159, 12:9 104, 483, 12:9a 262, 263, 12:10 78, 12:11–13 262, 263, 12:11–12 174, 12:11 260, 261, 571, 12:12 153, 259, 261, 12:13 273n27, 12:14 152, 235, 236, 239, 244, 12:15 535, 568, 12:16–17 244, 12:17–18 240, 243, 244n27, 12:18 152n60, 244, 12:19–13:10 574
Page 903 :
12:19 530, 574, 12:20–21 105, 552, 554, 12:21 135, 574, 13:1 235, 236, 239, 369, 13:2 157n78, 240, 574, 13:4 107, 152, 251, 264, 429, 479n3, 487, 13:5 488, 574, 13:10 157n78, 13:11–13 244, 13:11 550, 551, 567, 13:13 482, 483, 492n24, 562, 13:14 487, 15:18–19 385, 15:26 245
Page 905 :
Chapter 1, [1]. William Wrede, Paul (trans. Edward Lummis; Boston:, American Unitarian Association, 1908), 179, calls Paul the, “second founder of Christianity.”, [2]. Adolf von Harnack, What Is Christianity? (trans. Thomas, Bailey Saunders; New York: Harper & Row, 1900; repr., 1957),, 188., [3]. Hans Joachim Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle, in the Light of Jewish Religious History (trans. Harold Knight;, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 261–62. On the Jewish, interpretation, cf. Stefan Meissner, Die Heimholung des, Ketzers: Studien zur jüdischen Auseinandersetzung mit Paulus, (WUNT 2/87; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996)., [4]. Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (trans. William F., Stinespring; New York: Macmillan, 1943), 582., [5]. Regarding terminology, I use the German terms, Geschichte/geschichtlich to refer to what happened, and, Historie /historisch to indicate the ways in which historians, attempt to reconstruct this. Historik refers to the philosophical, theory of history. Cf. H.-W. Hedinger, “Historik,” in, Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (ed. Karlfried, Gründer et al.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,, 1974). Geschichte is never directly available except as Historie,, but nonetheless the two concepts and terms must be, distinguished because the questions posed from the point of, view of philosophical theories of history are not simply, identical with “what happened” as that was understood by, people in the past. [Translator’s note: The German language, has two words for “history” whereas English has but one. Many, German authors, including some quoted by Schnelle, use the, two words interchangeably. The nuances distinguished by, Schnelle are difficult to preserve in English. I have mostly, rendered both words by “history,” though sometimes using, “event” for “Geschichte” to preserve the author’s nuance].
Page 907 :
[11]. Cf. Johann Gustav Droysen, Outline of the Principles of, History (trans. E. Benjamin Andrews; New York: Fertig, 1893),, 11: “The data for historical investigation are not past things,, for these have disappeared, but things which are still present, here and now, whether recollections of what was done, or, remnants of things that have existed and of events that have, occurred.”, [12]. Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative (trans. Kathleen, McLaughlin and David Pellauer; 3 vols.; Chicago: University of, Chicago Press, 1984), 3:145: “The first way of thinking about, the pastness of the past is to dull the sting of what is at issue,, namely, temporal distance.”, [13]. J. Straub, “Über das Bilden von Vergangenheit,” in, Geschichtsbewußtsein: Psychologische Grundlagen,, Entwicklungskonzepte, empirische Befunde (ed. Jörn Rüsen;, Cologne: Böhlau, 2001), 45: “Representations of events and, developments do not deliver mimetic models of events that, once happened but perceptions of events bound to particular, capacities of understanding and interpretation. Such, interpretations are formed from the perspective of a particular, present by particular persons and are thus directly dependent, on the experiences, expectations, orientations, and interests of, these persons.”, [14]. Historical knowledge has available to it only what it, supposes to be historical “truth,” which means that “historical, truth is constituted . . . in the process of a constant revision of, the results of research in the academic discourse of scholars”, (Friedrich Jaeger and Jörn Rüsen, Geschichte des Historismus:, Eine Einführung [Munich: Beck, 1992], 70)., [15]. Goertz, Umgang mit Geschichte, 130–46., [16]. A tendentious argument to this effect is found in Heikki, Räisänen, Neutestamentliche Theologie? Eine, religionswissenschaftliche Alternative (SBS 186; Stuttgart:, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000); and (more moderately) in Gerd, Theissen, The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating a, Symbolic World (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress,, 1999), 17–18, 306–7. They attempt to describe their historyof-
Page 910 :
1999) 2:346. On the multilayered term “meaning formation,”, cf. E. List, “Sinn,” in Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher, Grundbegriffe (ed. Günter Kehrer et al.; 5 vols.; Stuttgart:, Kohlhammer, 1988), 5:62–71. [Translator’s note: I have usually, rendered Sinnbildung by “meaning formation,” but note its, relation to Sinnwelt, usually translated “universe of meaning”, or “symbolic universe” (cf. n. 60 below)]., [27]. Cf. Chris Lorenz, Konstruktion der Vergangenheit: Eine, Einführung in die Geschichtstheorie (trans. Annegret Böttner;, Cologne: Böhlau, 1997), 17ff., [28]. “Fiction” is not here used in the popular sense of, “unreal” or “untrue” but is meant in the functionalcommunication sense and thus approaches the original, meaning of fictio: “construction,” “formation” [translator’s, note: cf. the use of “fabrication” in English]. Cf. Wolfgang Iser,, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore:, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), 54: “If it [fiction] is not, reality, this is not because it lacks the attributes of reality, but, because it tells us something about reality, and the conveyer, cannot be identical to what is conveyed. Furthermore, once the, time-honored convention has been replaced by the concept of, communication, attention must be paid to the hitherto, neglected recipient of the message. Now if the reader and the, literary text are partners in a process of communication, and if, what is communicated is to be of any value, our prime concern, will no longer be the meaning of the text (the hobbyhorse, ridden by the critics of yore) but its effect. Herein lies the, function of literature, and herein lies the justification for, approaching literature from a functionalist standpoint.” Goertz,, Unsichere Geschichte, 20: “The fictional element is not the free, reign of poetic fantasy, which ignores, supplements, or trims, the facts of the past to its own liking. It is, rather, the mediator,, which first makes access to the past possible at all by, facilitating its interpretation.”, [29]. Cf. Goertz, Umgang mit Geschichte, 101–3., [30]. See Luke 1:1–4; Plutarch, Alex. 1:1 (οὔτε γὰρ ἱστορίας, γράφοµεν ἀλλὰ βίους [for I am not writing history but portraying
Page 911 :
lives]). These two texts unmistakably illustrate that ancient, authors, too, had a clear awareness of these connections., [31]. Cf. the discussion in Goertz, Unsichere Geschichte,, 16ff., oriented to how these issues have been dealt with in the, history of scholarship., [32]. This constructive aspect of the knowledge process also, applies to the natural sciences. Constructiveness and, contextuality determine the fabrication of knowledge; the, natural sciences are always an interpreted reality that, increasingly reflects the invisible currents of political and, economic interests that involve us both individually and, globally. Cf. K. Knorr-Cetina, Die Fabrikation von Erkenntnis:, Zur Anthropologie der Naturwissenschaft (2nd ed.; Frankfurt:, Suhrkamp, 1991). The criteria of rationality and objectivity, brought to bear within the social debate mostly serve to, conceal the process of domestication that the natural sciences, have experienced worldwide., [33]. Cf. Goertz, Umgang mit Geschichte, 87: “It is thus not, pure facticity that constitutes a ‘historical fact.’ Rather, it is the, significance of an event, which is only gradually perceived and, adopted and which otherwise would have sunk unnoticed into, the past, that confers this special quality upon it. Not in its own, time but only after its time does a ‘bare fact’ become a, historical fact.”, [34]. Cf. Rüsen, Historische Vernunft, 58ff., [35]. This insight is fundamental for the understanding of, Paul here presented, for “what is decisive is not to get out of, the circle but to come into it in the right way” (Martin, Heidegger, Being and Time [trans. Joan Stambaugh; Albany:, State University of New York Press, 1996; originally published, in German, 1927;], 153)., [36]. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, (trans. William Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1931),, 332., [37]. A note on terminology: I use “thought” in a broad,, general sense, on the level of forming, managing, and, interpreting one’s everyday life—the active use and intentional
Page 913 :
Christentum]. Cf. Stefan Alkier, Urchristentum: Zur Geschichte, und Theologie einer exegetischen Disziplin (BHT 83; Tübingen:, Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 261–66., [40]. The basic work is Alfred Schutz, The Phenomenology of, the Social World (trans. George Walsh and Frederick Lehnert;, London: Heinemann, 1972)., [41]. Dux, “Sinn in die Welt,” 195., [42]. Cf. Alfred Schutz and Thomas Luckmann, The, Structures of the Life-World (trans. Richard M. Zaner, H., Tristram Engelhardt Jr., and David J. Parent; NUSPEP;, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1973, 1989),, 2:99–157. Their point of departure is the undeniable, experience of everyday life, experience that always necessarily, transcends that of any individual, which means that existence, is not livable without transcendence: we live in a world that, was here before us and will be here after us. Reality almost, always retreats from our efforts to grasp it, and the existence, of other people, whose inner selves can never be truly known,, provokes the question of our own selfhood. “By the fact that it, constantly goes beyond itself in thematic field and horizon,, every experience of every content whatsoever becomes, let us, say, a ‘co-experience’ of transcendence. In the natural attitude, this ‘co-experience’ is not itself taken into the group, consciousness as theme; however, it forms the lowest stratum, of the foundation on which knowledge of the ‘transcendence’ of, the world rests” (p. 105). Schutz and Luckmann distinguish, three forms of the experience of transcendence, which derive, from the distinction between ego-referential and egosurpassing experiences: (1) “Little” transcendent elements of, everyday life (present experiences refer back to earlier, experiences or nonexperiences); (2) “medium” transcendent, elements—other people (fellow human beings, contemporaries, and generations); (3) “great” transcendent elements—other, realities (sleep, dreams, ecstasies, crises, death)., [43]. Cf. Thomas Luckmann, “Religion–Gesellschaft–, Transzendenz,” in Krise der Immanenz: Religion an den, Grenzen der Moderne (ed. Hans-Joachim Höhn and Karl
Page 914 :
Gabriel; Philosophie der Gegenwart; Frankfurt: Fischer, 1996),, 114: “Meaning traditions transcend the mere natural state of, the newborn.” In the fundamental anthropological sense, this, process can also be designated by the term “religion,” which is, to be distinguished from concrete historical manifestations of, religions in the sense of confessional communities or, denominations. Cf. p. 113: “I proceed from the fact that human, life, in contrast to the life forms of other species, is, characterized by a fundamental religious sense, namely, by the, embedding of the individual in meaningful historical worlds.”, [44]. Jörn Rüsen, “Was heißt: Sinn der Geschichte?” in, Historische Sinnbildung: Problemstellungen, Zeitkonzepte,, Wahrnehmungshorizonte, Darstellungsstrategien (ed. Klaus E., Müller and Jörn Rüsen; Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1997),, 17–47, here 38., [45]. Ibid., 36., [46]. See below, chapter 4 (“The Call to Be Apostle to the, Gentiles”)., [47]. Rüsen, “Was heißt: Sinn der Geschichte?” 28., [48]. Here a broader concept of narrative is presupposed that, is not determined by specific literary genres. Proceeding from, the fundamental insight that experience of time must be, processed in the narrative mode, it is natural to interpret, “narrative as a meaning-or sense-laden linguistic form, or one, that creates sense or meaning. That is to say, the narrative, form of human thematizing makes sense of, and confers, meaning on, the happenings and actions—independently of the, particular content of the narrative presentation” (Straub,, “Bilden von Vergangenheit,” 51f.). For a broad concept of, narrative, cf. also Roland Barthes, The Semiotic Challenge, (trans. Richard Howard; New York: Hill & Wang, 1988), 95–, 135., [49]. See below, section 5.1 (“Rehearsal and Coaching: Paul, and Early Christian Tradition”)., [50]. Cf. Eckart Reinmuth, “Narratio und Argumentatio—zur, Auslegung der Jesus-Christus-Geschichte im Ersten, Korintherbrief,” ZTK 92 (1995): 21.
Page 915 :
[51]. Rüsen, “Was heißt: Sinn der Geschichte?” 38., [52]. Ibid., 35., [53]. Cf. Thomas Luckmann, Die unsichtbare Religion (2nd, ed.; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1993), 93, who explains “worldview”, as the matrix of meaning that forms the framework “within, which human organisms formulate their identity and thereby, transcend their biological nature.”, [54]. On the concept of identity cf. B. Estel, “Identität,”, HRWG 3:193–210; for an introduction to the current ways of, posing the issues in the widespread debate over “identity,” cf., Jürgen Straub, Erzählung, Identität, und historisches, Bewußtsein: Die psychologische Konstruktion von Zeit und, Geschichte (2nd ed.; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2000); Aleida, Assmann and Heidrun Friese, eds., Identities: Time, Difference,, and Boundaries (Making Sense of History 2; New York:, Berghahn Books, 2001). The continuing complaint about the, inflationary use of “identity” is, from one point of view,, justified; on the other hand, one reason the complaint makes no, progress is that there is no real alternative usage. A usable, definition of “identity” is found in K. H. Hillmann, Wörterbuch, der Soziologie (4th ed.; Stuttgart: A. Kröner, 1994), 350:, “identity” is “the agreement of a person, social structure, or, cultural objectification or a particular object of nature with, what he, she, or it in fact is, thus with itself (‘the self,’, ‘selfhood’).”, [55]. Lorenz, Konstruktion der Vergangenheit, 407: “Persons, and groups do not in fact find their identity in a prepackaged, form in the given factual circumstances but form their identity, in a reconstruction of the past within their view of the present, and with a view to the future.”, [56]. J. Straub, “Temporale Orientierung und narrative, Kompetenz,” in Geschichtsbewußtsein: Psychologische, Grundlagen, Entwicklungskonzepte, empirische Befunde (ed., Jörn Rüsen; Cologne: Böhlau, 2001), 15–44, here 39f., [57]. Whether one can speak of collective identity formations, at all is a disputed point; negative votes are cast by Peter L., Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of
Page 916 :
Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York:, Random House, 1966), 159; on the positive side is Jan, Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung, und, politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (Munich: Beck,, 1992), 130ff. A balanced treatment is found in J. Straub,, “Personal and Collective Identities,” in Identities: Time,, Difference, and Boundaries (ed. Aleida Assmann and Heidrun, Friese; Making Sense of History 2; New York: Berghahn Books,, 2001), 73–104. Straub rightly holds firm to the concept of, collective identity, while at the same time tracing it back to, individual identity: “According to the understanding here, advocated, collective identities are constructs to be described, as common elements (which can be specified in particular) in, the practical relation to self and world as well as in the way, individuals understand their relation to themselves and their, world” (p. 103)., [58]. Cf. Straub, Erzählung, 102–3., [59]. Cf. ibid., 97–98., [60]. For comprehensive discussions of symbol, cf. G. Kurz,, Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol (4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, & Ruprecht, 1997); Michael Meyer-Blanck, Vom Symbol zum, Zeichen: Symboldidaktik und Semiotik (2nd ed.; Rheinbach:, CMZ, 2002); Loretta Dornisch, “Symbolic Systems and the, Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction to the Work of Paul, Ricoeur,” Semeia 4 (1975): 1–22, and the accompanying, bibliographies, pp. 23–28 and Semeia 19 (1981) 23–32; Paul, Tillich, “The Meaning and Justification of Religious Symbols,”, in The Interpretation of Texts (ed. David E. Klemm et al.;, Hermeneutical Inquiry 1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 165–, 71. [Translator’s note: I have followed the convention of, translating Sinnwelt (lit. “meaning-world”) as “universe of, meaning” or “symbolic universe” (cf. n. 26 above).], [61]. Schutz and Luckmann, Structures, 1:127., [62]. Ibid., 99–134., [63]. On the terms “universe of meaning” and “symbolic, universe,” cf. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, 73ff., [64]. Ibid., 42–43, 48–50, 86.
Page 917 :
[65]. Cf. ibid., 88: “Symbolic universes constitute the fourth, level of legitimation. These are bodies of theoretical tradition, that integrate different provinces of meaning and encompass, the institutional order in a symbolic totality, using the term, ‘symbolic’ in the way we have previously defined. To reiterate,, symbolic processes are processes of signification that refer to, realities other than those of everyday experience.”, [66]. Cf. Luckmann, Die unsichtbare Religion, 114., [67]. Peter L. Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a, Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City: Doubleday,, 1967), 180, is aware of the limited range of issues with which, sociology can deal: “Thus sociological theory must, by its own, logic, view religion as a human projection, and by the same, logic can have nothing to say about the possibility that this, projection may refer to something other than the being of its, projector. . . . Indeed, if a religious view of the world is posited,, the anthropological ground of these projections may itself be, the reflection of a reality that includes both world and man.”, On the methodological boundaries of issues posed from the, point of view of constructivism and the sociology of knowledge,, cf. also Peter Lampe, “Wissenssoziologische Annäherung an, das Neue Testament,” NTS 43 (1997): 354ff.; Regina Börschel,, Die Konstruktion einer christlichen Identität: Paulus und die, Gemeinde von Thessalonich in ihrer hellenistisch-römischen, Umwelt (BBB 128; Berlin: Philo, 2001), 16–19., [68]. Translator’s note: The basic tenet of radical, constructivism, a recent philosophical movement centered at, the University of Vienna, is that any kind of knowledge is, constructed rather than perceived through senses. Among its, leading proponents are Heinz von Foerster and Humberto R., Maturana. Maturana, as the founder of the epistemological, theory of autopoiesis, focuses on the central role of the, observer in the production of knowledge. For an introduction to, the topic, cf. Siegfried J. Schmidt, Der Diskurs des radikalen, Konstruktivismus (8th ed.; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2000); cf., further Paul Watzlawick, The Invented Reality: How Do We, Know What We Believe We Know? Contributions to
Page 921 :
[84]. Cf. Jürgen Roloff, “Die Paulus-Darstellung des Lukas,”, in Jürgen Roloff, Exegetische Verantwortung in der Kirche:, Aufsätze (ed. Martin Karrer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &, Ruprecht, 1990), 255–78., [85]. Räisänen, Neutestamentliche Theologie? 93, rejects, theological interpretation of the New Testament writings with, the claim that in this case the scholar identifies himself with, the object of study and thus functions “as preacher, not as a, scholar of religion.” Theissen, Religion of the Earliest, Churches, 17–18, justifies the adoption of general categories of, the history of religion and the rejection of a theological, interpretation with the claim that the latter approach would, exclude many secularized contemporaries from access to the, New Testament. Both authors deny that their standpoint itself, has an ideological and confessional character, not seeing that, there is no neutral no-man’s-land where one can stand without, taking a position and that the relation to a religion in one’s own, life history can never and must never be bracketed out., [86]. Modern brain research has explicitly elaborated the, view that a separation of our different knowledge worlds is a, supplementary and secondary act. Cf. E. Pöppel, “Drei Welten, des Wissens—Koordinaten einer Wissenswelt,” in Weltwissen—, Wissenswelt: Das globale Netz von Text und Bild (ed. Christa, Maar et al.; Cologne: DuMont, 2000), 21–39, here 36: “A, separation between reason and emotion can be made only, retrospectively, when one reflects on what has been, experienced and attempts to define and distinguish virtual, realms of lived experience as independent entities.”
Page 922 :
Chapter 2, [1]. One probable exception is 1 Cor. 16:8 (Ephesus)., [2]. The methodological reflections of Niels Hyldahl, Die, paulinische Chronologie (ATDan 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 1–17,, deserve serious consideration., [3]. For evidence that impulsore Chresto should not be taken, as referring to some unknown Jewish agitator or messianic, pretender with the common slave name Chrestus, cf. most, recently Helga Botermann, Das Judenedikt des Kaisers, Claudius: Römischer Staat und Christiani im 1. Jahrhundert, (Hermes: Einzelschriften 71; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996), 71., [4]. Cf. Orosius, Historia adversum paganos 7.6.15. For an, extensive supporting argument, cf. Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early, Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (trans. Douglas, W. Stott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 157–201., [5]. Cf. Suetonius, Nero 33.1, who reports that Nero annulled, decisions and decrees of Claudius; cf. further Rom. 16:3, where, Prisca and Aquila have returned to Rome., [6]. Cf. Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and, Religious History (trans. William E. Wilson; New York: Harper,, 1957), 275; Karl Martin Fischer and Hans-Martin Schenke,, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Gütersloh:, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1978–), 1:52., [7]. Fischer and Schenke, Einleitung, 1:50–51, provide the, Greek text of the Gallio inscription, newly reconstructed and, edited by A. Plassart and J. H. Oliver, with a German, translation. For English translations of Claudius’s decree and, the Gallio inscription, see M. Eugene Boring et al., eds.,, Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville:, Abingdon, 1995), §§ 521–22., [8]. According to Seneca, Ep. 104.1, Gallio fell ill with a fever, while in Achaia, and so it is possible that he did not serve out, his full year in office.
Page 923 :
[9]. This date is the only item in recent discussions of Pauline, chronology on which there is general consensus. Cf. Alfred, Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinische, Chronologie (SNT 11; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus,, 1975), 325; Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles:, Studies in Chronology (trans. F. Stanley Jones; Philadelphia:, Fortress, 1984), 164–65; Robert K. Jewett, A Chronology of, Paul’s life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 40; Hyldahl,, Chronologie, 122; Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 202–8., [10]. On the persistent differences between Acts and the, letters, cf. Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe, 96ff.; Lüdemann,, Chronology, 13–14., [11]. Jewett, Chronology, 57–62, points out that Paul’s travels, between the apostolic council and his arrival in Corinth could, have lasted three or four years. He does consider it, theoretically possible, however, for the trip described in Acts to, have been made in eighteen months (p. 107). The chronology, presupposed here reckons with a maximal travel time of two, years., [12]. For evidence, cf. most recently Riesner, Paul’s Early, Period, 319–21., [13]. This mission is reflected in the reference by 2 Cor., 11:32–33 to Paul’s escape from the soldiers of the ethnarch of, the Nabataean king Aretas IV (ca. 9 BCE–38/39 CE); on the, problems, cf. Suhl, Paulus und seine Briefe, 314–15; Riesner,, Paul’s Early Period, 75–89., [14]. Cf. Schnelle, New Testament Writings, 21., [15]. For evidence and arguments for this chronology, see, below, section 5.4 (“Paul as Missionary of the Antioch, Church”)., [16]. See the basic evidence presented by A. Strobel, “Der, Termin des Todes Jesu,” ZNW 51 (1960): 69–101., [17]. Cf. Jürgen Roloff, Die Apostelgeschichte (17th ed.; NTD, 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 154., [18]. Cf. the analysis of Georg Strecker, “Die sogenannte, zweite Jerusalemreise des Paulus (Act. 11,27–30),” in Eschaton
Page 924 :
und Historie: Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,, 1979), 132–41., [19]. So Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, et al.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xlii. The, systematic periodizing of Paul’s mission activity is doubtless, the work of Luke: “Luke utilized the three missionary journeys, of Paul as a means of structuring the narrative of Acts, according to his own theological point of view: he legitimizes, first the Gentile mission and then the independence of this, mission from the synagogue, and finally the political relevance, of this universalizing of Christianity becomes ever clearer” (C., Burfeind, “Paulus muß nach Rom,” NTS 46 [2000]: 83). At the, same time, the numerous traditions he has incorporated, dealing with places, times, and people indicate that he has, appropriately recounted and correctly characterized his, formulation of the course of the Pauline mission., [20]. According to Acts 11:19, Cyprus was evangelized by, Hellenistic missionaries driven out of Jerusalem, so that, Christians from Cyprus in turn were active in Antioch (cf., 11:20). Moreover, Barnabas and John Mark (cf. 13:5b) traveled, back to Cyprus to do missionary work (cf. 15:39). Probably the, Antiochene Cyprus traditions were connected with Barnabas, (cf. 4:36–37); Luke took them up and related them secondarily, to Paul in 13:1–3, 4–12 in order to bring together Barnabas,, Paul, and John Mark. On the analysis of 13:4–12, cf. Gerd, Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in, Acts: A Commentary (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis:, Fortress, 1989), 148–51., [21]. Cf. the evidence in Martin Hengel, “Die Ursprünge der, christlichen Mission,” NTS 18 (1971–1972): 15–38, at p. 18 n., 15, that Syria and Cilicia Pedias (with Tarsus) formed one, Roman province in the time of Paul., [22]. On the analysis and chronological arrangement of Acts, 13:1–14:28, cf. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 194ff.; Riesner,, Paul’s Early Period, 264–79; Cilliers Breytenbach, Paulus und, Barnabas in der Provinz Galatien: Studien zu Apostelgeschichte
Page 925 :
13f.; 16,6; 18,23 und den Adressaten des Galaterbriefes (AGJU, 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 276., [23]. On the analysis of Acts 18:18–23, cf. esp. Alfons Weiser,, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; ÖTK 5; Würzburg: Echter,, 1981–1985), 2:496ff. A separation of tradition and redaction, results in the following picture: 18:18:a–c, 19a, and 21b–23, could contain traditional elements, in contrast to 18:18d, 19b–, 21a, which correspond to the Lukan picture of Paul., [24]. So, e.g., Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A, Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 547; Roloff,, Apostelgeschichte, 276., [25]. Cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 2:502; Roloff,, Apostelgeschichte, 277., [26]. Cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 2:495–502., [27]. Acts 18:23–21:14 is traditionally described as the third, missionary journey, which falls in the period 52–55/56 CE. Luke, obviously intends such a periodization by having Paul return to, Antioch in 18:22. At the same time, the problems mentioned, regarding 18:18–23 show how difficult such a division of the, material is. Whereas the first journey (13:1–14:28) and the, beginning of the second journey (15:36) are clearly marked, the, transition from the “second” to the “third” is vague., [28]. Cf. Peter Schäfer, The History of the Jews in Antiquity:, The Jews of Palestine from Alexander the Great to the Arab, Conquest (trans. David Chowcat; Luxembourg: Harwood, Academic Publishers, 1995), 115., [29]. Lüdemann, Chronology, 192–93 n. 4., [30]. Among those who vote for 59 CE are Riesner, Paul’s, Early Period, 219–24; and A. Scriba, “Von Korinth nach Rom:, Die Chronologie der letzten Jahre des Paulus,” in Das Ende des, Paulus: Historische, theologische, und literaturgeschichtliche, Aspekte (ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn; BZNW 106; New York: de, Gruyter, 2001), 163–64. Among other evidence, they appeal to, Y. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols.; Dix Hills, NY:, Amphora Books, 1982), 183, who connects Festus’s accession, to office directly with a new minting of coins in Palestine in the, fifth year of Nero’s reign (58/59) and concludes, “Festus
Page 926 :
apparently assumed office in 59 C.E.” It can happen that a new, coinage is minted in the initial year of a procurator’s office, but, this need not necessarily be the case, especially since the end, of the year 58 for the new minting is not to be excluded., Between 58 and 59, 58 has the advantage of allowing more, room for the events that are to be placed in 58–59: the change, of administration in the procurator’s office, minting the new, coins, and the change in the high priest’s office (according to, Josephus, Ant. 20.179, Agrippa II designated Ishmael high, priest in 59)., [31]. Cf. the penetrating discussion of all the problems in, Jewett, Chronology, 40–44., [32]. Cf. Shemuel Safrai and M. Stern, eds., The Jewish, People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political, History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions, (CRINT 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 74–76. Felix entered the, office in 52/53 CE, and since Albinos was already in the, procurator’s office by 62, there is a ten-year period for his and, Festus’s administrations (cf. Josephus, J.W. 6.301ff.). From the, accounts in Josephus, J.W. 2.247–276, and Acts 24:10 we may, infer that Felix’s administration accounts for the greater part, of this period., [33]. Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in, the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) (2nd ed.; 3 vols.;, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973), 2:231., [34]. Heinz Warnecke, Die tatsächliche Romfahrt des, Apostels Paulus (SBS 127; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,, 1987), identifies the island mentioned in Acts 28:1 as Μελίτη, (not Malta) but attempts to identify the place where Paul was, stranded with the peninsula of the island of Kephallenia off the, western coast of Greece. Alfred Suhl, “Gestrandet!, Bemerkungen zum Streit über die Romfahrt des Paulus,” ZTK, 88 (1991): 1–28, votes for this theory; persuasive critiques of, this view are presented by Jürgen Wehnert, “Gestrandet: Zu, einer neuen These über den Schiffbruch des Apostels Paulus, auf dem Wege nach Rom. (Apg 27–28),” ZTK 87 (1990): 67–99;, M. Reiser, “Von Caesarea nach Malta: Literarischer Charakter
Page 928 :
Chapter 3, [1]. Cf. the listing of the stages of life in Philo, Creation 105, (NW 2/2:1064). According to Leonhard Schumacher, Sklaverei, in der Antike: Alltag und Schicksal der Unfreien (Beck’s, archäologische Bibliothek; Munich: Beck, 2001), 42, the, average life expectancy in the free population was about thirty, years (the average reflects the high mortality rate among, babies and children)., [2]. Cf. Klaus Haacker, “Zum Werdegang des Apostels, Paulus,” ANRW 26.2:824–26., [3]. Cf. Epictetus, Ench. 15; Diatr. 3.22.67–82; 4.8.30–31. In, principle, the Cynic should marry, but “in view of the how, things are at the present, and the situation at the front, the, Cynic must be unhindered from placing himself entirely in the, service of God, must be able to travel freely among people, without being hindered by bourgeois obligations, unbound by, personal connections. If he contracted such obligations and, violated them, he would no longer have the character of an, honorable man; if he maintained them, it would destroy his, mission as the messenger, scout, and herald of the gods”, (Diatr. 3.22.69)., [4]. Cf. the famous characterization of the apostle’s external, appearance found in the Acts of Paul and Thecla near the end, of the second century CE: “And he saw Paul coming, a man, small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in a good, state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat, hooked, full of friendliness; for now he appeared like a man,, and now he had the face of an angel” (cited from Edgar, Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament, Apocrypha [2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963–1964],, 2:354)., [5]. On Tarsus, cf. esp. W. Ruge, “Tarsus,” PW 4 A 2:2413–39;, William M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on, His Life and Thought (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907;
Page 931 :
Paul’s Roman citizenship in the first place from the fact that, Paul was sent to Rome for trial.” Alvarez Cineira, Claudius,, 364–70, after referring to the parallel in Josephus, Life 13–16,, evaluates the transfer of Paul to the court in Rome as, altogether a Lukan construction. In his view, Paul went to, Rome as an ordinary traveler, and it was only there that he had, “difficulties with the authorities, was arrested and executed”, (p. 369). For a critique of this position, cf. Michael Labahn,, “Paulus—ein homo honestus et iustus: Das lukanische, Paulusportrait von Act 27–28 im Lichte ausgewählter antiker, Parallelen,” in Das Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische,, und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte (ed. Friedrich Wilhelm, Horn; BZNW 106; New York: de Gruyter, 2001), 98–99., [20]. Since Paul was not a politically important or dangerous, person, his appeal to Caesar can have been made only on the, basis of his Roman citizenship; against Stegemann, “Römischer, Bürger?” who puts forward the anti-Roman agitator Jonathan, as a parallel (cf. Josephus, J.W. 7.449ff.). Cf. the issues of trial, law esp. in Haacker, “Werdegang,” 836ff., [21]. Noethlichs, “Tarser und Römer,” 70–74, argues that, Roman citizens could be subject to punishment by the lash, after a trial or within the legal framework of a magistrative, coercitio. “No clear inferences for or against Paul’s Roman, citizenship can be drawn from the facts of Paul’s having been, bound, imprisoned, and subjected to corporal punishment” (p., 74)., [22]. Cf. Josephus, J.W. 2.308 (NW 1/2:798): Gessius Florus’s, scourging and crucifixion of Jerusalem Jews who had the same, status as Roman knights. Suetonius, Galba 9: while governor of, the province Hispania Tarraconensis, Galba had a Roman, citizen crucified. Cicero, Verr. 2.5.161–167 (NW 1/2:800–801):, Cicero reproaches Verres for having had Roman citizens, whipped and crucified, Cf. further Livy, Urbe cond. 9.9.4–5, (NW 1/2:801–2), according to which the Porcian law, “threatened severe punishments if a Roman citizen was, scourged or executed.”
Page 934 :
“An investigation of Paul’s self-testimonies, by contrast,, strongly suggests that Paul belonged to the ancient lower, stratum (above minimal existence, relatively poor) and also, understood himself in that way.” Justin J. Meggitt, Paul,, Poverty and Survival (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 75–, 97, places Paul and his churches entirely within the lower, class: “Paul and the Pauline churches shared in this general, experience of deprivation and subsistence. Neither the apostle, nor any members of the congregations he addresses in his, epistles escaped from the harsh existence that typified life in, the Roman Empire for the non-élite” (p. 75)., [35]. Cf. Betz, “Paul,” 187., [36]. Haacker, “Werdegang,” rightly points out that Paul, must have had at least an elementary ability in Latin, especially, since in Rom. 13:1–7 and Phil. 3:20 he thinks in the categories, of the Roman political system., [37]. C. J. Classen, “Philologische Bemerkungen zur Sprache, des Apostels Paulus,” WSt 107–8 (1994–1995): 335, infers an, educational level that corresponds to his use of the technical, terminology of philosophy and rhetoric., [38]. Cf. ibid.: “Paul was also familiar with a series of, rhetorical technical terms. I dare not decide where and how he, learned them, but his usage, together with his use of the, technical terminology of philosophy, points to a level of, education that in my opinion justifies the conclusion that he, had acquired the rules and principles of rhetoric (and, epistolography) from theoretical studies or from practice.”, [39]. On the Pharisees, cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish, People, 2:381–403; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of, Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions, during the New Testament Period (trans. F. H. Cave and C. H., Cave; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 246–70; Rudolf Meyer and, H. F. Weiss, “Φαρισαῖοι,” TDNT 9:11–48; Rudolf Meyer,, “Tradition und Neuschöpfung im antiken Judentum—, dargestellt an der Geschichte des Pharisäismus,” in Rudolf, Meyer, Zur Geschichte und Theologie des Judentums in, hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Ausgewählte Abhandlungen (ed.
Page 937 :
[54]. Cf. Stemberger, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, 84ff., [55]. Josephus, J.W. 1.110; cf. also 2.162; Ant. 17.41., [56]. For Qumran, cf. CD 6:14ff., [57]. Cf. Jacob Neusner and Hermann Lichtenberger, Das, pharisäische und talmudische Judentum: Neue Wege zu seinem, Verständnis (TSAJ 4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), 24: “The, Pharisees especially emphasize that eating must take place in a, state of ritual purity, as though one were a priest in the temple,, and that the greatest care must be exercised in tithing and, obligatory gifts for the priesthood.”, [58]. On the historical location and theological orientation of, this document, see below, section 16.8.1 (“Cultural and, Historical Milieu”)., [59]. Haacker, “Werdegang,” wants to understand Acts 22:3, generally in the sense of “education,” not in the specific sense, of “Torah study.”, [60]. Cf. Neusner, Pharisees before 70, 1:341–76., [61]. W. C. van Unnik, “Tarsus or Jerusalem: The City of, Paul’s Youth,” in Sparsa collecta (3 vols.; NovTSup 29–31;, Leiden: Brill, 1973–1983), 1:259–320., [62]. Cf. Hengel and Deines, Pre-Christian Paul, 34., [63]. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, “Paul,” in Themes of Biblical, Theology (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan; Twentieth Century Theology in, the Making 1; New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 169–214;, Georg Strecker, “Der vorchristliche Paulus,” in Texts and, Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational, Contexts: Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. Tord Fornberg, et al.; Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 713–41., [64]. Hengel and Deines, Pre-Christian Paul, 29–34, 38–39., [65]. Cf. Stemberger, Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, 112:, “We have no other evidence for Pharisees in the Diaspora, but, we cannot draw any conclusion from this accidental silence of, the sources, even though the observance of various religious, laws, above all in the realm of purity, must have been very, difficult in the Diaspora.” Johann Maier, Geschichte der, jüdischen Religion: Von der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen bis, zur Aufklärung mit einem Ausblick auf das 19./20. Jahrhundert
Page 938 :
(Freiburg: Herder, 1992), 76–77, 81–82, reckons with the, possibility of Diaspora Pharisees who were educated elsewhere, than in Jerusalem. Jürgen Becker, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles, (trans. O. C. Dean; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993),, 39, does not exclude the possibility of a Jerusalem education, for Paul but still comments, “Paul could also have easily, received an education in the Pharisaic sense at any larger, diaspora synagogue, even in Tarsus.” Cf. further the reflections, of Strecker, “Der vorchristliche Paulus,” 732–37., [66]. Cf. Sanders, Paul, 8., [67]. Josephus (Life 10) began his study of the different, Jewish school traditions (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes) when, he was sixteen years old., [68]. Cf. here Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of, Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 63–89; R., Goldenberg, “Hillel/Hillelschule (Schammaj/Schammajschule),”, TRE 15:326–30., [69]. On the category “zeal” in ancient Judaism, cf. Hengel,, Zeloten, 151ff., [70]. Cf. Josephus, Life 10–12., [71]. Cf. Klaus Haacker, “Die Berufung des Verfolgers und, die Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen,” TBei 6 (1975): 1–19., [72]. So Hans Hübner, “Gal. 3,10 und die Herkunft des, Paulus,” KD 19 (1973): 215–31; Haacker, “Berufung des, Verfolgers,” 10; more hesitantly in Haacker, “Werdegang,”, 861–77., [73]. Cf. Harald Welzer, “Das soziale Gedächtnis,” in Das, soziale Gedächtnis: Geschichte, Erinnerung, Tradierung (ed., Harald Welzer; Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 2001), 9–21., [74]. Assmann and Friese, eds., Identities, 269–87., [75]. One need only note the first lines of the Eighteen, Benedictions: “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God and God of our, fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, The, great, the mighty, the revered God, the most high God, Who, bestowest lovingkindnesses, and possessest all things; Who, rememberest the pious deeds of the patriarchs, / And in love, wilt bring a redeemer to their children’s children.” This
Page 940 :
rewards of their good deeds, each of them according to his, deserts.”, [80]. For the basis in Old Testament and early Jewish texts,, cf., e.g., Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2–3; Ezek. 37:1–14; Ps. 73; 2 Macc., 7:14; Pss. Sol. 3:12. The resurrection hope is documented at, Qumran by 4QMessAp 2:11–12: “And the Lord will accomplish, glorious things . . . for he will heal the wounded, and revive the, dead and bring good news to the poor” (Vermès, 245). Cf., Hermann Lichtenberger, “Auferstehung in den Qumrantexten,”, in Auferstehung = Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen, Research Symposium: Resurrection, Transfiguration, and, Exaltation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism, and Early, Christianity (ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann, Lichtenberger; WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001),, 79–91. Lichtenberger judges the Messianic Apocalypse, (4QMessAp) to be the only indisputable reference to the faith, of the Qumran Essenes in the resurrection. The caution, regarding this idea may be related to the influence of priestlySadducean circles at Qumran. Faith in the resurrection was not, common property of ancient Judaism; the Sadducees rejected, the idea (cf. Mark 12:18; Acts 4:2; 23:6–8; Josephus, J.W., 2.164–165; Ant. 18.16); on the concept of resurrection in early, Judaism, cf. Günter Stemberger, Der Leib der Auferstehung:, Studien zur Anthropologie und Eschatologie des palästinischen, Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (ca. 170 v. C[h]r.–, 100 n. Chr.) (AnBib 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972)., [81]. Here after the resurrection all the righteous are, transformed in glory while the godless suffer visible pain. The, resurrection of both good and evil is also found in 1 En. 22; Sib., Or. 3:178ff.; 4 Ezra 7:29ff.; L.A.E. 51; T. Benj. 10:6ff., [82]. A survey of the nuanced use of δικαιοσύνη (justice,, righteousness, justification) in ancient Judaism is found in M. J., Fiedler, “Δικαιοσύνη in der diaspora-jüdischen und, intertestamentarischen Literatur,” JSJ 1 (1970): 120–43. The, Old Testament data is documented in Klaus Koch, “צדק,” TLOT, 2:1046–62; B. Johnson, “צדק,” TDOT 12:239–64; E. Otto,, “Gerechtigkeit,” RGG 3:702–4.
Page 941 :
[Translator’s note: In German as in Greek (but not in, English), the same word is used for “justice” and, “righteousness,” and their adjectival and verbal cognates are, from the same root. English readers will note the connection, between “justice” and “justification,” but modern English has, no verb for “make righteous.” In his translation of Bultmann’s, Theology of the New Testament, Kendrick Grobel revived the, Old English verb “rightwise” (i.e., “justify,” “make right”). Cf., Grobel’s explanatory footnote in Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of, the New Testament (trans. Kendrick Grobel; 2 vols.; New York:, Scribner, 1951), 1:253; and the adoption of this terminology by, Schubert M. Ogden, ed., Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings, of Rudolf Bultmann (New York: Meridian Books, 1960). Larry, W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest, Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 89, aptly, comments, “It is clear that in Paul the Greek noun δικαιοσύνη, and its verbal cognates (from δικαιόω) have to do with a positive, relationship and standing with God. The English word, ‘righteousness’ hardly communicates this effectively [nor does, ‘justice’]. See the exhaustive study of the matter by Richard, Kingsley Moore, ‘Right with God: Paul and His English, Translators’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Queensland, 1978).”], [83]. Cf. Siegfried Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden in, Qumran und bei Paulus,” ZTK 56 (1959): 155–85; Jürgen, Becker, Das Heil Gottes: Heils-und Sündenbegriffe in den, Qumrantexten und im Neuen Testament (SUNT 3; Göttingen:, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 37ff.; Hermann, Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der, Qumrangemeinde (SUNT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &, Ruprecht, 1980), 87ff., [84]. Of course, Hellenistic philosophers were also aware of, human guilt; cf. Seneca, Ben. 1.10.3 (“As for the rest, we, always have to report the same: we are evil, we were evil, and, —I am sorry to have to add—we will always be so”); cf. further, Ira 1.14.3; 2.10.2; 2.28.1; 2.31.5; 3.25.2; 3.26.4; Clem. 1.6.3;, Ep. 16.97.1.
Page 943 :
[93]. Cf. O. Schwankl, “‘Lauft so, daß ihr gewinnt’: Zur, Wettkampfmetaphorik in 1Kor 9,” BZ 41 (1997): 174–91., [94]. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.112–114: “Look at everything, carefully, and tear it from your hearts. Purify your judgments, and examine yourself to see whether you are not dependent on, something that does not belong to you, and whether you have, not become attached to something that will only give you pain, when it is taken away. And while you daily discipline yourself, like an athlete on the playing field, do not say that you are, philosophizing—a really highfalutin word—but that you are, asserting your freedom. For that is true freedom. This is how, Diogenes of Antisthenes became a free man, and thus, established that he could no longer be enslaved by anyone”, (NW 2/1:566–67)., [95]. Seneca, Tranq. 3.4., [96]. Cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular, Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 35–48; “Herakles,”, RAC 14:573: “Paul was familiar with Cynic traditions, including, those about Hercules.”, [97]. Cf. also Epictetus, Diatr. 4.8.30–31: “For such a person, is a true Cynic, whom Zeus counts worthy of scepter and, crown; such a one may say, ‘In order that you may see, O, people, that you must not seek happiness and peace of mind, where it is, but where it is not, this is why I have been sent, from God as a model [ἰδοῦ ἐγὼ ὑμῖν παράδειγμα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀπέσταλμαι]. I have neither house nor property, neither wife nor, children, no bed or coat, and just look at how healthy I am.’”, [98]. For analysis, cf. Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus, und die sokratische Tradition: Eine exegetische Untersuchung, zu seiner Apologie 2 Korinther 10–13 (BHT 45; Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1972), 43ff., [99]. For a basic bibliography, see Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil, der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, (FRLANT 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910);, Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the, Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981); Thomas
Page 947 :
TBei (1997): 198: “What in early Christianity is supposed to, come from ‘pagan influences’ can consistently be traced back, through Jewish mediation. Nowhere can a direct, lasting, influence by pagan cults or non-Jewish thinking be, demonstrated. Elements in the New Testament commonly, called ‘Hellenistic’ derive, as a rule, from Jewish sources, which, of course had no desire to separate themselves from the, ‘religious Koine’ of the time, even if that had been possible.”, Reference to the extensive Hellenization of Jerusalem by no, means suffices to explain the apostle’s use in the metropolitan, centers of Asia Minor and Greece of themes such as freedom,, suffering, conscience, and financial and intellectual, independence. Here one recognizes rather the writings of, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus and Dio Chrysostom. This is the, thought world in and to which the Pauline letters speak. Cf.,, appropriately, Ebner, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, 105,, according to whom Paul “was equipped with ‘college-level’, educational tools and knew how to use them.” Two basic, observations speak in favor of this assessment: the course of, Paul’s life, with its undeniable westward tendency, is a, compelling argument for his knowledge of Greco-Roman, culture; and in his correspondence with his churches in Asia, Minor and Greece, Paul handles spheres of problems that, originated in, and are peculiar to, the culture of the, addressees., [128]. Cf. Umberto Eco, Lector in fabula: La cooperazione, interpretativa nei testi narrativi (Milan: Bompiani, 1979), 94–, 106; see also Stefan Alkier, Wunder und Wirklichkeit in den, Briefen des Apostels Paulus: Ein Beitrag zu einem, Wunderverständnis jenseits von Entmythologisierung und, Rehistorisierung (WUNT 134; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001),, 72: “The alternative of reading Paul’s letters as ‘Jewish’ or, ‘Hellenistic’ is a very shaky approach when one takes into, consideration that texts are indebted not only to the, intertextual competence of their author and readers but to a, general encyclopedic competence determined and conditioned, by the culture. The composition of every text and the reading of
Page 950 :
Ruprecht, 1990), 2:32, that Paul persecuted segments of the, Jerusalem Christian community because of their critical stance, toward the law, see below, section 4.1 (“The Reports about the, Damascus Event”).
Page 955 :
[29]. Cf. the fundamental critique of psychoanalysis by, Manfred Pohlen and Margarethe Bautz-Holzherr,, Psychoanalyse: Das Ende einer Deutungsmacht (Reinbek:, Rowohlt, 1995), 12: “The psychoanalysis business has, in the, course of a century, analyzed the psyche as far as it is possible, to go. The explanatory work of psychoanalysis has penetrated, into the farthest corner of the soul and brought it into public, view, and has completely brought all the psychological, dimensions of life within the grasp of its interpretative, machinery. The soul no longer exists, for the inner life has been, taken away from the subject and has become the total, externalizing of the pathetic discourse of depth psychology., And psychoanalysis has itself come close to this cultural faith in, a mysterious depth that alleges some hidden meaning to, underlie everything we say or do, meanings that, with the help, of psychoanalytic procedures, can be given a social and, subjective explanation. At the end of this process, it is the, psychoanalytical confessional, rather than the church’s, where, secret desires are revealed.”, [30]. Cf. also Becker, Paul, 69–75, who rightly places the, concept of apostleship at the center of the Damascus event;, further Berger, Theologiegeschichte, 436–39; Haacker,, “Werdegang,” 909–16. Rau gives a different emphasis in Rau,, “Bekehrung des Paulus,” 159ff., seeing a close connection, between the early Christian Kyrios cult and Paul’s recognition, of Jesus as Kyrios at Damascus., [31]. On wandering apostles, cf. Acts 14:4, 14; Did. 11:4; 1, Cor. 12:28; 2 Cor. 11:13; Rom. 16:7. We should distinguish, these from the apostles sent out by particular congregations in, 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25; on the complex of issues regarding, “apostles,” cf. Jürgen Roloff, “Apostel I,” TRE 3:430–45., [32]. Paul Wernle, Die Anfänge unserer Religion (2nd ed.;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904), 119., [33]. For analysis of the texts, cf. Burchard, Der dreizehnte, Zeuge, 51–36; Dietzfelbinger, Berufung des Paulus, 75–82;, Heininger, Paulus als Visionär, 211–34; other accents are set
Page 957 :
Becker; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987), 86, who rightly, comments on the paralleling of Stephen and Paul: “This Lukan, conception of Paul serves to characterize Stephen indirectly by, summarizing the ‘charges’ of the opponents in two points:, critique of the temple and critique of the law. In this way the, impression is created that the ‘Hellenists’ represented by, Stephen constitute the bridge from the earliest Jerusalem, church to Paul, which is a typical Lukanism.” Also on target is, E. Larsson, “Die Hellenisten und die Urgemeinde,” NTS 33, (1987): 205–25, who emphasizes that we are not able to ascribe, any particular theology to the Hellenists. The comments of, Lüdemann, Traditions in Acts, 79–85, are somewhat out of, focus, since he underestimates the redactional character of, Acts 6:8–15 and does not attend to the Lukan paralleling of, Stephen and Paul., [46]. Cf. Heikki Räisänen, “The ‘Hellenists’—a Bridge, between Jesus and Paul?” in Heikki Räisänen, The Torah and, Christ: Essays in German and English on the Problem of the, Law in Early Christianity (ed. Anne-Marit Enroth; SESJ 45;, Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986), 262, who also, points out the parallels between Acts 6:13 and 21:28., [47]. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 171; Löning,, “Stephanuskreis,” 86., [48]. Dietzfelbinger bases his interpretation of the Damascus, event as the origin of Paul’s theology as a whole above all on, Paul’s activity as a persecutor, which in his view meant, persecuting a community that, like Stephen, had adopted a, critical stance to temple and law (cf. Berufung des Paulus,, 16ff., 29). The apostle’s own new attitude to the Torah, then, of, course, is grounded in the Damascus event, both, chronologically and in terms of its content. Dietzfelbinger’s line, of argument is especially subject to criticism for its uncritical, acceptance of Luke’s portrayal of Stephen, for he considers, Acts 6:8–15 to be a historically reliable report (cf. p. 19); cf., further critique of Dietzfelbinger in Räisänen, “Paul’s Call, Experience,” 87ff.
Page 960 :
understand his Damascus call as an initiation that will be, completed by participation in the resurrection body of Christ, (Phil. 3:10–11)., [57]. This is worked out by Mark A. Seifrid, Justification by, Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme, (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 136–80, without, however,, simply equating the statements in Galatians, Romans, and, Philippians with Damascus. “Nevertheless, a difference must, be recognized between the shift in Paul’s soteriology following, his conversion, which can be described only in the most, general language, and the arguments which he later, enunciates in Galatians, Phil. 3 and Romans. The arguments, regarding ‘justification by faith apart from works of the Law’, constitute a development in Paul’s thought, which was, precipitated by the struggle over the issue of Gentile, circumcision and table-fel lowship between Jewish and Gentile, believers” (p. 180)., [58]. The 1908 statement of Wrede, Paul, 146, was already on, target: “And so disappears every inducement to derive the, doctrine of justification and the rejection of the works of the, law directly from the conversion. To experience grace is not by, any means the same thing as to set it up in contrast to human, conduct. Belief in the death and resurrection of Christ is far, from implying the necessity of doing away with circumcision, and other rites, expecially as Christ, in Paul’s belief, had, himself kept the law” (Wrede refers to Gal. 4:4; Rom. 15:8)., [59]. See below, section 12.8 (“Sin, Law, and Freedom in the, Spirit”)., [60]. Cf. Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (2nd ed.; WUNT, 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 256: “It is my contention, that the theory of the theology of the law which was basically, ‘ready’ with Paul’s conversion cannot adequately explain the, nature of the extant material.”, [61]. Cf. Heikki Räisänen, “Paul’s Conversion and the, Development of His View of the Law,” NTS 33 (1987): 416:, “General considerations about the nature of Paul’s theology of, the Law and the historical context of mission suggest that
Page 961 :
theology was not complete with his conversion.” Cf. also, Berger, Theologiegeschichte, 436: “No connection is visible, between Paul’s conversion and the issue of the law”; Gnilka,, Apostel und Zeuge, 45: “The crucified as one cursed by the law, [not by God], Christ as the end of the law, salvation through the, grace of Jesus Christ alone were insights that likely came to, Paul later”; Kraus, Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia, 90: “Not, being able to separate Paul’s problem with the law entirely, from the Damascus event thus still does not mean that the, doctrine of justification or talk about the ‘end of the law’ can be, moved back to that point”; Dautzenberg, “Freiheit im, hellenistischen Kontext,” 75: “I consider it very unlikely that at, the beginning of Paul’s Gentile mission, he disputed the claim, of the Torah to universal validity.”, [62]. Referring to Paul’s Jewish past may well be reason, enough to suppose that the Christian Paul, too, must have had, an exceptional interest in questions dealing with the law and, justification, but it still says nothing about the concrete form of, his reflections; contra Ferdinand Hahn, “Gibt es eine, Entwicklung in den Aussagen über die Rechtfertigung bei, Paulus?” EvT 53 (1976): 346., [63]. Schutz and Luckmann, Structures, 2:121–30, within, their study oriented to experiences in the life world, by, definition deal only with “internal” experiences of, transcendence, within which they do, however, find a place to, deal with death. “Knowledge that death is a final boundary is, indubitable. But knowledge of what lies beyond is not, indubitable. Since, in contrast with other transcendencies, this, boundary is crossable in only one direction, what—if anything, at all—could lie beyond it is certainly not immediately derivable, from everyday experience. The other experiences of, transcendence, however, offer some indications. Sleep has, understandably time and time again been offered as a point of, departure for the assumption that another reality awaits us, beyond the boundary of death.” (p. 127)., [64]. Cf. Straub, “Temporale Orientierung,” 40: “The, contingency of emerging events compels people to reconstruct
Page 966 :
in the last analysis it is the sole thing of importance for him—, implicitly included are the incarnation and the earthly life of, Jesus as bare facts. That is, Paul is interested only in the fact, that Jesus became man and lived on earth. How he was born or, lived interests him only to the extent of knowing that Jesus was, a definite, concrete man, a Jew.” Bultmann understands 2 Cor., 5:16 as evidence for his own view of the relation between Jesus, and Paul: “The Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα is Christ as he can be, encountered in the world, before his death and resurrection., He should no longer be viewed as such” (Rudolf Bultmann, The, Second Letter to the Corinthians [ed. Erich Dinkler; trans. Roy, A. Harrisville; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985], 155)., On the history of the Jesus/Paul question, cf. Werner Georg, Kümmel, “Jesus und Paulus,” in Heilsgeschehen und, Geschichte (ed. Erich Grässer et al.; MTS 3; Marburg: Elwert,, 1965), 1:81–106; Josef Blank, Paulus und Jesus: Eine, theologische Grundlegung (SANT 18; Munich: Kösel, 1968),, 61–132., [15]. Cf. Reinmuth, “Jesus-Christus-Geschichte,” 21,, according to whom Paul does not narrate an abstract history of, the historical Jesus but the Jesus-Christ-history, just as he, “knows it and proclaims it—thus the Jesus-Christ-history that, includes the history of the earthly Jesus within the framework, of preexistence and parousia.” Cf. further A. J. M. Wedderburn,, “Paul and the Story of Jesus,” in Paul and Jesus: Collected, Essays (JSNTSup 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 161–89., [16]. Cf. Jürgen Straub, “Geschichten erzählen, Geschichte, bilden,” in Erzählung, Identität, und historisches Bewußtsein:, Die psychologische Konstruktion von Zeit und Geschichte (2nd, ed.; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2000), 123: “Narrative abbreviations, contain histories or point to histories without themselves being, histories. Narrative abbreviations may be expounded, hermeneutically only in recourse to histories, to which they, refer or allude.”, [17]. Cf. Klaus Scholtissek, “‘Geboren aus einer Frau,, geboren unter das Gesetz’ (Gal. 4,4): Die christologischsoteriologische Bedeutung des irdischen Jesus bei Paulus,” in
Page 970 :
[41]. According to Josephus, J.W. 2.561; 7.368, ten thousand, or eighteen thousand Jews were massacred in these conflicts., [42]. On the city of Damascus and the history of the Christian, community there, cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Between, Damascus and Antioch, 50–90, 127–32., [43]. E. A. Knauf, “Zum Ethnarchen des Aretas 2Kor 11,21,”, ZNW 74 (1983): 145–47., [44]. According to Acts 9:26–30, directly after his flight from, Damascus, Paul returned to Jerusalem and informed the, apostles there; this cannot be harmonized with the apostle’s, own statements. Even Hengel and Schwemer acknowledge a, contradiction here (Between Damascus and Antioch, 127–32)., [45]. Differently Hengel and Schwemer, ibid., 133–50., [46]. Compare Gal. 1:21 with Acts 9:29–30, according to, which Paul was sent to Tarsus to protect him from the, Jerusalem Jews. Moreover, Gal. 1:23 shows that Paul did not, consider Judea a part of Syria and thus that he did not think of, Syria in terms of the Roman province. Cf. Betz, Galatians, 157., On this phase of the Pauline mission, cf. also Riesner, Paul’s, Early Period, 264–72., [47]. The length of this mission is difficult to calculate; as, arguments for the duration mentioned above, we may mention, the following: (1) With the expression “About that time” in Acts, 12:1a, Luke makes a temporal connection between the, beginning of the work of Barnabas and Paul in Antioch and the, persecution in Jerusalem by Agrippa I (cf. Acts 12:1b-17). This, persecution probably occurred in 42 CE (Cf. Riesner, Paul’s, Early Period, 117–23). (2) The famine mentioned in Acts 11:28, and the support given by the Antioch Christians to Jerusalem, (Acts 11:29) fall in the period between 42 and 44 CE (cf., Riesner, ibid., 125–36). Somewhat different are Hengel and, Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 171–78, who, calculate Paul’s stay in Cilicia as lasting three or four years, (36/37–39/40 CE), during which time he had an independent, and successful mission before joining the Antioch project,, within which he worked nine or ten years (ca. 39/40–48/49).
Page 971 :
[48]. Cf. Josephus, J.W. 3.29, where Antioch is described as, “the capital of Syria, and a city which, for extent and opulence,, unquestionably ranks third among the cities of the Roman, world” [translator’s note: after Rome and Alexandria]. On, Antioch, cf. the recent study of F. Kolb, “Antiochia in der, frühen Kaiserzeit,” in Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion:, Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Hubert, Cancik et al.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 97–118., [49]. Cf. Fred W. Norris, “Antiochien I,” TRE 3:99., [50]. Cf. Josephus, J.W. 7.45: The Jews “were constantly, attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks,, and these they had in some measure incorporated with, themselves.” On Antioch, cf. also Hengel and Schwemer,, Between Damascus and Antioch, 178–203., [51]. The fact that this report does not correspond to Luke’s, own view speaks for its historicity; Luke understands Paul and, Barnabas to have been the initiators of the Christian mission on, Cyprus (cf. Acts 13:4; 15:39). It was not Peter (cf. 10:1–11:18), who instigated the decisive epoch in the history of early, Christianity but those unknown Christian missionaries of, 11:19–30. For analysis of this text, cf. Weiser,, Apostelgeschichte, 1:273–80. This, of course, does not mean, that before Antioch there had been no preaching to Greekspeaking non-Jews. The mission in Samaria, Damascus, Arabia,, and Cilicia certainly included this group; cf. Hengel and, Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 201., [52]. Julius Wellhausen, Kritische Analyse der, Apostelgeschichte (Berlin: Weidmann, 1914), 21., [53]. Cf. Ign. Eph. 11.2; Magn. 4; Rom. 3.2; Pol. 7.3., [54]. Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of, Christianity in the First Three Centuries (trans. James Moffatt;, 2nd ed.; New York: Putnam, 1908), 411–12., [55]. Friedrich Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of, the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (trans. Robert W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,, 1961), 14, 23–24.
Page 974 :
[77]. Cf. the introduction of Peter’s name in Luke 6:14; also, to be noted is the parallel to the name change BarJesus/Elymas (Acts 13:6, 8)., [78]. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 272–73, considers Acts, 13:4–12 historically reliable., [79]. The essential points are found in Lüdemann, Traditions, in Acts, 149: Instead of the expected clash between Paul and, the magician Bar-Jesus, a new character is introduced with, Sergius Paulus. In Acts 13:8 the magician is suddenly called, Elymas, without specifically indicating that this is the same as, Bar-Jesus. The punitive miracle results in the faith of the, proconsul. As in Acts 8, Luke is concerned to point out the, superiority of Christianity to competing religious groups., [80]. Cf. Walter Radl, Paulus und Jesus im Lukanischen, Doppelwerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im, Lukasevangelium und in der Apostelgeschichte (EHS, Reihe 23,, Theologie 49; Frankfurt: Lang, 1975), 82–100., [81]. For the evidence, cf. Lüdemann, Traditions in Acts, 163–, 64., [82]. Burfeind, “Paulus muß nach Rom,” 78.
Page 975 :
Chapter 6, [1]. On the problems of Acts 14:20b–28, cf. Lüdemann,, Traditions in Acts, 163., [2]. Paul here adopts an ancient mode of argument; cf., Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.5–7; Philo, Moses 1.268., [3]. With Jürgen Wehnert, Die Reinheit des “christlichen, Gottesvolkes” aus Juden und Heiden: Studien zum historischen, und theologischen Hintergrund des sogenannten, Aposteldekrets (FRLANT 173; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &, Ruprecht, 1997), 115–16, I refer Gal. 2:4–5 to the events in the, Pauline/Antiochene churches and to the current situation as it, is being discussed in Jerusalem., [4]. Paul had never conducted a Gentile mission that was in, principal “free from the law,” for the central ethical contents of, the Torah (e.g., the Decalogue) were, of course, also valid for, Gentile Christians. Abandoning the requirement of, circumcision for Gentile Christians while at the same time, affirming that they belonged to the elect people of God turned, out in practice to be something like a mission advocating, “freedom from the law,” for the contents of the Pauline ethic, could be accepted and integrated into their own cultural, background without difficulty, without any basis in the Old, Testament–Jewish law., [5]. Cf. Traugott Holtz, “Die Bedeutung des Apostelkonzils für, Paulus,” in Geschichte und Theologie des Urchristentums:, Gesammelte Aufsätze (WUNT 57; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 1991), 149–50., [6]. Cf. Gerd Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish, Christianity (trans. M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress,, 1989), 44–52., [7]. Cf. also Kraus, Zwischen Jerusalem und Antiochia, 134–, 39., [8]. In Gospel of Thomas 12 he appears as “James the Just, [Righteous]” (cf. also Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.1.3 and passim; on
Page 976 :
the analysis of the James tradition, cf. Martin Hengel, “Jakobus,, der Herrenbruder—der erste ‘Papst’?” in Paulus und Jakobus, (WUNT 141; Kleine Schriften 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 2002), 549–82; and Wilhelm Pratscher, Der Herrenbruder, Jakobus und die Jakobustradition (FRLANT 139; Göttingen:, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987)., [9]. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.199–203. On the analysis of the, texts, cf. Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul, 62–63., [10]. The Pauline terminology is noticeable, for the apostle, himself speaks consistently of the ἐκκλησία (τοῦ) θεοῦ (church of, God; cf., e.g., 1 Thess. 2:14; 1 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2, Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13), referring to the “people of God” (λαός, in a, salvation-historical sense) only in Old Testament citations (cf. 1, Cor. 10:7; Rom. 9:25–26; 10:21; 11:1–2; 15:10) even though the, relation of Christian believers to Israel is a central theme of his, theology. On the issue as a whole, see below, section 21.1, (“Primary Vocabulary and Foundational Metaphors of Pauline, Ecclesiology”)., [11]. Cf. Otto Betz, “Beschneidung II,” TRE 5:716–22., [12]. The possibility of becoming a full member of the Jewish, community without circumcision probably never existed; cf. the, analysis of the texts in Wolfgang Kraus, Das Volk Gottes: Zur, Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus (WUNT 85;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 96–107., [13]. How long this missionary work had already been going, on and why it did not result in conflicts before are questions, that can no longer be answered. Holtz, “Apostelkonzils,” 159ff.,, supposes that the practice of accepting Gentiles without, circumcision became prevalent in Antioch only shortly before, the apostolic council. Paul, too, made a radical turn on this, issue. But this view cannot be confirmed by either Acts or, Paul’s letters., [14]. In the Old Testament and ancient Jewish literature, one, finds only the idea that the Gentiles, too, will glorify or worship, Yahweh (cf. Isa. 19:16–25; Mal. 1:11; Zeph. 2:11; 3:9–10; L.A.B., 11.1–2; Sib. Or. 3.716–20; Tob. 14:6–7.
Page 978 :
Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, (BEvT 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969), 99–128, here 110–11; Oskar, Cullmann, “Πέτρος,” TDNT 6:100; Betz, Galatians, 186;, Lüdemann, Chronology, 64–68, who, however, refers Gal. 2:7–8, to Paul’s first Jerusalem visit. The order in the Pauline text, speaks clearly against this; Peter as the first witness represents, the Jewish mission whereas Paul represents the Gentile, mission. Galatians 2:7–8 is considered to be a Pauline, formulation by, e.g., Mussner, Galaterbrief, 115–18, and, Joachim Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT 9;, Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 88–89., [20]. Jub. 15:25–26: “This law is for all the eternal, generations. . . . And anyone who is born and whose own flesh, is not circumcised on the eighth day is not from the sons of the, covenant which the Lord made for Abraham” (trans. O., Wintermute, OTP 2:87)., [21]. For the enduring presence of strict Jewish Christian, positions in Asia Minor, cf. Ign. Magn. 8–11; Phil. 5–9., [22]. Not to be overlooked is the vague formulation in Gal., 2:6 (“what they actually were makes no difference to me”);, here Paul is keeping his distance from the Jerusalem “pillars”;, cf. Jürgens, Zweierlei Anfang, 215–16., [23]. Recent exegesis mostly underestimates the implications, of Gal. 2:7. The problem either goes unmentioned (cf. Mussner,, Galaterbrief, 115–17; Borse, Galater, 89; Betz, Galatians, 184–, 87) or is reduced to the level of different terminology without a, material difference (cf. Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die, Galater [10th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949],, 76; Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium, 96 [“Although, we are dealing with a Pauline formulation, it remains, significant enough that Paul sees himself in the situation of, subsuming his own message and that of Peter under one and, the same term. For Paul there is only one gospel, the one, revealed to him by God and that he is charged to proclaim”];, Jürgen Becker et al., Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser,, Philipper, Kolosser, Thessalonicher, und Philemon [14th ed.;, NTD 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976], 24; Dieter
Page 979 :
Lührmann, Galatians [trans. O. C. Dean; Minneapolis: Fortress,, 1992], 39–40; Rohde, Galater, 87; Richard N. Longenecker,, Galatians [WBC 41; Dallas: Word Books, 1990], 55). But cf., Gerd Theissen, “Judentum und Christentum bei Paulus,” in, Paulus und das antike Judentum: Tübingen-Durham-Symposium, im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19 Mai, 1938) (ed. Martin Hengel and Ulrich Heckel; WUNT 58;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 339 n. 17: “According to the, agreement at the ‘apostolic council’ in the 40s, Paul was, responsible [only] for the gospel to the Gentiles; but must not, Paul himself have once shared the view that waiving many of, the requirements of the law for entrance into the church, applied only to Gentiles, not to Jews?, [24]. This was already clearly recognized by Ferdinand, Christian Baur and Eduard Zeller, Paul the Apostle of Jesus, Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings: A, Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity, (trans. Allan Menzies; 2nd ed.; TTFL; London: Williams and, Norgate, 1873), 2:125: “The κοινωνία was a separation as well, as an agreement; the agreement was simply that one party, should go εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, the other εἰς τὴν περιτοµήν, i.e., the Jewish, apostles could really allege nothing against the principles on, which Paul founded his evangelical labors, and were obliged so, far to recognize them; but this recognition was a mere outward, one; they left it to him to work further on these principles in, the cause of the Gospel among the Gentiles; but they would, have nothing to do with these principles themselves. The, apostolic sphere of operation therefore became divided into, two parts; there was a εὐαγγέλιον τῆς περιτοµῆς and a εὐαγγέλιον τῆς, ἀκροβυστίας, an ἀποστολὴ εἰς τὴν περιτοµήν and an ἀποστολὴ εἰς τὴν, ἀκροβυστίαν [gospel for the circumcision and gospel for the, uncircumcised; apostolate for the circumcision and an, apostolate for the uncircumcised]; in one the Mosaic law had, force, in the other it had none, and these two systems simply, co-existed without being in any way harmonized.”, Albert Schweitzer noted regarding the problems in Paul’s, understanding of the law, “That believers from Judaism should
Page 980 :
continue to live according to the Law seems to him quite, proper and in no way detrimental to their redemption. But if, believers from among the Gentiles do the same thing, this is for, him a denial of the Cross of Christ” (Mysticism, 187). The, comment by Rudolf Meyer, “περιτέµνω,” TDNT 6:83, is also on, target: “Gal. 2:7 shows us, of course, that fundamentally, freedom from Ἰουδαϊσµός was simply noted in Jerusalem; in fact,, for all the mutual loyalty, the two fronts remained. Paul was, now accepted as a preacher of the εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας, and, Peter as the preacher of the εὐαγγέλιον τῆς περιτοµῆς, with no, clarification of the theological antithesis. Neither then nor later, was any compromise reached which would have finally united, the two parties.” W. Schneemelcher, Das Urchristentum, (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1981), 160: “The decision, however,, stated: ‘In the Gentile mission, you need not enforce the, circumcision requiremement, but we, the Jerusalem Jewish, Christians, will continue to observe it.’”, [25]. Cf. Lothar Wehr, Petrus und Paulus, Kontrahenten und, Partner: Die beiden Apostel im Spiegel des Neuen Testaments,, der apostolischen Väter, und früher Zeugnisse ihrer Verehrung, (NTAbh 30; Münster: Aschendorff, 1996), 53. He appropriately, comments further: “On the contrary, the agreement included, not only different territories for which each was responsible . . ., but also a different content for the Christian message.”, Wehnert, Hintergrund des sogenannten Aposteldekrets, 120,, even speaks of an “agreement to separate.”, [26]. Cf. the thorough treatment of Andreas Blaschke,, Beschneidung: Zeugnisse der Bibel und verwandter Texte, (TANZ 28; Tübingen: Francke, 1998)., [27]. But cf. 1 Macc. 1:15, where it is said of the Hellenizing, Jews in Jerusalem ca. 175 BCE that they “removed the marks of, circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant” (cf. also, Josephus, Ant.12.241). For the first half of the second century, CE, t. Šabb. 15.9 reports, “In the days of Ben Koziba, many had, themselves (re-)circumcised” (cited from Strack and Billerbeck,, Kommentar, 4/1:34).
Page 981 :
[28]. K. G. Kuhn and Hartmut Stegemann, “Proselyten,”, PWSup 9:1257ff., [29]. For analysis, cf. David M. Hay, “Philo’s References to, Other Allegorists,” SPhilo 6 (1979–1980): 41–75., [30]. On this, cf. F. Siegert, “Gottesfürchtige und, Sympathisanten,” JJS 4 (1973): 109–64; and Bernd Wander,, Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten: Studien zum heidnischen, Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen (WUNT 104; Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1998)., [31]. The Pauline letters betray no knowledge of the apostolic, decree; whether Paul was aware of it is a disputed point., Among those who argue against such knowledge are Roloff,, Apostelgeschichte, 227; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:189 n., 3; Hans-Josef Klauck, 1. Korintherbrief (3rd ed.; NEchtB 7;, Würzburg: Echter, 1992), 75–76; on the other side are, e.g.,, Lüdemann, Chronology, 71–75; Rohde, Galater, 99–101., [32]. Cf. the exemplary argument in Weiser,, Apostelgeschichte, 2:375–77., [33]. It is mentioned only in Acts 15:12 that Barnabas and, Paul (note the order) give a summary report of the success of, their missionary work., [34]. In Gal. 2:11 the grammatical signal ὅτε δέ indicates that, Paul is presenting the events in chronological order; for the, evidence, cf. Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 297–, 305; Wehnert, Hintergrund des sogenannten Aposteldekrets,, 120–23. There must have been some temporal gap, however,, between the apostolic council and the Antioch conflict, since in, Gal. 2:7–9 Peter still appears as a representative of the, Jerusalem preaching ministry among the Jews but in Antioch he, has been practicing table fellowship with Gentile Christians., [35]. The “false brothers” of Gal. 2:4 are not identical with, the “certain people from James,” for they accept the agreement, at the apostolic council. Cf. Betz, Galatians, 203–4, who rightly, sees James in the background., [36]. Trans. O. Wintermute, OTP 2: 98; cf. also Dan. 1:8ff.;, Tob. 1:10–12; Jos. Asen. 8; Let. Aris. 139–142, 182–183; 4, Macc. 1:33–35; Tacitus, Hist. 5.5; on the separating character
Page 983 :
als Freiheit: Paulusstudien (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, Verlag, 1974), 86–87., [45]. Cf. Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 376ff., [46]. Cf. Wilckens, “Werken des Gesetzes,” 88; Wechsler,, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 378–79., [47]. Differently, Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 256–63, who, sees the Antioch incident as an intensification of a development, toward restoration that had already begun at the apostolic, council. He thinks “that the Antiochian episode reveals [to] us a, great deal of how Paul’s ‘final’ theology of the law took shape”, (p. 259)., [48]. This is not noticed by Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 2:51,, when he states that Paul had “already championed, fundamental freedom from the law at the mission synod.”, Hübner must attribute to Paul a misinterpretation of the, apostolic council (cf. pp. 31–32, 34), since he himself attributes, the doctrine of justification found in Galatians to the apostle, already at the time of the apostolic council., [49]. Cf. below, section 11.5 (“Inclusive and Exclusive, Doctrine of Justification in Paul”).
Page 985 :
Christianity,” NTS 29 (1983): 356–69. An instructive example is, offered by Josephus, who writes in Greek in order to include, Romans in his readership (J.W. 1.3). Cf. also Cicero, Arch. 23:, “Whoever thinks that Greek verses enhance one’s reputation, less than Latin greatly errs, since Greek books are read in, almost every country while Latin is limited to its own linguistic, area, which is quite small” (trans. M.E.B.)., [7]. Cf. Philo, Prelim. Studies 44., [8]. A good survey with relevant bibliography is given by, Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 307–17., [9]. Reinhold Reck, Kommunikation und Gemeindeaufbau:, Eine Studie zu Entstehung, Leben, und Wachstum paulinischer, Gemeinden in den Kommunikationsstrukturen der Antike (SBS, 22; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991), 82., [10]. Cf. ibid., 86; Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 311,, estimates twenty to thirty kilometers (12.4–18.6 miles) per day., [11]. Cf. Ludwig Friedlaender and Georg Wissowa,, Sittengeschichte Roms (Vienna: Phaidon, 1934), 389–488; M., Giebel, Reisen in der Antike (Düsseldorf: Artemis & Winkler,, 1999), 131–214., [12]. On the Cynic movement and philosophy, cf. Donald, Reynolds Dudley, A History of Cynicism: From Diogenes to the, 6th Century A.D. (London: Methuen, 1937; repr., Hildesheim:, G. Olms, 1967); an introduction is provided by Hans-Josef, Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity:A Guide to, Graeco-Roman Religions (trans. Brian McNeil; Minneapolis:, Fortress, 2003), 377–85. The current state of research is, documented in Robert Bracht Branham and Marie-Odile, Goulet-Cazâe, eds., The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in, Antiquity and Its Legacy (HCS 23; Berkeley: University of, California Press, 1996)., [13]. E. Zeller rightly describes the Cynics as “voluntary, moral preachers and soul doctors” (Eduard Zeller and Wilhelm, Nestle, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy [trans. L. R., Palmer; 13th ed.; ILPPSM; New York: Humanities Press, 1931,, repr., 1963], 111).
Page 986 :
[14]. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Alex. 9: “The city also has a fairly, large number of so-called Cynics, and like the rest, these too, are quite popular—a coarse bunch of bastards who know, nothing and have nothing. On street corners, back streets, and, at the temple gates they gather around themselves riffraff,, sailors, and the like and put on a deceitful show—a burlesque, actually—trot out one joke after another, and dish up familiar, answers one can get anyplace at the market” (trans. M.E.B.)., Cf. further Lucian, Fugitivi 16: “Every city is now full of such, deceit, especially from those who have enlisted with Diogenes,, Antisthenes, and Crates and who serve under the flag of the, ‘Dogs’” (trans. M.E.B.)., [15]. Cf. Walter L. Liefeld, The Wandering Preacher as a, Social Figure in the Roman Empire (Ann Arbor, MI: University, Microfilms, 1967)., [16]. For Greek religions, cf. Martin P. Nilsson, A History of, Greek Religion (trans. F. J. Fielden; Westport, CT: Greenwood,, 1980); for Roman religions, cf. Margaret Lyttelton and Werner, Forman, The Romans: Their Gods and Their Beliefs (EAW;, London: Orbis, 1984); Georg Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der, Römer (2 ed.; HAW 4/5; Munich: Beck, 1971); Jörg Rüpke, Die, Religion der Römer: Eine Einführung (Munich: Beck, 2001)., [17]. A masterful portrayal of this process can still be found, in Franz Cumont, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, (Chicago: Open Court, 1911); in addition, cf. Reinhold, Merkelbach, Die Hirten des Dionysos: Die Dionysos-Mysterien, der römischen Kaiserzeit und der bukolische Roman des, Longus (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1988); Mithras (Königstein: Hain,, 1984); Isis Regina, Zeus Sarapis: Die griechisch-ägyptische, Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt (Stuttgart: Teubner,, 1995); Walter Burkert, Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge:, Harvard University Press, 1987); Eduard Zeller,, “Mysterien/Mysterienreligionen,” TRE 23:504–26; Luther H., Martin, Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction (New York:, Oxford University Press, 1987); Klauck, Religious Context;, Marvin W. Meyer, ed., The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook, (San Francisco: Harper, 1987).
Page 989 :
[32]. Dieter Sänger, “Heiden–Juden–Christen,” ZNW 89, (1998): 159–72, points to this group., [33]. Peter Pilhofer, Philippi (2 vols.; WUNT 87, 119;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 1:234–40., [34]. Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 364., [35]. For analysis, cf. Lüdemann, Traditions in Acts, 189–95., [36]. To the best of my knowledge, the first to speak of a, “Pauline school” was Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Die, Pastoralbriefe (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1880), 117., [37]. Philo, Spec. Laws 2.61–62, connects the prohibition of, work on the Sabbath with an exhortation to use this day for the, study of philosophy: “So each seventh day in every city, thousands of schools are open, in which good sense,, temperance, courage, justice and other virtues are studied by, scholars who sit quietly in order, with ears alert and with full, attention.” On the nature of contemporary Jewish instruction,, cf. Shemuel Safrai, “Education and the Study of the Torah,” in, The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography,, Political History, Social, Cultural, and Religious Life and, Institutions (ed. Shemuel Safrai and M. Stern; CRINT 1; Assen:, Van Gorcum, 1974), 945–70., [38]. See above, sections 3.1 (“Background and Social, Status”) and 3.2 (“Paul: Pharisee in the Diaspora”)., [39]. Cf. the survey in Thomas Schmeller and Christian, Cebulj, Schulen im Neuen Testament? Zur Stellung des, Urchristentums in der Bildungswelt seiner Zeit (Freiburg:, Herder, 2001), 46–92; and L. Alexander, “Paul and the, Hellenistic Schools: The Evidence of Galen,” in Paul in His, Hellenistic Context (ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Minneapolis:, Fortress, 1995), 60–83., [40]. Classically expressed in Diogenes Laertius 1.13–15, 18;, 2.47, where Socrates is father of numerous philosophical, schools. Epicurus says about the sage, “He will found a school,, but not for instructing the masses; on request, he will also give, public lectures. His doctrine will be firmly established, [δογματιεῖν] and will teach with confidence” (Diogenes Laertius, 10.121b).
Page 990 :
[41]. On the definition of schools in antiquity, cf. Schmeller, and Cebulj, Schulen, 91: “A philosophical school is an, institutionalized association, between a teacher and several, disciples from socially privileged circles, in which philosophical, traditions that derive from a particular founder are taught and, learned, at the same time being interpreted and ethically, actualized.” Schmeller infers with regard to Paul, “We can, speak of a Pauline school during Paul’s own lifetime only with, great hesitation” (p. 182). Of course, the Pauline and deuteroPauline letters do not deal with every characteristic of ancient, schools with the same degree of specificity (cf. the listing of, critical points, 179–82: there is a stronger consciousness of, group identity among Christians, there is no possibility of being, promoted to become a teacher of the same rank as Paul,, teaching activities are not simply identical with school, activities, and the teacher-disciples groups are not separated, so sharply from the rest of the community). Six objections may, be raised to Schmeller’s views: (1) On the methodological, plane, one must allow for the fact that new social movements, are never merely copies of traditional forms. It always depends, on how the traditional pattern is drawn and how closely the, new element being compared must be subjected to this pattern., (2) The observed agreements already mentioned between Paul,, his coworkers, and ancient philosophical schools are still, evidence that they should be understood as comparable, phenomena within cultural history. (3) Luke already represents, the Christians as a school (cf. Acts 11:26; 26:28, Χριστιανοί, [Christians]), and Paul as teacher and founder of a school (one, need only note the “lecture hall of Tyrannus” in Acts 19:9 and, the portrayal of Paul in Athens in Acts 17:16–34). (4) The high, theological level of both the Pauline and (with some limitations), the deutero-Pauline letters indicates that there must have been, institutionalized associations and patterns of behavior between, Paul and his coworkers, even though these cannot be proven, from case to case because of the nature and extent of our, sources. (5) Pagan authors understood the Christians as having, formed a new school (cf. Galen, De pulsuum differentiis 2.4;
Page 993 :
where public and business life pulsated more strongly than, here.”, [57]. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 3.23.30., [58]. Cf. Hock, Social Context, 37–42. Less fruitful are the, alternatives preferred by, e.g., Stanley K. Stowers, “Social, Status, Public Speaking, and Private Teaching: The, Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovT 16 (1984):, 59–82 (the private house as the central location of Paul’s, preaching); or Reiser, “Heiden Bekehrt?” 91 (“Paul won Gentile, converts in the synagogue, not in the marketplace”). David E., Aune, “Romans as a logos protreptikos,” in Paulus und das, antike Judentum: Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken, an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19 Mai 1938) (ed. Martin, Hengel and Ulrich Heckel; WUNT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 1991), 112–13, counts seven different settings for Paul’s work, (synagogue, private homes, rented lecture halls, the Pauline, school, workshops, public places, prison) and then rightly, states, “There is no reason, however, why any of these settings, should be considered inappropriate for Paul’s teaching, ministry” (p. 113)., [59]. Cf. the evidence in Ebner, Leidenslisten und, Apostelbrief, 70–71. Musonius, Diss. 11: “Clearly we should, expect of a free man that he works for his own necessities, rather than taking them from others. After all, it is more, honorable to need no one else to provide for one’s needs than, to be dependent on others.” Cynics counted manual labor as, part of their comprehensive program of contrast. Indeed, they, considered it especially appropriate, alongside their teaching, and preaching, to demonstrate the agreement between their, doctrine and their life and to preserve their independence by, doing occasional work. Cf. H. Schulz-Falkenthal, “Zum, Arbeitsethos der Zyniker,” WZ(H)GS 29 (1980): 91–101., [60]. One need only note 1 Cor. 16:10, where Paul says of, Timothy, “he is doing the work of the Lord just as I am.” The, resolution of the conflict between Paul and the Corinthians was, mainly the work of Titus (cf. 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13–14; 8:6, 16,, 23; 12:18).
Page 995 :
[66]. The legal situation of clubs and associations is, summarized by M. Öhler, “Römisches Vereinsrecht und, christliche Gemeinden,” in Zwischen den Reichen: Neues, Testament und römische Herrschaft: Vorträge auf der ersten, Konferenz der European Association for Biblical Studies (ed., Michael Labahn and Jürgen Zangenberg; TANZ 36; Tübingen:, Francke, 2002), 61, as follows: “At least since the time of, Augustus, the formation of clubs and associations had been, carefully regulated. A collegium could apply to the senate for, permission, which was granted when a case could be made that, some public good would derive from it and no activities, damaging to the state were anticipated. Certain associations, that had long existed, including Jewish synagogues, were, always licensed on the basis of their tradition. Alongside these, there were innumerable unlicensed groups that were tolerated, as long as they did nothing illegal or offensive.” At first, the, early Christians could claim to be a licensed collegium on the, basis that they were a movement within Judaism; this was, hardly possible from the mid-50s on, as indicated by the, persecution under Nero. They could then continue as an, unlicensed club or association like many pagan collegia so long, as they appeared politically harmless., [67]. On this, cf. Matthias Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl, und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher, Mahlfeiern (TANZ 13; Tübingen: Francke, 1996), 21–174, who, elaborates the points of similarity between the table fellowship, of the early Christians and the common meals of private groups, and various clubs and associations. As in the clubs and other, groups, so among the early Christians, table fellowship, embodied the values of κοινωνία (fellowship), φιλία (friendship),, and χάρις (benevolence); they were the setting of acts of social, welfare by the wealthier members and forums for the, discussion of basic religious, philosophical, and political issues., Cf. also Dennis Edwin Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist:, The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis:, Fortress, 2003) [68]. On the definition of a social group, cf., Bernhard Schäfers, “Entwicklung der Gruppensoziologie und
Page 996 :
Eigenständigkeit der Gruppe als Sozialgebilde,” in Einführung, in die Gruppensoziologie: Geschichte, Theorien, Analysen (ed., Bernhard Schäfers, 2nd ed.; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer,, 1994), 21: (1) a limited number of members (a small group has, a maximum of twenty-five persons); (2) a common goal for the, group and “a motive for group and individual behavior”; (3) a, “we-feeling” of belonging to the group; (4) a system of common, norms and values; (5) “a mesh of interrelated social roles (role, differential), oriented to the goal of the whole group, that,, among other things, helps the group attain its goal and resolve, internal conflicts.”, [69]. Cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Corinth That Saint, Paul Saw,” BA 47 (1984): 147–59; Gehring, House Church and, Mission, 140–41 (who thinks of a house church of forty to fifty, persons)., [70]. Cf. Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus Movement,, 252–53., [71]. Gehring, House Church and Mission, 155–59., [72]. For the history of research, cf. Stegemann and, Stegemann, The Jesus Movement, 288–89; Gehring, House, Church and Mission, 165–71. Two directions are forming in, current research: on the one side, some advocate the thesis of, a structural congruence between the Pauline churches and, society as a whole (cf. esp. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban, Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul [New Haven:, Yale University Press, 1983], 51–110); others see their, members as belonging to the lower socioeconomic class,, whether primarily (Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus, Movement, 295–96) or exclusively (Meggitt, Poverty, 75ff.)., [73]. Cf. Gerd Theissen, “Social Stratification in the, Corinthian Community,” in The Social Setting of Pauline, Christianity (trans. and ed. John H. Schütz; Philadelphia:, Fortress, 1982), 69–119., [74]. On the nature of patronage in Roman society, cf. P., Garnsey and R. Saller, “Patronal Power Relations,” in Paul and, Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed.
Page 997 :
Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,, 1997), 96–103., [75]. Differently, Stegemann and Stegemann, The Jesus, Movement, 294–95, who regard the formulation as rhetorical., But the way Paul develops his argument here speaks against, this, namely, that God’s paradoxical act in the crucifixion of, Jesus is also reflected in the social structure of the church., [76]. Whether there was any such thing in Roman society as a, middle class in the modern sense is a disputed point. Among, those who vote against it are Géza Alföldy, Römische, Sozialgeschichte (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1975), 94–132. K. Christ, (among others) is critical of this division of all Roman society, into only two strata (lower class and elite), finding the, approach heuristically unfruitful and leveling out the, complications of history. See Karl Christ, “Grundfragen der, römischen Sozialstruktur,” in Römische Geschichte und, Wissenschaftsgeschichte (3 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, Buchgesellschaft, 1982), 3:152–76; and Friedrich Vittinghoff,, “Gesellschaft,” in Europäische Wirtschafts-und, Sozialgeschichte in der römischen Kaiserzeit (ed. Friedrich, Vittinghoff and John H. D’Arms; HEWS 1; Stuttgart: KlettCotta, 1990), 163–277., [77]. According to Schumacher, Sklaverei, 42, around the, beginning of the first century CE, slaves made up ca. 15–20, percent of the population of the Roman Empire, i.e., ca. ten, million persons., [78]. Cf. 1 Cor. 5:3; 16:27; 2 Cor. 10:1–2, 11; 13:2, 10; Gal., 4:18; Phil. 1:27; 2:12., [79]. Cf. 1 Thess. 2:17; 3:10; Rom. 1:11; 15:23; Phil. 1:8; 4:1., [80]. Cf. only 1 Thess. 2:17; 1 Cor. 12:25; 2 Cor. 7:7, 11; 9:2;, 11:2; Gal. 2:10., [81]. Cf. only παρακαλέω in 1 Thess. 2:12; 1 Cor. 1:10; 4:16; 2, Cor. 1:4–6; Rom. 12:1, 8; 15:31; Phil. 4:2; Philem. 9–10., [82]. Cf. the extensive treatment by Bärbel Bosenius, Die, Abwesenheit des Apostels als theologisches Programm: Der, zweite Korintherbrief als Beispiel für die Brieflichkeit der, paulinischen Theologie (TANZ 11; Tübingen: Francke, 1994).
Page 999 :
Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (ed. Richard A. Horsley;, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000),19ff., who, challenges the contrast between a Christian universalism and a, Jewish particularism with the argument that Paul’s, universalism is the legacy of his Jewish roots, that Paul’s, thought is not to be contrasted with Judaism but with the, Roman Empire. In my opinion, this sets up false alternatives,, for although it is true that Paul sometimes bases his support for, a universal view of history on Old Testament traditions (esp., Deutero-Isaiah), he completely reinterprets these from the, perspective of Christian faith. Paul abandons the particular, marks of Jewish identity (election by belonging to a particular, ethnic group, land, temple, and circumcision) and thus, inevitably and logically comes into conflict with local Jewish, authorities and strict Jewish Christian missionaries. At the, same time, again inevitably and consistently with the logic of, the situation, Paul’s eschatology brings him into conflict with, Roman authorities, for the claim made for the unique place of, Jesus Christ could be understood as relativizing the claims of, the emperor., [92]. Cf. Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion:, Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). Thomas Schmeller,, “Neutestamentliches Gruppenethos,” in Der neue Mensch in, Christus: Hellenistische Anthropologie und Ethik im Neuen, Testament (ed. Johannes Beutler; QD 190; Freiburg: Herder,, 2001), 120–34, regards the membership recruitment carried on, by philosophical schools as an analogy to the early Christian, mission, but this does not take sufficient note of the, differences, since such recruitment lacked the strategic, dimensions of a mission such as Paul’s., [93]. The Jewish population of Rome is estimated at about, forty thousand in the early imperial period; cf. Karl-Leo, Noethlichs, Das Judentum und der römische Staat:, Minderheitenpolitik im antiken Rom (Darmstadt:, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996), 10. Rudolf Brändle, and Ekkehard Stegemann, “Die Entstehung der ersten
Page 1001 :
[99]. Cf. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in, Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic, Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; London: SCM Press, 1974),, 1:263–64., [100]. Cf. Suetonius, Tib. 36: “He abolished foreign cults,, especially the Egyptian and the Jewish rites, compelling all who, were addicted to such superstitions to burn their religious, vestments and all their paraphernalia. . . . The others of that, same race or of similar beliefs he banished from the city, on, pain of slavery for life if they did not obey.” Cf. also Tacitus,, Ann. 2.85; Josephus, Ant. 18.81–83, who reports that a teacher, of the Jewish law in Rome could win prominent women over to, Judaism, to which the emperor Tiberius responded by driving, all the Jews from Rome., [101]. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 108.22: “I grew up in the early years of, the reign of the emperor Tiberius. Foreign cults were then, removed, and refusal to eat the meat of certain animals was, taken as evidence of superstition.”, [102]. Cf. Cicero, Flac. 66, where he comments on the, presence of a Jewish group at Flaccus’s trial: “You know how, influential they are, how they stick together, and the role they, play at assemblies.”, [103]. Augustine, Civ. 7.11; cf. Seneca, Ep. 95.47; 108.22., [104]. Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 364–65., [105]. Cf. Alvarez Cineira, Claudius, 268., [106]. Cf. Karl P. Donfried, “The Imperial Cults of, Thessalonica and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul, and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed., Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,, 1997), 215–23, who explicates the process of how the emperor, attained divine status in Thessalonica and displaced even Zeus., Against this background, Paul’s preaching could have seemed, anti-empire to those responsible for law and order in, Thessalonica., [107]. Cf. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 352–53; Alvarez, Cineira, Claudius, 280–86; for interpretation of the texts, see, below, section 8.2 (“The Theology of 1 Thessalonians”).
Page 1002 :
[108]. E. Bammel, “Judenverfolgung und Naherwartung,”, ZTK 56 (1959): 294–315, had already made the connection, between 1 Thess. 2:14–16 and the edict of Claudius., [109]. Cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 1:442–54., [110]. Cf. Bernd Wander, Trennungsprozesse zwischen, frühem Christentum und Judentum im 1. Jahrhundert nach, Christus: Datierbare Abfolgen zwischen der Hinrichtung Jesu, und der Zerstörung des Jerusalemer Tempels (TANZ 16;, Tübingen: Francke, 1994), 212–30, who points to the Caligula, crisis and the difficult situation of the Jews in Alexandria., [111]. Cf. Martin Hengel, The Zealots: Investigations into the, Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70, A.D (trans. David Smith; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 313–58., [112]. See below, section 13.1 (“Prehistory: Paul en Route to, Rome”)., [113]. For interpretation, cf. Wander, Trennungsprozesse,, 263–72., [114]. On this point, cf. F. Vittinghoff, “‘Christianus sum’: Das, ‘Verbrechen’ von Außenseitern der römischen Gesellschaft,”, Historia 33 (1984): 336ff., [115]. On the Neronian persecution, see below, section 13.4, (“Paul the Martyr”)., [116]. Regarding terminology, in the academic study of, religion and the social sciences in the German-speaking world,, the prevalent term is “group”; cf. Günter Kehrer, “Religiöse, Gruppenbildung,” in Religionswissenschaft: Eine Einführung, (ed. Hartmut Zinser; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1988), 97–113., Cf. also Schäfers, “Entwicklung,” 23, who, along with many, others, differentiates between small groups (up to twenty-five, persons), large groups (twenty-five to one thousand persons),, and institutions. Regarding both language and content, the, differentiation between “small groups” and “large groups” is, problematic, since in everyday language “group” has come to, mean mostly “small group.” “The structure and size of the, ‘small group’ is thus almost identical with that of the social, group as such” (Schäfers, “Entwicklung,” 23). It thus makes, sense to me to restrict the term “group” to the “small group”
Page 1003 :
and to replace the term “large group” with “movement.”, Thereby the dynamic character of larger social structures is, emphasized, an aspect of great importance in early, Christianity. Moreover, among scholars in the English-speaking, world, the word “movement” for the formation of new religious, structures has become common (cf., e.g., John A. Saliba,, Understanding New Religious Movements [2nd ed.; Walnut, Creek, CA: AltaMira, 2003]). Other sociological classifications, of early Christians include millenarian movement (John G., Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early, Christianity [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975], 20–, 65); scholastic community (E. A. Judge, “The Early Christians, as a Scholastic Community,” JRH 1 [1960]: 4–15, 125–37);, philosophical school/association (Robert L. Wilken, “Collegia,, Philosophical Schools, and Theology,” in The Catacombs and, the Colosseum [ed. Stephen Benko and John J. O’Rourke; Valley, Forge, PA: Judson, 1971], 268–91); cult movement (Rodney, Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders, History [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996], 44)., [117]. Stark, The Rise of Christianity, 203–8., [118]. The evidence of Paul’s letters and the Gospels shows, that the early Christians must have worked at a high, intellectual level; cf. François Vouga, “Die religiöse, Attraktivität des frühen Christentums,” TGl 88 (1998): 26–38., To this very day, the pagan propaganda of the second century, has prevented people from seeing this., [119]. Cf. Rüsen, “Was heißt: Sinn der Geschichte?” 38., [120]. On this, cf. David G. Horrell, “‘No Longer Jew or, Greek’: Paul’s Corporate Christology and the Construction of, Christian Community,” in Christology, Controversy, and, Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R., Catchpole (ed. David G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett; Leiden:, Brill, 2000), 321–44., [121]. From the point of view of the sociology of religions,, early Christianity developed very quickly from a subcultural, ethnic religion (as one direction within ancient Judaism) to a, subcultural universal religion with the character of a religion of
Page 1004 :
redemption and reconciliation; on the typology, cf. G., Mensching, Soziologie der Religion (2nd ed.; Bonn: Röhrscheid,, 1968), 24ff., [122]. For a completely different view, see ibid., 112–29;, Mensching vehemently rejects the model of a “parting of the, ways” and instead argues for understanding the relation of, Jews and Christianity “as a single circulatory system, in which, discursive elements could move from non-Christian Jews and, back to them and could develop new aspects in the course of, moving through the system” (p. 120). From this he concludes, that still in the second century “the boundary between them, became so blurred that no one could say exactly where the one, ended and the other began” (121). This model simply ignores, the historical facts presented above and is oriented to the, boundless religious pluralism of the United States in the, twenty-first century rather than to the intensive disputes and, demarcations between Jews and Christians in the first and, second centuries CE., [123]. Rüsen, Historische Vernunft, 78., [124]. But this is a long way from implying that Paul was the, “real” founder of Christianity, as Lüdemann, Founder, 213–27,, wants to suggest with his anti-Christian ideology. There is no, “founder of Christianity”; rather, this new movement is based, on the experiences and faith of a large number of (mostly), nameless men and women, some of whom had already been, followers of Jesus of Nazareth and who, before and apart from, Paul, had founded the churches of Damascus, Antioch,, Alexandria, and Rome, and were still active in Paul’s own time, (one need think only of the congregations in Rome and of, Apollos in Corinth). Within the tension-filled history of early, Christianity, Paul gets the credit for presenting the landmark, theological interpretation of the Christ event., [125]. Cf. Jürgen Roloff, “ἐκκλησία,” EDNT 1:411–12., [126]. On ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ, see below, section 21.1 (“Primary, Vocabulary and Foundational Metaphors of Pauline, Ecclesiology”).
Page 1005 :
[127]. Gerd Theissen, “Die urchristliche Taufe und die soziale, Konstruktion des neuen Menschen,” in Transformations of the, Inner Self in Ancient Religions (ed. Gedaliahu A. G. Stroumsa, and Jan Assmann; SHR 83; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 90ff., rightly, emphasizes that the differentiation between early Christianity, and Judaism entailed a new understanding of baptism that had, been developed in the context of the Gentile mission and is, found in its fully developed form in Paul. “The origin of baptism, is closely related to the origin of a new subculture religion,, independent of its origins and oriented to reconciliation, that, brought together people from many national and ethnic, backgrounds into small Christian communities. Relationshipthrough-rebirth took the place of relationship-through-birth., The construct of a ritually mediated new birth replaced, physical birth. The social construction of the new person is, thus not an incidental marginal phenomenon of this new, religion but its constitutive presupposition” (pp. 93–94).
Page 1008 :
[17]. Cf. Marxsen, Thessalonicher, 21; Söding, “Der Erste, Thessalonicherbrief,” 187–88., [18]. Within the context of the pax romana, Seneca, Clem., 1.2, presents a contrasting text when he portrays Nero as, talking to himself: “Have I of all mortals found favor with, Heaven and been chosen to serve on earth as vicar of the gods?, I am the arbiter of life and death for the nations; it rests in my, power what each man’s lot and state shall be; by my lips, Fortune proclaims what gift she would bestow on each human, being; from my utterance peoples and cities gather reasons for, rejoicing.”, [19]. The word παρουσία was not a technical term of preChristian Jewish apocalyptic (cf. Walter Radl, “παρουσία,” EDNT, 3:43–44; Helmut Koester, “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s, Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion, and Power in Roman Imperial Society (ed. Richard A. Horsley;, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997), 158–66). In, the Hellenistic world, the word designates, among other things,, the visit of a ruler to a place where preparations must be made, for his advent. Early Christians could well have adopted the, term from this context: “Christ is anticipated as Savior and as, Lord. Since, however, the Caesar could be received not just as, a ruler but also as savior, official παρουσία terminology with its, sacral elements probably stands closest to Christian usage”, (Radl, “παρουσία,” 3:44)., [20]. Jutta Bickmann, Kommunikation gegen den Tod:, Studien zur paulinischen Briefpragmatik am Beispiel des ersten, Thessalonicherbriefes (FB 86; Würzburg: Echter, 1998), 89ff., [21]. Schade, Apokalyptische Christologie, 117–34., [22]. Cf. Ps. 33:20; 36:39; Dan. 12:1; Hab. 3:16; Zeph. 1:15;, 1QM 1:11–12; 1QH 2:6–12; 4 Ezra 7:89; 2 Bar. 15:7–8; 48:50:, “For surely, as you endured much labor in the short time in, which you live in this passing world, so you will receive great, light in that world which has no end” (trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP, 1:637)., [23]. Cf. Alkier, Wunder und Wirklichkeit, 91–107.
Page 1009 :
[24]. For analysis of 1 Thess. 2:1–12, see Malherbe,, Thessalonians, 133–63., [25]. Cf. Vom Brocke, Thessaloniki, 157–58: These organized, groups (φυλαί) “facilitated political organization as well as, classification of the population for various purposes. Each, citizen belonged to a φυλή, usually as a matter of birth. New, citizens were assigned to a particular φυλή. Freed slaves and, their descendents, slaves or citizens of other towns, as well as, foreigners usually did not belong to a φυλή, since they did not, have citizenship in the city.”, [26]. Differently, Vom Brocke, ibid., 162–65, who bases his, view on the fact that Jews were not enrolled in the φυλαί of a, polis. This observation, while presumably historically correct,, does not exclude the possibility that Paul nonetheless regards, the Jews as also responsible for the persecutions, since we can, understand the polemic of 1 Thess. 2:15–16 only with this, presupposition; cf. Dietrich-Alex Koch, “Die Christen als neue, Randgruppe in Makedonien und Achaia im 1. Jahrhundert n., Chr.,” in Antike Randgesellschaften und Randgruppen im, östlichen Mittelmeerraum: Ringvorlesung an der Westfälischen, Wilhelms-Universität Münster (ed. Hans-Peter Müller and F., Siegert; Münsteraner judaistische Studien 5; Münster:, Universitätsverlag, 2000), 174 n. 28., [27]. Cf. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 105–6., [28]. Cf. ibid., 105., [29]. Cf. especially Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1: “Again, the Jews are, extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show, compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate, and enmity. They sit apart at meals, and they sleep apart, and, although as a race, they are prone to lust, they abstain from, intercourse with foreign women; yet among themselves nothing, is unlawful. They adopted circumcision to distinguish, themselves from other peoples by this difference. Those who, are converted to their ways follow the same practice, and the, earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown, their country, and to regard their parents, children, and, brothers as of little account” (NW 2/1:777; Boring et al., eds.,
Page 1013 :
[60]. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 375–78, supposes that the, admonition to work with their own hands in 1 Thess. 4:11 was, addressed to circles within the congregation who refused to, work and expected charity from the wealthy members of the, church., [61]. Merk, Handeln, 57., [62]. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 250–51., [63]. Cf. Börschel, Konstruktion, 327–36., [64]. The plural ἁµαρτίαι in 1 Thess. 2:16 has no particular, anthropological significance., [65]. For evidence and argument, see below, section 11.3, (“The Doctrine of the Law and of Justification in Galatians”),, 11.5 (“Inclusive and Exclusive Doctrine of Justification in, Paul”), and 16.8 (“Jesus Christ as God’s, Righteousness/Justice”). Cf. further Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit, und Christusgegenwart, 62ff., 89ff., [66]. Contra Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 2:51, who believes, that Gal. 2:15–16 relates “what Paul had polemically held up to, Peter in Antioch. In view of these historical considerations,, which rest on the chronological sequence of the events of, Paul’s life, it is extremely unlikely that the substance of his, theology of justification, first found expressis verbis in, Galatians, was not yet part of Paul’s theology when he wrote 1, Thessalonians.” Galatians 2:15–16 makes the significance of, the Torah problematic for Gentile Christians and Jewish, Christians, a topic that was debated neither at the apostolic, council nor during the Antioch incident., [67]. So again most recently Reinhard von Bendemann,, “‘Frühpaulinisch’ und/oder ‘spätpaulinisch’? Erwägungen zu, der These einer Entwicklung der paulinischen Theologie am, Beispiel des Gesetzesverständnisses,” EvT 60 (2000): 225: “In, terms of its subject matter, however, the language of holiness, and sanctification characteristic of 1 Thessalonians is not far, removed from the language of δικαιοσύνη [‘justification’] and, δικαιόω [‘justify’] in the later Pauline letters.”, [68]. Cf., e.g., Hahn, “Entwicklung,” 344, “What the gospel is, in regard to its content and effect is elaborated with the help of
Page 1014 :
the justification thematic”; Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, 400–, 401, wants to connect “our message of the gospel” in 1 Thess., 1:5 to “the particular understanding of the Pauline gospel, culminating in justification without works.”, [69]. On the ideas about the last judgment in ancient, Judaism, cf. Marius Reiser, Jesus and Judgment: The, Eschatological Proclamation in Its Jewish Context (trans. Linda, M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 19–144., [70]. Marxsen, Thessalonicher, 74–77, emphasizes “that we, have within the Pauline letters something like a development”, (p. 74). On the other hand, he restricts this development, exclusively to the “form” and thinks that the “substance” of, Paul’s theology always remained the same. Cf. here Johan, Christiaan Beker, “Contingency and Coherence in Paul’s, Letters,” in Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and, Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 23–36., [71]. On the term “early Pauline theology,” cf. Earl Richard,, “Early Pauline Thought: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians,” in, Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (ed. Jouette M., Bassler; vol. 1 of Pauline Theology; Minneapolis: Fortress,, 1991), 39–51; and Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Paulusforschung,”, in Bilanz und Perspektiven gegenwärtiger Auslegung des, Neuen Testaments: Symposion zum 65. Geburtstag von Georg, Strecker (ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn; BZNW 75; New York: de, Gruyter, 1995), 51 n. 79. Horn rightly points out that this is, above all a theological category. But a temporal element is also, involved, for with the beginning of Paul’s independent mission, in connection with the apostolic council and near in time to the, writing of 1 Thessalonians, no doubt something new was, emerging., [72]. Börschel, Konstruktion, 355.
Page 1015 :
Chapter 9, [1]. On Corinth, cf. esp. J. Wiseman, “Corinth and Rome, I:, 228 B.C.–A.D. 267,” ANRW 25.4:438–548; Elliger, Paulus in, Griechenland, 200–51; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s, Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Wilmington: Michael Glazier,, 1983); W. J. Gill, “Corinth: A Roman Colony in Achaea,” BZ 37, (1993): 259–64; Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The, Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids:, Eerdmans, 2001), 7–25., [2]. Our inscriptional evidence for a synagogue in Corinth, comes from the second to third centuries CE; cf. Hans-Josef, Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult: Eine, religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten, Korintherbrief (NTAbh NF 15; Münster: Aschendorff, 1982),, 234 n. 3., [3]. Cf. Strabo, Geogr. 7.6.20–21, 23: “Corinth was, nicknamed ‘the rich,’ because it was situated as a commercial, center on the isthmus, controlling two harbors, one in the, direction of Italy, the other toward Asia. This made trade, between these people so distant from each other much, easier. . . . This is the reason the city and its population became, so wealthy, for the sailors and sea captains immediately spent, there the money they had earned” (NW 2/1:235)., [4]. Cf. Pausanias 2.1.7–2.5.5., [5]. On the worship of Egyptian deities in Corinth, cf. Dennis, E. Smith, “Egyptian Cults at Corinth,” HTR 70 (1977): 201–31., [6]. See Margarethe Billerbeck, Der Kyniker Demetrius: Ein, Beitrag zur Geschichte der frühkaiserzeitlichen, Popularphilosophie (PhAnt 36; Leiden: Brill, 1979)., [7]. Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 161–67., [8]. Cf. Wolfgang Schrage, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (4, vols.; EKKNT 7; Zurich: Benziger, 1991), 1:34., [9]. On the social structure of the Corinthian church, cf.,, most recently, Helmut Merklein, Der erste Brief an die
Page 1017 :
Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (ed., Wolfgang Schrage; BZNW 47; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 298–, 314; Becker, Paul, 187–96; Schrage, Korinther, 1:63–71;, Mitchell, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 184ff.; Andreas, Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief (HNT 9/1; Tübingen:, Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 3–6., [14]. The Corinthian church was embroiled in several, conflicts springing from different causes and therefore must be, understood methodologically on different planes (sociological,, theological, cultural, and the history of religions); cf. William R., Baird, “‘One against the Other’: Intra-church Conflict in 1, Corinthians,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul, and John (ed. Robert T. Fortna and Beverly R. Gaventa;, Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 116–36; Richard A. Horsley, “1, Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative, Society,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman, Imperial Society (ed. Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA:, Trinity Press International, 1997), 242–52., [15]. Cf. Diogenes the Cynic, Epistle 10, to Metrocles: “Be, bold, not only with regard to your dress, name, and way of life,, Metrocles, but also in begging people for sustenance, for it is, not at all disgraceful. To be sure, kings and lords ask for, money, soldiers, ships, and food from their subjects. And those, who are sick ask remedies of their doctor” (in Malherbe, Cynic, Epistles, 103)., [16]. Horsley, “Case Study,” 250, argues that “Paul’s, personal concern was surely to avoid becoming a ‘house, apostle’ to some Corinthian patron.” On the nature of, patronage in Corinth, cf. J. K. Chow, “Patronage in Roman, Corinth,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman, Imperial Society (ed. Richard A. Horsley; Harrisburg, PA:, Trinity Press International, 1997), 104–25., [17]. Gordon D. Fee, “Toward a Theology of 1 Corinthians,”, in 1 and 2 Corinthians (ed. David M. Hay; vol. 2 of Pauline, Theology; SBLSymS 2; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 37–, 58, provides a survey of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians; cf.
Page 1020 :
[32]. Differently, e.g., Quintilian, Inst. 10.1.119, where the, effect of the rhetorician Trachalus is described: “He had every, possible external advantage—a lovely voice, unique in my, experience, a delivery which would have graced the stage, and, great personal beauty.”, [33]. This also, of course, manifests some competence in, rhetoric, for according to Cicero, Or. 1.31.138, rhetoric should, serve not merely to talk people into doing something but, actually to convince them with reasonable arguments., [34]. He thereby makes use of a tripartite revelatory scheme:, (1) that which was previously hidden (1 Cor 2:6–9) (2) has now, been revealed to the person endowed with the Spirit (2:10–12),, (3) so that it can now be proclaimed to other spiritual people, (2:13–16). As parallel texts, cf. Col. 1:26–28; Eph. 3:5–8; 2 Tim., 1:9–11; Titus 1:2–3. A terse but extremely rich analysis is found, in Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 57–69 (Paul develops the, schema in the internal discussions of the Pauline school)., [35]. Cf. Theissen, Psychological Aspects, 345–53, who, appropriately designates 1 Cor. 2:6–16 a “wisdom speech”; cf., also Voss, Das Wort vom Kreuz, 102ff., [36]. Cf. Merklein, Korinther, 1:219–20., [37]. Cf. Söding, “Geheimnis Gottes,” 178–79., [38]. For analysis of the text, see Synofzik,, Vergeltungsaussagen, 39–41., [39]. For analysis of this passage, see Horn, Angeld des, Geistes, 228–29., [40]. Sellin, Auferstehung, 68, supposes that Apollos had, introduced a wisdom theology from Alexandrian Judaism into, Corinth that had become popular in the predominantly Gentile, church in Corinth. Sellin can point to notable agreements, between Philo and the Corinthian theology, but there are also, objections to his proposal: (1) We do not in fact know anything, about the theology of the Alexandrian Christian Apollos (cf., Acts 18:24), and so all such agreements are purely, hypothetical. (2) If Apollos had been the cause of the conflict, between Paul and the Corinthians, then it is difficult to explain, why Paul has no criticism of him but rather accepts him as an
Page 1021 :
independent missionary on a par with himself (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5,, 8). (3) According to 1 Cor. 16:12, Paul encouraged Apollos, several times to return to Corinth. This would mean that Paul, had repeatedly asked him to leave Ephesus and return to the, place where he was the source of the problems., On Hellenistic Jewish wisdom thought, see, e.g., Egon, Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist: Paulus und die dualistische, Weisheit (WMANT 29; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, des Erziehungsvereins, 1968), passim; Karl-Gustav Sandelin,, Die Auseinandersetzung mit der Weisheit in 1. Korinther 15, (MSÅAF 12; Åbo, Finland: Åbo Akademi, 1976); Richard A., Horsley, “Wisdom of Word and Words of Wisdom in Corinth,”, CBQ 39 (1977): 224–39; Sellin, Auferstehung, passim;, Theissen, Psychological Aspects, 358–67; Merklein, Korinther,, 1:119–33; Voss, Das Wort vom Kreuz, 146–52., [41]. Cf. also Philo, Dreams 2.230: “The Sage . . . is an, intermediate being, superior to human beings but less than, God.”, [42]. Cicero, Parad. 33 (NW 1/2:438)., [43]. Cf. further Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.49, 63., [44]. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.95., [45]. Cf. Seneca, Ben. 7.2.5; (3.2–3); and Zeno in Diogenes, Laertius 7.125: τῶν σοφῶν δὲ πάντα εἶναι (Everything belongs to, the wise)., [46]. Seneca, Ep. 72.6 (NW 2/1:1436). Cf. also the concept of, the purifying fire that frees the wise from all negative things:, “Just so wisdom, like a purifying fire, releases the wise from all, those things that other people regard as admirable and, desirable, since they are not able to make discerning, judgments” (Lucian, Hermotimus [De sectis] 7); cf. also, Plutarch, Mor. 499c., [47]. Cf. Crates, Epistle 27 (in Malherbe, Cynic Epistles, 77)., [48]. Cf. Dio Chrysostom 3 Regn. 10, concerning the ideal, ruler: “For who needs more insight than the one who must give, counsel about the most important issues? Who has a more, refined sense of justice than the one who stands above the law?
Page 1022 :
Who is more level-headed than the one to whom everything is, permitted?” Cf. also Dio Chrysostom Regn. tyr. 2., [49]. Cf. Söding, “Geheimnis Gottes,” 181–82., [50]. Cf. esp. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, passim; see also, Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s, Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 2/23; Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1987), who argues that it was not theology but ethical, and social issues that stand behind the conflict between Paul, and the Corinthians., [51]. How such ideas could have been regarded is seen in, Philo, Worse 33, 34, who polemically reproduces the, arguments of the Sophists: “Did nature create pleasures and, enjoyments and the delights that meet us all the way through, life, for the dead, or for those who have never come into, existence, or for the living? And what is to induce us to forego, the acquisitions of wealth and fame and honors and offices and, everything else of that sort, things which secure for us a life, not merely of safety but of happiness?” Whereas those who, pursue virtue are disdained, “those, on the other hand, who, take care of themselves are men of mark and wealth, holding, leading positions, praised on all hands, recipients of honors,, portly, healthy and robust, reveling in luxurious and riotous, living, knowing nothing of labor, conversant with pleasures, which carry the sweets of life to the all-welcoming soul by, every channel of sense.”, [52]. It is hardly an accident that Paul repeatedly comes back, to the subject of baptism throughout the letter (cf. 1 Cor. 1:30;, 6:11; 10:1–4; 12:13; 15:29)., [53]. Cf. Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 248, who rightly, advocates the view that the Corinthians’ Spirit enthusiasm, grew out of their baptismal theology; he gives two principal, arguments: (1) “The early Christian interpretation of baptism, as the place where the Spirit is conferred. The metaphoric that, combined water and spirit was common in the ancient world,, and gives us a glimpse of how the baptismal rite could be seen, as the place where the πνεῦμα [‘Spirit’] was transmitted as a, substance and the one baptized became a πνευματικός [a
Page 1023 :
‘spiritual,’ ‘Spirit-endowed’ person] in a magical sense.” (2), “The baptismal act is interpreted as a ritual reenactment of, Christ’s own fate, his death and resurrection. As one who has, been baptized, the initiate now participates in the heavenly, world.”, [54]. The difficult expression τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται (nothing, beyond what is written) refers, in my opinion, to what was, in, Paul’s view, the Spirit-enthusiastic Scripture interpretation, practiced by the Corinthians. On the numerous interpretations, that have been given this phrase, cf. Christian Wolff, “‘Nicht, über das hinaus, was geschrieben ist,’” in “. . . Das tiefe Wort, erneun”: Festgabe für Jürgen Henkys zum 60. Geburtstag (ed., Harald Schultze; Berlin: Wichern, 1989), 187–94., [55]. For comprehensive interpretations, cf. Erich Dinkler,, “Zum Problem der Ethik bei Paulus,” in Signum crucis:, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament und zur christlichen, Archäologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967), 204–40, and, Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 58–75 (74, “The Corinthians, were simply acting as the élite had always done in Corinth, when a conflict situation arose”). Horsley, “Rhetoric and, Empire,” 100, regards 1 Cor. 6:1–11 as evidence for his thesis, that Paul understands the church as an “alternative society . . ., independent of the larger society, having no dealings with, institutions such as the civil courts.”, [56]. Cf. Plato, Gorg. 509c: “Socrates: ‘Seeing then that there, are these two evils, the doing injustice and the suffering, injustice—and we affirm that to do injustice is a greater, and to, suffer injustice a lesser evil.”, [57]. This is indicated both by the verbs ἀπελούσασθε (you were, washed), ἡγιάσθητε (sanctified) and ἐδικαιώθητε (justified) and, by the adverbial qualifiers ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ, ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡµῶν (in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God). For extensive evidence, see, Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart, 39–42., [58]. The verb δικαιωθῆναι (be made right/just) designates a, onetime act in the past, with the passive voice emphasizing the, gracious act of God. Here we should understand it in the sense
Page 1025 :
[65]. Cf. Bousset, “Korinther,” 94. It is presupposed that it is, the present Lord himself who acts through the Spirit., [66]. Ernst Käsemann, “Sentences of Holy Law in the New, Testament,” in New Testament Questions of Today (London:, SCM Press, 1969), 72, rightly states that the baptismal event, cannot be annulled., [67]. Differently, Peter Lampe, “Das korinthische Herrenmahl, im Schnittpunkt hellenistischrömischer Mahlpraxis und, paulinischer theologia crucis,” ZNW 82 (1991): 211 n. 79:, “[The phrase] ὑπὸ κυρίου excludes an automatic working of the, elements, thought of in a magical sense: the elements do not, function like a poison that causes illness when they are eaten in, an unworthy manner. It is rather the Lord who causes the, sickness.” Of course, it is the Lord who punishes, but it is, through the sacramental elements that this happens, as is, made clear in the context by the direct connection between, eating the elements and the judgment: “For all who eat and, drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment, against themselves” (1 Cor. 11:29)., [68]. On the cultural background, cf. Renate Kirchhoff, Die, Sünde gegen den eigenen Leib: Studien zu pornē und porneia, in 1 Kor 6, 12–20 und dem sozio-kulturellen Kontext der, paulinischen Adressaten (SUNT 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &, Ruprecht, 1994); Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 86–93., Contact with prostitutes was part of everyday life in Corinth, and carried no social stigma., [69]. Defiling one’s own body through unbridled sexuality, (homosexuality, illegitimate sexual relations with the free or, slaves) is also a theme within Stoicism; cf. Musonius, Diss. 12:, “I must emphatically point out that everyone who fails in this, matter does wrong, even if it affects none of the people about, him, yet immediately reveals himself as a worse and a less, honorable person; for the wrong-doer by the very fact of doing, wrong makes himself worse and less honorable”; cf. Gerhard, Dautzenberg, “Φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν,” in Neues Testament und, Ethik: Für Rudolf Schnackenburg (ed. Helmut Merklein;, Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 271–98.
Page 1027 :
[76]. Thus Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.50, can designate as one, characteristic of the Cynics that “they will eat anything you, give them.” According to Diogenes Laertius 6.64, Diogenes had, his breakfast in the shrine, his only complaint being that he, was offered bread of poor quality; see additional text and, interpretative notes in Jones, “Freiheit,” 59–61., [77]. Cf. Thomas Söding, “Starke und Schwache,” ZNW 85, (1994): 70–75., [78]. Cf., e.g., ibid., 75–77., [79]. Cf. Theissen, “Die Starken und die Schwachen,” 276–79., [80]. Cf. Söding, “Starke und Schwache,” 85ff., [81]. For interpretation, cf., most recently, Horn, Angeld des, Geistes, 167–71; Schrage, Korinther, 380–429., [82]. Schweitzer, Mysticism, 260., [83]. Koch, “Seid unanstößig,” 44–45, rightly emphasizes that, for Paul the interpretation of each situation is the determining, factor., [84]. Cf. ibid., 49ff., [85]. With what appears to be only a digression, Paul explains, that he fulfills the Corinthians’ demands with his own person;, on the position of 1 Cor. 9 in the macrocontext, cf. Mitchell,, Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 243–50; Schrage, Korinther, 2:213–, 15., [86]. Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.5–7, where it is said of, Socrates, “Nor, again, did he encourage love of money in his, companions. For while he checked their other desires, he, would not make money himself out of their desire for his, companionship. He held that this self-denying ordinance, ensured his liberty [τούτου δ᾽ ἀπεχόµενος ἐνόµιζεν ἐλευθερίας, ἐπιµελείσθαι]. Those who charged a fee for their society he, denounced for selling themselves into bondage, since they, were bound to converse with all from whom they took the fee., He marveled that anyone should make money by the profession, of virtue, and should not reflect that his highest reward would, be the gain of a good friend; as though he who became a true, gentleman could fail to feel deep gratitude for a benefit so, great.” Cf. also Seneca, Ep. 108.36: “But no one treats
Page 1028 :
humanity as a whole worse, in my opinion, than those who, consider philosophy to be a means of making money, those who, live differently than they prescribe for others.”, [87]. Here, too, Paul approximates a philosophical, understanding of freedom, for like Epictetus or Diogenes, the, apostle feels himself bound only to God and God’s law; cf., Epictetus, Diatr. 3.24.64; 4.1.89–90; 4.1.159: “Take Socrates, and observe a man who had a wife and little children, but, regarded them as not his own, who had a country, as far as it, was his duty, and in the way in which it was his duty, and, friends, and kinsmen, one and all subject to the law and to, obedience to the law.” Cf. further Diatr. 4.1.153–154, where it, is said of Diogenes that he would have given away all he had if, it were asked of him: “The same is true regarding his relatives,, his friends, and his fatherland. He knew from where he had, received them, from whom and under what conditions. His true, ancestors, the gods [τοὺς θεούς] and his real fatherland,, however, he would never have given up” (NW 2/1:566–67)., [88]. Extensive exegetical studies are found in Vollenweider,, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung, 233–46; Schrage, Korinther,, 2:138–44., [89]. Among those who argue for the freedom option are, Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung, 234–35; Wolff, Der, erste Brief an die Korinther, 150; Schrage, Korinther, 139–40;, Merklein, Korinther, 2:133–34; James Albert Harrill, The, Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (2nd ed.; HUT 32;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 127 (“In 1 Cor. 7:21, the, Apostle exhorts slaves who are offered manumission indeed to, avail themselves of the opportunity and to use freedom”);, Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon,, 1998), 102–3. On the manumission of slaves (especially as the, honoring of loyal service), cf. Schumacher, Sklaverei, 291–302., [90]. Cf., in this sense, e.g., Weiss, Korintherbrief, 187–88;, Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 152. Lindemann, Der erste, Korintherbrief, 173, advocates a mediating position: “Paul, instructs the Christian slaves not to be concerned about their
Page 1029 :
manumission; but if they have the chance to go free, they, should rather (µᾶλλον) take advantage of it., [91]. Cf., e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.24–25, where, with an, appeal to Socrates, he calls upon people to remain at the post, they have been assigned by God: “‘You make yourselves, laughable by thinking that, if one of our officers has appointed, me to a certain post, it is my duty to remain there, and to, resolve to die a thousand times rather than desert it; but if God, has assigned us to any place and way of life, we are free to, desert it.’ Socrates speaks like a man who is really a kinsman, of the gods.” Antisthenes had already been credited with the, saying “Whoever lives in fear of others is a slave without, knowing it” (Stobaeus 3.8.14; cf. Georg Luck, ed., Die Weisheit, der Hunde: Texte der antiken Kyniker in deutscher, Übersetzung mit Erläuterungen [Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner,, 1997], 47). An extensive presentation of the background of the, saying in the history of religions and the history of law is found, in Jones, “Freiheit,” 27–37., [92]. Cf. Epictetus, Ench. 11., [93]. From the viewpoint of the history of religions, Paul’s, understanding of spirit is rooted in Hellenistic Judaism,, especially close to that of Philo (cf. Brandenburger, Fleisch und, Geist, 114ff.; Burton L. Mack, Logos und Sophia:, Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen, Judentum [SUNT 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,, 1973], 176ff.): (1) Like Paul (e.g., Gal. 5:16–18; Rom. 8:4ff.),, Philo also knows the antithesis σάρξ/πνεῦµα (Heir 55–56; Giants, 19–20, 29; Unchangeable 140ff.). (2) The contrast of flesh and, spirit corresponds in both Paul and Philo to contrasting groups, of human beings (1 Cor. 3:1ff.; Gal. 6:1ff.; Philo, Unchangeable, 144, 159–160; Giants 65–66) who are dragged into the conflict, of hostile powers that control them. (3) Both Paul and Philo, presuppose that putting the flesh to death is the prerequisite, for life in the Spirit (Gal. 5:24; Rom. 6:6; 8:13; Philo,, Drunkenness 65–76) (4) Like Christ (1 Cor. 6:17; 15:45b; 2 Cor., 3:17), so also σοφία (wisdom) can be understood as Spirit (Wis., 1:6; 7:7, 22ff.; Philo, Giants 22–27). (5) Both Paul (1 Cor. 3:16;
Page 1030 :
6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16–17; Rom. 8:9, 11) and wisdom texts (Wis. 1:4;, 7:28; 8:16–18; Philo, Heir 265; Spec. Laws 4.49) have the idea, of the indwelling of the Spirit in human beings. (6) Also found, in wisdom literature is the idea that the means of knowledge is, identical with the content of knowledge, so that knowledge of, God is possible only through the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10ff.; 12:3; cf., Wis. 7:7; 9:17; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.38). Above all, Paul shares, with Philo the idea that the Spirit is the ultimate,, unsurpassable gift of God (1 Cor. 2:15), opposed to everything, of an earthly, material, fleshly nature. It manifests the nearness, and presence of God, has transformative power, and must be, understood as the saving gift. Although the wisdom literature, comes closest to providing the horizon of understanding for the, Pauline pneumatology, there are still two significant, differences: (1) For Paul, the πνεῦµα is the expression that, communicates the presence and power of the divine whereas in, Philo, e.g., πνεῦµα is used alongside σοφία, λόγος (word, reason),, and νοῦς (mind, thought). (2) Paul binds his idea of the Spirit, consistently to Christology and eschatology., [94]. In Corinth one group evidently claimed this title, exclusively for itself; cf. Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 180–88., [95]. On the line of argument in 1 Cor. 12–14, cf. the, extensive discussion in Ulrich Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt:, Die paulinische Charismenlehre auf dem Hintergrund der, frühchristlichen Gemeindefunktionen (Wuppertal: Brockhaus,, 1972), 156–92; Oda Wischmeyer, Der höchste Weg: Das 13., Kapitel des 1. Korintherbriefes (SNT 13; Gütersloh:, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1981), 27–38; Wolff, Der erste Brief, an die Korinther, 282–348; Schrage, Korinther, 3:108ff.;, Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 261–316., [96]. Cf. Alkier, Wunder und Wirklichkeit, 191–205., [97]. Here is a critical distinctive feature in contrast to pagan, spiritual phenomena; cf. Eduard Schweizer, “πνεῦµα,” TDNT, 6:421., [98]. On the term χάρισµα (charisma, spiritual gift), which is, found only in Paul and in literature dependent on him, cf., Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt, 128–42; Horn, Angeld des
Page 1033 :
[112]. Cf. Blass and Debrunner, Grammar, § 342., [113]. Cf. Wolff, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 368., [114]. Cf. ibid., 369; Alkier, Wunder und Wirklichkeit, 212,, who appropriately comments, “But this is also not a, countermove that establishes the reality of the resurrection in, the positivistic sense of nineteenth-century historiography., After all, the context for the whole argumentation of 1, Corinthians is not the encyclopedic knowledge sought by, modern historical positivism.”, [115]. Already pointed out by Weiss, Korintherbrief, 349–50;, cf. also Alkier, Wunder und Wirklichkeit, 212., [116]. Cf. Martin Karrer, Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament, (GNT 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 335–37., [117]. All possibilities are discussed by Wolff, Der erste Brief, an die Korinther, 364–67, and Karrer, Jesus Christus, 42–43., [118]. For the reasons that exegetes have given for their, denial of the resurrection, cf. the survey of research in Sellin,, Auferstehung, 17–37., [119]. Cf. ibid., 30: “The Corinthians denied the resurrection, from the dead as such because they could not accept the ideas, of bodily existence in eternal salvation that were bound up with, it.”, [120]. From the realm of popular piety, cf., e.g., Plutarch’s, account in Is. Os. 78: “This idea at the present time the priests, intimate with great circumspection in acquitting themselves of, this religious secret and in trying to conceal it: that this god, Osiris is the ruler and king of the dead, nor is he any other than, the god that among the Greeks is called Hades and Pluto. But, since it is not understood in which manner this is true, it, greatly disturbs the majority of people who suspect that the, holy and sacred Osiris truly dwells in the earth and beneath the, earth, where are hidden away the bodies of those that are, believed to have reached their end. But he himself is far, removed from the earth, uncontaminated and unpolluted and, pure from all matter that is subject to destruction and death;, but for the souls of men here, which are compassed about by, bodies and emotions, there is no association with this god
Page 1034 :
except in so far as they may attain to a dim vision of his, presence by means of the apperception which philosophy, affords. But when these souls are set free and migrate into the, realm of the invisible and the unseen, the dispassionate and the, pure, then this god becomes their leader and king, since it is on, him that they are bound to be dependent in their insatiate, contemplation and yearning for that beauty which is for men, unutterable and indescribable.”, [121]. Cf. Schade, Apokalyptische Christologie, 192–93., [122]. For other texts from the history of religions, see below,, section 22.2 (“The Course of the Final Events and Life after, Death”) and 22.4 (“Eschatology as Time Construal”)., [123]. Traditions from Hellenistic Judaism illuminate this, idea; cf. Wolff, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 214. In Wis., 8:13 it can be said of the wisdom that is identical with spirit,, “Because of her [wisdom] I shall have immortality, and leave an, everlasting remembrance to those who come after me” (cf. Wis., 1:6; 7:7, 22; 8:17; 9:17). Wisdom enters into the soul of the, pious (Wis. 10:16), which after death is in God’s hand (Wis., 3:1)., [124]. For older interpretations, see Mathias Rissi, Die Taufe, für die Toten: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Tauflehre (ATANT, 42; Zurich: Zwingli, 1962). Selections from more recent, literature can be found in Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und, Christusgegenwart, 150–52; Sellin, Auferstehung, 277–84;, Wolff, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, 392–97; Horn, Angeld, des Geistes, 165–67; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the, Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 762–67;, Joel R. White, “Baptized on account of the Dead,” JBL 116, (1997): 487–99., [125]. Lietzmann in Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 83, is, on target with his comment that in 15:35 Paul responds “to the, main objection of those who opposed the resurrection, that, after death a body is inconceivable.”, [126]. For interpretation, cf. Schade, Apokalyptische, Christologie, 204ff.; Wolff, Der erste Brief an die Korinther,, 402ff.; Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 354ff.; Schrage,
Page 1036 :
moisture and then the coarser part of the moisture has, condensed as earth, while that whose particles are fine has, been turned into air, and this process of rarefaction goes on, increasing till it generates fire. . . . Chrysippus goes on to claim, that the cosmos is a reasonable, body-like essence, with soul, and spirit.”, [135]. Cf. Asher, Polarity and Change, 206: “The thesis that, has been argued in this investigation is that Paul attempts to, persuade the Corinthians that there is a resurrection of the, dead by showing them that the resurrection is compatible with, the principle of cosmic polarity and that change is a solution to, the problem of contrariety and the resurrection.”, [136]. Cf. Hans von Soden, “Sakrament und Ethik bei Paulus:, Zur Frage der literarischen und theologischen Einheitlichkeit, von 1.Kor. 8–10,” in Das Paulusbild in der neueren deutschen, Forschung (ed. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Ulrich Luck; WF, 24; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 364:, “For all the participants in the discussion thought in, sacramental terms: the strong . . . ; the weak . . . ; and also Paul, himself.”, [137]. The adverb δικαίως in 1 Cor. 15:34 should be translated, as “rightly” in the moral sense. On the difficulty of consistently, rendering this Greek word group in English, see p. 72 n. 82, above., [138]. First Corinthians 14:34 is in fact a gloss; for evidence,, see Jürgen Roloff, Der erste Brief an Timotheus (EKKNT 15;, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 128ff., [139]. For the details, cf. Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 63–66., [140]. Cf. Merklein, Korinther, 2:228., [141]. Cf. Lindemann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 212: “Paul, thus speaks of the norm of obedience to Jesus Christ.”, [142]. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 3.24.64–65: “Come, was there, anybody that Diogenes did not love, a man who was so gentle, and kind-hearted that he gladly took upon himself all those, troubles and physical hardships for the sake of the common, good? I would think he was a man who loved others. But what, was the manner of his loving? As became a servant of Zeus,
Page 1042 :
Korinther, 193–94, assumes that 2 Cor. 8 and 9 were the, planned conclusion of the letter but Paul composed 2 Cor. 10–, 13 after receiving new, unfriendly news from Corinth. R., Bieringer, “Plädoyer für die Einheitlichkeit des 2., Korintherbriefes,” in Studies on 2 Corinthians (ed. Bieringer, and Lambrecht), 131–79, refers 2 Cor. 2:14–7:4 to the same, phase of the dispute as 2 Cor. 10–13 and sees the goal of the, whole letter as Paul’s attempt to come to a real reconciliation, with the church. Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the, Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 18ff.,, gives three arguments for the unity of 2 Corinthians: (1) the, rhetorical structure of the letter is that of an “apologetic, letter”; (2) the apostle’s planned third visit in Corinth, characterizes the argumentation of the whole letter; (3) there, are numerous linguistic points of contact between 2 Cor. 1–9, and 10–13 that point to an original connection., [25]. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 262; Furnish, II Corinthians,, 421–22., [26]. Blass and Debrunner, Grammar, § 334, rightly list none, of these texts as examples of the epistolary aorist., [27]. Whoever considers 2 Cor. 10–13 part of the tearful, letter must refer 2 Cor. 12:17–18 to an earlier visit of Titus in, Corinth in connection with the collection; cf., e.g., Lang, An die, Korinther, 354; Klauck, 2. Korintherbrief, 98., [28]. Cf. Severin Koster, Die Invektive in der griechischen, und römischen Literatur (BKP 99; Meisenheim am Glan: Hain,, 1980), 354: “Invective is a structured literary form, but at least, in its main point, it is directed to πράξεις [practices]. Its goal is, to belittle a particular person or persons against the, background of the prevailing values, destroying them for good, in the public consciousness. The person or persons may be, explicitly named or only implied, though they could be named if, necessary, and may be considered as individuals or as, representing a group.”, [29]. Wolff, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, 12., [30]. On the interpretation of 2 Cor. 1:3–11, cf. Gerhard, Hotze, Paradoxien bei Paulus: Untersuchungen zu einer
Page 1043 :
elementaren Denkform in seiner Theologie (NTAbh NF 33;, Münster: Aschendorff, 1997), 300–340; Johannes Krug, “Die, Kraft des Schwachen: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen, Apostolatstheologie” (diss., Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, 2001),, 179–97., [31]. On the background of the peristasis catalogues in the, history of religions, see above, section 3.3 (“The Religious and, Cultural Background of Paul’s Thought”)., [32]. For analyses, see Erhardt Güttgemanns, Der leidende, Apostel und sein Herr: Studien zur paulinischen Christologie, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 94ff.; Ebner,, Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief, 196ff.; Schiefer-Ferrari,, Peristasenkatalogen, 201ff.; Hotze, Paradoxien, 252–87; Krug,, “Kraft des Schwachen,”197–225., [33]. Hotze, Paradoxien, 287: “The apostle functions as the, divinely called medium of God’s paradoxical revelation in, Christ. The real goal of this revelation, however, is the church.”, [34]. For interpretation, see Ebner, Leidenslisten und, Apostelbrief, 243ff.; and Schiefer-Ferrari, Peristasenkatalogen,, 218ff., [35]. Again we find a comparable position in the true (Stoic), philosopher, who holds his own in the most difficult situations, on the strength of his knowledge; cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.1.34–, 39: “‘Bring on death and you shall know; bring on hardships,, bring on imprisonment, bring on disrepute, bring on, condemnation.’ This is the proper exhibition of a young man, come from school. Leave other things to other people; neither, let anyone ever hear a word from you about them, nor, if, anyone praises you for them, do you tolerate it, but let yourself, be accounted a nobody and a know-nothing. Show that you, know this only—how you may never either fail to get what you, desire or fall into what you avoid. Let others practice lawsuits,, others problems, others syllogisms; do you practice how to die,, how to be enchained, how to be racked, how to be exiled. Do all, these things with confidence, but trust in Him who has called, you to face them and deemed you worthy of this position, in, which once having been placed you shall exhibit what can be
Page 1044 :
achieved by a rational governing principle when arrayed, against the forces that lie outside the province of the moral, purpose” (NW 2/1:456–57)., [36]. See below, section 19.5 (“Centers of the Human Self”)., [37]. Cf. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 157., [38]. Evidence is provided especially by the hapax legomena, in 2 Cor 5:1, ἀχειροποίητος (not made with hands), σκῆνος (tent);, moreover, the words οἰκία (house), οἰκοδομή (building), and, καταλύω (destroy) are used in the anthropological sense only, here. Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Römer 8 als Beispiel, paulinischer Soteriologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &, Ruprecht, 1975), attempts the reconstruction of a pre-Pauline, tradition behind 2 Cor. 5:1–2, 6b, 8b (cf. pp. 121–22). The, structure of the argument of 2 Cor. 5:1ff., however, speaks, against the use of a connected tradition here and points rather, to Paul as the composer., [39]. The idea of the body as a tent is of Greek-Hellenistic, origin; cf. Plato, Phaed. 81C (which probably influenced Wis., 9:15); cf. also Isa. 38:12 LXX; 4 Ezra 14:13–14; additional, Hellenistic examples are found in Windisch, Korintherbrief,, 158. Philipp Vielhauer, Oikodome: Aufsätze zum Neuen, Testament (ed. Günter Klein; Munich: C. Kaiser, 1979), 32ff.,, 100ff., points to Mandean parallels. The most impressive, parallel is found in a saying of the Socratic philosopher Bion of, Borysthenes (first half of the third century BCE; transmitted in, Teles, frg. 2), who compares death to moving out of a house:, “‘Just as we are ejected from our house,’ says Bion, ‘when the, landlord, because he has not received his rent, takes away the, door, takes away the pottery, stops up the well, in the same, way,’ he says, ‘am I being ejected from this poor body when, Nature, the landlady, takes away my eyes, my ears, my hands,, my feet. I am not remaining, but as if leaving a banquet and not, at all displeased, so also I leave life: when the hour comes, step, on board the ship.” This translation is from Edward O’Neill,, Teles (The Cynic Teacher) (Texts and Translations: GraecoRoman Religious Series 11/3; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press,, 1977), 16–17.
Page 1045 :
[40]. Cf. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 158; Lietzmann and, Kümmel, Korinther 118; Wiefel, “Eschatologischen Denken,”, 75. Differently, Lang, An die Korinther 286, who thinks Paul, here emphasizes “only his confidence in being ready.”, [41]. So, e.g., Windisch, Korintherbrief, 160. This is by no, means clear, however, for Paul uses σῶµα in 2 Cor. 5:6–8, exclusively for the earthly body and does not take up the line of, argument of 1 Cor. 15:51ff.; see below, section 22.2 (“The, Course of the Final Events and Life after Death”)., [42]. On the Greek-Hellenistic background of the image of, nakedness as a result of the destruction of the earthly body, cf., the evidence in Windisch, Korintherbrief, 164–65; Wiefel,, “Eschatologischen Denken,” 75–76., [43]. According to Windisch, Korintherbrief, 163, Paul here, thinks that immediately in the act of dying he will be clothed, with a heavenly garment “whose essence is ‘life’” and will, thereby evade the nothingness of death., [44]. Wiefel, “Eschatologischen Denken,” 76., [45]. Cf. the way the text is outlined in Bultmann, 2, Corinthians, 129, 144; and C. H. Hunzinger, “Die Hoffnung, angesichts des Todes im Wandel der paulinischen Aussagen,”, in Leben angesichts des Todes: Beiträge zum theologischen, Problem des Todes: Helmut Thielicke zum 60. Geburtstag (ed., Bernhardt Lohse; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1968), 76ff., [46]. Documentation for the Greek-Hellenistic ideas that, stand in the background is found in Windisch, Korintherbrief,, 166; and Wiefel, “Eschatologischen Denken,” 76–77., [47]. Epictetus’s conversation partner addresses the, philosopher: “Epictetus, we are not going to put up with it any, longer, this being bound to this body, having to give it food and, drink and let it rest, to wash it and take care of it in this or the, other way. Does any of that really matter? Is not death our, redemption? Are we not children of God, and don’t we come, from him? So let us return to where we came from. We want to, untie the bonds that here bind and hinder us.” Further, examples in Windisch, Korintherbrief, 158–75; Lietzmann and
Page 1046 :
Kümmel, Korinther, 117–23; Wiefel, “Eschatologischen, Denken,” 74–79., [48]. At the most, we find echoes of expectation of the, parousia in 2 Cor. 5:2b (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ [from heaven]). This speaks, against Furnish, II Corinthians, 297, who wants to interpret 2, Cor. 5:1–10 not anthropologically but in an broader,, eschatological sense (especially by appealing to Rom. 8)., [49]. A concise survey of research is provided in Sini Hulmi,, Paulus und Mose: Argumentation und Polemik in 2 Kor 3 (SESJ, 77; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 4–16., [50]. Cf. Jones, “Freiheit,” 61., [51]. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.3.1 addresses the following anecdote, about Diogenes to those who write letters of recommendation, for other philosophers: “‘That you are a man,’ he says, ‘he will, know at a glance; but whether you are a good or a bad man he, will discover if he has the skill to distinguish between good and, bad, and if he is without that skill he will not discover the facts,, even though I write him thousands of times.’”, [52]. The contrasting pair γράµµα/πνεῦµα was probably, triggered by the opponents, who appeared on the scene with, their letters of recommendation, i.e., with γράµµατα (letters); cf., Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 317. Something of a parallel is found, in Philo, Abraham 60: Abraham understood “by commands not, only those conveyed in speech and writing, but also those made, manifest by nature with clearer signs, and apprehended by the, sense [the eye] which is the most truthful of all and superior to, hearing, on which no certain reliance can be placed.”, [53]. Cf. Erich Grässer, Der Alte Bund im Neuen: Exegetische, Studien zur Israelfrage im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1985), 80–81; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 244–45., [54]. With Wolff, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, 61;, Grässer, Der Alte Bund, 81; contra Lang, An die Korinther, 270;, Otfried Hofius, “Gesetz und Evangelium,” in Paulusstudien (2, vols.; WUNT 51, 143; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989–2002),, 2:81; Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung, 265., Räisänen, Paul and the Law, rightly comments, “If Paul, intended an allusion to Jer 31 in 2 Cor. 3.3 or 3.6, it is all the
Page 1047 :
more conspicuous that he omits what Jer 31 says about the, law.”, [55]. Cf. Wolff, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther 62; cf. also, Vogel, Das Heil des Bundes, 184–97 (the metaphors here, adopted by Paul do not serve to critique the Torah); Jens, Schröter, “Schriftauslegung und Hermeneutik in 2 Korinther, 3,” NovT 40 (1998): 236; Hulmi, Paulus und Mose, 107., Differently, Hofius, “Gesetz und Evangelium,” 75–78, who, pointedly interprets καινὴ διαθήκη (new covenant) as “what God, has newly instituted,” i.e., the gospel, and παλαιὰ διαθήκη (old, covenant) as “that which God previously instituted,” i.e., the, Torah from Sinai, understanding the whole text in the, antithetical categories “law”/“gospel.” A similar interpretation, is found in Scott J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of, Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from, Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (WUNT 81; Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1995), 437, who simply equates γράµµα and νόµος., [56]. For detailed analysis, see Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and, the History of Israel, 255ff.; the argument that Paul adopted, and edited a source from his opponents, as argued by Siegfried, Schulz, “Die Decke des Mose: Untersuchungen zu einer, vorpaulinischen Überlieferung in II Cor 3,7–18,” ZNW 49, (1958): 1–30; and Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in, Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 246–313. I, consider the contrasting thesis of Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge,, 332, more probable: “Second Corinthians 3:7–18 appears to be, a literary ‘interlude,’ but it is clearly connected with the, overarching theme of the letter (cf. the transition from v. 6 to v., 7); it gradually diverges from this main theme until 3:12–18, becomes an independent topic. This suggests that in 3:17–18, Paul has taken up his own reworked interpretation of Exod., 34:29–35, the substance of which is in fact independent of its, present literary context.”, [57]. The following scholars so argue, with some nuances in, their individual arguments: Windisch, Korintherbrief, 116;, Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 111; Wolff, Der zweite Brief, an die Korinther, 68.
Page 1048 :
[58]. Cf. 1QS 4:9; 1QH 6:19. [Translator’s note: Throughout, this section the author distinguishes “justification” in the, forensic sense, as God’s pronouncement that guilty sinners are, acquitted, as he understands Rom. 1:17 and 5:1, from, “righteousness” as a quality of God and justified sinners. This, distinction is not acknowledged in the NRSV translation,, “justification,” for δικαιοσύνη in this passage.], [59]. The ἐν Χριστῷ of 2 Cor. 3:14 speaks in favor of, understanding the κύριος of 3:16–17 as referring to Christ, not, to God; for analysis, cf. Hulmi, Paulus und Mose, 96–98., [60]. Cf. Ingo Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma: Studien zur, Christologie der paulinischen Hauptbriefe (SANT 2; Munich:, Kösel, 1961), 49., [61]. Correctly, so Hermann, ibid., 48ff.; for analysis, cf.,, most recently, Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 320–45., [62]. Cf. Jones, “Freiheit,” 61–67., [63]. Cf. Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 317., [64]. Cf. also Schröter, “2 Korinther 3,” 249: “The issue of the, law can not be considered the comprehensive theme of this, passage. Instead it is characteristic of this text that this theme,, addressed by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel and in any case, suggested by the phrase πλάκες λίθιναι [‘stone tablets’], is, pointedly not dealt with.”, [65]. Contra Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung, 247–, 84, who deals with 2 Cor. 3 under the rubric “The, Transcendent Splendor of the Law,” making it into a text that, already contains the whole Pauline doctrine of the law as found, in Galatians and Romans, even though νόµος and ἁµαρτία are not, found in this text. For a critique of Vollenweider, see, Dautzenberg, “Streit um Freiheit,” 270–71: “The dominant, perspective of the apologetic-confessional line of thought in 2, Cor. 3:6–18 is Paul’s divinely given competence as a minister of, the new covenant. This is the only reason the relation of the, two covenants is discussed. It is by no means a discussion of, the law.” See also Berger, Theologiegeschichte, 463; Schröter,, “2 Korinther 3,” 274–75. Of course, the statements in 2 Cor. 3, touch on the theme of the law if one systemizes them from our
Page 1049 :
perspective today. Such treatment does not correspond to the, data of the text itself, however, for not only is the word νόµος, missing but the three central aspects of the discussion of law, and justification in Galatians and Romans are absent as well:, (1) the relation of ἁµαρτία and νόµος; (2) the antithesis πίστις / ἔργα, νόµου (faith / works of the law); (3) the question of the, significance of the Torah for Jewish Christians., [66]. On the baptismal background of 2 Cor. 5:14–15, see, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Das Heilsgeschehen bei der Taufe nach, dem Apostel Paulus: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Theologie, (MThSH 1; Munich: Zink, 1950), 110–11; Michael Wolter,, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu Röm, 5,1–11 (BZNW; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 74 n. 174., [67]. As in Rom. 6:3–4, here there is a break in the line of, thought. The logic of 2 Cor. 5:14b suggests that believers are, already risen with Christ. Paul avoids this inference and, describes the present and future of those who have been, baptized in ethical terms. On the numerous connections, between 2 Cor. 5:14–17 and Gal. 2:19–21, see Udo Borse, Der, Standort des Galaterbriefes (BBB 41; Cologne: P. Hanstein,, 1972), 71–75., [68]. Grammatically, κατὰ σάρκα must be understood, adverbially as modifying οἴδαµεν (we regard) or ἐγνώκαµεν (we, once knew); cf., e.g., Cilliers Breytenbach, Versöhnung: Eine, Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie (WMANT 60; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), 116., [69]. Three relevant interpretative models exist for 2 Cor., 5:16 (for a survey of recent research, see Wolff, Der zweite, Brief an die Korinther, 123–27): (1) “The Χριστὸς κατὰ σάρκα, [Christ according to the flesh] is Christ as he can be, encountered in the world, before his death and resurrection., He should no longer be viewed as such” (Bultmann, 2, Corinthians, 155). (2) “There was a period in the life of Paul in, which he evaluated Christ from a point of view that one can, rightly call fleshly and sinful. . . . This ‘fleshly’ way of knowing, Christ was overcome at his conversion. A spiritual image of, Christ steps into its place” (Klauck, 2. Korintherbrief, 54). (3)
Page 1050 :
Paul’s opponents charge him with having no knowledge of the, earthly Jesus and dispute his claim to be an apostle on this, basis. Paul calls this way of knowing Jesus Christ “fleshly”, because it relativizes the cross and resurrection (the, interpretation of Wolff, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther, 127,, tends in this direction). This last interpretation has the, advantage that it does not have to postulate Paul’s disinterest, in the historical Jesus (as in Bultmann’s interpretation) and, does not have to take recourse to the Damascus experience—, for Paul does not mention his activity as a persecutor in 2 Cor., 5:16. Moreover, the first-person-plural verbs make clear that, he is not making statements about his individual experience, but making general, fundamental affirmations., [70]. Ἐν Χριστῷ is to be understood in a local sense here and, means being included in the sphere of the Christ reality that is, constituted by the gift of the Spirit; cf. Umbach, In Christus, getauft, 230–32., [71]. On the analysis of καινὴ κτίσις in Paul (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal., 6:15), see Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 261–388; Hubbard, New, Creation, 133–232., [72]. Cf. Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, 126; Hans, Windisch, Taufe und Sünde im ältesten Christentum bis auf, Origenes: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Dogmengeschichte, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1908), 146ff., [73]. For a basic analysis of 2 Cor. 5:18–20, cf. Breytenbach,, Versöhnung, 107ff., [74]. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:301–2., [75]. For the background of the Pauline doctrine of, reconciliation in the history of religions, see below, section, 16.6 (“The Death of Jesus Christ as Atoning Event”)., [76]. Cf. Bultmann, 2 Corinthians, 159., [77]. The comment of Windisch, Korintherbrief, 199, is on, target: “Then the righteousness of God has also entered into, our being and has become a real quality of our ‘new nature.’, The concluding formula ἐν αὐτῷ also points to this. If we have, become the righteousness of God ‘in Christ’ (Phil. 3:9), then, this reality cannot be restricted to God’s judgment and God’s
Page 1051 :
‘declaring’ us to be righteous, for a new reality must actually, have been created within us.”, [78]. Karl Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus: Studien zur, Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen, Rechtfertigungsbegriffs (Münster: Aschendorff, 1967), 106 n., 223; Hans Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought: A Contribution to, the Development of Pauline Theology (ed. John Kenneth Riches;, trans. James C. G. Greig; SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984),, 125–26., [79]. On the structure of 2 Cor. 10–13 and the organization of, Paul’s argument, see Ulrich Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit:, Untersuchungen zu 2. Kor 10–13 (WUNT 2/56; Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1993), 6–142., [80]. If a philosopher did not accept money, that could be, considered a sign of the worthlessness of his teaching; cf., Xenophon, Mem. 1.6.12, where Antiphon says to Socrates, “It is, clear after all that you would not ask less for your instruction, than it is worth, if you believed that it were really worth, anything.”, [81]. Cf. Lucian, Icaromennipus 5, who wants to be initiated, by philosophers into the heavenly mysteries: “I thus looked, around for the most distinguished among them, that is, those, who stood out with the darkest face, the palest complexion, and, the most tangled beard—for I thought it had to be so that men, whose appearance and speech stood out so much from the, others, must know more than others about heavenly things. So, I turned myself over to them and their teaching, paid a, substantial sum in advance, and obligated myself to pay the, same amount later, after I had attained the peak of wisdom.”, [82]. Cf. Wilhelm Lütgert, Freiheitspredigt und, Schwarmgeister in Korinth: Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik der, Christuspartei (BFCT 12/3; Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1908),, 79. A survey of research on the identity of Paul’s opponents in, 2 Corinthians is given by Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s, Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians (JSNTSup, 40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 13–73; R. Bieringer, “Die, Gegner des Paulus im 2 Korintherbrief,” in Studies on 2
Page 1052 :
Corinthians (ed. R. Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht; BETL 112;, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994), 181–221; and Hulmi,, Paulus und Mose, 18–23., [83]. Cf. Bultmann, 2 Corinthians, 215. Cf. Walter, Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the, Letters to the Corinthians (trans. John E. Steely; Nashville:, Abingdon, 1971), 113–16; and, more recently, the collection of, essays in Walter Schmithals, ed., Neues Testament und Gnosis, (EdF 208; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,, 1984), 28–33., [84]. Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul, 80–103. With slight, modifications, Klauck, 2. Korintherbrief, 11, advocates this, position., [85]. Cf. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 26; Furnish, II, Corinthians, 53; Lang, An die Korinther, 357–59., [86]. Cf. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents, 190;, differently, Horn, Angeld des Geistes, according to whom, pneumatic phenomena were not an essential element in the, way the opponents conducted themselves in Corinth., [87]. Hulmi, Paulus und Mose, 62, has recently revived the, argument for a connection with Jerusalem., [88]. On the various efforts at outlining this section, cf., Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit, 22–23. He understands 2 Cor., 11:1–12:13 as the fool’s speech “in the broader sense,” with, 11:21b–12:10 as the fool’s speech “in the narrower sense.” For, an analysis, see Hotze, Paradoxien, 159–227., [89]. For a comprehensive exegesis, cf. Heckel, Kraft in, Schwachheit, 56–120. As a parallel from the history of, religions, see Plato, Resp. 10.614b–615c (NW 2/1:504–5)., [90]. The spectrum of explanations of Paul’s sickness extends, from a speech impediment through hearing difficulties, leprosy,, rheumatism, hysteria, and epilepsy to headaches and migraines, (cf. the survey in Windisch, Korintherbrief, 386–88). Of all, these suggestions, the most likely is headaches or migraines;, cf. Ulrich Heckel, “Der Dorn im Fleisch: Die Krankheit des, Paulus in 2Kor 12,7 und Gal. 4,13f.,” ZNW 84 (1993): 65–92.
Page 1055 :
Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte: Festschrift, für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Ulrich Mell and, Ulrich B. Müller; BZNW 100; New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 89:, “For Luke, the churches founded in Acts 13–14 are located not, in Galatia but in Pisidia and Lycaonia (cf. Acts 13:14; 14:6). . . ., Thus, for Luke, ‘Galatia’ is located farther in the interior of Asia, Minor than Pisidia and Lycaonia. This means that although, Barnabas and (!) Paul establish churches in Antioch of Pisidia,, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, for Luke these are clearly not in, ‘Galatia,’ just as they are not in Phrygia.”, [8]. Cf. Strobel, Galater, 117–18, who, as a historian of, antiquity, strongly advocates the regional hypothesis and, in, disputing Anglo-Saxon scholarship, emphasizes, “If one, considers Hellenistic usage, which had not changed in the time, of Paul, who himself had a Hellenistic education, then one can, only interpret his usage in the Letter to the Galatians in the, sense of this general ethnic understanding of the word. For his, contemporaries, this connotation of ‘Galatia’ was firmly, established in history and literature, and its meaning was, unmistakable. Thus the debate about the addressees of the, Letter to the Galatians must be decided in favor of the, historical ethnic group, especially so since the Galatians, along, with the city of Ankyra, constituted a specific political, organization within the larger province, the Galatian Koinon, [Galatian Commonwealth]., [9]. Cf. ibid., 118: “In this connection, we must underscore, the fact that the traditional ethnic regions and historical areas, continued to exist within the Roman provincial structure.” This, argument must also keep in mind the mixed population not only, in the south but also in the north; cf. Breytenbach, Paulus und, Barnabas, 154ff., [10]. Cf. François Vouga, An die Galater (HNT 10; Tübingen:, Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 11., [11]. Documentation in Rohde, Galater, 11., [12]. On this point, see Koch, “Barnabas,” 94–97., [13]. The positions of individual exegetes on the regional or, province hypotheses are catalogued in Rohde, Galater, 6–7. For
Page 1059 :
that the “genre of the apologetic letter” ever existed, and,, regarding the “strict commitment to theory” presumed for, ancient authors, comments that “it was precisely the ‘art of, dissimulation’ that belonged to the theoretical challenges of, every practitioner of the art of rhetoric, that is, the challenge of, not allowing allegiance to rules to be noticed. Thus a clear, application of rhetorical rules must have the effect of showing, a lack of ability or experience, at least in the areas of dispositio, and elocutio” (p. 31). Dieter Sänger, “‘Vergeblich bemüht’ (Gal., 4,11)? Zur paulinischen Argumentationsstrategie im, Galaterbrief,” ZNW 48 (2002): 377–99, is insistent that ancient, rhetoricians regarded oratio and epistula as two distinct forms, of communication: “The performance aspects reserved for oral, delivery, actio and pronuntiatio, that is, gestures, imitation,, volume and rhythm of one’s speech, modulation of the voice,, dramatic pause, and the like, cannot be reproduced in it [the, letter]. It is precisely these elements, however, that are an, essential factor in delivering a speech and that determine its, success or failure on those addressed” (p. 389)., [26]. Aune’s comment is on target: “Paul in particular was, both a creative and eclectic letter writer. The epistolary, situations he faced were often more complex than the ordinary, rhetorical situations faced by most rhetoricians” (David E., Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [LEC;, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], 203)., [27]. This understanding is represented by, e.g., Oepke,, Galater, 27ff.; Kümmel and Feine, Introduction, 298–304;, Mussner, Galaterbrief, 25; Otto Merk, “Der Beginn der, Paränese im Galaterbrief,” in Wissenschaftsgeschichte und, Exegese: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 65. Geburtstag Otto Merks, (ed. Roland Gebauer et al.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 250;, Lührmann, Galatians, 123–28; Hübner, “Galaterbrief,” TRE, 12:7–8; Betz, Galatians, 7; Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul, 99;, Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 346–50; Broer, Einleitung, 2:440;, Koch, “Barnabas,” 87. Differently, Breytenbach, Paulus und, Barnabas, 143, who argues that it was not itinerant Jewish, Christian missionaries who had intruded into the churches: “It
Page 1060 :
was rather an attempt by the synagogue associations to get the, Galatians to practice circumcision and observance of the Torah,, to make them into Jews and incorporate them into the existing, Jewish community. It is a dispute with a group of Jewish, Christians who had not yet separated from the synagogue and, who had not agreed with the arrangements made at the, apostolic council (Gal. 2:7–9), according to which the law-free, Gentile mission had its theological legitimacy alongside the, mission proclaiming the gospel to Jews.” There is nothing in, Galatians, however, about an integration into the synagogue., Moreover, Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:4, 11–14; 2 Cor. 3:1; 11:23ff.;, 12:13; Phil. 3:1ff. presuppose the activities of strict Jewish, Christian itinerant missionaries who directed their work, against Paul. For a critique of Breytenbach’s view, see also, Koch, “Barnabas,” 85–88., [28]. Peder Borgen, “Observations on the Theme ‘Paul and, Philo’: Paul’s Preaching of Circumcision in Galatia (Gal. 5:11), and Debates on Circumcision in Philo,” in Die paulinische, Literatur und Theologie = The Pauline Literature and, Theology: Anlässlich der 50. jährigen Gründungs-Feier der, Universität von Aarhus (ed. Sigfred Pedersen; Århus: Aros,, 1980), 85–102, refers to Philo’s distinction between “ethical”, and physical circumcision (Migration 86–93; QE 2.2) and infers,, regarding Galatia, that the opponents persuaded some within, the churches that Paul’s preaching was to be considered, “ethical” circumcision, which must now be followed by physical, circumcision., [29]. On the possible background of στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, (elemental spirits of the universe), cf. Eduard Schweizer, “Die, ‘Elemente der Welt’: Gal. 4,3.9; Kol 2,8.20,” in Beiträge zur, Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, (1955–1970) (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970), 147–63; cf also D. Rusam,, “Neue Belege zu den στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου,” ZNW 83 (1992): 119–, 25., [30]. Cf. the extensive evidence in Dieter Lührmann, “Tage,, Monate, Jahreszeiten, Jahre (Gal. 4,10),” in Werden und Wirken, des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus Westermann (ed.
Page 1061 :
Rainer Albertz et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,, 1980), 428–45; Kuhn, “Bedeutung der Qumrantexte,” 195–202., [31]. Cf., e.g., Thomas Söding, “Die Gegner des Apostels, Paulus in Galatien,” MTZ 42 (1991): 315–16; like many other, exegetes, he takes the opponents to be “Hellenistic Jewish, Christians who advocated a syncretistic Christian nomism” (p., 316). Differently, Nikolaus Walter, “Paulus und die Gegner des, Christusevangeliums in Galatien,” in L’apôtre Paul :, personnalité, style, et conception du ministère (ed. Albert, Vanhoye; BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986),, 351–56, who argues that Paul was in conflict with a Jewish, countermission. But Gal. 6:12 speaks against this: Paul’s, opponents insist on circumcision “that they may not be, persecuted for the cross of Christ”; they were thus Jewish, Christians., [32]. Cf. the comprehensive discussion on this point by John, M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in, Galatians (ed. John Kenneth Riches; SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T, Clark, 1988), 36–74., [33]. Barclay, ibid., 58, emphasizes that the precarious social, situation could well have been an important reason that Gentile, Christians were willing to accept circumcision., [34]. Differently, e.g., Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the, Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge:, Cambridge University Press, 1986), 59ff., [35]. Cf. Lüdemann, Opposition to Paul, 99–103. This thesis, had been previously advocated by, e.g., Oepke, Galater, 212–, 13., [36]. On Agrippa and Claudius, see above, section 7.5 (“The, Development of Early Christianity as an Independent, Movement”)., [37]. Cf. Wrede, Paul, 70., [38]. An exclusively sociological interpretation of this conflict, does not go far enough; contra Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the, Gentiles, 69, who states, “Paul opposes circumcision because it, is the rite of entry into the Jewish people, and for that reason, alone.”
Page 1062 :
[39]. For analysis, see Alkier, Wunder und Wirklichkeit, 125–, 31., [40]. On Gal. 1:15, see above, section 4.1 (“The Reports about, the Damascus Event”)., [41]. See above, chapter 6 (“The Apostolic Council and the, Incident at Antioch: The Problems Remain Unresolved”)., [42]. Cf. Wechsler, Geschichtsbild und Apostelstreit, 383. In, Gal. 2:15 ἁµαρτωλοί is not a noun of action: “The Gentile is [a, sinner] both by his nature as a non-Jew and by the fact that his, life is not oriented to the Torah as its norm” (Karl Heinrich, Rengstorf, “ἁµαρτωλός,” TWNT 1:329). [Translator’s note: The, translation of TWNT in TDNT does not convey the author’s, nuance reflected here in the text.], [43]. Cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 2:64–68. Contra the, far-reading conclusions drawn by Hübner, it must still be, emphasized with Mussner, Galaterbrief, 174–75, that in Gal., 2:16c we do not have a real quotation but only a “contextual, reference.”, [44]. The Pauline understanding of the law raises not only, problems with regard to its content but linguistic issues as, well. Paul’s writings manifest an oscillating use of terminology;, he never defines the content, scope, or precise meaning of (ὁ), νόµος. Paul can relate νόµος to Moses (cf. 1 Cor. 9:8–9; Gal. 3:17;, Rom. 5:13–14), sharply distinguish it from the prophets (Rom., 3:21), and then in other passages designate texts from the, prophets (1 Cor. 14:21), Psalms (Rom. 3:10–14), or Genesis, (Gen. 4:17–18) all as words of the law (cf. Walter Gutbrod,, “νόµος,” TDNT 4:1069–71; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 16–18;, Hans Hübner, “νόµος,” EDNT 2:475–77). Paul unquestionably, stands in the tradition of the Septuagint, which translates חורה, with νόµος about two hundred times (cf. Räisänen, Paul and the, Law, 16, “The different occurrences can be compared to, concentric circles: the radii can be different, but the Sinaitic, centre remains the same”), and so in his writings νόµος is, usually to be translated as “law” and refers to the Sinai, tradition. Cf. Hübner, “νόµος,” 2:477; Thomas R. Schreiner, The, Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand
Page 1063 :
Rapids: Baker, 1993), 33–34; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 131–33., The German word Gesetz [like the English word “law”] and, associated expressions such as “freedom from the law” or, “apart from the law,” however, only partly overlap the Pauline, standpoint. No one in the ancient world could think of the, ordered world and its philosophy or religion apart from “law”, or “laws” (see below, section 19.3 [“The Law”]). Nor was Paul, by any means “apart from law” or “free from law,” for he knew, himself to be subject to the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2), the “law, of faith” (Rom. 3:27) or the “law of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:2). It is, rather the case that Paul’s critique was directed exclusively, against the Torah and its use by other missionaries; he did this, in a variety of ways on the basis of his Christ hermeneutic., Such a critique is not the same as “being critical of law” in a, general sense. In order to take account of this state of affairs, I, speak of Torah when (ὁ) νόµος appears to mean the revelation, on Sinai and its associated complex of traditions. When Paul, makes statements about (ὁ) νόµος that include the Torah but at, the same time go beyond its foundational character,, “law/Torah” will be used. When by the word (ὁ) νόµος Paul, means a law/rule/principle/norm with no reference to the, Torah, this will be made explicit. I will continue to use, expressions that include the word “law” (such as, “understanding of the law”) where the meaning is clear from, the context. Although such distinctions still do not entirely, obviate overlappings and ambiguities, they appear to me, necessary from the subject matter., [45]. This new level of argument speaks against the, assumption that Gal. 2:16 derives from Antiochene theology, and was handed on to Paul (as understood by Becker et al.,, Briefe, 96; Michael Theobald, “Der Kanon von der, Rechtfertigung,” in Worum geht es in der, Rechtfertigungslehre? Das biblische Fundament der, “Gemeinsamen Erklärung” von katholischer Kirche und, Lutherischem Weltbund (ed. Thomas Söding and Frank-Lothar, Hossfeld; QD 180; Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 131–38. Christoph, Burchard, “Nicht aus Werken des Gesetzes gerecht, sondern
Page 1065 :
[52]. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 366. On p. 358 he argues, unequivocally, “To sum up thus far, the phrase ‘the works of, the law,’ does, of course, refer to all or whatever the law, requires, covenantal nomism as a whole. But in a context, where the relationship of Israel with other nations is at issue,, certain laws would naturally come more into focus than others., We have instanced circumcision and food laws in particular.”, But precisely this distinction is not found in Paul., [53]. Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 47., [54]. Michael Bachmann, “Rechtfertigung und Gesetzeswerke, bei Paulus,” TZ 49 (1993): 30., [55]. Ibid., 32., [56]. The exact expression ἔργα νόµου is not found in Greek, literature prior to and contemporaneous with Paul. There could, be a linguistic parallel, also partially corresponding to the, content of the phrase, in 4QMMTa C 27 (4Q398 frg. 14, col. 2),, where it is stated in a letter about questions of the law, “We, too have written you some prescriptions of the Torah, which we, deem to be good for you and your people” (Kuhn, “Bedeutung, der Qumrantexte,” 209). Johann Maier and Kurt Schubert, eds.,, Die Qumran-Essener: Texte der Schriftrollen und Lebensbild, der Gemeinde (Munich: Reinhardt, 1973), 375, translate, “We, too have written you several Torah practices that we find good, for you and your people”; E. Qimron and John Strugnell,, Qumran Cave 4. V (DJD 10; Oxford: Oxford University Press,, 1994), 62, 64, translate, “some of the precepts of the Torah.”, According to H.-W. Kuhn, “Qumran und Paulus: Unter, traditionsgeschichtlichem Aspekt ausgewählte Parallelen,” in, Das Urchristentum in seiner literarischen Geschichte:, Festschrift für Jürgen Becker zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Ulrich, Mell and Ulrich B. Müller; BZNW 100; Berlin: de Gruyter,, 1999), 232, the expression מעשי התורהmeans “‘some works of, the law,’ in the sense of ‘some works that are to be done, according to the law.’” These “prescriptions of the Torah” are, not simply identical with the Pauline concept oriented to the, results of one’s actions, for in Paul the sense is determined by, the preposition ἐκ, so that 4QMMTa C 27 is not really a parallel;
Page 1066 :
cf. Vouga, Galater, 58. Nor can 4Q174Flor. be considered a, parallel, for there the text is to be read “works of praise,” not, “works of law” (cf. Kuhn, “Bedeutung der Qumrantexte,” 207)., Especially instructive are 4QFlor 1 + 3 2.2; 1QS 5:21; 6:18; CD, 20:6; cf. also 2 Bar. 48:38; 57:2., [57]. Differently, e.g., Helmut Merklein, “‘Nicht aus Werken, des Gesetzes . . .’: Eine Auslegung von Gal. 2,15–21,” in, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus (2 vols.; WUNT 43, 105; Tübingen:, Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 2:308, who argues it is the fault of, human beings that no one is justified by “works of the law.”, [58]. So Burchard, “Nicht aus Werken des Gesetzes,” 236., [59]. So Michael Bachmann, “4QMMT und Galaterbrief, מעשי, התורהund ΕΡΓΑ ΝΟΜΟΥ,” ZNW 89 (1998): 110. He thus infers, “If, Paul’s polemic against ‘works of law’ was concerned with an, orientation to (specific) halakot, then it is easier to understand, —as compared with the usual interpretation—that both the, Torah as a whole and its unmitigated claim are evaluated in a, thoroughly positive sense (one need only note Rom. 3:31 and, Gal. 5:14).” Against this is to be emphasized that for Paul it is, not a matter of just any halakah but of circumcision, so that he, could hardly go on to evaluate “the demand of the Torah as a, whole” in a positive sense. Moreover, Galatians as a whole, excludes such an interpretation; one need only note Gal. 5:18., [60]. Cf. Vouga, Galater, 58., [61]. This is all the more true if Paul takes up ἔργα νόμου as a, key concept of his opponents and gives it a completely new, interpretation; cf. Heinrich Hoffmann, Das Gesetz in der, frühjüdischen Apokalyptik (SUNT 23; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, & Ruprecht, 1999), 344–45., [62]. Cf. Mikael Winninge, Sinners and the Righteous: A, Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters, (ConBNT 26; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International,, 1995), 185ff., [63]. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 33–428,, interprets (one-sidedly) almost the whole of ancient Judaism’s, literature in terms of the covenant concept.
Page 1067 :
[64]. Cf. Friedrich Avemarie, Tora und Leben:, Untersuchungen zur Heilsbedeutung der Tora in der frühen, rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 55; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 1996), 578: “The principle of retribution remains intact., Nowhere is it doubted that keeping the commandments is, rewarded and breaking them is punished; still, it is repeatedly, emphasized that true obedience is not a matter of looking for, rewards but is practiced because it is God’s will or for the sake, of the command itself—and this even where acting for the sake, of reward is explicitly approved.”, [65]. Cf. Diogenes, Epistle 29, 1–2 (in Malherbe, Cynic, Epistles)., [66]. On the idea of the Torah as source of life, cf., e.g., Ezek., 20:11, 13, 21; Deut. 4:1; 8:1, 3; 30:15–20; Ps. 119:116; Neh., 9:29; Sir. 17:11; Wis. 6:18; Bar. 3:9; 4:1; 4 Ezra 7:21; 14:30;, CD 3:15–16., [67]. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 27–29., [68]. Cf. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 481–82., [69]. Among those who argue for a baptismal reference in, Gal. 2:19–20 are Mussner, Galaterbrief, 180; Schnelle,, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart, 54–56; Hans Halter,, Taufe und Ethos: Paulinische Kriterien für das Proprium, christliches Moral (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 102ff.; Thomas, Söding, “Kreuzestheologie und Rechtfertigungslehre,” Cath, (M) 46 (1992): 170; Strecker, Die liminale Theologie des, Paulus, 254., [70]. Samuel Vollenweider, “Großer Tod und Großes Leben,”, EvT 51 (1991): 373., [71]. Schweitzer, Mysticism, 194, 198, 303., [72]. It can hardly be a coincidence that Paul speaks of, Abraham only in the dispute with his Judaist opponents (cf. 2, Cor. 11:22; Galatians, Romans)., [73]. Cf. Berger, Theologiegeschichte, 457., [74]. On the historical background, see Stegemann, Library, of Qumran, 104–7., [75]. Paul here argues on the basis of the Hellenistic, distinction between written and unwritten law; cf. Jones,
Page 1068 :
“Freiheit,” 92ff., [76]. For analysis, see Kuhn, “Bedeutung der Qumrantexte,”, 177–78., [77]. On the Pauline modifications to the text he cites, cf., Koch, Schrift als Zeuge, 163–65. On Gal. 3:13, cf. esp. 4QpNah, 1:6–8; 11QTa 64:6ff.; on the interpretation of these texts, cf., Kuhn, “Bedeutung der Qumrantexte,” 178–82., [78]. H.-W. Kuhn, “Die drei wichtigsten Qumranparallelen, zum Galaterbrief,” in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte:, Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Rüdiger, Bartelmus et al.; OBO 126; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &, Ruprecht, 1993), 249; cf. also Gert Jeremias, Der Lehrer der, Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,, 1963), 142–46, who points out that that in 1QpHab 8:2–3 the, Teacher of Righteousness is an authority comparable to Jesus,, for only here do we find אמנהwith the preposition ( בπίστις ἐν), with reference to a person., [79]. An analogous argument is found in Seneca, Ep. 90.5–14:, after the end of the Golden Age, laws had to be introduced as a, check on the degenerating culture., [80]. Χάριν (in order to; NRSV, “because of,” Gal. 3:19) is, probably to be translated as indicating purpose. Cf. Hübner,, Law in Paul’s Thought, 27, 36; Sanders, Paul, 92., [81]. Διά with the genitive can designate the one who causes, something or through whom something comes into being (cf., Gal. 1:1); evidence and examples are given in Albrecht Oepke,, “διά,” TDNT 2:65–67. Of course, neither the angels nor the, Torah are explicitly called inferior, but this is exactly what, results from Paul’s line of argument; contra Eckhard J., Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition, Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics, (WUNT 2/16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 272. A, comparison with Philo reveals the offensive character of Paul’s, argument. Angels appear in Philo, Giants 6ff., as beings who, were originally νοῦς (mind) but who lost their purity by their fall, into zones near the earth or to the earth itself; in contrast to, these, the divine Spirit continued to rest on the one who was
Page 1069 :
the wise man par excellence, namely, Moses (Giants 55). Philo, subordinates the revelatory function of the angels to that of, Moses and believes that there are good and bad angels (Giants, 16–17). Paul, however, subordinates Moses to the angels., Helmut Burkhardt, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philo, von Alexandrien (Giessen: Brunnen, 1988), has demonstrated, the outstanding position of Moses within Philo’s understanding, of revelation and Scripture. He shows that in Philo’s, understanding the personality of the human author Moses was, by no means switched off “but—in contrast—his work, expresses his person in manifold ways” (p. 211). In Philo,, Moses appears as a forerunner of what was later called, personal inspiration., [82]. Cf. Deut. 33:2 LXX; Josephus, Ant. 15.136; Jub. 1:29; T., Dan 6:2; and elsewhere. Rabbinic evidence is given by Strack, and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:554ff. Martyn, Galatians, 354–, 56, points out that διατάσσω is never connected with νόµος in the, Septuagint. Paul thus also shows semantically that he places, the origin of the law in a special category while in fact taking, the tradition that the Torah was given by angels, originally, meant in a positive sense, and presenting it negatively., [83]. Cf. esp. Lev. 26:46 LXX; and Albrecht Oepke, “µεσιτής,”, TDNT 4:603–24., [84]. In Gal. 3:19 Paul de facto disputes the direct divine, origin of the Torah, for only under this presupposition does the, distinction in 3:20 make sense; cf. Schweitzer, Mysticism, 70,, 209; Oepke, Galater, 116; Hans Lietzmann, An die Galater (4th, ed.; HNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 21–22; Luz,, Geschichtsverständnis, 190; Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought,, 26–28, 36; John William Drane, Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A, Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles (London:, SPCK, 1975), 34; Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, 344; Rohde,, Galater, 155–56; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 130–31; E. P., Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia:, Fortress, 1983), 68; Becker et al., Briefe, 54; Kari Kuula, The, Law, the Covenant, and God’s Plan (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &, Ruprecht, 1999), 104–7; Vouga, Galater, 83; Martyn, Galatians,
Page 1070 :
357. Among advocates of the opposing position are Schnabel,, Law and Wisdom, 271ff.; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie,, 1:265; Eckstein, Verheissung und Gesetz, 200–202; and Dunn,, Theology of Paul, 139–40, who consistently appeal to the, positive tradition about angels in ancient Judaism so that they, can see the text here as affirming the unqualified divine origin, of the Torah. Galatians 3:21; Rom. 7:22; 8:7; 9:4 do show that, Paul cannot continue to make this argument consistently and, that he does not want to do so. These texts, however, cannot be, permitted to determine the interpretation of Gal. 3:19–20., [85]. Cf. the threefold distinction in Hübner, Law in Paul’s, Thought, 30–31 (God’s intention, the immanent intention of the, law, the intention of the lawgiver)., [86]. By making this distinction, Paul turns away from a, fundamental conviction of ancient Judaism; one need only note, Avot 1:1–2: “Moses received Torah at Sinai and handed it on to, Joshua, Joshua to elders, and elders to prophets. And prophets, handed it on to the men of the great assembly. They said three, things: ‘Be prudent in judgment. Raise up many disciples. Make, a fence for the Torah.’ Simeon the Righteous was one of the, last survivors of the great assembly. He would say: ‘On three, things does the world stand: On the Torah, and on the Temple, service, and on deeds of loving kindness.’” This translation is, that of Jacob Neusner, The Midrash: A New Translation (New, Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988)., [87]. Cf. Martyn, Galatians, 364–65., [88]. For analysis of the text, cf. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und, Christusgegenwart, 57–62; Strecker, Die liminale Theologie, des Paulus, 351–59., [89]. The expression διὰ πίστεως is an interpretive Pauline, addition; cf. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart,, 58., [90]. Cf. Nils A. Dahl and David Hellholm, “GarmentMetaphors: The Old and the New Human Being,” in Antiquity, and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy, Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday (ed. Adela
Page 1072 :
[99]. Cf. 4 Macc. 5:20: “to transgress the law in matters, either small or great is of equal seriousness.”, [100]. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 36–42., [101]. Contra Ferdinand Hahn, “Das Gesetzesverständnis im, Römer-und Galaterbrief,” ZNW 67 (1976): 57 n. 89, who, excludes the meaning “rule,” “principle,” or “norm,” since in, his understanding the law has received its intended purpose, through Christ. Against this, Jost Eckert, Die urchristliche, Verkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus und seinen Gegnern, nach dem Galaterbrief (Regensburg: Pustet, 1971), 160, rightly, emphasizes, “When Paul now speaks of the ‘law of Christ,’ the, paradoxical formulation is evident, and it is just as clear that he, must be speaking of an entirely different law from the law of, Moses.”, [102]. Cf. Xenophon, Mem. 2.7.1: Socrates says to his illtempered friend Aristarchus, “You should share some of your, burden with your friends. Perhaps we could make it easier for, you.” Menander, Sent. 534: “See, all burdens are [to be borne], in common with friends.” Cf. further Epictetus, Diatr. 4.153–, 154, 159., [103]. M. Winger, “The Law of Christ,” NTS 46 (2000): 537–, 46., [104]. Mussner, Galaterbrief, 373., [105]. Cf. the exegesis of Rom. 13:8–10 below, in sections, 12:10 (“The Shape of the New Life”) and 19.3 (“The Law”)., [106]. Schweitzer, Mysticism, 187, has a clear apprehension, of the complexity of Paul’s doctrine of the law: “He asserts, roundly that the Law is no longer in force. But at the same time, he admits its authority by his view that those who acknowledge, the Law are subject to the Law, and so perish by the Law. And, there is yet another unintelligible distinction. That believers, from Judaism should continue to live according to the Law, seems to him quite proper and in no way detrimental to their, redemption. But if the believers from among the Gentiles do, the same thing, this is for him a denial of the cross of Christ.”, [107]. Cf. Kuula, Law and Covenant, 36–45, who rightly, emphasizes “that the idea of participation in Christ or the
Page 1074 :
5:19 and the singular “fruit of the Spirit” in 5:22: “And because, the effects of the Spirit can all be summed up in ἀγάπη as their, focal point, Paul can speak of the one ‘fruit’ of the Spirit in the, singular.”, [115]. Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer (5th ed.; HNT 8;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 71., [116]. Ulrich Wilckens, “Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen, Gesetzesverständnisses,” NTS 28 (1982): 158; cf. also, Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 73–83., [117]. As a parallel in the Hellenistic friendship ethic, cf., Cicero, Amic. 20; Lucian, Toxaris 5; numerous other texts are, cited in NW 1/2:715–25., [118]. Betz, Galatians, 270., [119]. Cf. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 77., [120]. A mediating position is maintained by Theissen,, Religion of the Earliest Churches, 219, who, on the one hand,, notes that the law must have become a problem to Paul, immediately after his conversion but, on the other hand, states,, “Only now did Paul activate his own conversion and introduce, it as an argument into the public discussion—as a warning, against accepting circumcision. He did this in two letters, written against Judaistic countermissionaries, Galatians and, Philippians. A (current) crisis in the communities and a (long, past) personal crisis now came together” (p. 220). Did a, fundamental insight remain buried for twenty years, only to, emerge with explosive force in the confrontation with the, Judaists? It seems to be more plausible that Galatians, represents a really new insight and argumentation within, Paul’s thought., [121]. From the older scholarship, cf. Wrede, Paul, 122ff.;, Weiss, Earliest Christianity, 301–3; Schweitzer, Mysticism,, 219–26; Schoeps, Paul, 183–84. From the current discussion,, cf., e.g., Wilckens, “Entwicklung,” 157–58; Wilckens, “Werken, des Gesetzes,” 84–85: “Evidently it was first in connection with, the debate with the Judaistic opponents in his Galatian, churches that Paul realized it was necessary to develop an, explicit doctrine of justification.” Cf. further Strecker,
Page 1075 :
“Befreiung und Rechtfertigung,” 237; Lüdemann, Paulus und, das Judentum, 21. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 9–10,, formulates the matter as follows: “Whatever major, development there was in Paul’s theology of the law, must, in, my view, have taken place by the time of the writing of, Galatians.” Cf. further Berger, Theologiegeschichte, 459:, “Paul’s real doctrine of justification was developed—, conditioned by the situation—in connection with the problem of, how far the validity of the Jewish way could be extended, (Galatians, Romans). On the basis of Gen. 15:6, Paul thereby, brings together elements of his own theology that had not, previously been so connected and that thereby received a new, meaning.” So also Gnilka, Apostel und Zeuge, 237–44, assumes, that the Galatian crisis—on the basis of traditions—led to the, formulation of the specific doctrine of justification., [122]. The tensions within the Pauline understanding of the, law have been revealed, above all, by the work of H. Räisänen;, cf. especially Heikki Räisänen, “Paul’s Theological Difficulties, with the Law,” in Heikki Räisänen, The Torah and Christ:, Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in, Early Christianity (ed. Anne-Marit Enroth; SESJ 45; Helsinki:, Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986), passim., [123]. Cf. Daniel G. Powers, Salvation through Participation:, An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity, with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology (CBET 29; Leuven:, Peeters, 2001), 121–22., [124]. Cf. Strecker, Die liminale Theologie des Paulus, 208–, 11., [125]. On the changing and stabilizing function of rituals, cf., Clifford Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative, Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected, Essays (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 3–30.
Page 1076 :
Chapter 12, [1]. Cf. Philo, Embassy 156–57: “He [Augustus] knew, therefore that they have houses of prayer and meet together in, them, particularly on the sacred sabbaths when they receive as, a body training in their ancestral philosophy. . . . Yet, nevertheless he neither ejected them from Rome nor deprived, them of their Roman citizenship because they were careful to, preserve their Jewish citizenship also, nor took any violent, measures against the houses of prayer, nor prevented them, from meeting to receive instructions in the laws, or opposed, their offerings of the first fruits.” Cf. also Juvenal, Satirae 3.10–, 18., [2]. Cf. Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient, Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans, Debate (ed. Karl P. Donfried; rev. and exp. ed.; Peabody, MA:, Hendrickson, 1991), 89–92; Peter Lampe, From Paul to, Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (ed., Marshall D. Johnson; trans. Michael Steinhauser; Minneapolis:, Fortress, 2003), 90–94; Lichtenberger, “Josephus und Paulus,”, 247–48., [3]. Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 2.85 (four thousand devotees of, Egyptian and Jewish cults were deported to Sardinia to combat, the banditry there); cf. also Suetonius, Tib. 36; Josephus, Ant., 18.83., [4]. On the edict of Claudius, see above, section 2.1, (“Absolute Chronology”)., [5]. On the relation between Christianity and Judaism in, Rome, cf. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds., Judaism, and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Grand Rapids:, Eerdmans, 1998)., [6]. Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.44., [7]. On the hypothesis that Rom. 16 was originally addressed, to the church in Ephesus (no longer advocated in the current, discussion), see Schnelle, New Testament Writings, 116–20.
Page 1079 :
righteousness of God is established through faith (not through, works); thus its purpose is directed toward faith, that is, that, all people come to believe. The phrase εἰς πίστιν thus designates, the universally intended effect of the preaching of God’s, righteousness that is received ἐκ πίστεως.”, [29]. Cf. ibid., 1:84–85., [30]. For exegesis of this section, see, in addition to the, standard commentaries, esp. M. Pohlenz, “Paulus und die, Stoa,” ZNW 42 (1949): 69–104; Günther Bornkamm, “Die, Offenbarung des Zornes Gottes,” in Das Ende des Gesetzes:, Paulusstudien (BEvT 16; Munich: Kaiser, 1961), 9–33;, Bussmann, Paulinischen Missionspredigt, 108–22., [31]. Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 2:63., [32]. Especially Wis. 13:1–9 appears to have affected Paul, (texts in NW 2/1:13–22)., [33]. Cf. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans., Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 42–43., [34]. It is striking that Paul argues on the basis of a theology, of creation even in those places where he could cite passages, from the Torah; cf., on the rejection of male homosexuality in, Rom. 1:27, the prohibitions in Lev. 18:22; 20:13., [35]. Cf. Udo Schnelle, The Human Condition: Anthropology, in the Teachings of Jesus, Paul, and John (trans. O. C. Dean Jr.;, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 37–113., [36]. Cf. Ps. 61:13 LXX (Ps. 62:12)., [37]. Cf. Wilckens, Römer, 1:127–31., [38]. Pss. Sol. 2:16–18: “For you have rewarded sinners, according to their actions, and according to their extremely, wicked sins. You have exposed their sins, that your judgment, might be evident; you have obliterated their memory from the, earth. God is a righteous judge and will not be impressed by, appearances” (trans. R. B. Wright, OTP 2:653). On the idea of, judgment according to works in the realm of classical Greek,, cf. Plato, Phaed. 113d–114c., [39]. Differently, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament,, 1:263: “But Paul goes much further still; he says not only that, man can not achieve salvation by works of the Law, but also
Page 1080 :
that he is not even intended to do so.” This understanding does, not capture the apostle’s intention, for it is not the doing of, works but being under the power of sin that prevents one from, being justified., [40]. Cf. Hans Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the, New Testament (trans. John Bowden; New York: Harper &, Row, 1969), 248, where judgment according to works means in, Paul that “here grace is no longer a compensation for what, righteousness man still lacks, but the complete provision of, righteousness by God.”, [41]. Cf. Wilckens, Römer, 1:145: “The Pauline gospel is at its, core by no means hostile to works.”, [42]. Compare the texts in NW 2/1:71–85 with the whole, complex of ideas; with ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόµος compare Aristotle, Eth., nic. 4.1128a: “The refined and well-bred man, therefore, will be, as we have described, being as it were a law to himself.” Cf., also Aristotle, Pol. 1284a, according to which the law is not, concerned with exceptional people, “for they are a law to, themselves” (αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσι νόµος). How strongly the idea of the, νόµος ἄγραφος had impressed itself into people’s consciousness is, indicated by a pseudepigraphical letter of the Pythagorean, Melissa to Kleareta: “For a husband’s wishes ought to be an, unwritten law [νόµος ἄγραφος] to an orderly wife, and she should, live by them” (Epistulae pythagoreorum 3.2; trans. A. J., Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, [LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 83)., [43]. A thoroughly comparable position is found in Philo,, where the rite is spiritualized in response to cultural pressure, to conform; cf. QE 2.2: “The sojourner is one who circumcises, not his uncircumcision but his desires and sensual pleasures, and the other passions of the soul.”, [44]. Wilckens, Römer, 1:157., [45]. For analysis, cf. Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 2:272–74., [46]. See below, section 19.3 (“The Law”)., [47]. For the history of research, cf., most recently, Seifrid,, Justification by Faith, 1–75; R. Bieringer, “Sünde und, Gerechtigkeit in 2 Korinther 5,21,” in Studies on 2 Corinthians
Page 1081 :
(ed. R. Bieringer and Jan Lambrecht; BETL 112; Leuven:, Leuven University Press, 1994), 494–501, 511–14, for good, bibliography; Theobald, Römerbrief, 206–12., [48]. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:285:, “The reason why ‘righteousness’ is called ‘God’s righteousness’, is just this: Its one and only foundation is God’s grace—it is, God-given, God-adjudicated righteousness (Rom. 1:17; 3:21–22,, 26; 10:3).” Cf. further p. 271: “But it is possible to speak so of, ‘righteousness’ not only because of the tight connection that, exists between ‘righteousness’ (as condition) and ‘life’ (as, result), but especially because not merely salvation (the result), is the gift of God but even the condition for it is already the gift, of God Himself.” Conzelmann, Theology of the New Testament,, 220: “Philippians 3.9 offers the key for the definition of the, concept.” This is elaborated in Hans Conzelmann, Grundriss, der Theologie des Neuen Testaments (4th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1987), 244: “Here [in Phil. 3:9] this theme is fully, developed. ‘My righteousness’ and ‘the righteousness of God, διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ [“through faith in Christ”] here stand, diametrically opposite each other. The former represents, human attainment through the Torah (ἐκ νόµου; cf. 3:6 and Rom., 10:5), in contrast, the latter comes from God (ἐκ θεοῦ; here the, genitive is clearly explained as genitivus auctoris, i.e., genitive, of source).”, [49]. Ernst Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,”, in New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM Press,, 1969), 172; Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 73; more, hesitantly, Stuhlmacher, Romans, 29–32., [50]. Cf. Käsemann, “Righteousness of God,” 176: “But I find, myself totally unable to assent to the view that Paul’s theology, and his philosophy of history are oriented towards the, individual.”, [51]. Cf., most recently, Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Gedanken, zum alttestamentlichen Vorfeld paulinischer, Rechtfertigungslehre,” in Worum geht es in der, Rechtfertigungslehre? Das biblische Fundament der
Page 1083 :
12–17, 1979 (ed. David Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 1983), 495–530., [56]. Cf., e.g., Windisch, Korintherbrief, 198; Bultmann,, Theology of the New Testament, 1:277; C. E. B. Cranfield, The, Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,, 1979), 1:97–98; Theobald, Römerbrief, 207., [57]. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 78–84., [58]. Zeller, Römer, 43, is on target with his comment: “The, righteousness of God is made eschatologically available already, in the present (present tense!).”, [59]. Cf. ibid., 78–79., [60]. The classification of the nuances of content in terms of, grammatical categories is not entirely satisfactory; Rom. 3:21, should be understood as genitivus objectivus and Rom. 3:22 as, genitivus auctoris. Differently, e.g., Theobald, Römerbrief, 207–, 8, who wants to read all instances in Rom. 3:21–26 as genitivus, subjectivus., [61]. On the exegesis of Rom. 3:25, see below, section 16.6, (“The Death of Jesus Christ as Atoning Event”)., [62]. For evidence and argument, cf. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit, und Christusgegenwart, 67–72, 197–201., [63]. Cf. Wilckens, Römer, 2:220., [64]. Cf. Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit Gottes, 93., [65]. The seven explicit instances of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (2 Cor., 5:21; Rom. 1:17; 3:5; 3:21, 22; 10:3; Phil. 3:9) may be, contrasted with the vocabulary dealing with the realm of, salvation: πνεῦµα, 120 times; ἐν Χριστῷ, 61 times; ἐν κυρίῳ, 37, times; πίστις, 91 times; πιστεύω, 42 times; δικαιοσύνη, 25 times;, ζωή, 27 times; ἐλπίς, 25 times., [66]. Cf. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 441, 491–92., [67]. Cf. also Hübner, Biblische Theologie, 1:177: “This term,, of course, does not occur elsewhere in the Pauline corpus with, the meaning it has in Paul’s usage in Romans. The, ‘righteousness of God’ is thus for Paul a concept that developed, out of the late phase of his theology.”, [68]. Linguistic parallels to the use of νόµος in the sense of, “order/norm” are given by Heikki Räisänen, “Sprachliches zum
Page 1086 :
1:26–27 and 2:7, as found in Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.31: “There, are two types of men; the one a heavenly man, the other an, earthly. The heavenly man, being made after the image of God,, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial, substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the, matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls ‘clay’” (cf., NW 2/1:406; Boring et al., eds., Hellenistic Commentary, §, 715); cf. also Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.32, 42, 53, 88–89; Creation, 134–135; 146. Of course, Paul places the accents differently,, since for him the temporal sequence of the two ἄνθρωποι (men,, human beings) is central (cf. 1 Cor. 15:46; Rom. 5:14b, 17). In, Corinth there had evidently already been a discussion about, Adam and Christ before Paul’s writing 1 Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor., 14:46), and so Rom. 5:12–21 is to be read as the Pauline, variation of a theme in the contextual requirements of the, Letter to the Romans (cf. Umbach, In Christus getauft, 196–, 200)., [91]. Cf. Umbach, In Christus getauft, 197., [92]. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:251: “He, holds to the idea that sin came into the world by sinning.”, [93]. The fundamental problem of Rom. 5:12 is whether it, presupposes that sin-as-inevitable-destiny and personal, responsibility exist side by side. This is the understanding of, Ernst Käsemann, e.g., who argues that “the real problem of, interpretation lies in v. 12d, where the motif of destiny which, dominates v. 12a–c is abruptly set aside by that of the personal, guilt of all mankind” (Käsemann, Romans, 147). Then the, inference as found in 2 Bar. 54.15 would be inescapable: “For,, although Adam sinned first and has brought death upon all who, were not in his own time, yet each of them who has been born, from him has prepared for himself the coming torment. And, further, each of them has chosen for himself the coming glory”, (trans. A. F. J. Klijn, OTP 2:640). Cf. also 4 Ezra 7:118–119. To, be sure, Paul’s thinking in terms of spheres of power points in, a different direction, for Adam’s fall already decides definitively, that all human beings will in fact be sinners. Cf. Otfried Hofius,, “Die Adam-Christus-Antithese und das Gesetz,” in
Page 1089 :
Mysterienreligionen, im Gnostizismus, und im antiken, Judentum” (diss., Georg August Universität, 1972), 75ff., [108]. Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanarum religionum, 22.1, 3 (NW 2/1:124; Boring et al., eds., Hellenistic, Commentary, § 571)., [109]. See additional texts in NW 2/1:123–27., [110]. Within early Christianity, the pattern “as with Christ, . . . so with his own” is found for the first time in 1 Thess., 4:14ff.; it could have been further developed independently in, Corinth; cf. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart,, 78–81., [111]. For an extensive analysis, cf. ibid., 81–83., [112]. Cf. Umbach, In Christus getauft, 250–51., [113]. This means at the same time that the whole of Rom. 6, is to be understood from the perspective of the baptismal, event, which by no means separates 6:1–14 and 6:15–23;, contra A. B. du Toit, “Dikaiosyne in Röm 6,” ZTK 76 (1979):, 263., [114]. Cf. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 130–32., [115]. It is no accident that of fifty-nine instances of ἁμαρτία in, Paul, forty-eight are found in Romans. Where Paul describes, the role of the law in God’s plan, there he must also develop a, comprehensive hamartiology. In Paul’s previous writings, only, 1 Cor. 15:56 and Gal. 3:22 point in this direction., [116]. Cf. Wilckens, Römer, 2:62–67; Umbach, In Christus, getauft, 268–71; Otfried Hofius, “Der Mensch im Schatten, Adams,” in Paulusstudien (2 vols.; WUNT 51, 143; Tübingen:, Mohr Siebeck, 1989–2002), 2:107–10., [117]. Umbach, In Christus getauft, 270, appropriately, summarizes Paul’s intention in Rom. 7:1–6: “Thus here, hamartia, nomos, and thanatos are terms that describe the, Christian’s past; in contrast, Christos, theos, pneuma indicate, the present reality. The two lists stand antithetically opposite, each other.”, [118]. On Rom. 7:7, see esp. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought,, 71–76.
Page 1095 :
End of the Law: Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective (JSNTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), 7ff., [162]. Cf. Wilckens, Römer, 2:223, where he describes Christ, as the “end and goal of the Torah in faith”; cf., in addition,, Theobald, Römerbrief, 218., [163]. So, e.g., Cranfield, Romans, 2:519; Dunn, Theology of, Paul, 369. Haacker, Der Brief an die Römer, 201, translates,, “Christ is what the law is in fact about.”, [164]. So esp. Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 250ff., [165]. The repeated γάρ (for) in Rom. 10:3–4 indicates a tight, connection in the argument; cf. Schreiner, The Law and Its, Fulfillment, 134–36., [166]. Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 282–83., [167]. One cannot learn Paul’s understanding of the, expression τέλος τοῦ νόµου (end of the law) from the lexicon, alone, for neither the history of the word’s usage (cf. the, account in Badenas, Christ the End of the Law, 38–80) nor, Pauline usage elsewhere (cf. Delling, “τέλος,” TDNT 8:54–56), permits us to establish a consistent basic meaning. The, majority of the instances of τέλος are to be understood in the, sense of “end” (1 Cor. 1:8; 10:11; 15:24; 2 Cor. 3:13; 11:15;, Rom. 6:21, 22; Phil. 3:19)., [168]. On the textual problems of Rom. 10:5, cf. Hübner,, Gottes Ich, 78–80., [169]. On the mixed citation in 10:6–8, cf. ibid., 86, 154–55., [170]. Cf. Zeller, Römer, 186., [171]. Räisänen, “Römer 9–11,” ANRW 25.4:2910., [172]. Wilckens, Römer, 2:238., [173]. Reichert, Römerbrief, 200ff., [174]. Räisänen, “Römer 9–11,” ANRW 25.4:2913., [175]. Käsemann, Romans, 308–9; Zeller, Römer, 197;, Räisänen, “Römer 9–11,” ANRW 25.4:2914., [176]. On the understanding of καὶ οὕτως (and so), see the, discussion in Hübner, Gottes Ich, 110; Otfried Hofius, “Das, Evangelium und Israel,” in Paulusstudien (2 vols.; WUNT 51,, 143; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989–2002), 1:192–93.
Page 1096 :
[177]. On the structure of Rom. 11:25–27, cf. Ferdinand, Hahn, “Zum Verständnis von Röm 11,26a,” in Paul and, Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett (ed. Morna, Dorothy Hooker and S. G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982), 227;, Luz, Geschichtsverständnis, 288–89; Theobald, Römerbrief,, 178ff., [178]. A history of research is found in Winfrid Keller, Gottes, Treue, Israels Heil—Röm 11, 25–27: Die These vom, “Sonderweg” in der Diskussion (SBB; Stuttgart: Katholisches, Biblewerk, 1998)., [179]. Cf. Wilckens, Römer, 2:256; Theobald, Römerbrief,, 280. Differently, e.g., Zeller, Römer, 199; Reichert, Römerbrief,, 208ff., who refer Rom. 11:26b to the “first coming” of Christ., [180]. On the meaning of 11:23, see also Hahn, “Röm, 11,26a,” 228–29. This verse speaks decisively against the thesis, of F. Mussner, “‘Ganz Israel wird gerettet werden’ (Röm, 11,26),” Kairos 18 (1976): 241ff., that in Rom. 11:26a Paul is, pointing out a “special way” of salvation for Israel; similarly,, Theobald, Römerbrief, 278, who also argues for a salvation of, all Israel apart from the preaching of the gospel and thus, necessarily relativizes the significance of 11:23a: “Accordingly,, the only thing certain from 11:23a is that the future salvation, of all Israel includes turning away from unbelief but not, necessarily that Israel must be converted to the gospel.” An, additional suggestion for resolving the problem is offered by, Hofius, “Evangelium und Israel,” 197, according to whom “all, Israel” attains salvation neither through the preaching of the, gospel nor by a “special way.” “It is rather the case that Israel, will hear the gospel directly from the mouth of the returning, Christ—the saving word of his acceptance that generates the, faith that lays hold of God’s salvation.” Hofius, too, must play, down the importance of Rom. 11:20, 23 (cf. Hofius,, “Evangelium und Israel,” 188) in order to make his thesis, plausible., [181]. Cf. Hahn, “Röm 11,26a,” 229., [182]. Hübner, Gottes Ich, 117.
Page 1097 :
[183]. Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 305:“Its [Israel’s] full, conversion is undoubtedly expected . . . but is bound up with, the fact that salvation has come first to the Gentiles.”, [184]. Cf. Merklein, “Theologe als Prophet,” 400–401;, Theobald, Römerbrief, 279, sees in Rom. 11:28–31 the working, out of the prophetic revelation in 11:25–26, which flows into, 11:32., [185]. Reichert, Römerbrief, 233–34., [186]. Haacker, Der Brief an die Römer, 254, speaks of a, “preamble.”, [187]. On λογικὴ λατρεία (reasonable service or spiritual, worship, Rom. 12:1), cf. Lietzmann, Römer, 108–9. Texts, relevant to this complex are found in NW 1/2:220–34; 2/1:177–, 80. For analyses of Rom. 12:1–2, in addition to the standard, commentaries, see esp. Ernst Käsemann, “Worship in Everyday, Life: A Note on Romans 12,” in New Testament Questions of, Today (London: SCM Press, 1969), 188–95; Wolfgang Schrage,, Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese: Ein, Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen Ethik (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, Verlagshaus, 1961), 49ff.; Betz, “Grundlagen der paulinischen, Ethik,” 193–203; Reichert, Römerbrief, 228–48., [188]. Cf. Cicero, Nat. d. 2.71, “The best, purest, and holiest, worship of the gods consists of our prayer to them with pure,, uncorrupted, and unadulterated words and thoughts” (NW, 1/2:224); Seneca, Ep. 95.50, “Do you want to make the gods, well-disposed to you? Then do good. The one who strives to, imitate them gives them adequate worship” (NW 2/2:1181); cf.,, in addition, Seneca, Ben. 1.6.3 (NW 1/2:225). According to, Plato, Resp. 5.520c, philosophers should rule the state, “because they have seen the Beautiful, the Good and Just, in, the Truth.” Cf. also Plato, Leg. 4.716c–d., [189]. Reichert, Römerbrief, 247, emphasizes the, introductory function of Rom. 12:1–2: “The text functions to, characterize the addressees as a community/congregation and, to orient them to the effect of their lives beyond the, community.”
Page 1103 :
[15]. Whether behind Acts 21:17–26:32 there was already a, connected account of Paul’s arrest and imprisonment or only, individual units of tradition is a disputed point. The former, option is argued by, among others, Volker Stolle, Der Zeuge als, Angeklagter: Untersuchungen zum Paulusbild des Lukas, (BWA[N]T 102; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973), 260–67; Roloff,, Apostelgeschichte, 316; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 2:224;, Lüdemann, Traditions in Acts, 22; Omerzu, Der Prozess des, Paulus, 507–8. Among those who argue for individual traditions, are Haenchen, Acts, 632–732; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte,, 2:311–79; Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 2:390, 601., [16]. Cf. Rapske, Roman Custody, 186–88, who votes for a, provocatio, according to which Roman citizens and some others, who were spending some time in the provinces could appeal for, a trial in Rome when there was no authorized court in the, province where they were staying. According to Omerzu, Der, Prozess des Paulus, 485–97, Paul’s appellatio was based “on a, legal ruling that first originated in the principate and had no, connection with the later forms of appeal found in the republic, (viz., the provocatio ad populum or the appellatio ad tribunos)., The appellatio of the imperial period, which we have here, is, primarily based on the delegated authority of the emperor to, pronounce sentence in the provinces and on the usual, procedure there for cases deemed extra ordinem” (p. 504)., [17]. Differently, Omerzu, Der Prozess des Paulus, 491, who, supposes that Paul’s appeal was against the death sentence, that Festus had pronounced., [18]. Cf. Weiser, Apostelgeschichte, 2:642: “The appeal to, Caesar—and thus, in Luke’s understanding, the opening of the, way to Rome—is the high point toward which everything before, had been directed.”, [19]. Cf. Labahn, “Paulus—ein homo honestus et iustus,” 79–, 106., [20]. Cf. Rapske, Roman Custody, 146., [21]. Omerzu, “Schweigen des Lukas,” 146., [22]. On Paul’s Roman imprisonment from the point of view, of legal history, see Rapske, Roman Custody, 173–91; Omerzu,
Page 1107 :
[43]. When Ephesus is regarded as the place where, Philippians was written, its writing is usually located at the end, of this period; thus Müller, Philipper, 22, e.g., argues for the, year 55 CE., [44]. This is signaled linguistically by the numerous forms of, πᾶς (all, every, vv. 4, 7, 8, 9)., [45]. Formally, τὸ ζῆν (to live, life) is the subject, and Χριστός is, the predicate nominative; cf. Blass and Debrunner, Grammar, §, 399 (1). But cf. the appropriate comment of Paul Hoffmann, Die, Toten in Christus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische, Untersuchung zur paulinischen Eschatologie (NTAbh NF 2;, Münster: Aschendorff, 1966), 294: “In terms of content, Χριστός, is the subject of the sentence: Christ is my life.”, [46]. On the Greek background of Phil. 1:21b cf., e.g., Plato,, Apologia 40c, d, where Socrates speaks about what happens, after death: “Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see, that there is great reason to hope that death is a good; for one, of two things—either death is a state of nothingness and utter, unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and, migration of the soul from this world to the other. Now if you, suppose that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the, sleep of him who is undisturbed even by dreams, death will be, an unspeakable gain.”, [47]. Cf. BDAG 67., [48]. Καί is here to be taken in the explicative sense; cf., Hoffmann, Die Toten in Christus, 289; BDAG, 495., [49]. On the problem of an intermediate state, which cannot, be found in Paul, cf. Hoffmann, Die Toten in Christus, 341ff., [50]. Cf. Pilhofer, Philippi, 1:122–23; Bormann, Philippi, 218–, 19., [51]. On the eschatological conception of Philippians, (compared with the other Pauline letters), see below, section, 22.2 (“The Course of the Final Events and Life after Death”)., [52]. Cf. the documentation in NW 2/1:689–92., [53]. Cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung, zur Phil. 2, 5–11 (2nd ed.; SHAW 4; Heidelberg: C. Winter,, 1961).
Page 1113 :
defending himself the Apostle was again sent on the ministry of, preaching, and coming a second time to the same city suffered, martyrdom under Nero.” The ancient Christian texts are cited, and analyzed by Zahn, Introduction, 2:54–84; cf. also W. Bauer,, “The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition,” in, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm, Schneemelcher; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963–, 1964), 2:35–73. On the local historical traditions of the Roman, church, cf. Hans Georg Thümmel, Die Memorien für Petrus und, Paulus in Rom: Die archäologischen Denkmäler und die, literarische Tradition (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 76; New, York: de Gruyter, 1999)., [98]. For a different emphasis, see Omerzu, Der Prozess des, Paulus, 508, who argues that Paul came to Rome in 60 CE “and, spent two years in relatively mild custody before the emperor, Nero confirmed the death sentence pronounced by Festus and, Paul was executed.”
Page 1115 :
Chapter 14, [1]. Cf. Kim, “Heilsgegenwart,” 180: “For Paul, after the end, of prophecy in Israel, the working of the Spirit of God in the, world began anew with the death and resurrection of Jesus, Christ. God affirmed the one who had been unjustly crucified, by raising him from the dead; God set his Spirit to work again, in the world in order to bring it to judgment and fulfillment., Since the death and resurrection of Christ, people are called to, unite with the community in which the Spirit is at work.”, [2]. Cf. Powers, Salvation through Participation, 234: “Paul, even describes the believers’ eschatological resurrection as a, participation in Jesus’ resurrection.”, [3]. Differently, Strecker, Die liminale Theologie des Paulus,, 211, according to whom the baptized are “liminal persons . . ., among whom the new being is just beginning to dawn but who, are in fact delivered from their old life under sin.” On this, problematic area, see below, section 17.1 (“The New Being as, Participation in Christ”)., [4]. Cf. Kim, “Heilsgegenwart,” 177–86. From the theological, and history-of-religions point of view, the author sees the, distinctive element in Pauline thought to be Paul’s belief that, the Spirit has already been poured out on believers in baptism., [5]. See above, chapter 6 (“The Apostolic Council and the, Incident at Antioch: The Problems Remain Unresolved”)., [6]. Cf. Sanders, Paul, 127–28, reflecting M. Eugene Boring,, “The Language of Universal Salvation in Paul,” JBL 105 (1986):, 269–92. Both rightly emphasize that Paul’s thought was guided, by unshakable axioms that could not be brought into logical, consistency., [7]. This aspect is not noticed by Räisänen, Paul and the Law,, 266–67, when he states, “It is a fundamental mistake of much, Pauline exegesis in this century to have portrayed Paul as ‘the, prince of thinkers’ and the Christian ‘theologian par, excellence.’” Paul was more than an original thinker, for
Page 1116 :
despite the problems mentioned above, his work possesses a, systematic quality that Räisänen’s statement does not take into, account.
Page 1124 :
[60]. Cicero, Nat. d. 3.47., [61]. Cf. Stark, The Rise of Christianity, 37–45., [62]. Plutarch, Is. Os. 67–68; cf. further tradition ascribed to, Antisthenes by Philodemus of Gadara, De pietate 7a.3–8: “In, his Physikos one reads that there are many gods according to, tradition but only one God according to nature [τὸ κατὰ νόμον, εἶναι πολλοὺς θεοὺς, κατὰ δὲ φύσιν ἕνα]” (trans. M.E.B.)., [63]. Cicero, Nat. d. 1.39., [64]. Cicero, Nat. d. 1.51., [65]. Cf. Cicero, Nat. d. 1.95, 121; Diogenes Laertius 10.76–, 77., [66]. Cf. Cicero, Nat. d. 1.94: “If none of them [the, philosophers] has seen the truth about the nature of the gods,, it is to be feared that this nature does not in fact exist.”
Page 1125 :
Chapter 16, [1]. Cf. Schweitzer, Mysticism, 115: “The original and central, idea of the Pauline Mysticism is therefore that the Elect will, share with one another and with Christ a corporeity which is in, a special way susceptible to the action of the powers of death, and resurrection, and in consequence capable of acquiring the, resurrection state of existence before the general resurrection, of the dead takes place.”, [2]. Cf. the parallels both in motifs and in vocabulary between, Phil. 2:6–11 and 3:6–10, 20–21; they point to the direct, connection between the destiny of the Kyrios and that of, believers; cf. Strecker, Die liminale Theologie des Paulus, 176., [3]. Regarding terminology, because in the New Testament, God is consistently the subject of the act and Jesus of Nazareth, is the object, we will sometimes speak of the raising of Jesus, Christ in order to emphasize this passive element. On the other, hand, the term “resurrection” (rising) has pervasively, established itself in the general discussion as a term describing, the whole event. It is also used here without suggesting that, Jesus played an active role in his own resurrection., On the relationship between Jesus as crucified and Jesus as, resurrected, cf. the different approaches in Wolfgang Schrage,, “Der gekreuzigte und auferweckte Herr: Zur theologia crucis, und theologia resurrectionis bei Paulus,” ZTK 94 (1997): 25–38;, K. Haldimann, “Kreuz–Wort vom Kreuz–Kreuzestheologie,” in, Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament (ed. Andreas Dettwiler, and Jean Zumstein; WUNT 151; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 2002), 1–25. Whereas Schrage prefers a dialectical, coordination, for Haldimann the saving event is the cross and, the cross alone., [4]. As a selection from the extensive literature, cf. Hans, Campenhausen, Der Ablauf der Osterereignisse und das leere, Grab (4th ed.; SHAW; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1977); Hans, Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte (2nd ed.; Göttingen:
Page 1127 :
Resurrection, 111, who denies that 1 Cor. 15 intends to prove, anything, and states, “Consequently one cannot appeal to Paul, in any attempt to hold fast to the historical nature of Jesus’, resurrection.” [Translator’s note: The German text has a, parenthetical comment after “historical nature” left, untranslated in the English edition: “(as it is sometimes, expressed).”], [13]. Cf. G. E. Lessing, “On the Proof of the Spirit and, Power,” in Lessing’s Theological Writings (ed. and trans. Henry, Chadwick; Library of Modern Religious Thought 2; London:, Adam & Charles Black, 1956), 51: “Fulfilled prophecies, which, I myself experience, are one thing; fulfilled prophecies, of, which I know only from history that others say they have, experienced them, are another.”, [14]. Historical thought is also directly concerned with this, methodological process; cf. Rüsen, “Historische Methode,”, 345: “By adopting a methodological procedure, historical, thinking achieves, in the form of its own logic of memory, the, process of rationalizing that historically constitutes the modern, world.”, [15]. Cf. Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 198 and, elsewhere. Lüdemann follows Strauss in all essential points. He, classifies the tradition of the empty tomb as an unhistorical, apologetic legend and sees the basis of the Easter faith in the, individual appearances to Peter and Paul, which he interprets, psychologically. Peter’s vision is explained as the completion of, a grief process that had been blocked by the sudden death of, Jesus; the vision then allowed him to overcome his guilt, feelings due to his betrayal of his master. In the case of Paul, the persecutor, a previously repressed, unconscious fascination, with the figure of Jesus breaks through. All the other purported, visions are dependent on these two, and those, such as the, vision to the five hundred, can be explained only by mass, suggestion. For a critique of the historiographical and, theological deficiencies in Lüdemann’s constructions, cf., Dalferth, “Grab,” 381ff.
Page 1128 :
On David Friedrich Strauss and his theological development,, cf. the portrayals in Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the, Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus, to Wrede (trans. W. Montgomery et al.; “First Complete” ed.;, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 65–73; Reinhard Slenczka,, Geschichtlichkeit und Personsein Jesu Christi: Studien zur, christologischen Problematik der historischen Jesusfrage, (FSÖTh 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 46–61;, Dietz Lange, Historischer Jesus oder mythischer Christus:, Untersuchungen zu dem Gegensatz zwischen Friedrich, Schleiermacher und David Friedrich Strauss (Gütersloh:, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1975)., [16]. David Friedrich Strauss, The Old Faith and the New, (trans. Mathilde Blind; New York: H. Holt, 1873), 81–82., [17]. Cf. David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically, Examined (ed. Leander Keck; London: SCM Press, 1973), 780:, “This is the key to the whole of Christology, that, as subject of, the predicate which the church assigns to Christ, we place,, instead of an individual, an idea, but an idea which has an, existence in reality, not in the mind only, like that of Kant.”, [18]. It is thus consistent with this point of view that G., Lüdemann has taken leave not only from official church, teaching but from Jesus himself; cf. Gerd Lüdemann, with, Frank Schleritt and Martinal Janssen, Jesus after Two, Thousand Years: What He Really Said and Did (Amherst, NY:, Prometheus Books, 2001), 693: “So with this book I am putting, him on file.” [Translator’s note: It is perhaps better translated, in American English “I am closing the file on him” or “I am, filing him away.”], [19]. Cf. Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 117: “The tomb, was evidently unknown.”, [20]. In my opinion, the redactional note about the flight of, the disciples in Mark 14:50 (cf. the πάντες [all] motif in Mark, 14:27, 31, 50) should by no means be understood to say that all, Jesus’ sympathizers left Jerusalem., [21]. Cf. Karrer, Jesus Christus, 35–36.
Page 1129 :
[22]. This is clearly the case with Lüdemann, who simply, identifies his historical judgments with the event itself and in, an unreflective, popularizing form exalts the supposed insights, of psychoanalysis into apparently assured results. The, suppositions of a hobby psychologist are passed off as, historical facts. Examples: He speaks of Paul’s “Messianic, complex . . . that may have been formally brought to a boil”, (Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 83), without indicating, which psychological theory is the basis of this diagnosis of, someone who died almost two thousand years ago. The internal, conflicts that generated Peter’s vision are tendentiously, analyzed (ibid., pp. 97–100) with the help of one book (Yorick, Spiegel, The Grief Process: Analysis and Counseling [trans., Elsbeth Duke; Nashville: Abingdon, 1977]). Of course, there, were psychological dimensions associated with the, appearances to both Peter and Paul, but those did not, necessarily become the trigger for the appearances, themselves. Moreover, the ideological character of, psychoanalysis seems to have escaped Lüdemann’s notice; one, need only note Pohlen and Bautz-Holzherr, Psychoanalyse, 14:, “Freudian thinking, which originated from a writer’s creative, spirit, exalted its personally necessary principle of perception, and cognition into a claim of universal validity.”, [23]. For critique of Strauss and the subjective-vision, hypothesis, cf. Grass, Ostergeschehen, 233ff.; Wolfhart, Pannenberg, Jesus, God, and Man (trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and, Duane A. Priebe; 2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977),, 93–98; for critique of Lüdemann, cf. Reinhard Slenczka,, “‘Nonsense’ (Lk 24,11),” KD 40 (1994): 170–81; Ulrich, Wilckens, “Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historisches Zeugnis–, Theologie–Glaubenserfahrung,” Pastoraltheologie 85 (1996):, 102–20; Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu—, Historie und Theologie,” ZTK 91 (1994): 318–28. On the, deficits of historicism in general, see above, section 1.2, (“Reflections on Historiography”)., [24]. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:45.
Page 1131 :
[34]. Cf. Pannenberg, Jesus, God, and Man, 93–98., [35]. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (trans., Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991),, 2:360–61., [36]. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Die Auferstehung Jesu,” 327–28., [37]. Not only the coordination of appearances and empty, tomb but also the proleptic element in the pre-Easter Jesus’, claim to authority and God’s raising him from the dead are, mutually confirmatory; cf. Pannenberg, Jesus, God, and Man,, 53–73., [38]. For critique of Pannenberg, see esp. Eckart Reinmuth,, “Historik und Exegese—zum Streit um die Auferstehung Jesu, nach der Moderne,” in Exegese und Methodendiskussion (ed., Stefan Alkier and Ralph Brucker; TANZ 23; Tübingen: Francke,, 1998), 1–8., [39]. Rüsen, “Historische Methode,” 358., [40]. So, e.g., Dalferth, “Grab,” 385: “It is the cross, not the, resurrection, that anchors the faith in history. One can ask, historical questions about the cross but not about the, resurrection.”, [41]. Here we are presupposing and picking up on the, statements above in sections 1.2 (“Reflections on, Historiography”) and 1.3 (“Methodological ‘Handle’: Meaning, Formation in Continuity and Change”)., [42]. Appropriately, Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:362:, “Our judgment regarding the historicity of the resurrection of, Jesus depends not only on examining the individual data (and, the related reconstruction of the event) but also on our, understanding of reality, of what we regard as possible or, impossible prior to any evaluation of the details.”, [43]. Among the exegetes, the frequently dominant passion, for the historical, in the sense of confirming the facts behind, the texts, begins with the claim that reality and history have, always been understood as they understand it, and can only be, understood in this way. The concept of the “facts,” however, is, of modern origin and can be documented only since the middle, of the eighteenth century, and it is no accident that it plays a
Page 1132 :
decisive role in the work of G. E. Lessing; cf. R. Staats, “Der, theologiegeschichtliche Hintergrund des Begriffes ‘Tatsache,’”, ZTK 70 (1973): 316–45. Earlier generations understood history, in other ways, and generations to come will probably do the, same., [44]. Rüsen, “Historische Methode,” 345., [45]. Extremely influential, even to the present day, on this, point is the work of Ernst Troeltsch, “Historical and Dogmatic, Method in Theology,” in Religion in History (trans. James, Luther Adams and Walter E. Bense; Minneapolis: Fortress,, 1991), 11–32, who explains his views of historical criticism and, analogy and their correlation to the basic concepts of the, historical and thus to what is real., [46]. Cf. Rüsen, Rekonstruktion der Vergangenheit, 22–86., [47]. Ibid., 41., [48]. Cf. Rüsen, Historische Vernunft, 58ff., [49]. On the so-called formula tradition, cf. Werner R., Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (trans. Brian Hardy; SBT 50;, London: SCM Press, 1966), 19–64; and Klaus Wengst,, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1972), 92ff., [50]. Cf. Christoph Schwöbel, “Auferstehung,” RGG 1:926:, “The act of God is the common reference point in speaking of, the resurrection of the dead Jesus, in the faith of the earliest, church that Jesus thereby comes to participate in the life of, God and that he was certified as living by God himself, and in, the commission to spread this message further.”, [51]. Here lies the theological deficit inherent in speaking of, the resurrection of Jesus as an interpretation, e.g., by Marxsen,, Resurrection, 138–48. If the resurrection of Jesus is an, interpretation [Interpretament], what is it that is being, interpreted [Interpretandum]? Following Bultmann, Marxsen, equates faith in the resurrection with the resurrection itself; he, can even formulate it: “We must see exactly where the miracle, lies. For the miracle is not the resurrection of Jesus, as one all, too easily says; the miracle is the finding of faith” (p. 139).
Page 1133 :
[52]. So Dalferth, Der auferweckte Gekreuzigte, 56: “The, theme of the confession of Jesus’ resurrection, and thus what is, expressed in the terminology of resurrection, is not an, empirical content or a historical event, however this is defined,, which then is interpreted or explained in a particular way, but, something that can only be confessed by those who know that, they have been incorporated in this act of God. It is not, historical events and phenomena and, still less, subjective, impressions, understandings, and interpretations of the first, Christians that are here set forth and interpreted as God’s, resurrection act. Rather, exactly the opposite is the case: what, is confessed in this way is an act of God, which as such is, inexpressible and thus becomes the factual and linguistic basis, of the resurrection confession.”, [53]. Cf. Paul Tillich, Reason and Revelation; Being and God, (vol. 1 of Systematic Theology; Chicago: University of Chicago, Press, 1951): “God is immanent in the world as its permanent, creative ground and is transcendent to the world through, freedom. Both infinite freedom and finite human freedom make, the world transcendent to God and God transcendent to the, world.”, [54]. Here I am following the reflections of Alfred Schutz and, Thomas Luckmann, Strukturen der Lebenswelt (Frankfurt:, Suhrkamp, 1984), 2:139ff.; and Luckmann, Die unsichtbare, Religion, 167: “Already in our everyday mode of existence, the, world is experienced by us all as a reality to which we belong, but with which we are not identical. We can, it is true, get, acquainted with it, but we cannot become one with it. The, distinction between I-referential experiences and Itranscending experiences occurs to everyone without thinking, much about it; it is the basis of our knowledge of, transcendence.” [The English version of vol. 2 of Strukturen, der Lebenswelt was published before the German: The, Structures of the Life-World (vol. 2; trans. R. M. Zaner and, David J. Parent; Evanston: Northwestern University Press,, 1983).], [55]. Luckmann, Die unsichtbare Religion, 167–68.
Page 1134 :
[56]. Cf. Schutz and Luckmann, Structures of the Life-World,, 2:127. See above, p. 100 n. 63., [57]. Samuel Vollenweider, “Ostern—der denkwürdige, Ausgang einer Krisenerfahrung,” TZ 49 (1993): 34–53,, interprets the experiences of the first witnesses as crisis, experiences: “The disciples’ crisis experience consequently, does not regressively calm down but abruptly modulates into, an extremely extraordinary experience, an expansion of, consciousness in which they perceive a dimension of reality, otherwise hidden” (p. 42)., [58]. Cf. Kurt Hübner, Die Wahrheit des Mythos (Munich:, Beck, 1985), 340: “Whoever affirms that science has proved the, uniformity and absolute validity of natural law is an advocate, not of science but of a dogmatic metaphysic of science., Thereby every belief of ‘modern consciousness’ that, on the, basis of better scientific insight, miracles are no longer, credible is exposed as itself a mere faith, to which man may, oppose the faith of this or that religion. The truth, however, is, that scientific theory as such speaks neither for nor against, miracle, unless one points out the trivial fact that a miracle, cannot be the object of scientific experience because this, of, course, is based on the regulative principle of seeking such a, law wherever something happens that is not explainable in, terms of natural law. But as has already been extensively, shown in earlier sections of this book, scientific experience, cannot claim for itself that its explanation is the only one, possible.”, [59]. Luckmann, Die unsichtbare Religion, 171, comments on, the character of religious constructions: “These constructions, build on communicative reconstructions of subjective, experiences of transcendence.”, [60]. Differently, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament,, 1:45: “The accounts of the empty grave, of which Paul still, knows nothing, are legends.”, [61]. Cf., most recently, the argumentation of Martin Hengel,, “Das Begräbnis Jesu bei Paulus,” in Auferstehung =, Resurrection: The Fourth Durham-Tübingen Research
Page 1135 :
Symposium: Resurrection, Transfiguration, and Exaltation in, Old Testament, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed., Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger; WUNT 135;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 139ff., [62]. Cf. Paul Althaus, Die Wahrheit des christlichen, Osterglaubens (BFCT; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1940), 25: “In, Jerusalem, at the site of the execution and burial of Jesus, and, not long after his death, it was proclaimed that he had been, raised from the dead. This fact requires that within the earliest, church there was reliable evidence that the tomb had been, found to be empty.”, [63]. Differently, Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to, Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection (Louisville:, Westminster John Knox, 1996), 23, who asserts, without, mentioning any evidence, “As neither the disciples nor Jesus’, next of kin bothered about Jesus’ body, it is hardly conceivable, that they were informed about its resting place.” Joseph of, Arimathea was one of Jesus’ sympathizers, from a respectable, Jerusalem family (cf. Mark 15:43; John 19:38), and he, “bothered about Jesus’ body.” Ingo Broer, Die Urgemeinde und, das Grab Jesu: Eine Analyse der Grablegungsgeschichte im, Neuen Testament (SANT 31; Munich: Kösel, 1972), 294, after a, penetrating analysis of all relevant texts, comes to the, conclusion “that the earliest church knew the tomb of Jesus,, although we do not know, for example, when and how the, church learned that Joseph of Arimathea had buried Jesus.”, [64]. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, “Der Gekreuzigte von Givcat ha-Mivtar:, Bilanz einer Entdeckung,” in Theologia crucis, signum crucis:, Festschrift für Erich Dinkler zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Carl, Andresen and Günter Klein; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979),, 303–34., [65]. Cf. Dalferth, “Grab,” 394–95. It is also to be maintained, against Dalferth, however, that also from the theological point, of view it is not irrelevant whether the tomb was empty., [66]. For analysis of the texts, cf. Ulrich Wilckens,, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An
Page 1137 :
another way of systematizing the data: (1) the cross of Christ, and wisdom; (2) the cross of Christ and the law; (3) the, crucified one and the believers’ new existence., [79]. On the translation of σκάνδαλον with “offense” [Anstoß],, cf. ibid., 36–37., [80]. Cf. Cicero, Rab. perd. 5.16 (NW 2/1:239); Pliny the, Younger, Ep. 10.96.8: “muddled wild superstition.”, [81]. There are, however, possible cultural points of contact;, thus in Plato the just man appears as dishonored: “They will, tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be, scourged, racked, bound—will have his eyes burnt out; and at, last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled: Then, he will understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be,, just” (Resp. 2.361c [trans. Jowett, p. 312])., [82]. Cf. Deut. 21:22–23; 11Q19 64:9–13; Josephus, J.W., 7.203; further documentation in Kuhn, “Jesus als, Gekreuzigter,” 7ff., [83]. Documentation in H.-W. Kuhn, “σταυρός,” EDNT 3:267–, 70. Jesus was probably crucified on a T-shaped cross, as, evidenced in Palestine through the discovery at Giv‘at haMivtar., [84]. Cf. further Josephus, J.W. 2.308; 5.451; Luke 24:39; Col., 2:14. The victim of crucifixion found at Giv‘at ha-Mivtar was, nailed through the feet; cf. H.-W. Kuhn, “Kreuz II,” TRE 19:715;, “Der Gekreuzigte von Giv‘at ha-Mivtar,” 320ff., [85]. See Chr. M. Pilz, “Tod am Kreuz: Geschichte und, Pathophysiologie der Kreuzigung” (diss.; Tübingen, 1986), 64ff., [86]. Cf. ibid., 140ff., [87]. Cf. ibid., 147. Pilz thereby rejects the previous (mostly, monocausal) explanations: heat stroke, blood poisoning,, starvation, thirst, loss of blood, and loss of the strength, necessary to maintain breathing., [88]. The basic works here are Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); and H.-W., Kuhn, “Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit,”, ANRW 25.1:648–793., [89]. Documentation in Kuhn, “Kreuz II,” TRE 19:714–15.
Page 1142 :
Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; Leuven: Leuven University Press,, 1992), 1:219–48., [129]. Cf. Breytenbach, “Versöhnung, Stellvertretung, und, Sühne,” 60ff., [130]. Paul’s statements on substitution are constructed, primarily using ὑπέρ with the genitive (cf. 1 Thess. 5:10; 1 Cor., 1:13; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 21; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; Rom. 5:6, 8;, 8:32; 14:15); with διά in 1 Cor. 8:11; Rom. 4:25., [131]. The original meaning of ὑπέρ was “over” in the local, sense; cf. Franz Ludwig Carl Friedrich Passow et al.,, Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache (2 vols. in 4; 5th, ed.; Leipzig: Vogel, 1841–1857), 2/2:2066–67., [132]. On the issue of definition, see also Janowski,, Stellvertretung, 133, who, in debating with Kant’s dictum that, individual guilt is not transferable, formulates as follows:, “Substitution accordingly does not mean to exonerate from his, or her responsibility a person who has become guilty—a view, that cannot be advocated because thereby the person’s own, dignity would be destroyed—but to seek out the guilty and, failing in the place where they themselves are most deeply, involved.” Cf. further C. Breytenbach, “Gnädigstimmen und, opferkultische Sühne im Urchristentum und seiner Umwelt,” in, Opfer: Theologische und kulturelle Kontexte (ed. Bernd, Janowski and Michael Welker; 1st ed.; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,, 2000), 238–39: “Authentic substitution first emerges when one, person by his or her voluntary death can save another person—, for example, father, dear friend, or community—from death or, destruction.” G. Röhser, “Stellvertretung,” TRE 32:141,, suggests the following definition: “Substitution means an, appropriate religious ‘mediator’ doing something for someone, or taking someone’s fate upon himself or herself, which the one, represented could not do, or not do in the same way as the, representative, and which directly, that is, without the person’s, own activities, . . . serves to establish or reestablish an intact, relation to God for the one represented or to bring that person, into any relation with God at all (by intercession).”
Page 1152 :
[206]. Cf. Plato, Prot. 322c–d, which portrays how Zeus, commissioned Hermes to bring justice and law to humanity., [207]. Cf. Plato, Resp. 4.433.d.e., [208]. The distinction between natural law and positive law in, Aristotle, Eth. nic. 5.1134–1135a, had a great impact on later, history: “Of political justice part is natural and part legal:, natural, that which everywhere has the same force and does, not exist by people’s thinking this or that; legal, that which is, originally indifferent, but when it has been laid down is not, indifferent.”, [209]. Cf. also Plato, Symposium 196b–c; Resp. 1.338d–339a;, Gorg. 489a–b; Politicus 294d–295a; Leg. 10.889e–890a. Cf., further Ps.-Plato, Definitiones 414E (“Right: That ordering, according to the law that brings about justice”); Min. 317d, (“Socrates: And therefore our statement was entirely correct,, that the law is the discovery of what really is”); Min. 314D, (“Socrates: And something supremely excellent is law and, justice? Friend: So it is”)., [210]. Cf. Aristotle, Pol. 1271a; 1325a: “The good lawgiver, should inquire how states and races of men and communities, may participate in a good life, and in the happiness which is, attainable by them.”, [211]. Cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 5.1130b: “For practically the, majority of the acts commanded by the law are those which are, prescribed from the point of view of virtue taken as a whole;, for the law bids us practice every virtue and forbids us to, practice any vice.”, [212]. Cf. Dihle, “Gerechtigkeit,” RAC 10:263–69., [213]. Cf. Ovid, Ex Ponto 3.6: “And no god is milder than our, Prince, for Justice tempers his strength. Her Caesar but, recently installed in a marble temple; long ago he enshrined, her in his heart.”, [214]. Cf. Iamblichus, Prot. 6.1: “For all these compelling, reasons, law and justice rule over humanity, and that will never, change, for it is anchored in nature itself.”, [215]. Cf. Reinhard Weber, Das “Gesetz” bei Philon von, Alexandrien und Flavius Josephus: Studien zum Verständnis
Page 1153 :
und zur Funktion der Thora bei den beiden Hauptzeugen des, hellenistischen Judentums (ARGU 11; Frankfurt: Lang, 2001),, 338: “Religion is a manner of orientation to nomos. Religion is, accordingly always practical, but it is the practice of pietas,, whereby piety is not something purely spiritual, nor merely, cultic, but a way of life, a pattern of everyday existence, above, all an ethical way of coming to terms with the world, in which, something cosmic is manifest.”, [216]. The conceptuality and terminology varies; thus, e.g.,, Hans Hübner, “Die paulinische Rechtfertigungstheologie als, ökumenisch-hermeneutisches Problem,” in Worum geht es in, der Rechtfertigungslehre? Das biblische Fundament der, “Gemeinsamen Erklärung” von katholischer Kirche und, Lutherischem Weltbund (ed. Thomas Söding and Frank-Lothar, Hossfeld; QD 180; Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 86, distinguishes, strictly between justification theology and the doctrine of, justification “because, in the strict sense of the word, there is, no doctrine of justification in Paul.” Hahn, “Entwicklung,” 344,, 353, and passim, differentiates between the justification, thematic already present in the tradition that came to Paul and, the doctrine of justification; cf. further p. 346, statements, about justification; 353, the understanding of justification; 359,, the message of justification. Cf. further the terminological, reflections in Dieter Lührmann, “Gerechtigkeit,” TRE 12:414–, 15; Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus, 286–87. I distinguish, (1) between the righteousness and justification thematic, already present in the culture and the tradition; (2) in terms of, Paul’s own linguistic usage, between righteousness (δικαιοσύνη,, δίκαιος) and justification (δικαίωσις, δικαιόω); (3) between, justification theology in isolated statements and a doctrine of, justification, when there is a self-contained thought complex., Because all aspects belong together and the terms, “justification” and “doctrine of justification” are artificially, coined theological terms, a precise distinction is often not, possible., [217]. Δικαιοσύνη in 2 Cor. 6:14 is not counted, since in my, opinion it is part of a post-Pauline text fragment; see above,
Page 1155 :
this existential sense, in Paul’s theological understanding, the, distinction collapses between the pronouncement of the, individual’s justification and making the individual to be, righteous.”, [225]. Cf., from the theological perspective, Söding,, “Kriterium der Wahrheit,” 205; from the cultural, anthropological perspective, cf. Geertz, “Thick Description,”, 122: “Having ritually ‘lept’ . . . into the framework of meaning, which religious conceptions define, and the ritual ended,, returned again to the common-sense world, a man is—unless,, as sometimes happens, the experience fails to register—, changed. And as he is changed, so also is the common-sense, world, for it is now seen as but the partial form of a wider, reality which corrects and completes it.”, [226]. Differently, Hahn, “Taufe und Rechtfertigung,” 121,, who sees the main difference between Paul and his tradition to, be their respective understandings not of the law but of faith., [227]. Cf. Söding, “Kriterium der Wahrheit,” 203: “It is, doubtful that the apostle advocated the theology of justification, from the very beginning in the form found in Galatians and, Romans.” Cf. further Luz, “Gerechtigkeit,” EKL 2:91. A, mediating position is adopted by Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei, Paulus, 297: “We can already see from the sequence of the, Pauline letters from 1 Thessalonians to Romans that the, statements about justification become increasingly stronger in, their linguistic explicitness and their conceptual clarity.”, [228]. Cf. Dieter Zeller, Charis bei Philon und Paulus (SBS, 142; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 154–55., [229]. See below, section 19.3 (“The Law”)., [230]. Cf. Kertelge, Rechtfertigung bei Paulus, 295., [231]. Luz, “Rechtfertigung bei den Paulusschülern,” 380–81,, presents this as the primary reason., [232]. Cf. ibid., 369ff., [233]. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 2.1105b., [234]. Jens Schröter, “Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit: Das, Gottesbild der Psalmen Salomos in seinem Verhältnis zu, Qumran und Paulus,” NTS 44 (1998): 576, underestimates this
Page 1156 :
foundational function of works when he states, “The difference, between Paul and the Psalms of Solomon can thus hardly be, understood on the basis of their different evaluations of the, relation between God’s mercy and human works. For the, Psalms of Solomon, too, the ‘works’ of the δίκαιοι are not the, basis for one’s relation to God, although, of course, there is still, a connection between them.”, [235]. The comment of Betz, “Rechtfertigung in Qumran,” 36,, is on target: “There is no justification of the sinner contra, legem at Qumran, but there is also no justification through, one’s own works of the law.”, [236]. See above, section 16.8.1 (“Cultural and Historical, Milieu”)., [237]. Cf. 1QS 4:22, which says of the devout members of the, Qumran community, “For God has chosen them for an, everlasting covenant”; cf. further 1QS 11:7; 1QSb 1:1–2., [238]. Cf. Thomas Söding, “Der Skopus der paulinischen, Rechtfertigungslehre,” ZTK 97 (2000): 404–33, who, distinguishes within the doctrine of justification a christological, point (“communion with the crucified Christ”), a theological, point (“the magnitude of God’s grace”), a, missiologicalecclesiological point (“the salvation of Jews and, Gentiles”), and an anthropological motif (“comfort for sinners—, encouragement toward freedom”)., [239]. Lietzmann, Römer, 95., [240]. Appropriately, Hans Weder, “Gesetz und Sünde:, Gedanken zu einem qualitativen Sprung im Denken des, Paulus,” in Einblicke ins Evangelium—exegetische Beiträge zur, neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik: Gesammelte Aufsätze aus, den Jahren 1980–1991 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,, 1992), 344: “The question is whether my truth is something, that is to be listened to, perceived, heard, and believed or, something that I construct for myself.”, [241]. Wrede, Paul, 123., [242]. Schweitzer, Mysticism, 225. Cf. also p. 383:, “Justification by faith (which itself is only a fragment of the, doctrine of redemption, owing its prominence to the
Page 1157 :
controversy about the Law, not Paul’s real doctrine of, redemption).”, [243]. See below, chapter 23 (“Epilogue: Pauline Thought as, Enduring Meaning Formation”)., [244]. Thus theology or Christology is to be considered the, constant, and anthropology is the variable; contra Herbert, Braun, “The Meaning of New Testament Christology,” JTC 5, (1967): 115, who affirms that “for Paul anthropology is the, constant. . . . Christology, on the other hand, is the variable.”, Bultmann, “Primitive Christian Kerygma,” 36, agrees with this, thesis: “The constant is the self-understanding of the believer;, the Christology is the variable.” For justifiable criticism of this, conception, cf. Ulrich Wilckens, “Christologie und, Anthropologie im Zusammenhang der paulinischen, Rechtfertigungslehre,” ZNW 67 (1976): 67ff., [245]. Cf. Hengel, Son of God, 66–83; Larry W. Hurtado, One, God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish, Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 17–92; cf. further, Carey C. Newman et al., The Jewish Roots of Christological, Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the, Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (JSJSup 63; Leiden:, Brill, 1999)., [246]. Cf. the survey in Schrage, Unterwegs zur Einzigkeit,, 91–132., [247]. Cf. here esp. Wis. 9:9–11: “With you is wisdom, she, who knows your works and was present when you made the, world; she understands what is pleasing in your sight and what, is right according to your commandments. Send her forth from, the holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory send her,, that she may labor at my side, and that I may learn what is, pleasing to you. For she knows and understands all things, and, she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her, glory.”, [248]. Cf., e.g., Philo, Confusion 146–147: “But if there be any, as yet unfit to be called a Son of God, let him press to take his, place under God’s First-born, the Word, who holds the, eldership among the angels, their ruler as it were. And many
Page 1158 :
names are his, for he is called ‘the Beginning,’ and the Name of, God, and his Word, and the Man after His image, and ‘he that, sees,’ that is Israel.” Philo is the Jewish author who has, reflected most intensively on the divine powers, while at the, same time explicitly emphasizing the oneness of God: “Now we, must first lay down that no existing thing is of equal honor to, God and that there is only one sovereign and ruler and king,, who alone may direct and dispose of all things. For the lines, ‘It, is not well that many lords should rule; Be there but one, one, king’ [Iliad, 2:204–205] could be said with more justice of the, world and of God than of cities and men. For being one it must, needs have one maker and father and master. . . . God is one,, but He has around Him numerous Potencies, which all assist, and protect created being, and among them are included the, powers of chastisement. . . . Now the King may fitly hold, converse with his powers and employ them to serve in matters, which should not be consummated by God alone. It is true, indeed that the Father of All has no need of aught, so that He, should require the cooperation of others, if He wills some, creative work, yet seeing what was fitting to Himself and the, world which was coming into being, He allowed his subject, powers to have the fashioning of some things, though He did, not give them sovereign and independent knowledge for, completion of the task, lest aught of what was coming into, being should be miscreated” (Confusion 170, 171, 175)., [249]. Cf., e.g., 1 En. 61., [250]. Cf., e.g., Dan. 10:13–21; 1 En. 20:5; 71:3; 90:21. On, the possible importance of angel imagery for the formation of, early Christology, cf. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (New York:, Crossroad, 1982); J. E. Fossum, The Name of God and the, Angel of the Lord (WUNT 36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985);, Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A, Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse, of John (WUNT 2/70; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Siebeck, 1995)., Vollenweider, “Monotheismus und Engelchristologie,” 23ff.,, clearly sees the limits of an angelological interpretation:, isolated individual texts form the basis for comprehensive
Page 1159 :
reconstructions; risky lines of development with the tradition, are postulated; Sophia imagery and Logos imagery fade out;, and the New Testament adopts angel imagery in only partial, and minimal ways. Nonetheless, he would like to understand, angelophanies as praeparatio christologica., [251]. Cf. Hurtado, Monotheism, 93–124; cf. further Schrage,, Unterwegs zur Einzigkeit, 132–45., [252]. The classical approach of tradition history must be, extended to include the aspects of reception history; cf. Dieter, Zeller, “New Testament Christology in Its Hellenistic, Reception,” NTS 46 (2001): 332–33., [253]. Dieter Zeller, “Die Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes, im Neuen Testament und die antike Religionsgeschichte,” in, Menschwerdung Gottes, Vergöttlichung von Menschen (ed., Dieter Zeller; NTOA 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,, 1988), 141–76, rightly emphasizes this. Hengel, Son of God, 40,, in his debate with the history of religions school and Bultmann,, poses false alternatives when he states, concerning the Greek, ideas of the gods, “All this gets us no nearer to the mystery of, the origin of Christology.” It is a matter of the cultural context, in which the early christological affirmations originated and, could be adopted; the Greek-Hellenistic also belongs here., [254]. Walter Burkert, “Griechische Religion,” TRE 14:238ff., The foundational legends of Greek religion are handed on in, Herodotus, Hist. 2.53.2: “For Homer and Hesiod were the first, to compose Theogonies, and give the gods their epithets, to, allot them their several offices and occupations, and describe, their forms” (Rawlinson)., [255]. Homer, Od. 17.485–486 (NW 2/2:1232); cf. also Plato,, Sophista 216a–b (NW 2/2:1232); Diodorus Siculus 1.12.9–10, (NW 2/2:1232–33); Homer, Od. 7.199–210 (NW 1/2:55)., [256]. Cf. Plato, Prot. 322c–d (NW 1/2:56)., [257]. One only need note Acts 14:11–12, after Paul’s miracle, in Lystra: “When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they, shouted in the Lycaonian language, ‘The gods have come down, to us in human form!’ Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they, called Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.”
Page 1160 :
[258]. Plutarch, Pel. 16 (NW 1/2:57–58)., [259]. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.16.44, and Diodorus Siculus, 4.15.1., [260]. Cf. Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 31, according to whom the, Pythagoreans introduced the following distinction: “Of rational,, living beings one kind is divine, another human, and another, such as Pythagoras” (Dillon and Hershbell, 55). Pythagoras is, described with the adjective θεῖος (cf. John 1:1–2), for he hands, on to humanity the saving philosophy he has received from the, gods (cf. Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 1–2). On the historical, Pythagoras, cf. Christoph Riedweg, Pythagoras: Leben, Lehre,, Nachwirkung: Eine Einführung (Munich: Beck, 2002)., [261]. Cf. the texts in NW 1/2:59 and in Boring et al., eds.,, Hellenistic Commentary, §§ 7, 31, 55, 61, 88, 119, 132, 198,, 228, 229, 230, 290., [262]. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 8.62: “I go about among you as, an immortal god, no more a mortal.”, [263]. Cf. H. Funke, “Götterbild,” RAC 11:659–828., [264]. Cf. Burkert, “Griechische Religion,” TRE 14:247–48., [265]. Cf. Philo, Embassy 118 (NW 1/2:54–55)., [266]. Cf. further Plutarch, Is. Os. 361: “She herself [Isis] and, Osiris, translated for their virtues from good demigods into, gods, as were Heracles and Dionysus later, not incongruously, enjoy double honors, both those of gods and demigods, and, their powers extend everywhere, but are greatest in the, regions above the earth and beneath the earth.”, [267]. On the relation of theology and Christology in Paul, see, above, section 15.2 (“God as the Father of Jesus Christ”)., [268]. Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, and Hahn, Titles of, Jesus, are somewhat slanted in favor of this distinction; cf. the, careful self-correction in Hahn, Titles of Jesus, 347–51., [269]. On the significance of worship practice for the, formation of early Christology, cf. Schrage, Unterwegs zur, Einzigkeit, 158–67; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 111–18, 194–, 206, and passim.
Page 1163 :
[20]. Cf. the catalogue of material in Gillis Petersson Wetter,, Charis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ältesten Christentums, (UNT 5; Leipzig: Brandstetter, 1913), 6–19; Conzelmann,, “χαίρω, χάρις, κτλ.,” TDNT 9:373–76; Zeller, Charis, 14–32. The, enumeration of the emperor’s achievements for the Roman, people in Augustus, Res gestae divi Augusti, are worth reading, in this regard., [21]. For the internal connection between the concepts of, love and grace, cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament,, 1:291–92., [22]. Differently, e.g., Bultmann, ibid., 1:284, who practically, identifies χάρις and δικαιοσύνη (θεοῦ) (the righteousness [of/from, God]): “‘Righteousness,’ then, has its origin in God’s grace.”, Similarly, Conzelmann, Theology of the New Testament, 213–, 20, and Dunn, Theology of Paul, 319–23, argue that the, exclusive doctrine of justification as found in Romans is the, complete statement of Paul’s doctrine of grace. Bultmann’s, statements are doubtless correct regarding Romans, but the, Pauline understanding of grace is not to be reduced to the, conceptions of justification and law found in Romans. The, grace of God in Jesus Christ is not identical with one of its, interpretations. A more differentiated argumentation is found, in Zeller, Charis, 154ff., [23]. Cf. Franz Jung, ΣΩΤΗΡ: Studien zur Rezeption eines, hellenistischen Ehrentitels im Neuen Testament (NTAbh NF, 39; Münster: Aschendorff, 2002), 45–176; and Martin Karrer,, “Jesus der Retter (σωτήρ),” ZNW 93 (2002): 153–76., [24]. According to Rom. 9:27, only a remnant of Israel will be, saved.
Page 1164 :
Chapter 18, [1]. Cf. Kim, “Heilsgegenwart,” 180: “After the cessation of, prophecy in Israel, for Paul the Spirit of God begins to work, anew in the world with the death and resurrection of Jesus, Christ.”, [2]. Translator’s note: In this section I have used, “connection” and related forms to to represent Vernetzung,, vernetzen, etc. The German words suggest networks of, connections., [3]. On the integrating and organizing function of, pneumatology, cf. also Schlier, Grundzüge, 179–94; Horn,, Angeld des Geistes, 385–431; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 413–41., [4]. Cf. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Kyrios und Pneuma bei, Paulus,” in Paulinische Christologie: Exegetische Beiträge:, Hans Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Udo Schnelle et al.;, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 59., [5]. Cf. the foundational work of Thüsing, Per Christum in, Deum, 152–63., [6]. Differently, Horn, “Kyrios und Pneuma,” 66–67, who, equates the reference to the Kyrios with a reference to the, Spirit and infers, “The idea that in this passage Paul intends to, say something about a possible identity of the Kyrios (Christ), and the Spirit is thus a bit bizarre” (p. 67)., [7]. The term πνεῦµα ζῳοποιοῦν is found only here in the New, Testament; cf. Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 197–98; Dunn,, Theology of Paul, 261. First Corinthians 15:46 shows that Paul, is arguing against Spirit enthusiasm and intentionally relates, the concept of the Spirit to that of the exalted Lord., [8]. Johannes Sijko Vos, Traditionsgeschichtliche, Untersuchungen zur paulinischen Pneumatologie (Assen: Van, Gorcum, 1973), 81, appropriately formulates the matter: “As, the eschatological Adam, Christ is Pneuma in his substance just, as he is in his function. As Pneuma, Christ creates his own in
Page 1165 :
his own image, and this means that he transforms them into his, own spiritual mode of being.”, [9]. Cf. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart, 120–, 22; and S. Vollenweider, “Der Geist Gottes als Selbst der, Glaubenden,” ZTK 93 (1996): 169–72., [10]. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:227–, 28., [11]. As a pagan parallel, cf. Cicero, Tusc. 5.70, where, after, listing the joys of the wise, it is said, “To the soul occupied day, and night in these meditations there comes the knowledge, enjoined by the god at Delphi [γνῶθι σεαυτόν, “know thyself”],, that the mind should know its own self and feel its union with, the divine mind, the source of the fullness of joy, unquenchable.”, [12]. Paul’s statements on the relation of the Spirit of God to, the human spirit are intentionally open and nonspecific, because this mystery eludes static conceptuality. Reflections on, this theme are found in Vollenweider, “Geist Gottes,” 175ff.; cf., p. 189: “The Spirit moves the ego to stop thinking of itself in, terms of its fleshly origin, to let itself go, to die, so that it can, understand itself anew as pervaded by the divine Spirit (cf. Gal., 2:19–20; 6:14b). This elementary process alone brings one to, the presence of the Pneuma/Spirit in one’s self.”, [13]. In this respect, the statement of Wolfgang Schrage, The, Ethics of the New Testament (trans. David E. Green;, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 178, appears to be problematic:, “The Spirit is rather the very essence of the new life, in all its, apparently insignificant and mundane details.”, [14]. Käsemann consistently emphasizes this aspect (cf., e.g.,, Romans, 28: “For the apostle knows of no gift which does not, also challenge us to responsibility, thereby showing itself as a, power over us and creating a place of service for us”)., [15]. Cf. Lietzmann, Römer, 71., [16]. For exposition, cf. Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 294–97., [17]. See above, section 9.5 (“The Power of the Spirit and, Building Up the Church”).
Page 1166 :
[18]. Appropriately, Hans Weder, “Die Energie des, Evangeliums,” in Theologie als gegenwärtige Schriftauslesung, (ZTKB 9; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 95, who argues that, love has a reality “that is not created by those who love but, who are themselves supported and carried along by love.”, [19]. Cf. Günther Bornkamm, “Der köstlichere Weg,” in Das, Ende des Gesetzes: Paulusstudien (BEvT 16; Munich: Kaiser,, 1961), 110: “Ἀγάπη is related to the variety of χαρίσματα as Christ, is related to the many members of his body.”, [20]. On 1 Cor. 12:1–3, cf. Matthias Pfeiffer, Einweisung in, das neue Sein: Neutestamentliche Erwägungen zur, Grundlegung der Ethik (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus,, 2001), 211–15., [21]. Cf. Roloff, Kirche im Neuen Testament, 137., [22]. In 1 Cor. 12:4 Paul abandons the obvious term πνευµατικά, and thus calls a halt to any attempt to base individual, privileges on manifestations of the Spirit; cf. Hans Weder,, Neutestamentliche Hermeneutik (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag,, 1986), 34–35., [23]. Cf. Pfeiffer, Einweisung, 221ff., [24]. Cf. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 829–42; Horn,, Angeld des Geistes, 415–17 is more reserved in his analysis of, the triadic expression in 2 Cor. 13:13 (cf. Gal. 6:18; Phil. 2:1;, Philem. 25)., [25]. See above, section 15.2 (“God as the Father of Jesus, Christ”)., [26]. Appropriately, Schlier, Galater, 249: “The Spirit is, of, course, not a power given with existence itself but the power of, Christ himself that overcomes existence along with Christ. The, Spirit is Christ in the power of his emerging presence with us.”, [27]. Translator’s note: In German, as in Greek, the pronoun, referring to the Spirit is determined by the grammatical gender, of the word for “Spirit” (neuter in Greek; masculine in, German). English is not so structured, and so the choice of, pronoun seems to communicate whether the Spirit is thought, of in personal terms (he, she) or not (it) and thus cannot, communicate the way the term is used in either Greek or
Page 1167 :
German. English translations of the Bible and of theological, works in German (and other languages) must make choices not, necessary or meaningful in Greek or German., [28]. Cf. Horn, Angeld des Geistes, 418–22.
Page 1169 :
[7]. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:194,, formulates it concisely: “Man does not have a soma; he is a, soma.” For debate with Bultmann, cf. Gundry, Soma, 29–50., [8]. Cf. Eduard Schweizer, “σῶµα,” EDNT 3:323., [9]. Käsemann consistently emphasizes this aspect in his, debate with Bultmann; cf. Käsemann, “Aspekte,” 11: “He, [Bultmann] is still indentured to the tradition of philosophical, idealism when he explains the term ‘body’ as the relation of the, person to oneself and thus gives the possibility of the self’s, distancing itself from itself. . . . In contrast to this view, for me, everything has depended on seeing existence in the body as, being related to others; it can never be isolated and regarded, as an independent, responsible individual, so that also the, possibility of self-transcendence is not applicable.” Following, Käsemann, K.-A. Bauer emphasizes that the body is the, anthropological intersection of history and nature. Nature, indicates solidarity with the whole creation; history is intended, here to describe “the love of God that reveals itself in word and, spirit to human beings, including their bodily existence”, (Bauer, Leiblichkeit, 185 n. 14)., [10]. Cf. Gundry, Soma, 159–83., [11]. See below, section 22.2 (“The Course of the Final, Events and Life after Death”)., [12]. See above, section 9.6 (“The Resurrection of the Dead”)., [13]. Cf. Bauer, Leiblichkeit, 185: “The human being both is a, body and has a body. The human being is thus called σῶµα, inasmuch as, within the temporal sphere of Jesus Christ, one is, able to differentiate oneself from oneself and thus to become, the object of one’s own experience.”, [14]. Paul makes a very close connection between one’s, relation to the world and one’s self-understanding; eschatology, and anthropology condition and supplement each other., Käsemann states the matter pointedly: “There is no such thing, as man without his particular and respective world” (Ernst, Käsemann, “On Paul’s Anthropology,” in Perspectives on Paul, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 27., [15]. A survey is provided in Sand, “σάρξ,” EDNT 3:230–33.
Page 1170 :
[16]. The foundational treatment of this theme continues to, be Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:232–39., [17]. Cf. Wolff, Korinther, 205., [18]. Cf. Sand, “σάρξ,” EDNT 3:233., [19]. See above, section 12.8 (“Sin, Law, and Freedom in the, Spirit”)., [20]. Cf. Röhser, Metaphorik, 7ff., [21]. For analysis, cf. Umbach, In Christus getauft, 68–70., [22]. See above, section 9.7 (“The Cross, Justification, and, the Law”)., [23]. Cf. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 334., [24]. Cf. Umbach, In Christus getauft, 88–90., [25]. Cf. Weder, “Gesetz und Sünde,” 331: “The qualitative, leap we see here in Paul’s thinking thus consists in the fact that, he goes beyond a quantitative statement of human sin of some, (perhaps many) by the qualitative declaration that all human, beings are, as such, sinners.”
Page 1171 :
[26]. Differently, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament,, 1:251: “He holds the idea that sin came into the world by, sinning.”, [27]. Cf. Umbach, In Christus getauft, 201, on Rom. 5:12: “By, the sinning, or disobedience, of the one (Adam) ἡ ἁμαρτία came, into the world, that is, to all human beings (12d) and since then, has determined the general human condition in both action, (ἥμαρτον [“they sinned”]) and its result (θάνατος).” Differently,, e.g., Theobald, Römerbrief, 151ff., who emphasizes the, dialectic in Paul’s understanding of sin: “For him, sin is both: a, power that determines history (5:12a) and a deed for which, human beings are responsible (5:12d). . . . The presence of the, power of sin in the world resulting from Adam’s sin (5:12a) is, not a mythical reality that hovers over history but sin’s, expression of its power and sin’s on-stage appearance in the, sinful acts of all human beings” (pp. 153–54)., [28]. See above, section 12.8 (“Sin, Law, and Freedom in the, Spirit”)., [29]. The law/Torah is only one aspect of the Pauline, understanding of sin; in Bultmann, Theology of the New, Testament, 1:242, however, it takes center stage: “The attitude, of sinful self-reliance finds its extreme expression in man’s, ‘boasting’ (καυχᾶσθαι). It is characteristic both of the Jew, who, boasts of God and the Torah (Rom. 2:17, 23), and of the Greek,, who boasts of his wisdom (1 Cor. 1:19–31). It is also a natural, tendency of man in general to compare himself with others in, order to have his ‘boast’ thereby (Gal. 6:4). How characteristic, boasting is for the Jew, Rom. 3:27 shows.”, [30]. Bultmann, ibid., 1:191, seems close to sharing this, misunderstanding when he emphasizes, “Therefore, Paul’s, theology can best be treated as his doctrine of man: first, of, man prior to the revelation of faith, and second, of man under, faith.”, [31]. Appropriately, Helmut Merklein, “Paulus und die, Sünde,” in Studien zu Jesus und Paulus (2 vols.; WUNT 43, 105;, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 2:335ff., who points out the, paradigm shift in Pauline thinking and notes, “This paradigm
Page 1172 :
shift in Paul’s thought confers on the thesis of universal human, sinfulness a foundational character that it had never had within, similar paradigms. Inquiry about the genesis of Pauline, theology must therefore keep this paradigm shift in mind. It, can even be considered its true basis.”, [32]. Weder, “Gesetz und Sünde,” 331, points this out: “The, fact that sin is understood independently of the law, corresponds to the other fact that righteousness is understood, independently of the law.”, [33]. On Rom. 7:15, 19 and the parallels in Epictetus, cf. esp., Theissen, Psychological Aspects, 216–26., [34]. Similarly, Dio Chrysostom, Alex. 14, 15, who answers, the question of the origin of good and evil as follows: “All, things which happen to men for their good are without, exception of divine origin; not only is this true if a voyager has, the luck to find a pilot with experience, or a nation or a city to, secure good leaders, but also if a physician arrives in time to, save his patient, we must believe that he is a helper come from, god, and if one hears words of wisdom, we must believe that, they too were sent by god. For in general, there is no good, fortune, no benefit, that does not reach us in accordance with, the will and the power of the gods; on the contrary, the gods, themselves control all blessings everywhere and apportion, lavishly to all who are ready to receive; but evils come from, quite a different source, as it were from some other fount close, beside us. Take for example the water of Alexandria—that, which keeps us alive and nourishes us and is truly the author of, our being: it descends from some region up above, from some, divine fount; whereas the filthy, evil-smelling canals are our, own creation, and it is our fault that such things exist. As, physician and healer, it becomes the philosopher’s task to, bring people to right insight and appropriate action by, instruction in reason.”, [35]. On the ideas of evil in Greco-Roman thought, cf. FritzPeter Hager, Gott und das Böse im antiken Platonismus, (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1987); and Gabriele
Page 1174 :
When Paul makes statements about (ὁ) νόµος that include the, Torah but at the same time go beyond its foundational, character, “law/Torah” is used here. When by the word (ὁ) νόµος, Paul means a law/rule/principle/norm with no reference to the, Torah, this will be made explicit. I will continue to use, expressions that include the word “law” (such as, “understanding of the law”) where the meaning is clear from, the context. When discussing Greco-Roman authors, I use “law”, or “laws,” and the meaning will be clear from the context., [44]. Cf. Plato, Leg. 10.885b: “No one who in obedience to, the laws believed that there were Gods, ever intentionally did, any unholy act, or uttered any unlawful word.” Cf. further Leg., 12.996b–e., [45]. See, e.g., Euripides, Hecuba 799–801, “How mighty are, the gods and their ruler, the law; for according to the law we, believe in the gods and demarcate right and wrong, and so, live!” Cf. further the textual examples and analyses in Sonntag,, ΝΟΜΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ, 18–46., [46]. Cf. also Aristotle, Eth. nic. 5.1134a: “For justice exists, only between men whose mutual relations are governed by law;, and law exists for men between whom there is justice.” Cf., further Eth. nic. 10.1180: “But the law has compulsive power,, while it is at the same time a rule proceeding from a sort of, practical wisdom and reason.”, [47]. Cf. Aristotle, Eth. nic. 5.1138a; further, Diogenes, Laertius 6.72, “It is impossible for society to exist without law”;, Sextus Empiricus, Math. 2.31, “For the community structure is, held together by law, and if the soul collapses when the body is, destroyed, so the states also collapse when the laws are set, aside.”, [48]. Cf. Isocrates, Nicocles (Or. 3) 6–7: “We have come, together, founded cities, made laws, invented arts.”, [49]. Cf. Aelius Aristides, Orationes 45.226: “The law, king of, all immortals as well as mortals, conducts violence with a, strong hand into the way of justice” (quote from Pindar, frg., 187).
Page 1175 :
[50]. Cf., in addition, the text analyses in Sonntag, ΝΟΜΟΣ, ΣΩΤΗΡ, 47–105., [51]. Cf. also Pseudo-Pythagoras, Carmen aureum 1: “First, honor the immortal gods, as the law requires.”, [52]. For the earlier period, cf., e.g., Isocrates, Panathenaicus, (Or. 12) 144, who says regarding the ancestral laws, “For, because they followed this principle they saw their code of laws, completely written down in a few days—laws, not like those, which are established today, nor full of so much confusion and, of so many contradictions that no one can distinguish between, the useful and the useless.” For criticism of unjust laws, cf. also, Demosthenes, Orations 24.119–120, 137, 139, 156., [53]. Skepticism goes yet a step further; Diogenes Laertius, 9.61 reports a saying of Pyrrho: “He denied that anything was, honorable or dishonorable, just or unjust. And so, universally,, he held that there is nothing really existent, but custom and, convention govern human action; for no single thing is any, more than that.”, [54]. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Lib. 5; cf. also the distinction, ascribed to Antisthenes: “The wise man will be guided in his, public acts not by the established laws but by the law of virtue”, (Diogenes Laertius 6.11)., [55]. Cf. also the view that it was necessary to introduce laws, because of misconduct (e.g., of the kings) and thus law does, not correspond to the ideal human situation (Lucretius, Rer., nat. 5.958–961, 1141–1147; Seneca, Ep. 90.6; Tacitus, Ann., 3.25–26; Sextus Empiricus, Math. 9.14–16)., [56]. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 1.26.1: “But much more important, is the following law of life—that we must do what nature, demands [τῆς φύσει πράττειν].”, [57]. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, De lege 2., [58]. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, De lege 6: “But such is the, righteousness and benevolence which pervades the law, that, for the unfortunate it has proved even more helpful than blood, relatives, and for the victims of injustice it has proved more, potent than their own might”; cf. further De lege 8.
Page 1176 :
[59]. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 42, according to which the, universe is ordered, “guided by a good destiny and a like divine, power, by foreknowledge and a governing purpose most, righteous and perfect, and renders us like itself, since, in, consequence of the mutual kinship of ourselves and it, we are, marshalled in order under one ordinance and law and partake, of the same polity. He who honors and upholds this polity and, does not oppose it in any way is law-abiding, devout and, orderly.”, [60]. For a history of the formation of the Torah and its later, role in the history of Israel and Judaism, cf. Crüsemann, Tora., [61]. Cf. esp. Nissen, Gott und der Nächste; and Reinhard, Weber, Das Gesetz im hellenistischen Judentum: Studien zum, Verständnis und zur Funktion der Thora von Demetrios bis, Pseudo-Phokylides (ARGU 10; Frankfurt: Lang, 2000)., [62]. A survey is given in Hermann Lichtenberger, “Das ToraVerständnis im Judentum zur Zeit des Paulus,” in Paul and the, Mosaic law (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,, 2001), 7–23., [63]. For Diaspora Judaism’s understanding of the law,, Weber, Das Gesetz im hellenistischen Judentum, 37–322,, provides comprehensive analyses (without Philo and Josephus)., For apocalypticism’s understanding, the analyses by Hoffmann,, Gesetz, 71ff., are foundational. On the understanding among, the Zealots, cf. Hengel, Zealots, 149–228., The point of departure for Gerd Theissen’s thesis, explaining, Paul’s doctrine of justification from the religious and social, problems of Judaism in the first century CE, is the possible, problematizing of the law in such texts as Philo, Migration 89–, 90; 4 Ezra 7:72; 8:20–36, 47–49; Josephus, Ant. 4.141–155;, Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.35–38. To be sure, there are only a few, texts one can call on to support this thesis, and their, interpretation is in each case disputed (cf. Theissen, Religion of, the Earliest Churches, 211–30). On 4 Ezra, to which appeal is, frequently made, cf., e.g., Hoffmann, Gesetz, 217–57, who, vehemently rejects the idea that the content of the law is, problematic for this author; what we have instead is a specific
Page 1177 :
renewal of the Deuteronomic understanding of history and the, law. “Despite the seer’s statements critical of the law in the, dialogue section of the document, the author of 4 Ezra is no, ‘pre-Christian Paul.’ When one attempts to chart the complex, train of thought of this document, the conclusion is unavoidable, that the author’s own intention is to facilitate radical obedience, to the law under changed conditions” (pp. 341–42)., [64]. Cf. Weber, Das “Gesetz” bei Philon, 42–164., [65]. Cf. Philo, Moses 1.162: “Perhaps, too, since he was, destined to be a legislator, the providence of God which, afterwards appointed him without his knowledge to that work,, caused him long before that day to be the reasonable and living, impersonation of law.”, [66]. The virtuous lives of the patriarchs appear as, prototypes of the Torah: “For in these men we have laws, endowed with life and reason, and Moses extolled them for two, reasons. First he wished to show that the enacted ordinances, are not inconsistent with nature; and secondly that those who, wish to live in accordance with the laws as they stand have no, difficult task, seeing that the first generations before any of the, particular statutes was set in writing followed the unwritten, law with perfect ease, so that one might properly say that the, enacted laws are nothing else than memorials of the life of the, ancients, preserving to a later generation their actual words, and deeds” (Philo, Abraham 5)., [67]. Cf. Weber, Das “Gesetz” bei Philon, 337: “The Torah is, thus here understood as a moral law to which human beings, must conform their conduct, in what they must do and what, they must endure, because its observance leads to a life in, social harmony, in psychological balance, in religious devotion,, and thus in a wholesome communion with God and humanity, and in peace with oneself.”, [68]. Diachronic analyses of Paul’s understanding of the law, are found only sporadically; Wilckens, “Entwicklung,” 154,, points the way forward when he speaks explicitly against the, exaltation of Romans as the only standard of Pauline thought, and insists on a chronological way of considering the issue.
Page 1178 :
[69]. See above, section 3.2 (“Paul: Pharisee in the, Diaspora”)., [70]. Cf. Hoffmann, Gesetz, 337., [71]. So Schoeps, Paul, 213., [72]. On the analysis of the texts, see above, section 4 (“The, Call to Be Apostle to the Gentiles: The New Horizon”)., [73]. Cf. Sonntag, ΝΟΜΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ, 187., [74]. Cf. also the outline in Wilckens, “Entwicklung,” 154–57., [75]. Following W. Wrede, Heikki Räisänen, “Freiheit vom, Gesetz im Urchristentum,” ST 46 (1980): 58, formulates the, matter thus: “In the beginning was the praxis.”, [76]. This is specifically emphasized by Rau, Von Jesus zu, Paulus, 79., [77]. Differently, Rau, ibid., 81–83, who believes that, circumcision was not abandoned until later, and in passing, not, as a central issue., [78]. See above, chapter 6 (“The Apostolic Council and the, Incident at Antioch: The Problems Remain Unresolved”)., [79]. Cf. Räisänen, “Freiheit vom Gesetz,” 58., [80]. This fundamental distinction, so important for Paul’s, understanding of the law, is mostly minimized in Pauline, research; thus, e.g., Theissen, Religion of the Earliest, Churches, 369 n. 8., [81]. Theissen, ibid., 219ff., advocates another variation, that, although the law had been a problem for Paul since his, conversion, the Galatian crisis was also fundamentally, important: “Only now did Paul activate his own conversion and, introduce it as an argument into the public discussion—as a, warning against accepting circumcision. He did this in two, letters written against Judaistic counter-missionaries, Galatians, and Philippians. A (current) crisis in the communities and a, (long past) personal crisis now come together. The one, interpreted the other.”, [82]. See below, section 20.2 (“The New Being in Practice”)., [83]. On the line of argument of Galatians, see above, section, 11.5 (“Inclusive and Exclusive Doctrine of Justification in, Paul”).
Page 1179 :
[84]. It is by no means merely a matter of “deeper, discussions” found in Romans, as supposed by Becker, Paul,, 395. Nor is the objection persuasive that the brief temporal, interval between Galatians and Romans speaks against, changes in the meantime (so Dunn, Theology of Paul, 131), for, both the textual data of each letter and the apostle’s changed, historical situation point to the fact that Paul had developed his, position further., [85]. Hahn, “Entwicklung,” 365, has a different emphasis:, “The fact that statements about justification and the law are, partially lacking by no means permits the conclusion that this, theme was only gradually taken into Pauline theology, whether, as a result of disputes or because of reflection on the subject, itself.”, [86]. A survey of the current discussion is provided in, Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 13–31., [87]. Cf. Ps. 19:13; 32; 51; 119., [88]. Cf. Sanders, Paul, 84: “He did not have, however, one, single theology of the law. It was not the starting point of his, thought, and it is impossible to give one central statement, about the law which explains all his other statements.” Cf., further pp. 92–95., [89]. Cf. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 199–202, 256–63;, Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 68: “This is the, best explained by hypothesizing that he thought backwards,, from solution to plight, and that his thinking in this, as in many, respects, was governed by the overriding conviction that, salvation is through Christ”; cf. further pp. 35–36, 144–48., [90]. On the power of the Torah to save and give life, cf., e.g.,, Sir. 17:11; 45:5; Bar. 3:9; 4:1; Pss. Sol. 14:2; 4 Ezra 7:21ff.;, 9:7ff.; 14:22, 30; 2 Bar. 38:2; 85:3ff., [91]. Cf. Heikki Räisänen, “Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels, Bund,” in The Law in the Bible and in Its Environment (ed., Timo Veijola; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 167., [92]. Cf. Räisänen, ibid., 170, who concedes that he did not, sufficiently take this aspect into consideration in his previous, publications.
Page 1180 :
[93]. Cf. Let. Aris. 131, 168; T. Dan 5.1–3; T. Iss. 5.2; Philo,, Spec. Laws 1.260; 2.61–63; Decalogue 154ff.; Josephus, Ag. Ap., 2.154; Ant. 18.117. Differently than in Paul, however, the, exaltation of particular commands did not repeal the authority, of the other commandments; on this point, cf. Weber, Das, Gesetz im hellenistischen Judentum, 236–39., [94]. Cf. Weber, Das Gesetz im hellenistischen Judentum,, 320: “Thus the Nomos is basically a form of the doctrine of, virtue, for the purpose of virtue is the formation of character.”, [95]. Cf., e.g., Philo, Spec. Laws 2.63: “But among the vast, number of particular truths there studied, there stand out, practically high above the others two main heads: one of duty, to God as shown by piety and holiness, one of duty to men as, shown by humanity and justice, each of them splitting up into, multiform branches, all highly laudable.” Cf. also Philo,, Decalogue 108–110, where, in the context of his exposition of, the command to honor one’s parents, he mentions people who, direct their love either entirely to God or entirely to human, beings: “These may be justly called lovers of men, the former, sort lovers of God. Both come but halfway in virtue; they only, have it whole who win honor in both departments.”, [96]. Although in Jewish ethical instruction the love, commandment was not of outstanding importance, it did have a, significant position; cf. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Gesetz und, Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der, frühjüdischen Literatur (WUNT 2/28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 1987), 122ff. and passim., [97]. On the connection of ethical conduct toward God and, that toward other human beings, cf. Albrecht Dihle, Der Kanon, der zwei Tugenden (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des, Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften 144;, Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1968)., [98]. Cf. Cicero, Off. 3.5.21, 23 (it is not permitted to harm, another person: “For it is to this that the laws have regard; this, is their intent, that the bonds of union between citizens should, not be impaired; and any attempt to destroy these bonds is, repressed by the penalty of death, exile, imprisonment, or
Page 1185 :
[145]. On the problems of 2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Klauck, 2., Korintherbrief, 41–42., [146]. Windisch, Korintherbrief, 129, supposes Paul is here, influenced by ideas from the mystery cults., [147]. Cf. Wolff, Korinther, 70–71., [148]. Examples are given in Jervell, Imago Dei, 107–12., [Translator’s note: The NIV, which preserves the genderspecific language of the original, is cited here. The NRSV’s, interest in gender-inclusive language here obscures Schnelle’s, point, which is clear in the Hebrew text and the German, translation he cites.], [149]. On the interpretation of Gen. 1:27, cf. esp. Gerhard, von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia:, Westminster, 1972), 57–61., [150]. Paul’s use of καρδία stands in the tradition of Old, Testament anthropology. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew, ( לבca. 850 times in the Old Testament) mostly with καρδία. In, the Old Testament, the heart designates the dynamic midpoint, of the person, the innermost center, the locus of one’s willing,, thinking, and striving; cf. Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of, the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 40–58., [151]. In both Phil. 1:7–8 (φρονέω [“think”], σπλάγχνα [“one’s, insides”]) and Phil. 4:7 (νόημα [“thought”], νοῦς [“mind,”, “reason”]), Paul can connect καρδία with Greek ideas., [152]. Holtz, Thessalonicher, 265., [153]. Wolff, Anthropology, 10–25., [154]. Classically, Plato, Phaedr. 247c–e, presents the mind, as the highest and best part of the soul, making the moral life, possible by its ability to discern what virtue is; cf. further, Aristotle, Eth. nic. 10.1177a (the mind as the epitome of the, divine, the most valuable part of the inner life); Diogenes, Laertius 7.54 (according to Zeno, reason is the primary, criterion of truth); Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.1–2 (the essence of, divine being is νοῦς); further documentation in NW 1/2:230ff., [155]. Cf. Lang, An die Korinther, 47., [156]. The exegesis of Käsemann remains foundational; cf., Käsemann, Romans, 325–32.
Page 1187 :
als neue Schöpfung, 23–104; Hans Dieter Betz, Paul’s Concept, of Freedom in the Context of Hellenistic Discussions about the, Possibilities of Human Freedom: Protocol of the Twenty-Sixth, Colloquy, 9 January 1977 (Berkeley: The Center for, Hermenuetical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture,, 1977)., [167]. In contrast to the older studies, Jones, “Freiheit,” 138–, 41, emphasizes this aspect., [168]. Cf. the methodological reflections of Jones, ibid., 19–, 24, who chooses a chronological approach; he is followed by, Dautzenberg, “Freiheit im hellenistischen Kontext,” 58–59., [169]. For elaboration, see above, section 9.4 (“Freedom and, Obligation in Christ”); cf. further Dautzenberg, “Freiheit im, hellenistischen Kontext,” 66–69., [170]. Cf. the Diogenes tradition in Diogenes Laertius 6.72:, “He maintained that all things are the property of the wise, and, employed such arguments as those cited above. All things, belong to the gods; the gods are friends of the wise; and, friends share all property in common; all things, therefore, are, the property of the wise.” For additional parallels, cf. Downing,, Pauline Churches, 98–104, 114–27., [171]. In my opinion, the alternative given by Dautzenberg,, “Freiheit im hellenistischen Kontext,” 65, is not appropriate:, “The distinctive thing about the statements in 1 Cor. 9 dealing, with freedom is not an understanding of freedom as Christian, freedom but the exemplary manner in which Paul handles his, social freedom.”, [172]. It is no accident that most of the instances of the word, “freedom” are placed in opposition to δοῦλος (slave), δουλεύω, (serve as a slave), δουλόω (enslave); cf. 1 Cor. 7; 9; 12; Gal. 4, 5;, Rom. 6)., [173]. For elaboration and interpretation, see above, section, 9.4 (“Freedom and Obligation in Christ”); cf. further, Dautzenberg, “Freiheit im hellenistischen Kontext,” 60–62., [174]. Cf. Epictetus, Ench. 15, where he says in the analogy, of the banquet, “But if you do not take these things even when, they are set before you, but despise them, then you will not
Page 1188 :
only share the banquet of the gods, but share also their rule., For it was by so doing that Diogenes and Heracleitus, and men, like them, were deservedly divine and deservedly so called.”, [175]. Cf. Jones, “Freiheit,” 129–35; Vollenweider, Freiheit, als neue Schöpfung, 375–96., [176]. With Jones, “Freiheit,” 67–69 and others; against, Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schöpfung, 21, and others, who, consistently understand freedom in Paul to include freedom, from the law. For critique of a one-sided fixation of Paul’s, concept of freedom on the problematic of the law, cf. also, Dautzenberg, “Streit um Freiheit,” 265–76; “Freiheit im, hellenistischen Kontext,” 75., [177]. See above, section 19.3 (“The Law”)., [178]. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:240–45,, is also incorrect when he speaks of “Freedom from the Law”, without making differentiations., [179]. On the understanding of the law and freedom in, Galatians, cf. Kertelge, “Gesetz und Freiheit,” 184–96., [180]. See above, section 11.5 (“Inclusive and Exclusive, Doctrine of Justification in Paul”)., [181]. Cf. Gerhard Dautzenberg, “Die Freiheit bei Paulus und, in der Stoa,” TQ 176 (1996): 65–76., [182]. On the interpretation of Rom. 7, see above, section, 12.8 (“Sin, Law, and Freedom in the Spirit”)., [183]. Cf. Dautzenberg, “Freiheit bei Paulus und in der Stoa,”, 65–76., [184]. Cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.1 (NW 2/1:281); Dio, Chrysostom, 1 Serv. lib. 3 (if one were to ask the crowd “what, the nature of freedom is, they would say, perhaps, that it, consists of being subject to no one and acting simply in accord, with one’s own judgment”)., [185]. Cf. Cicero, Parad. 5: “Only the wise man is free, and, every fool is a slave” (ὅτι μόνος ὁ σοφὸς ἐλεύθερος καὶ πᾶς ἄφρων, δοῦλος)., [186]. Cf., e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.152–154 (NW 2/1:567)., [187]. Cf. Dio Chrysostom 2 Serv. lib. 2.
Page 1189 :
[188]. For the Stoics, cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.88, 117, 119,, 121, and passim. For the Epicureans, cf. Diogenes Laertius, 10.82, 117–121, and passim. For the Skeptics, cf. Diogenes, Laertius 9.68, 107, and passim., [189]. Weder, “Die Normativität der Freiheit,” 136ff.,, emphasizes this aspect.
Page 1192 :
im frühen Christentum (HE 42; Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1979),, E42., [10]. Contra Schrage, Einzelgebote, 241, who argues, “Thus, Paul did not introduce the historical life and work of Jesus as, the concrete norm of the Christian life.”, [11]. On the problem of the proprium (that which is, characteristically Christian) of the Pauline and New Testament, ethic, cf. Georg Strecker, “Strukturen einer, neutestamentlichen Ethik,” ZTK 75 (1978): 136ff.; Halter,, Taufe und Ethos, 8, 13–32, 455–92., [12]. Cf. also Christof Landmesser, “Der paulinische, Imperativ als christologisches Performativ,” in Jesus Christus, als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik des, Evangeliums (ed. Christof Landmesser et al.; BZNW; Berlin: de, Gruyter, 1997), 543–77, who holds fast to the indicativeimperative schema but resolutely wants to understand the two, as a unity. Faith and the life determined by faith are equally, gifts of God, so that for the imperative one can say, “The, imperative that sounds forth in the proclamation of the gospel,, καταλλάγητε τῷ θεῷ, shows itself to be a prime example of, performative language, a kind of language by which hearers, are effectively made to be what they are addressed as” (p., 575). Michael Wolter, “Die ethische Identität christlicher, Gemeinden in neutestamentlicher Zeit,” in Woran orientiert, sich Ethik? (vol. 13 of Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie; MTS 67;, Marburg: Elwert, 2001), 68, takes the relation of ethos and, identity as the point of departure for his new determination of, indicative and imperative: “The imperative formulates a, normative ethos that is not a sort of challenge to ‘preserve’ the, indicative. Rather, it has the function of facilitating for, believers an objectification of their newly attained identity. In, other words, the indissoluble dependence of the imperative on, the indicative is indebted to the interest inherent in every, determination and every claim of identity, that this identity be, made visible (and indeed externally as well as from within) if it, is not to remain a mere postulate.”
Page 1193 :
[13]. The translation reflects Gerhard Delling, “στοιχέω κτλ.,”, TDNT 7:667–69., [14]. Cf. the evidence cited ibid., 666–69; Delling is followed, by, e.g., Mussner, Galaterbrief, 391; Weder, “Gesetz und, Gnade,” 179–80., [15]. The ἐν ὑµῖν (in/among you) of Phil. 2:13 points to the, working of the Spirit., [16]. Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum,” 24., [17]. Cf. Weder, “Normativität,” 136ff.; Pfeiffer, Einweisung,, 240–49., [18]. Cf. Backhaus, “Evangelium als Lebensraum,” 28–30., [19]. Cf. Schnelle, “Ethik des 1 Thessalonikerbriefes,” 295–, 305. The motif of sanctification and the related concept of, judgment are also found in 1 Cor. 1:8; 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1; Phil., 1:9–11; 2:15–18., [20]. For a comprehensive analysis, cf. Eckart Reinmuth,, Geist und Gesetz: Studien zu Voraussetzungen und Inhalt der, paulinischen Paränese (TA 44; Berlin: Evangelische, Verlagsanstalt, 1985), 12–47., [21]. For analysis, cf. Lindemann, “Toragebote,” 95–110., [22]. Although God’s commands can be designated ὁδοί (cf., Ps. 24:4; 26:11; 118:3, 26; Isa. 55:3), the expression αἱ ὁδοί µου, (my ways) is unique: Paul calls for orientation not to the, commandments but to his person., [23]. Otherwise ὁδός is found only in Old Testament, quotations (Rom. 3:16, 17) or else in a prayer (1 Thess. 3:11), and a hymnic segment (Rom. 11:33)., [24]. We should still note that Paul does not introduce, appropriate texts from the Torah dealing with the same, subject, such as Deut. 23:1; 27:20 and Lev. 18:8., [25]. As a parallel, cf. Plato, Gorg. 509c (NW 2/1:278)., [26]. Extensive evidence is given in Deming, Marriage and, Celibacy, 159–65., [27]. Compare 1 Cor. 10:24 (“Do not seek your own, advantage, but that of the other”) with Menander, Sent. 775, (“This means life: not to live only for yourself”), and Seneca,, Ep. 48.2 (“And no one can live happily who has regard to
Page 1195 :
mind is virtue: therefore happy life is necessarily bound up, with virtue.”, [39]. Seneca, Tranq. 3.4., [40]. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 20.2: “Philosophy teaches to act, not to, speak”; cf. further Musonius, Diss. 3, where it is not only men, who should seek “how to live a moral life, which means the, same thing as philosophy.”, The term “paraclesis” better expresses the basic Pauline, approach than “paraenesis”: (1) Paraclesis is used by Paul, himself (παρακαλέω, thirty-nine times; παράκλησις, eighteen, times), but not paraenesis. (2) As the result of accepting the, gospel, paraclesis unites encouragement and demand; cf., Anton Grabner-Haider, Paraklese und Eschatologie bei Paulus:, Mensch und Welt im Anspruch der Zukunft Gottes (NTAbh NF, 4; Münster: Aschendorff, 1968), 4–5, 153–54., [41]. Cicero, Fin. 3.4: “Philosophy is the science of life.” In, Fin. 3 Cicero presents an impressive general view of Stoic, ethics, whose basic idea is that “the highest good consists in, living in accord with the natural givens, deciding for what is, natural . . . i.e., living in harmony and agreement with nature”, (Fin. 3.31)., [42]. Musonius, Diss. 17 (trans. M.E.B. after Schnelle)., [43]. See also Seneca, Ep. 94.47: “A part of moral perfection, consists in schooling, a part in practice; you must learn, and, confirm what you have learned by practice.”, [44]. Cf. also Iamblichus, Prot. 3.1–2: “When one has reached, the goal toward which he strives and has mastered it, whether, in eloquence, knowledge, or bodily strength, then he must put, it into practice in the sense of the good and the laws. . . . Just, as a person, who masters one of these abilities, will be entirely, good when he applies it to good causes, and one who uses it for, evil, will himself be completely evil.”, [45]. Differently, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, “Tora ohne Tempel:, Paulus und der Jakobusbrief im Zusammenhang frühjüdischer, Torarezeption für die Diaspora,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel =, Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und, Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im
Page 1196 :
Alten Testament, antiken Judentum, und frühen Christentum, (ed. Beate Ego et al.; WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,, 1999), 427–60, who sees the Pauline Torah reception as, analogous to the Torah reception in the Jewish Diaspora:, “When particular individual commands or whole parts of the, Torah are not cited, this does not imply a rejection of the Torah, in principle or even that its validity has been only partially, accepted. Instead in each case one must ask to what extent, such parts of the Torah were relevant for the situation of the, addressees or were important for the specific intentions of the, author.”, [46]. Wolter, “Ethische Identität,” 82–84, rightly points out, that Paul does not derive the love command from the Torah: “It, is, rather, the other way around, inasmuch as it is the love, commandment of Lev. 19:18 that first makes possible an, integration of the Torah into the Christian ethic, where the love, command already prevails.”, [47]. See above, section 11.3 (“The Doctrine of the Law and, of Justification in Galatians”)., [48]. Cf. also Seneca, Ep. 94.33–34: “For although we may, infer by proofs just what Good and Evil are, nevertheless, precepts have their proper role. Prudence and justice consist of, certain duties; and duties are set in order by precepts., Moreover, judgment as to Good and Evil is itself strengthened, by following up our duties, and precepts conduct us to this, end.”, [49]. Cf. Betz, “Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik,” 201, who, emphasizes that Paul does not ground ethics directly in reason, and unity with nature., [50]. Wolter, “Ethische Identität,” 86, sees the decisive new, character of Pauline ethics to be reciprocity and the abolition, of dependence on status.
Page 1198 :
In Gal. 1:22 and Rom. 16:16, he refers to the ἐκκλησίαι ἐν Χριστῷ, or τοῦ Χριστοῦ., [7]. Cf. Käsemann, Romans, 336., [8]. Cf. Roloff, “ἐκκλησία,” EDNT 1:413. [Translator’s note: this, distinction is much more important in Europe, where there is a, long tradition of an established church, than in North America, and other English-speaking areas, where “church” has always, been used for the local congregation, for groups of, congregations, for the denomination, and for the church as a, whole. I have therefore not attempted to maintain this, distinction consistently in the English translation.], [9]. On the Old Testament and Jewish background of this, term, cf. Deut. 33:3; Dan. 7:18, 21–22, 25, 27; T. Levi 18:11,, 14; 2 En. 100:5; Pss. Sol. 11:1; 1QM 10:10., [10]. Cf. Isa. 65:9, 15, 22; Ps. 105:6, 43; 106:5; 1 Chr. 16:13;, Sir. 46:1; 1QpHab 5:4; 9:12; 10:13; 1QH 14:15., [11]. Cf. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 25–29., [12]. Cf. Jost Eckert, “ἐκλεκτός,” EDNT 1:417–19., [13]. It is, of course, possible to arrange the data differently., Thus Herman N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, (trans. John Richard de Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),, 327, sees two main aspects of Pauline anthropology, the, concept of the people of God and the image of the body of, Christ; Heinrich Schlier, “Ekklesiologie des Neuen, Testaments,” in Das Heilsgeschehen in der Gemeinde (ed., Wolfgang Beinert et al.; 2 vols.; MySal 4; Einsiedeln: Benziger,, 1972–1973), 1:152ff., adopts a threefold outline of Paul’s, ecclesiology (people of God and ἐκκλησία; body of Christ; and, temple of God); Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 132ff., finds four main lines, of Pauline ecclesiological understanding (descendants of, Abraham; the saints, the temple of God; God’s field and, planting; the body of Christ); Roloff, Kirche im Neuen, Testament, 86ff., distinguishes two focal points of Pauline, ecclesiology (body of Christ and people of God), which he, develops in five subpoints: baptism and “being in Christ”; the, ἐκκλησία as the local assembly “in Christ”; the “body of Christ”;
Page 1199 :
the eschatological temple and its edification; the people of God, and the church., [14]. On ἐν Χριστῷ, see above, section 17.1 (“New Being as, Participation in Christ”)., [15]. On the interpretation of 1 Cor. 12, see above, section, 9.5 (“The Power of the Spirit and Building Up the Church”)., [16]. Cf. Schweizer and Baumgärtel, “σῶµα,” TDNT 7:1063–, 66., [17]. In the Old Testament and the literature of ancient, Judaism, numerous texts testify to reflection on the integration, of the Gentiles into the people of God (for an analysis, cf., Kraus, Das Volk Gottes, 16–110). The Gentile mission with no, requirement of circumcision, however, represented a, completely new phenomenon that is illuminated by these texts, but cannot be reduced to what is already found in them., [18]. In 2 Cor. 6:16 we have a post-Pauline citation (see, above, section 10.2 [“The Unity of Second Corinthians”])., [19]. For an analysis of the text from the perspective of the, people-of-God imagery, cf. Kraus, Das Volk Gottes, 120–55,, who, however, minimizes the aspect of discontinuity., [20]. Cf. Roloff, Kirche im Neuen Testament, 120–21., [21]. For the interpretation of 2 Cor. 3:1–18, see above,, section 10.4 (“The Glory of the New Covenant”)., [22]. Cf. Roloff, Kirche im Neuen Testament, 125–26., [23]. For the interpretation of Rom. 9–11, see above, section, 12.9 (“Paul and Israel”)., [24]. Käsemann argues that the people-of-God image, competes with the body-of-Christ image; he starts from the, priority of Christology over salvation history and sees in the, body-of-Christ image Paul’s real ecclesiological concept (cf., Käsemann, Romans, 337; “Body of Christ,” 102–21). Other, scholars see the people of God as the predominate concept and, the center of Paul’s ecclesiology—e.g., Albrecht Oepke, Das, neue Gottesvolk (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1950),, 198–230; Nils A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes (2nd ed.; Darmstadt:, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963), 226; Neugebauer,, In Christus, 93ff. The interrelationship between the two motifs
Page 1201 :
[29]. Differently from the understanding of Güttgemanns, Der, leidende Apostel und sein Herr, 323ff., this does not mean that, Paul made a qualitative distinction between the sufferings of, the church and his own sufferings; he is only emphasizing his, special apostolic function and task., [30]. Πνευµατικός or πνευµατικά is found twenty-six times in the, New Testament: in the undisputed letters of Paul, nineteen, times, of which fifteen are found in 1 Corinthians (seven times, in Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter). Χάρισµα or χαρίσµατα is found, seventeen times in the New Testament: fourteen in the, undisputed letters of Paul, of which seven are in 1 Corinthians, and six in Romans (once in 2 Corinthians; and once each in 1, Timothy, 2 Timothy, and 1 Peter)., [31]. Cf. Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt, 189–90; Roloff,, Kirche im Neuen Testament, 137., [32]. Cf. Rudolf Sohm, “Begriff und Organisation der, Ekklesia,” in Das Kirchliche Amt im Neuen Testament (ed. Karl, Kertelge; WF 439; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, Buchgesellschaft, 1977), 53: “The ἐκκλησία is Christianity as a, whole, the body of Christ, the Lord’s bride—a spiritual reality, withdrawn from earthly norms, including that of law.”, [33]. The comment of Roloff, Kirche im Neuen Testament,, 139, is on target: “The Spirit itself sets law by establishing, particular functions as obligatory.”, [34]. Cf. ibid., 139ff. Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community, of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand, Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), has a comprehensive treatment of, the influence of Greco-Roman social structures (esp. the, patron-client system) on the constitution and leadership, structures of early Christianity, in order then to argue that in, principle the diakonia established by Jesus as the norm, represents the proprium (characteristic nature) of the, structures of the new movement., [35]. For the most part, scholars tend to see a historical line, of development from the Jerusalem apostolate, based on, resurrection appearances, to the charismatic itinerant
Page 1207 :
decision waits without fear: it is not the last hour for the soul,, but for the body” (NW 2/1:944–45)., [27]. Cf., e.g., Plato, Phaedr. 67c–d., [28]. Cf. Synofzik, Vergeltungsaussagen, 106., [29]. Cf. ibid., 108–9: “No human being can achieve this, acquittal in the last judgment by himself or herself; one can, only receive it as pronounced in the gospel and by faith in the, saving act of Christ.”, [30]. On the eschatology of Romans, cf. G. Storck,, “Eschatologie bei Paulus” (diss., Göttingen, Georg August, Universität, 1979), 117–59., [31]. Cf. Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik, 129, who, appropriately points out that as in the case of the doctrine of, the two ages, so also Paul adopts the concept of ‘eternal life,’, only in a broken manner because for him life has already been, revealed through the Christ event., [32]. The comment of Walter, “Leibliche Auferstehung,” 120,, is on target: “Thus not redemption from the body or out of the, body but the salvific transformation of the body.”, [33]. Wiefel, “Eschatologischen Denken,” 79–81., [34]. On the interpretation of Phil. 1:21–24, see above,, section 13.2.2 (“Philippians as a Document of Later Pauline, Theology”)., [35]. Cf. Hunzinger, “Hoffnung angesichts des Todes,” 87., [36]. This divergence has often been explained by assuming, that in Phil. 1:23 Paul is thinking of a martyr’s death in, particular whereas Phil. 3:10–11 and 3:21 represent, so to, speak, the normal case. For an extensive argument in favor of, this view, cf. Müller, Philipper, 64–71. Nothing in Phil. 1:23, suggests, however, that only a privileged group enters into the, presence of Christ immediately after death, before the Lord’s, parousia. Cf. Gnilka, Philipperbrief, 75. A consistent, understanding is attained when it is noted that in Phil. 1:23 and, 3:10–11 Paul speaks in the first person singular but 3:20–21, uses the first person plural. Paul evidently considered his own, destiny and that of others who die before the parousia as, exceptions.
Page 1208 :
[37]. Schnelle, Wandlungen, 37–48., [38]. So Lindemann, “Eschatologie,” RGG 2:1556., [39]. Cf. Cicero’s ironical comments on Plato’s influence in, Tusc. 1.24, where a participant in the discussion emphasizes, that he has carefully studied Plato’s book on the soul: “I have, done so, be sure, and done so many times; but somehow I am, sorry to find that I agree while reading, yet when I have laid, the book aside and begin to reflect in my own mind upon the, immortality of souls, all my previous sense of agreement slips, away.”, [40]. On the large number of doctrines of the soul that, existed at the turn of the first century CE, cf. esp. Cicero, Tusc., 1.17–25, 26–81., [41]. Further examples in Schweizer and Baumgärtel, “σῶµα,”, TDNT 7:1048–51, [42]. The statement of Helmut Merklein, “Eschatologie,” LTK, 3:870 is thus not correct: “As a consequence of his expectation, of the near end, Paul had not reflected on the state of the, individual’s death with reference to the general resurrection, (including 2 Cor. 5:1–10 and Phil. 1:21–24).”, [43]. Cf. Nikolaus Walter, “Hellenistische Eschatologie bei, Paulus,” TQ 176 (1996): 63: “All in all, we must conclude that, the development of eschatological ideas in Paul took a clear, step in the direction of hellenization. And so we should, probably also say regarding 2 Cor. 5:1–10 that a development, of Paul’s ideas of eschatological matters can in no way be, denied.”, [44]. On the interpretation of 1 Thess. 2:14–16, see above,, section 8.1 (“Prehistory and Initial Preaching”)., [45]. Cf. Haufe, Thessalonicher, 48: “Because of their, resistance to the divine plan of salvation, the Jews have already, fallen under the wrath of God, even if this situation is not yet, externally observable and is still hidden from them as well.”, [46]. Cf. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart,, 155–56., [47]. On the analysis of 2 Cor. 3, see above, section 10.4, (“The Glory of the New Covenant”).
Page 1211 :
present eschatology, which thinks of eschatological existence, as beginning with the Christ event, is inconceivable apart from, the tradition that makes it possible to interpret the, eschatological existence of the baptized as oriented to the, future” (p. 239). On the temporal structure of Jewish, apocalypticism and its reception in the New Testament, cf. also, Erlemann, Endzeiterwartungen, 60–134. See also the essays in, Carl E. Braaten and Roy A. Harrisville, The Historical Jesus and, the Kerygmatic Christ: Essays on the New Quest of the, Historical Jesus (Nashville: Abingdon, 1964)., [59]. Cf. the classic presentation of Erwin Rohde, Psyche: The, Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, (trans. W. B. Hillis; Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press,, 1972). Cf. also Nilsson, Greek Religion, 498–535; Walter, Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,, 1985); and Ancient Mystery Cults (Cambridge: Harvard, University Press, 1987)., [60]. The Greek soul-cults were transmitted primarily by the, mystery cults (at first the Eleusinian, later the OrphicPythagorean and Dionysian); cf. Burkert, Greek Religion, 190–, 215, 276–304., [61]. Cf. Rohde, Psyche, 263–95; Heinrich Barth, Die seele in, der philosophie Platons (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1921)., [62]. Cf. Seneca, Marc. 26.7, where A. Cremutius Cordus, concludes his speech with the Stoic conception that ultimately, everything is destroyed in the final conflagration (ἐκπύρωσις),, including the souls of the blessed dead: “We too, happy souls, that we are, who gain eternity—if it pleases God, this [the final, conflagration] to put in operation again, since everything falls, into movement, will ourselves become a tiny part of the, enormous dissolution at the end of the age in which all the, elements will be changed.”, [63]. According to Diogenes Laertius 7.156, Zeno taught the, following regarding the nature of the soul: “The soul is a nature, capable of perception. And they regard it as the breath of life,, congenital with us; from which they infer first that it is a body, and secondly that it survives death. Yet it is perishable, though
Page 1212 :
the soul of the universe, of which the individual souls of, animals are parts, is indestructible.”, [64]. The Epicurean doctrine that there is no life after death, was also very popular among the elements of the Roman, population with less philosophical education, as illustrated by, this tomb inscription: “Dedicated to the divine spirits of the, dead. To Aurelia Vercella, the sweetest wife who lived about 17, years. I was not, I was, I am not, I miss [it] not [Non fui, fui,, non sum, non desidero]. Anthimus, her husband” (ILS 2:883,, no. 8162)., [65]. Cf. Seneca, Ep. 54.3–5; 99.29–30; Marc. 19.4–5., [66]. Cf. Rohde, Psyche, 336–96., [67]. Plutarch, Mor. 1104–1105 (NW 2/1:405–6). Cf. the, whole of Plutarch’s De superstitione., [68]. Cf. Günter Stemberger, “Auferstehung 3: Antikes, Judentum,” RGG 1:916–17., [69]. Cf. Downing, Pauline Churches, 242–49., [70]. On the Spirit as the divine power of life, cf. the texts at, John 4:24, πνεῦµα ὁ θεός, in NW 1/2:226–34., [71]. Cf. Assmann, Zeit und Tradition, 15. On the importance, of social influences on the origin and development of ideas of, death and what lies beyond, cf. Burkhard Gladigow, “Naturae, Deus humanae mortalis: Zur sozialen Konstruktion des Todes, in römischer Zeit,” in Leben und Tod in den Religionen: Symbol, und Wirklichkeit (ed. Gunther Stephenson; Darmstadt:, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980), 119–33.
Page 1213 :
Chapter 23, [1]. On postmodernism, cf. P. V. Zima,, Moderne/Postmoderne: Gesellschaft, Philosophie, Literatur, (Tübingen: Francke, 1997)., [2]. On this process, cf. Henning Reventlow, Von der, Aufklärung bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (vol. 4 of Epochen der, Bibelauslegung; 4 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1990)., [3]. Cf. Hans Jonas, The Imperative of Responsibility: In, Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age (trans. Hans, Jonas and David Herr; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,, 1984)., [4]. Jürgen Habermas, The Future of Human Nature, (Cambridge: Polity, 2003); cf. also his Religion and Rationality:, Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity, edited with an, introduction by Eduardo Mendieta (Cambridge: Polity, 2002)., [5]. Cf. Habermas, Future of Human Nature, 4:, “Deontological theories after Kant may be very good at, explaining how to ground and apply moral norms; but they are, still unable to answer the question of why we should be moral, at all.”, [6]. Ibid., 11., [7]. Cf. ibid., 44–53., [8]. Cf. ibid., 42: “What is so unsettling is the fact that the, dividing line between the nature we are and the organic, equipment we give ourselves is being blurred. My perspective, in the examination of the current debate over the need to, regulate genetic engineering is therefore guided by the, question of the meaning, for our own life prospects and for our, self-understanding as moral beings, of the proposition that the, genetic foundations of our existence should not be disposed, over.”, [9]. Cf. ibid., 37–42., [10]. Habermas thus holds himself to a fundamental directive, of postmodern intellectualism, which Slavoj Zizek, Die
Page 1214 :
gnadenlose Liebe (trans. Nikolaus G. Schneider; Frankfurt:, Suhrkamp, 2001), 9, so describes: “Another of these unwritten, rules has to do with religious convictions. One must act as, though one had no faith. If one acknowledges one’s own faith, openly, it is perceived as something shameless, something that, exhibitionists do.”
