Inconsistency in Paul? A Critique of the Work of Heikki Räisänen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)

T. E. VAN SPANJE

Inconsistency in Paul?

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 110

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum N euen Testament . 2. Reihe Herausgegeben ven Martin HengeJ und Otfried Hefius

110

T. E. van Spanje

Inconsistency in Paul? A Critique of the Work of Heikki Raisanen

Mohr Siebeck

T. E. VAN SrANJE, born 1961; 1987 Master of Theology; 1987-88 vicar; 1988-93 fully ordained minister in the Reformed congregation of Herkingen; 1993-95 ordained minister in the Reformed congregation of Ridderkerk-Slikkerveer; since 1995 missionworker on behalfofthe Reformed Mission League in the Netherlands Reformed Church: 1996 Doctor of Theology; since 1996 Lecturer in New Testament and Greek at St. Paul's United Theological College, Limuru. Kenya; since 1997 Head of Biblical Studies Department SPUTC.

Die Delltsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsallfnahme Spanje, Tellnis Erik van: Inconsistency in Paul? : a critique of the work of Heikki Raislinen I T. E. van Spanje. - Tiibingen : Mohr Siebeck. 1999 (WissenschaftJiche Untersuchungcn zum Neuen Testament: Reihe 2: 110) Einheitssacht.: [nconsistentie bij Paulus? <eng/.> [SBN 3-16-[47188-1

© 1996 Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok B.V., Kampen, The Netherlands. Title of the original edition: T.E. van Spanje: lnconsistentie bij Pall/lis? Een conji-ontatie met het werk van Heikki RciisQllen. © 1999 by J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.O. Box 2040,0-72010 Tiibingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations. microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Druck Partner Riibelmann GmbH in Hemsbach on non-aging paper from Papierfabrik Schleipen and bound by Heinr. Koch in Tiibingen. Printed in Germany. ISSN 0340-9570

To the Senate of the Reformed Theological University of Kampen (Broederweg), the Netherlands, as a token of gratitude for the degree of Doctor of Theology

Preface On 18 December 1996 I had the privilege of defending the Dutch version, Inconsistentie bij Paulus? Een confrontatie met het werk van Heikki Rl'iisl'inen, of this present volume, as my doctoral thesis. After the pUblication of the Dutch version in which an English summary had been included, it appeared that some colleagues in the English-speaking world were interested in reading the entire study. I also learned that my thesis dealt with an increasingly important debate in contemporary New Testament studies, especially within international New Testament scholarship. In sum, I felt I might serve many others by an English translation so that more people could read it. At the same time, an English translation might perhaps facilitate the discussion with my Finnish interlocutor, Professor Heikki Raisanen. The fact that I am working within an English-speaking setting further stimulated this project. It was, however, not my intention to offer an English translation which would be as literal as possible. My main aim was, by interacting with Heikki Raisfulen, to point out clearly my own view on the question of whether Paul's letters are consistent rather than to give a very literal translation of the Dutch version. Before starting the project, I had to decide how to deal with the overwhelming amount of literature which had been published on Paul's letters during the years after I finished work on the Dutch version of my thesis (September 1996). For a proper update of my thesis, all those studies on Paul were, of course, not to be ignored. Yet I decided to confine myself only to the most important and relevant publications such as J.D.G. Dunn's extensive and impressive The Theology of Paul the Apostle, published in 1998. Since Dunn has embraced E.P. Sanders' view on Judaism, his recent magnum opus on Paul undoubtedly represents a very influential mainstream within contemporary Pauline scholarship. I also found some other relevant literature published in 1996 or earlier of which I had been unaware before. Again I followed the same procedure as for the Dutch version: I selected only those pUblications which were in my view

VIII

Preface

really relevant to the topic of my research. It also happened that some publications which I did not find it worthwhile to refer to in my Dutch version I now believed should be mentioned due to some minor shifts in contemporary research on Paul's letters. I also had to decide whether the quotations in German should be translated as well. After due consideration I decided not to translate them since German is so widely used within New Testament scholarship. After the completion and the defence of my Dutch version I did some further research on Paul's letters, especially on his view of the law, fascinated as I was (and still am) by these earliest documents of the New Testament. During the past few years I did not feel I had to revise my interpretation of Paul. On the contrary, I am still convinced that there appears to be a consistency in Paul's letters to a great extent. Consequently the overall thrust of the English translation is basically similar to that of the Dutch edition. Yet there are a few minor modifications to the Dutch version. Firstly, as pointed out above, I tried to update my translation of the Dutch version by incorporating some of the most important recent studies. Secondly, I also added some other material in support of my own interpretation of Paul. Thirdly, at some points I believed that some further clarifications might be useful, mainly in order to avoid possible misunderstandings. Finally, I offer a considerable number of quotations in the first part of this volume, since this is intended to be an accurate description of Heikki Riiisanen's view on Paul. To increase the clarity of the presentation I now decided to offer the lengthy quotations in separate paragraphs. Before the publication of the Dutch Edition, Heikki Raisanen was unfortunately not able to comment on my manuscript. After its publication, however, he read my study and commented on my own very different understanding of Paul. We corresponded several times bye-mail, and we both agreed that it would be inappropriate to publish or quote from our private correspondence. I am very grateful for the time he gave to entering into discussion with me. I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Peter W. Ensor, Dr. Charles S. Morrice, Dr. R. Dean Anderson Jr., and especially to Dr. David Marshall. They read some parts of my translation or even the study as a whole, and kindly made suggestions to improve its English style. I am equally grateful for their critical remarks. I am also grateful to Professor Jakob van Bruggen who was my supervisor during my ThD studies. His guidance and directions were very helpful, and I very much enjoyed being one of his students for a couple of years. I would also like to thank the

Preface

IX

publisher of the Dutch version, Kok-Kampen (the Netherlands), for giving permission to publish this translation. I am also grateful to the editors Professor Martin Hengel and Professor Otfried Hofius for their willingness to include this present study in their WUNT Series. I would also like to thank the staff of J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) in Tiibingen. It was a pleasure to work with them and to experience their efficiency. The Dutch version was dedicated to my wife. Without her moral support neither the Dutch nor the English Edition would ever have been published. To honour the Reformed University in Kampen (Broederweg) for awarding me the degree of doctor theologiae I strongly felt it to be appropriate to dedicate the present volume to the Senate of this University. T.E. van Spanje St. Paul's United Theological College Limuru (Kenya), July 1999

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations .............................................................................................. XVII

Chapter 1: Introduction: Heikki Raisanen ............................................... 1 1.1 Inconsistency....... ......................... ..... .... ......... .............. ... .... .... ........ ........ 1 1.1.1 Paul's view of the law ........................................................................ 5 1.1.2 Paul's view ofIsrael ........................................................................... 7 1.2 Complexity ............................................................................................... 8 1.3 Tradition, experience, and interpretation ...... ................. ... ... ... ................ 11 1.4 Riiisiinen: A New Testament scholar with a history-of-religions perspective ............................................................................................. J I 1.5 The aim and plan of this study ................................................................ 12

Part A: Analytical Description Chapter 2: Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law ........................ 17 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

The Jewish Torah also concerns the Gentiles .................. ,....................... Reduction of the Torah to the moral law ................................................. Has the law been abolished? ................................................................... Can the law be fulfilled? ........................................................................ Is the law of divine origin? ..................................................................... Has sin as a concrete reality existed since Adam's fall or since the introduction of the law at Sinai? ............................................................. 2.7 Can fulfilment of the law give life? ........................................................

17 19 20 25 28 29 31

Chapter 3: Explanation for the Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law .................................................................................... 33 3.1 Explanations rejected by Riiislinen .......................................................... 33 3.1.1 Harmonization .................................................................................. 34 3.1.2 Dialectic and paradoxes .................................................................... 35

XII

Contents

3.1.3 A sophisticated version of the dialectical approach .......................... 3.1.4 Interpolations .................................................................................... 3.1.5 Development theory .......................................................................... 3.2 R1iis1inen' s explanation for the inconsistencies ....................................... 3.2.1 Theological and historical explanation ............................................. 3.2.2 Theological explanation: a soteriological apriori ............................ 3.2.2.1 Why does the Jewish Torah also concern the Gentiles? .............. 3.2.2.2 Why is the law reduced to a moral law? ..................................... 3 .2.2.3 Why is it impossible to give an unequivocal answer to the question of whether, for Paul, the law has been abolished? ........ 3.2.2.4 Why does Paul say at one time that the law can be fulfilled, and at another time that the law cannot be fulfilled? .................. 3.2.2.5 Why is Paul's view of the origin of the law inconsistent? ........... 3.2.2.6 Why does Paul say at one time that sin has existed as a concrete reality since Adam's fall, and at another time that it has existed as a concrete reality since the introduction of the law on Sinai? .............................................................................. 3.2.2.7 Why is Paul inconsistent concerning the question of whether fulfilment of the law gives life? ..................................................

36 37 37 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 44

45 47

Chapter 4: The Antithesis between Works of Law and Faith in Christ .................................................................................. 49 4.1 The antithesis ......................................................................................... 4.2 A complexity of questions concerning this antithesis .............................. 4.2.1 Caricature of ludaism ....................................................................... Excursus: E.P. Sanders .......................................................................... 4.2.2 The caricature cannot justifiably be traced back to Paul ................... 4.2.3 Paul still gives a caricature of ludaism ............................................. 4.2.4 Paul does not argue consistently about the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ .......................................................

49 50 52 53 59 62 67

Chapter 5: Historical Explanation for the Inconsistencies Relating to the Torah and Paul's Antithesis ..................................... 69 5.1 The historical explanation is a hypothesis .............................................. 5.2 Too complex for dialectic. Still a development.. ..................................... 5.3 Development in Paul: contact with the Hellenists; experiences during his missionary work, and his conflict with the Judaizers ........................ 5.3.1 The Hellenists ................................................................................... 5.3.1.1 Location of the Hellenists ........................................................... 5.3.1.2 The Hellenists' view of the Torah ...............................................

70 71 73 74 76 77

Contents

XIII

5.3.1.3 Paul's joining of the Hellenists ................................................... 5.3.2 Conflict with the Judaizers ............................................................... 5.3.3 Paul's dilemma ................................................................................. 5.4 Seyoon Kim's criticism and Raisanen's response ................................... 5.4.1 Oall:11-17 ...................................................................................... 5.4.2 PhiI3:2-11 ..................... : .................................................................

80 81 85 87 87 88

Chapter 6: Inconsistencies in Paul's View ofIsrael: Romans 9-11 .......................................................................... 91 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Inconsistencies again .............................................................................. 91 Raisanen's method. Indications of inconsistencies .................................. 93 First inconsistency: divine predestination and human responsibility ....... 95 Second inconsistency: rejection and election .......................................... 97 Inconsistencies with reference to a comparison between Rom 9-11 and Paul's earlier letters ......................................................................... 99 6.5.1 Who hardens? Ood or an anti-divine power (2 Cor 4), and is this hardening of a permanent or temporary nature (2 Cor 3)? ................. 99 6.5.2 Is the Jews' unbeliefa stimulus (Rom 1 I) or a hindrance (I Thess 2) to Paul's preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles? ....... 100 6.5.3 The olive tree allegory does not fit in the letter to the Oalatians ..... 101 6.5.4 Is Paul an apostle to Israel or to the Gentiles (Oal 1-2 and 1 Thess 2)? ....................................................................... 101 6.5.5 Nowhere in his letters, except in Rom I I, does Paul speak of a miraculous eschatological salvation ofIsrael.. ................................ 101 6.5.6 In Rom 9-11 the thoughts of 'justification by faith' and 'being-in-Christ' are absent ............................................................ 102

Chapter 7: Explanation for the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel ....................................................................................... 103 7.1 Explanations rejected by Rliislinen ........................................................ 7.1.1 Successive phases in God's sovereign plan ..................................... 7.1.2 Rom 11 is of less interest................... ........... ..... ............ ............ ..... 7.1.3 Rom 9 is a mere preparation for Rom 11.......... .............. ................. 7.1.4 A development from Paul's earlier letters to his letter to the Romans .......................................................................................... 7.1.5 Paul's insights were changing while he was writing the letter to the Romans ..................................................................................... 7.1.6 Rom 9 and Rom 11 are two different strategies to reach the same goal ....................................................................................... 7. 1.7 Dialectical concept and paradoxes ..................................................

103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105

XIV

Contents

7.2 Raisiinen's explanation: due to a new experience, Paul is wrestling with a theological problem, namely: how can two different soteriologies be maintained simultaneously? ........................................ 7.3 A remarkable parallel between Raisanen's Markan and PauIine studies .................................................................................................. 7.4 Tradition, experience and interpretation ............................................... Excursus: 'Symbolic universe' and 'legitimation' ................................... 7.5 Christomonism ..................................................................................... 7.6 Summarizing overview .........................................................................

106 109 113 114 117 118

Chapter 8: Theological Consequences .................................................. 120 8.1 Paul's theology is not consistent.. ......................................................... 8.2 All other early Christian theologians are more consistent than Paul ..... 8.3 Paul's theology displays no continuity with the Old Testament or Iudaism ................................................................................................ 8.4 Paul unjustly supports a separation between Iudaism and Christianity ........................................................................................... 8.5 We have to abandon the Lutheran interpretation ofPauI.. ..................... 8.6 Paul and Raisanen himself.. ..................................................................

120 122 124 129 134 134

Part B: Critical Review Chapter 9: Position-finding: Raisanen's Position within Contemporary New Testament Research ........................ 139 9.1 W. Wrede's influence on Raisanen (diachronic position-finding) ......... 9.1.1 Wrede's influence on Raisanen's historical explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies ...... .......... .......................... .......... ....... 9.1.2 Wrede's influence on Riiisanen's view of the Theology of the New Testament ............................................................................... 9.1.3 Wrede's influence is more profound than Riiisanen is aware of. ..... 9.2 Raisanen's position within contemporary New Testament research (synchronic position-finding) ............................................................... 9.3 Conclusion with reference to a position-finding of Riiisiinen.. ..............

140 140 142 144 145 149

Chapter 10: Towards a Critique ............................................................. 151 10.1 Raisanen evokes many responses ........................................................ 10.2 Is a critique of Ra is an en justified? The nature of the inconsistencies and the way they function .................................................................. 10.2.1 The nature of the inconsistencies .................................................. 10.2.2 The way Riiisiinen's inconsistencies function ...............................

151 153 154 157

Contents

10.2.3 A critique is necessary .................................................................. 10.3 Method for a critique .......................................................................... 10.3.1 Fair play ....................................................................................... 10.3.2 A critique by using hermeneutical techniques ............................... 10.4 Summarizing remarks .........................................................................

xv 157 158 158 158 160

Chapter 11: Paul as a Pastor ................................................................... 162 11.1 Description ......................................................................................... 11.2 Critique of Raisanen .............. ... ....... .......... ...... ..................... .............. 11.2.1 General.................... ......................... ...................... ..... ................. 11.2.2 Illustrations ................................................................................... 11.2.2.1 Paul as a pastor encouraging the Thessalonians in I Thess 2: 14-16 .................................................................... 11.2.2.2 Paul as a pastor seeking unity among the Romans in Rom 11:11-14 ....................................................................... 11.2.2.3 Paul as a pastor exhorting the Corinthians in 1 Cor 7: 19 ......... 11.2.2.4 Paul as a pastor warning 'puffed up' and self-assured Christians Uudgment according to deeds) .............................. I 1.3 Conclusion: Paul is a consistent pastor... ..................... ....... ...... .... ......

162 167 167 172 173 176 179 180 189

Chapter 12: Paul as a Rhetor .................................................................. 190 12.1 Description ......................................................................................... 12.1.1 Renewed attention to rhetorical aspects in Paul ............................ 12.1.2 Rhetoric in terms of argumentative strategy...... ......... .......... ......... 12.2 Critique of Raisanen ........................................................................... 12.2.1 General ......................................................................................... 12.2.2 Illustrations ................................................................................... 12.2.2.1 By means of a rhetorical strategy, Paul tries to pers!lade the Galatians that they should not put themselves under the law (GaI3:1-14) .............................................................. Excursus: criticism of J.D.G. Dunn's exegesis of Gal 3:10-14 .......... 12.2.2.2 In comparison with the promise, the divine law is inferior (Gal 3:15-20) ........................................................................ 12.2.2.2.1 The rhetor Paul persuades by means of an invalid 'argumentum ad hominem' (Gal 3:15-18) ....................... 12.2.2.2.2 The rhetor Paul persuades by means of a valid 'argumentum ad hominem' (Gal 3:19-20) ....................... 12.3 Conclusion: some 'inconsistencies' do not exist.. ...............................

190 191 194 197 197 200

200 206 208 208 210 214

XVI

Contents

Chapter 13: Paul as a Theologian ......................................................... 215 13.1 Description ......................................................................................... 13.2 Critique of Raisanen ........................................................................... 13 .2.1 General ......................................................................................... 13.2.2 Illustrations ................................................................................... 13.2.2.1 The fragmentary structure in Romans 7 .................................. 13.2.2.1.1 Romans 7:1-6. A link in Paul's train of thought ............... 13.2.2.1.2 Romans 7:7-12. A fragment with a characteristic theological context .......................................................... Excursus: the relation between law and sin ill Rdisdnen 's work ........ 13.2.2.2 Romans 2. A fragment within Romans 1: 18-3:20 ................... Excursus: criticism of Sanders and of Rdisdnen 's historical explanation ...................................................................... 13.2.2.3 vOflo~ always has a theological context which determines its meaning ............................................................................ 13.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................

215 216 216 218 218 219 223 228 231 236 240 247

Chapter 14: Evaluation and Conclusions ............................................. 249 Bibliography .................................................................................................. 255 Index of Authors ............................................................................................ 267 Index of Passages .......................................................................................... 271 Index of Subjects and Names ......................................................................... 279

Abbreviations ANRW

BDR

Bib BJRL BZ CBQ EvT HR HTR JAAR JBL JPT JSNT NorJ NovT NTS SEA S.IT

ST TC TD TLZ TTh

TZ

WTJ WZNT ZNW ZTK

H. Temporini - W. I-laase (Ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang romischen Well. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel neueren Forschung. Berlin-New York. F. Blass - A. Debrunner - F. Rehkopf, Grammatik neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Biblica Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Biblische Zeitschrift The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie History of Religions Harvard Theological Review Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature H. Raisanen, Jesus, Paul and Torah Journalfor the Study of the New Testament Nordisk Judaistik Novum Testamentum New Teslament Studies Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Theologica H. Rllisanen, The Torah and Christ Theology Digest Theologische Literaturzeitung Tijdschrift voor Theologie Theologische Zeitschrift Westminster Theological Journal W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften Neuen Testaments und der fruhchristlichen Literatur. Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeilschriftfur Theologie und Kirche

der der des

des

Chapter 1

Introduction: Heikki Raisanen 1.1 Inconsistency It has frequently been argued in theological literature and especially in New Testament research that Paul's statements are not consistent or that they display a certain amount of inconsistency. In 1907, W. Wrede wrote about Paul: Man kann leicht sehen, daB seine Gedankeng!lnge etwas sehr Elastisches haben. Gewisse unverrUckbare Hauptlinien sind vorhanden, im Ubrigen bewegt sich das Denken von Brief zu Brief, ja von Kapitel zu Kapitel recht sorglos und frei, ganz unbekUmmert urn die logische Ubereinstimmung des Einzelnen. Die Gesichtspunkte und BegrUndungen wechseln, sie durchkreuzen einander, ohne daB Paulus es merkt. Es ist daher gar keine Kunst, WidersprUche bei ihm aufzust5bern, selbst in Hauptgedanken. 1

With reference to Rom 9-11, J. Parkes stated in 1936: Difficult as it is 10 penetrate into the contradictions of PauIine thought, it is better to Iry to do so than to attempt to make a logical and consistent whole of his teaching, if logic and consistency really lack:2

In a completely different context (the dispute between Peter and Paul, Gal 2: 11-14), P. Gaechter argued in 1958: Paulus war nicht der Mann ruhigen, diskursiven Denkens, der zu seinen SchluBfolgerungen [lber die Stufen logischer Entfaltung der Prllmissen gelangle und dabei seinen Gegenstand sorglich nach aIlen Seiten hin zu beleuchten strebte, wie etwa Thomas von Aquin oder Suarez. Seine Art war intuitiv; er drang zum Wesen seines Gegenstandes vor, ohne sich der logischen Deduktion bewuBt zu werden, und das jeweils nur unter dem Gesichtswinkel, der ihn im Moment gerade interessierte. Anderes daran, was unter andern RUcksichten ebenso wichtig war, wurde zwar nicht verneint, aber auch nicht berUcksichtigt. Wie er dachte, so schrieb er, daher die Einseitigkeit in seinen Briefen 3

Paulus 48-9. Jesus, Paul and the Jews 140. 3 Pell'us und seine Zeit. Neuleslamentliche Studien 217. I

2

2

Chapter 1

In his study on Paul (1976), M. Grant stated: For Paul's mind, despite its great strength, remained undisciplined, paying scant attention to the niceties of rational coherence. The Letters are vividly varied and lively, but unrounded, unarranged and muddled, making their points not by any orderly procedure but by a series of hammer-blow contrasts and antitheses. Paul is far too impulsive and enthusiastic to standardize his terms or arrange his material. He is often ambiguous - with results that have reverberated down the centuries. And he commits flagrant se!f-contradictions4, which caused Augustine 5, among many others, the deepest anxiety.6

Many more quotations could be given to show that a number of interpreters argue that Paul's statements are inconsistent. What does one mean by the term 'inconsistency'? This term could be defined as the impossibility of harmonizing Paul's statements on the same topic in a logical way. Instead of inconsistencies, we can also speak of contradictions. 7 In the second half of this century, the New Testament scholar Heikki Riiisiinen8 has intensively studied the question of whether and to what extent Paul is a consistent writer. This Finnish scholar also claims that Paul's statements are far from consistent. 9 Although many interpreters regard Paul's thoughts as inconsistent (see quotations above), there are, as far as I can see, very few interpreters who have pointed out inconsistency in Paul in such a systematic way as R1lisanen has done. In comparison with others, the research done by R1lis1lnen is characterized by the fact that he not only concentrates on the inconsistent way Paul writes and thinks, but also labels the different inconsistencies and gives a systematic overview of them. He offers such an overview in, for example, his article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', published in the collection The Torah and Christ. IO Almost the same overview, although a much more extensive one along with a lot of comments, is offered in his Paul and the

My italics. Grant refers to Augustine's Confessions 7:21. 6 Saint Paul 6. In his Paul and the Law 11-2 note 72, H. Raisanen also refers to this study by Grant. Yet he mistakenly refers to the wrong page in Saint Paul. 7 In section 10.2, the term inconsistency in connection with Raisanen will be further defined. 8 Heikki Raisanen (born in 1941) became Doctor of Theology in 1969 having written his thesis Die Muller Jesu im Neuen Testament. From 1975, he has been Professor in New Testament Exegesis at the University of Helsinki, while he has been Research Professor at the Finnish Academy from 1984 until 1994. In 1990, he received an honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity from the Universily of Edinburgh. 9 ..... the complexity (for me, inconsistency) is there", 'Experience' 19. 10 The Torah and Christ 3-24. For the overview, see 'Difficulties' 8-9. 4

5

Introduction: Heikki Rtiistinen

Law. 11 Raisanen himself admits that his research is characterized by labelling the different inconsistencies and by giving an overview of them. Few if any of what I have called contradictions in Paul's view were discovered by me for the first time (although in some cases it was only afterwards that I found out that I had predecessors). What makes my book l2 different is, I believe, the cumulative 13 effect, along with my refusal to accept a 'dialectical' 14 explanation. IS

Although he emphatically rejects a dialectical explanation for Paul's inconsistency, such a refusal is not characteristic only of Raisanen's research, since there are other New Testament scholars who have also refused to accept the same dialectical explanation. 16 The most significant characteristic of his research is, however, the 'cumulative' aspect: Raisanen enumerates several inconsistencies in Paul so that one inconsistency intensifies the other. He not only talks about inconsistency as such, but about inconsistencies (in plural). These inconsistencies are, in fact, nothing else than contradictions. Therefore, in his publications he refers to these inconsistencies as "anomalies", "tensions" or "(self-)contradictions". In R1i.isanen's view, Paul argues inconsistently especially with reference to two theological themes, namely (1) in the theme of the law (or Torah); and (2) in the theme of Israel. Here a number of publications by R1i.isanen will be mentioned where his treatment of the inconsistencies can be found. Subsequently, these inconsistencies will be briefly described in sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. (1) The theme of the law Here we must mention at least two important publications by R1i.isanen. In the first place there is his article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', included in the collection The Torah and Christ. Originally, this article was presented as a lecture at the "Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies" in Oxford in 1978. In this article, R1iisanen, as far as the inconsistencies within the theme of the law are concerned, pointed out the main lines for another publication, namely his Palll and the Law (1983,

Paul 16-161. Here the reference is to Paul and the Law. My italics. Tn The Torah and Christ 60, in which the same article from Jesus. Paul and Torah was published earlier, the same word is italicized by Rl!isanen himself. " This dialectical explanation will come up for discussion in section 3.1.2. IS Jesus, Paul and Torah 18. Here it concerns the article 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law' published in the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah 15-47. 16 See section 3.1. It

12

13

4

Chapter 1

second Edition in 1987).17 In his Preface to Paul and the Law, Riiisiinen writes that in 1974 his study of Hans-Joachim Schoeps' Paulus drew his attention to a " ... whole set of problems I had been happily unaware of'. IS The problems related to Paul's discussion of the law have not given him rest ever since. In the same Preface, he also writes that the publication by E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, has profoundly influenced him, and that " ... the publication of Sanders's illuminating work was like a gift from heaven for my own quest".19 After reading this last study, Riiisanen had a fruitful correspondence with Sanders, who read a major part of Paul and the Law before its publication and made suggestions. In 1982, R1i.isanen rounded off his further study in Cambridge and Tlibingen with his Paul and the Law which is definitely his most important publication, and which has been both praised and criticized. In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' and in Paul and the Law, it is unequivocally stated that Paul did not succeed in making theological statements on the law in a consistent way. Besides these two publications, Riiisiinen has written much more on the problem of inconsistency in Paul, mainly with reference to the response to his Paul and the Law. Yet, the basic thoughts have already been laid down in the two publications mentioned above. Therefore, when discussing the theme of the law in this study, both the article and the book mentioned above will be our primary sources. All other publications which are important for our discussion of the law will be referred to as necessary, and will be reviewed in a later stage of this study. (2) The theme of Israel Two important articles by Raisanen on this theme must be mentioned. In the first place there is 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens', published in the monumental work Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt in 1987. In the second place, the article 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research', which was published in 1988, must be mentioned. These two articles have caused much less response than, for example, Paul and the Law. In this study, therefore, more attention will be paid to the inconsistencies within the theme of the law

'7 Also with reference to 'Difficulties', Rllisllnen says: " ... which summarize some of the main arguments of the book in a preliminary form", The Torah and Christ iii. By "the book" is meant Paul and the Law. ,sPall/v. 19 Palllv.

Introduction: Heikki Riiisdnen

than to the inconsistencies within the theme of Israel as detected by Riiisanen. Both themes will now be briefly described. 1.1.1 Paul's view a/the law The inconsistencies which Raisanen detects within Paul's view of the law will be briefly described in a concise overview without details in order to get an impression of the whole issue. During the course of this study these inconsistencies will be further elaborated and described. 2D Riiisiinen mentions altogether seven inconsistencies. The first two inconsistencies concern the fact that Paul does not unequivocalJy define the term nomos (as far as Paul offers a definition of nomos 21 ). Paul's view of the law "oscillates" in two different ways: 1. There is a strange "oscillation" in Paul when it comes to the question: who is under the curse of the law?22 Is it only the Jews, or also the Gentiles? Although the law is connected first and foremost with the Jews and not with the Gentiles, Paul claims that the Gentiles are also under the curse of the law. One cannot avoid noticing 'a strange oscillation of the concept of law in Paul' - an oscillation between the notion of a historical and particularist Torah and that of a general universal force. 23

There is in Paul a so-calJed 'chronological', 'historical' or 'particularist' use of the law, which means a use of the law merely in connection with the Jews. But there is also a 'universal' use of the law in Paul, which means, in this context, a use of the law in connection with the Gentiles. According to Riiisanen, both uses exclude each other. 2. Paul does not make a clear distinction between the ritual and the moral law. 24 He gives the impression of discussing only the moral law, while the law also has certain ritual contents. In Paul, therefore, the meaning of the law oscillates so that there is a "looseness of speech"25. 3. There is no clarity in Paul on the question of whether the law has been abrogated. 26 "Thus we find two conflicting lines of thought in Paul's 20 See chapter 2. In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' 8-9, the inconsistencies are concisely mentioned and very briefly discussed. In Paul and the Law 16-161, however, the inconsistencies are indicated and discussed in detail. 21 See Paul 16-8. 22 See Paul 18-23. This inconsistency is not mentioned in so many words in 'Difficulties'. 23 Pau121. 2. See Paul 23-8. 25 The term is from P. Gardner. See Paul 28. 26 See Paul 42-83.

6

Chapter J

theology of the law. Paul asserts both the abolition of the law and also its permanently normative character",27 4. Nobody can fulfil the law since otherwise Christ would have died in vain. Yet, Christians and even non-Christian Gentiles are said to fulfil the law. 28 "Paul's mind is divided".29 5. According to Gal 3: 15-20, the law is not of divine origin. This is the opposite of what is stated in Rom 7 and 8. 30 6. On the one hand the power of sin in the world is due to Adam's fall (Rom 5), while on the other hand this power is due to the law (Rom 7). According to Rom 7, sin was dead before the introduction of the law, whereas according to Rom 5, sin was already a power and a concrete reality since Adam.31 7. The law has been given in order to give life (Rom 7:10), while the same law has never had life-giving power (2 Cor 3, Rom 8:3, and Gal 3:21).32 In this connection, one of the problems is that the law was only a temporary additi{)n to God's 'testament' (Gal 3:I5ff), while a dramatic act on God's part was still needed to liberate men from its curse (Gal 3:13).33 These seven inconsistencies are immanent within Paul's own thoughts. If we pay attention not only to the logic of Paul's statements but also to their premises, then three other difficulties can be indicated34 : 1. In comparison with the Jewish methods of interpreting the Old Testament, Paul distorts the exegesis of some Old Testament passages. This problem, which is not separately discussed in Paul and the Law, does not bear on the central concerns of this study' and therefore will not receive any further treatment. 2. The statement that the law engenders and increases sin is, at least, problematic. 35 This will be discussed in connection with inconsistency 6 (see above). 3. Why should someone fulfil the entire law and why is the possibility of repentance excluded? These questions are related to another question, namely: how should we interpret the Jewish religion in Paul's t~e? Paul 69. Paul 94-1 19. Paul 107. 30 Paul 128-33. Yet, this inconsistency is not mentioned in 'Difficulties', 31 Paul 140-50. npaul150--4. J3 See 'Difficulties' 9, In Paul 150--4, this difficulty is labelled as the problem of socalled theodicy. 3' See 'Difficulties' 9. 3S Paul 140-50. 27

21 29

Introduction: Heikki Rdisdnen

7

E.P. Sanders in particular has sparked off this discussion by his Paul and Palestinian Judaism. This set of problems will not be discussed now, because this is only an overview. Besides, questions on the understanding of the Jewish religion in Paul's day do not constitute an inconsistency as such. We shall return to this set of problems in section 4.2.1. 1.1.2 Paul's view of Israel Raisanen has also done some research on Rom 9-11. In these three chapters, Paul discusses problems related to Israel. Although there are many themes discussed in Rom 9-11, Raisanen writes: Wlihrend alle diese Themen wenigstens in Ans1!.tzen in den betreffenden Kapiteln vorhanden sind, herrscht heute groJle EinmUtigkeit dartlber, daJl die Behandlung des Problems der Treue Gottes in bezug auf seine VerheiBungen an Israel das eigentliche Anliegen des Apostels ist. 36

The expositions by Paul in Rom 9-11 arouse many questions, such as: Wie hat sich Paulus die Art der anvisierten Rettung vorgestellt? Hat er gar an einen 'Sonderweg' gedacht, so daB Israel das eschatoJogische Heil erreichen wird, ohne zum Glauben an Jesus Christus zu kommen? Wie verhillt sich die Zusage einer sicheren Rettung ganz Israels zu frUheren Aussagen tlber Israel in I Thess oder Gal? Hat sich die Theologie des Paulus etwa nach der Abfassung des Galaterbriefes erheblich entwickelt, oder hat sie gar gewechseIt? Wenn aber Rom 11 eine neue Entwicklungsstufe darstellt, was ist dann mit Rom 9? Viele Exegeten, die die Entwicklungshypothese nicht teilen, meinen, daJl Rom 9 und Rom I I sich widersprechen. 37

With regard to Rom 9-11, Riiisanen scrutinizes Paul's view of the salvation of Israel. lm Brennpunkt wird die Frage nach der Kohilrenz bzw. Widersprtlchlichkeit seiner Ausfiihrungen stehen, sowohl mit RUcksicht auf das gegenseitige Verhliltnis von Rtlm 9 und 11 als auch auf das Verhll.Itnis von Rom 9-11 zum tlbrigen Romerbrief und zu anderen Paulusbriefen, wo von Israel die Rede ist. 38

As in section 1.1.1, again a brief overview of the inconsistencies will be offered first. During the course of this study, the indicated inconsistencies will be further elaborated. 39 With reference to Rom 9-11, Riiisanen refers to two kinds of inconsistencies. The first kind consists of two, while the second kind consists of six inconsistencies. The first kind is related to the three chapters Rom 9-11:

36 37

'Analyse' 2893. 'Analyse' 2893.

3. 'Analyse' 2894. 39

See chapter 6.

Chapter'

1. Rom 9:6-29 and Rom 9:30-10:21 are two sections which cannot be harmonized with each other in a 10gicaCmanner; there is a disharmony between divine predestination and human responsibility.4o 2. On the one hand the empirical Israel is not elected but hardened and damned (Rom 9:6-29), whereas on the other hand the empirical Israel will be saved because of God's loyalty to his own promises and to the election of his people (Rom 11 :11-36). This inconsistency is more important than the previous one. 41 If Paul's other letters are compared with Rom 9-11, the following six inconsistencies can also be noted: 1. In Rom 9-11, Israel is being hardened by God, whereas in 2 Cor 4, the hardening is traced back to an anti-divine power, while there is also a difference concerning the period of hardening (2 Cor 3).42 2. There is a tension between Rom 11 and 1 Thess 2:14-16. In the latter passage, the unbelief of the Jews is not a stimulus, as in Rom 11, but a hindrance to preaching to the Gentiles. 43 3. The comparison of Israel to the olive tree in Rom 11 does not fit in the letter to the Galatians. 44 4. In Rom 11:11-14, Paul gives the impression of presenting himself as an apostle to Israel. This conflicts with Gal 1:15-16. 45 5. Paul talks about a miraculous and eschatological salvation of Israel only in Rom 11.46 6. We find neither the well-known thought of 'justification by faith', nor the thought of 'being-in-Christ' in Rom 9-11.47

1.2 Complexity Already on the first page of the Introduction to Paul and the Law, Raisanen writes that he wants to shed some small light upon Paul's view of the law. He does not only, therefore, merely sum up the several 40 'Israel' 181-6; 'Analyse' 2909-11. 41 "For the topic of this essay, the relationship between divine hardening and man's disobedience is of less interest '" The crucial question is the treatment of Jsrael ...", 'Israel' 192; compare 'Analyse' 2930ff. '2 'Analyse' 2923-4. ') 'Analyse' 2924--5. 44 'Analyse' 2925-6. "'Israel' 187-8; 'Analyse' 2913-4. 16 'Analyse' 2926-7 . • 7 'Analyse' 2927-9

Introduction: Heikki Riiisanen

9

inconsistencies relatingto Paul's view of the law as such, but he also tries to explain them, at the same time rejecting many explanations, including a number of common ones. A striking characteristic of his research is the fact4 8 that he also tries to fit his explanation of Paul's inconsistencies into a historical framework. Here the illustration of two concentric circles can be helpful. The interior circle stands for Raisanen's theological explanation for Paul's inconsistencies, and the exterior circle stands for his historical explanation. Riiisanen tries to give the theological explanation on the basis of the text itself, and this explanation can be briefly described by saying that since, for Paul, Christ is the only way to salvation, all other ways, such as, for example, the law, cannot, a priori, be a· way to salvation. The historical explanation, into which the theological explanation has to fit (in concentric circles), has to do with Paul's missionary activities and his contact with the Hellenistic congregation in Antioch. Paul gave up the requirement of circumcision for the Gentiles, an attitude which he would have adopted from the Hellenistic congregation in Antioch. Riiisanen does not claim that his historical explanation is the only right one; it remains just a hypothesis. Although already W. Wrede alluded to such a historical explanation, the hypothesis offered by Riiisanen is original in the sense that he has elaborated the . explanation proposed by Wrede in much greater detaiP9 There is still another fact which makes the whole issue complex, namely the new perspective on Jewish religion in Paul's day. E.P. Sanders thinks he has proved by his Paul and Palestinian Judaism that, according to Judaism, the law was never a way to salvation. In this volume, Sanders introduces the term 'covenantal nomism' as a description of the function of the law within Judaism. In short, Sanders believes that, by obeying the law, the Jew expressed the desire to remain within the covenant; to be obedient to the law would, therefore, not be a means to earning salvation. If Sanders is right, his view would imply that Paul ascribes a function to the law which the law never possessed, namely providing a way to salvation. In other words, Paul's antithesis between works of law (as a way to salvation) and faith in Christ is based on a caricature of Judaism. In Paul and the Law, Raisiinen devotes an entire chapter to this antithesis (chapter 5). But basically, this chapter deals with a separate kind of problem, not directly related to the inconsistencies as indicated by Raisanen (chapters 1-4). Riiisanen himself also admits this: The chapter on 'the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ' in my Paul and the Law was by far the most difficult one to write. It is, moreover, of less 48 49

Besides the cumulative aspect of his Paul and the Law (see above). See chapters 5 and 9.

10

Chapter 1

significance for my understanding of Paul's 'theological difficulties' with the law than are chapters 1-4. These chapters deal with problems immanent in Paul's view. Chapter 5 tries to isolate a different kind of problem: a problematic presupposition in Paul's argument,50

Briefly, the relation between Paul's inconsistencies and Sanders' view can be described as followS 51 : since Paul assumes that Christ is the only way to salvation - for Paul a basic premise which is important within the inconsistencies (see chapter 3) - he has made a caricature of the ludaism of his day by making the law a way to salvation. Because of the fact that there is a relation, although merely in the sense of a "problematic presupposition", between Paul's inconsistencies and the above set of problems concerning Iudaism, some attention must be paid to this set of problems in this study. 52 This results in a complex picture. For the sake of clarity, therefore, we continuously have to concentrate on and to distinguish between four different issues: 1. The inconsistencies in Paul as detected by Raisiinen; 2. Raisanen's theological explanation for these inconsistencies; 3. The new perspective on the Judaism of Paul's day as introduced by Sanders in connection with Paul's antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ; 4. Raisiinen's proposed hypothesis as a possible historical explanation. During this study attention must be paid to each of these issues. 53 We must also have a close look at the different relations between these four issues. Further, it is quite obvious that the new perspective on ludaism will have far-reaching implications for our interpretation of Paul, since many exegetes still assume that ludaism displays a certain kind of 'legalism' (the law is a way to salvation). Raisiinen does not refrain from drawing far-reaching conclusions from that new perspective on Iudaism for his interpretation of Paul. 54 When we try to survey the inconsistencies concerning the law, we are confronted, as already mentioned, with a complexity. Whoever studies Raisanen will also find that it is not easy to follow this Finnish scholar. Often in his articles so many aspects of his research come up for discussion that it is sometimes hard to understand how things are related 'Experience' 33. See also Paul xxvIII note 70. See also sections 4.2 (beginning) and 4.2.3. See chapter 4. 53 The inconsistencies will be discussed in chapter 2, the theological explanation in chapter 3, the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ in chapter 4, and the historical explanation in chapter 5. 54 See, e.g., chapter 4 below. 50 51

52

Introduction: Heikki Raisanen

11

to each other. 55 In this respect, the illustration of two concentric circles might elucidate this complexity.

1.3 Tradition, experience, and interpretation 56

When Riiisiinen discusses the inconsistencies within the theme of Israel, problems are less complex. Within this theme Ra.isa.nen is also rather original. For having again rejected many explanations for the inconsistencies within the theme of Israel, he tries to find the explanation by means of sociology. In his Beyond New Testament Theology, Riiisanen discusses the question of how new experiences are interpreted. 57 By means of the insights of P.L. Berger and T. Luckrnann, Ra.isiinen argues that there is a dialectical interaction between tradition, experience, and interpretation in the sense that tradition is being interpreted anew by new experiences. Paul's inconsistent theological interpretations in Rom 9-11 are explicable, according to Ra.isa.nen, by means of this dialectical interaction. With reference to his extensive Mark research (see, e.g., Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium (1973) and The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark (1990), which is a translation and a revision of Das 'Messiasgeheimnis' im Markusevangelium, 1976), Raisiinen has found a parallel between the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark and that of those in Paul as found in Rom 9-11. The explanation for the inconsistencies in Rom 9-11 is, therefore, of a psychological-sociological nature, and not so much a theological explanation. Consequently, this explanation is more or less hypothetical.

1.4 Riiisiinen: A New Testament scholar with a history-oJ-religions perspective

It has to be admitted that Raisiinen is a scholar of high academic standards. His large number of publications is impressive. He even has the intention of writing a Theology of the New Testament, which is, of course, no 55 For instance, the end of section IV of the article '''Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on I Clement' is not intelligible without more study, because many aspects of R1iisanen's thought are brought together here (,Righteousness' 220). Similarly, in the article 'Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels Bund' so many insights of Raisanen are combined, that it is not advisable to read this article without studying some of his other articles first. 56 See 'Israel' 192-{5 and 'Analyse' 2930-6. 57

Beyond 122-34.

12

Chapter I

sinecure. In his Beyond New Testament Theology, he points out the main lines for such a Theology.s8 In each area, it is characteristic of his work that he tries to integrate new insights into his research, such as Sanders' view of ludaism. This makes Raisanen what I would call an 'up-to-date' New Testament scholar. Another characteristic is his history-of-religions perspective. In his Preface to Paul and the Law, he says in plain terms: "I make no secret of the fact that, as a scholar, I prefer a history-oJ-religions perspective to a pronouncedly theological one".59 Raisanen mentions the term "fair comparison" between different theological authors many times. Since we have to respect, of course, a fair comparison, we are not allowed, according to Raisanen, to synthesize Paul into a set of consistent statements beforehand. "Fair comparison, or fairness to the others, is one of the reasons why one should not try excessively hard to synthetize Paul's thought into a consistent whole".6o This comparison-of-religions approach explains, as far as I can see, why Raisanen has no presuppositional problems at all with indicating inconsistencies in Paul. This approach also explains why Raisanen takes into account also non-canonical books in his forthcoming Theology of the New Testament. As it already appears from the Bibliography of this study, he also pays a lot of attention to the study of Islam, and he compares the (Old and) New Testament(s) with the Koran without any reservation. 61

1.5 The aim and plan of this study Aim The aim of this study is in the first place to offer a description of Raisanen's work with regard to both the inconsistencies in Paul detected by him and all the matters related to them. In any case, it is not the aim of this study to offer a summary of Raisanen's work. The offered description is rather an analysis of Raisanen's view. Therefore, I hope that this study will be a kind of guide for everyone who wants to study Raisanen's view of Paul's theology in so far as the law and Israel are concerned. Subsequently, after this description, a review will be offered. This study, therefore, falls into two parts: (A) An analytical description 62 ; and (B) A S8 See also his 'Die frilhchristliche Gedankenwelt. Eine religionswissenschafiliche Alternative zur "neutestamentlichen Theologie'" and 'New Testament Theology?'. S9 Paul xv. 60 Paul xv. 61 See, e.g., his The Idea of Divine Hardening. 62 Chapters 2-8.

Introduction: Heikki Raisanen

13

critical review 63 . In this way, Rliisanen's thesis that Paul is an inconsistent writer will be assessed. A major problem in the descriptive part of this study is that Rliislinen has written a large number of books and articles which at first sight seem to have nothing to do with each other. Yet, many of his publications are linked up with each other, and many of his articles are the components of Paul and the Law. One of the consequences is that we have to hark back in the descriptive part to different works. In this way, at the same time, an attempt will be made to elucidate the relations between the different articles and books. I have to confine myself drastically, of course, to a discussion of only those works of Riiisanen which are relevant to the topic of this study. Plan Starting with the different issues of the complexity to be examined, in the following chapters the order of these issues will be followed as much as possible. By these means, it will be possible to get a good and clear picture of Rliislinen' s work. Firstly, the different inconsistencies within the theme of the law will be described as accurately as possible, and in this same context, there will also be given some exegetical material (chapter 2). Subsequently, Riiislinen's theological explanation for these inconsistencies will be described (chapter 3). Also some attention will be paid to Paul's antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ, and to the new view of the ludaism of Paul's day (chapter 4). Riiisanen's interesting historical hypothesis will also be described (chapter 5). In the following chapter, the different inconsistencies within the theme of Israel will be described (chapter 6), along with Riiisiinen's explanation for these (chapter 7). It will then be useful to devote a separate chapter to Riiisanen's own statements of the implications of his view (chapter 8). After we have carefully listened in the first part of this study to what Riiislinen has to say, in the second part we shall be in discussion with him, in the course of which the inconsistencies as indicated by Riiisiinen will be scrutinized, and his proposed exegetical material will be assessed for its validity. We shall use, of course, the large number of responses to Paul and the Law. In the course of this second part, after a critique of Rliisanen's work, we shall try to progress towards a balanced view by answering the question of to what extent Paul is a consistent writer.

63

Chapters 9-13.

14

Chapter I

In addition, the following remarks are relevant: a. If there is a translation or a later edition of a certain article, then this will be used in this study, because Raisanen has sometimes changed or added something in such translations or later editions. 64 The Bibliography indicates which article can be found in which collection, and also how, if necessary, an article or book has been abbreviated. The collection Jesus, Paul and Torah is of a later date than the collection The Torah and Christ. Therefore, most quotations will be from the former collection. b. In this study, Raisanen's research on Mark (Die Parabellheorie im Markusevangelium and The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark) will not be discussed in detail. Nevertheless a few remarks which occur in his Mark research are important for the topic of this study. Where necessary, we shall refer to such sections in his Mark research. This also applies to the rest of Raisanen' s work. c. The starting point for this study is the second Edition of Paul and the Law. An important Preface has been added to this second Edition. d. Although the quotations will not be from all of Rais an en's works, for the sake of completeness there is a list of all his publications in the Bibliography of this study.65 A comparison between this list and the pUblications referred to in this study shows which of his publications are of less or even of no interest for this study. e. There are also some articles in one of the Scandinavian languages. These articles are not referred to in this study. His most important articles, as far as I can see, have been published in German or, even more often, in English.

64 In the Preface to the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah 9, he says: "As indicated, some of the essays have been slightly revised". GS This list has been compiled after a correspondence between Rliisanen and myself. Rliisanen is, however, a productive writer, so that the Bibliography will probably no longer be complete at the time of the publication of this study. In ANRW II 26.2 (1995), the article 'Urchristliche Religion: Orientierungssysteme im Umbruch. Methodologische Uberlegungen zu einer religionswissenschaftlichen Alternative zur "Neutestamentlichen Theologie'" is announced (this article wiII be published in ANRW Il26.4).

Part A

Analytical Description

Chapter 2

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law In this chapter the inconsistencies which Raisanen detects in Paul's view of the law will be further described. We shall follow the same order as pointed out in section 1.1.1. The exegetical material presented by Raisanen will be reproduced as much as possible. l Raisanen does not want to make in advance a distinction between different meanings which could be ascribed to the term nomos. Raisanen's main reason for this is the fact that Paul himself nowhere makes such a distinction in so many words. When he describes the inconsistencies in Paul's view of the law, he says: The following analysis starts from the observation that Paul at least argues as if the nomos were an undivided whole, firmly connected with Moses and Sinai. If, nevertheless, he makes statements about the nomos which are difficult to apply to the Mosaic law, we wiII have to ask whether Paul is conscious of this difficulty and, if not, why does the concept of nomos osciIIate?2

2.1 The Jewish Torah also concerns the Gentiles 3 Raisanen asserts: "If nomos denotes the Mosaic law of Sinai, it by definition concerns the Jews, but not the Gentiles".4 Nevertheless, Paul many times connects the law with the Gentiles. This appears from the letter to the Galatians, according to Raisanen, in the following five places: a. The first example is Gal 3:10-14. At first sight, it seems that ~j.liiC; and ';j.lWV (verse 13) refer to Paul and other Jewish Christians, for only they were under the law before becoming Christians. Raisanen, however, states that ,l.,IfPWj.lEV (verse 14) must also refer to the Gentile Christians, in this case to the Galatians themselves. Yet, it would be very strange ifthere were a contrast between verse 13 and verse 14. Since Paul refers in verse See especially Paul and the Law. Paul IS. 3 Paul 18-23. 4 Paul 18. I

2

18

Chapter 2

14, in any case, to the Gentile Christians also, in verse 13 he must be referring to this same group. Before their salvation in Christ, the Galatians also were under the curse of the law. "Strange as it may appear, the conclusion is hard to avoid that even the Gentiles were, in Paul's mind when dictating this passage, under the curse of the law".5 But this is in contrast with Paul's assumption in 1 Cor 9:21 and Rom 2:12, because in both of these places Paul says that the Gentiles were previously not under the law. b. The second example given by Raisanen is Gal 3:23-26. Again, we are inclined to assume that in these verses Paul is thinking of the Jewish Christians. It is quite obvious, however, that verse 26 again refers to the Galatians themselves. Verses 25 and 26 are closely linked up by the word . yap (verse 26). In verse 26, Paul addresses the Galatians directly. As a consequence, verses 23-25 also must concern the Gentiles who were previously under the law. c. The third example is Gal 4:5-6. It is clear that in verse 6 Paul again addresses the Galatians directly, and that verses 5-6 are closely linked up with each other. This implies that verse 5 also concerns the Gentiles, and that they also were previously under the law. d. The fourth example is Gal 5:1. Christ has set 'us' (Paul and the other Jewish Christians) free, and therefore 'you' (Galatians) have to stand firm, and not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. e. The last example given by Raisiinen is Gal 4:1-11. Again, the same occurs here, although in a reverse order. In these verses the Galatians' preChristian pagan existence is compared with that of Jews under the law. According to Paul, both situations are identical. In verse 3, Paul is talking about the a,oLXElo: (this term probably means cosmic astral powers), to which Paul himself also was once subjugated. There is the danger that the Galatians, after becoming Christians, may turn back to these a,olXElo:, whose slaves they had been previously (verse 9). This turning back is, in Paul's view, identical with a return to the observance of the Jewish law, such as the observance of days, months, seasons, and years (verse 10). Paul intends to associate the Galatians' turning to the Torah with their pre-Christian pagan existence (which may have been characterized by subjugation to astral 'elements' of the world). Thus the Torah comes to look like a 'universally enslaving power'.6

Raisiinen concludes: "Apparently without noticing it, Paul is thus tacitly operating with a double concept of 'law'''.? On the one hand, Paul is , Paul 20. Paul 22. Paul 21.

6 7

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

19

thinking of nomos as the law given at Sinai, while, on the other hand, Paul makes nomos into a kind of general term, so that the Gentiles also are included. "Paul is simultaneously thinking of something that concerns all men, not just the Jews".8 In view of Gal 3.23 ff. nomos cannot be understood simply as a 'historically limited phenomenon'. It is, rather, a 'qualifying concept' ... This 'qualifying' concept of law, besides being difficult in itself ... , flatly contradicts the ideas set forth in 3.15-20, for in this passage the whole emphasis is placed on the fact that the law arrived late on the scene. The chronological and the universal argument exclude each other. 9

2.2 Reduction of the Torah to the morallaw 1o Although it is, according to Raisiinen, somewhat anachronistic terminologyll, one could distinguish between, on the one hand, the socalled cultic, ritual or ceremonial aspects of the law, and, on the other hand, the moral aspects of the law. The cultic aspects of the law concern all those laws which refer to the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, for example, circumcision, observance of the sabbath, and purity of food laws. The moral aspects of the law concern all those laws which govern relations between people. Raisiinen states that Paul himself nowhere explicitly makes such a distinction. 12 "Should he nevertheless make the distinction implicitly, this would bring him into an implicit contradiction with his own notions".13 When Raisiinen studies Paul's statements within this context, he concludes that Paul actually uses such a distinction, although implicitly, and that, thereby, at the same time Paul reduces the law to a mere moral law. Raisiinen gives three examples: a. The first example is Rom 2:12-16. In this passage, Paul talks about the Torah. In verse 14a, Paul asserts that the Gentiles, although they do not possess the law, nevertheless fulfil its requirements by nature. But, in Raisanen's view, it is impossible that the Gentiles fulfil what is required by the law in the way Paul wants us to believe. The Gentiles can fulfil only the ethical commandments, but not the entire law as such. Although s Paul 22. 9 Paul 21-2. 10 This inconsistency is mentioned in 'Difficulties', but not further elaborated. See Paul 23-8 for such a further elaboration. 11 See Pall123 note 47. 12 HUbner, however, assumes that in the letter to the Romans, Paul consciously makes this distinction. Raisanen refers to Hlibner, Das Gesetz be; Paulus 77-80 (second Edition). I3Pa1l125.

20

Chapter 2

Paul talks in the passage about the Torah, he reduces it to its moral aspects. b. The second example is Gal 5:14. Paul is saying here that the whole law (6 y&p 1I&.c; vOflOC;) is fulfilled in one word, namely in the commandment to love one's neighbour. Riiisfulen finds this reduction of the law to its moral aspects very strange, because in the same letter, Paul prohibits obedience to other commandments of the Torah, for example, circumcision, which are not connected by Paul with the commandment to love one's neighbour. c. The third example is Rom 13:8-10. Again, Paul summarizes the whole law in the commandment to love one's neighbour. But then, Paul does not answer the question of how the ritual commandments can be fulfilled by the commandment to love one's neighbour. "Instead of making distinctions Paul seems simply to ignore the ritual part of the Torah as a non-entity" .14 In Rom 2:12-16, Gal 5:14, and Rom 13:8-10, the law is reduced to a mere moral law, namely the commandment to love one's neighbour. It is only by tacitly reducing the Torah to a moral law that Paul can think of the

Christians ... as fulfilling the Torah ... If the 'just requirement of the law' is fulfilled in the life of Christians, nomos cannot really mean the Torah in its totality. I find this very lack of explicitness significant. Paul conveys, after all, the impression of operating with one concept of law only, and I would assume that he is not conscious of his actual oscillation.t 5

Riiisfulen concludes: "Paul speaks of the 'law' in general, without hinting at any differentiation within it; still, in actual fact he seems to reduce it to a moral imperative".16

2.3 Has the law been abolished?17

In 1978 Riiisiinen stated: Paul has two sets of statements concerning the validity of the law for Christians. According to one set the law has been abrogated once and for all. According to the other the law is still in force, and what it requires is charismatically fulfilled by Christians. 18

14 IS 16

Paul 27. Paul 28. Paul 26.

17 This is the first inconsistency which is elaborated in 'Difficulties' 10-3. Apparently, this inconsistency is the first one which is of interest for Raisanen. This also appears from the number of pages devoted to this inconsistency in Paul 42-83. 18 'Difficulties' J o.

Inconsistencies in Paul's View o/the Law

21

Within this context he refers to WeiB' argument that there are two conflicting thoughts in Paul regarding the question of whether the law has been abolished. 19 When we try to describe these two thoughts in Paul, as seen by Raisanen, then we get the following survey: A) On the one hand, we find quite often in Paul, according to Riiisanen, the assertion that the law has been abolished. Riiisanen describes this assertion by the term 'radical' .20 He thinks he has found a considerable number of statements in Paul's letters which betray this radical thought: a. Gal 2: 15-21, especially verse 19a, says that the Christian has died through the law to the law. This section is mentioned only in 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', but is not further elaborated. In Paul and the Law, only verse 18 is mentioned in particular. Using metaphorical language, Paul says in this verse that he is not allowed to rebuild the law after tearing it down first. If Paul were to rebuild the law to restore it to its former state, then the tearing down of the law would have been senseless. b. Gal 3: I 5-25. Raisanen emphasizes this section, especially the thought that the law had been given for just a certain period of time (verse 19). c. Rom 7:1-6. In this passage, using an allegory, Paul compares the relation between husband and wife with the relation between the Christian and the law. After the husband has died, the wife is free to marry again. In the same way, Christ has died, and therefore the Christian is free from the law. In other words, the law has been abolished. d. Rom 14:14, 20. There is no longer any need for a Christian to observe certain laws on clean and unclean food. " ... a statement so sweeping in its implications would be very surprising in the mouth of one who considered the Torah as valid as ever".21 e. Rom 6: 14 .... ov yap E(HE uno VO\1-ov: because you are not under law. f. 1 Cor 10:23 and 6:12. I1av"C(X (\1-01.) E~Eonv: all things are lawful (for me). "It would seem, then, that in his actual teaching Paul ignored the Torah - the ritual and moral side alike".22 g. Paul does not use the law as a foundation for his ethics. Riiisiinen refers to such places as Rom 12:1-2, Phi! 1:10 and 4:8.

Rliisanen refers to J. WeiB, Das Urchristentum. See 'Difficulties' 13. H ••• a radical critique of the Torah ... this radical line of thought cannot be explained away". Paul 50 (my italics). 21 Paul4S. 22Pau149. 19

20

22

Chapter 2

B) On the other hand, we find quite often in Paul, according to Raisanen, the assertion that the law is still in Jorce. 23 Raisanen describes this assertion by the term 'conservative' .24 Paul is thus not a consistent antinomist. The requirements of the law have to be fulfilled, and the law provides guidelines for a Christian's daily life. In this connection, Raisanen refers to three places, namely Gal 5:14 (0 y&.p i1ii~ vOflOC; EV EVL AOYU) i1EilA"PW1:IlL, namely in the commandment to love one's neighbour); Rom 8:4 (LVeL 1:0 liLKIlLWflll 1:0U vOflOU i1Allpw81j EV ~flLV), and Rom 13:810 (1TA"pwflll OUV vOflOU ~ aYlXilll, verse lOb). "These texts are not at all adequately dealt with by those who find only the idea of the abrogation of the law in Paul".25 In this same connection, we can also mention Rom 3 :31 (aU&. VOflOV lO1:lXv0fJ.Ev) and 1 Cor 7:19 (1:"PTJOLC; EV1:0AWV). Riiisanen states against Kasemann that Rom 8:4 and Rom 13:8-10 are not mere fragments of certain Jewish-Christian traditions which have been taken up by Paul, but that they reflect Paul's own intentions.2 6 This third inconsistency would, at least partly, cease to exist ifvoflOC; in Rom 3:27 as well as in Rom 8:2 meant the Torah in the literal sense, as many think (see below). If this is really the case, which Raisanen denies, then both verses would possibly prove that Paul did not abolish the law, because, in both verses, the old and new situations (the time before Paul met Christ and the time after he met Christ) are being described, and, according to both verses, nomos plays a role in both situations. But does nomos in both verses indeed mean the Torah? In two articles Raisanen discusses the exegetical problems of Rom 3:27 and 8:2, namely 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit' and 'Paul's Word-Play on vo,.!Oc;: A Linguistic Study'. What is the precise meaning of VOIJ.OC; in Rom 3:27 as well as in Rom 8:2? In Rom 3:27 it concerns mainly the expression VOIJ.OC; i1L(J1:EW~, and in Rom 8:2 the expression VOflOC; !OU i1VEUfleL1:0C; -rfic; (wiic; (therefore the title of the article 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit'). In the exegetical article 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit', Raisanen refuses to accept the literal meaning of VOjlOc;. In doing so, he disagrees with many other exegetes, such as Fuchs, Schlier, Friedrich, Schmidt, Lohse, Hahn, van der OstenSacken, and Hubner.2'

2J

See Paul 62-73. a series of 'conservative' ones ... ", Paul 63 (my italics). 'Difficulties' 12. 'Difficulties' 12. See Raisanen's article.

2' " ... 25 26

27

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

23

In his discussion of Rom 3:27, Raisanen starts with Friedrich's view, which links verse 27 with verse 21. Raisanen, however, does not see a parallel between verse 21 and verse 27, but between verse 27 and verse 28, as the use of yocp shows (beginning of verse 28). Then we get the following survey: 1. VOIlO~ TTLatEw~ (verse 27) runs parallel with o~K(noua9(l:L TTLatEL &V9pWTTOV (verse 28). 2. v6llo~ tWV EPYWV (verse 27) runs, thus, parallel with the opposite of O~K(ILOua9c!L TTLatEL liv9pWTTOV xwpt~ EPYWV VOIlOU (verse 28). In this way, v6llo~ has a non-literal meaning. In the light of v. 28, then, it seems that each vo~o~ in v.27 means an 'order'. VO~O~ 1T(01:EW~ is the order of salvation, founded on faith; VO~O~ tWV fPYWV is the order that was built on works of the law. 28

Thus, one of the implications is that we have to assume that Paul is 'playing' with the term vOIl0<;.29 "Paul is playing with words, and not without a polemical purpose: the order he calls VOIlO~ is actually the opposite of the Mosaic Law".30 " ... Paul is really playing games with his language!".3J In his discussion of Rom 8:2, Raisanen starts with Lohse's view. Raisanen opposes his view by pointing out that the expression VOIl0C; toG TTVEUIlC!tO~ is the subject of the verb ~A.Eu9EpWaEv and therefore is that which liberates the individual. "This simple fact is completely obscured in literal interpretations".32 It is impossible that the Torah is the subject of the "once-and-for-allliberating deed"33. With reference to his exegesis, Riiisanen concludes: The traditional understanding of the 'law of faith' and 'law of the Spirit' as a nonliteral usage is correct. Paul means God's saving act in Christ when he speaks of the 'saving order' of faith or of the spirit. The choice of the word vci~o<; thereby permits a polemical allusion to the Mosaic Law. The interpretation of Paul's theology of the law should not be built on the assumption that in Rom. 3.27 or 8.2 the apostle is speaking of the OT law, taking account of its various aspects; still less on the assumption that in these verses he is speaking of different ways of understanding the OT law. 34

28 'Law' 62. 29 In the article 'Word-Play', Raisanen tries to demonstrate that it was indeed quite common that one could 'play' with the term vci~o<;. 30 'Law' 63. 31 'Law' 64. n 'Law' 65. JJ 'Law' 66. 34 'Law' 68.

24

Chapter 2

In order to demonstrate the possibility of the exegesis given above, Riiislinen tries to show in the article 'Paul's Word-Play on vOfloC;: A Linguistic Study' that it was indeed quite common to 'play' with the term vOfloc;. He wrote this article as a response to Wilckens'35 claim that the non-literal meaning of the term vOflOC; occurred only in early Greek literature (as far as we know), not in later classical Greek literature, and certainly not in Hellenistic literature. In 'Paul's Word-Play on vOfloC;: A Linguistic Study', Riiisiinen tries to demonstrate that the non-literal meaning which he ascribes to vOfloc; does occur in Hellenistic literature. He discusses many texts from the Hellenistic Umwelt, so that this article is, in fact, a profound philological-linguistic study. Riiislinen concedes that, of course, his references do not give a decisive answer to the question of how one has to interpret vOflOC; in Paul; a final interpretation can only be deduced from the Pauline text itself. On the other hand the references collected here certainly provide the basis for answering the question whether a broad (,non-literal', to use a common term) use of was known in Paul's linguistic world and whether such a use can therefore also be considered for the relevant Pauline passages. The answer to this - contra Wilckens - can only be an affirmative one. 36 vOfiO~

With reference to Paul, Riiislinen says: It would scarcely be surprising if more or less related word-plays should occur to a

creative speaker/writer some day, when he is occupied with the problems of the VOfiO~. Very close analogies need not be expected. The unmistakable personal individuality of Paul is also reflected in his use of language. 37

In essence, the articles above try to demonst~ate two points. In 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit', Riiisiinen believes that on syntactical grounds he has demonstrated (against many exegetes) that it is impossible that vOflOC; in the two discussed passages has the literal meaning of Torah, and in 'Paul's Word-Play on vOflOC;: A Linguistic Study', he believes he has demonstrated that vOflOC; does not necessarily have a literal meaning. "Therefore, this attempt to bridge the gap between negative and positive statements about the law fails".38 Thus, with reference to Rom 3:27 and 8:2, one cannot state that the law is still in force in some way or another after it has been abolished first. 3S At this point I would like to correct a slight mistake in my Dutch Edition of this volume. Wilckens could not have read RlIisllnen's article 'Das "Gesetz" des Glaubens und des Geistes' when writing the first volume of his (Wilckens') commentary on Romans, as I wrote in the Dutch Edition, since that article was at the press at that moment. See 'Word-Play' 71. 36 'Word-Play' 88. 37 'Word-Play' 93. 3s'Difficulties' 13.

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

25

With regard to this third inconsistency Raisanen concludes that Paul, depending on the situation, now talks about Kccro:}..uactL, now talks about TIATJpwaO:L CMt 5:17).39 These two thoughts cannot be harmonized with each other. 4o "I suggest that Paul's theology of the law can only be understood if the tensions and self-contradictions in it are taken seriously" .41

2.4 Can the law be/ulfilled?42

Again, Raisanen points out two conflicting thoughts in Paul. On the one hand, according to Paul, the law can be fulfilled, and on the other hand, the law cannot be fulfilled. Riiisanen admits that he is not the first one who has pointed out these two thoughts. In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', he refers, for example, to C.R. Dodd (1932)43 who found both thoughts in the letter to the Romans in particular. Again, Raisanen gives a few examples of both conflicting thoughts to illustrate this inconsistency. A) In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' as well as in Paul and the Law, Raisanen starts with a discussion of Paul's statements that the law cannot be/ulfilled. Re refers to Gal 3:10-12; 5:3, and Rom 1:18-3:20 in particular. In his brief comments on Gal 3:10-12, he says that Paul is thinking here of the impossibility of fulfilling the law, and that in Paul's view everyone transgresses the law. "No doubt this interpretation is correct".44 The same applies to Gal 5:3. The one who has been circumcised has to fulfil the whole law. Obviously this should be enough to discourage the Galatians from being circumcised and searching for justification in the law (v.4). The implication thus is that it can be taken for granted that nobody is able to fulfil the Torah in its totality. Taken together, 3.10 and 5.3 seem to reveal 'an enormously rigorous attitude,45, from the Jewish

Paul 82. "I am unable to harmonize the two sets of statements", 'Difficulties' 12. 41 Paul 83. 42 In comparison with the other inconsistencies, Rllisanen pays a lot of attention to this one, as appears from the amount of pages in Paul 94-119 devoted to this inconsistency. The same appears from 'Difficulties'. 43 'Difficulties' 16. Rilisllnen also refers to O'Neill (see 'Difficulties' 16 for literature). " Paul 94. 45 Rllisilnen refers to HUbner. See Paul 95 note 11. 39 40

26

Chapter 2 point of view even an 'overstrained definition,46 of the obedience to tbe law required of man: total obedience alono is sufficient, but total obedience is impossible. 47

Also in the long section Rom 1:18-3:20, Paul wants to demonstrate that everyone has sinned (3:9 and 3:20). In this connection, much attention is also paid to Rom 7:14-25. Already in 1979, Raisiinen did some research in his article 'Zum Gebrauch von EIII0YMIA und EllI0YMEIN bei Paulus' (English translation: 'The Use of E1TL9uf.LlOC and E1TL9WElv in Paul'48) on the use of E1TL9uf.LLOC and E1TL9uf.LElv in Rom 7:14-25. He discusses in this article R. Bultmann's exegesis of this section. Raisiinen makes a distinction between two different interpretations of E1TL9uf.LLa. The first one is the so-called 'antinomistic' understanding. This term expresses the thought that Paul meant by E1TL9WLa a kind of inclination or desire to transgress the law. The second one is the so-called 'nomistic'49 understanding. This term expresses the thought that Paul meant by E1TL9uilla an unjustified zeal for fulfilling the law. Bultmann prefers this 'nomistic' understanding. "In his E1Tl9WlOC a person wants to realize his being himself in his own strength (and thus loses it)".5o Both S. Lyonnet and U. Mauser have attempted to base such an exegesis (following Bultmann) on Jewish thoughts on the concept of 'desire'. The concept of 'desire' in Genesis 3 would refer, according to Lyonnet and rVlauser, to the idea of eritis sicut dellS, and subsequently, in Rom 7, Paul would have harked back to this idea. If this is really the case, then ETrl9Wla could indeed be understood 'nomistically'. Raisiinen finds it difficult to concur with this because in the Jewish texts concerning Genesis 3 the idea of eritis sicut deus does not play a role. From the presentation of desire as the source of all sins, the identification of desire with the will towards equality with God does not follow, still less its identification with zeal for the law. Such equations can only be arrived at by elaborately contrived constructions. 5 I

In the same article, it is also demonstrated by Raisiinen that the use of Enl9uf.LLCi in other places in Paul has to be understood 'antinomistically' (Rom 1:24; 6:12; l3:9, 14; 1 Cor 10:6-10; Gal 5:16, and 1 Thess 4:5). Having reviewed Bultmann's exegesis of Rom 7: 14-25, Raisiinen concludes: R1!is1!nen refers to Moore. See Paul 95 note 12. Paul 95. 48 I shall quote here from this English translation as included in the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah. This also includes references to the relevant literature of the writers mentioned in the main text. 49 These terms are from G. Bornkamm. See 'E1Tl9u~(a' 97 and Paul III note 92. 50 'E1Tl9u~Ca' 99. 5\ 'f1TlSU\l("" 105. 46

47

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

27

Outside Romans 7 there is nothing to demand - nor yet to justify - a nomistic view of Em8uf1LII in that passage. As in all other passages, in Rom. 7.7-8 the natural understanding is the 'antinomistic' one. The Bultmannian interpretation is evidently rooted in Lutheran-existentialist systematics. In the exegesis of individual passages this attempted approach can only be carried through by means of an opaque, associative procedure. 52

Raisanen thus rejects Bultmann's exegesis (and also that of G. Bornkamm and E. Kasemann, who both followed in Bultmann's footsteps 53). Thus, we should not read an anthropology into Rom 7:14-25 (in the way of Bultmann) . ... this kind of psychological penetration was left to Augustine and Luther, who in the light of their very different experiences read into Paul's text something which was not there. 54

Rom 7:14-25, according to Raisanen, deals just with man in general, not with a Christian who is under the law. At this point, Riiisanen is very brief, merely saying that Paul is taking up here a Hellenistic tradition wellknown in his day, namely the theme of a moral inner conflict in man: "". man does what is wrong, even though he knows what is right".55 The nonChristians do not fulfil the law; indeed they cannot do good at all. B) On the other hand the law can befulfilled. Riiisiinen mentions Phil 3:6, and he discusses in this connection Rom 2:14-15,26-27 at length. Paul claims in this passage that some Gentiles have still fulfilled something of the law. In this way, these four verses assert, as a matter of fact, the opposite of what Paul wants to demonstrate in the larger section Rom 1: 18-3 :20, namely that no one, neither Jew nor Gentile, fulfils the Jaw, and that, consequently, all are under the curse of the law. According to Riiisanen, Paul uses these Gentiles " ... as convenient weapons to hit the Jew with".56 If some Gentiles are able to fulfil the law, then, logically speaking, Paul would have to state the same with regard to the Jews. Paul, however, does not make such a statement about the Jews. Thus we find a "double weakness"57 in Rom 1:18-3:20: (1) If the Gentiles can fulfil the law, then the Jews must be in the same equal position. Yet, we do not find such a statement in Paul. (2) According to Rom 2:14-15, 26-27, not all are under the curse of the law. This idea, however, " ... destroys his

52

'Em9uf1LO:' 111.

See 'Em9uf1LO:' 95 note 3 and Pall/lll-2. " 'Difficulties' 19. 53

55 56 57

PallillD. PaullD6. Paul 107.

28

Chapter 2

theological conclusion"58 since Paul has to demonstrate in Rom 1:18-3:20 that " ... all are under sin and that, therefore, no one can fulfil the law".s9 With reference to Rom 2:14-15, 26-27 within the larger passage Rom 1:18-3:20, Raisanen concludes: 'These observations indicate that there is something strained and artificial in Paul's theory that nobody can fulfil (or has fulfilled) the law".6o During the discussion of Paul's thought that the law can be fulfilled, Raisanen notes that there is in Paul an emphasis on the fact that Christians also fulfil the law. Raisanen refers to GaI5:14ff; Rom 8:4, and Rom 13:810. With reference to the letter to the Galatians in particular, he says that Paul makes an unfair comparison. For, according to Paul, the Jews do not fulfil the law, whereas the Christians do fulfil the law in the Spirit. It is easy enough to see how problematic and unfair such an assertion is. In demonstrating that (Gentiles and) Jews do not fulfil the law, Paul makes use of denigration and caricature. In asserting that Christians do fulfil tbe law in the Spirit (and be it only the moral law), he gives rein to wishful thinking, or at least makes another61 sweeping generalization, this time to the optimistic direction. He has, indeed, different standards for Jews and Christians respectively. 62

With reference to Gal 5, Raisanen says about Paul: "He compares Christian life at its best (if not an ideal picture of it) with Jewish life at its worst (if not a pure caricature)".63

2.5 Is the law of divine origin ?64 Raisanen states that at one time Paul denies the divine origin of the law, and that at another time he asserts that the law is of divine origin. A) For the first thought in Paul, Raisanen refers to Gal 3:15-20. A few details are underlined by Raisanen. He regards it as important, for example, that Paul says in verse 19 that the law has been given by angels. This indicates, in R1iisanen's understanding, that the law is not really of divine origin. "In any case, Paul appears for the moment to regard the angels as the originators of the law, thus denying its immediately divine Paul 107. Paul 106. Paul 107. 61 See section 3.2.2.6. 62 'Difficulties' 20. 63 Paul 117. 64 Rl1isanen pays little attention to this inconsistency, devoting just a few pages to it. See Paul 128-33. In 'Difficulties'. it is not even mentioned. Yet Raisanen comes to important conclusions in connection with this inconsistency. See, e.g., section 3.2.2.5. 58

59

60

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

29

origin".65 It is also very strange that Paul uses the word YEYOVW~ (verse 17): " ... he gives the impression that the law had come on the scene independently, on its own initiative ... ".66 "Gal 3.17 serves to create a distance between God and the law".67 Similarly, the use of 1TPOOHEST] (verse 19) gives the impression that a distance between God and the law is being created. Further, Raisanen asks himself who (or what) is, in fact, the (logical) subject of oLccmYELC; OL' &'yyf). WV (verse 19); in any case, according to Raisanen, it is not God himself. B) Paul also asserts that the law is of divine origin. In, for example, Rom 7:22 as well as in Rom 8:7, the fact is stressed that the law is tOU SEOU.

Riiisanen concludes: " ... we are apparently once more faced with an internal contradiction in Paul".68

2.6 Has sin as a concrete reality existed since Adam's fall or since the introduction of the law at Sinai?69

Raisiinen indicates a certain relation between law and sin in Paul. Since it concerns sin, he terms this relation 'negative'. There are many texts in which this negative relation appears, namely Gal 3:19a; Rom 3:20b; 5:20; 7:5,7-11 (and also Rom 4:15; 5:13, and 1 Cor 15:56). When arranging these texts, Riiisiinen again runs up against an inconsistency, namely: since when do sins, in Paul's view, exist as "concrete realities"70? According to Raisanen, there are again two conflicting views in Paul. A) On the one hand, Paul says that sin has existed since the time of Adam. This appears especially from Rom 5:12-13, 20. According to these texts, sins were already concrete realities before the law was given. B) On the other hand, Paul also says that sin has existed only since the introduction of the law. This appears especially from Rom 3:20b and Rom 7:7-11 (" ... the law causes .,. men to sin"71). Raisanen believes that this contradiction can be indicated even within one and the same passage, namely within Rom 7:7-14. In verse 14, he finds the reason for what is being stated in verses 7-13: because man is Paul 130-1. Paul 129. 67 Paul 129. 68 Paul 132. 69 Raisiinen discusses this inconsistency in Paul 140-50 separately, whereas in 'Difficulties' 8 and 19, he mentions this inconsistency just briefly. 70 Paul 144. 71 Paul 142. 65 66

30

Chapter 2

carnal (crocPKLV<Je;, verse 14), the law is not able to cause man to do good. Again, there is in Paul ... a glaring self-contradiction: on one hand he states that the intervention of the law is necessary to induce man to sin; on the other hand man is already 'sold under sin' when he encounters the commandment oftbe law.72

Comparing Rom 5 with Rom 7, Raisanen concludes: "Once more, Paul's thoughts about law and sin stand in tension with each other"J3 It remains to be added that verses 5.13 f. contradict Rom 7.8. According to 7.7 f. sin was 'dead' before the coming of the law. 5.13 f. - more naturally - assumes that sin was a mighty power ever since Adam ... In different contexts Paul gives two different and incompatible reasons for the power of sin in the world: on one band, this is due to Adam's fall (ch. 5), on the other, to the law (ch. 7). The former idea is traditional, the latter peculiarly PaulineJ4

"Paul thus gives a variegated picture of the 'law of sin"',15 In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law'76, another problem is mentioned within this context. According to Raisanen, Paul's statement that the law engenders and increases sin is problematic (Rom 7:7-11)77, for nobody in Paul's day would have dared to assert such a view. And besides, the question arises why only the nomos incites transgression, and not the apostolic paraenesis. When Paul warns in Rom 13:13 of drunkenness, why does such a warning not incite transgression, and why does the nomos incite transgression? One sees that Paul simply has different standards for Jews and Christians respectively. He ascribes to commandments of the law qualities which he would never ascribe to his own apostolic commandments .. .1 8

It is striking that here again Raisanen talks about "different standards for

Jews and Christians respectively". He uses here, consciously or unconsciously, exactly the same words as those used during the discussion of the question of whether, for Paul, the law can be fulfilled,19

nPaul142. Paul 144. Paul 147. 71 Paul 148. 76 See 'Difficulties' 9. 77 r have mentioned this problem in section 1.1.1 under item 2 after mentioning the seven inconsistencies. 78 Paul 149. " 'Difficulties' 20. See also section 2.4. 7J

74

Inconsistencies in Paul's View ofthe Law

31

2.7 Can fulfilment of the law give life?80

Rrusiinen discusses this inconsistency in connection with the question of whether, for Paul, the law also has a positive purpose. To put Riiisiinen's question differently: does the fulfilment of the law indeed give life (salvation)? Again, two different thoughts in Paul are described, and once again Riiisiinen admits that he is not the first to detect these two conflicting thoughts in Paul; A. Ritschl and E.P. Sanders, for example, commented on them before him. 81 It strikes one, however, that when describing these two different thoughts in Paul, Riiisiinen mentions two different groups of exegetes. One group emphasizes the one thought, and another group emphasizes the other thought in Paul. Riiisanen himself does not identify himself with either of these two groups, but he lets them speak for themselves, so that both thoughts are presented simultaneously. A) The first thought is that, for Paul, the law has nothing to do with life. The law does not have life-giving power in itself. Riiisiinen refers to Gal 3: 17-18, 21. According to him, these verses show that in Paul the law and the promises as means of salvation exclude each other. If the promises are indeed able to give life, then the law cannot do the same. Riiisiinen also refers to 2 Cor 3:6 (,0 ylip ypoc~~J.(X. OC1TOK,EVVEl). Rom 8:3 points in the same direction. The group of exegetes who emphasize this thought in Paul is the larger of the two. 82 B) The second thought is that Paul also asserts that the law does have to do with life. Originally, the law was meant to give life. Riiisiinen refers to Rom 3:23ffand Rom 7:10 (~ Ev,oA~ ~ Ek (W~V).83 Rrusiinen concludes: Either God did not want the law to be a way to salvation, or the actual law did not suit that purpose and another means had to be provided. Clearly these two lines contradict each other. 84

Raisanen does not leave it at this observation. In his view, each thought as such is problematic in itself.85 He terms these difficulties the problem of

See Paul 150-4 and 'Difficulties' 8-9. See Paul 152 note 119. 82 E.g., Bultrnann and Conzelmann. For the relevant literature see Pau/150 note 106. 83 Cullmann, for example, belongs to the group of exegetes who detect especially this thought in Paul. See Paul 151 ff. 81 Paul 152. 8~ "Apart from this contradiction, each of the two explanations is also problematic in itself', Pall/200 (chapter 'Conclusions'). 80

81

Lnapcer.t

theodiey. He illustrates that each thought is problematic in itself.86 The problem or question with regard to the first thought is: why did God not want the law to give life, even though God had added the promise of life to the law (see Lev 18:5; Rom 10:5, and Gal 3:12)? Although Raisanen himself does not dare to suggest it, Paul's picture of God becomes rather cynical. The question with regard to the second thought is: why did God give so weak a law in the first place? If the law was able to give us life, but fails to do so in reality, wbat use is such a law to us? "If this line is consistently thought througb, Christ will be seen as God's second attempt to save mankind after his first device turned out to be unsuccessful".87 Independent of the question as to how we explain the problems concerning the logical consequences of this inconsistency88, the fact that such unacceptable conclusions can be drawn is already an indication that we run up against a difficulty (inconsistency) in Paul's train of thought. My point is this: if we draw certain logical implications from some of Paul's statements about the law, then strange conclusions will result. Paul did not see these conclusions aDd would, of course, have rejected them emphatically.89

86 At this point the order in which Raislinen presents his ideas is slightly confusing. Having described the two thoughts, he illustrates in detail the problems with the second thought first, and only then the problems with the first thought. See Paul 153ff. 87 Paul 153. 8R See the next chapter. 89 Paul 154.

Chapter 3

Explanation for the Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law In this chapter we shall listen to Raisanen's explanation for the inconsistencies described in the previous chapter. However, before describing his explanation, in order to get an even clearer picture of the position of Raisanen himself, we shall take a look at the explanations he rejects. Even before enumerating the different Pauline inconsistencies in his Paul and the Law, Riiisiinen had rejected many other possible explanations. In the course of his Paul and the Law, he returns to these explanations. In other articles also he rejects a number of explanations.

3.1 Explanations rejected by RCiisiinen

In the Introduction to Paul and the Law, Raisiinen observes that Paul is usually regarded as the "prince of thinkers"! or even the ''theologian par excellence of Christianity"2. In spite of these qualifications, however, it appears that there are many different interpretations of Paul. 3 Riiisanen mentions two interpreters, just as examples, who regard Paul highly as a thinker but propose diametrically opposed interpretations of Paul, namely C.E.B. Cranfield and E. Kasemann. According to Raisanen, Cranfield4 states that the law and the gospel are one within Paul, whereas Kasemanns 1 Rllisllnen refers to the article by C.F.D. Moule, 'Interpreting Paul by Paul', in: Glasswell - Fashole-Luke (Ed.), New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World 89. See Paul! note 10. 2 Rllisllnen uses this expression with reference to L. Cerfaux, Le Christ dans la Theologie de Saint Paul. Riiisanen uses the translation by L. Soiron, London 1967. See Paul 2 note 12. 3 "It is symptomatic that the followers of the apostle have hardly ever been able to agree on what he really wanted to say", Paul 3. , Rllisiinen refers to the article by Cranfield, 'St. Paul and the Law', S.1T 17 (1964) 43-68. See Paul3 note 26. 5 Riiisiinen refers to Kllsemann's commentary on the letter to the Romans. See Paul 3 note 27.

34

Chapter 3

states that the law and the gospel are mutually exclusive antitheses. Riiisanen writes: We thus face a curious dilemma. On one hand, the clarity, profundity and cogency of Paul's theological thinking is universally praised. On the other hand, it does not seem possible to reach any unanimity whatsoever as to what his message really was. 6

How then can we solve this dilemma, and how may we explain the many inconsistencies? Raisanen rejects the following explanations. 3.1.1 Harmonization Riiisiinen does not want to harmonize the conflicting thoughts in Paul. Returning to Cranfield and Kiisemann, the former tries to explain away Paul's negative statements on the law, whereas the latter tries to demonstrate that Paul's conservative and more positive statements on the law are not of great interest. 7 In other words, in Riiisanen's view, Cranfield as well as Kiisemann use one-sided methods. 8 When Riiisiinen discusses the inconsistency with reference to the question of whether Paul has indeed abolished the law 9, it is striking that he treats the texts concerning the so-called radical thought in Paul in a rather extensive discussion with Cranfield. 10 Riiisiinen constantly takes issue with him. According to Cranfield, it is not the law as such which has been abolished, but a misuse of the law, i.e. that use of the law which regards the law as a means of earning salvation (legalism). In 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' as well as in Paul and the Law, Riiisanen opposes what he terms the 'conservative'll view of Cranfield. An earlier and "much less conservative"12 exegete, namely Bultmann, had also suggested that Paul had abolished not the law as such, but a misuse of it. In Cranfield's view, Paul's vocabulary lacked certain terms and expressions to enable him to distinguish between the abolition of the law as such and the abolition of its misuse (legalism). Against such a view, Riiisanen asserts that

6

Paul 4.

Paul's conservative statements are Jewish-Christian traditional fragments, tacitly reinterpreted by the apostle ...", thus Rliislinen's rendering of KlIsemann, Paul 4. 8 See Paul 4. 9 See section 2.3. 10 See PaIl142-S. 11 See Paul 42. 12 Paul 42. 7 " •••

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies in Paul's View o/the Law

35

'" Paul might have been able to [onn a few sentences through which to indicate that he wished to make such an important distinction between the law and its false interpretation. 13

In Raisanen's interpretation, Gal 3 and 2 Cor 3 concern just the law as given at Sinai, but not a legalistic misuse of the law (against Cranfield). Similarly, Rom 7:1-6 concerns not the abolition of a misuse of the law, but an abolition of the law itself (again against Cranfield). Not only Cranfield and Bultmann, but also Conzelmann and Wilckens argue, according to Raisanen, that the law is indeed abolished as a means of earning salvation, while that same law is still in force as an expression of God's moral will. Raislinen, however, writes: The common explanation that Paul rejects the law as a way of salvation but retains it as an expression of God's will in ethical regard only restates the problem in different words. 14

As already mentioned, Kasemann also tries to demonstrate that the antitheses in Paul are, in fact, merely imaginary, and that Paul's theology of the law is altogether stilI harmonious. Kasemann follows the same method as Cranfield: ... to maintain that Paul's theology of the law is consistent it must be assumed that nomos means something other than the law in the 'difficult' passages. It is just that his premises are opposite to those of Cranfield's (sic). IS

In sum, Cranfield asserts that not the law, but legalism has been abolished;

Kasemann asserts that nomos does not primarily mean the law as such, but God's wilJ.l6 3.1.2 Dialectic and paradoxes

Raislinen does not want to solve the contradictions in Paul by stating that there is a certain kind of dialectic or paradox(es) in Paul. What one terms contradictions in, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls!7 is termed dialectic within Paul's letters. The talk of dialectic thus has an apologetic ring. Moreover, the notion of dialectic is so vague that it seems pointless to try to argue against it. So I will rather try to establish an alternative perspective which makes more sense to me at least. I 8

Again in his article 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law', Raisanen emphatically rejects a dialectical explanation. This article Paul 43. 'Difficulties' 12. Paul 66. 16 See Paul 65ff. 17 See 'Difficulties' 4. 18 Paul 4. 13

14

IS

was written after the publication of his Paul and the Law, and is a response to S. Kim's criticism. 19 In this article, Raisiinen writes: "We should not resort too quickly to the easy declaration that Paul's thought is 'dialectical' rather than inconsistent".2° And he says about his Paul and the Law: "What makes my book different is, I believe, the cumulative effect 21 , along with my refusal to accept a 'dialectical' explanation".22 Moreover, Raisiinen asks himself what difference it would make if we were to use a term such as 'dialectic' instead of 'contradictions' .23 But too much dialectic cannot be communicated to others. The history of Christian thought shows that Paul's theology of the law was not adopted, not even by his closest followers. The poles of the alleged dialectic were so much apart that they could not be held together; one had to choose either a more radical (Marcion) or else a more conservative line (the Pastorals) than Paul's. Paul's supposed dialectic, then, was not capable of being upheld or even understood. To call Paul's view dialectical is a convenient device to preserve his reputation as a thinker. But in the last analysis a hi'ghly 'dialectical' view is an idiosyncracy which an individual may cherish but which cannot be communicated to others. 24

3.1.3 A sophisticated version of the dialectical approach 25

According to Raisanen, H. Conzelmann is an example of an adherent of this approach. This scholar does not merely say without more ado that Paul's thought is dialectical, but he states that this 'dialectic' has to do with our understanding of Paul. Conzelmann admits that if we were to take Paul literally, this would lead to absurd conclusions. But, as Conzelmann says, "The gospel is not complicated, but my position is ... ".26 Raisanen's response to this is: "Obviously, what is complicated is not so much 'my' position in the light of Paul's gospel, but rather Paul's position in a very particular social and historical situation".27 For Raisanen, Conzelmann is too much influenced by existential ideas. 28

See section 5.4. 'Experience' 18. 2\ See also section 1.1. 22 'Experience' 18. My italics. 23 "Put cynically, it seems that what is called a 'contradiction' in a rival tradition is labelled 'dialectic' (or 'paradox') when occurring in the exegete's own tradition", 'Experience' 19. Raisanen refers to his The Idea of Divine Hardening, in which he explores the theme of "divine hardening" in the Bible, in Jewish texts, and in the Koran. See 'Experience' 19 note 1. 2< 'Experience' 19. 2.5 Pall/5. See also 'Difficulties' 6-7. The relevant references can be found here. 26 Quoted according to Pall/5. 27 Pal/I 5. 28 See 'Difficulties' 6-7. 19

20

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies in Paul's View o/the Law

37

3.1.4 Interpolations

Raisanen also rejects the possibility of interpolations of large passages in the letter to the GaIatians and in the letter to the Romans. 29 J. C. 0 'Neill, for example, assumes that Paul is a logical thinker and asserts that Paul has been very influential precisely because he argues in a logical manner. In other words, Paul's thoughts must be logical, because otherwise his profound influence cannot be explained. The letter to the Romans is, for O'Neill, so complicated that, supposing that the whole letter to the Romans is written by Paul himself, it is scarcely imaginable that Paul would have had such a profound influence on his contemporaries through this very letter. Consequently, O'Neill concludes: If the choice lies between supposing that Paul was confused and contradictory and supposing that his text has been commented upon and enlarged, I have no hesitation in choosing the second. 3D

Raisanen responds merely by saying that Paul's influence does not at all necessarily depend on the logic of his letters. 3.1.5 Development theory31

One of the adherents of the so-called 'development theory' is H Huhner, According to this theory there was a development from the letter to the Galatians to the letter to the Romans, and the latter expressed Paul's more mature view. For instance, with regard to the question of whether the law has been abolished in PauJ32, Hubner takes the view that the development theory offers a satisfactory explanation for this inconsistency in Paup3 Hi.ibner states that Paul has abolished the law as such in the letter to the Galatians, but in the letter to the Romans, for Paul, the law is still in force. In Hi.ibner's view, the letter to the Romans merely abolishes a misunderstanding of the law. Here Christ is regarded as the end of the Jewish misunderstanding of the law (and thus not as the end of the law itself). With regard to the letter to the Galatians, Hi.ibner says: Man konnte zwar durchaus auch liber diesen Brief die Uberschrift setzen: 'Christus ist des Gesetzes Ende.' Aber dann wllrde dieser Satz besagen: 'Christus ist das Ende des mosaischen Gesetzes', nicht aber in differenzierter Weise wie in Rom: 'Christus ist das Ende des sarkischen MiJ3brauchs des Gesetzes. ,34

29 30 31

Paul 6-7. See also 'Difficulties' 6. The relevant references can be found here. Quoted according to Paul 6. Paul 7-10. See also 'Difficulties' 4-6. Here the relevant literature is also referred

to. 32 33 34

See section 2.3. See Paul 42 (also note 3) and 82. H. HUbner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus 129.

38

Chapter 3

Raisiinen, however, says: But the notion of a dramatic theological development within a very short period of time in the thinking of one already engaged in missionary work for some twenty years is strange enough. In addition, there are already obvious tensions in Paul's thought on the law in Galatians, and eyen more in Romans. Neither letter is internally consistent. If this last point is correct, it constitutes a decisive objection to development theories.35

Furthermore: "A severe difficulty for development theories is posed by the short time space between Galatians and Romans".36 Even if there were a period of two years between the letter to the Galatians and the letter to the Romans, then it would still be problematic to assume a development as proposed by Hubner. Also when discussing the question of whether sin has existed as a concrete reality since Adam or since the introduction of the law37 , Rliislinen rejects Hubner's development theory by stating that this inconsistency occurs within one and the same letter (the letter to the Romans).38 In his publications, Raisiinen regularly refers to Hubner's theory. Hubner is, as it were, his interlocutor. This is not surprising, because, just like Rrusiinen himself, Hubner also admits that there are tensions in Paul, and Hubner also does not want to regard harmonization, dialectic or interpolation as one of the possible satisfactory explanations for Paul's inconsistencies. Raisanen as well as Hubner leaves the contradictions in Paul as they are. Raisiinen thus recognizes many of his own insights in Hilbner's approach. It is therefore fully justified when Step hen Westerholm 39 includes my work40 along with that of HUbner, John Drane and E.P. Sanders in the same group of recent studies which do not allow for logical consistency in Paul's thought.41

Nevertheless, Raisanen's explanation is different from Hilbner's. In Paul and the Law, he tries to shed some small light on Paul's view of the law in order to come to an " ... alternative to theories of development".42

3S

Paul 8-9.

3. Paul 8. See section 2.6. See Palll148 note 98. RHisilnen refers to S. Westerholm, 'On Fulfilling the Whole Law (Gal 5:14)" SEA 51-52 (\986-87) 228fT, 237. SeePauixjv note 12. 40 Here is meant Paul and the Law in particular. 41 Palllxlv. 42 Paul 9. 37 38 39

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

39

If we refuse to accept the explanations above, how then, according to Raisanen, can we solve the dilemma in Paul? What, then, would make a suitable approach to the problem? I can see one way only: contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Paul's theology of the law. They are not simply of an accidental or peripheral nature. The contradictions are undoubtedly historically and psychologically conditioned. 43 Rather than gloss over contradictions, one should take them very seriously as pointers to Paul's personal theological problems, even if that means that his reasoning appears to take on a surprisingly subjective colouring.44

At the end of his Paul and the Law, he says: "In sum, I am not able to find in the relevant literature any conception of the law which involves such inconsistencies or such arbitrariness as does Paul's".45

3.2 RCiisCinen 's explanation for the inconsistencies 3.2.1 Theological and historical explanation A study of Riiisiinen' s work can easily lead to misunderstandings. In order to understand him properly, it seems useful to make a distinction in Riiisanen's interpretation between two different kinds of explanation for Paul's inconsistencies. The first one is a theological explanation. Although Riiisiinen himself does not use this term, yet it seems useful to do SO.46 He tries to deduce this theological explanation from the texts themselves. If we try to follow his theological explanation, then we meet here the 'professor of New Testament Interpretation': with detailed and profound knowledge he interprets the texts in order to come to a theological explanation. Subsequently, he also offers a historical explanation. He tries to reconstruct the historical framework (historical context or setting) within which the theological explanation could fit. However, in contrast with the theological explanation, this historical explanation is a mere hypothesis. Here the illustration used earlier must be kept in mind47 : both explanations are like two concentric circles. The inner circle stands for the theological explanation, and the outer circle for the historical explanation for the inconsistencies, while the centre stands for the inconsistencies themselves. The area between the inner and outer ~3 44 4S

46 '7

Paul 10-1. Compare also 'Difficulties' 7. Paul 12. Paul 228. See section 1.2. See section 1.2.

40

Chapter 3

circle is of a hypothetical nature. In this chapter, Riiisiinen's theological explanation will be described, while in chapter 5 his historical explanation will come up for discussion. 3.2.2 Theological explanation: a soteriological a priori

On the basis of the inconsistencies as described in the previous chapter we want to listen to the way Riiisiinen gives an explanation for each of these. At first sight it seems that he offers in each case a different explanation. However, that would be a wrong observation, since each explanation for every separate inconsistency has to do with only one theological explanation. So it is not so much a case of explanations (in the plural), but rather of just one single explanation. It will appear that, in essence, Riiisiinen's theological explanation concerns Paul's soteriological (Christological) a priori. 3.2.2.1 Why does the Jewish Torah also concern the Gentiles?

Riiisiinen asks himself the question why the Torah concerns not only the Jew, but also the Gentile; "". why does the concept of nomos oscillate?".48 What is the reason for the fact that, for Paul, the Torah is a kind of "universally enslaving power"49? How do we explain this "double concept of 'law"'50? Why is the Torah not only a "historically limited phenomenon", but also a "qualifying concept"? In other words, how is it possible that Paul uses both the "chronological and the universal argument" at the same time?51 Riiisiinen tries to find an explanation by taking Paul's statements as literally as possible, and by interpreting them in a logical manner. Then this will lead, for Paul, to unacceptable statements. For instance, if we interpret Gal 3:23ff literally, then the heathen cult also would be a 'THXLOo:yWYO~ d~ XpLa'tDv. Yet Paul would, of course, never have accepted such a logical consequence of his statements. Perhaps I may put it this way: the solution is for Paul clearer than the problem. The Christ event stands out as a liberating event of supreme importance, an event with universal implications 52 , bringing freedom and peace to everyone willing to accept the message. At this point Paul is perfectly coherent. But when it comes to the description of what men were liberated from, the picture becomes more or less confused. 53

4KPau118. Paul 22. so Pau121. SI See Paul 21-2. S2 This last sentence has been italicized by me. 53 Paul 23.

49

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Law

41

What can be clearly stated is the fact that Christ's work has these "universal implications". In other words, the Gentiles also are being affected by these "universal implications". Christ came to set us free from the law, and together with this idea of "universal implications", one of the consequences is that the law also concerns the Gentiles. 3.2.2.2 Why is the law reduced to a moral law? With reference to this inconsistency Raisfinen makes rather far-reaching statements, such as: "Paul speaks of the 'law' in general, without hinting at any differentiation within it; still, in actual fact he seems to reduce it to a moral imperative".54 And also: It is only by tacitly reducing the Torah to a moral law that Paul can think of the Christians ... as fulfilling the Torah ... If the 'just requirement of the law' is fulfilled in the life of Christians, nomos cannot really mean the Torah in its totality. I find this very lack of explicitness significant. 55

Here we would have expected Raisanen to give an explanation, but in spite of these far-reaching statements, he does not offer a theological explanation for this inconsistency. 3.2.2.3 Why is it impossible to give an unequivocal answer to the question of whether, for Paul, the law has been abolished? As we have already seen, Raisanen detects in Paul a 'radical' line of thought (the law has been abolished) as well as a 'conservative' line of thought (the law has not been abolished). Raisanen also states that these two different lines of thought cannot be reconciled with each other. Therefore, we can understand Paul's theology of the law only if " ... the tensions and self-contradictions in it are taken seriously".56 We have also seen that Riiisanen claims to have demonstrated in two articles ('The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit' and 'Paul's Word-Play on vOj.lOc;: A Linguistic Study') that, with reference to Rom 3:27 and 8:2, Paul cannot be interpreted as meaning that, in some way or another, Christians have received back the law after it had first been abolished. Although it is not yet very clear in which direction his theological explanation will point, we already get an idea of it. In his discussion of this inconsistency, Raisfinen emphasizes Gal 3 and Rom 7, where, in his view, Paul clearly states that the law was just temporary.

Pau126. ss Paul 28.

54

56

PaIlIS3.

42

Chapter 3 Paul's theology does include a line of thought which could be summed up by saying that Christ 57 is the goal of the law, whether or not that thought is expressed in Rom. 10.4. 58

According to Rfiisanen, .EAOC; in Rom 10:4 expresses the thought that Christ is the end of the law, in the sense of a terminal end (thus not .aoe; in the sense of a goal). For such an exegesis Riiisiinen also refers to 2 Cor 3:13. 59 On the one hand, Paul justifies the abolition of the law by referring to Christ's death (Gal 3:13): because of the fact that Christ died, we are free from the law. 6o On the other hand, Paul does not want to be an antinomist 61 : he tries to base the commandment to love one's neighbour on the law. 62 Thus, with reference to Christ's death, the law is indeed abolished, but with reference to the foundation of the commandment to love one's neighbour, the law has not been abolished. 3.2.2.4 J¥hy does Paul say at one time that the law can befulfilled, and at another time that the law cannot be fulfilled?

The longer we follow Raisiinen in the course of his description of Paul's inconsistencies, the better insight we get into the way in which he tries to offer a theological explanation. Discussing the question of whether the law can be fulfilled, R1lisiinen describes his theological explanation with total clarity. When describing the line of thought in Paul that the law cannot be fulfilled, he pays a lot of attention to Rom 7:14-25. He has also devoted a whole article to this same passage ('Zum Gebrauch von EIII0YMIA und EIII0YMEIN bei Paulus'; English translation: 'The Use of E1TL9uj.lLcr and E1TL9Uj.lElV in PaUl'). We have,seen that Raisiinen comes to the conclusion that E1TL9Uj.lLcr and E1TL9uj.lELV in Rom 7:14-25 have to be interpreted 'antinomistically' (against Bultmann). We have also seen that Rfiisanen states that Paul has taken up in this passage a Hellenistic tradition wellknown to his contemporaries, namely the theme of a moral inner conflict in man: " ... man does what is wrong, even though he knows what is

"My italics. 50 'Difficulties' 1l. See Paul 53-6. 60 "It is not only the Christian that has to 'die'. It is in fact the death of Christ that has liberated and, obviously, was needed to liberate men from under the law. This is stated as a thesis in Gal 3.13 (cf. 4.4 f.) and the point is developed with the aid of an analogy from marriage law in Rom 7.1-6", Paul 59. 61 " ••• he is no moral anarchist", Paul 49. "Yet is (read 'it'; there is here a misprint in Paul, T.E.v.S.) would be one-sided to conclude that Paul is a 'consistent antinomist"', Paul 62. 62 " ••• Paul can exhort his readers to Christian love by emphasizing that love is the fulfilment of that very law", Paul 82.

,9

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies in Paul's View a/the Law

43

right".63 Looking for a theological explanation, Raisanen starts with this Hellenistic tradition. What, in fact, is Paul doing here? According to Rliisanen, in Rom 7:14-25 (and, as a matter of fact, also in Rom 1:19-32 and in Rom 2: 17-24; both these passages express the thought that nobody can fulfil the law) Paul comes to his conclusions in the following way. Firstly, Paul starts with a Hellenistic tradition (Rom 7:14-25), or with an empirical observation of the fact that there are people who commit sin (Rom 1: 19-32 and Rom 2: 17-24), and subsequently he applies this Hel!enistic tradition, or this empirical observation, to al! people in general (Rom 7:14-25 and Rom 1:19-32; 2:17-24 respectively). Paul exaggerates such an "ethical commonplace of popular tradition" and such an "empirical observation of everyday life" to the extreme, and " ... makes it the basis of a sweeping generalization"64, namely: nobody can fulfil the law. "One is inclined to speak of a demonization of non-Christian existence".65 At this point, Raisanen thinks he is in a position to give a theological explanation. Why does Paul make these assertions? Raisanen argues: The explanation is that Paul the theologian is somehow pushed to develop his thought in a preordained direction, backwards as it were 66 • He simply has to come to the conclusion that the law cannot be fulfilled, in order to be able to contend that Christ did not die in vain (Gal. 2.21).67

When describing the opposite line of thought in Paul (the law can be fulfilled), Raisanen comes to the essence of his theological explanation. It is surprising, however, that his theological explanation does not depend on this positive line of thought in Paul. Riiisiinen first discusses Rom 2:1415,26-27 in detail. These verses demonstrate that, for Paul, some Gentiles do fulfil something of the law. But now, these four verses (the positive line of thought in Paul) assert precisely the opposite of what Paul wants to demonstrate in the larger passage Rom 1: 18-3 :20 (the negative line of thought). In this way, Raisanen diverts attention away from the positive line of thought back to the negative line in order to give his theological explanation. For with reference to Rom 2:14-15, 26-27 in the larger passage Rom 1 :18-3:20 Raisiinen alleges: "These observations indicate that there is something strained and artificial in Paul's theory that nobody can fulfil (or has fitlfilled) the law".68 Elucidating his view, he says: "The Paul 110. See section 2.4. 'Difficulties' 17. Paull13. 66 My italics. 67 'Difficulties' 16. 68 Paul 107. 63

64

65

44

Chapter 3

explanation must be that Paul is pushed to develop his argument into a preordained direction".69 According to Gal 2:2], it simply has to be impossible, for Paul, that the law can be fulfilled, since otherwise Christ has died in vain. Thus, Paul argues "backwards ". 70 Raisanen makes an illuminating comparison: by analyzing the medicine (Christ), Paul diagnoses man's disease (nobody can fulfil the law).7! Although some other exegetes have made us aware of this way of arguing by Paul, Riiisanen mentions E.P. Sanders in particular. 72 3.2.2.5 Why is Paul's view of the origin of the law inconsistent? In Rom 7:22 and in Rom 8:7, Paul states that the law is of divine origin. But according to Riiisiinen it appears from Gal 3: 15-20 that, in fact, the opposite is the case. How do we explain this "internal contradiction"73? Riiisiinen gives his explanation in connection with Gal 3:15-20. There are two striking aspects of his explanation. Firstly, he gives an explanation which he believes can be deduced from the text, but which has hardly anything to do with his theological explanation as given for the other inconsistencies. Secondly, he does not leave it at the observation that there is an "internal contradiction", but in comparison with the other inconsistencies, he goes a step further, and it seems that here Raisanen alludes to his historical explanation. 74 How does he explain this inconsistency? According to Riiisiinen, in Gal 3: 15-20 Paul takes up a Jewish tradition, namely the idea that angels were present during the giving of the law on Sinai. But this Jewish idea has been adapted by Paul in accordance with his own insight and purpose: using this Jewish tradition, Paul creates a distance between God and the origin of the law. The radical application seems to be an ad hoc-adaptation of that tradition. In the light of the context and the fact that Paul never returns to this suggestion of the origin of the law it looks as if he were simply toying with an idea which. however, seemed rather too daring even to him - at least later on. But while the 'radicalizations'75 in Rom 1-3 and 7 seem scholastic and theoretical, the statement in Gal 3.19 f. would seem to be steeped in emotion 76 • Paul dictates his letter in anger ... We are left with the intriguing question, How is this sic et non at all possible? ... Is it precisely in Gal

Paul 108. Paul 108. "He tried, as it were, to define man's disease by analyzing the medicine which he knew to be wholesome and indispensable", Paul 108. 72 See Paul 108 (also note 80) and 'Difficulties' 17-8. RlIisanen refers to E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian JI/daism 442ff. 73 Pal/l 132. 74 See chapter 5. 75 See section 3.2.2.4. 76 My italics. Here it seems that Riiisllnen alludes to his historical explanation. 69

70 71

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies in Paul's View a/the Law

45

3 that we meet Paul's deepest feelings about the law - feelings he mostly succeeds in repressing? I am inclined to conjecture that this is so. The verses in question seem to express a latent resentment towards the law of which Paul was normally not conscious. Be that as it may, the strong impression remains that Paul's mind was divided 77 with regard to the law. 78

What, then, is the cause of the fact that in Gal 3:15-20 Paul did allow himself to be led astray in yielding to these "deepest feelings about the law"? According to Raisanen, this has to do with Paul's polemical situation at that time. In chapter 6 ('Conclusions') of Paul and the Law, Riiisiinen summarizes this in just one sentence: "While generally holding fast to the divine origin of the law, Paul once in a heated debate 79 also suggests that it was only given by angels and is thus inferior".80

3.2.2.6 Why does Paul say at one time that sin has existed as a concrete reality since Adam's fall, and at another time that it has existed as a concrete reality since the introduction of the law on Sinai? When Raisanen studies the so-called 'negative' relation between law and sin, he runs up against another inconsistency, as we have seen, namely: since when, according to Paul, have sins existed as "concrete realities"81? Paul says that these have not only existed ever since Adam's fall (Rom 5), but also since the introduction of the law (Rom 7). The former is the traditional understanding, and the latter is "peculiarly Pauline"82. How do we explain this "self-contradiction"83, this "tension"84, and "variegated picture of the 'law of sin'''85 in Paul? When Riiisiinen tries to analyze how Paul came to this inconsistency, he draws a parallel with the inconsistency concerning the question of whether, for Paul, the law can be fulfilled. 86 When Paul tries to demonstrate that the law cannot be fulfilled, he makes a "generalization", namely: some people commit sin, and therefore, all people commit sin. Similarly, when Paul now tries to demonstrate that the law has a negative purpose, he again makes a "tremendous generalization"87, namely: "". the prohibitions of the law always incite to 77 Also with reference to the question of whether, for Paul, the law can be fulfilled (see section 1.1.1), Raisanen states that "Paul's mind is divided" (Paul 107). 78 Paul 133. 79 My italics. See chapter 5. 80 Paul 200. 81, Paul 144. 82 Paul 147. 83 Paul 142. 84 Paul 144. 85 Paul 148. 86 See section 3.2.2.4 . • 7 Paul 149.

46

Chapter 3

transgressions ... ".88 And in the same way that with regard to his statement that the law cannot be fulfilled, Paul starts with a theological a priori (namely, that otherwise Christ would have died in vain, Gal 2:21), now also he starts with a theological a priori, namely that Christ is the only way to salvation. And this is precisely the reason why it is impossible that the law itself is such a way. Consequently, the law must have a different purpose than the ability to give salvation. Paul has found such a different purpose of the law, namely a 'negative' purpose. 89 In Paul's way of thinking, we can thus distinguish, in Raisanen's view, three stages. Firstly, Paul starts with a Christological a priori (Christ is the only way to salvation). Secondly, Paul connects this idea ,,,ith a "generalization of an everyday experience"9o (prohibitions always incite transgressions). And finally, this combination leads "in retrospect"91 to the theological assertion that the law has a 'negative' purpose. But, as Raisanen notes, this function of the law is contradictory to the common view, namely that sin has been a reality ever since Adam's fall. 92 Raisanen says that Paul's arguments, which he borrowed from daily life (namely: prohibitions always incite transgressions), are very artificia].93 He also states that, for Paul, man under the law has become almost a helpless creature (Rom 6:14; 7:14, 23): man can do nothing else than commit sin. If what J have said before is on the right track, it follows that this picture represents a radicalization in retrospect, triggered off by Paul's Christological conviction. He does not consistently hold that man apart from Christ is a helpless victim of sin, and this very inconsistency betrays the secondary character of the radicalism. It is to be doubted, whether Paul really thought of sin as a quasi-personal power at all ... 94

At the same time, an explanation has been given for the problem caused by Paul's assertion that the law engenders and increases sin (Rom 7:7-11).95 The cause of this problem lies in Paul's theological a priori, whereby he has been forced to make the "tremendous generalization" as described above. But also the problem concerning "different standards for Jews and Paul 149. See 'Difficulties' 19. 90 Paul 149 (originally in italics). 91 Paul 149. 92 "The purpose of the law was a negative one: it was to increase and even bring about sin. This explanation of the origin of sin in the world of men clashes with the usual one, also given by Paul, that the dominion of sin is to be traced back to Adam's fall", Paul 200 (chapter 'Conclusions'). 93 "Christian interpreters of Paul have been astonishingly blind to the artificial character of Paul's allegations about the sin-engendering nature of the law", Paul 149. 9' Paul 150. 9l See 'Difficulties' 9. This assertion by Paul is problematic, since, according to Rllisllnen, it is in contrast to the Judaism of that period. 8R

89

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies in Paul's View of the Lcr..,.

47

Christians"96 has been explained. For when Paul discusses the commandments for the Jew, then it concerns the nomos, and this results in the whole set of problems above; whereas the apostolic paraenesis, for example Rom 13:13, is not, or hardly, connected with the nomos by Paul, and, therefore, there are no similar problems. In this way, different standards arise for Jews and Christians respectively.97

3.2.2.7 Why is Paul inconsistent concerning the question of whether fulfilment of the law gives life? We have already encountered Raisanen's conclusion: Either God did not want the law to be a way to salvation, or the actual law did not suit that purpose and another means had to be provided. Clearly these two lines contradict each other. 98

Raisanen also demonstrates that if we logically and consistently think through both lines of thoughts, then both will result in unacceptable conclusions (problems of theodicy, God being cynical).99 Raisanen demonstrates that this inconsistency cannot be explained away that easily. Again, he refers to Hubner, however this time not to his 'development theory'. Hubner finds another way of solving this inconsistency, namely by simply explaining it away. For, according to him, the unacceptable conclusion of God being cynical could be avoided by making a distinction between three different intentions at the time of the introduction of the law: the intention of the angels, the intention of God, and the immanent intention of the law itself. 100 Raisanen responds to this by saying: This complicated speculation does not carry conviction, and serves all the more to show how hopeless it is to defend Paul against theological criticisms regarding the idea of God implicit in some of his statements about the law.ID!

This does not imply, however, that Raisanen himself thinks that Paul's argument suggests that God is indeed cynical. But in his view this inconsistency again has everything to do with the fact that Paul has a Christological a priori: only Christ is able to give life, and, therefore, the law is not able to do the same.

Paul 149. See section 2.6. "One sees that Paul simply has different standards for Jews and Christians respectively. He ascribes to commandments of the law qualities which he would never ascribe to his own apostolic commandments ... ", Paul 149. 98Pall1152. 99 See Pall/ [53-4. 100 See Paul 153. 101 Paul 153-4. 96

97

48

Chapter 3

... Paul got involved in intellectual difficulties, because he started from an aprioristic (Christological) conviction. Instead of considering the intention of the law in its own right he deduced his statements about it straight from his Christological insights. That is why he ended up by putting forward artificial and conflicting theories about the law. I02

Brief overview

We have now attained a clear picture of the different inconsistencies which Raisanen detects in Paul's view of the law. We have also learned Rrusanen's theological explanation which has everything to do with Paul's soteriological (Christological) a priori: Paul argues starting from the Christ event, and it is in this connection that Raisanen emphasizes Gal 2:21: OUK &'6m;) "tT\V XO:PLV "tou 6EOU· EL YIlP OLIl vOf.Lou OLK(XLOO"UVl), lipn XPLO"tOC; OWPEIlV &'1TE6nvEv. I03

l02 l03

Paul 154. See section 3.2.2.4.

Chapter 4

The Antithesis between Works of Law and Faith in Christ! In the earlier chapters we have considered both the different inconsistencies in Paul's view of the law and also Raisanen's theological explanation for them; now another important issue closely related to the previous problems has to be tackled. R1lisanen also addresses himself to Paul's famous antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ. With reference to this antithesis also, he detects many difficulties in Paul.

4.1 The antithesis2 It is evident that Paul makes a clear distinction between two different

soteriological systems. 3 On'the one hand Paul refers to a system within which the law and the works of the law play a decisive role, and on the other hand he refers to a system within which Christ, grace, the Spirit, faith and promise play a decisive role. The former system is, for Paul, typically Jewish, and the latter system displays his own view. Many Pauline verses demonstrate that he indeed makes this distinction, for instance, Gal 2:16 and 2:21. 4 "This strongly suggests that Paul (and other Jewish Christians) have indeed replaced an old soteriological system by a new one, works of the law by faith in Christ".s Also Gal 3:6-12 and the

1 Chapter 5 of Paul (,The antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ') has the same title as my chapter 4. This title indeed describes the contents of this chapter adequately. 2 It goes without saying that this antithesis has had a profound influence in Church History. It is not going too far to state that since the Reformation this antithesis has been the doctrinal heart of Protestant belief. When Raisilnen makes some critical notes on this issue, the doctrinal heart of the Churches of the Reformation is thus at stake. J Here Raisilnen's own terms and expressions will be used as much as possible. 4 "The state of rivalry between two different orders of salvation is here portrayed in the clearest possible terms", Paul 162. sPauI162-3.

50

Chapter 4

letter to the Romans (Rom 3:27-28; 4:2-5, 14; 10:5-6) point in the same direction. In fact, Paul's argument for the thesis that Christ, not the law, is the basis of salvation, consists almost exclusively of a repetition of this basic contrast in numerous variations. 6

4.2 A complexity of questions concerning this antithesis With respect to this antithesis many interpreters, such as Raisanen, ask many questions some of which Raisanen thinks he is able to answer (see below). In his work, he repeatedly refers to those questions, while he devotes an entire chapter of his Paul and the Law to this antithesis (chapter 5). But also in several articles 7 this complexity comes up for discussion many times. As far as I can see, Raisanen detects four problematic aspects or areas8 within this complex matter. The first one concerns the fact that, according to Raisanen, many interpreters are influenced by a caricature of Judaism. He proposes to correct this distorted view of ludaism. The second one concerns the question of whether this caricature can be found in Paul himself. Raisanen thinks that this is not the case. The third problematic area in connection with this antithesis is that, according to Raisanen, in spite of the fact that Paul's statements about ludaism do not lead, if properly interpreted, to the above caricature of ludaism, Paul himself has given an incorrect representation or even a caricature of Judaism regarding the function of the Torah. 6 Paul J 63-4. 7 I mention tbe following articles in particular: (1) 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem'; this article is not included in the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah, but in the collection The Torah and Christ. (2) "'Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on I Clement'; this article is a translation of "'Werkgerechtigkeit" - eine "frGbkatbolische" Lehre? Oberlegungen zum 1. Klemensbrief (included in The Torah and Christ). (3) 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law'. (4) 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law'; there are many similarities between this article and 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law'. (5) 'Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels Bund'; as far as I can see, there is no English translation of this article. (6) 'Freedom from the law in early Christianity'; this article is a translation of 'Freiheit vom Gesetz im Urchristentum'. • I intentionally speak not merely about 'aspects', but about 'areas', because even though interpreters ask questions with respect to one problem (Paul's antithesis), there can be detected several 'areas' within this one problem, while every single 'area' has several inherent problems in it.

The Antithesis between Works ofLaw and Faith in Christ

51

The fourth area concerns Riiisiinen's statement that Paul does not argue consistently about this antithesis. As already mentioned above, Raislinen refers to this set of problems at several places in his works. A first reading of his separate articles does not instantly provide clarity about the whole complex of questions regarding this antithesis. Indeed, Riiisiinen himself also admits that this subject matter is rather complex. "On the whole, Chapter V was by far the most difficult one in the whole book to write".9 If Riiisiinen himself finds it difficult to describe this complex subject matter properly, it will be at least equally difficult to describe his view of this antithesis. Yet, if we keep in mind the four problematic areas mentioned above, the description of Riiisanen's view can be elucidated. Before looking at these four problematic areas, we first have to ask ourselves the question in which context Riiisanen places the set of problems regarding this antithesis, because at first sight it seems that this antithesis has nothing to do with the inconsistencies described in chapter 2 of this study. Yet there is a certain relationship between them. In an important footnote in Paul and the Law, Raisanen expresses his view of the relationship between the chapter on the set of problems regarding Paul's antithesis (chapter 5 of Paul and the Law) and the inconsistencies. He says about this chapter: It is not the basis of the other chapters, either. In fact, it is of less significance for my

understanding of Paul's 'theological difficulties' with the law than are chapters I-IV. These chapters deal with problems immanent in Paul's view. Chapter V tries to isolate a different kind of problem: a problematic presupposilion lO in Paul's argument. Should I have erred regarding this problem, my overall argument would have to take only a slightly different shape: in that case Paul replaced, in his conversion, his normal Jewish 'by works' soteriology with a different view of salvation. This 'change of systems' then led him to think through the nature and purpose of the law. But he could not go through this process of thought without getting caught in inconsistencies, contradictions and problematic assertions (above all regarding the connection between law and sin).lI

In 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law', Riiisiinen again repeats this view almost literally.12 He thus labels the set of problems regarding Paul's antithesis as a "presupposition". Section 4.2.1 will clarify the precise meaning of this "presupposition". The relation between the set of problems regarding Paul's antithesis and the inconsistencies as described in chapter 2 will be more fully clarified when the third Paul xxvIII note 70. My italics. 11 Paul xxvlll note 70. 12 'Experience' 33.

9

10

52

Chapter 4

problematic area is described (Paul gives, according to Riiisiinen, an incorrect representation or even a caricature of Judaism regarding the function of the Torah). 13 4.2.1 Caricature of Judaism According to Raisanen, many Christian exegetes who interpret Paul's antithesis give a caricature of Judaism at the time of Paul. In Riilsanen's view, this caricature has converted Judaism into a kind of religion-ofmerits. 14 Influenced by W. Bousset and F. Weber, Bultmann15 in particular strongly emphasizes this caricature within New Testament scholarship. In a few words, Raisanen outlines Bultmann's view as follows: [Bultmannl understands Jewish Torah piety as an individual expression of the innate human desire to show off (Gellungsbedilrfnis), which drives man to accomplish works, whether beneficial or absurd. The Jew tried to earn God's acceptance. The attempt to become righteous by obeying the law is an expression of man's need to boast. l6

One of the central verses on which Bultmann bases his view is, according to Raisanen, Rom 4:4-5. Riiisiinen says that many interpreters, on the Jewish side as well as on the Christian side, make an attempt to correct this caricature l7 of Judaism. l8 Already at the beginning of this century, G.F. Moore l9 stated that Judaism did not teach legalistic doctrines. Also at the beginning of the seventies, M. Limbeck20 exculpated Judaism from legalism. In Limbeck's view, the Torah functioned mainly within the framework of creation, and within Judaism the Torah was an expression of God's undeserved benevolence. Observance of the Torah was not understood as a sort of legalism, but merely as a response to God's benevolence. In this connection, we must, of course, also mention E.P. Sanders. With his Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders has had a very profound influence on subsequent New Testament scholarship. In the same way as Limb eck, 13 See section 4.2.3. 14 "Interpreting this central antithesis set forth by Paul, Christian exegetes have (from the late 19th century on) developed a desolate picture of 'late Judaism'. It is held that the Jewish religion, against which Paul reacted, was characterised by a formal, mechanical and anthropocentric piety, an arrogant counting of one's merits, etc.", Paul 164. 1S See his Theologie des Neuen Testaments 239ff. \6 Paul 165. 17 See Paul 165. 18 "It is more and more realized how distorted the standard picture is", Paul 165. 19 See his 'Christian Writers on Judaism', HTR 14 (1921) 197-254. 20 See his Von der Ohnmacht des Rechts. Untersllchungen zur Gesetzeskrilik des Nellen Testaments. But see also his Die Ordnung des Heils. Untersuchungen zum Gesetzesversltindnis des Frilhjudentums.

The Antithesis between Works of Law and Faith in Christ

53

Sanders also argues that Judaism has nothing to do with legalism. Sanders differs with Lirnbeck, however, in not placing the Torah within the framework of creation, but within the framework of the covenant. When we try to describe Raisanen's work, especially Paul's alleged inconsistencies regarding the law, we should not bypass Sanders' work, since it is one of the most important characteristics of Raisanen's work that he agrees with and accepts in almost every respect Sanders' interpretation of Judaism. 21 Although E.P. Sanders' view of Judaism is well-known within New Testament research, an excursus on the work of E.P. Sanders will be offered here, because his work has had a very profound influence on Raisanen. Moreover, this excursus is also a necessary preparation for section 4.2.3. Excursus: E.P. Sanders In his Paul and Palestinian .Iudaism, Sanders studies a variety of Jewish Iiterature. 22 The subtitle of his volume is: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Sanders tries accurately to trace 'the pattern' of ludaism in Paul's day. Sanders characterizes 'the pattern' of ludaism by the term 'covenantal nomism'. We let Sanders speak for himself as much as possible. The all-pervasive view can be summarized in the phrase 'covenantal nomism'. Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression. 23 At another place, Sanders explains more clearly the components of this 'covenantal nomism'.

The 'pattern' or 'structure' of covenantal nom ism is this: (I) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God's promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God's mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God's mercy rather than human achievement. 24 The basis or the reason of the Jew's salvation is the covenant itself ('covenantal nomism') which God has established with the Jews; the law ('covenantal nomism') has a function within this covenant. Judaism has thus nothing to do with legalism.

21 uI join the ranks of those who reject the traditional Christian understanding of the Jewish religion as anthropocentric legalism", Paul xxvi; it appears from the context that Raislinen is thinking of Sanders. 12 See also his Judaism. Practice and Belief London 1992. 23 Paul and Palestinian Judaism 75. ,. Paul and Palestinian Judaism 422.

54

Chapter 4

On pages 180-182 of Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders gives some important remarks in his summary. We again let him speak for himself. After studying much Jewish literature, he says: The pattern is this: God has chosen Israel and Israel has accepted the election. In his role as King, God gave Israel commandments which they are to obey as best they can. Obedience is rewarded and disobedience punished. In case of failure to obey, however, man has recourse to divinely ordained means of atonement, in all of which repentance is required. As long as he maintains his desire to stay in the covenant, he has a share in God's covenantal promises, including life in the world to come. The intention and effort to be obedient constitute the condition for remaining in the covenant, but they do not earn it. 2S In connection with the caricature of Judaism, Sanders tries to penetrate into the essence of the matter. Only by overlooking this large pattern can the Rabbis be made to appear as legalists in the narrow and pejorative sense of the word. Their legalism falls within a larger context of gracious election and assured salvation. In discussing disobedience and obedience, punishment and reward, they were not dealing with how man is saved, but with how man should act and how God will act within the framework of the covenant. Within that framework, they were determined to understand and obey God's commands as best they could, but they did not think that they earned their place in the covenant by the number of milsvot fulfilled. Nor did they think that the transgression of more commandments than were fulfilled would damn them. They may have made such statements, as they could also say that transgression of one commandment would damn, but homiletical exhortation should not be confused with basic belief. As long as a man intended to remain in the covenant, and indicated his intention by true repentance, God did not reckon the precise number of commandments fulfilled or transgressed. If God judged strictly, no man would live. Not even the patriarchs could stand God's reproof if he judged them strictly.2 6 Sanders continues: The failure to understand the relationship between the framework of covenantal election and assured atonement on the one hand, and the intra-covenantal reliability of God to reward and punish on the other, has led to the complete misunderstanding of the essentials of Rabbinic religion. 27 According to Sanders, even Billerbeck has misunderstood Judaism. But with regard to Judaism, do expressions like 'merits' and 'punishment' appear out of tbin air? Sanders sheds some light on this issue: The statements of reward and punishment, on the other hand, do not indicate how one earns salvation. Their opposite would not be that God is merciful and saves, but that there is no correspondence between God's rewards and man's behaviour: that God is arbitrary. If it appears that within this world God is not being just, one may rest assured that justice will be done in the world to come. The Israelite in the covenant will be punished for transgressions - by suffering, by death and even after death if necessary - but he is saved by remaining in the covenant given by God ... Mercy and

25 26 27

Paul and Palestinian Judaism 180. Paul and Palestinian Judaism 180-1. Paul and Palestinian Judaism 181.

The Antithesis between Works ofLaw and Faith in Christ

55

justice are not truly in conflict, nor is strict reward and punishment for deeds an alternative soteriology to election and atonement 28 Sanders has also compared different 'patterns' of Judaism with those of Paul. Here, however, there is also a major shift; for to be righteous in Jewish literature means to obey the Torah and to repent of transgression, but in Paul it means to be saved by Christ. Most succinctly, righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is a transfer term. In Judaism, that is, commitment to the covenant puts one 'in', while obedience (righteousness) subsequently keeps one in. In Paul's usage, 'be made righteous' ('be justified') is a term indicating getting in, not staying in the body of the saved. Thus when Paul says that one cannot be made righteous by works of law, he means that one cannot, by works of law, 'transfer to the body of the saved'. When Judaism said that one is righteous who obeys the law, the meaning is that one thereby stays in the covenant. The debate about righteousness by faith or by works of law thus turns out to result from the different usage of the 'righteous' word-group.29 Two conclusions with reference to this excursus Two conclusions with reference to Sanders' research are of interest for this study. (l) According to Sanders, Judaism has nothing to do with any kind of legalism - that would be a mere caricature of Judaism. (2) Not the Torah, but the covenant (along with election and grace) has a soteriological function within Iudaism.

Sanders has, as may be expected, evoked many criticisms. He has studied, for instance, only later Jewish documents.3D Riiisanen disagrees with this criticism, for the so-called 'covenantal nomism' can also be found, for instance, in the Old Testament and in Qumran. 31 Discussing criticisms of Sanders, Rltisanen mentions J. Neusner in particular who has criticized Sanders by stating that he (Sanders) has oversimplified the issue by arguing that the term 'covenantal nomism' is a characterization of the 'pattern' of Judaism. 32 Rltisanen, however, prefers to use the term 'common denominator' of the different expressions of ludaism instead of using the term 'pattern'. Neusner at a later stage, however, characterized Judaism by the same term 'covenantal nomism', whereby he toned down his earlier criticism of Sanders. 33 Considering all the criticisms of Sanders, Rltisanen believes that it is legitimate to accept the essence of Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism 182. Paul and Palestinian Judaism 544. '0 See Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel 347ff. " See Paul xxvII note 65. J2 Rais~nen refers to, e.g., J. Neusner, 'Comparing Judaisms', HR 18 (1978) 177-91, and to Sanders' response to this: 'Puzzling out Rabbinic Judaism', in: W.S. Green (Ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism 1I. Chico 1980, 65-79. See 'Experience' 38 note I. However, Neusner concedes that Sanders' study of Judaism in Paul's time relating to the law is "a complete success". See Neusner, 'Comparing ludaisms' 180. J3 See 'Experience' 38-9. 18

29

Chapter 4

56

research. "It is more than enough for me, if I can build on what Neusner and Sanders agree on".34 On the basis of several articles by Raisanen, it will be demonstrated that Raisanen has indeed adopted the new perspective on Judaism as described by Sanders. A number of articles will be mentioned here (in the order of their publication). Firstly, the article 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem' is of interest. 3s With reference to the relation between law and covenant, . Raisiinen says in this article the same things as Sanders. "By obeying the law, man showed his willingness to stay within the covenant, but did not 'get' in by fulfilling the legal requirements".36 The law merely functions as an imperative based on the indicative of God's deeds. Salvation is never viewed as a human achievement, but always depends on God's grace. Although IV Ezra is, according to Sanders, an exception to this idea37 , for Raisanen IV Ezra also can be regarded as an example of the so-called 'covenantal nomism'.38 The representation of Judaism in Lk 18:9-14 (with reference to the Pharisee) is also viewed as a "characteristic caricature" by R§isiinen. 39 Secondly, it also appears from the article "'Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on 1 Clement' that Raisanen entirely follows Sanders' view of Judaism. Gradually Christian exegesis is beginning to learn that Judaism neither represented nor represents an anthropocentric piety through merit ... Rather, what was characteristic was the requirement of absolute obedience, which represented the human answer to a divine initiative. One kept the law not primarily to collect merit, but because it expressed the holy will of God. 4o

Paul xxvlll. This article was published for the first time in 1980, and later again in 1986 (in the collection The Torah and Christ). 36 'Legalism' 29-30. 37 See Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism 421-2. 3' During the first publication of 'Legalism' in 1980, Raisanen did not yet hold this view. During the second pUblication of this article, however, he did (see 'Legalism' 27; with respect to this specifiC aspect, RlIisanen has not rewritten the rest of this article so that it seems that elsewhere in this second (1) publication he still accepts this exception). In his view, thus, there does not exist a single exception within Judaism any more, and all Jewish documents written approximately in Paul's day, can be characterized by the well-known term as introduced by Sanders. 39 "It is less often realized that the Pharisee in Luke 18 represents a 'characteristic caricature' rather than a characteristic product of the Jewish religion ... ", 'Legalism' 31 note 2. oIn 'Righteousness' 217-8. 34

35

The Antithesis between Works a/Law and Faith in Christ

57

The terminology of righteousness is used within Judaism in an ethical way: ... one should show oneself to be righteous in one's behaviour ... Salvation ... does not depend on one's righteousness, but on one's divine election, or more generally on God's gracious dealings with a person, irrespective of whether one derived this priority of God's from the covenant41 or from the idea of creation42 . People whom God has graciously accepted must show themselves to be 'righteous'; on the other hand, one cannot obtain salvation for oneself by doing more good works than bad works. 'Righteousness', ethical righteousness, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for obtaining the eschatological salvation of the future. All this should really have been clear at least since G.F. Moore; it has now at last sunk into our consciousness thanks to the work of Meinrad Limbeck, E.P. Sanders and many others. 43

Thirdly, the article 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law' is of interest. In chapter 5 of this study, this article will be discussed at length. At this point, it is relevant merely to mention that Raisanen offers an exegesis of Phil 3:9 which flies in the face of the commonly accepted interpretation of this verse. 44 Raisanen argues that this verse does not deal with the contrast between, on the one hand, the alleged teaching of Judaism (Paul before his Damascus Road experience) that man is justified by his own merits, and, on the other hand, the alleged teaching of Christianity (Paul after his Damascus Road experience) that man is justified by grace alone. In Raisanen's view, this verse deals with the contrast between, on the one hand, righteousness in connection with God's covenant with Israel (,covenantal nomism'), and, on the other hand, righteousness in connection with the Christ event. This exegesis is, of course, determined by Ra.isanen's view of Judaism, and again, it is clear that he follows Sanders' view. With reference to Phil3:9, Raisanen admits that circumcision and observance of the law constituted an essential part within Jewish soteriology. "This does not mean, however, that Judaism was a religion of 'justification by works' in the sense of human-centred legalism".45 Finally, the article 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law' is important. Again with reference to Phi! 3:9, Raisanen says that his exegesis has everything to do with his view of Judaism. I join the ranks of those who doubt the assertion that post-Biblical ludaism was a man-centred achievement religion which invited its adherents to earn the favour of God by doing meritorious works of the law ... An average Jew observed the law 41

42 43

4·1 45

Sanders. Limbeck. 'Righteousness' 218. See chapter 5. 'Experience' 34.

58

Chapter 4 because he held it to embody God's will. As part of a larger scheme this observance did have 'soteriological' significance, to use a Christian term not quite satisfactory in this connection. But observance of the law can hardly be said to have been the ground ofIsrael's salvation. It was man's response to what God had done. 46

The conclusion can be drawn that Riiisanen entirely adopts the insights of Sanders regarding the view of Judaism in Paul's day.47 Judaism represented as a kind of legalism is, for Riiisanen, beyond all doubt a vicious caricature. 48 Criticism of Rdisdnen 's acceptance of Sanders' view In the Preface to Paul and the Law, Riiisiinen says that he joins all those scholars who reject the "traditional Christian understanding of the Jewish religion as anthropocentric legalism".49 This decision by Riiisanen has been criticized especially by Seyoon Kim.50 Of course, Riiisiinen rejects this criticism. Yet, when we try to follow this discussion between Kim and Ruisiinen - though it is not so easy to find out what they both mean - there emerges, in my opinion, a complex confusion of tongues. In the words of Riiisiinen himself, Kim's criticism runs as follows: "One critic Sl regards this decision 52 as 'a product of sheer hybris', for I am (in his opinion) claiming that I know 'the Judaism of Paul's day better than Paul himself".53 In the first part of this study, there will not yet be any comments on Kim's criticism of Riiisiinen. However, since in this part we are concerned with Raisanen's thoughts on the question of whether Judaism displays a kind of legalism, we can say that Kim's criticism is, in any case at this point, out of place, because concerning this specific question, Raisiinen does not allege that Paul has deliberately given a distorted picture of Judaism. As will appear from section 4.2.2, there is, according to Riiisiinen, no basis in Paul to interpret Judaism in the same way as, for instance, Bultmann did. Therefore, Riiisanen can respond to Kim's criticism as follows: 'Conversion' 411. Also 'Theme' 266-7 demonstrates the same. u... the notion of it as perverted anthropocentric legalism turns out to be a vicious caricature", Paul 168. 49 Paul xxvI. nd 50 See S. Kim, The Origin of Pall/'s Gospel. Ttibingen 1984 (2 Edition) 345-58. Compare also section 5.4. 51 Read: Kim. 52 Here Raisl!nen's acceptance of Sanders' view of Judaism is meant. 53 Paul xxv!. See Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel 347. H. Weder also says that Rtlisanen accuses Paul ofuschlichte Unkenntnis desjtidischen Glaubens". See H. Wed er, 'Gesetz und Stinde. Gedanken zu einem qualitativen Sprung im Denken des Paulus', NTS 31 (1985) 359,372 note 7. 46

47 48

The Antithesis between Works of Law and Faith in Christ

59

But the question is not one of Paul's knowledge. The question is whether Paul, writing in a conflict setting, does justice to the fonn of piety he has given up. If he did, he might well be a unique person in the religious history of mankind 54 The concept of cognitive dissonance is pertinent here. Of course I never intended to suggest that Paul deliberately distorted Judaism. 55

4.2.2 The caricature cannot justifiably be traced back to Paul Is the caricature as pointed out above indeed to be found in Paul, or is this caricature merely the result of a wrong interpretation of Paul? This question can be put in another way: is Paul's critical attitude to the Torah rooted in anthropology or in Christology? In the former case the trouble with the law is that in his attempt to fulfil it, man goes astray in the direction of boasting and arrogance. The most prominent advocate of this interpretation is, of course, Bultmann. In the latter case the fault with the law is that the unbelieving Jews prefer it to Christ, putting the Torah in the place that God has reserved for Christ. 56

Bultmann bases his interpretation of Paul as mentioned above on a number of texts, namely: Rom 3:27; 4:2ff; 7:7ff; 10:2-3, and Phil 3:4ff. In Paul and the Law S7 as well as in 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem '58, Raisanen discusses these texts, and subsequently, he demonstrates that one does not have to follow Bultmann's view, since these verses do not concern a boasting about oneself in the sense of a characteristic human attitude. Similarly, according to Raisanen, a verse such as 1 Cor 1:29 has always been emphasized too much. In this verse, the warning against boasting about oneself has a paraenetic function rather than a soteriological function (the Corinthian Christians are not to boast about teachers, such as Apollos, at the expense of Paul). 59 It also strikes Raisanen that Bultmann does not include the letter to the Galatians in his interpretation. Bultmann has, however, to exclude this letter, since, for Raisanen, a conflict with the Jews who try to earn salvation by their own merits (caricature!) does not occur in this letter. Instead, we find in this letter Paul's well-known conflict with the Jews l4 In the article 'Experience', R!!is!!nen has a somewhat different sentence instead of this sentence, namely: "He would probably be a unique reformer in religious history ifhe did full justice to the surrendered form of life", see 'Experience' 33. My italics. 55 Paul xxvi-xxviI. l6 Paul 168-9. 57 Paul 169-77. 58 'Legalism' 33-7. 59 " .•• the warning of boasting has a paraenetic or communal rather than soteriological function; this is also true of Rom 11.17 f. The warning of boasting is not offered as a theme of missionary preaching, but as an attempt to solve concrete problems concerning communal life in the church", Paul 173.

60

Chapfer4

precisely as a result of the fact that there are people among the Galatians who have rejected Christ. In this connection, Raisanen stresses emphatically Gal 2:21. In the letter to the Galatians, the choice is between the law and Christ, and thus not, according to Raislinen, between selfachievement and faith.6o . Further, it also strikes Raisanen that Paul talks negatively about the law only within the context of the Gentiles. When discussing those texts on which Bultmann tries to base his view, Raisanen concedes that Rom 4:4-5 indeed seems to be a passage which supports a view like that of Bultmann. But, as Raisanen asserts, in Rom 4:4-5, Paul merely wants to say that salvation is not only for the Jew, but also for the Gentile. 61 Raisanen is, however, willing to concede (towards Bultmann) that there is in Rom 4:45, though only to some extent, a representation of Judaism in the sense of a kind of legalism (see below). All in all, 'boasting' cannot be construed as the true Pauline antithesis to faith in Christ. The Jews' establishment of their own righteousness (Rom 10.3) is, in the light of the context, identical with their rejection a/Christ. God has made Christ the only true way to salvation, but Israel stubbornly insists on an antiquated (or simply wrong?) system, that of the law. There is no talk of relying on one's own merits, still less of boasting of one's works. The Jews just do not understand CliyvooGvrec;, v. 2) that a new age has begun, or that in the light of the Christ-event the old system has shown itself as false. 62

Rom 9:32 and Rom 10:3 also concern a rejection of Christ. "Once again, the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God is the real point Paul wants to make".63 In summary: for Paul, the Jews err in imagining that they can be saved by keeping the law rather than by believing in Christ. The root of evil lies in a Christological failure, not in an anthropological one. 64 It may be too much to exclude all overtones of the

60 "The issue is: either the law or Christ, not: either boasting or faith", Paul 169. 61 "In the context there are indeed clear hints to the fact that it is the problem of the relation between Jews and Gentiles that stands behind this whole discussion ." Instead of setting forth a purely dogmatic thesis about justification, Paul is arguing all the time for the inclusion of the Gentiles", Paul 171-2. See also 'Legalism' 35-6. 62 Paul 174. 63 Paul 175. 601 Contra Bultmann.

The Antithesis between Works ofLaw and Faith in Christ

61

idea of anthropocentric legalism 65 e.g. in Rom 4.4 66 . Paul may have seen some tendency toward smugness and self-righteousness in the Jewish way. But if so, this was a by-product, not the underlying error. It is striking how often the polemics against law as the way to salvation are found in a context where the question of the inclusion of the Gentiles is the most important problem (Gal 2-3, Rom 3-4, Rom 910). It is above all in this connection that Paul underscores that faith in Christ is the only 'prerequisite' for man's salvation. Even for the Gentiles, who cannot produce the works required by the law, the way to salvation has been opened by God: faith in Christ is enough. In the light of the above discussion it is easy to decide what Paul means by 'works of the law' (Gal 2.15 f., 3.2-5, 3.10-12 etc.). The reference is not to 'self-chosen' works accomplished with the purpose of acquiring a reason for boasting. The 'works of law' are simply the works demanded by the Torah. They are the works which, if demanded of the Gentiles, would actually exclude them from the union with Christ. 67

The conclusion is that Paul does not make a caricature of Judaism as a kind of legalism. If one nevertheless makes such a caricature (Bultmann), then this is due to a wrong interpretation of Paul. Only Rom 4:4-5 could possibly lead to such a caricature. Paul characterizes Judaism in his day in the same way as Sanders describes it. According to Paul, the fault of Judaism is not that it has degenerated into a kind of anthropocentric legalism, but that it rejects Christ. 68 6S R1!is1!nen also asserts the same in 'Legalism'. In this article, however, he still talks about the (heuristic) distinction between 'hard legalism' and 'soft legalism'. By 'hard legalism' Rfiistlnen means an anthropocentric legalism (in the sense of Bultmann), and by 'soft legalism' the so-called 'covenantal nomism' (in the sense of Sanders). In Paul, Rliislinen drops this distinction, because he can scarcely still make a distinction between 'soft legalism' and 'covenantal nomism'. While still using in 'Legalism' the term 'hard legalism', in Paul, he talks about 'anthropocentric legalism' (see quotation in the text). Compare 'Legalism' 37. 66 His exegesis of Rom 4:4-5, as given in Paul, has been somewhat adjusted and corrected at a later stage. On second thoughts Raislinen is willing to admit that Rom 4:45 can be more convincingly interpreted in Bultmann's way than he previously admitted in Paul. In Rom 4:4-5, there are indeed some hints of the fact that Paul regards Judaism as a kind of legalism. In his Preface to Paul, Rliisanen writes: "Perhaps one should distinguish here more clearly than I - and others - have done between then (this has to be, of course, 'the', T.E.v.S.) 'target' of Paul's argument (he argues 'against privileged status') and the way he actually conducts his argument (alluding to a 'by works' soteriology on the part of the Jews and Judaizers). The latter aspect is too prominent to be totally excluded. In this regard my discussion ... is somewhat one-sidedly oriented to the 'target' of Paul's argument ... and should be modified", Paul xxvIII. See also 'Experience' 37. The aspect of legalism is not completely absent in Rom 4:4-5. "For this reason I have spoken of Paul's (unconscious) distortion of the Jewish (and Jewish Christian) stance", 'Experience' 37. 67 Paul \76-7. 68 "In summary. it seems to me that Paul's attack on the Jewish way is based on a vision of it as 'soft' legalism. The Jews err in imagining that they can be saved by keeping the law rather than believing in Christ; the root of the evil lies in a christological failure, not in an anthropological one", 'Legalism' 37. Compare Paul 176.

62

Chapter 4

4.2.3 Paul still gives a caricature oJ Judaism Riiisilnen is at first sight not so clear concerning the answer to the question of whether Paul indeed gives a caricature of Judaism. As described in the previous section, in Raisanen's view Paul does not give a caricature. Yet, and this is perhaps confusing, Paul does give a caricature in another way. Raisanen asserts that Paul does not properly represent JUdaism as Jar as the Junction oJ the Torah is concerned. We have rejected the notion that, for Paul, Jewish Torah-piety was an expression of human pride, or that he thought of the Jewish religion as dead formalism. 69 It was not for that reason that Paul attacked the law. He attacked it, however. as the Jewish gateway70 to righteousness. 71

Paul thus made of the law a kind of 'rival', namely a 'rival' to Christ. Or, more accurately: Paul has ascribed a saterialagicalJunctian to the law. Paul ascribes saving value to the works of the law within the Jewish system .. ' He attributes to the law in the old system a place analogous to that taken by Christ in the new order of things. One has to choose between God's grace in Christ and the Torah. Only one of the two can be the true way to eschatological salvation. To opt for grace means automatically to opt against the law. 72

At this point it appears, according to Raisanen, that Paul gives a caricature of Judaism, because within Judaism itself such a soteriological function was never ascribed to the law. Precisely this, however, is the problem: Did the Jews really look for 'righteousness' (in anything like the Pauline sense of the word) in the Torah? Here the answer must be a clear 'No,.?3

Therefore, "He 74 comes to misrepresent Judaism by suggesting that, within it, salvation is by works and the Torah plays a role analogous to that of Christ in PauJinism".75 Here we can refer to the excursus on E.P. Sanders.76 He argues that obedience to the law was never regarded within ludaism as a means of obtaining salvation, but merely as the means Jor staying within the covenant. Again, it is striking that Riiisanen follows Sanders also with regard to this last aspect. Actually, the law should not be called (from the Jewish point of view) a 'way of salvation' at all - at least not ifby such an expression is meant something comparable See section 4.2.2. My italics. Paul 177. 72 Paul 178. 73 Paul 178. 74 Read: Paul. 75 Paul 188. 76 See section 4.2.1. 69

70 71

The Antithesis between Works ofLaw and Faith in Christ

63

to the place taken by Christ in the Christian tradition. Salvation was understood as God's act .. , In the jargon ofNT scholarship one might say that the law had the status of the' imperative' which was based on the 'indicative' of God's prevenient gracious acting.7 7

To play law and grace off against each other is nothing less than a distortion of Judaism. Riiisiinen uses Sanders' words, saying: By obeying the law, man showed his willingness to stay within the covenant established by God, but he did not 'get in' by fulfilling the legal requirements. 'Righteousness' is, in Judaism, 'a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect', whereas it is a 'tranfer term' (to be righteous meaning 'to be saved by Christ') in Paul.1 8

Riiisiinen also emphasizes that Paul does not pay any attention to the fact7 9 that there is also the idea of repentance within Judaism: when a Jew committed a breach of the law, he could obtain forgiveness by showing repentance. Background: the incorporation of Gentiles into the Church

Discussing this complex matter, Riiisiinen tries to carry his study a step further by asking for the background to the fact that Paul has made the law and grace each other's rivals. The ultimate reason of Paul's sola gratia is, for Riiisiinen, a practical problem, namely the incorporation of the Gentiles into the Church. so In 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law' as well as in 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law', Riiisiinen gives some further clarification. The so-called 'Judaizers' thought that circumcision was a necessary requirement for the Gentiles who were converted to Christianity. From the Gentiles' point of view, this requirement could very easily be interpreted as a kind of 'good work'. Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles pursued, of course, unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. In other words, he tried to prevent a schism between them. This endeavour contributed to the fact that Paul himself also, again from the Gentiles' point of view, termed circumcision a 'good work'. Although circumcision had a soteriological significance for the Jew only in a very limited sense, within this conflict setting Paul exaggerated circumcision's soteriological significance to a great extent. Considering the ludaizers' strict requirement, it is indeed understandable from the Gentiles' point of view that Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul 178. Paul 179. Compare E.P. Sanders, Paul and Polestinian .Judaism 544. 79 " ... totally glossed over by Paul ... ", Paul 179. This problem has already been mentioned in section J .1.1 (under the third item after mentioning the inconsistencies). 80 "Where this problem is absent (as in I Thess), there is no polemic against works of the law either", Pall I 187. 77

78

64

Chaprer4

took this issue very seriously - far too seriously, however, by connecting circumcision with soteriology. This conflict setting is thus the cause of Paul's antithesis between law and grace. With reference to this conflict setting, Raisanen says: This opened the way for contrasting Judaism (including observant Jewish Christianity) and law-free Christianity in such a manner that the former appears whether or not that was Paul's intention - as a religion of works, and the latter as the religion of grace. 81

In sum, the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ originated because "Paul writes in a conflict setting". 82 The conclusion, then, is hard to avoid that Paul tears apart, not without violence, what belonged together in 'genuine' Judaism. It is he who drives a wedge between law and grace, limiting 'grace' to the Christ event. 83 He pays no attention to the central place of God's free pardon to the penitent and the role thus accorded to

'1 'Experience' 35. Similarly in 'Conversion' 411: "This opened the way for contrasting Judaism and the new faith in such a manner that the former app'ears as a religion of works and achievements and the latter as a religion of grace, a contrast that does less than justice to actual Judaism". 82 'Conversion' 411. Here we already find the relation between chapter 4 and chapter 5 of this study. In chapter 4, we have listened to Rllis!lnen concerning the conflict between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. In chapter 5, we listen to a possible historical 'setting' within which this conflict could have originated. The hypothesis as described in chapter 5 is thus not only a possible historical explanation for the many inconsistencies in Paul (chapter 2), but also a possible historical explanation for Paul's caricature of Judaism (a caricature concerning the function of the Torah within Judaism in Paul's day). 83 There is just one point on which Raisilnen does not follow Sanders. Sanders argues that Paul did not want to create an antithesis between law and grace. According to Sanders, Paul did not want to represent Judaism as a religion of merits in order to create in this way a contrast with Christianity as a religion of grace, In Sanders' view, it was Paul's mere intention to oppose two different ways of life: one based on God's covenant with Israel, and the other one based on Christ. If this view is correct, which Rilislinen denies, then there would be no reason to speak of a 'distortion' of Judaism by Paul. In that case, Paul could only be blamed for not having clearly communicated his message. Yet, according to Rltisanen, we get the impression that Paul quite often speaks about Christianity as the only religion of grace (in contradiction to Judaism). Rom 4:4-5 reinforces such an impression (see also Paul 162-4). Compare also 'Experience' 35 and 'Conversion' 411-2. "." Paul does surround the contrast with emotive overtones that suggest some deep qualitative difference as well, above all by limiting all talk of God's grace ... to the Christian side of the contrast. It is very difficult to avoid the impression that Paul often speaks as if grace were limited to law-free Christianity", 'Experience' 36-7. Sanders believes that Paul really rejected 'covenantal nomism'. Rllisanen, however, asserts that Paul did not consciously reject it. "He pays, we might say, lip service to covenantal nomism". But also: "As so often, his theology has a Janus face. He points in one (covenantal) direction and goes in another (without, I think, realizing where he actually is)", Paul 188.

The Antithesis between Works ofLaw and Faith in Chrisl

65

repentance in Judaism. It should not have been possible to do away with the 'law as the way 10 salvation' for the simple reaSon that the law never was that way.84

Conclusion Paul has unjustly ascribed a soteriological function to the Torah. 8s It thus seems that, as far as Palestinian Judaism is concerned, Paul either (implicitly, at least) gives an inaccurate picture, or else bases his view on insufficient and uncharacteristic B6 evidence. 87

Relation Now that we have come to this point in our description of Raisiinen's train of thought, we are in a position to indicate the relation between this chapter and the topic of this study more clearly.88 Raisiinen himself K4 Paul 187. 85 Riiisanen mentions three texts in relation to Paul's misinterpretation that the Torah is a way to salvation (see also 'Legalism' 37-9; yet, in this artic~e, Raisllnen does not mention the example of Abraham): (I) Gal 3:2. Paul is asking: E~ epywv vOlloU ~O 1TVEii~.I.!r. Eica~ETE ~ E~ liKOnc; 1T(O~EWC;; Rliisanen regards this contrast as incorrect. Or, more precisely, this contrast presupposes that the works of the law can give the Spirit. "One would never come to the idea that observance of the law ought to be the source of spiritual gifts, as long as the law is properly viewed as the imperative resulting from the indicative of God's covenant". Consequently, Riiisiinen says: "Paul has simply concocted an ad hoc argument, based on the aprioristic view that faith and the Spirit belong together, whereas the law and the Spirit do not", Paul 189. (2) Gal 3:7. Abraham is, for Paul, an example for believers. Paul makes a distinction between Abraham along with faith in Christ on the one hand, and those who stick to the works of the law on the other hand. Yet Abraham has been circumcised. In Rom 4: 1 I, Paul has found the solution: Abraham's circumcision was a seal of righteousness by faith. But why then, Riiisanen wonders, was it prohibited for the Galatians to accept this seal? And why did Abraham, after his circumcision, not have to fulfil the whole law? See Paul 189-90. (3) In Rom 7:7-8:4, Paul assumes that the Torah is unable to provide the power to fulfil its requirements. Again, RlIisiinen asks himself: " ... why ought the law to have been the source of moral power in the first place? Why the law and not its giver? ... Paul is only able to make his charge, because he ascribes to the law an independent soteriological status which it probably never had in genuine Jewish thought", Paul 190. In Jer 31 as well as in Ezek 11 and 36, the human heart is expected to be transformed by God, but not by the law. 86 Rilisiinen rejects the views of Montefiore and Schoeps who both make a distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism ("the religion of the Dispersion"). In the latter Paul would have found, according to Montefiore and Schoeps, a kind of Judaism which ascribed a soteriological function to the law. Raisilnen believes that their theory is not very likely. He also believes that on the basis of Acts 15:1 one cannot come to the conclusion that one is concerned here with a kind of Judaism which regarded the law as a means of obtaining salvation. Acts 15 does not give us enough information in order to come to such a conclusion. See Paul 181-4 and 'Legalism' 39-44. 87

Pa1l118!.

88

Therefore, it is useful to return to this issue. See also the beginning of section 4.2.

66

Chapter 4

indicates that this chapter is "not the basis of the other chapters" (namely: the inconsistencies).89 In fact, Raisanen says that there is no direct relation between his view of the problems regarding the question of how we should interpret ludaism on the one hand, and his description of Paul's inconsistencies on the other hand. Even if Raisanen has erred concerning the whole set of problems as described in this chapter, then this would not change the inconsistencies as detected by him.9o His view of Judaism, and how Paul has to be interpreted regarding this issue, thus stands essentially alone and is described by Raisanen as an isolated problem in comparison with Paul's inconsistencies. In this sense Raisanen is justified in rejecting the criticism of his Paul and the Law that his study is based on "the traditional hypothesis of a misunderstanding".91 Raisanen also rejects the criticism that he asserted in his Paul and the Law that Paul did not understand Judaism. 92 But what then is this relation? Why does Raisanen make great efforts as well as far-reaching remarks in his chapter on Paul's antithesis? Raisanen himself says that the set of problems as described in this chapter constitutes a "problematic presupposition" regarding the inconsistencies. As far as I can see, this "problematic presupposition" is related to the theological explanation of chapter 3 above. In chapter 3, we have seen that Paul's inconsistencies can be (theologically) explained to a great extent by referring to Paul's soteriological (Christological) a priori. 93 Paul argues "backwards", from the solution to the problem. By referring 10 this same a priori Paul comes to the conclusion that the works of the law are not an adequate way to salvation. A soteriological function is thus automatically being ascribed to the works of the law, since Christ also has, of course, a soteriological fimction. This results, however, in a caricature of Judaism regarding this same aspect. Von seinern soteriologischen Axiom aus kommt Paulus darauf, dern Gesetz einen provisorischen und teilweise negativcn Zweck zuzuschreiben. Von demselben Axiom aus gelangt er auch zu einem negativen Urteil Uber die Werke, zu denen das Gesetz den Menschen verpflichtet. Er treibt zwischen der Gnade Gottes und den Werken des Menschen einen Keil, der auseinanderreiBt, was nach "normalem" jtidischem Denken immer zusammengehort hat. Wegen seiner exklusiv christozentrischen Soteriologie braucht Paulus eine Dogrnatik, aus der die menschlichen Werke gtlnzlich ausgeschlossen werden, wenn vom Heil die Rede ist. 94

See also the beginning of section 4.2. See Pau! xxvlll note 70. 91 See Pall! xxvI note 60. 92 "That Paul misunderstood the nature of (Palestinian) ludaism is not part of my thesis", Pall! xxvI note 60. 93 See section 3.2.2. 94 'Bruch' 170-1. 89 90

The Antithesis between Works ofLaw and Faith in Christ

67

Thus, if Paul had not assumed his soteriological (Chrisfological) a priori, then consequently there would not have been a problematic antithesis in Paul either. 4.2.4 Paul does not argue consistently about the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ Although Raisanen does not say it in so many words, he implies that Paul does not argue consistently about the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ, because, for Paul, the works of the law are after all very important within his theology, in spite of the fact that these works cannot be a means of obtaining salvation. Paul, too, speaks of right behaviour as necessary for salvation. The judgment will still be according to deeds (2 Cor 5.10, cf. Rom 2.1-16). This is no self-contradiction on his part. 95

Riiisiinen immediately makes a comparison with ludaism. Bearing this in mind, it would be possible to claim that Paul actually teaches salvation (or at least reward) by works! Ifwe (reasonably enough) refrain from such a claim, it might be wise not to apply it to Paul's Jewish contemporaries either. 96

Also in his article 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law', Riiisiinen argues in the same way . ... when one reads Paul's letters as a whole it becomes clear that both divine grace and human effort are emphasized ... A life in obedience is expected of a Christian no less than of a Jew. 97

In imitation of Sanders, Riiisiinen thus asserts that actually Paul does not differ from contemporary Judaism concerning .the scheme of soteriology; both Paul and Judaism emphasize both God's grace and human works. Paul, of course, merely emphasizes the Christ event as the centre of his soteriology.98 Basically, Paul is thus a Jew - a Jew, however, who has Christ in the centre of his soteriology. That is why Sanders says (and Riiisanen fully agrees with him) that the only fault of ludaism is, to use an anachronism, that it is 'not Christianity' .99

95 96

Paul 184. Pa1l1186.

'Conversion' 412. R§isanen quotes Sanders: u ... in fact on this point Paul is a perfect example of the view which is characteristic of first century Judaism ... ", Palll184 (see also note 113 of Paul 184). 99 See 'Bruch' 170. 97 98

68

Chapter 4

The conclusion is that Paul's soteriological scheme does not differ, according to Raisiinen, from contemporary Judaism. 10o

Towards a possible historical explanation 101 With reference to his assertion that there is no difference from Judaism regarding the scheme of Paul's soteriology, Raisanen says: Such observations make one wonder whether Paul really posited a sharp contrast between Jewish and Christian religion in terms of achievement vs. a gift right at the beginning. Could it not be that this contrast, for which Paul is the only spokesman in the New Testament, is a late development, somehow due to the conflicts in which Paul became engaged? 102

Riiisanen makes an attempt to find a historical framework for the origin and development of Paul's antithesis as discussed in this chapter. What could have been the possible "conflicts in which Paul became engaged"? In the next chapter, we shall listen to Riiisanen's answer to this question.

100 S. Westerholm gives an accurate representation of R!!is!!nen's view concerning this aspect by saying: "Paul's doctrine of grace differs only from the Judaism of his own distorted representation", Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 100. 101 See chapter 5. 102 'Conversion' 412.

Chapter 5

Historical Explanation for the Inconsistencies Relating to the Torah and Paul's Antithesis Raisanen tries to give a historical explanation for the ongm of many inconsistencies in Paul relating to his view of the law. It is, of course, not difficult to give a historical explanation for Paul's conservative statements on the law, since he has simply borrowed them from Iudaism. The point is, however, that a historical explanation must be given for the fact that radical statements occur in Paul along with his conservative statements. How, fOT instance, do we explain historically that Paul propagates a negative relation between law and sin? This question becomes the more urgent as Raisanen compares Paul's view with those of other New Testament writers and early Christian authors. In Paul and the Law, Raisanen repeatedly makes such comparisons, and from them concludes that the inconsistencies, as described in chapter 2 of this study, occur only in Paul. l Precisely because Paul's view of the law is so unique in comparison with other New Testament writers and early Christian authors, Raisanen exerts himself all the more to find a historical explanation for Paul's radical statements. In sections 1.2 and 3.2.1 of this study, we made a distinction between Riiisanen's theological and historical explanations, using the illustration of two concentric circles. The theological explanation, which he tries to deduce from the text itself, constitutes the inner circle around the centre (the inconsistencies), while the historical explanation constitutes the outer circle. This chapter gives a description of this outer circle. In other words, the question will be: within which historical framework (context, setting) did the inconsistencies described in chapter 2 of this study originate? It also appears that with this historical explanation Raisanen has at the same time given a possible historical explanation for the origin of the antithesis described in chapter 4 of this study. To extend our illustration: the historical explanation (chapter 5) constitutes the outer circle, the I "In sum, I am not able to find in the relevant literature any conception of the law which involves such inconsistencies or such arbitrariness as does Paul's", Paul 228.

70

Chapter 5

theological explanation (chapter 3) constitutes the inner circle, while the centre (the problems to be explained) does not only consist of the inconsistencies (chapter 2), but also of Paul's antithesis between works of law and. faith in Christ (chapter 4).

5.1 The historical explanation is a hypothesis Riiisanen emphatically states that his historical explanation is merely a hypothesis. This has at least two meanings. Firstly, the inconsistencies and Rtiistinen's historical explanation are independent of each other. That means that, if it appears that there is not even a grain of truth in his hypothesis, the inconsistencies in Paul as detected by Riiisiinen will still remain. 2 In the first part of Paul and the Law, namely chapters 1-4 (chapter 5 is on Paul's antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ), Riiisiinen enumerates and elaborates several inconsistencies, while in the second part of Paul and the Law, especially in chapter 8, he offers a possible explanation for the matters previously discussed. Yet Riiisiinen states that both parts are independent of each other. At the beginning of chapter 8, he makes the following important remark: " ... the analysis of part one in this work should not be deemed to depend on the plausibility of the solution developed here".3 The same point is made emphatically in his Introduction to Paul and the Law: The analysis in ehs. I-V does not, however, depend on the plausibility of the solution developed in ch. VIII. It is in the nature of the matter that any theory purporting to show how Paul got into the difficulties in which we find him to be must needs be conjectural. 4

The second meaning is that, if RtiisGnen's historical reconstruction appears to be incorrect, the problems (inconsistencies) in Paul remain, and in that case there must be given an alternative 5 historical explanation. 2 Raisanen also makes a similar remark in connection with the relation between the inconsistencies on the one hand and the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ on the other hand (see the beginning of section 4.2 and the end of section 4.2.3). J Paul 229. 4 Paul 14. See also 'Experience' 17. 5 In Paul 229-56, Raisanen rejects six other explanations, namely: (1) Paul's criticism of the law is the result of his personal experiences with the law. "In sum, we can safely subscribe to the now common opinion that Paul's critique of the law was not born out of any personal moral difficulties. Paul was no Luther before Luther", Paul 231. (2) According to A. Schweitzer, there was a Jewish thought that the Jaw ceases to be in the Messianic age. But, for Raisanen, such an idea is not characteristic of Rabbinic Judaism. "Such an accepted basis would have been more than welcome in Paul's argument with the Iudaizers. Instead, Paul has to develop arguments of a different kind,

Historical Explanation

71

That my attempt to solve the problem of Paul's position by way of a historical reconstruction is, to a great extent, hypothetical, it would be foolish to deny. Neither do I wish to attach too much weight to it. But no matter what one thinks of the solution, it is important to realize that there is a problem. 6

5.2 Too complex/or dialectic. Still a development

s.

Kim severely criticizes Rllisanen's hypothesis.? In his important article 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law', Rllisanen responds to this criticism. In my view we must try to distinguish two different issues in the discussion between Kim and Rllisanen. The first is that Kim argues in his Postscript to the second Edition of his dissertation The Origin 0/ Paul's Gospel that Paul's doctrine of the law (and also of the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ) was complete already during his Damascus Road experience. This implies, according to Kim, that there cannot be a development in Paul's view of the law, and that all apparent contradictions have to be explained by means of a dialectical concept. 8 The second issue is that Kim argues in the Postscript to his dissertation that Riiisanen's hypothesis, which assumes a development in Paul, is untenable for several exegetical reasons. This arguments that are both more complicated and less persuasive", Paul 239. (3) Paul took up the Old Testament idea of the new covenant (Jer 31 and Ezek 11), according to whicn the contents of the law changed. According to R!!isanen, however, these two Old Testament texts do not concern a change in the law, but a change in the human attitude towards the law. "Had Paul found in Jeremiah a confirmation of the notion that the law or parts of it were to be superseded (in whatever sense) at some point in the future, then why did he omit such a superb argument in his debates with more conservative Christians? Why did he never cite Jer 31 when arguing that Christ was the end of the law ... 7 How much simpler would it have been to start from the new situation created by the new covenant than to develop the artificial analogy about the irrevocable human OLlIe~KT) (Gal 3.15 ff.), or the marriage analogy in Rom 7.1 ff.! Paul did not derive his theology of the law from the promise of the new covenant in Jer 31 ", Paul 245. (4) Paul took up a certain tradition about Jesus. But Raisanen says that, in Gal 2:lff, we do not find any indication of the fact that a Jesus tradition influenced the decision made at the Apostolic Council. Moreover, if Paul knew Mk 7:15, then he would definitely have used it as an argument at the Apostolic Council. (5) Paul used Deut 21:23 (see Gal 3:13). According to Raisllnen, however, the basis for such a view is too small. (6) Paul adopted the views of the so-called 'Hellenists' regarding their hostility to the temple - a hostility which also implied a negative attitude to the ritual law. This explanation also is not sufficiently convincing for Rllisllnen. However, he looks for the historical explanation, as will appear, along these lines. 6 'Legalism' 53. See also 'Difficulties' 22. 7 See section 5.4. , See Kim, The Origin 0/ Paul's Gospe/356.

72

Chapter 5

second issue will be addressed later in this chapter. 9 We shall concentrate now on the starting-point of Riiisanen's hypothesis. On the basis of, for instance, the above article, this starting-point can be clearly indicated. In his discussion with Kim, Riiisanen says: "We should not resort too quickly to the easy declaration that Paul's thought is 'dialectical' rather than inconsistent" .lO Riiisanen wants to go even a step further: if we indeed have to describe Paul's view in terms of dialectic, even then this dialectic is too complex to have originated so suddenly (during Paul's Damascus Road experience).ll Theoretically, it is possible, of course, that these inconsistencies originated within one moment. l2 But even towards the end of the fifties Paul is still looking for arguments on which to base his view. Should my analysis of Paul's theological difficulties with the law be on the right track, then these very inconsistencies indicate that as late as in the fifties Paul was still looking for arguments for his peculiar view of the law; and in part, at least, the arguments are palpably tentative ... One would imagine that Paul would have found some firmer ground to stand on ifhe had reflected on the problem for twenty years! It is my contention that the theory of a theology of the law which was basically 'ready' with Paul's conversion cannot adequately explain the nature of the extant material. l3

In fact, Riiisanen thus asserts that there is indeed a development in Paul. l4 For the sake of clarity, it has to be mentioned that in this way Riiisanen does not agree with the development theory as defended, for instance, by Hubner (see also chapter 10 below). Hubner talks about a development • See section 5.4. 10 'Experience' 18. See also section 3.1.2. 11 "Even if Paul's thought on the law is viewed in terms of dialectic, it still seems too complex to have originated all at once", 'Conversion' 405. 12 Namely during Paul's Damascus Road experience. 13 Paul 256. Also partly quoted by R!lis!lnen in 'Experience' 19-20. 14 "Let me simply state the following thesis: the question involves a development which is connected with the origin and development of the Gentile mission in the community", 'Freedom' 44. "General considerations about the nature of Paul's theology of the law and the historical context of his mission suggest that that theology was not complete with his conversion", 'Conversion' 416. R!lis!lnen regularly states that W. Wrede assumes a certain development in Paul. See, e.g., 'Difficulties' 7 note 2; "Some scholars have held that Paul first adopted a more ordinary Hellenistic Jewish Christian attitude toward the law and that his attitude developed in a more radical direction only a good deal later", 'Conversion' 404, where in a footnote Raisanen refers to Wrede. Compare also 'Experience' 16,45 under item 2 (of "a wide spectrum of possibilities"), and 47, and also Paul 11-2. Indeed, Wrede argues that Paul's view was not complete within a very short period of time, but that there was a development in Paul. "Athene sprang gewappnet in voller Kraft aus dem Haupte des Zeus hervor. So ist die Theologie des Paulus nicht entstanden. Sie ist gewachsen und geworden, und wir begreifen sie wie alles Geschichtliche nur in dem Ma[le wirklich, als wir in ihr Werden hineinsehen", Paulus 79 (also partly quoted by R!lis:lnen in 'Experience' 47 and 'Conversion' 416). See also W. Wrede, Paulus 72-3 and 82-4. See also chapter 9 below.

Historical Explanation

73

from one letter to the other. Raisanen, however, says that if we assume, like HUbner, a consistent development from one letter to the other, then the letters themselves would have displayed an internal consistency. Yet, in Raisanen's view, there is no such internal consistency. He believes that the problem is even more complex: .,. old and new arguments often stand side by side in Paul's writings. He develops new arguments, but this does not result in his discarding all the older ones. If Paul is, even in the fifties, in search of arguments, then tensions are just what might be expected. 15

In brief, Raisanen also assumes a certain development in Paul, but only in the sense that previous arguments have not been substituted by later arguments. So, the question now is this: within which historical context would such a development in Paul fit?

5.3 Development in Paul: contact with the Hellenists; experiences during his missionary work, and his conflict with the Judaizers

To give a clear description of Raisanen's hypothesis 16 we have to distinguish two stages within it: (1) Raisanen emphatically stresses Paul's contact with the Hellenists in Antioch, and their influence on Paul's missionary view. According to Raisanen, these Hellenists had previously been persecuted by Paul. But after his Damascus Road experience, Paul joined these same Hellenists, and, on their behalf, he became a missionary among the Gentiles. As a result, during his missionary work, Paul must have been influenced by the theology of these Hellenists. 17 Hence, Raisanen pays a lot of attention to them. (2) Subsequently, R1lisanen thinks that Paul's later conflicts with the conservative Jewish Christians constitute an important turning point which has to be considered thoroughly in order to be able to give a historical explanation for his inconsistent view of the law. Here we have to think especially of the Apostolic Council (Acts 15) and Gal 2:8ff. Let us take a detailed look at these two stages within Paul's development during his missionary work. 15 'Experience' 20. 16 See Paul 256-63 and the article 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem' (especially sections 6 and 7). Compare also 'Difficulties' 21-3. 17 "He built his individual theology, for example his particular ideas about justification and the law, on foundations laid by the Hellenists", 'Hellenists' 150.

74

Chapter 5

5.3.1 The Hellenists Raisiinen first connects his hypothesis with the Hellenists in Antioch in his article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law'. Of course, we come across the same hypothesis again in his most important work Paul and the Law. In Paul and the Law, however, Riiisanen gives little information on these Hellenists. After the publication of Paul and the Law, he intensively studied these Hellenists, and the results of these studies have been published in several articles. 'The "Hellenists": A Bridge between Jesus and Paul?' is a very important article concerning the Hellenists' doctrine. ls As already indicated by the title, in this article Riiisiinen tries to answer the question of whether there is a possible connection between the Hellenists, Jesus, and Paul. In other words, could Paul have received some substantial Jesus sayings through the group of the Hellenists whom he had joined? Riiisiinen focuses his attention, of course, on those Jesus sayings which are significantly similar to Paul's own radical statements. In other words, could a historical explanation for Paul's radical statements be that he has taken up some law-critical sayings of Jesus through the Hellenists? Already in Paul and the Law, Riiisiinen has rejected this possible historical explanation. 19 If there was one saying of Jesus which could be viewed as a possible cause of Paul's radical view of the law, then we have to think of Mk 7:15 20 which displays a cricital attitude towards food laws. 21 However, 18 In his Preface to The Torah and Christ iv, R1iisanen writes about this article: "Essay no. 11 on the 'Hellenists', which is new, is not only the longest but also the most important one in the volume. In it I try to throw fresh light on these elusive people who were so important to the development of Christianity". I shall, however, quote from the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah, in which this article has been published again. In 1995, his article 'Die "Hellenisten" der Urgemeinde' was published. In this article, Rais:l.nen again stresses the important role played by the Hellenists at the time of the New Testament. Regarding the soteriological significance of Jesus' death, for instance, he says: "Im Anfang wurde der Tod Jesu in Jerusalem nicht soteriologisch interpretiert. Dies geht daraus hervor, dall sich so viele Gattungen und Uberlieferungen erhalten haben, in den en eine solche Deutung fehlt. Also ist die Annahme am plausibelsten, daB die soteriologische Deutung auBerhalb lerusalems entstand, und zwar etwas spater. Antiochia ist dann ein guter Kandidat", p. 1506. In this article, R:l.is!lnen does not go further into his hypothesis as described in this chapter of this study. 19 Paul 245-8. 20 R:l.ismen has made important points on this verse in two articles, namely 'Zur Herkunft von Markus 7,15' included in the collection The Torah and Christ, and 'Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15' included in the collection The Torah and Christ, and later again published in Jesus. Paul and Torah (quotations will be from this latter collection). 21 "Der Spruch macht einen durchaus torakritiscben Eindruck. Die bib lischen Speisegebote sind erledigt", 'Herkunft' 211. " ... the saying is concerned with food - no more and no less", 'Food Laws' 130. "Taken at face value, the saying looks like a radical if implicit attack on important parts of the Torah. If nothing that enters into a man from

Historical Explanation

75

because of the fact that this saying has no Wirkungsgeschichte whatsoever, it is, according to Riiisanen, not an authentic (historical) word of Jesus. 22 Thus, in his view, the Hellenists are no 'bridge' between Jesus and PauP3 It is even questionable whether Jesus ever expressed a critical attitude towards the law. 24 On the other hand, Raisanen observes a direct relation between the Hellenists and Paul. 25

outside can defile him, then the biblical food laws are actually set aside", 'Food Laws' 131-2. 22 "Das entscheidende Problem ist jedoch das der fehlenden Wirkungsgeschlchte des Wortes in der fiilhen Christenheit", 'Herkunft' 209. According to Rilisiinen, we find nowhere any indication that this saying of Jesus has had any influence whatsoever. " ... given the early existence of such a radical saying, it is startling that no one ever seems to have made use of it in the subsequent turbulent decades", 'Food Laws' 139 (see also 'Freedom' 45). "It is difficult, however, to account for subsequent Christian developments on the assumption of its authenticity. On the assumption of inauthenticity these developments are easily explicable", 'Food Laws' 147. The liberal movements never referred to this saying of Jesus, nor did Paul. "How effective it would have been to quote such a saying to Peter (a person surely sensitive to words of the historical Jesus') and others in the heat of the Antiochian conflict (Gal. 2.11 ff.), in which Paul, with all his post-Easter theological arguments, evidently was the losing party", 'Food Laws' 142. See also 'Herkunft' 212-3. Nor was Peter familiar with Mk 7:15. "It is incredible that Jesus could have given so novel a piece of advice in so casual a manner, and so clear an instruction in a mission-context would render the later hesitancy of Peter and others totally unintelligible", 'Food Laws' 134 (see also 'Food Laws' 144). Nor did Mk 7:15 influence Rom 14:14, 'Herkunft' 214--6. See also 'Hellenists' 164-5. 23 The only similarity which connects Jesus with Stephen is their common criticism of the temple. Yet the connection between Paul and the Hellenists is, in fact, their liberal view on the circumcision of the Gentiles. See 'Hellenists' 201-2 and 'Conversion' 413. The Hellenists could only have been a 'bridge' between Jesus and Paul with regard to the commandment to love one's neighbour (see Rom 13:9). A radical commandment of Jesus to love one's enemies could have been changed by the Hellenists into a general commandment to love one's neighbour, and having made this the essence of the law, they could have passed it on to Paul. In all this, we have to be aware, however, that the commandment to love one's neighbour is not characteristic of Jesus only. "The conclusion must suffice that the Hellenists are unlikely candidates as transmitters ofIawcritical Jesus tradition apart from the love command which, in itself, need not imply any criticisms of the law at all", 'Hellenists' 163. Compare M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Anliochien 59 note 208. 24 "In our attempts to define the stance of the Hellenists we should no longer start from the assumption that Jesus' critical attitude to the law is an established fact", 'Hellenists' 165. "Moreover, it is becoming increasingly doubtful whether Jesus really took a critical attitude toward the law", 'Conversion' 413. "It has been customary to speak of Jesus' critique of the law. That Jesus deepened or sharpened the commands of the law (e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount) does not, however, mean that he abrogated it ... ", 'Freedom' 44-5. 2S See section 5.3.1.3.

76

Chapter 5

5.3.1.1 Location o/the Hellenists Who precisely were these so-called Hellenists, and where should we locate them? Acts 6-8 and 11:19ff give us some information about this group.26 The Hellenists were Greek-speaking Jews who had come to Jerusalem from the Dispersion, and who had been converted to Christianity. Within the Christian congregation in Jerusalem they formed a separate group. The Hellenists in Jerusalem were led by a group of seven people under the leadership of Stephen, who was executed because of his liberal attitude towards the temple. After Stephen's death, the other members of the Hellenist 27 congregation were also persecuted so that they were forced to leave Jerusalem. Where did they gO?28 Acts 11: 19ff demonstrates that a congregation had been founded in Antioch. But is it justified to associate the foundation of this congregation with the Hellenists who had fled Jerusalem? In any case, the founder of the congregation in Antioch must have come from somewhere. According to Rliisiinen, we probably have to think of the group around Stephen. 29 In addition, there are no indications that the Hellenists stayed in Jerusalem, which was, of course, not a safe place any more for these Hellenists, because the conservative group around James got the upper hand in Jerusalem. [5 it not natural to connect these ends, the Hellenists leaving Jerusalem with the founders of the Antiochene community, although the Seven themselves land elsewhere?30

We also know that Paul had persecuted the Christians in the surroundings of Damascus. What, then, is the relation between Antioch and Damascus? Did Paul indeed persecute the Hellenists? Is there indeed a relation between Damascus and these Hellenists? Raisanen underlines the fact that the Damascus Road experience immediately made it clear to Paul that he was called to work among Gentiles (Gal 1:16). 26 'Hellenists' 149-50. See also 'Die "Hellenisten" der Urgemeinde'. Compare also M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 153ff, 300ff, 404ff, 423ff, and 434ff. 27 I use R1iis1inen's tenns. Compare M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer: "Man sollte freilich nicht mehr von 'heidenchristlicher' oder 'hellenistischer' Urgemeinde reden, sondern von griechischsprechender judenchristlicher Gemeinde, denn der Begriff 'hellenistisch' ist viel zu allgemein und unbestimmt - so nichtssagend wie etwa der Begriff 'synkretistisch''', Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 425. 2K See 'Hellenists' 151-8. 29 "Moreover, not only must the men of Acts 11.19-20 have come from somewhere; the 'Hellenists' of Jerusalem, too, must have gone somewhere after the death of Stephen", 'Hellenists' 155. 30 'Hellenists' 155.

Historical Explanation

77

This would suggest that the law and, more precisely, the question of the position of Gentiles 31 in the new community was a central bone of contention between Paul and those persecuted by him. If these were not Hellenists from the Stephen group, they must have been people with a similar orientation. 32

But we should avoid duplication, according to Raisanen, in the sense that there would have been Hellenist congregations in both Antioch and Damascus. It is likely that Damascus had become a kind of refuge for the Hellenists who had fled Jerusalem. 33

5.3.1.2 The Hellenists' view a/the Torah After fleeing Jerusalem, the Hellenists did some missionary work among Samaritans, and later among Gentiles. Within this context, the delicate issue concerning the demand of circumcision was raised: is it necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised? The Hellenists dropped this demand. Why? In his Paul and the Law, Raisanen believes that the Hellenists had spontaneously developed such a view. In support of this argument, R1iis1inen quotes S.G. Wilson: "There was no decisive theological step", and also 1. lervell: "action preceded theology".34 " ... the assumption that 'action preceded theology' when circumcision-free Gentile mission arose is not spun out of thin air". 35 This spontaneous view of the Hellenists, i. e. the dropping of the demand of circumcision for the Gentiles, originated out of an empirical experience, namely the fact that the uncircumcised Gentiles also displayed gifts of the Holy Spirit. 36 Compare Acts 10:44ff; 15:7-12; Gal 2:8; 3:2. However, this aspect ("experience of the Spirit and the eschatological consciousness"37) as such was not yet characteristic of the Hellenists, for this aspect was also connected with Peter (Cornelius, Acts 10), and later Peter and Paul disagreed. 38 If this "experience" as such

31 My italics. R!lis!inen himself also italicizes it in The Torah and Christ 251 (same article). 32 'Hellenists' 158. 33 "People so active about the inclusion of Gentiles are best associated with the Stephen group. Quite possibly Hellenists coming from Jerusalem had found refuge in Damascus", 'Hellenists' 158. 34 See Paul 255 notes 142 and 143. 35 'Conversion' 413. 36 "Surely the experience that uncircumcised Gentiles displayed the same kind of ecstatic gifts as circumcised Jewish Christians ... was important", Paul 255. "Experiences became guides (ef Acts 10-11): ecstatic phenomena with the uncircumcised who received the gift of the Spirit showed that their circumcision was no longer necessary. These new experiences were interpreted in a way that led to a new attitude toward the law", 'Freedom' 44. 31 'Conversion' 413. 38 See section 5.3.2.

78

Chapter 5

is not the characteristic feature of the Hellenists, what then is to be regarded as typical of this group?39 After further research on the problems relating to the Hellenists, Raisanen believes he is able to indicate a distinctive theology of the Hellenists which would have been the underlying reason for their liberal views. Therefore, Raisanen modifies his previously proposed reason mentioned above: after Paul and the Law, he believes that there was more among the Hellenists than merely a spontaneous giving up of the demand of circumcision; probably there was a well-considered theological rationale behind all this.4o What, then, are the characteristics of their distinctive theology, and how did it originate?41 Riiisanen believes that we have to think of the influence of the Dispersion. The Hellenists met various kinds of allegOlY and spiritualization of texts in the Dispersion ("various 'spiritualizing' tendencies"42), for instance, the manner of interpreting the Scriptures by Philo of Alexandria. One of the characteristics of these '''spiritualizing' tendencies" as found in the Dispersion is the spiritualization of commandments, such as circumcision. If one was able to indicate the 39 "The giving up of the demand of circumcision resulted apparently from empirical experience: Gentiles displayed gifts of the Spirit in their uncircumcised state. To be sure, Luke connects this experiential logic with Peter who follows it in the house of Cornelius and defends it at the apostolic council. But Paul, too, hints at the testimony of the pneumatic experiences in Gal 2.8, 3.2 ... But the experience of the Spirit and the eschatological consciousness was something that united the Hellenists with the Hebrews. There must have been some other reason for the differences in the conduct of the two groups. Why did one group draw different conclusions from the common experience? Why did precisely the Hellenists turn to Gentiles?", 'Conversion' 413--4. 40 "It now seems to me that in the present book (he means: Paul and the Law, T.E.v.S.) I overemphasized to some extent the spontaneity of the rise of the law-free Gentile mission ... It may, after all, not have been just a case of 'action preceding theology'; rather, the 'Hellenists' may have had a theological rationale for their action as well ...", Paul xvIII. In his Preface to The Torah and Christ iv, Rllisllnen introduces his article 'Hellenists' as follows: "". T come to modify the position taken in Paul and the Law, where I overemphasized the spontaneity of the steps taken by the Hellenists. It now seems to me that they based their pioneering action on a distinctive theology ... ". Similarly in his Preface to Jesus, Paul and Torah 8: "Following a suggestion by Gerhard Sellin, I come to modify the position taken in Paul and the Law, where I overemphasized the spontaneity of the steps taken by the Hellenists. It now seems to me that they based their pioneering action on a distinctive theology, characterized by a spiritualized view of the 'ritual' law. If so, some of the inconsistencies in Paul's theology may be explained as discrepancies between Paul's earlier view, inherited from Antioch and the Hellenists, and his later more radical stance". 41 See 'Hellenists' 189-91 and 'Conversion' 413--4. 42 'Conversion' 414. By this Raisanen takes up the suggestion by G. Sellin that in early Christianity there was a tendency to spiritualize various ritual parts of the Torah. See 'Hellenists' 191 note 2. See also 'Conversion' 414 and The Torah and Christ iv.

Historical Explanation

79

spiritual (or symbolic) meaning of circumcision, then the actual circumcision itself was not necessary any more. Although Philo could be regarded as a representative of such an allegorical approach, in practice, however, he did not drop the demand of circumcision. Yet, the fact remains that, according to Riiisanen, the fundamental ideas of the Hellenists' liberal theology concerning the demand of circumcision for the Gentiles are in principle to be found in the Dispersion, i.e. in these '" spiritualizing' tendencies". 43 ... once the 'spiritualizing' tendencies from the Dispersion are recognised as a possible stimulus for the activities of the Hellenists, the possibility is opened up that they may also have had theological (rather than merely 'empirical') arguments at hand for their new course of action, even though Luke does not betray them ... 44

In sum, the Hellenists' view of the law originated as follows: The Hellenists' giving up of the requirement of circumcision in connection with missionary work is probably to be seen as a consequence of their spiritualized view of the Torah, largely shaped in the diaspora. This predisposition along with the new sense of eschatological fulfilment and the enthusiastic experience caused them to go beyond Philo in their liberal attitude to outward observance of the Torah. 45

This does not imply, however, that the Hellenists adopted a hostile attitude towards the ritual part of the Torah. 46 It is more accurate to say that they were critical of various ritual prescriptionsY This is probably also the reason why Paul persecuted the Hellenists: they admitted the Gentiles to their congregation without having circumcised them first. 48

See also 'Die "HeIlenisten" der Urgemeinde' 1502-3. 'Hellenists' 191. Almost the same words are also in 'Conversion' 414. 45 'Hellenists' 202 ...... a spiritualized view of the Torah. preformed in the Diaspora", Palll xvIII. A theology" ... characterized by a spiritualized view of the ritual Torah". The Torah and Christ iv. '6 The common thought is that the Hellenists displayed a liberal attitude towards the law. "I suggest that the Hellenists displayed a liberal attitude toward parts of the law, which they reinterpreted in spiritual or ethical terms. This attitude did not. however, amount to hostility", 'Conversion' 415. '7 "In their life, the 'ritual' part of the law became an adiaphorol7. This was a critical, indeed radical (from a traditional Jewish point of view), but by no means a hostile, attitude to the law", 'Hellenists' 202. Rllislinen also makes this point in 'Difficulties' 21 note 4: "This, of course, implied a critical or selective attitude toward the law from the start, but no hostility". Here Rais!lnen already refers to the Hellenistic view which had been adopted by Paul. 48 'Hellenists' 186. Similarly in 'Legalism' 46. It is possible that Paul persecuted the Hellenistic Christians also in Jerusalem. "In any case, those who were persecuted by Paul with some probability neglected circumcision as an entrance requirement", 'Hellenists' 188. See also 'Die "Hellenisten" der Urgemeinde' 1500-1. 43

44

80

Chapter 5

5.3.1.3 Paul'sjaining a/the Hellenists As has already been said, Paul persecuted the Hellenists. Yet, after his conversion, he joined these Hellenists, and on their behalf he became a missionary among the Gentiles. Therefore, for Raisanen, it goes without saying49 that many traces ('''spiritualizing' tendencies"!) of the theology of these Antiochene Hellenists can be found in PauPo In any case, Paul 49 "The stay in Antioch must have left its imprints on a man who for quite some time was one of the missionaries sent out by the local congregation", 'Hellenists' 161. so "Can we detect in his letters bits of tradition with a spiritualizing' tendency which could stem from Antiochene theology - from the heritage of the early Hellenists?", Rltislinen asks himself, 'Hellenists' 191. In 'Hellenists' 191-7 and 'Conversion' 414-5, RlI.isanen offers an overview of possible remnants of this theology. He assumes that we are able to distinguish in Paul between "traditional materials" and "distinctively Pauline ideas". "Fragments in disagreement with Paul's 'normal' ideas are most promising", 'Hellenists' 160. Raisanen detects traces of "'spiritualizing' tendencies" in Paul in: (1) Phi! 3:3: circumcision is being spiritualized. (2) Rom 2:25-29: for instance, the circumcision of the heart. Compare the Gospel of Thomas, logion 53. (3) Gal 3:28: the expression 'neither Jew nor Greek' could be an indication that circumcision was not regarded as a requirement any more. (4) I Cor 7:19: circumcision is not important. (5) Gal 5:13-14 and Rom 13:8-10: the law can be summarized by the love commandment. "Such a summarizing of the content of the law in an ethical principle is fully in keeping with spiritualizing tendencies", 'Hellenists' 194. (6) 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19: Paul refers to God's temple in a spiritualized sense by referring to the Christian congregation. (7) Rom 12:1: Paul speaks of a living and holy sacrifice, and of a spiritual worship. (8) Rom 2:14-15: the Gentiles do by nature what the law requires. (9) Rom 3:25: this verse betrays the influence of 4 Maccabees. Rliisanen agrees with S.K. Williams who asserts that u ... Rom. 3.25 - as well as the idea of Jesus' death as a saving event in general betrays the influence of 4 Maccabees, a writing probably composed in Antioch in the thirties", 'Hellenists' 184. (10) If Rom 3:25 betrays the influence of Antiochene theology, then it is very possible that some other ritual and cultural customs in Antioch were also connected with Christological interpretations. Raislinen thinks, for example, of 1 Cor 5:6-8. " ... we may have here an indication that 'at Antioch, too, Gentile Christians did not observe the Jewish sabbaths and annual feasts', which were talked about in spiritualizing terms", 'Hellenists' 196 (the quotation is from Watson. See 'Hellenists' 196 note 5). (11) Col 2:11 (according to Rllisanen, however, not an authentic Pauline text!): again, some aspects are being spiritualized here. Compare M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer: "J. Becker betont am Ende seines Abschnitts 'Die Bedeutung der antiochenischen Gemeinde fUr die Christenheit', daB 'zur Beschreibung antiochenischer Theologie' nur 'begriindete Vermutungen m5glich (sind), jedoeh nicht mehr'. Wir mtlchten noch einen Schritt weitergehen: Was wir !1ber 'antiochellische Theologie' zu wissen glauben, ist durchweg 'paulinische Theologie', die nat!1rlich altere Traditionen, welche Pau!us von Dritten erhielt, verarbeitet haben kann. DaB Paulus dabei bestimmte Theologumena erst in Antiochien ilbernahm, k5nnen wir nur vermuten und sollten es daher begrOnden. Wo er selbst (oder andere) die vieldiskutierten formelhaften Traditionsstilcke, die in seinen Briefen auftauchen, gebildet hat, mOllte fUr jeden EinzelfaJ] geprUft werden, lllBt sich ab er haufig nicht nachweisen. Es ist daher fast schon zu vie! gesagt, wenn Beeker generell van 'begrUndeten Vermutungen' spricht. Die Moglichkeit der BegrUndung bleibt die Ausnahme", Paulus zwischen Damaskus und

Historical Explanation

81

adopted their view of the law in generaPl Ca critical and radical, but not a hostile view52 ), and their liberal view of circumcision in particular53 (the dropping of circumcision as a kind of entrance requirement for the Gentiles). It is important to notice that Raisanen believes that in the theology of these Antiochene Hellenists lies the very origin of Paul's radical statements on the law. 5.3.2 Conflict with the .1udaizers

As a missionary on behalf of the Hellenist congregation in Antioch, Paul dropped, in full accordance with the Antiochene theology, the requirement of circumcision for the Gentiles. He always regarded this as a practical solution; he had no genuine theological foundation for it. After Paul had applied this approach as a missionary among the Gentiles for about fifteen years 54, some problems emerged. In approximately A.D. 48, a discussion arose on the question of whether the Gentile Christians ought to be circumcised. Some Jewish Christians raised some "weighty history-ofsalvation arguments", arguing that circumcision had indeed to be regarded as a requirement for the Gentiles. "If Gentile Christians wished to be part of Israel, they had to be circumcised and take upon themselves the yoke of the law".55 Very serious disagreements and problems emerged (see Acts 15:5). On the one hand, Peter, Barnabas and others recognized the validity of the requirement of circumcision for the Gentiles, but, on the other hand, Antiochien 434, and: "Das wUrde bedeuten, daB die theologischen Grundgedanken, die in seinen Briefen auftauchen, schon in seiner syrisch-antiochenischen Epoche, d.h. zwischen 40 und 48 zu seinem geistigen Eigentum gehorten, ohne daB WiT dabei behaupten konnen, daB sie typisch 'hellenistisch-antiochenische' Entwicklungen waren. Wie er ca. 39/40 nach Antiochien kommt, bIickt er schon auf eine ca. 6-7 jl!hrige Missionspraxis zUTUck. Splltestens Gal 2,llff, aber vielIeicht bereits beim Bruch mit Bamabas Apg 15,36, zeigte es sich, daB Antiochien und Paulus nicht einfach identifiziert werden dUrfen. Er war als theologischer Denker seinen Mitmissionaren haushoch Uberlegen, darum mUssen entscheidende Wirkungen von ihm ausgegangen sein - wo und wann er sich selbst durch fremde Traditionen beeinflussen lieB, die er sicher auch in reichem MaBe aufnahm, ist schwerer zu sagen. Hier wird die FrUhzeit, d.h. die Epoche vor Antiochien (ca. 33-39/40), die groBte RoUe gespielt haben", Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 460. 51 "I have assumed that as a result of his conversion, Paul adopted in essence the view of the law of those Hellenistic Jewish Christians he had persecuted", 'Conversion' 413. 52 "On this foundation Paul was to build his peculiar theology of the law", 'Hellenists' 202. 53 "When Paul came to Antioch, he found there a congregation in which circumcision was not required of Gentile converts and, obviously, ritual purity was ignored, at least in connection with intercourse with the Gentile Christians. Paul, too, adopted this attitude", 'Legalism' 46. 54 See 'Legalism' 47. 55 'Legalism' 47.

82

Chapter 5

over the years Paul had become more and more alienated from the ritual aspects of the law (Gal 2:18-19; 4:12; 5:12; Rom 14:14,20; 1 Cor 9:20). Paul had scarcely had time to think through the issue theologically and to give his liberal attitude a proper foundation during his missionary work. For more than a decade the Gentiles had been allowed to flourish without paying attention to the ritual law. Then, all of a sudden, the demand was raised that they ought either to be circumcised or to form isolated separate congregations. The situation might have been different, had such a debate been raised right at the beginning of the Gentile mission. Now the restorers, however orthodox their theology, were definitely too late. 56

Paul became very irritated.57 All of a sudden, he was compelled by these "restorers" to give up the attitude which he had taken, and put into practice, for many years. If he was not willing to give up this attitude, then he had to give a theological foundation for it. On the one hand, the fact that the Gentile Christians should form a unity together with the Jewish Christians weighed very heavily with Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles. 58 On the other hand, however, he was not only unable, but also unwilling to reconsider his decision to drop the circumcision requirement. In a situation where the pOSition of the Gentiles in the church was threatened Paul, therefore, reacted strongly. What was to the restorers an ethical issue and to the moderate party around James a practical pastoral question, appeared to him a matter of soteriology. 59

If the uncircumcised Gentile Christians could not form a unity together with the Jewish Christians due to practical reasons, then, for Paul, the Gentile Christians would also be excluded from salvation in Christ. "He understood the logic of his opponents' position in a different way than they themselves did".6o Now it becomes clear that, by this chain of reasoning, Rtfisanen comes to the essence of his hypothesis. Coming at the issue from the point of view of Gentile Christians 61, and emphasizing the Paul 258. "No wonder Paul was furious", 'Legalism' 49. "Paul could not contemplate Gentile Christians living separately from the community which stood for the continuity with old Israel ... The unity of all believers in Christ (Gal 3.28) was a very real thing to Paul ... ", Paul 258-9. 59 'Legalism' 49. 60 'Legalism' 49. 61 According to Rais1lnen, it just depends on one's perspective: the Jewish perspective or the Gentile-Christian perspective. The Jews would never have ascribed a certain soteriological significance to circumcision. But from the Gentile point of view, however, this could indeed be the case. Rais1lnen draws an analogy between this issue and baptism. "Let me try to construe an analogy. Suppose that a modern Christian missionary decided to give up baptising his converts, since they have displayed charismatic gifts in their unbaptised status. An average Christian theologian need hardly attribute saving value ex 56

57

58

Historical Explanation

83

unity of all believers, Paul insisted that a matter which Peter and others regarded as of merely pastoral significance should in fact have been seen as a crucial soteriological question. 62 "It is in such a situation that Paul sets up the contrast between faith in Christ and works of law ... ". 63 In this conflict setting Paul turned the Torah into a means of obtaining salvation; yet, the law never had such a soteriological function. 64 According to Raisanen, this development began with Paul's rejection of the ritual part of the law (circumcision and food laws)65, and it is precisely this ritual part of the law which Paul contrasts with faith in Christ. Therefore, in Rrusanen's view, the expression 'works of the law' originally stood for the observance of the ritual law (circumcision and food laws).66 Paul's misrepresentation of the Jewish position would then seem to stem from a battle with Jewish-Christian covenantal nomism. The Jewish-Christian theological restoration, with its practical program, constituted a threat to the existence of Gentile converts and to Paul's Gentile mission. As often happens in the course of polemic, Paul came unintentionally to distort his opponents' position. thus making the attack easier for himself. 67

In this way, R!lis!lnen believes he has given a possible historical explanation both for the origin of Paul's antithesis between works of law

opere operato to baptism to be somewhat upset by such events. If our imaginary missionary now in the course of a debate ascribed to his critics the view that a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is the hasis of man's salvation (that they indeed teach 'salvation by water' or sacramental magic as Heilsweg), this would seem to be more or less analogous to the case of Paul", Paul 263 note 172. Compare also 'Legalism' 52-3. 62 "The decisive phase is tangible in Gal 2.11 ff. We there find Paul ascribing soteriological significance to something which the other side understood in a rather different way", Paul 263. 63 Pau1260. 64 See the excursus in section 4.2.1. 65 "But I wish to suggest that it all started with the rejection, more instinctive than reflective, of certain ritual parts of the law which were neither relevant nor comprehensible from the Gentile point of view", 'Legalism' 49. 66 "Originally, by 'works of the law' Paul meant specific Jewish practices which hindered the acceptance of the Gentiles into the community or their living together with Jewish Christians (circumcision, purity laws). Consequently, Paul drives a wedge between God's grace and the works of human beings which splits apart what, according to 'normal' Jewish thinking, had always belonged together", 'Freedom' 46. 67 'Legalism' 50.

84

Chapter 5

and faith in Christ 68 , and also for Paul's caricature of Judaism 69 (the law as a gateway to heaven). In the same way, Raisanen tries also to give a historical explanation for the inconsistencies.1° Paul's attempt to keep together the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians remained a very delicate issue within this conflict setting. He foresaw a polarization between each group. But, how then should they be kept together? The old practical liberal view (Antiochene theology!) did not suffice any more. One had to take either a conservative decision to circumcise the Gentile Christians, or a more radical decision to refrain from circumcising them. Peter, Barnabas and others chose the former option, although this decision was not declared binding by the Apostolic Council. Paul, on the other hand, did not want to reconsider the liberal attitude underlying his missionary work for so many years, and therefore he had to develop a consciously radical position71, which means: he had to search for arguments why he had refrained from circumcising the Gentiles for such a long period. This search for arguments became all the more urgent, because the conservatives in Antioch were very influential (hence, the incident in Antioch, Gal 2: 11££).72 He had to argue why his attitude was different and why it had to be different. Through the pressure of events he was led to search for arguments for a global rejection of the law; for in his conscious thinking he, too, was against selectivity. He thus came upon several ad hoc arguments for the termination of the law (the

68 See chapter 4. "From the Jewish point of view, the demand for circumcision must be construed as an effort to take God's promises seriously. From a Gentile point of view the situation may have seemed rather different. A Gentile could easily have felt circumcision and observance to be a 'work' in the pejorative sense of the word. The apostle to the Gentiles perceived this. From this Gentile perspective, I submit, he came to stress that the Judaizers represented indeed a principle of 'works'. This opened the way for contrasting Judaism (including observant Jewish Christianity) and law-free Christianity in such a manner that the former appears - whether or not that was Paul's intention - as a religion of works, and the latter as the religion of grace", 'Experience' 34-5. 69 See section 4.2.3. "Paul's misrepresentation of Jewish Christianity and, consequently, of Judaism is thus historically understandable ... His ail-pervasive concern for the Gentiles just compelled him to see things from a Gentile perspective, which did less than justice to the Jewish point of view", 'Legalism' 53. 70 See chapter 2. 71 "Paul, not being able to join them, had to develop a consciously radical position", 'Legalism' 50. n See 'Legalism' 48.

Historical Explanation

85

analogies of marriage and will; the legislation through angels) and its allegedly sinengendering and sin-enhancing nature etc. 73

In this way74, Raisanen believes he has given, in principle 75 , a possible historical explanation for the origin of many inconsistencies in Paul concerning his view of the law. 76 5.3.3 Paul's dilemma The hypothesis described above is, strictly speaking, merely an explanation for the origin of Paul's negative assertions on the Torah. Yet, the negative or radical assertions as such do not yet constitute inconsistencies, since we can only speak of inconsistencies if there are, for example, negative and positive assertions at the same time.?7 The point is this: did Paul's negative assertions supersede his positive ones? As we have seen in chapter 2, this is not the case. Both positive and negative assertions exist in Paul simultaneously. According to Raisanen, the phenomenon of two different kinds of assertions existing simultaneously demonstrates that Paul is wrestling with an immense dilemma. An example of this dilemma is that, on the one hand, Paul does not want to put aside a divine institution such as the law, so that the law is still in force 78 , and on the other hand, in the conflict setting described above, Paul was compelled to make some negative assertions on that same law. Yet, Paul wants to maintain both assertions, and this is precisely his immense problem. 7J Paul 261-2. Paul was searching for arguments " ... for a total rejection of the law, ending up with a negative theology of the law with an emphasis of its alleged negative, sin-engendering and sin-enhancing nature", 'Legalism' 5l. 74 It is striking that Raisanen explains the origin of Mk 7:15 in a similar way. "Die Petrusvision (Apg 10) steUt einen Versuch dar, den theologischen Grund fur die Freiheit in einer neuen Offenbarung Gottes zu lokalisieren. Die Kreise hinter Mk 7,15 haben einen vergleichbaren Schritt gemacht, aber slatt einer Vision wird hier der historische Jesus als Offenbarer der neuen Wahrheit in Anspruch genommen", 'Herkunft' 217. "I suggest that lYIk 7.15 reflects an attempt to find a theological justification for the practical step taken in the Gentile mission long before ...", 'Food Laws' 145. 7$ See the next section. 76 "The numerous problems and self-contradictions in his statements expose the overall theory as more or less artificial. It would seem that the difficulties can best be explained if the whole theory owes its origin to a polemical situation", Paul 262. See also 'Legalism' 51. " ... Paul does put forward trenchant criticisms of the law, going further than any other New Testament writer. This happens mostly in conflict settings, in which the conditions of the admission of Gentiles are at least one of the main issues. This suggests that the radical developments in Paul's complex view of the law are in one way or other due to his missionary experience and the conflicts he became involved in because of this mission", 'Conversion' 415. 77 See chapter 2. 7l! See section 2.3.

86

Chapter 5

Paul's talk about the law is characterized by a mixture of negative and positive elements, and it has always surpassed the power of scholars to do justice to both sides. Perhaps the tensions are easier to understand if they can be seen as tensions between Paul's Antiochian heritage and new ideas he developed later. When Paul finds a new solution to a problem, he does not necessarily discard the old one. Rather, the old and the new live side by side .. .1 9

In this study, we shall come across this same phenomenon in Paul with reference to Rom 9-1180, and also in the discussion with Kim. 81 In any case, Raisanen comes to the conclusion that the inconsistencies and many other problems in Paul could historically be explained by asserting, firstly, that there was a development in Paul (starting in Antioch, and completed during his conflict with the Judaizers) which ended up in a radical view of the law, and secondly, that Paul did not want to put aside his old Jewish views (conservative assertions on the law). In other words, Paul ended up in an insoluble dilemma. 82 Paul's theological problems were not definitively solved in a flash right at the beginning of his Christian career. On the contrary, he continued to grapple with the perennial and often insoluble dilemma of how to relate new experience 83 to sacred tradition in ever new ways to the very end of his mission. 84

If Raisiinen is on the right track concerning this explanation, then the inconsistencies in Paul may be easier to understand and to accept. 8S In 'Conversion' 414. so Here we find the link between this chapter and chapters 6 and 7. SI See the next section. '2 In the article 'Freedom from the law in early Christianity', we find an illustration ~f Rllisiinen's point. With reference to Rom 3:31 and 8:4 he says that Paul tries to argue in two different ways why he is free from the law. The first way has to do with the history of salvation: everything that has to do with the old covenant is weak, and can thus be put aside. The second way is Paul's assertion that precisely the liberal Christians, such as himself, live according to the law. Unfortunately, the English translation of this German article omits a passage which clearly indicates RlIisllnen's intention. After mentioning the two different ways, he says: "Zwischen den beiden Vorstellungen herrscht eine erhebliche Spannung. Sie deutet an, daB Paulus mit einem theologischen Dilemma ringt: kann eine gottliche Setzung wirklich beseitigt werden?", 'Freiheit vom Gesetz im Urchristentum' 61. We shall also come across this wrestling ('das Ringen') in chapters 6 and 7, although there with reference to Rom 9-11. &3 He means: the fact of giving up the demand of circumcision during his missionary activities, the conflict with the Judaizers, etc. 84 'Conversion' 416. Another slightly different example is Rom 2:25-29. As we have already seen, Paul has taken up here, according to RlIisllnen, an Antiochene tradition (see section 5.3.1.3). However, by this, Paul gets " ... into strong internal tension in his arguments", since the passage Rom 2:25-29 is at odds with the larger passage Rom I: 18-3:20. See 'Hellenists' 193. &3 "Tf so, some of the inconsistencies in Paul's theology, which I still believe to have brought to light in Palll and the Law (the irritation expressed by some colleagues notwithstanding), can be seen in a somewhat different light. Many of them may be 79

Historical Explanation

87

chapter 7, we shall return to the problem that two (earlier and later) mutually exclusive assertions exist simultaneously.

5.4 Seyoon Kim's criticism and Riiisiinen 's response Seyoon Kim severely criticizes the above hypothesis. In the Postscript to his dissertation, Kim 86 says that Riiisiinen's hypothesis does not do justice to the so-called 'call' passages. Kim refers especially to Gal I: 11-17 and Phil 3:2-11. According to Kim, Raisanen's historical reconstruction conflicts with both these passages. Kim believes that the Christophany, as experienced by Paul during his Damascus Road experience, was of such an immense significance that his view of the law was basically ready and complete soon after this experience. Kim's view is diametrically opposed to Riiisiinen's hypothesis, because in Raisanen's view, there is a development in Pau!' In two articles, namely 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law' and 'Paul's Conversion and the Development ofl·lis View of the Law', Riiisanen discusses Kim's criticism. In order to have a complete picture of Riiisiinen's hypothesis in this chapter, it is advisable also to listen to Riiisanen's response. It mainly concerns here his interpretation of Gall and Phil 3.

5.4.1 Gall:lI-17 According to Kim, on the basis of Gall: 11-17 one could assert that Paul received his doctrine of 'sola gratia' and 'sola fide' during his call. Riiisanen, however, believes that Gal 1:11-17 contains nothing in favour of such an interpretation. According to Riiisiinen, Gal 1:11-17 deals with the question of whether the Gentiles ought to be circumcised. Paul means here by 'gospel' his gospel, i.e. a gospel without circumcision. Paul has proclaimed, in fact, a completely different 'gospel' from the one explained as discrepancies between Paul's earlier view, inherited from Antioch and the Hellenists, and his later, more radical stance. The earlier view, and the arguments advanced for it, have not simply given way to the new position; instead, the old and the new stand side by side, often in palpable mutual tension", The Torah and Christ iv-v. "If there is some truth to the hypothesis, some of the self-contradictions to which I called attention in Paul and the Law could be seen in a slightly different perspective. The tensions remain, to be sure, but it may be easier to understand (and to accept!) their existence, if some at least are due to Paul's developing further some ideas of his own former community and not wholly discarding those ideas either, but preserving them alongside more novel ones", 'Hellenists' 197. 86 s. Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel. The Postscript referred to (336-58) can only be found in the second Edition (1984) of his dissertation. Pages 345-58 are a response to Raisanen.

88

Chapter 5

proclaimed in Jerusalem. Kim believes that Paul's view of 'salvation without works' can already be found in this letter. But, as Raisanen says, Paul does not express such a view in Gal 1: 11-17. 87 Kim assumes what he ought to have demonstrated, identifying the giving up of the demand of circumcision with a full-blown theology of justification by faith not works. 88

In contrast to Kim, Raisiinen believes that Paul received his view of 'salvation without works' very gradually. In the letter to the Galatians Paul was compelled to think through his attitude towards the Gentiles 89, but this letter was definitely not yet the last stage within this development. "Therefore I see no a priori reason why Paul's call experience could not have resulted in a view ofthe law which shiftecP0 later on".91 5.4.2 Phi! 3:2-11

Kim believes that in this passage Paul again makes the well-known distinction between justification by works of law and justification by faith. According to Kim, this passage also shows how Judaism thought about justification by works of law. Riiisiinen says that we have to try to give an answer to two important questions: (1) What is the meaning of 'my own righteousness' (verse 9)? (2) What is the relation between verse 9 and Paul's call? (1) The meaning of 'my own righteousness' (verse 9)

Jewish-Christian missionaries, who had intruded into the congregation in Philippi, underlined the necessity of circumcision. In verse 2, Paul responds to their activities very vehemently. Just as in the letter to the Galatians, he is again concerned here about the question of whether the Gentiles ought to be circumcised. Paul, of course, is against such a demand. In verse 7 he alludes to his conversion. But what, then, does Paul mean by verse 9? The common interpretation is that Paul, before his conversion, believed that he was able to earn salvation by doing the works of the law. Yet, due to his encounter with Christ, Paul gave up such an attempt, and consequently he regarded righteousness as a gift instead of an 87 "In view of the total absence of justification terminology in Gal 1.ll-17 one should not claim that Paul in this passage grounds his gospel of justification sola gratia and sola fide without works of the law in his call experience", 'Conversion' 407 . • 8 'Experience' 23 . • 9 "As a result of his encounter with Christ, then, Paul was forced to admit that Gentiles could be accepted without circumcision. At least this is what the call passage in Galatians I suggests", 'Conversion' 407. 90 My italics. Also italicized by R!lis!lnen in the collection The Torah and Christ 67. 91 'Experience' 24.

Historical Explanation

89

achievement. This juxtaposition of two kinds of righteousness (,achievement versus grace') could, then, also be found in verse 9. However, according to Raisanen, when Paul enumerates in verse 5 his advantages before his conversion, he first mentions all those advantages which are allotted to him "without any of his own doing".92 Therefore, in Raisiinen's view, verse 6b does not refer to someone who tries to earn salvation. Moreover, the word &IJ.EIJ.1Tto~ is not a soteriological term, but it merely represents the idea of sanctification (see Zechariah and Elizabeth, Lk 1:6). Thus, the whole context demonstrates that verse 9 does not concern the contrast 'achievement versus grace'. What, then, is the nature of this contrast? According to Raisiinen, Paul refers in verse 9 to nothing else than his life as a Jew (in the sense of 'covenantal nomism'). Riiisiinen admits that the step taken by Paul in verse 9 is "an extremely bold one": righteousness in connection with socalled 'covenantal nomism' is termed here Paul's own righteousness, which stands in contrast to God's righteousness. Strictly speaking, Paul ought to have said after verse 4-8: ' ... not having the righteousness connected with God's covenant with Israel, but the righteousness connected with the Christ event' .93 "The trouble is that Paul cannot force himself to admit that his actual position implies a rejection of the biblical covenant".94 Riiisiinen speaks here of a "shift"95: all the Jews' privileges connected with the covenant are termed Paul's "own righteousness". A similar "shift" also occurs, in Riiisanen's view, in Rom 9-10. 96 In Rom 9:4 Paul enumerates the Jews' privileges, whereas in Rom 9:6 he denies the same privileges. And in Rom 10:3 Paul again says that clinging to these privileges means, in fact, a searching for one's own righteousness. Thus, it could be stated that in Phil 3:9 Paul applies the assertion of Rom 10:3 to his own personal situation. It also appears from Rom 9-10 that Paul wants to keep together two things, namely: Cl) God has made a covenant with 'Experience' 26. "The step taken by Paul in verse 9 is, then, an extremely bold one. Not only does he call the covenantal privileges given by God 'rubbish' in verse 8. He ends up by calling such righteousness as is pursued in obedience to God's covenantal law his (Paul's) own righteousness which stands in contrast to God's", 'Conversion' 410. Raislinen observes that, syntactically, the comment in verse 9 is parenthetic (,Conversion' 409). See also 'Experience' 28. 94 'Experience' 28. '5 "The shift from God-given privileges to fleshly signs of one's 'own' righteousness is striking", 'Conversion' 410. Similarly in 'Experience' 27. 96 "There is a move similar to what we discovered in Philippians 3: what are first regarded as God-given gifts end up by standing on the side opposite to God", 'Experience' 30. It is necessary for this study also to look at Rom 9-11. '2 93

Chapter 5

90

Israel, and if one stays within this covenant by observing the law, he will receive righteousness; and (2) according to Paul, this righteousness is not in its essence true righteousness, since it is not based on faith in Christ. This is the same dilemma as in Phil 3.

(2) The relation between verse 9 and Paul's call It is striking that Paul mentions circumcision first (verse 5). This indeed fits into the picture (hypothesis) of the Hellenists as given earlier by Raisanen. According to this theory, the acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles (God-fearers) into the congregation was the main bone of contention between Paul and those persecuted by him. The Hellenists interpreted 'ritual' parts of the law in a 'spiritualized' way, but displayed no hostility towards the law. 97

In fact, Gal 1 and Phil 3 complement each other: Gal 1 shows that Paul has learned from his call that he was sent to the Gentiles, while Phil 3 shows the other side, namely that one can only become an apostle among the Gentiles if one is willing to drop the Jewish privileges, especially the demand of circumcision. 98 Kim believes that in Phil 3:9, we find the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ, and that Paul had already received this antithesis at the time of his call experience. Raisanen, however, believes that in verse 9 Paul interprets his call experience in retrospect, in terms of the contrast between his own righteousness and God's righteousness. We have found, then, that v. 9 is (1) formally loosely attached to its context and (2) summarizes the content of vv. 4-6 in a rather surprising way. This suggests that it may well contain an idea which was not yet present in Paul's mind at the time of his cal1. 99

Conclusion In response to Kim's criticism, Raisanen argues that Gall andPhil 3 do not conflict with his historical reconstruction. 100

97 'Experience' 28. 98 "Most concretely, one could only be an apostle to Gentiles if one dropped the demand of circumcision and other 'ritual' stipulations, among which the kosher laws were most conspicuous", 'Conversion' 409. 99 'Experience' 29. 100 "On the basis of the above considerations it seems to me that Galatians I and Philippians 3 are fully compatible with my theory. They do not force one to conclude that Paul's view was basically ready with his conversion", 'Experience' 47. In the excursus in section 13.2.2.2, I shall evaluate Rllislinen's exegesis ofPhil3.

Chapter 6

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of Israel: Romans 9-11 6.1 Inconsistencies again Having described in the previous chapter the inconsistencies in Paul's view of the law, we must also describe the inconsistencies detected by Raisanen in Paul's view of Israel, especially with reference to Rom 9-11. There are two important reasons for considering the inconsistencies concerning Israel. The first reason is that we want as much as possible to give a complete picture of Raisanen's presentation of the inconsistencies in Paul. The second reason is that we want as much as possible to give a clear picture of Raisanen's explanation of Paul's inconsistencies; it appears that there are some similarities between his explanation for the inconsistencies concerning the law and his explanation for the inconsistencies concerning Israel.I In the course of our study of the inconsistencies concerning Israel, the same approach will be used as in the previous chapters. This means that in this chapter the inconsistencies concerning Israel will be described first, and subsequently, in chapter 7, we shall listen to Riiisiinen's explanation for them. The whole set of problems which is now under discussion is less complex than the inconsistencies described in the previous chapters. This is to our advantage in the sense that, due to the similarities between the explanation for the inconsistencies concerning the law and the explanation for the inconsistencies concerning Israel, we shall gain more insight into the complex matter described in the previous chapters. Before we listen to Raisanen, we shall first mention the literature in which he refers to the inconsistencies concerning Israel and to some other remarks which are of interest within this context. The most important article is 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens' (1987). In this article Riiisiinen provides a long and detailed analysis of Rom 9-11. The article 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research' (1988), on the other hand, is not 1

See chapter 7.

92

Chapter 6

as detailed as the former article. In fact this latter article offers very few new details in comparison with the former one. Both articles are of a similar structure, and both give similar information to a great extent. The third article is 'Zum Verstlindnis von Rom 3,1-8' (1985, 1986). At first sight the relation between this article and Raisanen's other pUblications might perhaps not be completely clear. Therefore it is useful to mention at this stage that he wrote this article after the publication of his Paul and the Law, and that he wrote it in connection with the set of problems in Rom 9-1 P, for Riiislinen believes that Rom 9-11 is an important key for understanding Rom 3:1-8. 3 This article, which has been written in German, has not been published in English.4 Further, his The Idea of Divine Hardening (1976 2nd Edition) is also of interest here. In this work Raislinen makes some important remarks concerning the relation between divine predestination and human responsibility; the same relation is also discussed in Rom 9-11. Finally, Riiisanen makes important remarks in his Beyond New Testament Theology (1990). This work is of interest for our study, particularly when it comes to his explanation for Paul's inconsistencies. There seems to be no relation between the publications in

2 " ••• Romans 3,1-8, which is studied in the light of Romans 9-1 I", The Torah and Christ iv. See also section 6.4. 3 "Es scheint mir, daB eine starkere BerOcksichtigung des Zusammenhangs van ROm 3, \-8 mit den Kapp. 9-11 und der dahinterliegenden heiIsgeschichtlichen Problematik zu seinem Verstehen wesentlich beitragen kann", 'Verstlindnis' 186. There are even some elements in Rom 3:1-8 which suggest that even at this early point in the letter Paul is addressing some of the issues in Rom 9-1 I. See also 'Analyse' 2929-30. 4 In my view, this is somewhat surprising, for it strikes me that many important articles by Rilisanen have been published in English, or that they are translated from German into English. The five articles 'Das "Gesetz" des Glaubens und' des Geistes'. 'SprachIiches zum Spiel des Paulus mit NOMOE', 'Zum Gebrauch van EIIlElYMIA und ETIIElYMEIN bei Paulus', "'Werkgerechtigkeit" - eine "fruhkatholische" Lehre? Oberlegungen zum 1. Klemensbrief, and 'Zionstora und Biblische Theologie. Zu einer TUbinger Theorie', which are included in the collection The Torah and Christ, have been translated into English and again published in the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah. The German article 'Zur Herkunft von Markus 7,15', however, has not been translated, which is understandable, because 'Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15' has been included in Jesus, Paul and Torah, and this article refers to the German article on Mk 7:15. Yet the German article 'Zum Verstllndnis von ROm 3,1-8' is, in my view, of such a great interest (see chapters 6-8 of my study), that it would have been worthwhile to publish this article also in an English translation. With the above remarks I do not want to assert, of course, that we should regard the German articles by RlIisllnen as being of less interest, or that we should pay less attention to them. His very important article 'Analyse', for example, would contradict such an assertion.

Inconsistencies in Paul's View ofIsrael: Romans 9-1 J

93

this brief overview. Yet, in the course ~f this study this relation will hopefully be clarified. 5

6.2 Raisanen 's method. Indications of inconsistencies

According to Raisanen, it is generally agreed that in Rom 9-1 I Paul addresses the problem of the trustworthiness of God in connection with his promises to Israel. 6 To put it differently, the high-pitched words of Paul in Rom 8 on the certitude of salvation evoke the question of whether the people of Israel also share in the same certitude.1 In other words, in Rom 9-11 Paul tries to answer the important question of whether God's promises, namely that (a part of) Israel will be saved, are still trustworthy, since it appears that, as Paul says in other letters, Ca considerable part of) Israel has rejected Jesus. s With reference to Rom 9-11, many other questions could be asked, of course. 9 However, within the scope of this 5 The article 'Romans 9-11 and the "History of Early Christian Religion'" does not really offer new exegetical material. In this article, Riiisanen explains on the basis of Rom 9-11 how a theology of the New Testament, in the sense of Wrede, should be constructed (see section 9.1.2 below). Having offered a brief exegesis of Rom 9-11, and having explained the inconsistencies in Rom 9-11 (see chapter 7 below), he concludes: "No 'doctrines' can be deduced from Romans 9-11, neither a doctrine of predestination nor one of Israel's salvation", p. 756, and ..... the 'doctrine' of double predestination arose by accident ...", p. 758. See also his Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 1732. 6 "... it is now generally agreed that his real concern is the question of the trustworthiness of God as regards his promises to Israel", 'Israel' 178. "Wiihrend alle diese Themen wenigstens in Ansiitzen in den betreffenden Kapiteln vorhanden sind, herrscht heute groBe EinmUtigkeit dartiber, daB die Behandlung des Problems der Treue Gottes in bezug auf seine Verheil3ungen an Israel das eigentliche Anliegen des Apostels ist", 'Analyse' 2893. 7 "The treatment of the certitude of salvation (chap. 8) evokes the question of Israel's destiny", 'Israel'I 80. Compare 'Analyse' 2895. 8 "Wie verbalt sich die Zusage einer sicheren Rettung ganz Israels zu frUheren Aussagen Uber Israel in I Thess oder Gal?,', 'Analyse' 2893. 9 See 'Analyse' 2893. A question addressed by Riiisanen in passing but in quite a detailed way is: have the Jews, in Paul's view, another way to salvation from that of the Gentiles? See 'Israel' 189-92 and 'Analyse' 2917-20. Riiisanen answers this question, however, in the negative. By this, he does not accept the views of J.G. Gager and L. Gaston, who both believe that salvation of the Jews is possible without conversion to Christianity. According to RlIisiinen, this is impo.ssible. "A lot of Paul's statements make little sense if it was not Israel's failure to believe in Jesus as the Christ that was his problem '" it is quite incredible that Paul should have heeded the notion that Israel could be saved apart from Christ", 'Israel' 190-1. There is, thus, no doubt about the validity of the thought of 'solus Christus' in Rom 11. Or could one come to the conclusion on the basis of Rom I1 :25-27, that Israel will be converted by a divine miracle, for instance by

94

Chapter 6

study, attention will be paid only to the inconsistencies detected by Raisanen, and to the way in which he tries to explain them. Raisanen himself also tries to confine himself as much as possible to this single question. IQ When addressing the question of whether Paul argues consistently in Rom 9-11 11 , he tries to analyse every single step taken by Paul during the long train of thought in Rom 9-11. Raisiinen divides these three chapters into many shorter passages which he summarizes each time by putting a theme above each passage. Discussing these passages, he comes to a division of three large passages which are almost identical with the common division of the three chapters Rom 9-11, namely: 9:6-29; 9:30-10:21, and 11:1-36. In this way Raisanen believes that he has already found some indications of the fact that Paul's thought is not as logical as it seems at first sight. For instance, when Paul tries to answer the question of whether God's promises are still trustworthy, Paul gives, in Raisanen's view, three different answers in three different directions: after giving a satisfactory and sufficient answer, Paul twice continues his argument against all expectations of his readers. For Raisanen the passage Rom 9:6-29 is, as such, complete. However, after this passage, Paul continues searching for an explanation for his problem. 12 The same applies the so-called 'Parusiechristus' from Zion (Rom 11:26) (see 'Analyse' 2918), and thus without the apostolic proclamation? This is, for Rtlisllnen, impossible, because oihw~ never refers to something that still has to be mentioned in the text; instead, it always refers to what precedes in the text. Therefore, verse 26a refers back to verse 25c. When one tries to interpret Rom 11 :25ff by means of Rom J I: 12, 14ff, ..... scheint es nicht ausgeschlossen zu sein, daB Paulus die Bekehrung Israels im Zusammenhang mit der Predigt des Evangeliums ... erwartete", 'Analyse' 2919. Moreover, ..... erscheint die Annahme plausibeJ, daB das Futur in 11,26b kontextbedingt ist und das Anvisierte vom Gesichtspunkt des alttestamentlichen Propheten (nicht ab er von dem des Paulus) aus als zukUnftig bezeicbnet", 'Analyse' 2920. See also his Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 21 ff. 10 By ql!oting KOmmel, Rtlisilnen regards it as his task "angeblichen oder wirklicben Widerspriichen nachzugehen und ihr Vorbandensein zu erkUiren oder begrilndet zu bestreiten", 'Analyse' 2893 (my italics). "lm Brennpunkt wird die Frage nach der Kohilrenz bzw. Widerspriichlichkeit seiner Ausftlhrungen stehen, sowobl mit Rlicksicht auf das gegenseitige Verhilltnis von R5m 9 und 1J als auch auf das Verhilltnis von R5m 9-11 zum Obrigen Romerbrief und zu anderen Paulusbriefen, wo von Israel die Rede ist", 'Analyse' 2894 (my italics). 11 "Is Paul consistent?", 'Israel' 179. Rais!lnen quotes Stuhlmacher who believes that in Rom 9-11 Paul argues "hochst konsequent und imponierend", 'Analyse' 2892-3. At the end of his study, Rtlisanen will argue the opposite. 12 According to Rtlisanen, logically speaking there is no need for a continuation after Rom 9:6-29. "At this point the reader hardly feels that tbe treatise should go on. Nothing seems to be lacking; there is no need for a continuation ... But here we meet a problem, for Paul does not leave the issue at that. There are more answers to come", 'Israel' 184. Compare also 'Analyse' 2906.

Inconsistencies in Paul's View of Israel: Romans 9-11

95

to the passage Rom 9:30-10:21. 13 Later on in this chapter, Paul's answers will be discussed further; now it is merely important to observe that, according to Raisanen, Paul unexpectedly gives several answers to the question of whether God's promises are still trustworthy. Further research on Raisanen's work will clearly show that these several answers appear to be different answers, so that Raisiinen again runs up against inconsistencies in Paul.

6.3 First inconsistency: divine predestination and human responsibility In Rom 9:6-29, Paul gives his first answer to the question of whether God's promises are still trustworthy. Paul can answer this question in the affirmative, since there has simply never been a promise for the people of IsraeL14 God's promises are meant only for those people who have been chosen by GOd 15 , and the people of Israel as a whole have never been chosen by him (Rom 9:6-13). All who are called Israel do not yet belong to Israel. Paul thus makes a distinction between the so-called empirical Israel (the Israel as it presents itself to us), and the eschatological Israel (the Israel which will be saved). Although the idea of double predestination is not mentioned in so many words, this idea does occur here (Rom 9:14-18 and 9:19-23) and constitutes Paul's answer to the question of whether God's promises are still trustworthy.16 This pushes the reader to the conclusion that, for Paul, the majority of Israel is lost forever. 17 In this way, Paul has now offered an explanation for a problem relating to salvation history, and there is no need for him to discuss this any 13 "At the close of the section 9:30-10:21 one again gets the impression that Paul could well have ended his treatise here. But he does go on!", 'Israel' 186. 14 " ... God never promised anything for ethnic Israel", 'Israel' 184. 15 "His promises are meant for those whom he chooses to call to be his people ... There was never a promise for those whom God has hardened", 'Israel' 184. 16 "Double predestination is not the main issue of the section, but that idea is there", 'Israel' 184. "Der Gedanke der praedestinatio gemina liegt unbestreitbar vor. Die Implikation ist klar. Ohne es express is verbis auszusprechen, gibt Paulus zu verstehen: die Mehrheit Israels ... is! nie berufen warden. Die meisten Israeliten sind, obwohl €~ 'Iopoc~A, nie ein TeiI van 'Israel' gewesen, und zwar deshalb, weil es Gatt vollig frei steht, einige zu lieben und andere zu hassen (V. 13) ... Das Problem ist ja: falsifiziert nicht der Unglaube vom erwlihlten Volk Gottes entweder die GUltigkeit von Gottes VerheiBungen oder die von Paulus verkUndigte Botschaft? Paulus 11Ist das Problem dUTch die Behauptung, die Frage sei falsch gestellt ... Da die Mehrheit Israels nicht zu den ETwahlten Gottes geMrt, hat der Unglaube des Volkes keine Bedeutung fUr die Gilltigkeit des Wortes Gottes", 'Analyse' 2900-1. 17 In Rom 11, however, the opposite will appear to be the case.

96

Chapter 6

further.1 8 Yet Paul continues his treatise. In the next passage Rom 9:3010:21, he moves in another direction by stressing emphatically human responsibility and guilt. Israel has rejected Christ, and therefore it has fallen. 19 The trustworthiness of God is, thus, not at stake at all. In connection with this answer, it is striking that Paul completely disregards the idea of predestination expressed in the previous passage. Logically speaking, for Riiisiinen, divine predestination and human responsibility exclude each other. Therefore, the two passages 9:6-29 and 9:30-10:21 constitute an inconsistency.2o An illustration of this inconsistency is the use of ou 'lHivLEC; in Rom 9:6 and 10:16: in the former case, 'not all' of Israel will be saved because they are not all predestined, whereas in the latter case, 'not all' will be saved because the fault lies with themselves. 21 This inconsistency is, to be sure, not characteristic of Paul22, since it also occurs in other places, both within and outside Christianity.23 18 " ••• wie der Leser sich auch zur Losung des Paulus stellen mag, es scheint ziemlich klar zu sein, was die L/jsung des brennenden heilsgeschichtlichen Problems ist", 'Analyse' 2906. 19 '''Israel' ist zu Pall gekommen, und zwar hat es sich an Christus, den 'Stein des AnstoJ3es', gestoJ3en (V. 32b-33; vg!. 10,11, ein Vers, der den christologischen Sinn von 9,32f. absichert),", 'Analyse' 2907. 20 "Logically 9:30-10:21 is in disagreement with the predestination section 9:6-29", 'Israel' 186. 21 See 'Israel' 186 and 'Analyse' 2909-10. 22 "The disharmony between divine predestination and human responsibility is no Pauline peculiarity, however", 'Israel' 186. Compare also 'Analyse' 2910. Therefore, in my view, there is something to be said for not speaking here of an inconsistency in Paul in RlIisanen's sense (or, at least, not paying so much attention to this aspect), because in the previous chapters of this study it continually appeared that the inconsistencies concerning the law are characteristic of Paul. This is one of the reasons why RlIisllnen pays so much attention to these inconsistencies. Nevertheless, I still think it is legitimate to speak of an inconsistency in Paul here, since RlIisllnen himself does the same, and I want to give as much as possible a complete and fair description of RlIisllnen's work. Even though he says that the relation between divine predestination and human responsibility is not the most important contradiction (" ... the relationship between divine hardening and man's disobedience is of less interest ... ", 'Israel' 192), RlIisanen characterizes it as "The Question of Consistency in Romans 9-11" (see 'Israel' 192). 23 In The Idea of Diyine Hardening, RlIisilnen also considers this question. This contradiction or inconsistency also occurs in the Old Testament (45-66), in Qumran (73-8), in the Gospels (88-94), and even in the Koran (7-44). "The talk of predestination has probably always a social function, or a set of functions. Predestination is never preached to would-be converts. The idea crops up in conflict settings where the religious majority does not accept the message preached by a minority group. The notion of a sovereign divine initiative explains to the minority why they (alone) are elected and saved. It consoles them when the efforts to convert the rest of the people fail", 'Israel' 186, where RlIisanen repeatedly refers to the study mentioned above. However, according to RlIisanen the relation between election and responsibility was never interpreted or experienced as a contradiction, while the idea of predestination was never

__J

Inconsistencies in Paul's View ofIsrael: Romans 9-1 I

97

6.4 Second inconsistency: rejection and election

Although the readers of Paul's letter do not expect a continuation, nevertheless (for the second time) another passage follows, namely Rom 11: 1-36. In these verses, Paul moves in a third direction in order to solve his problem. However, this third direction is completely different from the other two, because this time Paul is asserting that Israel will be saved. In Rom 9:6-29, Paul gave the impression that the election of the whole of Israel would be out of the question. However, in Rom 11: 1-1 0 there is a certain change in Paul's thought. 24 There is still a AELj.Lj.LC! KOCt' EKAOYTW xocpttO~ (verse 5b). This thought could be harmonized with Rom 9:6-29 by asserting that there is no salvation for Israel as a whole. 25 Yet this change in Paul's thought is developed further. In Rom 11:12, 15 26 Paul already expresses himself positively concerning Israel's salvation, and although there are some peculiarities 27 in his train of thought, Paul's argument unexpectedly reaches a climax when he discloses a j.Lua't'~ptov (verse 25; this word is, according to Raisanen, an apocalyptic term 28): the elaborated in such a way that it would result in a kind of fatalism. See RlIisllnen's summary (96-8). The pages indicated in brackets refer every time to the study mentioned above. See also his Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 98-117. 24 "Der Abschnitt 11,1-10 stimmt mit 9,6-29 insofem tiberein, als gOttliche Erwllhlung bzw. Verstockung das allein Entscheidende ist, von dem Israels Schicksal abhllngt. Ein Unterschied besteht darin, daB 9,6ff. impliziert, Israel als ganzes sei nie erwilhlt worden. Nach Kap. 11 ist das empirische Volk erw!!.hlt und kann nicht verworfen werden. AlIerdings heiBt das zunllchst nur: es kann nie als ganzes verworfen werden. Einige werden immer 'Ubrigbleiben''', 'Analyse' 2912. 2S "Kein happy end wird fIlr das Volk Israel als ganzes in Aussicht gestellt", 'Analyse' 2912. 26 "In 11,12.15 weist Paul us deutlich auf eine grundlegende positive Veranderung in der Situation des Volkes Israel hin, was nach 9,6-11,10 etwas vlll1ig Unerwartetes ist", 'Analyse' 2913. " ... V. 15 zeigt, wie greBe Hoffnungen er mit Israels TTpooATlllljJL<; verbindet: auf sie wird die eschatologische Vollendung ((wn EK VEKpWV) folgen", 'Analyse' 2914. 27 RlIisllnen finds verse II and verse 14 especially odd, since, for Paul, the real purpose of his mission among the Gentiles is to make Israel jealous. In other words, according to R!!.isllnen, the salvation of Israel is at the root of his call to be an apostle to the Gentiles. This thought, however, does not occur elsewhere in Paul (compare Gal 1:15-16). See 'Israel' 187-8 and 'Analyse' 2913-4. See also section 6.5.4 below. 2' Here is an interesting difference (or, at least an addition) between 'Israel' and 'Analyse'. In the article 'Israel', Rilisanen merely asserts that the word IlUO't~PLOV belongs to the "standard apocalyptic vocabulary", and that it denotes a "special revelation" and a "supernatural knowledge" (,Israel' 192). Although Raisanen says the same in 'Analyse', in the course of his discussion he does not ascribe this apocalyptic nature to the term ~\lO't~PLOV any more by arguing that the thought in verse 26a (alllsraeJ will be saved) can already be found in Rom 11: 11-15. "Ohwohl der Sprachgebrauch des Paulus in V. 25a den Gedanken an eine ekstatisch-vision!lre Sonderoffenbarung nahelegt,

98

Chapter 6

divine hardening of Israel will be of a merely temporary nature, and in the end, instead of just a remnant of Israel, lTii~ 'Iopa~A OWe~OELaL (Rom 11 :26a). Raisanen insists that in this context Israel has to be interpreted not 'spiritually'29, but literally. There is no need for Paul's readers to doubt the trustworthiness of God, because his grace will triumph over Israel's disobedience. 3o Already in Rom 3:1-8 Paul alludes to this same idea. 3l The inconsistency is clear: Rom 9:6-29 talks about Israel's hardening, whereas Rom 11 :11-36 talks about the election oflsrael as a whole. Conclusion with reference to Rom 9-11 32 Considering Rom 9-11 from the point of view of its consistency, Raisiinen comes to the conclusion that there are two important inconsistencies. The first one concerns the relation between divine predestination and human ist es durchaus m6glich, daB sich ihm die in V. 25 ausgesprochcne Oberzeugung einfach im Gange seiner Darlegungen als eine Erleuchtung nahelegte. Paulus hat sie sicherlich bona fide auf einen tibernatllrlichen Ursprung zuriickgefUhrt", 'Analyse' 2923. 29 ..... es besteht doch eine deutliche Korrelation zwischen &110 fJ.EpOUC; in V. 25 und mic; in V. 26. Und in welchem Sinne wtirde das Heil des 'geistlichen' Israels (im Sinne von 9,6ff.) ein 'Geheimnis' sein ... ? Was w!Ire die Gottlosigkeit des geistlichen Israels, die no ch weggenommen werden muB (V. 26b-27)? Der OCXPL ou-Satz impliziert doch, daB die Verstockung verschwinden wird, wenn die Zeitgrenze erreicht ist. mic; muB nicht 'jedes Individuum' bedeuten, aber 'sehr viel mehr' mUssen doch gerettet werden", 'Analyse' 2916-7 note 145. 30 ..... all emphasis has moved on to God's oyerwhelming mercy ... The 'treatise' thus ends with proclaiming God's triumph oyer human disobedience", 'Israel' 189. 31 According to R!Iis!Inen, Paul has already addressed himself to the set of problems of Rom 9-11 in Rom 3:1-8 (see 'Verst!lndnis'). With reference to what has been said about circumcision in Rom 2:25-29, Paul is asking himself in Rom 3 whether the Jew still has some privileges above the non-Jew. We would haye expected, in Raisllnen's yiew, that Paul would have answered this question in Rom 3: I in the negative. However, this passage runs quite differently. There was no longer any need at all for Paul to return to the topic of circumcision. It appears especially from verse 3, in RlIis!lnen's view, that already here Paul is going to address the issues of Rom 9-11. Paul is not able to suppress the question in verse 3. "Die Soteriologie des Paulus wirft derart schwierige heilsgeschichtliche Probleme auf, daB es nicht wundernimmt, daB er manchmal gleichsam mit sich selbst Gesprllche fUhren mull", 'Vcrst!lndnis' 192. Yet Paul thus anticipates his statements in Rom 11: 17ff. In verse 4, Paul answers the question of verse 3 with a firm 'no'. There is not yet any further clarification of this negative answer; this will be given in Rom 9-11. Indeed, Paul cannot give this clarification in Rom 3, because if he had, for example, written Rom 11 :26 at this place, this would havc destroyed the entire argument of Rom 1-2. Even though Paul does not yet give this clarification now (in Rom 3), according to R1!isllnen the consequence of alluding to the problem related to salvation history as discussed in Rom 9-\\ is that Paul moves away from the actual theme of Rom 1-3: in Rom 3:9 he has to start his argument again. "3,3-8 bleibt ein kurzer Exkurs", 'Verstllndnis' 200. n See 'Israel' 192.

Inconsistencies in Paul's View ofIsrael: Romans 9-1 J

99

responsibility, or, more precisely, the relation between divine hardening and Israel's disobedience. Yet Raisanen regards the second contradiction as more important: Paul has two mutually exclusive solutions for the problem of God's trustworthiness. He asserts on the one hand that the empirical Israel was not elected, but rather hardened (Rom 9:6-29), and on the other hand that Israel will be saved due both to God's loyalty to his promises and also to the election ofIsrael (Rom 11: 11-3 6)33

6.5 Inconsistencies with reference to a comparison between Rom 9-11 and Paul's earlier letters As already mentioned above, the article 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens' is much more extensive and detailed than 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research'. This also appears from the fact that only in the former article does Riiisanen make a comparison between Rom 9-11 and Paul's earlier letters. 34 Such a comparison makes clear that in Rom 9-11 Paul makes some statements which conflict with some of his other statements. Again, according to Riiisanen, we come across some inconsistencies35, in this case six.

6.5.1 Who hardens? God or an anti-divine power (2 Cor 4), and is this hardening of a permanent or temporary nature (2 Cor 3)? The first inconsistency, which actually contains two aspects, concerns the hardening oflsrae!. We have seen that in Rom 9-11, Paul says that God himself has hardened Israel. But in 2 Cor 4:4, Paul refers to 0 eEO~ tOU a.Lwvoc; toUtOD as the cause of this hardening36 , who is characterized by Raisanen as an anti-divine power.J7 Moreover, 2 Cor 3 gives the 33 "In Romer 9 und Rilmer II spricht Paulus von Israel auf zwei villlig verschiedene Weisen: (1) Das Volk Israel ist nicht von Gott berufen und ist im voraus zum Verderben verurteilt (9,6-23). (2) Das Volk Israel wird wegen Gottes Treue zu den Vatem und seinen Verheil3ungen gerettet werden (I 1,11-36)", 'Analyse' 2930. 34 See 'Analyse' 2923-9. 35 Although Raisanen does not term these differences 'inconsistencies' in so many words, but rather describes them under the theme of "SonderzQge" (,Analyse' 2923), it still seems legitimate to me to term the differences 'inconsistencies', because these differences have everything to do with Paul's inconsistent way of arguing. 36 " ••• im volligen Unterschied sowohl zu Rilmer 9 als auch zu Rilmer 11 steht diesmal nicht der Gott lsraels hinter der Verblendung, sondem hart polemisch 'der Gott dieses Aons' (4,4)", 'Analyse' 2924. " "Der Passus zeigt, wie verfehlt es ware, bei Paulus eine 'systematische' Lehre von der Verstockung zu suchen. In Rilmer 9 und 11 wird sie als gottgewirkt angesehen, und in Romer 9 legt Paulus sehr viel Gewicht eben auf Gottes Recht, wen er will zu

JUU

impression that the divine hardening is of a merely temporary nature 38 , whereas Rom 9 gives the impression that God has hardened Israel permanently. When we compare 2 Cor 3 with Rom 11, which is, contrary to Rom 9, positive towards the salvation of Israel, then even Rom 11 is still different from 2 Cor 3 in the sense that Rom 11 expresses something of the certainty ofIsrael's salvation. 39 In Rom 9-11 as well as in 2 Cor 34, Paul tries to find a solution to the problem of Israel's unbelief. A comparison between Rom 9-11 and 2 Cor 3-4 shows that Paul offers three different solutions to the same problem: (1) in 2 Cor 4 the hardening is traced back to an anti-divine power; (2) in Rom 9 it concerns a permanent divine hardening; and (3) in 2 Cor 3 and Rom 11 Paul refers to a temporary divine hardening. 4o 6.5.2 Is the Jews' unbelie/ a stimulus (Rom II) or a hindrance (I Thess 2) to Paul's preaching o/the Gospel to the Gentiles? In 1 Thess 2:14-16, Paul refers to the guilt of the Jews. This passage contains a straight accusation. Paul's sayings are very sharp here, even to the extent of saying in verse 16a that the Jews are hindering 'us' from speaking to the Gentiles in order that they (the Gentiles) may be saved. The unbelief of the Jews is thus a hindrance to Paul's preaching to the Gentiles. 41 In Rom 11: 11 ff, on the other hand, the unbelief of the Jews is in fact a stimulus to preaching to the Gentiles. Riiisiinen also argues that the idea ofIsrael's salvation would have been rather odd and surprising to the readers of the first letter to the Thessalonians. 42

verstocken. Dieser Gedanke 11lBt sich nicht mit der Vorstellung von 2 Kor 4 harmonisieren, wo die Verstockung auf die widergottliche Macht zurUckgefUhrt wird. Die EinfUhrung des Satans in Rom 9 hlltte den Gedankengang dort von Grund auf zerstort, denn in Rom 9 hllngt ja alles von der Souver!initllt Gottes ab. Auch in Ram II wird Gott expressis verbis als der Urheber der Verstockung genannt", 'Analyse' 2924. 39 "Die Verstockung ist nicht endgliltig ... ", 'Analyse' 2923. 39 "Das Neue in Ram 11 ist die GewiBheit vom glUcklichen Ende, die in 2 KOT 3 noch vollig fehlt", 'Analyse' 2923. 40 See 'Analyse' 2924. 41 "Der Unglaube der Juden gibt nicht den AnstoB zu dieser Wirksamkeit (so Ram 11,1 J ff.), sondern macht vielmehr ein Hindernis fUr sie aus", 'Analyse' 2925. 42 "Dagegen mul3 der Gedanke der endgUltigen Rettung des Volkes Israel (Ram 11,25 ff.) dem Leser des I. Thessalonicherbriefes als eine vollige Oberraschung kommen", 'Analyse' 2925.

Inconsistencies in Paul's View ofIsrael: Romans 9-11

101

6.5.3 The olive tree allegory does notfit in the letter to the Ga/atians According to Raisanen, the analogy of the olive tree in Rom 11 can in no way be made to fit with the thought of the letter to the Galatians. 43 In this letter, Paul argues that the Jew has to be converted. 44 In contrast to what is argued in the letter to the Romans, the Jew has to break with his characteristic Jewish past. If we were to connect the olive tree allegory with the letter to the Galatians, then we should have to speak, according to Raisanen, of a third tree, unto which the Jews as well as the Gentiles have to be grafted. 45 6.5.4 Is Paul an apostle to Israel or to the Gentiles (Gal 1-2 and 1 Thess 2)?

As already mentioned above, there are several peculiarities in Paul's treatise in Rom 11. In Rom 11: 11-14, Paul gives the impression that he actually regards himself as an apostle to Israel. 46 The ultimate purpose of all his missionary work is the salvation of Israel. On the other hand, the tendency of Gal 1-2 is to suggest that Paul is sent as an apostle to the Gentiles. In 1 Thess 2 also Paul is pre-eminently the apostle to the Gentiles.47 6.5.5 Nowhere in his letters, except in Rom 11, does Paul speak of a miraculous eschatological salvation of Israel When talking about the eschaton, Paul never speaks of a miraculous ~schatological salvation ofIsrael, except in Rom 11. 48 Although Raisiinen does not pay much attention to it, it is still important to mention that he does take note of this important difference.

43 "Wlilirend der Tenor des Galaterbriefes sich gut mit Romer 9 reimt (abgesehen vom PrMdestinations- und Verstockungsgedanken, van dem nichts zu spUren ist), wMre das Olbaumgleichnis von ROm 11,17 ff. im Galaterbrief ein totaler Fremdkarper. Israel gilt im Gal eben nicht als der Bereich, in den der glliubig gewordene Heide gleichsam als Proselyt hereinkommen dart", 'Analyse' 2926. 44 " ••• einen neuen Schritt machen muE ...", 'Analyse' 2926. 45 "In diesem Lichte wMre es angemessen, van der christlichen Gemeinde als einem 'dritten' Baum zu sprechen, in den sowohl Heiden als auch Juden eingepfropft werden", 'Analyse' 2926. ~6 R!iisllnen even believes that there is, for Paul, in Rom 10-11 a " ... dringenden Bedarf, auch als ein Missionar gegenUber Israel (trotz Gal 2) gelten zu kOnnen", 'Analyse' 2914. See also 'Israel' 187-8. 47 " •.• Heiden, nicht Juden, zu retten ist seine Aufgahe", 'Analyse' 2925. 48 "Wo Paulus die eschatologischen Endereignisse schildert, fehlt jeglicher Hinweis auf eine mirakulOse Rettung Israels (l Thess 4; 1 Kor 15). Eine Hoffnung auf sie kann also kaum die stllndige Triebkraft seiner Mission gewesen sein", 'Analyse' 2926-7.

102

Chapler6

6.5.6 In Rom 9-11 the thoughts of Justification by faith' and 'being-inChrist' are absent In Rom 9-11 Paul does not state that the sinner has to be justified. Instead, he states that it all depends on one's call (election).49 Also the well-known thought of 'being-in-Christ' does not occur in Rom 9-1 po

Conclusion with reference to a comparison between Rom 9-11 and Paul's earlier letters 51 All the negative statements on Israel in Rom 9 are to a great extent similar to those in the first letter to the Thessalonians and in the letter to the Galatians. The idea of a divine hardening also occurs in 2 Cor 3, whereas in 2 Cor 4 an anti-divine power is the cause of this hardening. The permanent hardening of Israel by God's sovereign act only occurs in Rom 9, while at the same time Paul expresses nowhere such positive feelings on Israel as in Rom 11 (the character indelebilis of Israel and the olive tree allegory). In sum, a comparison between Rom 9-11 and Paul's earlier letters also demonstrates, in Riiisanen's opinion, that there are many inconsistencies in Paul's view ofIsrael.

.9 "Vom Glauben hlingt dabei nichts ab; es kommt nur auf Gottes 1Tpo6eoL<; an", 'Analyse' 2927. S. Westerholm emphasizes Paul's contrast between faith and works in Rom 9:30-10:13 by referring back to 9:11-12,15,18. "To deny Paul's contrast between 'faith' and 'works,' or to confine its scope to a polemic against Jewish particularism, is thus to fail to appreciate both the theocentric focus of Paul's religious view and the radicalness with which he views the human dilemma and tbe divine redemption", 'Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11' 236. Raisl1nen, however, believes that this contrast is actually a secondary device in Rom 9. See his 'Faith, Works and Election in Romans 9: A Response to Stephen Westerholm' 241. Compare also Westerholm, 'Response to Heikki Rliislinen'. so "Statt der Eingliederung in den Leib Cbristi spricht Paulus in 11,17 ff. von der Einpfropfung in den 'Baum' Israel. Aucb in dieser Hinsicht weicht er vollig davon ab, was er in anderen Zusammenhllngen sagt", 'Analyse' 2929. SI See 'Analyse' 2929.

Chapter 7

Explanation for the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel In the same way as Riiisanen gives an explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies concerning the law, he also tries to explain the inconsistencies described in the previous chapter. In this chapter we shall listen to this explanation, and subsequently we shall compare it with the explanation(s) for the inconsistencies concerning the law. But we shall first look briefly at the explanations which Riiisanen rejects.

7.1 Explanations rejected by Rtiisiinen The article 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research' offers a clear overview of the explanations rejected by Riiisanen. l This article will therefore be analysed in this chapter, and additional relevant information will be drawn from 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens'. It is not the aim of this chapter to offer as detailed an overview as possible of the explanations rejected by Riiisanen; for that it would be better to study Riiisiinen's articles themselves. The aim of our description is merely to give an impression of Riiisanen's own position.

7.1.1 Successive phases in God's sovereign plan Riiisanen rejects the explanation that Rom 9-1 I refers to successive phases in God's sovereign plan for Israel, such that, having hardened Israel, God would claim the right to convert the entire end-time generation of Israel. This explains away the inconsistent train of thought in Rom 911.2 Riiisanen, however, believes that this explanation is impossible, since it has an anachronistic standpoint: for Paul, the Israel hardened by God is the same as the Israel which will be saved as a whole. 3 Moreover, See 'Israel' 192-5. RlIis1!nen refers for this explanation to 1. Piper. See 'Israel' 192-3. 3 "But this is an anachronistic standpoint; for Paul, the Israel hardened and the Israel to be saved were one and the same generation", 'Israel' 192-3. I

2

104

Chapler 7

R1i.isiinen believes that there is no sovereign plan of God in Rom 9-11, because his actions (Rom 11) are already calculable in advance. 4

7.1.2 Rom 11 is a/less interest The inconsistency in Rom 9-11 is also explained away simply by stating that, even though Rom 11 conflicts with Rom 9, the former chapter is of less interest. s It is evident that such an 'explanation' will not take us very far. 6

7.1.3 Rom 9 is a mere preparation for Rom 11 Several interpreters argue that Rom 9 is merely a necessary preparation for Rom 11. 7 By this they mean that Paul wrote Rom 9 in order to express more clearly the dramatic element: whereas Rom 9 gives the impression that Israel can never be saved, Rom 11 leads the reader to a completely different and surprising conclusion. Raisiinen also regards this explanation as impossible, because in the course of his treatise Paul rejects the solution given in Rom 9. 8

7.1.4 A development/ram Paul's earlier letters to his letter to the Romans According to this view, there is a development from the letter to the Galatians, where Paul has an extremely negative attitude towards Israel, to the letter to the Romans, where his attitude is extremely positive (Rom 11).9 We have seen this so-called 'development theory' already in the description of the explanation for the inconsistencies concerning the law. IO But now Raisiinen again rejects this explanation by asserting that Rom 9 is no less negative towards Israel than, for instance, Gal 4. If we want to speak of a development ll , then, according to Raisanen, the shift occurs

4 "His action is calculable, except for its mode and time. The result is known to humanity in advance", 'Israel' 193. 5 Riiisllnen refers for this view to G. Klein and E. Grasser. See 'Israel' 205 note 115. 6 "But it does not take us very far simply to discard Romans 11", 'Israel' 193. 7 RlI.isllnen refers to U. Wilckens, E. K!lsemann, and H. HUbner in particular. See 'Israel' 193 and 'Analyse' 2930-1. B " ... the point is that Romans 9 can hardly represent a necessary first step if Paul soon turns away from the solution given in that chapter. As for the disillusionment, chapter 10 would have sufficed for that purpose", 'Israel' 193. 9 For this explanation Rilisllnen refers again to WiIckens and HUbner, among others. Compare note 122 with note 6 ('Israel' 205 and 197 respectively). See also 'Analyse' 2931. 10 See section 3.1.5. 11 Rilisilnen speaks ofa "shift", 'Israel' 194.

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

105

between Rom 9 and Rom 11, or more precisely, between Rom 11: 10 and Rom 11: 11.12 7.1.5 Paul's insights were changing while he was writing the letter to the Romans Some interpreters believe that while writing his letter Paul received a kind of divine response to the problem he was wrestling with in Rom 9-11.13 At the moment Paul was writing the beginning of Rom 9, he did not yet know what he was going to write in Rom 11. However, as Riiisiinen says, a similar contradiction can also be found already in 2 Cor 3: on the one hand, there is the idea of divine hardening (verse 14), but on the other hand, there is also the statement that this hardening will be taken away in the future (verse 16). Moreover, if Paul received a new and better insight at a later stage, why then did he not cancel his earlier solutions?14 7.1.6 Rom 9 and Rom J1 are two different strategies to reach the same goal In view of the social context of the letter to the Romans, Rom 9 and Rom 11 are two different means by which Paul wanted to make clear to the Jewish Christians that they had to abandon their Jewish background, and that they had to accept fully the Gentile Christians in Rome. ls By means of Rom 9 Paul wanted to loosen the Jewish Christians from their Jewish background, whereas in Rom 11 he wanted to demonstrate that the Gentile Christians had, as it were, their raison d'etre. Riiisiinen believes that this view does not take into account the main theme in Rom 9-11, namely the relationship between Israel's unbelief and God's faithfulness. 7.1.7 Dialectical concept and paradoxes l6 The contradictions between Rom 9 and Rom 11 are also explained in terms of a dialectical concept: it merely seems that Rom 9 and Rom 11 are contradictions, but in reality they are not. 17 Although Riiisiinen does not 12 See 'Israel' 194 and 'Analyse' 2931-2. In 'Israel', Riiisllnen says that there is a possible development between Rom 9 and Rom 10, while in 'Analyse', he says that this possible development can be detected between Rom 9 and Rom 11. 13 Rllislinen mentions U. MUller and B. Noack, 'Israel' 194. 14 "In any case, why did Paul not care to cancel his earlier reflections if he had changed his mind and felt that he now knew better?", 'Israel' 194. "Ihm ist der Widerspruch also anscheinend verborgen gebJieben", 'Analyse' 2932. 15 For this explanation Raisllnen refers to F. Watson, 'Israel' 194-5. 16 This explanation is not mentioned in the overview in 'Israel'; it is mentioned, however, in 'Analyse' 2930. 17 Rllisfinen refers to Kfisemann in particular. See 'Analyse' 2930.

106

Chapter 7

discuss this further, he regards such a dialectical explanation as being vague. 18

7.2 Riiisiinen's explanation: due to a new experience. Paul is wrestling with a theological problem, namely: how can two different soteriologies be maintained simultaneously? It must be admitted that R1iis1inen does not make it easy for himself by

rejecting so many explanations. What explanations for the inconsistencies in Rom 9-11 are left? Rilis1inen searches for the explanation by considering Paul's own experience. 19 Here again it appears that R1iis1inen concurs with Sanders in broad outline, for Sanders believes that the inconsistencies within Rom 9-11 can be explained by taking into account Paul's anxiety which was caused by a very serious dilemma in his theology.2o On the one hand, Paul knows that God has to remain loyal to his promises, whereas, on the other hand, Paul wants to maintain the view that there is no salvation apart from Christ. To put it differently, in R1iisiinen's view, in Rom 9-11 Paul wants to maintain two different soteriologies Simultaneously. On the one hand, Paul does not want to break with the so-called classical Jewish covenantal nomism along with the promises to the ancestors, maintaining continuity with the Jewish Old Testament tradition, whereas, on the other hand, he does not want to give up his Christocentric soteriology, namely the view that there is no salvation apart from Christ. 21 For R1iisiinen, however, these soteriologies are mutually exclusive, and thus this heilsgeschichtlich dilemma is insoluble. 22 Yet in Rom 9-11 Paul tries to find a solution for this problem 18 " ••• vagen Behauptungen lib er Dialektik oder Paradoxie ... ". 'Analyse' 2930. Raisllnen rejects a similar explanation for the inconsistencies concerning the law (see above, section 3.1.2). 19 "It seems wiser to explain Romans 9-11 in terms of Paul's own experience ... ", 'Israel' 195. In the course of this study, it will be clear what R!iis!inen means by this. 20 See E.P. Sanders, Paul. the Law. and the Jewish People 193ff. 21 "Romans 9-11 testifies in a moving way to Paul's wrestling with an impossible task, his attempting to 'square the circle'. He tries to hold together two incompatible convictions: 1) God has made with Israel an irrevocable covenant and given Israel his law which invites the people to a certain kind of righteous life, and 2) this righteousness is not true righteousness, as it is not based on faith in Jesus", 'Conversion' 410. 22 "Paul's wrestling points to an insoluble heilsgeschichtlich dilemma in his theology. He presupposes (a) that God has acted in a decisive way in the past and given his people promises that cannot change or vanish, and (b) that God has acted in a decisive way in Christ and that there can be no salvation apart from Christ", 'Israel' 196. "Romer 9-11 hinterlllBt durchgehend den Eindruck, daB Paulus vom Anfang bis zum Ende mit einem iiberaus schwierigen Problem ringt, das er eigentlich gar nicht zu IOsen vermag. Er

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

107

so that these chapters are nothing other than an expression of Paul's wrestling23 to maintain both soteriologies simultaneously. Now it can also be explained why the image of the olive tree (Rom 11) does not fit with the letter to the Galatians. According to the Christocentric soteriology adhered to by Paul in the letter to the Galatians, the Jews as well as the Gentiles have to be converted from the previous community to the new one. But according to classical Jewish covenantal nomism, one merely has to remain loyal to the community in which one is born. When Paul addresses this latter kind of soteriology, he has to construct a new ad hoc ecclesiology which does not occur anywhere else in his letters. 24 We can now also explain why, in Rom 9, Paul discusses election, a concept which is incompatible with human responsibility.2s For in Rom 9 Paul criticizes the Jewish soteriology in favour of his own Christocentric soteriology. But within this context he emphatically stresses God's sovereign action in such a manner that his well-known doctrine of 'justification by faith alone' vanishes into thin air. The consequence, however, is that Paul thus develops a kind of third soteriology, namely salvation by election. Die Pr!idestinationsanschauung - die also natUrlich keine 'Lehre' ist - ist das weniger g!Uckliche Nebenprodukt einer verzweifelten Auseinandersetzung mit der Bundestheologie. 26

Experience

Rrusiinen characterizes his explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies concerning Israel by relating it to the concept of experience along with two other key words connected with experience, namely 'tradition' and 'interpretation'. By 'experience', he means everything connected with Paul's conversion from Judaism to Christianity, and he interprets 'tradition' in terms of Paul's Jewish past, while 'interpretation' denotes Paul's views developed as a result of a confrontation between 'tradition' and 'experience'. This concept can be used to clarify Paul's problems in the following way. Paul attempts to reconcile his own tradition, namely Jewish covenantal nomism, with his experience that there is no salvation befmdet sich in einem heilsgeschichtlichen Dilemma und probiert drei verschiedene LOsungen (9,6-29 + 11,3-10; 9,30-10,21; 11, \-2 + 11,11-36)", 'Analyse' 2932-3. 2J Hence the title of the article 'Ramer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens' (my italics). 24 See 'Israel 196' and 'Analyse' 2933-4 2> See section 6.3. 26 'Analyse' 2934.

108

Chapter 7

apart from Christ, so that his tradition is reinterpreted in the light of his experience into one soteriology (interpretation). But due to the fact that the old tradition and the new experience are mutually exclusive, Paul is wrestling with an insoluble dilemma27, and it is therefore inevitable that his theology (interpretation) becomes inconsistent. 28 For Rrusanen to maintain this explanation, he has to overlook the fact that the term ~ua·t11P~OV (Rom 11 :25) belongs to the standard vocabulary of apocalyptic. 29 Because, when relating Paul's problems to Paul's personal experience, and when stating that in Rom 9-11 Paul tries to find a solution for the dilemma described above in terms of his own insights, logically speaking Riiisanen excludes every kind of revelation: Paul's interpretation is his own human interpretation which has not been received by means ofrevelation. We have already seen that in the article 'Romer 911: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens' Riiisiinen does not ascribe the apocalyptic sense to the term ~uat~p~ov any more. 3D He himself, however, also concedes that his explanation has to ignore the 'apocalyptic nature' of ~uat~p~ov. When coming to his own conclusion, he says: The revelation vocabulary of 11 :25-26 notwithstanding"Jl, Paul is wrestling with a burning personal problem, attempting to 'square the circle,' trying different solutions. 32

Riiisiinen even goes one step further. In Rom 9-11 it seems as if Paul tries to give both a justification of and an account for God's treatment ofIsrael. However, according to Riiisanen, in Rom 9-11 Paul tries to justify himself rather than God. 33 In Rom 9-11, Paul attempts to find an answer to the 27 "Er ringt mit einem ewigen religills-theologischen Problem: mil dem Konflikt zwischen hei/iger Tradition und neuen Erfahrungen. Paulus hatte 'in Christus' Neues erlebt. Er wollte seine Tradition im Lichte seiner neuen Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen neu interpretieren. Es war aber nicht mllglich, sowohl der alten Tradition als ouch den neuen Erfahrungen ... gleichermallen gerecht zu werden. Mit beiden waren n!!mlich absolute AutoritatsansprUche verbunden ... Er ringt mit seiner Tradition und mit seinen Erfahrungen", 'Analyse' 2935. 28 "Paul experienced new things and tried to reinterpret his tradition in the light of his experience. In his case, this could only result in violence against the tradition. It was not possible to invest Jesus Christ with exclusive soteriological significance without at the same time in effect breaking with the classical covenantal nomism. Paul will have it both ways, and this brings him into an insoluble self-contradiction as regards Israel", 'Israel' 196. 29 See section 6.4 above. 30 See section 6.4. This was a difference between 'Israel' and 'Analyse'. 31 My italics. 32 'Israel' 196. 33 "Paul is in effect concerned to justify his own activity as a preacher of the gospel", 'Israel' 196. "Zutiefst geht es urn die Rechtfertigung der Mission des Paulus selbst", 'Analyse' 2936.

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

109

burning question why Israel has rejected Paul's message about Christ. Israel's rejection of his message could, of course, threaten its credibility. The answers in Rom 9-11 not only give comfort and encouragement to Paul in the face of this rejection34, but they also seek to inspire confidence in him on the part of his readers, and Paul desperately needed such confidence during his stay in Rome as a kind of intermediate station during his journey to Spain. 35

7.3 A remarkable parallel between Raisanen 's Markan and Pauline studies Although it would be very interesting to study Riiisanen's research on Mark, this is not within the scope of this study. Yet it is worthwhile to look briefly at his research on Mark, because there appears to be a remarkable parallel between his research on Mark and his research on PauL Raisanen himself refers to this parallel (see below). Our concern here is mainly with his The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark. 36 This volume is a

" With reference to this aspect, Rllis!lnen has again found some parallels with the Koran. See Hardening 19ff, 26ff, 40, and 43. 3S See Rom 15:24, 28. 36 I want to mention here three characteristic aspects of Rllis!lnen's study. (I) Many interpreters believe that Wrede asserted that the so-called 'Messianic Secret' (,Messiasgeheimnis') was Mark's own invention. However, this is, according to Rllisllnen, "an astonishingly widespread and persistent misunderstanding", Secret 44. Wrede, as a matter of fact, asserted that this was not Mark's own invention; if this were really the case, then Mark would have elaborated it in his Gospel more consistently. But because of the fact that some inconsistencies as regards this idea can be detected within the Gospel according to Mark, the Messianic Secret is, for Wrede, not Mark's own concept. (2) According to Rllisllnen, Mk 4:10-12 is not Markan material. At this point, with reference to Mk 4:10-12, Rilisiinen argues in the same manner as Wrede does in connection with the Messianic Secret: "If it were Mark's own creation, one would have expected him to apply his maxim somewhat more consistently", Secret 136. See also Rllis!lnen's Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium. (3) An important difference between RlIisanen and Wrede is that R!lisllnen asserts that the Messianic Secret is Mark's own creation. According to R!lis!lnen, it may be that in his Gospel Mark was in discussion with the so-called source Q, in which, for example, the soteriology relating to Jesus' sufferings, death aod resurrection did not occur, while at the same time Mark tries to defend his own Hellenistic theology which originated after the first Easter and which is characterized by a liberal attitude as expressed, for example, in a spiritualizing interpretation of the law. The Messianic Secret is introduced at all those places where Mark's Hellenistic theology differs from the theology of Q: Jesus knew in advance what significance would be ascribed to his sufferings, death and resurrection. " ... Mark tries to reject the claims of people like the bearers of the Q-tradition who appealed to the authority of the historical Jesus. Mark defends (unjustifiably at the historical level) his

110

Chapter 7

translation of Das 'Messiasgeheimnis' im Markusevangelium. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch. In the Preface to the English translation, Raisiinen says that in comparison with the original German Edition this translation is almost a new product with some new insights.37 In the time between the publication of the German Edition (1976) and the English translation (1990), Raisanen gained much experience from his study of Paul's contradictions (Paul and the Law was published for the first time in 1983; 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens' was published in 1987, and 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research' in 1988). It could be expected, therefore, that Raisiinen makes use of this experience of studying Paul's inconsistencies in his study of Mark38 , because in Mark also there are, according to Rtiisanen, some inconsistencies. For Raisanen .Mk 4 (verse 33 and 3439) is especially problematic. Following J. Lambrecht, Raisanen speaks of an "innerMarkan tension".4o In The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark we come across several ideas which are relevant to this study, such as Riiisiinen's important presupposition that he does not fmd it necessary to assume beforehand that a document is a unity or a consistent whole, irrespective of whether it concerns Mark or Paul. In The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark Raisiinen explicitly discusses in a few words the problem of unity within .Mk 4.41 These words are Hellenistic viewpoint by showing that the disputed points go back to Jesus himself', Secret 254. 37 u ••• the English version may almost be regarded as a new product", Secret xiii. 38 "One reason for the partial shift in my perspective is the experience of studying Paul in the meantime. Discovering tensions and contradictions in Paul's thought makes one wary of using similar features as source-critical criteria in the study of Mark", Secret xiii. 39 Even though they immediately strike us as disjunctive, we have to pay equal attention to these two verses, which are, according to R:!is:!nen, from Mark himself. "But he would simply have been gUilty of a contradiction in which he was by no means alone in the thought world of his time" (Secret 114). In this connection, RlIisllnen refers to Rom 9-11, the Koran, and the Old Testament. See Secret 113--4 . • 0 Secret 108. 41 In Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium, R!lislinen divides Mk 4 (U a gold mine for literary-critical analyses", Secret 28) into many different parts. He comes to the conclusion that there is no unity within Mk 4, since there are, according to Rllisllnen, several levels within Mk 4 which each originated in a different period. Even though Mark has constructed all these different levels into one whole, its unity thus appears to be very artificial. A comparison between Paul and Mark may not seem relevant to my study, because there are, in Raisllnen's view, several 'levels' in Mark, whereas we do not find similar levels in Paul. Yet I make a comparison between Rllisanen's Pauline studies and his Markan studies, because he himself does the same (see the text), namely with reference to Mk 4:33-34 (thUS not with reference to the different levels in Mark as described in Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium).

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

III

interesting, because he himself makes a comparison between the problem of unity in Mark and in Paul. Raisanen starts with the problem of unity within Mark. He says: The basic methodological problem, in any case, is this: should we first interpret individual sayings and sentences according to their internal logic in their immediate context? Or should we rather start with Mark's total view and try. from the start, to make individual passages fit this overall view?42

Raisanen chooses the first method. 43 Subsequently, he makes a comparison with his Pauline studies. With reference to Gal 3:19, he argues that Paul asserts that it was not God himself, but the angels who gave the law. Should we then interpret the sentence in the 'natural' sense, accepting that Paul, for whatever reasons (e.g. polemical), contradicts himself?44 Or should we rather start from the assumption that a thinker of Paul's stature must be consistent, and try to figure out a reading of Gal 3.19 which preserves his consistency?45

Raisanen states that if it is legitimate to start from the assumption that there could be some possible inconsistencies in Paul, then it is equally legitimate to start from the same assumption with regard to Mark. It is thus important for this study to come to the conclusion that we find the following methodological approach or presupposition in Riiisanen's research, namely: Riiisanen does not want to start a priori with Paul's "total view" (or with Mark's "total view"), within which Paul's different statements (or Mark's) have to be fitted. The main point now is that Raistinen explains the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark and those in Paul in the same way.46 With reference to a study by J. Lambrecht who argues that Mk 4 is entirely Markan, Raisanen says: "Lambrecht's comments on internal tensions in Mark (not known to me until quite recently) constitute a striking paraZlel47

Secret 30. At another place in Secret, Rllisanen repeats the same by asking: " ... should we begin our exegesis from the immediate context of a statement or from what we perceive to be Mark's overall view?", Secret 88. Here Rl!.isanen again chooses the former. 44 In a note, RlIislinen says: "To be sure, some of Paul's inconsistencies may result precisely from the clash between more traditional ways of thought and more 'original' ones in his mind", Secret 32 note 114. 45 Secret 31. 46 Rliisllnen believes that the contradictions in Mark have to be explained in a way similar to the way in which he tries to explain many inconsistencies in Paul. He says that, even though, for example, V. Taylor and O. Cullmann have asserted many things with reference to the contradictions in Mark, they have not offered an explanation. "Above all, the tension between hiddenness and openness, which is characteristic of Mark's presentation, remains unexplained", Secret 52. 47 MyitaIics. 42 43

112

Chapter 7

to my own observations on Pauf'.48 For Lambrecht argues that Mk 4:33 expresses Mark's spontaneous view, whereas Mark corrects himself in Mk 4:34 (by keeping in mind Mk 4:10-12).49 ... this view provides a striking parallel50 to my own perception of Paul's problems Ca spontaneous view vs. a theological theory) e.g. in Rom 2. Moreover, when Paul grapples with problems reminiscent ofMk 4.11f. he certainly gives the impression of correcting himself, or at least proposing divergent solutions to the dilemma of Israel's unbelief, in subsequent chapters (though not verses): divine hardening once and for all in Rom 9 51 , human free will and culpability in Rom 10, temporary divine hardening for a purpose in Rom 11. If Paul is capable of placing divergent solutions to a problem side by side, it is certainly not impossible that Mark may have done the same. 52

In The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark Raisanen argues the same with reference to Rom 2. First he quotes from his Paul and the Law: "Paul's theological theory pushes him in his thinking about the law into a direction in which he would apparently not go spontaneously".53 Subsequently, he continues by saying: "The spontaneous view is that the law can be fulfilled (Rom 2.14.; 2.26f.; Phil 3.4-6); the theological theory is that it cannot (the thrust of Rom 1_3)".54 In short, the inconsistencies in Mk 4 and those in Paul (concerning the law as well as Israel) originated in a similar way: both Mark and Paul make spontaneous remarks first, and subsequently, they correct them. Although Raisanen himself does not mention it in so many words in his The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark, in my view there are some other similarities between Raisanen's explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Paul and his explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark, because he interprets Mk 4 in terms of Mark's mission experience. 55 "1 suggest that the mission experience of Mark's congregation provides a key to the puzzles of the chapter".56 According to Raisanen, Mark has to demonstrate two things in Mk 4: (1) he wants to 4B 49

Secret 33. "Mark the redactor who wrote v. 33 immediately corrects himself in v. 34!", Secret

108.

My italics. As we have already seen in the previous section, RlIisli.nen regards the idea of election in Rom 9 as a kind of third soteriology of Paul as a result of the discussion with Jewish 'covenantal nomism'. Rllis!lnen again argues the same in Secret: the statements in Rom 9:6ff constitute "the less happy by-product of a despairing confrontation", Secret 33 note 120; in this connection R!lisllnen refers to the article' Analyse'. 52 Secret 108-9. S3 Paul 118. Compare also Paul 106-8 and Secret 33 note 120. 54 Secret 33 note 120. 55 See Secret 137-42. 56 Secret 138. so

SI

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

113

represent Jesus as an excellent preacher who is an example to everyone who is working as a missionary; and (2) he wants to comfort the congregation by explaining the reason why not everybody is willing to accept the Christian message. These two aspects are placed by Mark entirely within the context of the mission experiences of the first congregation. With reference to these remarks, there are indeed two other similarities between Raisanen's explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Paul and his explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies in Mark. These two similarities are related to the above "striking parallel". As we have already seen in chapter 5, Raisanen looks for the historical explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning the law by considering his mission experiences, namely his encounter with the Hellenists in Antioch, the dropping of the circumcision demand for the Gentiles and his conflict with the Iudaizers to whom he had to render an account of his liberal actions during his missionary activities. The second similarity between his two explanations lies in the triad 'tradition, experience and interpretation'. These three terms have already been mentioned above. Although Raisanen himself does not say it in so many words, a similar process occurs in Mark: due to various mission experiences Mark has re-interpreted (Mk 4:34) a 'tradition' (we may perhaps think of the parable of the seed along with its explanation), which results in various contradictions. For Riiisanen, this triad constitutes the essence of his explanation for the origin of Paul's inconsistencies (concerning both the law and Israel). Therefore, it is useful to listen to Raisanen once again in order to grasp fully what precisely he means by this triad.

7.4 Tradition, experience and interpretation In the volume Beyond New Testament Theology and in the article 'The Law as a Theme of "New Testament Theology'''57, Raisiinen introduces the triad 'tradition, experience and interpretation'. 58 It is evident that by using these terms, he distances himself from the so-called dialectical theology which pays scarcely any attention, or even no attention at all, to experience as such. S9 Raisanen is pleading that attention should again be 57 This article has been included in the collection Jesus. Paul and Torah, and can be regarded as a sequel to his Beyond New Testament Theology. 58 See also his 'Die frllhchristliche Gedankenwelt' 260ff. 59 See Beyond 122-4. That is why Riiisllnen appreciates H.J. Holtzmann: ..... Holtzmann's starting-point, his interpretation of, say, Paul's views of the law as a set of

114

Chapter 7

paid to the experiences of New Testament writers. Here we enter a field which, in my view, is not characteristic of New Testament scholarship, or even of theology as such, since Riiisiinen makes a connection between theology and sociology by explaining a theological development by means of a sociological construction. 6o This sociological construction has been introduced especially by P.L. Berger (and T. Luckmann). Because Riiisiinen makes use of this construction, we have to pay some attention to it also. Excursus: 'Symbolic universe' and 'legitimation' The sociologist P.L. Berger tries to explain the development of a theology by means of the idea ofa 'symbolic universe'. A symbolic universe can be defined as 'a system of shared meaning that enables us to live together as group', involving 'in particular the fundamental perceptions that ground the community'S existence and that therefore do not need debate or justification,.61 The terms 'symbolic universe' and 'tradition' overlap each other. and they have almost the same meaning. The idea of 'symbolic universe' points to the fact that an individual interprets the experienced surrounding world through what has been learned from the community to which that individual belongs. Berger, therefore, wants to make a clear distinction between tradition ('symbolic universe'), experience and interpretation. One of the consequences of this sociological approach is the view that every experience is already determined in advance by the tradition ('symbolic universe'). A community. then, provides its members with a framework into which the experience of the individual is integrated from the start. The process of learning the language of the group in particular is a process which prepares the individual to perceive the world in a certain way. His experiences are not 'bare' ones, but laden with interpretations. 62 To put it more strongly, every theological statement is an interpretation preceded by an experience which in its turn is determined by the tradition ('symbolic universe,).63 In sum. secondary theories to Paul's underlying fundamental experience. is one of those fruitful liberal insights that were largely lost in the upsurge of dialectical theology and still yearn for rediscovery". 'Theme' 265. 60 "Another factor capable of changing traditional pictures of the law is the use of sociology of knowledge in biblical scholarship". 'Theme' 267. 61 Beyond 130, RlIisllnen quotes L.T. Johnson. The Writings o/the New Testament. An Interpretation. London 1986, 13 (he fails to quote precisely; this makes no difference for the contents. however). '''Symbolic universe' denotes a body of theoretical tradition which integrates different provinces of meaning and encompasses the institutional order in a symbolic totality .__ 'Symbolic' denotes reference to realities other than those of everyday experience ...... 'Theme' 267-8 note 5. See also R!lis!lnen's 'Die frilhchristliche Gedankenwelt' 262. 62 Beyond 130. 63 "Yet theoretical assertions are no more than reflection caused by fundamental experiences. 'At the heart of the religious phenomenon is prereflective. pretheoreticaI

Explanation for the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

115

.. , the dialectical interaction between tradition (symbolic universe), experience and interpretation governs the way in which the world is perceived and interpreted by groups and individuals. 64

In the article 'The Law as a Theme of "New Testament Theology"', RlIis~nen uses the term legitimation. P.F. Esler defmes this idea as "the collection of ways in which an institution is explained and justified to its members".65 It is important to note here the specific function of 'symbolic universe' in connection with the idea of 'legitimation'. This can be described as follows: a 'symbolic universe' can be represented by someone in such a manner that he tries to legitimate a certain change (e.g., a change of a theological idea) with the intention of giving the impression that this change embraces not a new idea, but rather is a genuine part of the community's tradition.

Riiisanen applies the above sociological concept to the inconsistencies in Paul. He believes that the origin of the inconsistencies can be traced back to Paul's will to legitimate certain changes, for instance, the dropping of the circumcision demandfor the Gentiles. 66 Precisely the tension between a novel liberal practice (which signals an actual break with the sacred tradition or the old symbolic universe) and a verbally conservative ideology (which stresses continuity with the old) leads, not just Luke, but even Paul into difficulty.67

In Paul and the Law, Raisanen terms this process "secondary rationalization"; but by this term he means in effect the same as what sociologists mean by 'legitimation' .68 A theologian (e.g., Paul) does not

experience"', Beyond 124. (R~is!inen quotes P.L. Berger, The Heretical Imperative. Contemporary Possibilities of Religiou.r Affirmation. New York 1979. He refers to p. 34, but this has to be p. 36) 64 Beyond 131. My italics. G5 Quoted according to RlIisllnen, 'Theme' 267. By means of the idea of 'legitimation' Esler tries to explain the problem of the law in Luke. See 'Theme' 267 for references to the relevant literature. It is not possible here to describe the way in which Esler gives such an explanation. 66 "Matthew, Mark, John or Paul can be seen engaged in legitimating steps taken in their communities", 'Theme' 268. R~isllnen even argues that the entire theology of the New Testament can be explained and has to be explained in this way. "The rise and development of early Christian thought has to be described as an interplay between tradition, experience and interpretation", Beyond 121. Compare also his 'The New Testament in Theology' 135ffand 'Die frUhchristliche Gedankenwelt' 260ff. 67 'Theme' 268. 68 "Instead of 'legitimation', I have spoken of 'secondary rationalization' (Paul and the Law, p. 201) which may be seen as a form of legitimation", 'Theme' 268 note 2. "We find Paul struggling with the problem that a divine institution has been abolished through what God has done in Christ", Paul 264-5. At the same time, R1iisllnen raps Paul over the knuckles by saying: "Paul himself did not realize that Scripture was not on his side. We may be expected to realize and to admit that Scripture and tradition are not always on our side ... ", Paul 269.

116

Chapter 7

necessarily need to be aware of the fact that he is in such a process of legitimation. On the contrary, it often happens that the new and the old are half-consciously assimilated. Attributes of the old law are self-evidently applied to the new ethos that has in fact replaced the old, but the phenomenon is never admitted, let alone analysed. The new is spoken of as if it were identical with the 01d. 69

We are now able to see clearly an important similarity between Riiisiinen's explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning the law and his explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning Israel. Riiisiinen explains the origin of these inconsistencies partly70 in a sociological way: (1) there is a Jewish tradition or 'symbolic universe' in Paul; (2) Paul has experienced new things, by which (3) he comes to new interpretations7!; yet, (4) he tries to represent these new interpretations as if they belong to the old 'symbolic universe': legitimation. If we apply this to the origin of the inconsistencies concerning the law, then we get the following picture. 72 (1) Paul starts with the Jewish view of the law in terms of Sanders' 'covenantal nomism' ('symbolic universe'); but (2) due to several experiences such as his Damascus Road experience, his persecution of the Hellenists, his subsequent joining of this group in Antioch, his missionary work among the Gentiles and his conflict with the Judaizers (experiences), (3) Paul comes to new interpretations concerning the law (interpretations); (4) Paul, however, tries to prevent a structural conflict with the Judaizers, and therefore he represents these new interpretations in such a manner that these new interpretations seem to be completely in agreement with the old Jewish convictions (legitimation). The same approach can also be applied to the origin of the inconsistencies concerning Israe[73: (1) Paul starts with the Jewish soteriology ('covenantal nomism') by stating that Israel will be saved only if they stay within the covenant ('symbolic universe'); but (2) due to his conviction that there is no salvation apart from Christ (experience), Paul argues that (3) Israel has never been elected (interpretation); (4) Paul, however, does not want to be suspected of arguing that God is no longer loyal to his 69 'Theme' 268. "Hard pressed berween the claims of sacred tradition and the vision triggered by new experiences (which had already initiated the formation process of a new tradition) he tried to do justice to both". Paul xxv!. See also 'Experience' 20. 70 There is more to come. See section 7.5. 71 With regard to the inconsistencies concerning the law, Rllis!lnen says: "Paul drastically reinterprets his old Jewish symbolic universe in the light of his new experiences", 'Theme' 271. 72 See 'Theme' 271. 73 Compare R!lisllnen's article 'Romans 9-11 and the "History of Early Christian Religion'" 754ff.

Explanationfor the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

117

promises to Israel; therefore, he reveals the f.LUaT~plov that all Israel will be saved (legitimation). Yet, by making this last step (legitimation) concerning both the law and Israel, Paul ends up in several inconsistencies. To put it differently, Paul does not want to admit that a real break has taken place with the old Jewish 'symbolic universe', and in each case he tries to reconcile two different views which are, in fact, incompatible with each other. 74 We have seen the same explanation by Riiisiinen already in section 7.2; but this time he has described it by means of a sociological construction.

7.5 Christomonism

Rliisanen also offers another explanation for Paul's inconsistencies concerning Israel. This explanation moves, however, at a completely different level. It is instructive to look again at the article 'Zum Verstiindnis von Rom 3,1-8'. As already mentioned before 75 , according to Riiisanen, Paul addresses himself to the set of problems concerning Israel in Rom 3:1-8. The question in Rom 3:1 prompts Paul to think through all the questions on the continuity of salvation history. Paul, however, gets entangled in these questions. According to Riiisanen, these questions ought not to be addressed at this place (in Rom 3) within the letter to the Romans. This is precisely the reason why Paul has to interrupt the thread of his treatise after verse 8, and has to start his treatise all over again in verse 9. Taking up again in Rom 3:9 the question posed in Rom 3:1, he now formulates his question more clearly, namely in connection with his soteriology. Within the framework of Rom 1:18-3:20, Paul is compelled to answer his question by a firm 'no': lTaVTWC; (Rom 3:9). We shall listen to Riiisanen's own words, because, in my view, he makes a very important remark. With reference to this firm 'no' in verse 9, he says:

ou

So Mtte Paulus auch schon auf die Frage von V.I antworten kOnnen, wenn die Frage dort nicht mehrdeutig gewesen ware. Die Beschneidung nOtzt zwar soteriologisch 74 With regard to the inconsistencies concerning the law, Rliis1!nen says: "In trying to do justice both to his old symbolic world and to his new experience 'in Christ' (interpreted in a particular way), Paul lands in a situation of 'conflicting convictions', hard pressed between the old and the new". R1!isllnen continues: "Apart from passages which deal explicitly with the law, the tension is palpable in the tortured section Romans 9-11. Paul's legitimating techniques include his appeal to OT texts and figures as witnesses for his stance (whereby he often freely changes the wording of the texts) as well as his affirmation that it is he, rather than his opponents, who really does justice to the law", 'Theme' 27J. 75 See sections 6.1 and 6.4.

118

Chapter 7

nichts, doch im Blick auf die Heilsgeschichte ist sie auch nicht belanglos. Allerdings: Der soteriologische Christomonismus 76 des Palllus verbirgt in sich ein heilsgeschichtliches Dilemma77 , das sich in 3, Hf andeutungsweise bekundet. 78

This dilemma is, for Raisiinen, insoluble.7 9 Paul, however, cuts the Gordian knot in Rom 11 :25ff. 80 It is important, in Raisiinen's opinion, to assert that Paul's soteriological christomonism is the underlying reason for his wrestling in Rom 9-11. In a certain sense, this is thus a theological explanation which is similar to the theological explanation described in section 3.2 above, for we have seen in section 3.2 that one of the keyverses is Gal 2:21. Paul argues "backwards": from Christ's death to interpretations of the law. Basically the same picture emerges in Rom 911: Christ fulfils such an important role in Paul's thought that he ends up in all kinds of inconsistencies. In my opinion, it is not too much to assert that, for Riiisanen, Paul's christomonism81 is, theologically speaking, the reason for all his inconsistencies concerning both the law and Israel.

7.6 Summarizing overview We conclude this chapter by bringing together in a summarizing overview the most important ideas in our study of Raisiinen's work up to this point. In previous chapters, we have already described and analysed the whole set of problems in this study by using the illustration of a centre with two concentric circles. 82 This illustration can be further specified and completed now. In the centre are Paul's inconsistencies (chapters 2 and 6) together with his well-known antithesis (chapter 4). The field between the first (inner) concentric circle and the centre constitutes Riiisanen's theological explanation (sections 3.2 and 7.5); it appears that Paul's christomonism is its central idea. The field between the second (outer) circle and the first (inner) circle constitutes Raisanen's historical 76 In, for example, 'Analyse' 2933, Rllisilnen speaks of christo-centrism ("christozentrische Anschauung"). 77 My italics. 78 'Verstandnis' 200-1. 79 Raisanen writes: "Das heilsgeschichtliche Dilemma des Apostels ist in der Tat unlosbar. Paulus hatte 'a problem of conflicting convictions which can be better asserted than explained: salvation is by faith; God's promise to Israel is irrevocable"', 'Verst!lndnis' 202. The quotation is from Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 198. 80 "In Rom 11,25ff zerschneidet Paulus den gordischen Knoten mit Gewalt", 'Verstandnis' 202. 81 Or christocentrism, in case one prefers this term. 82 See section 1.2, section 3.2.1, and the introduction to chapter 5.

Explanation/or the Inconsistencies Concerning Israel

119

explanation (chapter 5 and sections 7.2 -7.4); Riiisanen's view of both the Hellenists (their liberal attitude towards the law) and Paul's mission experiences constitutes the central factor within this historical explanation, while the triad 'tradition (or 'symbolic universe'), experience and interpretation' is a useful sociological concept (along with the idea of 'legitimation') to clarify this historical explanation. The explanation in terms of this triad described in this chapter 7 is thus placed within Riiisanen's historical explanation; this is legitimate, since Raisanen himself has also connected this triad with his hypothesis described in chapter 5 of this study. 83 Even though the inconsistencies, the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ, and the suggested hypothesis or historical explanation are, of course, closely related to each other, these three parts are, for Raisanen, still independent of each other. In other words, even if his hypothesis and Sanders' new view of ludaism were to appear to be wrong, in which case the antithesis would be interpreted differently, then the inconsistencies in Paul would still remain. The final remark concerns Raisanen's theological explanation for the inconsistencies. Raisanen regards Paul's christomonism (or -centrism) as the central reason. Gal 2:21 fulfils an important role within this theological explanation. Because Raisanen's historical explanation is of a merely hypothetical nature, and because his theological explanation is deduced from the text itself, whereby the latter explanation is not of a hypothetical nature, his theological explanation must be viewed as the most important one; for Raisanen, this theological explanation is, as it were, the nub of Paul's inconsistent theology. As far as I can see, our description of Raisanen's work, in so far as it is relevant to the scope of this study, is complete apart from one single aspect: what are the theological consequences of all the issues described in the first seven chapters of this study? This question will be answered in the next and last chapter of part A. We shall describe, however, only those aspects which are in Raisanen's own view the consequences of the previous issues. 84

See, e.g., 'Theme' 271. I repeat that in part A, I merely offer a description of Rdisdnen 's views; my own comments and insights will be given in part B. 83

84

Chapter 8

Theological Consequences This chapter will describe the theological consequences of the problems identified by Raisiinen which we have been considering in the previous chapters. We could mention many aspects but shall confine ourselves to the most important consequences.

8.1 Paul's theology is not consistent Having carefully listened to Raisanen in his description of Paul's theology concerning the law and Israel, it will be clear by now that Riiisiinen does not regard Paul as a consistent theologian. On the contrary, as we saw in chapter 7 of this study, Raisanen believes that Paul is constantly driven into two divergent directions with regard to his view of the law as well as of Israel. On the one hand, he wants to maintain the old 'tradition', whereas on the other hand, due to a 'new experience', he comes to a renewed 'interpretation' of the tradition so that his reinterpretation conflicts with the old tradition. "He is tom into two directions, and he is incapable of resolving the tension in terms of theological thought".) Therefore, Paul's theology is not consistent. Raisanen distances himself from all those interpreters who call Paul the pre-eminent theologian within Christianity.2 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' .3

In the article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', which with hindsight appears to be a blue-print of Riiisanen's view of Paul's theology

264. After studying Rom 9-11, HUbner calls Paul a "Denker ersten Ranges", Gottes Jch

1 Paul 2

und Israel 122. 3 Paul 266--7. Compare the beginning of section 3.1 above.

Theological Consequences

121

concerning the laW', Riiisanen states that, in fact, Paul does not offer solutions as regards the law. He even argues that Paul himself is the problem in the sense that, on the theological level, Paul evokes questions rather than answers them. S ... one thing seems clear: Paul the theologian is a less coherent and less convincing thinker than is commonly assumed. By way of intuition Paul seems to have arrived at profound insights, but he did not succeed in giving any clear theoretical account of them. His was a very vivid mind and a very sharp intellect; of that there is no doubt. But he was too much under the influence of the overwhelming experience of the Spirit, which was so characteristic of the life of the new Christian communities, to be able to give room for calm reflection. 6

It is evident that such an assessment of Paul's theology has evoked severe

criticism. Kim, for example, accuses Riiisiinen of having made Paul into a "fool"7, while Hubner says that, by such an assessment, Riiisiinen has made Paul's theology into "letztlich nichtssagende Gedankensplitter"8. Riiisiinen rejects such accusations by arguing that Paul was just a human being, and that therefore inconsistencies may be expected. 9 The occurrences of these inconsistencies, however, do not imply for Riiisanen that one cannot respect Paul any more. ID

4 Already in 'Difficulties', the inconsistencies in Paul. concerning the law are mentioned together with the hypothesis described in chapter 5 above. S " ••• I wish to argue that Paul's thought is the real problem, rather than being the obvious solution to theological problems concerning the law. Paul had vast difficulties with the law, not on the existential level in his pre-Christian life, as older generations of interpreters used to think, but as a Christian, on the theoretical theological level", 'Difficulties' 3. 6 'Difficulties' 22-3. 7 Kim, The Origin oJ Paul's Gospel 356. 8 HUbner, TLZ 110 (1985) 896. 9 With regard to the inconsistencies in Paul, R!!is1inen says: "It only makes him a human being, who suddenly appears in a movingly human light", 'Experience' 20. See also The Torah and Christ 62 note 2. " ... I do not think that inconsistency is a wicked thing; it is simply human", Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 17. 10 At the beginning of his study of Paul's theology concerning the law, R!!isanen says: "Should Paul turn out to be a less consistent theologian than many have imagined, this need not a priori diminish his grandeur as a teacher in his own time and milieu", Paul 15. In the article 'Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels Bund', Raisllnen makes a positive statement on Paul. "Doch es muB Paulus als Verdienst angerechnet werden, daB er sich kOhn darauf einlieB, Antworten auf Fragen zu suchen, deren sich wenige Christen zu seiner Zeit Uberhaupt bewuBt waren", 'Bruch' 170. Rllis1inen adds to this in a note: "Dieses Verdienst habe ich in der ersten Auflage von 'Paul and tbe Law' (1983) nicht gen(lgend betont ... ", 'Bruch' 170 note 28.

122

Chapter 8

8.2 All other early Christian theologians are more consistent than Paul In Paul and the Law, Raisanen compares Paul's theology concerning the

law with other New Testament writers and a few early Christian authors. 1I Raisanen tries to discover analogies between Paul's inconsistent theology and the theology of others within early Christianity. He comes to the conclusion that these analogies hardly exist: in comparison with other theologies, Paul's theology is particularly inconsistent. In sum, I am not able to find in the relevant literature any conception of the law which involves such inconsistencies or such arbitrariness as does Paul's. While most of the conceptions surveyed above are not free from problems either, all of them appear more consistent and less problematic than Paul's. The common view that Paul is the thinker in early Christianity is, I must conclude, misleading. 12

Raisanen makes the same point earlier in 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law' . 13 Why, then, does Raisanen hold that, in comparison with other theologies, Paul's is the most inconsistent? The answer is that the divine origin of (some parts of) the law is denied in some other theologies, whereas Paul believes that the whole law is of divine origin.I4 We can understand why Raisanen holds this view, because, as we have seen in chapter 7, he argues that Paul tries to reconcile the renewed 'interpretation' (after a new 'experience') with the 'tradition' - which is for Raisanen impossible. In Raisanen's view, therefore, Paul should have given up the 'tradition', for example the belief that the law is of divine origin, in favour of his renewed 'interpretation', for example, all his negative statements on the law. IS In short, for Raisanen, Paul ought to have made distinctions within the law, and consequently Paul ought to have ascribed a human origin to some parts of the law as was indeed done by some other early Christian writers who therefore, in comparison with

See Paul 28-41, 83-93,119-27,154-61,191-8, and 203-28. Paul 228. "Indeed, it seems to me that almost any early Christian conception of the law is more consistent, more intelligible and more arguable than Paul's - whether you take Matthew or Luke, Hebrews or James, Marcion or Justin. Surely this would apply also to the theology of Paul's Judaizing opponents, if only their arguments were known to us", 'Difficulties' 23. 14 "Paul did (at times even passionately) cling to the traditional idea that the law was all divine; this is why he was caught up in so many inconsistencies in trying to relate the new experience to the authoritative tradition", Paul 266. 15 "While his life was totally oriented to the new powerful experience of Christ, he was bound to pay lip service (surely never realized as such by himself) to the tradition in order not to undercut the unity of the divine purpose and will", Paul 266. 11

12

13

Theological Consequences

123

Paul, developed a more consistent theology of the law. 16 Riiisiinen gives two examples of theologians in the second century who both made several critical distinctions within the law and ascribed a human origin instead of a divine origin to some parts of the law, and who therefore argued more consistently.17 In the first place, Raisanen mentions the Valentinian Gnostic PtoZemy.18 According to his gnostic scheme, some parts of the law' were introduced by inferior deities or by men, while many ritual commandments should be interpreted in terms of an allegory. In Riiisiinen's opinion, the positive thing about Ptolemy's theology is that he ascribes different origins to the conflicting parts of the law. 19 That is why Ptolemy is able to differentiate between different parts of the law, and consequently he is able to interpret each single part of the law in its own way. Where Paul strives after a global solution (on the conscious level of his reasoning), Ptolemy examines the contents of the law concretely on point after point; inescapably the result then must be a differentiated view about the law. 20

Even though Ptolemy is forced to give up the unity of God due to his distinctions, his theology does not have inconsistencies like Paul's.21 In the second place, Riiisanen mentions the so-called Kerygmata Petrou. This differentiated view of the law also makes, in intellectual terms, more sense than Paul's vague suggestion of the angelic origin of the law in Gal 3.19 ... In sum, the solution proposed by KP is one of the clearest in the period surveyed. 22

16 "The only reasonable way to cope with the Torah theologically (if you are not an orthodox Jew or a Fundamentalist Christian) is to admit that it was not a direct divine revelation to Moses. It consists of a long series of human attempts to respond appropriately to what God was believed to have done. Its commandments are therefore historically conditioned. From such a critical point of view one is enabled to make distinctions within the Torah and give some parts more importance than others. But this was not the starting point of Paul (or of Jesus, or of any Christian of the first generations); only later was the idea that parts of the law are human intimated by people like Ptolemy or, above all, the Jewish Christians behind Kerygmata Petrou", Paul 266. 17 " ... who had the freedom and courage to introduce critical distinctions, refusing to regard the total OT legislation as God-given", Paul 228. See also 'Theme' 273-6. 18 "Probably the most lucid solution to the problems of the law in early Christianity in terms of rational thought was suggested by the Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy in his letter to Flora", Paul 224. I' See 'Freedom' 47-8.

20

Paul 225-6.

"The price he has to pay is, of course, that the unity of God is lost ... Unlike more 'orthodox' writers, however, Ptolemy manages to avoid self-contradictions in God's revealed will ... In purely intellectual terms his account of the law is consistent and clear and far more impressive than Paul's", Paul 226. 21

22

Paul 227.

124

Chapter 8

At the same time, one of the consequences is that, for Raisanen, Paul has no decisive authority within Christianity. This is emphatically stated in the article "'Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on 1 Clement' .23 "It is worth asking the question whether it is Paul who provides problematic answers rather than everyone else".24 We have also seen that some of Paul's statements on the law, i.e. his negative statements, are the results of his conflict with the Judaizers.25 Many of Paul's statements are therefore, for Raisanen, context-bound rather than timeless sayings. 26 "One wonders again how much point there really is in making a time-bound idea of Paul ... the universal remedy".27

8.3 Paul's theology displays no continuity with the Old Testament or Judaism We learned in chapter 7 that, according to Raisiinen, Paul seeks to prevent every conflict with the Judaizers by identifying his 'interpretation' with the old 'tradition' (the process of 'legitimation'). But, as we also saw in chapter 7, Raisiinen believes that Paul's theology differs de facto from Judaism (Old Testament) in many important aspects, although, of course, Paul himself would never have been willing to admit it. One of the consequences is thus that Raisiinen does not see any continuity between Judaism (Old Testament 28) and Paul's theology. This applies to his theology of both the law and Israel. In his Preface to Paul and the Law, Raisiinen mentions in this connection both themes. In this Preface to the second Edition of 1987, he quotes a sentence from his own Paul and the Law (1983). Raisanen describes the problem of inconsistencies concerning the law as follows: " ... we find Paul struggling with the problem that a See section 8.4 below. 'Righteousness' 220. 25 See chapter 5 above. "The negative statements about the law are to be understood as radicalizations emanating from a situation of conflict", 'Righteousness' 220. 26 " ... there is a problem in using such one-off, context-bound sayings as timeless norms ... ", 'Righteousness' 220. 27 'Righteousness' 221. The original German Edition says: "Man fragt sich wieder, wie sinnvoll es eigentlich ist, eine zeitgebundene schwMrmerische Vorstellung des Paulus ... zum Kriterium alles Milglichen zu macben", 'Werkgerechtigkeit' 328-9 (in The Torah and Christ). " ... it seems to be impossible to make Paul's tbeology the norm with which one can measure everything else in the world of early Christianity (not to speak of Judaism!)", 'Difficulties' 23. 28 In this connection, Raisllnen does not make a distinction between Judaism and the Old Testament. When he talks about Judaism, he means, in my view, nothing else than 'the theology of the Old Testament'. 23

24

Theological Consequences

125

divine institution has been abolished through what God has done in Christ".29 Riiisiinen goes on to say: When writing the sentence in question I had the Torah in mind. But one should also reflect on Israel's election and God's covenant with the patriarchs and the people. Paul's theology implies that God's salvific acts of old are invalid or insufficient which causes Paul to try insisting on continuity as well. 30

Yet, for Riiisiinen, there is no such continuity, but there is, as a matter of fact, a real "break". Here we deal with an important issue. By arguing that there is no continuity with Iudaism (Old Testament) in Paul, Riiisiinen rejects the classical interpretation that the theology of the Old Testament is in line with Paul's theology. Similarly, he rejects all those modem theories which try to construct a so-called 'Biblical Theology' (a theology which tries to harmonize the theology of the Old Testament with the theology of the New Testament), for example, the theory of the idea of the so-called 'Zion Torah' as defended by H. Gese and P. Stuhlmacher. 31 At different places and in several articles, Riiisiinen underlines the break between Paul's theology and the theology of ludaism. An important article is, for example, 'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with ludaism', Paul xxiv; compare Paul 264-5. Paul xxIv. 31 See Rliislinen's article 'Zion Torah and Biblical Theology: Thoughts on a TUbingen Theory'. To demonstrate that this theory indeed presumes the idea of 'Biblical Theology', I make the following remarks concerning the theory of the so-called 'Zion Torah'. Rllisllnen argues that because the law is a delicate issue for every 'Biblical Theology', a solution has to be found to the problem that the Torah functions in the Old Testament in a completely different way than, for instance, in Paul. In order to solve this problem, H. Gese (and in his footsteps P. Stuhlmacher) introduced the theory ofthe 50called 'Zion Torah' in 1983. According to this theory, in the time of the Old Testament people were longing to receive the so-called eschatological Zion Torah which would have the same content as the Torah introduced on Sinai, but which would not be identical to it. That new Torah would then not be introduced on Sinai, but on Zion, and it would be addressed to all nations. According to Gese and Stuhlmacher, both Rom 3:27 and Rom 8:2 concern this 'Zion Torah'. Raisllnen, however, says that such an exegesis does not sufficiently take into account the syntactic structure of these two verses (see also Rliisilnen's articles 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit' and 'Paul's Word-Play on v6fiO~: A Linguistic Study'). Subsequently, Riiis!lnen also believes that Gese and Stuhlmacher interpret the Old Testament texts on the law by using the New Testament very artificially. "In summary, there is no documentary evidence for an expectation of future changes to the law or an evolution of the law. Instead, a change in the human heart, which would make possible a new kind of obedience towards God's law, was the object of a lively hope in the exilic and post-exilic periods", 'Zion Torah', 241. RlIisllnen concludes: "The attempt to erect a biblical theology along tradition-historical lines is not to be rejected out of hand. But the attempt discussed here fails because of its tendency to want to demonstrate at all costs a continuity between OT and NT statements ... The possibility ofa real break in the tradition has to be taken seriously", 'Zion Torah' 251. 29

30

126

Chapler8

published for the first time in 1985, and therefore after the first Edition of his Paul and the Law in 1983. In this article, Riiisanen comments on the interpretation of J.D.G. Dunn who argues that there is still in some way or another a continuity between Judaism and Paul.32 Dunn concentrates mainly on Gal 2:16. In short, Dunn argues that in Gal 2:16 Paul refers to circumcision and food laws, and that in this verse Paul merely takes a stand " ... against the too narrow understanding of God's covenant promise and of the law in nationalistic and racial terms".33 In other words, in Dunn's view, Paul does not attack the law as such in Gal 2:16, but only a misuse of the law. 34 It would be interesting to describe Dunn's arguments for such an exegesis in more detail; our concern now, however, is to describe Riiisanen's response to Dunn's interpretation. 35 Riiisanen believes that TTlOtLC; in Gal 2:16 does not only denote 'confidence', but also 'faith' - and that the latter was indeed something new for the Jews. Similarly, the term OLKOCLouo9OCL has become, according to Riiisanen, a so-called 'transfer-term'36 in Paul. Furthermore, the verb ETTL01:EUocq.l.EV (aorist) designates the fact that if one wants to become a Christian, a completely new step has to be taken. Although Raisanen concurs with Dunn as regards his view of Judaism that it has to be interpreted in terms of 'covenantal nomism', and although he states just like Dunn that the expression EPYWV VOiJ.OU (Gal 2:16) denotes at least circumcision and food laws, Riiisiinen believes in contrast to Dunn that there is a discontinuity with Judaism in Paul. 37 Faith in Jesus implied a new step for a Jew 38 who had also to be baptized and to be converted. This inescapably implied a break with his past.3 9 In summary, I think that Dunn comes close to describing Paul's position as Paul himself wished it to be understood (emphasizing continuity). On the other hand, See J.D.G. Dunn, 'The New Perspective on Paul', BJRL 65 (l983) 95-122. 'The New Perspective on Paul' 12l. R!lis!lnen responds by saying: "Dunn thus presents a new version of an old thesis: what Paul attacks is not the law as such or as a whole, but just the law as viewed in some particular perspective, a particular attitude to the Jaw, or some specific (mis-) understanding of it", 'Break' 114. 35 See 'Break' 115-21 in particular. ]6 See 'Break' 115ff. 37 "I think, however, that Paul's critique of the law is much more radical than Dunn allows and that we should not shrink from speaking of his 'break' with Judaism", 'Break' 114--5. ]8 "Faith in Jesus involved quite a new step for a Jew", 'Break' 124. 39 Rilisilnen concurs with D. Riddle who wrote about Paul in 1943: "Always regarding himself as a faithful and loyal Jew, his definitions of values were so different from those of his contemporaries that, notwithstanding his own position within Judaism, he was, from any point of view other than his own, at best a poor Jew and at worst a renegade", quoted according to Rllisilnen, 'Break' 125. 32

33

34

Theological Consequences

127

Sanders is correct when he points out what Paul's position amounted to de facto. Paul's attack on covenantal nomism ... signals such a degree of discontinuity or such a change of values that it is hardly too much to speak ofa break. 40

What was, in fact, the reason for this break? Raisanen believes it was because of Paul's exclusive Christological claims41, although Paul was not the first one who introduced these exclusive Christological claims.42 "The break with Judaism became logically inevitable at the very moment when the claim was raised that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation".43 For R!lisanen, Christianity displayed, in any case after Paul, a new kind of particularism, namely: extra ecclesiam Christianam nulla salus. 44 The second article which is important in this connection is 'Der Bruch des Paulus mit Israels Bund'45, which clearly shows Raisanen's own position. His position is between Sanders and Dunn, although Riiisanen's position scarcely differs from Sanders'.46 Sanders' interpretations are more extreme, for he argues that Paul deliberately broke with Judaism. Riiisanen, however, believes that Paul unconsciously broke with Judaism. 47 At the other side of this spectrum stands Dunn who believes that although Judaism at the time of Paul can be interpreted in terms of 'covenantal nomism', Paul did not break with Judaism at all, neither consciously nor unconsciously. In the article mentioned above, Raisanen again argues that on the one hand, Paul wants to cling to the tradition of Judaism (continuity), but that on the other hand, Paul goes his own way. This results in conflicting ideas as, for example, in Rom 9-11. In these chapters, Paul tries " ... sowohl seiner Tradition als auch seinem neucn Glauben treu zu sein. Dabei ger!lt er sowohl gedanklich als auch emotional in eine Klemme".48 If it is required that a Jew also has to be converted in order to be able to remain in God's people, then such a requirement inevitably implies that the old covenant is not sufficient any more. 'Break' 125. See also sections 3.2 and 7.5 above. it was not he who first came forward with exclusive christological claims", 'Break' 125. 43 'Break' 125. 44 See 'Break' 126. 1S As far as I know, there is no English translation of this article. 46 See also section 9.2 below. 47 As far as [ can see, this is the only important difference between Sanders and Rllisllnen. Therefore [ have used the word 'scarcely' in the text. While interpreting Paul, Raisllnen continuously follows Sanders. He is not only influenced by Sanders as far as his interpretation of Paul is concerned, but he is also inspired by Sanders. It regularly appears that Rllisanen is guided and stimulated to do more research by Sanders' insights. Rllis!!nen calls Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism even " ... a gift from heaven for my own quest", Paul v. 48 'Bruch' 166. 40

41

42 " ...

128

Chapter 8

Ein Jude muJlte sich bekehren, urn gerettet werden zu k6nnen. Wer eine solche Position einnahm, gait den meisten als Apostat, der mit der heiligen Tradition gebrochen hatte. AlIerdings drangen die meisten von diesen Tendenzen nicht erst mit Paulus in die Jesusbewegung ein ... Von der Stun de an (wann immer das war), aIs man glaubte, daB das HeiI nur in Namen Jesu zuglinglich war, war der Bruch mit dem Glauben Israels eine unvermeidliche Folge - frUher oder spliter. Wenn niemand, der Gottes neues Heilsangebot nicht annimmt, gerettet werden kann, wird zumindest indirekt vorausgesetzt, daB Gottes altes Angebot nicht mehr gilt oder nicht mehr genUgt. Durch seine bloBe Existenz beseitigt der neue Bund den frUheren ... Also enthielt die Botschaft der neuen Bewegung von all em Anfang an - vielleicht sogar von Johannes dem Tilufer an - eine Spannung zwischen zwei Anschauungen vom Heil. In den paulinischen Briefen kommt diese Spannung nur deutlicher als bisher zurn Ausdruck.49

In this way, Paul contributed to the fact that the separation between Christianity and Judaism became a fact all the sooner, because Paul made a contrast between grace and works 50, whereas in Judaism, these two belonged together. 51 Wegen seiner exklusiv christozentrischen Soteriologie braucht Paulus eine Dogmatik, aus der die menschlichen Werke ganzlich ausgeschlossen werden, wenn vom Heil die Rede ist. 52

The consequence is that Paul constructed a completely new theology in comparison with Judaism. Apart from the fact that this new theology has immanent difficulties 53 (inconsistencies), it also causes a break with Judaism. Paul himself, however, is not responsible for this break. Das Problem steckt in den Grundlagen des Christentums selbst; es geht urn den Widerspruch zwischen behaupteter Kontinuitilt und faktischer (erhebJicher) Diskontinuitilt. Wenn der Glaube an Jesus Christus unentbehrlich ist, gilt der Sinaibund faktisch nicht mehr. 54

Christian theology has often argued that there is a continuity between the Old Testament and Paul. Yet Raisanen can in no way agree with such an interpretation. Man so lite eingestehen, daB zwischen dem Glauben Israels und Paulus -ein Bruch besteht. Aus diesem Tatbestand entstehen filr eine heils- bzw. offenbarungsgeschichtlich orientierte 'Biblische Theologie' graB ere Schwierigkeiten als man im allgemeinen einsieht. 55

'Bruch' 169. See chapter 4 above. 51 See, e.g_, the excursus on E.P. Sanders in chapter 4 above. 52 'Broch' 170-1. 53 "._. immanente Schwierigkeiten ... ", 'Bruch' 171. 54 'Broch' 171. 55 'Bruch' 171.

49

50

Theological Consequences

129

Finally, we again return to the article 'Zum Verstandnis von Rom 3,1-8'. There is an important passage in this article under the theme "Das wame Problem hinter Rom 3,1-8".56 As we have already learned, Raisanen believes that Paul alludes in Rom 3:1-8 to the problems in Rom 9-11.57 Attempting to trace the real problem behind Rom 3:1-8 (and thus also behind Rom 9-11), Raisanen says: "Es liegt in seinem tatsachlichen Bruch mit lsraels Bund".s8 If for Paul faith in Christ is the only means of obtaining salvation, then this implies, logically speaking, that the old covenant is not in force any more in the sense of a "Heilssetzung". "Daraus entsteht eine heilsgeschichtliche Aporie ersten Ranges".s9 Paul's soteriology implies that the Jew also has to be converted. Deshalb ist das paulinische Gleichnis vom Olbaum vom Gesichtspunkt des nichtchristlichen Juden irreftlhrend. Der Baum, in den die Heiden 'eingepfropft' wurden, war nicht der alte, sondern sozusagen ein dritter Baum. Wer dem Sinaibund treu bleiben wo lIte, machte sich in den Augen des Paulus letztlich an a.m01:(O: (Rom 3,3) und a.O.Klo: (Rom 3,5) schuldig. 60

Taking into account the above, we conclude that, according to Raisanen, one of the consequences of Paul's theology is the fact that there is no continuity between Judaism (Old Testament) and Paul's theology, although Paul himself wants to give the impression that this continuity still remains.

8.4 Paul unjustly supports a separation between Judaism and Christianity

Although it is different from the previous one, it is necessary to mention the following closely related consequence, namely: according to Rliisanen, one should not separate Judaism and Christianity from each other. Raisanen says that this has been done quite often on the basis of Paul's theology. The fact that the two have been separated is, for Raisanen, understandable, because if one starts from Paul's assumption that Christ is the only way to salvation (the exclusive soteriological claim, christomonism or -centrism61 ), then all other answers are inadequate; in addition to this, Paul conveys a distorted picture of Judaism (see below).62 'Verstl!ndnis' 201-2. See sections 6.1 and 6.4 above. 58 'Verstlindnis' 20 l. 59 'Verst!!ndnis' 201. 60 'Verstl!ndnis' 202. Compare also section 6.5.3 above. 61 See sections 3.2 and 7.5. 62 See the excursus on E.P. Sanders in chapter 4. Originally the 'works of law' designated, according to Rl!is!!nen, nothing other than the ritual practices of the Jew 56

57

130

Chapler8

Yet, however understandable it may be, this separation is unjust. In any case, within the history of Christianity, there has never been a wellbalanced discussion of the law. Paul did not develop a well-balanced view of the law (inconsistencies!), while many others within Christianity separated Judaism and Christianity from each other precisely on the basis of Paul's theology. Raisanen develops the above line of argument as early as his article 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law'.63 The same issue is discussed in Paul and the Law: In his attempt to tell what the law is all about Paul gets involved in selfcontradictions. What is worse, he conveys a distorted picture of the Jewish religion which has, contrary to Paul's intentions to be sure, had a share in the tragic history of the Jews at the mercy of Christians. 64

This last aspect is, however, not further elaborated in Paul and the Law. In the last section of his article 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem', Raisanen makes some important remarks in this connection. Paul's failure to give a correct picture of Judaism is not merely of antiquarian interest. The recognition of this failure will have significant consequences for Christian theology. Christian theologians engaged in a dialogue with Iudaism ought to realize that Paul's theology presents, above all, a dilemma for the Christian side. What magnificent theological structures have been built precisely on this misrepresentation! If all this light is darkness, how great is the darkness. No discussion of Christianity's relation to the parent religion should be based on an uncritical acceptance of Paul's statements concerning Iudaism. No one would deny that Paul made a tremendous contribution toward the later separation of Christianity from Iudaism. This is often praised as his greatest deed. Without wishing to debate whether the separation was in itself good or bad (one may, after all, do the right thing for the wrong reasons) 1 would emphasize that its theological grounds were doubtful. No wonder that the majority of the Jews rejected Paul's message ... His teaching of salvation has been considered the 'centre of Scripture'. This will not do ... 65

It is also illuminating to listen in this same connection to what Raisanen is saying in "'Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine?

Thoughts on 1 Clement'.66 Among other issues, he discusses the two (circumcision, food laws) which, however, became a hindrance for the Gentiles to join the Christian congregation. Yet Paul has made a contrast between works of law and grace, whereas these two belonged together according to common Judaism. See also 'Freedom' 46. 63 'Difficulties' 23-4. "Here a tremendous hermeneutical challenge faces Christian theology", 'Difficulties' 24. 64 Paul 268. 6l 'Legalism' 53-4. 66 This article is a translation of '''Werkgerechtigkeit'' - eine "frllhkatholische" Lehre? Uberlegungen zum 1. Klemensbrief (in The Torah and Christ):The English translation has been included in the collection Jesus, Paul and Torah.

Theological Consequences

131

following problems in this article. In the first place, he asks himself whether the soteriology within Early Catholicism, of which I Clement is a representative, can be characterized by the term 'righteousness by works'6?, since it is the communis opinio that Clement of Rome is a legalist. 68 In the second place, Riiisanen discusses in this article a problem of a heilsgeschichtlich nature: if Paul talks about genuine faith in connection with, for example, Abraham, why in that case had Christ still to come?69 Both problems are related to each other, but here we shall pay attention mainly to Riiisiinen's answer(s) to the former question. Riiisanen tries to exonerate Clement of Rome from legalism by emphasizing the fact that 1 Clement is concerned with a concrete paraenesis concerning mutual relations within the Corinthian congregationJo Because Clement's letter mainly deals with a paraenesis, it seems as if it is concerned with legalism.?l There is thus a strong emphasis on morality, but there is little sign of 'moralism' and none at all of casuistry and the like; it is completely misleading to speak in this context of such things as anthropocentric piety or the decisive soteriological significance of meritorious works. 72

According to Riiisanen, Clement's soteriology is completely theocentricJ3 He says: "It is evident that Christ could be completely removed from Clement's theology without any change to its basic structure"J4 With reference to this observation, which Riiisanen believes is, as such, correct, .. it is a very common view that those writings that are often called 'early catholic' (whether this precise term is used or not) are characterized by a particular soteriological viewpoint: the key terms here are righteousness by works, justification by works, piety through good deeds, religion of merit and the like. The Pauline doctrine of sola gratia is obscured", 'Righteousness' 203. Rliisanen mentions R. Bultmann as a representative of this common view. 68 ..... a legalist as he is often made to appear by modem exegetes", The Torah and Christ iv. 69 Raisllnen asks: " ... if saving faith was accessible to an Abraham or a David (Romans 4), what was Christ really needed for?", The Torah and Christ iv. 70 "Now it is essential tIlat serious account should be taken of the fact that 1 Clement represents a very concrete paraenesis, the aim of which was the restoration of unity and peace in the Corinthian congregation", 'Righteousness' 205. "A firm result of this enquiry is that Clement's 'Jewish' theology does not represent any 'righteousness through works"', 'Righteousness' 221-2. "'Justification by works' - an 'early catholic' doctrine? No! ... As far as J Clement and the literature of the NT are concerned ... , the theory of justification by works is fundamentally wrong", 'Righteousness' 224. 71 .. It is not the purpose of the letter to instil faith in the readers. Clement is writing to Christians about the Christian way of living in community ...", 'Righteousness' 206. 72 'Righteousness' 211. 73 "Clement's 'soteriology' is completely theocentric ... ", 'Righteousness' 215. 74 'Righteousness' 215.

l32

Chapter 8

many interpreters come to the conclusion that Clement is a legalist. Riiisiinen, however, questions whether such a conclusion is justified. In this connection he makes, in my view, remarks which are very important for this study, for he says that the above argument is, in fact, a non sequitur. Two things must be distinguished at all costs: (1) the significance ascribed to Christ, and (2) the role given to human works and achievements. The answer to one of these questions cannot automatically be deduced from the answer to the other. It is simply not viable to assume that any theology that does not have the work of Christ at its centre must necessarily represent legalism, piety through merit and so forth whether the subject is OT religion, Judaism or even, for example, Indian Bhakti piety.75

Riiisiinen concurs with von Harnack by arguing that Clement's theology is basically Jewish. This does not, however, mean that salvation is earned 'through obedience'. Both Clement and normal Judaism present obedience as the human response to the goodness which God has shown to humanity.1 6

For Riiisiinen, Paul's theology" ... does not deviate from common Jewish theology such as Clement's to the extent that one might at first expect"77, because the basic structure of both theologies (Paul's and Jewish) is similar: both theologies have an indicative, and on its basis an imperative. 78 Only the content of the indicative of each theology is different, which results in a break (see previous section)79: the indicative in Paul is God's eschatological action in Christ, whereas the indicative in common Judaism is God's loyalty to his covenant or the Creator's benevolence to his creation (as in Clement).8o "The statement that 'on this point Paul is a perfect example of the view which is characteristic of first-

75 'Righteousness' 215 (my italics). The original German Edition has: "Es geht einfach nicht an, davon auszugehen, daIl jede Theologie, die nicht das Werk Christi zum Mittelpunkt hat, eo ipso Legalismus, VerdienstfrClmmigkeit usw. reprllsentiert ... ", 'Werkgerechtigkeit' 322 (collection The Torah and Christ). 76 'Righteousness' 217. 77 'Righteousness' 218. My italics. 78 "In general the basic structure is the same in both (indicative - imperative)", 'Righteousness' 218. In another connection Raisllnen says: "The Christian scheme was not dissimilar: one had to be baptized and to live in accordance with one's call. Actually, in Paul's day it was 'Christianity' (to use an anachronistic term) which demanded a Jew to do something novel as one had to 'seek' (a new kind of) righteousness (Gal. 2.17!) and accept baptism. One had to convert and that required a conscious human decision", 'Experience' 34. 79 See' Righteousness' 219. BO See section 4.2.1 above.

Theological Consequences

133

century Judaism' is correct".81 Therefore, for Raisanen, one should not separate Christianity from Judaism, although Paul himself has given occasion for this by representing a caricature of Judaism. If the discussion above is correct, ludaism was never to a great extent a religion of 'righteousness through works'. The works required by the law were evidences of obedience towards God. This is the case for Judaism, for Jesus, for Matthew and for Clement. 82

By such a statement, both the common classical difference between Judaism and Christianity and the uniqueness of Christianity itself as interpreted by Paul are, of course, minimized to a great extent. 83

81 'Righteousness' 219. Rl1is!lnen concurs with Sanders. He refers to E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 106. 82 'Righteousness' 223-4. 83 R1!is1!nen even believes that Christianity can never be viewed as an absolute authority, not even, for example, with regard to Islam. Thus he here displays a great or even extreme tolerance, whereby he abandons the uniqueness of Christianity, which is no longer understood as having decisive authority. In this connection, we meet Rl1is1!nen's noble attempt in Beyond: quoting H. KUng, he believes that a fair description of the history of early Christianity and a fair comparison between Christianity and other religions could contribute to peace in the world. "'These days, nobody would seriously dispute the fact that peace in the world very much depends on peace among the various religions.' Therefore it is an important task even with regard to world peace to study the rise of Christianity and also to make it understandable to representatives of other traditions", Beyond 96. This great tolerance has, of course, also to do with the fact that Paul's theology, which has had a profound influence on Christianity, is inconsistent for RlIisllnen. Compare also his 'Coexistence and Conflict'. "Paradoxically, then, strictly monotheist polemic against the others' 'idolatry' can be seen as an expression of one's own 'idolatry' in a metaphorical sense", 'Coexistence and Conflict' 176. Again with reference to Kllng, R!lis1inen argues that a necessary precondition for peace in the world is " ... a readiness for critical self-examination on the part of the religions. In this process it is helpful to remember that in earliest Christianity there were - along with tbe polemics - also some attempts toward peaceful coexistence witb adherents of traditional cults", 'Coexistence and Conflict' 176-7. See also his Marcion, Muhammad and the Mohatma 1-16, 33-48, and 189-203 (Chapter 12: Conclusion: The Pluralist Imperative). "Could it not be the ultimate goal of the dialogue that Christians should become better - more humane - Christians, Muslims better Muslims, Hindus better Hindus, humanists better humanists, and so on? And should not each try to help the other to reach this goal?", Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 203.

134

Chapter 8

8.5 We have to abandon the Lutheran interpretation of Paul84 It will now be clear that Riiisiinen rejects the classical Lutheran

interpretation of Paul. ss Being influenced by Luther, Bultrnann, for example, labelled every expression of legalistic piety as humanity's basic sin. 86 Raisiinen, however, believes that Paul's warnings against legalism are based on a caricature of Judaism. 87 With regard to this, Riiisiinen makes an important remark in his Paul and the Law. He believes that a comparison of the Qumran documents with Paul shows that the confession of human sinfulness and insufficiency also occurs in the Qumran documents, although a verse like Gal 3: I 0 has no real parallel in Qumran. ss However, in Raisanen's view, Gal 3:10 is merely, for Paul, part of his tortuous theory, whereas the sense of human sinfulness and insufficiency in the Qumran documents are "reached empirically"89. Riiisiinen adds to this: Both Qumran and Paul dwell on other people's (the outsiders') sinfulness, but Paul leaves it at that. It is the people of Qumran alone who confess their own sinfulness before God! It is a correct observation that Luther's insight, reached via introspection, of man's radical corruption is more reminiscent of Qumran than of Paul!90 .

8.6 Paul and Riiisiinen himself Finally, we want to describe the theological consequences for Riiisiinen himself. In other words, what position concerning soterioiogy, for example, does he himself take after studying Paul's theology?9J In his Preface to the first Edition of Paul and the Law of 1983 (also published in the second Edition of 1987), Riiisiinen says that previously he interpreted

84 See also section 2.4 (under A) and section 5.1 (in a note under the first explanation rejected by R!lis!!.nen) above. 85 " ••• the classical Lutheran understanding of Paul is a misunderstanding", 'Break' 114. See also section 8.6. 86 "As a result of Luther's influence, R. Bultmann described legal piety as an expression of humanity's basic sin - a form of universal human egotism", 'Freedom' 43. 87 See chapter 4 above. 88 See Paul 121-2. 8. Paul 122. 90 Paul 122. 91 I leave out of consideration here Ri!is!lnen's publications on Islam and on the relation between Islam and Christianity - that would require a separate study. I only consider RlIisllnen's study of Paul.

Theological Consequences

135

Paul's theology from a Lutheran point ofview. 92 But, as we have already seen in the previous section, he has abandoned this view. Moreover, Raisanen believes that within early Christianity, "troublesome answers"93 were given to the question why God gave the law in the first place when we are also free from that same law. The problematic nature of these answers should prevent a Christian theologian today from absolutizing hislher own christological tradition ... The effect on history of Christian freedom in relationship to the Jews is not a happy one. One claimed the Jewish bible and demonized the Jews who could not accept the Christian concept of freedom from the law. 94

With regard to the discussion between Christianity and Judaism, Rllisanen regards the assertion that Christ 'fulfilled' the old as dangerous. 95 In sum, Rtiistinen himself cannot support a separation between Judaism and Christianity. Further, in the article '''Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on 1 Clement', Raisanen gives the impression that he is in sympathy with Judaism as described by Sanders and as detected in I Clement by Raisanen. Especially with respect to the conclusion of this article, he gives the impression that he is in full sympathy with Clement of Rome 96 : People are not 'thrown back upon their own strength' but are challenged to turn to their merciful father and creator, who has called them in Jesus Christ, who forgives them and expects them to walk gratefully, worthy of their calling with God's help in good works. Or, as Clement expressed it in his thoroughly paraenetic writing (16.17): we who were led under the gracious yoke of Christ must live according to his example. 97

In my opinion, during his study of Paul, Rtiistinen's personal position changed radically and profoundly, entirely drifting away from his Lutheran roots.

92 " •.. I long held a rather standard Lutheran view of the matter", Preface to Paul and the Law (1983) ...... I have my roots in a church alleged to be the most Lutheran in the world ... ", 'Difficulties' 23. See also Paul268. 93 'Freedom' 48. 94 'Freedom' 48. 95 "The most dangerous thing was perhaps the assertion that Christ 'fulfilled' the old", 'Freedom' 48. 96 I get this same impression all the more when considering Raisilnen's very positive utterances on Clement of Rome. He believes, for instance, that in general scholars apply far too rigid standards to our assessment of Clement ("... poor Clement ... ", 'Righteousness' 213). Similarly, " ... the Bible is interpreted more realistically by him than by Paul ... ", 'Righteousness' 216. 97 'Righteousness' 224.

136

Chapter 8

Conclusion ofpart A: New Testament scholars stand at a crossroads It is evident that Raisanen's interpretation has far-reaching consequences. He believes that we should not refrain from describing these consequences, and, further, we should not attempt to deny the existence of inconsistencies in Paul out of anxiety over these consequences. On the contrary, he believes that we should deal with these inconsistencies fairly, and that we should also face these 'negative results' in a fair way.98 We must not attempt to defend old confessional traditions, but rather we should challenge the world with our new insights, providing people with a fair comparison between the world's different religions. In short, Riiisanen prompts us to make a choice. In his own words: Biblical scholars wiII soon find themselves at a crossroads. Will they remain guardians of cherished confessional traditions, anxious to provide modern man with whatever normative guidance they still manage to squeeze out of the sacred texts? Or will they follow those pioneering theologians and others congenial to them on their novel paths, fearlessly reflecting on the biblical material from a truly ecumenical, global point of view?99

,. See Beyond 97 and 100. " Beyond 141. With this somewhat challenging question RlI.is!lnen ends his Beyond New Testament Theology. In his article 'The New Testament in Theology', he repeats his statement that the New Testament (and the entire Bible) shows immense internal contradictions (pp. 124-5) so that we cannot appeal to the New Testament (or to the Bible) (p. 135).

PartB

Critical Review

/

Chapter 9

Position-finding: Raisanen's Position within Contemporary New Testament Research In part A of this study we have offered an analytical description of Rilisiinen's study of Paul, especially of his study of Paul's view of the law. This description was, however, quite an isolated one in the sense that we have described Raislinen' s view without really taking into account his position within the field of New Testament research. In the description in the previous part some other interpreters, who are in some way or another closely related to RiiiSiinen, have of course been mentioned. l Yet such a reference to other scholars in part A was merely intended to enable us to offer as much as possible an objective description of Rliislinen's work, and when other scholars were mentioned, we still refrained from giving a critical review. In part B, however, such a critical review of Raisiinen's work will be offered. 2 This will give us at the same time the opportunity to place him within the context of other interpreters, since such a positionfinding will to some degree already imply a critical review, as will appear in this chapter. In short, we want first to answer the following question: what is Riiisanen's position within contemporary research? This question will be answered in two ways. Firstly, we want to try to find Riiisanen's position from a diachronic point of view. In other words, we want to go back to the past. The question is thus whether we are able to find one or more New Testament scholars who have influenced Riiisanen to a greater or lesser extent. Is it possible to trace such a way back (from Riiisanen to the past)? To put it differently, is Riiisanen's view, as described in part A, really original? Subsequently, we shall try to find his position from a synchronic point of view. In other words, we remain in the present. Now the question is thus: where should we place Rilislinen within the field of contemporary New Testament research, especially with regard to the extensive research which has been carried out on Paul's view of the law? 1 See, for example, the excursus on E.P. Sanders in chapter 4. W. Wrede has already been mentioned a few times, for example, in chapter 7, while I.D.G. Dunn has also been mentioned in section 8.3. 2 See section 1.5 for the aim and plan of this study.

140

Chapter 9

9.1 W Wrede's influence on Rtiistinen (diachronic position-finding) After reading part A of this study, we may feel it necessary to mention here E.P. Sanders. His influence on Raisanen is indeed undeniable, even to such an extent that Raisiinen says that he is inspired by him.3 Sanders, however, will not be mentioned until section 9.2, because he plays an important role in modern New Testament scholarship. In this section we want to go back even further, for it is, in my view, evident that Raisiinen is influenced to a great extent by William Wrede. 4 This influence can be detected in many ways. Riiisiinen himself also regularly admits that he is profoundly influenced by Wrede. 9.1.1 Wrede's influence on Rtiistinen's historical explanation for the origin of the inconsistencies Wrede's influence on Raisanen appears in the first place from Raisiinen's hypothesis concerning his historical explanation for the origin of Paul's inconsistencies. s With regard to this historical explanation, Raisanen says: "This reconstruction is, of course, no more than a hypothesis ... In an embryonic form it can be found in Wrede's book on Paul".6 In his Preface to Paul and the Law (second Edition) also, Raisanen says that Paul developed his theology of the law, especially the idea of 'justification by faith alone'7, during and after his conflict with the conservative Christians (Judaizers), and that this hypothesis already occurs in Wrede's work.s Riiisiinen also refers to Wrede in other articles. 9 We indeed find in 3 See section 8.3. It also appeared in chapter 4 that the correction, suggested by Sanders, of the common representation of ludaism constitutes a substantial part of Rliisanen's view of Paul's antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ. 4 See Wrede's very well-known Paulus. S We have seen this to a certain extent in section 5.2. 6 'Difficulties' 22. RlI.islinen refers to W. Wrede, Paulus 72ff, 84. 7 See chapter 4 above. a "The hypothesis that Paul's view of the law developed essentially in the course of his conflict with more conservative Christians, long ago suggested by William Wrede, is the one alternative that remained after a process of elimination. It was not my aim to construct a new hypothesis about the origin of Paul's view ... I found that Wrede's explanation (which he had indicated very briefly) stood the test best. All r could do was to try to add some flesh unto its bones", Paul (1987) xxI. • I mention here only two articles. In 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View of the Law', RlI.isll.nen says that there is the following possibility: "Paul came to perceive the contrast between ludaism as an achievement religion and Christianity as a religion of grace, which is correct. The contrast was not yet clear to him at the time of his call, but developed gradually. This would, roughly, seem to be the view of Wrede, Strecker and Schulz", 'Experience' 45 ...... the view that 'justification by faith' is a late and secondary doctrine in Paul (defended by Wrede, Schweitzer, Strecker, Stendahl and Schade) ... ",

Position-finding

141

Wrede's work the assertion that the doctrine of 'justification by faith' in Paul gradually came into existence over a certain period of time due to his conflict with the ludaizers. In order to see clearly the nature of the similarity between Wrede and Raisanen a lengthy quotation from Wrede's book on Paul will be given here, in which he discusses Paul's doctrine of 'justification by faith'. Die Reformation hat uns gewohnt, diese Lehre als den Zentralpunkt bei Paulus zu betrachten. Sie ist es aber nicht ... sie tritt OberalI nur da auf, wo es sich urn den Streit gegen das Judentum handelt. Damit ist aber auch die wirkliche Bedeutung dieser Lehre bezeichnet: sie ist die Kampfeslehre des Paulus, nur aus seinem Lebenskampfe, seiner Auseinandersetzung mit dem Judentum und Iudenchristentum verstilndlich und nur flIr diese gedacht ... Als Missionar konnte Paulus nicht dui den, daB man die jOdische Lebenssitte, die Beschneidung mit allem ZubehOr, zu einer Bedingung flIr das Christentum der Heiden machte. Dann konnte sie aber auch kein notwendiges Merkmal des Christentums filr den Iuden sein. Sie war hochstens Privatsache des Einzelnen. Der Streit urn diese Dinge bedeutete aber flIr den Apostel die Notigung, die Bedingung flIr den Eintritt ins Christentum positiv zu bestimmen. Da ware nun vielleicht zu erwarten, er hiltte den Gegensatz gebildet: nicht die jUdischen Riten sind notwendig, sondem nur die Moral des Gesetzes. Allein dam it h!itte er den springenden Punkt nicht getroffen. Was aus dem Heiden einen Christen machte, war nicht die Moral, und no ch weniger war sie es, die den Iuden vom Christen unterschied. Das wahre Unterscheidungsmerkmal war einzig der Glauhe an Jesus Christus. Da haben wir den Ursprung der Formel: nicht das Gesetz mit seinen Werken. sondern der Glaube. Es war hiernach Paulus das Thema gestellt, die lJberflOssigkeit, vielleicht Schildlichkeit der mosaischen Zeremonien, andererseits die Notwendigkeit und Genugsamkeit des Glaubens an Christus zu beweisen. Das Negative war dabei die Hauptsache. Aber Paulus greift nun keineswegs nur die jlidischen Satzungen an, sondern das ganze Gesetz. Es gilt in villlig umfassendem Sinne: 'Christus ist des Gesetzes Ende'lO. Und das ist zunachst das Riltselhafte. Weshalb werden die Moralgebote denn nicht ausgenommen? Wie kann ihnen der Glaube an Christus entgegen sein? Freilich Paulus meint ja niemals, daB der Inhalt der sittlichen Vorschriften, etwa der zehn Gebote, falsch seL Aber er vemeint doch das Recht des Gesetzes, ihre Erfllllung zu fordern; er erklart jedes 'du sollst' filr aufgehoben, und auch das ist riltselhaft genug. Paulus sah sich der jOdischen Religion gegenOber.11

The doctrine of 'justification by faith' in Paul thus originated, for Wrede, during his conflict with others. Athene sprang gewappnet in voller Kraft aus dem Haupte des Zeus hervor. So ist die Theologie des Paulus nicht entstanden. Sie ist gewachsen und geworden, und wir 'Experience' 41. It indeed appears that Rilisiinen thinks along similar lines. After saying in 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law' that "Some scholars have held that Paul first adopted a more ordinary Hellenistic Jewish Christian attitude toward the law and that his attitude developed in a more radical direction only a good deal later" (,Conversion' 404), be again refers in a note to Wrede (Paulus 84), among others (,Conversion' 416 note 6). 10 'rEAO, yi%p VOflOU XPlO-rO" Rom 10:4. 11 Paulus 72-3.

142

Chapter 9

begreifen sie wie alles GeschichtIiche nur in dem MaBe wirklich, als wir in ihr Werden hineinsehen. \2

And a few pages further Wrede writes: ... diese Lehre entsprang zun!lchst den Bedllrfnissen der paulinischen Heidenmission. Sie lieferte die theoretische StUtze fUr die Emanzipation von den jildischen Satzungen. Die Praxis war hier die Mutter der Theorie, nicht umgekehrt, wenn auch die Praxis bereits eine Entwertung der Satzungen voraussetzt. 13

Wrede also points to the possibility that the HeIlenists influenced Paul,l4 The above clearly demonstrates that Riiisanen's hypothesis is influenced by Wrede to a great extent. 9.1.2 Wrede's influence on Rtiistinen's view of the Theology of the New Testament

In his Beyond New Testament Theology, Riiisiinen outlines the framework within which a Theology of the New Testament should be constructed. ls In this connection, Riiisiinen calls attention not only to J.P. Gabler 16 , but also Paulus 79. See also section 5.2 above. Paulus 84. "Mitgewirkt hat wahrscheinlich aber auch das Vorbild, das die freier gerichtete jUdische Propaganda der Diaspora gab", Paulus 42. As far as I can see, RlIisllnen does not refer to this place in Wrede's work. Wrede's influence is perhaps more profound than RlIisllnen would be willing to admit. See also the main text below. 15 In the first two parts of Beyond New Testament Theology Rilisllnen gives a very clear and excellent historical overview of what he regards as the most important Theologies of the New Testament published from approximately the beginning of the ninetieth century until approximately the eighties of the twentieth century. In the third part (91-141) he gives the framework of such a new Theology. RlIisanen gives his own summary of this framework in his article 'The Law as a Theme of "New Testament Theology'" 252-3 (collection Jesus, Paul and Torah). This article can be regarded as a sequel to Beyond New Testament Theology. See also his 'Die frilhchristliche Gedankenwelt. Eine religionswissenschaftliche Alternative zur "neute~tamentlichen Theologie"', and 'New Testament Theology?'. 16 RlIis!lnen refers to the inaugural address by J.P. Gabler in 1787 (I). "Gabler demanded that 'biblical' and 'dogmatic' theology be clearly distinguished from each other", Beyond 3. According to RlIisllnen, Biblical Theology in the sense ofthe Theology of the Old and New Testaments served for a long time before Gabler to support ecclesiastical dogmatic Theology (the texts were used as 'dicta probantia' or 'dicta classica'). For Gabler, however, Biblical Theology ought to be completely independent of dogmatic Theology. "The Bible is a document of religion, not of theology", Beyond 3. Biblical Theology is, therefore, of a historical nature, while dogmatic Theology is the product of ecclesiastical theologians. "Gabler's address displays a clear realization that the contents of the Bible are not simply identical with the doctrine of the church", Beyond 4. "Exegesis does not need dogmatics. By contrast, dogmatics is dependent on 'pure' biblical theology", Beyond 5. Gabler thus envisaged a certain kind of dualism between a historical theology in the sense of a description of the Theology of the Old and New Testaments on the one hand, and a normative Theology in the sense of an 12 13

14

Position-finding

143

to Wrede l7 in particular. It appears from his Beyond New Testament Theology that he takes up many of Wrede's insights and positions. IS He believes that no one in the twentieth century has ever written a Theology as envisaged by Wrede l9 , i.e. a Theology which merely describes the history of early Christianity without any dogmatic interpretations, while at a later stage within such a Theology a synthesis is made between that historical description and dogmatics. 2o Such a Theology will thus be of a religionsgeschichtlich nature2l with the consequence that we do not have

ecclesiastical dogmatic Theology on the other. "Gabler's question about the relationship between historical and systematical-normative 'biblical theology' has proved crucial. Often the distinction has been made in principle, and historical study of the Bible has been pursued, yet a normative element has intruded into the historical work", Beyond 30. 17 Rliislinen refers to Wrede's 'The Task and Method of So-called New Testament Theology' (1897), Beyond 13. 18 For instance, he adopts Wrede's position on giving up the boundaries ofthe canon. "Wrede stresses that the boundaries of the canon must not have any significance at all in New Testament theology", Beyond 13. In full agreement with Gabler and Wrede, Raisanen says: "The New Testament is a document, not of theology, but of religion", Beyond 14. For this reason it is preferable to label such a new Theology of the New Testament by Rilisanen as "early Christian history of religion" or "the history of early Christian religion and theology", Beyond 16. Although the above remarks are not characteristic of Wrede, Rliislinen indeed connects these remarks with him. 19 "1 for one am convinced that Gabler's concern, as radicalized in different ways by Strauss and Wrede, needs to be revived", Beyond xvii. "Our century has not produced the history of early Christian religion and theology which was envisaged by Wrede as early as 1897", Beyond 89 ...... Wrede's vision still awaits its realization", Beyond 90. Compare also 'Romans 9-11 and the "History of Early Christian Religion'" 743 note 6, where R!lisanen refers to H.M. Teeple. 20 "Wrede separated the historical work from the theological task. He did not argue that an actualizing theological interpretation of the New Testament was completely unjustified, but he wanted to leave it to systematic theologians. Another possibility would have been a clear distinction in the biblical scholar's agenda between a historical and an actualizing stage, i.e. a return to Gabler's programme. However, no theology of the New Testament or a corresponding synthesis has been written from either this point of view or from that ofWrede", Beyond 74. 21 "In this process, both one's own tradition and those of others have to be understood with empathy. Fair play ... is a necessary requirement in the study of religions today ... Any rival systems (Judaism, Stoicism, mystery religions, Gnosticism), as well as any Christian interpretations that compete with each other, must be understood on their own terms. They are to be compared, and the comparison must be fair", Beyond 99. "The strengths and weaknesses of each position have to be considered in their own right rather than from the scholar's confessional point of view", Beyond 100. "In summary, it may be more suitable to characterize the project described as a phenomenology of early Christian religious thought than as its history", Beyond 118. In a certain sense Rais!lnen becomes thus a historian of religions. I believe that in this sense also he reckons his work to be closely related to Wrede's. See Beyond 13.

144

Chapter 9

to conceal the 'negative' results of such a Theology, since it no longer primarily serves the interests of ecclesiastical preaching. 22 Weak arguments or inconsistent23 reasoning in the ideological struggle are to be noted, on whichever side they may occur. In this regard a societally and globally orientated exegesis will be notably different from a church-orientated one. 24

9.1.3 Wrede's influence is more profound than Raisanen is aware of Wrede's influence on Riiisiinen is more profound than Riiisiinen himself indicates. This appears in the first place from the similarity between Wrede's study of Mark and Riiisanen's study of Paul, for Wrede has tried to explain the internal contradictions in Mark. Riiisiinen writes: Within the context of an historical interpretation, one can make more or less wellfounded conjectures as to why Jesus might possibly have wished to avoid publicity. But one cannot in this context answer Wrede's question of how the tension between hiddenness and openness, and the particular features in connection with the secret, are to be explained. 25

Riiisiinen has done precisely the same with regard to the inconsistencies in Paul, because he has tried to explain them. Subsequently, we can also mention Wrede's view of the Lutheran interpretation of Paul, for Wrede also believes that this interpretation of Paul is wrong. 26 Furthermore, Wrede's assertion that the representation of Judaism as a religion without grace is a mere caricature clearly indicates the similarity between Riiisanen's work and Wrede's.27 Another salient detail is that, clarifying 22 "If we stop artificially maintaining the bond between exegesis and preaching, there is no reason why there should be a problem in presenting 'negative' results", Beyond 97. "What exegesis can do instead is to provide sober information on the background, rise and early history of Christianity ...", Beyond 98. Compare also his article 'Liberating Exegesis?' . 23 My italics. 24 Beyond lOO. See also 'The New Testament in Theology', where Raisllnen argues in favour ofa historical approach to the New Testament. 25 Secret 54. 26 See, for example, Wrede's Paulus 72. He also says: '''Ich habe Lust an deinem Gesetze', war vielfach einer Stimmung gewichen, die das Gesetz als Druck und B(lrde empfand. So kann auch Paulus niederdr(lckende Erfahrungen bei seinem Heiligungsstreben sehr wohl gemacht haben, und insofem kann auch Erlebtes in seiner Schilderung stecken ... Die Wahrheit ist: die Seelenkampfe Luthers haben fUr dies Bild des Paulus Modell gestanden", Paulus 83. In full agreement with Wrede, Raislinen believes that we ought to interpret Paul's theology by using another hermeneutic concept than the Lutheran one. 27 "Die Auffassung der j(ldischen Religion ist hierbei ein wenig karrikierend. Denn auch sie kannte die Gnade und konnte sie sogar betonen", Paulus 74. Many years before Sanders' view was introduced within New Testament scholarship Wrede already expressed himself in a similar way.

Position-jinding

145

the fact that Paul ascribed a soteriological significance to circumcision, Raisanen gives the same example as Wrede does in his discussion of 'Der Kampfum das Werk'.28 In sum, Wrede has influenced Riiisiinen to a great extent.

9.2 RCiistinen 's position within contemporalY New Testament research (synchronic position-finding) In order to find Raislinen's position from a synchronic point of view, we shall first give a very brief overview of several recent New Testament studies of Paul's view of the law. There is, however, a tremendous amount of literature on this topic, and many studies have been published on merely single aspects of Paul's view of the law, such as law and ethics29 , law and Christ30 , law and sin3l , law and Spirit32, Christ as the end of the law33 , the fulfilment of the law 34 , and justification 35 • Because of this tremendous amount of literature, we shall mention here merely a few interpreters who, in my opinion, have set a trend within contemporary New Testament research. 36 In order to find Raisiinen's position among contemporary New Testament interpreters, in the overview below we shall put merely one decisive question to each of the interpreters considered: does the Jewish Torah really have a soteriological function?37 Applying this standard, we 28 Rllis!inen gives this example in Paul 263 note 172 and in 'Legalism' 52-3. Compare Wrede who approaches it from the lewish point of view: "Wie ware es, wenn bei uns eine kirchliche Gruppe die Taufe filr entbehrlich, ja filr ein Hemmnis des Evangeliums erklarte?", Paulus 41. 29 E.g., I.W. Drane, 'Tradition, Law and Ethics in Pauline Theology', NovT 16 (1974) 167-78. 30 E.g., C.H. Dodd, 'ENNOMOE XPIETOY', Studio Paulina. Haarlem 1953,96-110. 31 E.g., H. Weder, 'Gesetz und SUnde. Gedanken zu einem qualitativen Sprung im Denken des Paulus', NTS 31 (1985) 357-76. 32 E.g., H.D. Betz, 'Geist, Freiheit und Gesetz. Die Botschaft des Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien', ZTK 71 (1974) 78-93. 33 E.g., R. Badenas, Christ the End of the Law. Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. Sheffield 1985. 34 E.g., E.P. Sanders, 'On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic Judaism', in: E. Bammei, C.K. Barrett and W.O. Oavies (Ed.), Donum Gentilicium. Oxford 1978, 103-26. 3S E.g., K. Kertelge, "Rechtfertigung" bei Paulus. Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs. MUnster 21971. 36 Beyond all doubt, U. Wilckens as well as H. HUbner have also set a trend by their development theory. I return to both these interpreters in the next chapter. 37 Of course, I could have made use of some other question, such as that of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. This would have meant for my position-fmding of Ounn, for example, that he would have had to have been placed not

146

Chapter 9

can distinguish between two groups of interpreters, namely one group which is very distant from Raisiinen (group A), and another group which is closely related to him (group B).38

Group A R. Bultmann (together with his followers) is a New Testament interpreter who, according to the above criterion, is very distant from Riiisiinen. Influenced by W. Bousset39 and F. Weber4°, Bultmann regards Judaism as an expression of legalism. In chapter 4 of this study it clearly appeared that Riiisiinen, being influenced by Sanders' 'covenantal nomism', exonerates Judaism from every kind of legalism. According to Bultmann, however, Paul warns against legalism which is even rooted in anthropology, and for Bultmann the epya. VOflOU are not able to justify man ... weil das Bemiihen des Mensehen, dureh Erfiillung des Gesetzes sein Heil zu gewinnen, ihn nur in die SUnde hineinfilhrt, ja im Grunde selber sellon die Silnde ist. 41

The contrast with Riiisiinen is huge, especially because Riiisanen places the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ within the context of the question of whether the Gentiles are allowed to belong to the people of God (see below). There is also quite a distance between Riiisiinen and C.E.B. Cranfield, for the latter refuses to accept Sanders' view of Judaism. Cranfield asserts that there is no ab rogatio legis in Paul, because Paul merely abrogated a legalistic misuse of the law. 42 Riiisiinen on the other hand asserts that Paul indeed abrogated the law, and that Paul not only acted against a legalistic misuse of the law, but also against the law per se. 43 Within New Testament research the interpretation of Rom 3:27; 8:2, and Gal 6:2 appears to be problematic. F. Hahn in particular has set a trend here. 44 He believes that VOflOC; in the texts above has to be interpreted in group B but in group A. In my opinion, however, there are many similarities between Dunn and Raisfulen, and the question of 'continuity' would not have sufficiently highlighted them. 38 I briefly point out several interpreters here. There is, of course, a lot more to say about them. I am merely interested in finding Rtiistinen 's position. 39 See W. Bousset - H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im sptithellenistisehen Zeitalter. TUbingen 1966. 40 See F. Weber, Jiidische Theologie au! Grund des Talmud und venvandter Sehriften. Leipzig 2 1897. Ca book I have been unable to see) 4\ Theologie des Neuen Testaments 264-5. 42 See his commentary on the letter to the Romans, Romans 851-61. 43 See Paul 42ff. .. See F. Hahn, 'Das Gesetzesverst!!ndnis im RBmer- und Galaterbrief, ZNW 67 (1976) 29-63.

Position-finding

147

literally, and therefore VOj.LOC; refers to the Torah. Consequently, there is a continuity with the Old Testament, and there is no abrogatio legis. Due to the Christ event, we have to interpret the law in a different way than before, namely by connecting the law with love as the summary of the law. He suggests that we should assume an interpretatio Christiana of the Torah. Raisanen, however, differs with Hahn on all these aspects. Another name which can be mentioned here is A. van Dulmen. 45 According to her the law had, for the Jews, a soteriological function, while Christ is the end of this soteriological way (law). Christians fulfil the law, which remains an expression of God's will. Raisanen disagrees with van DUlmen. P. Stuhlmacher46 has tried to set a trend in a completely different direction. He believes that we are living now in a time characterized by the words in Jer 31 :31 ff. There is complete freedom from the law of Moses. He especially emphasizes the love commandment. Now we have the 'law of Christ' (Gal 6:2), which coincides with the so-called eschatological Zion Torah. This Zion Torah was promised already in the Old Testament, and is introduced in the New Testament by Jesus himself. 47 In this way, Stuhlmacher tries to maintain a unity between the Old and New Testaments. 48 Group B Group B describes those who are close to Raisanen, again according to the above criterion. Here E.P. Sanders, .lD.G. Dunn, and Raisanen can be bracketed together, since there are three Significant similarities between these three interpreters. (1) They all deny that Judaism is characterized by legalism. Thus Paul does not attack a kind of legalism. The epylX vOj.LOU have no legalistic significance. (2) Consequently, the Lutheran interpretation of Paul is no longer really relevant. (3) An important similarity is the fact that the discussion of Paul's view of the law moves in a different direction. Bultmann states that the epyoc

4S 46

See her Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. Stuttgart 1968. P. Stuh1macher, 'Das Gesetz aIs Thema biblischer Theologie', ZrK 75 (1978) 251-

80. 47 See also section 8.3 above, together with R!tisl!nen's criticism. 48 Compare his Biblische Theologie des Nellen Testaments. H. Hubner has also published a Theology of the New Testament under the same title (the third volume was publis~ed ~ 19~5). ~hi~ ti:le itself !nd~c.a~es ~~t thc:se two interpreters emphatically

148

Chapter 9

VOIlOU are a priori unable to justify; Cranfield 49 asserts that the Epya vOlloU do not justify because man is unable to do those works; Sanders, Dunn, and Raisanen, however, connect Paul's soteriology with the question of the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God, since the Epya VOlloU constitute a hindrance between the Jews and the Gentiles. Here the focus is on the relation between Gentiles and Jews. In my opinion, this trend is becoming increasingly influential, and this group is getting more and more followers. E.P. Sanders has set a popular trend with his new view of Judaism as 'covenantal nomism'.so His influence can also be traced in several commentaries. Sl For Sanders, Paul regarded Judaism as 'covenantal nomism', and Paul acted against Judaism both because of his Christological exclusivism and because of his endeavour to incorporate the Gentiles into the people of God. According to Sanders Paul caused a break with Judaism. Here there is, however, a difference between him and Raisanen, for in contrast to the latter, Sanders believes that Paul intentionally caused a break with Judaism. For Raisanen, it was only because of Paul's exclusive soteriological claim (i.e. Christ as the only way to salvation) that this actual break de facto came about. In this sense (Paul's intentional break with Judaism), Sanders is more extreme than Raisanen. 52 In fact, this is the only important difference between Sanders and Raisanen. Another difference related to the previous one is that, in contrast to Sanders, Raisanen believes that Paul indeed presents a caricature of Judaism (in Raisanen's view, the law in Paul received a soteriological function due to his exclusive soteriological claim mentioned above 53 ). In this last sense, Sanders is less extreme than Raisanen. 54 Finally, Sanders also believes that Paul argued inconsistently (although there is also some "coherence").55

49 See, for example, Romans 197-8. Compare also U. Wilckens, 'Was heiBt bei Paulus: "Aus Werken des Gesetzes wird kein Mensch gerecht"?', in: Rechtfertigung als Freiheit 77-109. so E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. See also his Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. 51 For instance, J. Ziesler's commentary on the letter to the Romans, Paul's Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia 1989. 52 See also section 8.3 above. 53 See section 4.2.3. 54 Compare Paul 187-8. SS Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 144-8. I have, however, the impression that RlIisllnen wants to see little difference between himself and Sanders. See, for example, Paul xxIII note 46. And when RliiSllnen criticizes Sanders, he does so very carefuIly and even with a sense ofsyrnpathy. See, for example, 'Bruch' 171.

Position-finding

149

J.D.G. Dunn 56 has taken up Sanders' view (Judaism is no legalism) and has tried to incorporate it in his work. In contrast with the interpretation of Bultrnann, for example, Dunn believes that Paul has a rather positive attitude towards the law, and Paul's criticism of the law is not a criticism of the law per se. At the same time Dunn also criticizes Sanders' view by arguing that Paul did react against those who tried to maintain the law, because Dunn believes that Paul means by Epya vOfl.OU circumcision, food laws, and the observance of certain days: these are precisely all those characteristics which constituted a distinction between the Jews and other people. In other words, Dunn calls attention to "the social function of the law". The ~pya: VOfl.OU merely function, in Dunn's view, as "identity and boundary markers". Therefore, Paul does not warn against legalism, but rather against nationalism. In contrast to Raisiinen, Dunn believes that Paul did not present a caricature of Judaism (the law with a soteriological function), that Paul is not inconsistent, and that there is after all still a continuity with Judaism. Thus, with regard to these three aspects, Dunn is less extreme than Raisanen. 57

9.3 Conclusion with reference to a position-finding of Riiisanen A position-finding from a diachronic point of view shows that Raisanen merely extends Wrede's line of thought. It is justified to assert at least that he has elaborated in extenso several insights which already occur in Wrede's book on Paul in nuce. Therefore, Raisiinen is less original than it seems at first sight. A position-finding from a synchronic point of view shows that Raisanen is quite an extreme interpreter in contemporary New Testament research on Paul's view of the law. This is mainly due to the fact that he follows in Sanders' tracks, whose insights turned out to be a stimulus to abandon the Lutheran interpretation of Paul. As a result, there has been a tremendous shift within the discussion of the law in Paul. Riiisanen

S6 See J.D.G. Dunn, 'The New Perspective on Paul', BJRL 65 (1983) 95-122, and his 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)" NTS 31 (1985) 52342. See, more recently, his The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh 1998. Compare also R.B. Matlock, 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of Paul', JSNT 72 (1998) 67-90; D.A. Campbell, 'The IlIA0HKH from Durham: Professor Dunn's The Theology of Palllthe Apostle', JSNT 72 (1998) 91-111, and I.D.G. Dunn, 'Whatever Happened to Exegesis? In Response to the Reviews by R.B. Matlock and D.A. Campbell', JSNT72 (1998) 113-20. 57 Compare also section 8.3 above.

150

Chapter 9

himself is also very much influenced by this shift, willingly accepting the results of this new perspective.

Chapter 10

Towards a Critique 10.1 Raisanen evokes many responses In the previous chapter, we came to the conclusion that Riiisanen's position in contemporary research is rather extreme. This extreme position is, apart from other reasons, due to his view of Judaism (Sanders), and his position is all the more extreme because of the fact that he detects inconsistencies everywhere in Paul. As could be expected, Riiisiinen has evoked many responses. It happens quite often that interpreters with extreme positions evoke many responses, positive as well as negative. The number of responses evoked by Riiisanen would have been much fewer if he had 'solved' the inconsistencies by using the possibility of interpolations as, for example, O'Neill has done. l Yet, a very remarkable2 feature in Riiisiinen's work is that he does not make use a/such an option3, with the result that the tensions between the two opposite statements within each inconsistency remain. This last aspect along with Riiisanen's I See section 3.1.4 above. 2 In contemporary New Testament scbolarship it is common to regard a verse, or some verses, as an interpolation. 3 A verse such as 1 Cor 15:56 is quite important for answering the question when, for Paul, sin came into the world. R!lisanen believes that the so-called "causative interpretation" applies to this verse. See Paul 141, 148. Therefore, this verse emphasizes the inconsistency described in section 2.6 above. Raisanen could have mitigated this inconsistency by asserting that I Cor 15:56 is an interpolation (I.W. Straatman suggested as early as 1865 that one should consider this verse as such. See F. W. Horn, 'I Korinther 15,56 - ein exegetischer Stachel', ZNW 82 (1991) 88-105. Also Horn suggests that one should regard I Cor 15:56 as an interpolation. The opposite has been asserted by T. Sliding, '''Die Kraft der SUnde ist das Gesetz" (lKor 15,56). Anmerkungen zum Hintergrund und zur Pointe einer gesetzeskritischen Sentenz des Apostels Paulus', ZNW 83 (1992) 74-84). Raisanen, however, maintains that I Cor 15:56 is an authentic Pauline verse. See Paul 143. Without discussing here in detail the question of whether I Cor 15:56 should be regarded as an interpolation or not, I merely conclude that (a) R!lis!lnen does not choose this option, and (b) I concur with him in this respect, mainly because the 'interpolation theory' cannot refer to even one single manuscript which does not have I Cor 15:56. Rliisanen's statement that "The assumption of a gloss, however, makes the verse even more difficult to understand" (Paul 143) is thus correct.

152

Chapter 10

extreme position are, in my opinion, the reasons why he has evoked so many responses (see below). Both his advocates and his opponents say that Riiisanen's work is a challenge to all other interpreters ofPau1. 4 For an enumeration of reviews I refer to the second Edition of Paul and the Law xl note 2, where Raisanen himself offers an overview of many reviews of the first Edition of his Paul and the Law. The reviews to be found in this overview are mainly brief, while three rather more extensive reviews are referred to, namely those of A.I.M. Wedderburn5, l. Thuren 6, and S. Kim 7 . After the publication of the second Edition of Paul and the Law, the discussion continued, and there have been other interpreters who responded to Riiisanen's view, mainly in a critical way, such as S. Westerholm8, l.A.D. Weima9, C.E.B. Cranfield lo, and R.B. Sloan ll . In the literature of New Testament research, Riiisanen is regularly referred tol2, and it is to be expected that, after the publication of his Theology of the 4 R.B. Hays has written a rather critical review of Paul and the Law. He talks about Rliislinen's "provocative position", JAAR 53 (1985) 513-5 (the quotation is on p. 515). M.A. Getty, on the other hand, has more or less welcomed Paul and the Law. But even she says that Raisllnen has represented Paul's view of the law in a "provocative way", CBQ 47 (\ 985) 561-3 (the quotation is on p. 563). , A.J.M. Wedderbum, 'Paul and the Law', SJT 38 (1985) 613-22. Wedderbum's review is mainly positive. "Professor R!Usllnen has done us the service of presenting us with a work which fearlessly subjects Paul's arguments to a penetrating and sustained scrutiny and comes up with an analysis which I find for the most part convincing and which puts its finger on a great many points in Paul's teaching on the law of which I had been uneasily half-aware for some time", 'Paul and the Law' 621. 6 J. Thun!n, 'Paulus och Torah', in: S. Hidal et al. (Ed.), Judendom och kristendom under defiirsta arhundradena. Oslo 1986, 165-92. (an article I have been unable to see) • 7 S. Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel. Tilbingen 21984, 345-58 (in the Postscript to his dissertation). Kim is very critical. B S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith. Paul and. His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids 1988, 93-101 (these pages give a very brief summary of Rliisanen's Paul and the Law) and 105-222 (in this part, Westerholm discusses RlIisllnen, among others). 9 J.A.D. Weima, 'The Function of the Law in Relation to Sin: An Evaluation of the View of H. Raisllnen', NovT32 (1990) 219-35. 10 C.E.B. Cranfield, 'Giving a Dog a Bad Name. A Note on H. RlIisllnen's Paul and the Law', JSNT38 (1990) 77-85. 11 R.B. Sloan, 'Paul and the Law: Why the Law cannot save', NovT 33 (1991) 35-60. Sloan discusses several aspects in Rllisllnen's work. 12 J.D.G. Dunn accuses Rllislinen of having a "pedantic" mind, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 100 note 95, and p. 157 note 149, and he often regards Rllisllnen's exegesis as too "atomistic", The Theology of Paul the Apostle 19 note 55, and p. 159 note 160. N.T. Wright also criticizes some of RlIisanen's interpretations. See N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant. Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh 1991. Compare R~isanen's review in SJT 4701994) 117-9.

Towards a Critique

153

New Testament l3 , the discussion of the inconsistencies in Paul, especially concerning the law, will attract much attention within New Testament scholarship. Yet, as far as I can see, there has been nobody yet who has challenged Rrusanen in an extensive and systematic way, since most interpreters have discussed either merely a single aspect of Raisanen's work or Raisanen's work among other interpreters. The question of whether Paul is consistent, however, deserves a thorough and wellbalanced answer. 14

10.2 Is a critique of RCiisanenjustified? The nature of the inconsistencies and the way they function

The question is to be asked whether it is indeed necessary to come to a critique of Raisanen's work. Is his work indeed justly criticized so frequently? Is there any good reason why we should feel challenged by him? According to common sense everything has to be consistentlS; but could inconsistencies perhaps also constitute a kind of positive quality, on the aesthetic level, for example? In other words, we first of all have to give a further characterization of the inconsistencies detected by Riiisanen from which it will appear sufficiently that a critique of Raisanen's work is indeed necessary. In order to give such a characterization, we look first at

13 See section 1.4 above. 14 J.C. Beker believes that Paul argues consistently. " ... I propose a method, which attempts to maintain both the coherence or inner consistency of Paul's thought and the contingency of its various expressions", 'Paul's Theology: Consistent or Inconsistent?' 367. See also his 'Recasting Pauline Theology. The Coherence-Contingency Scheme as Interpretive Model', in: J.M. Bassler (Ed.), Pauline Theology. Volume I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Ga/alians, Philemon. Minneapolis 1991, 15-24, and his Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh 1989. Compare also N.T. Wright, 'Putting Paul Together Again. Toward a Synthesis of Pauline Theology Cl and 2 Thessalonians, PhiIippians, and Philemon)' in the same volume, pp. 183-211 especially pp. 186-90 (with thanks to T.R. Schreiner, Bethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul, USA, who assisted me in locating Wright's article in 1995). C. Heil, Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus 296-8 gives a brief overview of different opinions concerning the question of whether Paul is consistent. Compare also D.A. Campbell, 'The LlIA0HKH from Durham: Professor Dunn's The Theology of Paul the Apostle', JSNT 72 (1998) 94ff. 15 Rl1isanen refers (see Beyond 138) to W. Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science. Philadelphia-London 1976. The question of whether a religion has to be consistent is already a dogmatic or philosophical issue. Therefore, I leave this question undiscussed. My only concern is to inquire into the nature of the inconsistencies detected by Raisl1nen and to investigate whether Rllisanen's conclusions are justified within New Testament scholarship.

154

Chapter 10

the nature of these inconsistencies, and subsequently at the way they function in Raisanen's view. 10.2.1 The nature of the inconsistencies

The term 'inconsistency' as such has a very general meaning with different nuances. In fact, it is a sort of collective term, and therefore its meaning is rather vague. The term 'inconsistency' is easily associated with terms such as dissimilarity, disharmony, ambiguity, and discrepancy. It is far from easy to characterize the precise nature of the inconsistencies detected by Raisanen. One thing is, however, evident: we are concerned here with theological inconsistencies. 16 For Raisanen, Paul makes different statements which are, theologically speaking, incompatible. 17 Now the question is: what is the nature of these theological inconsistencies? Here I want to make a heuristic comparison with a group of interpreters not yet mentioned in the previous chapter, namely those interpreters who defend the so-called development theOlY. According to this theory, a certain process of development can be detected in Paul's letters regarding his view of the law. Paul's letters would be examples of several stages within this process of development. ls A well-known defender of this 16 There are also some other kinds of inconsistencies, such as stylistic inconsistencies (for instance, if one believes that Luke's birth narratives are very Hebraic) and historical inconsistencies (if there are two conflicting reports of one and the same occasion). The distinction between theological, stylistic, and historical inconsistencies is borrowed from D. Wenham, 'Source Criticism', in: I.H. Marshall (Ed.), New Testament Interpretation 145. 17 In his research on Mark also he is concerned with theological inconsistencies. See section 7.3 above. " See section 3.1.5 above. There are, however, also interpreters who believe that there is no dfNelopment in Paul. See, for example, F. Hahn, 'Gibt es eine Entwicklung in den Aussagen Uber die Rechtfertigung bei Paulus?', EvT 53 (1993) 342-66 (especially pp. 365-6). See also C.G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification 33-5. "Damit widersprechen wir entschieden der heute von manchen Exegeten in und auBerhalb Deutschlands vertretenen Anschauung, daB der Apostel wesentliche Bestandteile seines Iheologischen Denkens, wie seine Lehre vom Gesetz, das die vll11ige SUndenverfallenheit des 'natUrlichen Menschen' aufdeckt und ihn ganz von Gottes Gnade abh!ingig rnacht, und der daraus resultierenden Rechtfertigung des SUnders allein aus Glauben ohne 'Werke des Gesetzes', auf Grund der unerfreulichen Vorgange in Galatien erst ab dem Galaterbrief in einer 'Spatphase' entwickelt habe, wahrend in der 'FrUhphase' von Paulus 'die ... Tora mehr im Sinne eines "Adiaphorons'" behandelt word en sei", M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antioc/iien 28. "Wenn J. Becker glaubt, daB 'zur Beschreibung der spezifisch antiochenischen Theologie begrUndete Vermutungen mllglich sind, jedoch nicht mehr', so wUrden wir selbst dies bezweifeln. BegrUndete Vermutungen sind vielmehr liber die Theologie des Pall Ius in jenen flIr ihn entscheiclenden Jahren zwischen 33 und 49 n.Chr. rnoglich. Das Ergebnis unserer Studie laBt sich hier in einem fast banal klingenden Satz zusammenfassen: Seine Theologie, die uns in den Briefen zwischen ca. 50-56/7 (oder 60) begegnet, hat sich

Towards a Critique

155

theory is H. Huhner. As far as I can see, he was the only New Testament scholar in the seventies who wrote a monograph on the law in Paul. 19 HUbner also comes to the conclusion that certain theological inconsistencies can be detected in Paul's view of the law. He explains these inconsistencies by indicating a certain development in Paul: in the letter to the Galatians Paul had a negative view of the law, whereas in the letter to the Romans Paul had a somewhat more balanced view of the law. 2o In the same connection, we can also mention U. Wilckens. 21 He also assumes a development in Paul. 22 Wilckens strongly emphasizes the context of a statement on the law. Such an emphasis is inherent' in the development theory itself. Yet there is still a difference between Hubner and Wilckens: the former believes that there is a substantial development in Paul's thinking, i.e. a development from one letter to another, whereas the latter tries to detect similarities within this development, so that Wilckens is, in fact, less extreme than Hubner (in my view, 'development' in Wilckens can be interpreted in terms of 'growth', while the same term in HUbner can be interpreted in terms of 'transformation'2J). If we leave out of consideration this difference between Wilckens and Huhner, then we can conclude that the development theory is very popular. 24 Adherents of the development theory try to explain the inconsistencies consistently, i. e. along the lines of a development.

bereits in dieser vorausgehenden Epoche ausgebildet. Die entscheidenden Entwicklungen seines Denkens standen dabei sehr viel mehr am Anfang als gegen Ende seiner Wirksamkeit", Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 460-1. 19 H. HUbner, Das Gesetz bei Paulus. Gottingen 1978,3 1982. 10 See also section 3.1.5 above. 21 U. Wilckens, 'Zur Entwicklung des pauIinischen Gesetzesverst~ndnisses', NTS 28 (1982) 154-90. See also his commentary on the letter to the Romans. 22 " ••. die Moglichkeit einer Entwicklung im Denken des Paulus", 'Entwicklung' 154. See also his article 'Statements on the development of Paul's view of the Law'. 13 However, growth and transformation are closely linked. 24 See, for example, G. LUdemann, Paulus, der Heidenapostel 1. Studien zur Chronologie. G1lttingen 1980; I.W. Drane, Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles. London 1975; K. Kertelge, Grundthemen paulinischer Theologie. Freiburg-Base1-Wien 1991. See also M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer. Paulus zwischen Damaskus lInd Antiochien 28 note 102. With reference to Paul's letters, Kertelge says: "In ihrer Unterschiedenheit und biographisch geschichtlichen Folge werden sie zu Zeugnissen eines theologischen Prozesses, der die Theologie des Paulus nicht von vornherein als ein fertiges System, wohl aber als eine spannungsvolle organische Einheit begreifen laBt", Grllndthemen 10. HUbner's Theology (see previous chapter) will undoubtedly have a profound influence on New Testament scholarship, because Hubner combines two popular trends, namely the idea of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and the development theory.

Db

Chapter LU

With reference to this comparison with the development theory, the main point now is that this development theory is always concerned with a diachronic inconsistency concerning a theological issue, in this case the law. To put it differently, the inconsistency is connected with a longitudinal section (through time) within Paul's letters (from one letter to another). This is completely different from Riiisiinen's view. As we have seen in chapters 3 and 5, he tries to explain the origin of the inconsistencies in a theological way (considering Paul's Christology) and in terms of history (of religion) (Paul's contact with the Hellenists and his conflict with the Judaizers). Due to both his contact with the Hellenists and the conflict with the Judaizers, there is, in Rilisiinen's opinion also, a development in Paul. But this development was complete already before Paul wrote his letters. 25 The main difference from the adherents of the development theory is, however, the fact that, for RCiisanen, the mutually exclusive aspects of the development were not replaced by each other, but they remained side by side, so that Rtiistinen detects inconsistencies even within one and the same letter. In this respect, Rilisiinen goes a step further than the adherents of the development theory. In his view, the inconsistencies not only emerge when making a longitudinal section through Paul's letters, but also (or, above all) when making a synchronic cross-section within one and the same letter. The two mutually exclusive parts of an inconsistency exist Simultaneously. Therefore, the inconsistency interpreted by Rilisiinen is 'harder', and in a certain sense the aspect of time is no longer relevant since there is no longer a possible chronological development from one letter to another which could explain the inconsistency. The nature of the inconsistencies in Riiisanen's view is already partly characterized when he emphatically says that his theological and historical explanations leave the inconsistencies in principle unchanged. 26 The inconsistency remains, and it is, as it were, immovable; it becomes neither less emphatic nor mitigated by any explanation whatsoever. 27 Just as 1 is not the same as 2, and black is not the same as white, so the two parts of an inconsistency exclude each other (mutual exclusivism). Thus, the conclusion is justified that 'inconsistent' in Riiisanen's work means non-logical, and that his inconsistencies are of a

25 26

27

See section 5.3.2 above. See, for example, section 7.6 above. Compare also section 5.3.3.

Towards a Critique

157

logica[28 nature in the strict sense of the word. Thus, the term 'inconsistency' in Riiisiinen's work is definitely not vague. 10.2.2 The way Rtiistinen 's inconsistencies function The fact that Riiisanen goes a step further than the adherents of the development theory, so that his inconsistencies are of a logical nature, does not yet really challenge us to come to a critique of his work. First the question is to be asked what significance we should ascribe to an inconsistency. Is, for example, someone's credibility at stake because of an inconsistency? Here we can make a comparison with a medical doctor. Suppose that during his consulting-hours a medical doctor prescribes two different kinds of medicines which have opposite effects. One could regard this as a logical inconsistency (although, in fact, this is not a logical inconsistency, because for each case there can be given a historical context29 ; see below). Such an 'inconsistency' as such is not yet a reason to mistrust such a medical doctor or to refrain from consulting him, because everybody will tacitly assume that during his consulting-hours this medical doctor has prescribed two different medicines to two different patients. In this study, it will also be demonstrated that Riiisanen assesses Paul in the same way as someone assesses the medical doctor above without taking into account the different patients. In short, Riiisanen has isolated the inconsistencies from their context, and they function in his work completely independently of the context (see under section 10.3). Or, to put it more briefly, he considers the inconsistencies per se. In that case, someone's credibility is indeed at stake, as Riiisiinen himself also admits.30

10.2.3 A critique is necessary Riiisiinen goes a step further than the adherents of the development theory by indicating logical inconsistencies, and subsequently he considers these inconsistencies per se. On the basis of such a consideration, Riiisiinen 28 Consistency and logic are two terms which are closely linked. W. Hodges gives a definition of the term (in)consistent in his Logic: u ••. a set of beliefs is called consistent if these beliefs could all be true together in some possible situation. The set of beliefs is called inconsistent if there is no possible situation in which all the beliefs are true", Logic 13. Hodges gives an illustration of an inconsistent statement: "It would be wrong to censor violent programmes on television, because people's behaviour isn't really affected by what they see on the screen. All the same it would be a good idea to have more programmes showing the good sides of our national way of life, because it would straighten out some of the people who are always knocking our country", Logic 13-4. If one programme has (no) influence, then this must also apply to another one. 29 See Hodges' definition. )0 See Paul xv!. Rl1isanen fully agrees with F. Watson who asserts that the normative value of Paul's theology should not be "assumed", but instead "discussed".

158

Chapter 10

comes to the conclusion that Paul is hardly credible any more, and consequently that he is no longer a decisive authority.3l This conclusion, however, is unjustified, because the premise of the 'context' is not taken into account. Such a conclusion is altogether too premature; it both constitutes a challenge and asks for a critique. In this study the reason for a critique is thus not in the first place Rilisiinen's conclusion as such, but instead the way in which he comes to his conclusion, namely by considering the inconsistencies per se. 32

10.3 Method for a critique How are we going to enter into discussion with Riiisiinen, and how will the critique be conducted? 10.3.1 Fair play Riiisiinen regards "fair play" as most essential, and he strongly disapproves a lack of it. To give just one example, Kim has accused Riiisiinen of the fact that Paul's inconsistencies are just problems in Raisanen's own mind. 33 Raisiinen responds in his Preface to the second Edition of Paul and the Law as follows: " ... the occasional allegation that the problems I see in Paul's theology are just problems in my own mind is extremely unfair".34 When concentrating in this study on the inconsistencies themselves detected by Riiisanen and described in chapters 2 and 6 in part A, without from the outset discussing his theological and hypothetical historical explanation in detail, we meet Raisanen's demand for "fair play" and so do him full justice. 35 10.3.2 A critique by using hermeneutical techniques The main question is how we should discuss the inconsistencies. At this point we have to make a choice which, of course, depends on what has previously been said. As we have seen, Riiisiinen considers the See also sections 8.1 and 8.2 above. One may ask here whether by this I concur with HUbner, because he does take into account the context to a great extent. The continuation of this study must show whether my criticism of Raisfulen will also apply to HUbner. In any case, this study is not meant to be a critique of HUbner as well. 33 See Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel 346. 34 Paul xl!. Another example can be found in this same Preface: "Nor is it fair to assert that my whole book is essentially based on 'the traditional hypothesis of a misunderstanding' ... ", Paul xxvI note 60. 3S In section 7.6 we saw that the inconsistencies are an independent whole. 3\

32

Towards a Critique

159

inconsistencies per se. In other words, in my view, Raisanen does not take into account some hermeneutical techniques. G. Bouwman's criticism is therefore correct: "R. is geen fundamentalist. Integendeel ... Maar zijn wijze van redeneren is vaak verwant met het fundamentalistische uitgangspunt: er staat wat er staat".36 Indeed, Riiisiinen has an eye only for what has been written, and not (or, at least not sufficiently or incorrectly) for the reason why Paul has written something, nor for the specific way in which Paul has formulated his views. Therefore, in the subsequent chapters, Riiisanen's view will be countered with the help of several hermeneutical techniques. 37 Thus it wiII be a matter of interpretation. 38 The disadvantage of this approach is that not all the inconsistencies described in part A will be equally discussed. There are, however, two main advantages in such an approach. In the first place, this study will have a surplus value, because if one is not interested in part A, then part B may still be advantageous to the reader. 39 And, in the second place, we shall have a clearly structured starting-point for coming to a critique of Riiisanen's work. Now it may perhaps seem that, by using hermeneutical tools, the inconsistencies will be deliberately explained away. Such a use of hermeneutics is indeed possible. H.S. Versnel makes important remarks with regard to inconsistencies in, for example, a religion. 4o He indeed points to the possibility that all kinds of inconsistencies can be

36 G. Bouwman, TTh 24 (1984) 415. A translation of Bouwman's criticism runs as follows: R. is not a fundamentalist. On the contrary ... But his way of arguing is often akin to the fundamentalist starting-point: what has been written, that has been written. 37 By hermeneutics is meant here the whole complex of rules for interpreting a text; thus, we are not concerned here with the kind of hermeneutics which deals with possible rules on how to apply the text to the situation of today. See my article 'Contextualization: Hermeneutical Remarks', BJRL 80.1 (1998) 197-217. 38 Raisanen writes: "The amount of exegetical ingenuity needed by those who plead for consistency is noteworthy. In order to get a consistent Paul, interpreters often put forward a whole series of strained interpretations", Marcion, Muhammad and the Mahatma 17. For me, however, in this study the question is not an exegetical one (let alone a matter for exegetical ingenuity). It is more important that we investigate whether our, or in this case, Rliisllnen's hermeneutical techniques are indeed justified because it is precisely the exegete's hermeneutical approach to the texts which will eventually determine the outcome of his exegetical endeavours. 39 I hope that, in this way, this study will become of importance not only as regards the history of New Testament scholarship, but also as regards the hermeneutics of the New Testament. 40 See his Introduction to Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion I. Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism. Leiden J 990, 1-38.

lOV

l-napler lU

deliberately explained away by using hermeneutical concepts.41 Such a hermeneutical concept ... amounts to completely 'ignoring one of the conflicting elements or the contradiction itself ... A very common variant in situations when two 'realities' threaten to collide is the mechanism of winking at either side, just allowing a place on the retina to one reality at a time. This enables the subject to keep the two apart and thus to prevent collisions without abandoning one or the other. More often than not, reflective adaptations in the henneneutic system are only a last refuge following a long period of peaceful slumber in the anus ofparadox. 42

It is advisable to heed these warnings and to be aware of the existence of such a danger. However, a misuse of hermeneutics does not rule out its

proper use - especially when the texts themselves require a specific hermeneutical technique. Many aspects which at first sight seem to be inconsistent within their historical texts become transparent43 by further research and exegesis. 44

10.4 Summarizing remarks First of all, attention will be paid to the reason why Paul made his statements; thus, the historical context will be discussed (paul as a pastor, chapter 11). Subsequently, attention will be paid to the way in which Paul expresses his thoughts (Paul as a rhetor, chapter 12, and Paul as a theologian, chapter 13). In each chapter a description will be given first (what, for example, does the expression 'Paul as a pastor' mean?), and subsequently the critique of Raisiinen will be indicated. The methodological question remains regarding which concept (Paul as a pastor, Paul as a rhetar, or Paul as a theologian) one should use to interpret each text. However, as we shall see in the following chapters, the text itselfwill decide which concept(s) we should use. For the remainder of this study, the problem of the law will be emphasized more than any other problem, since Rrusanen has written most on this topic as far as his Pauline studies are concerned. The theme of 11 ..... the inconsistency is explained away by developing new hermeneutic systems. The best known instance can be found in the various divergent solutions to explain the so-called 'Parousieverz6gerung' in the New Testament", Inconsistencies 6. 42 Inconsistencies 7-8. 43 What I mean by 'becoming transparent' and 'making the inconsistencies transparent' (expressions which I shall use often) is that my hermeneutical approach allows the inconsistencies to be viewed in a completely different light and to be properly understood. 44 Of course, there is always also the possibility that there is no inconsistency at all, because the texts are not read properly. See especially chapter 12.

Towards a Critique

161

'Israel' will be less discussed. This theme has merely been mentioned in part A for the sake of completeness, and for the sake of clarity concerning Raisanen's exp lanati on. 45

45

See section 6.1.

Chapter 11

Paul as a Pastor 11.1 Description It is evident that Paul was a missionary: he was called to be sent to 'the

Gentiles, kings, and the people ofIsrael' (Acts 9:15; see also Acts 26:1218; compare Acts 13:46-47)1 in order that they would hear the Gospel from Paul himself. During his missionary journeys, Paul founded congregations. However, because he was constantly on the move he was not able to take care of these congregations in person. After he had left a congregation, sometimes some questions from the congregation reached him (for instance, a written question, 1 Cor 7:1), or some news about the congregation (1 Cor 1:11; 5:1; 11:18; 2 Cor 7:7; Gal 1:6; Eph 1:15; Phi] 1:3-5, compare also Phil 1:27 and 2:25; Col 1:3-4; 1 Thess 3:6, and 2 Thess 3:11). Due to his absence (being a missionary Paul was constantly travelling) Paul responded, for instance, by means of a letter to the congregation (see also I Cor 5:9 and 2 Cor 2:4; compare also Col 4:16: the letter EK L\.IXOOLKeLlXC;). Questions from and news about a congregation are thus the immediate reasons for writing his letters. These questions from and news about a congregation on the one hand, and Paul's absence on the other hand, form the historical context of his letters to the congregations. 2 Each of these letters is thus addressed to a specific congregation with its specific and characteristic circumstances. This is the reason for the specific nature of Paul's letters3 : they deal with the concrete 1 See also my remarks in section 11.2.2.2 with reference to the question of whether Paul was also an apostle to the Jews. 2 I confine myselfto Paul's letters to the congregations. 3 In 1911 A. Deissmann properly framed this specific, i.e. pas/oral, nature of Paul's letters by making a distinction between "Briefe" and "Episte1n": "Der Brief dient der Zwiesprache getrennter Menschen. Er ist ein Ich, das zu einem Du spricht. Individuell und personlich, nur flir den Adressaten oder die Adressaten bestimmt, ist er auf die Offenllichkeit nicht berechnet, ja durch Sitte und Recht VOT der Offentlichkeit a1s Geheimnis geschUtzt ... Er geht nur den an, der ihn geschriebeo hat, und den, der ihn offnen solI ... ", Pau!us 6. It is completely different with an "EpisteI": "Sie ist eine

Paul as a Pastor

163

circumstances of the congregations. In other words, his letters are ad hoc documents and occasional writings: by means of his letters, Paul wants to influence and to change those concrete circumstances. 4 To put it more precisely, by means of his letters, Paul wants to influence the members of the congregation on the spot. For instance, he wants to change their minds, or he wants to correct their lifestyle. For that purpose he uses exhortations (1 Thess 4:1-12; sometimes also addressed to people mentioned by name as in Phil 4:2), consolations (l Thess 4:13-18), warnings (Gal 1:8), encouragements (Phil 1:6), corrections, for instance, by means of teaching Cl Cor 15: 12ft), etc. Because they discuss these concete circumstances, his letters are variegated, just like daily life itself, and they constitute, as it were, pastoral care from a distance (compare 1 Cor 5:3; 11 :34; 2 Cor 10:11; 13:10; Col 2:5, and 2 Thess 2:5, 15). In this sense, all Paul's letters

literarische Kunstform ... Die Epistel teilt mit dem Briefe nur die ilu13ere briefliche Form; irn (Ibrigen ist sie das Gegenteil des wirklichen Briefes. Sie will eine Cffentlichkeit oder gar die Offentlichkeit interessieren und beeinflussen ... 1st der Brief ein Geheirnnis, so ist die Epistel Marktware. Nicht auf einem einzigen Papyrusblatt geht sie in die Frernde wie der Brief, sondem von vomherein wird sie von den Sklaven des gro13stlidtischen BUcherhilndlers vervielfllltigt; sie soli in Alexandrien, in Ephesus, Athen, Rom gekauft, gelesen und besprochen werden", Paulus 6. Deissmann characterizes Paul's letters as "Briefe". With reference to Paul's letters, it is evident for Deissmann, " ... da13 diese Texte aus einer bestimmten, unwiederholbaren brieflichen Situation herausgeboren sind und, bloB auf diese Einzelsituation berechnet, nicht Produkte der literarischen Kunst, sondern des realen Lebens sind, Dokurnente der urapostolischen vertrauten Seelsorge von Mensch zu Mensch, Reliquien der Missionsarbeit des Apostels an seinen Gemcinden, 'Uberreste' im Sinne der geschichtsmethodologischen technischen Sprache. Paulus hat diese Bliltter geschrieben oder, in vielen Fllllen, einem Genossen in die Feder gesprochen irn Sturm und Drang seines an tiefaufwiihlenden Erlebnissen reichen Wanderlebens; er hat sie dann durch zuverlilssige Boten in einem einzigen Exemplar an den Ort ihrer Bestimmung (Iberbringen lassen, Ubers Meer und (Ibers Land, von Ephesus nach Korinth, von Korinth nach Rom und nach Ephesus, ohne da13 die gro13e Welt und auch die Christenheit im ganzen sofort etwas von der Existenz dieser Bliltter gewuBt Mtte", Paulus 8. "Immer handelt es sich urn seelische und urn Gemeindeprobleme in einer bestimmten eigenartigen Lage ... Paulus will trllsten, ermahnen, strafen, stilrken; er verteidigt sich gegen seine Gegner, erledigt Zweifelsfragen, spricht von seinen Erlebnissen und Absichten, fUgt GrUJ3e und GruJ3bestellungen hinzu, meist ohne ilngstliche Disposition, ungezwungen vom einen zum anderen Ubergehend, ja oft Uberspringend, und die liingeren Briefe zeigen deutlich den oft jllhen Wechsel der Stimrnung wahrend des Diktates", Paullls 9. Compare also K.P. Donfried, 'False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans', CBQ 36 (1974) 352. In spite of the fact that his distinction between "Briefe" and "Episteln" can be justifiably criticized (see, for example, R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul 93-7), Deissmann has rightly indicated the pastoral nature of Paul's letters. Compare also S.K. Stowers, Leller Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity 17-20, and D.E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment 158ff. 4 See W.W. Klein et al., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation 352ff.

can be labelled as 'pastoral letters'. It is therefore, without any further clarification, evident that Paul wrote his letters as a pastor. 5 This applies, in my view, to the letter to the Romans as well. Although we touch here a very complex issue, the least we can say is that in his letter to the Romans 'the pastor Paul' wants to establish mutual acceptance 6 , namely either between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians, or between the Gentile Christians and the Jews7, for we cannot 5 K. Kertelge makes some remarks worthy of consideration in connection with this pastoral aspect: "Oer Apostel geht auf seine Weise - mit den ihm gegebenen 'Moglichkeiten' - auf die wechselnden Situationen und Anfragen ein. So erlangen seine Briefe und seine Theologie einen fundamental pastoralen Grundzug. In seiner Theologie sind auf besondere Weise der Uberlieferte Glaube und die Erfordernisse der 'Praxis' miteinander vermittelt. Paulus selbst steht in der Praxis der missionarischen VerkUndigung des Evangeliums und ist so in einem guten Sinne Theologe aus 'praktischer Notwendigkeit"', Grundthemen 7-8. 6 Perhaps it is even possible to argue that in the letter to the Romans, the 'pastor Paul' tries to establish mutual confidence in a double sense, namely between himself and the congregation also, for Paul plans to travel from Rome to Spain, and in this respect, he seeks the support of the Roman congregation (Rom 15:19-24). Thus, this congregation will function as a kind of base for Paul when travelling to Spain. See Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 91. However, the fact that Paul does not explicitly mention such a purpose (self-introduction) conflicts with this interpretation. If one concurs with J. van Bruggen that in Rom 16 Paul's colleagues are mentioned, then this purpose of the letter to the Romans (self-introduction) is no longer relevant. See J. van Bruggen, Het Raadsel van Romeinen 16. De apostel Paulus en het ontstaan van de kerk te Rome. Groningen 1970. 1 If Paul is trying to establish mutual confidence between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians, then there must have been an internal conflict within the Roman congregation. This congregation consisted in any case of Gentile Christians (Rom 11:17), while the enumeration of Jewish names in Rom 16:3ffpoints to the presence of Jewish Christians. See KUmmel, Einleilung in das Neue Testament 271, who gives some reasons in support of the assertion that the Roman congregation consisted of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians. We should not rule out the possibility that Rom 14 refers to a conflict between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians (Rom 14:5 betrays a Jewish law). In my view, there are two reasons which point to the fact that in the letter to the Romans Paul tries to establish mutual acceptance between these two groups within the congregation: (1) Klijn concludes from the enumeration of Jewish names in Rom 16 that Paul wants to demonstrate here the actual possibility that Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians can indeed live together peacefully. See Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 95. (2) Van Bruggen (see his Het Raadsel van Romeinen 16. De apostel Paultls en het ol1tstaan van de kerk le Rome 17-8, especially also notes 22 and 23) points out astutely that Paul's way of greeting in Rom 16 is a "gersoleerd verschijnsel" (isolated feature) in comparison with his other letters, for here Paul greets some addressees indirectly. If we take into account the fact that greetings as such imply mutual acceptance (see van Bruggen), then, in my view, in Rom 16, Paul would be encouraging the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians to accept each other. Moreover, we should not forget that Paul's pastoral care for the unity of the congregation is also evident in other places Cl Cor I: I Off; 3: 1-8; 12: 13).

Paul as a Pastor

165

deny the fact that Paul emphatically stresses unity within the Roman congregation (for instance, Rom 14:1-6; 15:7, 10; 16:17).8 A theological There are, however, also indications (see the next note) that in his letter Paul discusses a certain conflict between Gentile Christians and Jews. Rom 9-11 does not concern Jewish Christians, but Jews: Paul talks about Jews to non-Jews (see, for example, 11 :25-32). In tbat case, in his letter, Paul would be discussing the relation between the Church and the synagogue. There is no need to answer here the question of the precise nature of this conflict; it is sufficient for this study merely to conclude that there was indeed a certain conflict in Rome, and that Paul as a pastor is discussing a concrete situation in Rome. , The hypothesis that the disunity within the Roman congregation has much to do with the abrogation of Claudius , decree in 54 (see Suetonius, Vita Claudii 25 according to Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 88ff, and KUmmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament 269) is very interesting and worthy of consideration. A possible historical reconstruction of the conflict in the Roman congregation could be as follows: (a) In A.D. 49, Claudius issued a decree expelling all the Jews from Rome because they kept rioting at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. Although 'Chrestus' could be a mis-spelling of 'Christus' in Suetonius (see Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 1-5 35 note 89), this name cannot possibly refer here to Jesus Christ (see J. van Bruggen, De Oorsprong van de Kerk te Rome 20ff). (b) The moment of the first preaching of the Gospel in Rome must be dated in any case before A.D. 5617 (date of writing of the letter to the Romans in Corinth. See Klijn, De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament 92. Compare KUmmel, Einleitung in das Nelle Testament 272). The precise moment must have been some considerable time before A.D. 5617, because it took some time, of course, before the first news about the Roman congregation reached Paul, and also Paul must have had some time to write his letter. It is likely that the Gospel reached Rome around A.D. 54 (or earlier). (c) Claudius' decree was abrogated not later than the beginning of Nero's reign in A.D. 54. From that moment, the Jews were allowed to return back to Rome. At that very moment, the conflict could have originated, namely between the returning Jews and the congregation (consisting of Gentile Christians) which had been established meanwhile. There was not yet, however, a permanent confrontation between the Church and the synagogue (as appears from Acts 28:17-28). This non-permanent nature must he presumed, hecause otherwise the writing of the letter to the Romans would have made no sense at all. (d) In A.D. 5617, Paul wrote his letter to the Romans during his stay in Corinth. This moment is very probable, because in the period between A.D. 54 (origin of the conflict) and A.D. 5617, the conflict had some time to develop further, and within this same period one thing after another reached Paul's ears. (e) Acts 28: Paul's arrival in Rome. Now, however, a permanent confrontation does come about, Acts 28:24-28. In sum, from a historical point of view, a strong case can be made that in his letter to the Romans Paul tries to establish unity between the returning Jews and the Roman congregation (Gentile Christians) which has been established meanwhile. Paul- is asking the Gentile Christians to accept the returning Jews. This possible historical reconstruction is supported by other observations: (1) Only in the letter to the Romans does Paul use the term OUYYEV~, (9:3; 16:7, 11, 21), especially in chapter 16. It is likely that Paul wants to show that Jews (OUYYEVEL<;) and Gentile Christians can indeed constitute one harmonious community. He connects

166

Chapter JJ

discourse 9 (Rom 1:16-11:36) appears to be here a very suitable means of establishing this mutual acceptance, since Paul demonstrates that both Gentile Christians and Jews (or Jewish Christians) can only be saved by faith alone. There is thus no need to think that one group is more important than the otherlO (compare Rom 1:16).11 The letter to the Romans is therefore not a kind of compendium doctrinae christianae (Melanchthon) 12, even less a dogmatic document, but instead a pastoral this term also with himself (9:3). Is Paul here identifying himself with the problems faced by the returning Jews? (2) 1TpooAO:IJ.~aVEOeO:L occurs in Paul only in the letter to the Romans (14:1, 3; 15:7. Compare also 11: 15) and in the letter to Philemon (17). Both cases are comparable: the Gentile Christians in Rome have to accept the returning Jews in exactly the same way as Philemon has to accept the returning Onesimus. (3) Somewhat comparable conflicts with the Jews also originated elsewhere (1 Thess 2:14-16; Acts 13:45, 50; 14:2, 19; 17:5, 13; 18:6, 12; 19:9; 20:3; 21:27). (4) In Rom 9-11, Paul talks about Jews to non-Jews (see previous note). If we are on the right track with the above, then the letter to the Romans deals with one of Paul's last attempts to keep together the Church and the synagogue (the last attempt can be found in Acts 28). This relation between the Church and the synagogue was, however, one of the most difficult problems for the New Testament Church. The main advantage of this interpretation is that it enables us to study the letter to the Romans as an integral letter (there is no need to consider the passage Rom 9-11 on the relation between the Church and the synagogue as a separate part). Compare also J.A. Crafton, 'Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans: Toward a New Understanding', NovT 32 (1990) 317-39 (In my view, Crafton demonstrates convincingly that Paul has an eye for unity within the Roman congregation; Crafton describes the situation in Rome by arguing that there was a "mutual intolerance", namely between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians, p. 322. Crafton's thesis that Paul connects the circumstances in Rome with his own life is less convincing). Although approaching this issue from another point of view, Wilckens says that the letter to the Romans u ... als gemeinsame Basis von Juden- und Heidenchristen anerkannt werden kann", 'Entwicklung' 180-1. Compare also the discussion between K.P. Donfried and R.J. Karris (see CBQ 36 (1974) 332-58). See also W.S. Campbell, Paul's Gospel in an Jnlercullural Context 14-24; A.J.M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans, and K.P. Donfried (Ed.), The Romans Debate. 9 This tenn ('theological discourse') must not be interpreted too literally; I do not mean here that Paul wrote a theology, but merely that his remarks are of an instructive nature (in the sense of 1 Cor 15). Hays writes: " ... the constant aim of his theological reflection is to shape the behavior of his churches. Theology is for Paul never merely a speculative exercise; it is always a tool for constructing community", The Moral Vision o/the New Testament 18. 10 Rom 1-8: the Jew is not more important than the Gentile (2:27 is trenchant towards the Jews); Rom 9-11: yet God will save Israel. 11 If Paul is also trying to establish mutual confidence between himself and the congregation, then he introduces himself by leaving his 'theological visiting-card'. 12 For want of a really convincing solution scholars often introduce the so-called 'compendium theory', which still remains, in my view, an unsatisfactory solution, mainly because according to Acts, Paul never delivered a sennon such as the letter to the Romans (supposing that this letter is a sennon). On the contrary, Paul proclaimed the

Paul as a Paslor

167

letter.13 Admittedly, there are very few personal remarks in this letter, apart from, of course, chapter 16 14; such a lack is, of course, due to the fact that Paul himself had not yet visited the Roman congregation at the moment he wrote his letter. IS In sum, in his letters the missionary Paul appears as a pastor, because his letters are occasional letters (every time specific people with specific problems and specific questions) by which, although 'from a distance' (Paul is on a journey, or he is in prison), he continues to take care of the young congregations.

11.2 Critique of Rtiisanen

The critique of Rliislinen is first formulated in general terms, and subsequently some concrete illustrations are given or some critical points are made. 11.2.1 General

In order to interpret Paul's letters properly, attention always has to be paid to the concrete circumstances, because Paul is writing as a pastor who, by definition, always deals with concrete circumstances. In other words, the historical context of Paul's remarks has to be taken into account in our (pre-)history of Jesus. See Acts 9:20-22; 13:16-41; 17:3, 16-31; 18:5; 20:21; 26:22-23, and 28:23 (compare also 1 Cor 2:1-2). In the letter to the Romans Paul formulates his 'sermon' differently, i.e. he applies his message to the conflict in Rome. With the above I do not assert, of course, that in the letter to the Romans Paul does not say important things which concern the essence ofthe Gospel. 13 Deissmann: "Der am wenigsten personliche llingere Paulusbrief ist der Romerbrief. Aber auch er ist ein wirklicher Brief, nicht eine Epistel ... die bei manchen deutschen Paulusforschern beliebte Charakteristik, er sei das Kompendium des Paulinismus, der Apostel habe hier seine Dogmatik und Ethik niedergelegt, ist zum mindesten sehr miBverst!lndlich ... er hat nicht das literarische Publikum seiner Zeit als Leser vor sich, auch nicht die Christenheit im allgemeinen ...", Pau/us IS. The same applies to the letter to the Galatians: "Ab er deshalb schreibt Paulus doch nicht eine dogmatische Abhandlung, sondern einen feurigen Verteidigungsbrief, in welchem er nachher auch andere Tone anschUIgt", Pau/us 14. 14 We have to assume that Rom 16 originally belonged to the letter to the Romans. See for this discussion, for example, KUmmel, Ein/eilung in das Neue Testament 27580. "Die Annahme, der ursprilngliche Text des Rom habe 1,1-16,23 umfaBt, erkllirt die Textllberlieferung darum am ilberzeugendsten", KUmmel, Ein/eitung in das Neue Teslament 280. 15 Deissmann writes: "DaB diese BIlItter nicht so stark von perstlnlichen Wendungen belebt sind, wie die meisten anderen paulinischen Briefe, erkHlrt sich aus der brieflichen Situation: Paulus schreibt an eine ihm noch persBnlich unbekannte Gemeinde", Pau/us 1<;_"

168

Chapter 11

interpretation. For instance, a text which is of a polemical nature cannot be understood without taking into account the specific front against which such a text is written. And because Paul is not always dealing with the same front, and also because there is often a difference regarding the historical context, he is able to emphasize different aspects each time. 16 If we do not have an eye for these various historical contexts, then we shall not gain a proper interpretation of the texts. Thus, we always have to observe the following hermeneutical rule: texts have to be interpreted within their historical context. If we do not observe this historical context, then our interpretation will very easily become a mere caricature as appears from the following illustration. Let us compare two different statements made by one and the same person, for instance, a church minister. The first statement is: "If you want to be saved, then you have to attend Sunday Services" (1), and the second one is: "Do not think that you will be saved if you attend Sunday Services" (2). The context of statement (I) is, for instance, evangelization, so that statement (1) is addressed to 'non-worshippers', whereas the ::ontext of statement (2) is, for instance, a sermon addressed to selfsatisfied worshippers. If the historical contexts of both statements are not taken into account, then we get a mere caricature: statement (1) may then be interpreted in the sense that "all worshippers will be saved", and statement (2) in the sense that "to be a worshipper and to obtain salvation have nothing to do with each other". Moreover, it would show a serious lack of pastoral skill if statement (1) were made within the context of statement (2). In that case, such a statement would encourage worshippers to become even more self-satisfied. Similarly, it would show a lack of pastoral skill if statement (2) were made within the context of statement (1), in which case there would probably be not even one single 'nonworshipper' who would be stimulated to attend a Sunday Service. But if we take into account the historical contexts, then we come to a proper interpretation of these two statements which, if considered at the same time, seem to be an inconsistent set of statements. If the historical context is eliminated, as in the illustration above, then Paul's letters are, as it were, read simultaneously. This is precisely the way in which Riiisanen treats the texts. But Paul's letters are not meant to be read simultaneously, i.e. independently of the historical contexts. In that case, we would interpret Paul's letters incorrectly as if he were a kind of systematic thinker who wrote dogmatic propositions, whereas, in fact, 16 Cranfield writes on Paul: since he had to fight on more than one front, we have to allow for considerable variation of emphasis according to the different opponents who claim his attention", 'Bad Name' 83. U •••

Paul as a Pastor

169

Paul was a pastor who wrote letters of an ad hoc nature. Paul ought not to be interpreted thus in the first place on a dogmatic level. Such an approach is asking for problems. If we believe that we have to interpret Paul in terms of dogmatic propositions, then not only are questions of inconsistencies to be expected, but consequently also attempts to harmonize his conflicting statementsY Wrede also (compare section 9.1) denies that we should view Paul as a systematic theologian. IS Therefore, there is no such a thing as 'the theology of the law in Paul' .19 17 Kertelge also acknowledges that, in connection with the problem of Paul's inconsistencies, attention must be paid to the pastoral aspect of Paul's letters. Without assessing his interpretation of Paul, we can note that Kertelge rightly pleads for attention to 'Paul as a pastor'. "Paulus ist in seiner Auffassung vom Gesetz zwar keineswegs einheitlich und einlinig (here Kertelge also refers to Rais1!nen's 'Difficulties', T.E.v.S.), aber seine dialektische Gedankenbewegung muB die begriffliche Einheit nicht in Frage stellen, wenn deutlich wird, daB seine eigene Biographie und die Herausforderungen, auf die er schon aus pastoral en GrUnden eingehen muBte, die theologische Begriffsbildung nicht unberUhrt gelassen haben", Grundthemen 110. And further on: "1m Blick auf derartig unterschiedliche 1nterpretationsansa!ze ist es nicht ganz verwunderlich, wenn die Differenzen gelegentlich auf Unausgeglichenheiten und 'Widerspriiche' in der Gedankenwelt des Paulus selbst zurUckgefllhrt werden (here Kertelge refers to Rliislinen's Paul, T.E.v.S.). Und es ist dann nur ein kleiner Schritt, diese mit psychologischen Oberlegungen begrUnden zu wo lien und darnit die Ebene der theologischen Argumentation preiszugeben. Dabei wird das Naherliegende zu schneIl Ubersehen: Die Briefe des Paulus sind Gelegenheitsschriften. Die darin enthaltenen theologischen AuBerungen des Apostels erfordern filr ihre Interpretation die BerUcksichtigung der jeweiligen geschichtlicben Situationen", Grundthemen 134. 18 "Modeme Vorstellungen muB man ausdriicklich verbannen, wenn man Paulus einen Theologen nennt. Er besa[\ keine theologische Gelehrsamkeit in unserm Sinne und hat auch mit unsem Dogmatikem und Ethikem geringe Ahnlichkeit. Niemals hat er ein System seiner Lehre entwickeln wollen, selbst im ROmerbriefe nicht. Er schreibt immer als Missionar, Organisator und Volksredner, entwickelt seine Gedanken auf gegebenen AnlaB hin, und immer nur nach einzelnen Seiten. So kOnnte man Uberhaupt irre werden, ob 'Theologie' hier der rechte Name ist", Paulus 47. "Zum Teil is! dieses Denken in Fragmenten eine Wirkung der rabbinischen Schule. Bei den Rabbinen pflegt alle ErOrterung vom einzeInen Schriftworte oder vom Spezialproblem auszugehen. Es ist ein Denken von Fall zu Fall, ohne Sinn filr den systematischen Zusammenhang eines Ganzen", Paulus 49. 19 Cranfield rightly states: "While in several of Paul's letters a good deal is said concerning various aspects of the law, there is nowhere in the extant letters anything like an attempt to set out his understanding of it systematically as a whole. This means that the position of the scholar who wants to explain the structure of Paul's view of the law is a bit like that of a person who knows nothing about giraffes but has to try to draw a picture of one, having nothing to go on but someone's sketch of a giraffe, of which much of the central area has been obliterated. It is hardly surprising that it is difficult to understand how the various things which Paul has said about the law cohere together", 'Bad Name' 82-3. Thus, HGbner's monograph on Paul's view of the law is a very precarious undertaking. Or, to put it more strongly, it is incorrect to attempt to give an exhaustive exposition of 'the law in Paul' from his letters. It is, however, possible to

170

Chapter }}

However, Riiisanen himself also admits that Paul was not a systematic thinker2o, and that his letters are occasional ones. Yet, in my view, this seems to be mere Zip-service, because in theory he indeed admits this, but he does not put it into practice, or at least not sufficiently. In this respect his discussion with R.B. Hays may further clarify this issue. Rays says: ... R~isllnen has adopted a method which requires him to discuss exegetical problems piecemeal, apart from any clear construal of the pastoraI!historical situation to which the various letters with their incommensurate utterances about the Law are addressed ... he tends to treat Paul's statements about the Law as dogmatic propositions and to demonstrate their incompatibility at that level. 21

Riiisanen responds to this by saying: He exaggerates quite a bit, though, for clearly I do take the differences between different letters into account. If I discuss these differences in a 'piecemeal' way (Hays), it is because I do not regard them as the key to the kind of problems I am examining. But the importance of the respective immediate contexts is crucial for my interpr.etation of individual statements. 22

Yet what does Riiisiinen mean here by "immediate contexts"? It appears from the remarks above that he does not use this term in the same sense as Rays does in his criticism, namely: immediate contexts as the different historical contexts of different letters. There is then, in my view, just one possible interpretation: Riiisanen means by the "immediate contexts" the texts in the immediate surroundings of a text which has to be interpreted. 23 represent Paul's view of the law in, for example, his letter to the Romans. But even then, we have to make a reservation, because his assertions on the law always have a pastoral or historical context, and they are not meant to be considered in terms of dogmatics. See Davies, 'Paul and the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation' 8-10. Even Dunn, who tries to " ... integrate the treatments of the law in Galatians and Romans into a single coherent theology" ('Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text in Context' 471) is still forced to differentiate between the two treatments to a very great extent. See his 'Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text in Context' 471-3. Dunn is more optimistic than I am, for he believes that Paul's letters are" ... somewhat like the sections of an iceberg above water: we can deduce from what is visible a good deal of what is invisible", The Theology of Paul the Apostle 15 (see also pp. 13-9). Compare D.A. Campbe\l, 'The t.IA0HKH from Durham: Professor Dunn's The Theology of Paul the Apostle' 97. Without referring explicitly to Raisiinen, !
171

Paul as a Pastor

But then, Riiisiinen creates an apparent contrast between the "immediate contexts" and Paul's letters as a whole, since questions of introduction (addressing, for example, issues such as historical context) are equally relevant to the "immediate contexts". In any case, we come to the conclusion that Riiisiinen does not pay attention to the different historical contexts of different letters, whereas this is, in fact, an important hermeneutical rule. This accusation is not alleviated by his claim that he does pay attention to the differences between Paul's letters, for this attention is merely very marginal and far from profound2 4; moreover, he as a pastor' (as defined in section 11.1). My understanding of RlIisiinen is confinned by his own remark: "Thus D. Zeller .. , can make the following observation: •... die Nuancen in def Wertung des Gesetzes (sind) bei Paulus durch bestimmte Argurnentationszusammenh1inge gegeben ... Die Methode, diese Kontexte zu differenzieren, wurde von U. Wilckens (modifiziert durch D. Zeller) und H. RlIisanen vorangetrieben"', Paul xxII note 44. My understanding is also confinned by Raisiinen's own statements on the "immediate context" in Secret 30 (already quoted in section 7.3 above). In the two following chapters (12 and 13), RlIisllnen will be, however, confronted with the "immediate context" (in Rliisllnen's own sense). 24 Rliisanen refers (see Paul xxII note 43) to a number of pages of his Paul and the Law which demonstrate, for him, that he did pay attention to the difference between the letters. He refers to fourteen places in his volume. However, his attention to the clifference between the letters concerning the historical context is in twelve cases too marginal, and in each case, it hardly (if at all) detennines his interpretation of the texts. I want briefly to discuss the two other references. The first one is at page 68 of Paul and the Law. Here he indeed pays attention to the difference between the letter to the Galatians and the letter to the Corinthians (with reference to I Cor 7:19). Raisiinen rightly says that in the letter to the Corinthians Paul deals with a pneumatic front, and in the letter to the Galatians with a legalistic front. But subsequently Rliisanen does not give the required attention to this aspect, because he discusses I Cor 7: I 9 as a contradiction of Rom 7:7ff (the texts concerned in the letter to the Galatians were discussed a few pages earlier). RlIisanen ought to have made here a comparison between the texts in the letter to the Galatians and 1 Cor 7:19, so that the difference between the letter to the Galatians and the letter to the Corinthians concerning the historical context might have sufficiently influenced his interpretation. The second reference is Paul and the Law 128-33. Here another question arises, namely the question of whether the law is of divine origin. Accorcling to Rllisanen, it seems that Gal 3: 19-20 denies a divine origin of the law. At this point, he indeed pays attention to the front, namely the !udaizers ("polemical discussion", Paul 132; "He has 'overreacted"', Paul 133; "battle with the Judaizers", Paul 133). But Rilisiinen immediately traces Paul's statements back to the inconsistent theological view of which Paul was not conscious: "The verses in question seem to express a latent resentment towards the law of which Paul was normally not conscious. Be that as it may, the strong impression remains that Paul's mind was divided with regard to the law", Paul 133. Rl!.isanen also says that Paul acted in an ad hoc way (Paul 133), which is, as such, right (Paul wrote pastoral letters). But Raislinen leaves it at that. Or, to put it more precisely, he immediately changes an ad hoc utterance into a theological proposition. Raisilnen thus interprets the texts, far too hastily skipping the differences concerning the historical context. 'Paul as a pastor' is not really relevant to 'Dait'!ln.o.n'l" hl:l ..,.,....I::Io ...... "..;"' ...

r"I T

..:1 .... _

u ...... __ , __ 1___ :.c: __ ... !_

1'"'1"11.....

•

~".

-

172

Chapter 11

does not pay attention to the historical context in all those places where he ought to do so (see section 11.2.2). It thus appears from this discussion between Rays and Raisanen that both ascribe different meanings to the idea of "context" (Rays: historical context; Raisanen: the texts around the text which has to be interpreted). The situation is similar when Rays uses the term "dogmatic". It is clear that Rays warns against a misuse of certain texts, namely treating them as timeless propositions without taking into account their historical contexts (this is, in fact, his criticism of Riiisiinen). Riiisanen also will have none of dogmatics 25 ; yet, he keeps Rays' criticism at bay by saying: " ... most people use Paul's statements in just that way, as 'dogmatic propositions'!".26 Raisanen gives the impression that he warns against a misuse of Paul's statements by treating them as dicta probantia.27 But Hays does not warn against such a misuse, or in any case, not in this place; instead he warns against the misuse that consists in reading Paul's statements simultaneously, i.e. reading them without taking into account the "context". It seems that R1:lisanen is insensitive to Rays' criticism. 11.2.2 Illustrations

Some concrete illustrations will now be given which wi11 demonstrate that Raisanen does not take into account the fact that Paul is also a pastor. We shall see that attention to 'Paul as a pastor' will shed new light on several inconsistencies (see part A), and it will also enable us to find a proper interpretation of several texts.

incorrect. Den Heyer argues that RiHsaDen interprets Paul from a 'contextual' perspective rather than from a more or less general theological perspective. This chapter, however, demonstrates that RMisiinen's interpretation is far from ·contextual'. On the other hand, my own interpretation of Paul indeed shows that Paul's letters have to be understood within their historical contexts. In this regard den Heyer correctly characterizes my reading of Paul as ·contextual'. See C.J. den Heyer, Paulus 254 note 18. Compare also my article 'Contextualization: Hermeneutical Remarks', BJRL 80.1 (1998) 197-217. 2S "If people do use Paul's statements as dogmatic propositions even on a sophisticated level ... and if they really cannot be used in that way, is it not about time that someone tells them?", Paul xxIII. 26 Paul xxII. 27 See section 9.1.2 above.

Paul as a Pas/or

173

11.2.2.1 Paul as a pastor encouraging the Thessalonians in 1 Thess 2:1416 With reference to 1 Thess 2:14-16 Riiisanen detects two inconsistencies. 28 (a) According to 1 Thess 2:16, the Jews prevent Paul from speaking to the Gentiles, whereas according to Rom 11: 11 ff the unbelief of the Jews is, in fact, a stimulus ("AnstoJ3") to Paul to go to the Gentiles. (b) The readers of the first letter to the Thessalonians would probably have been very surprised to learn that the people of Israel will be saved, as asserted by Paul in Rom 11 :25ff. Both inconsistencies can be made fully transparent, in my view, by interpreting the texts from the point of view of 'Paul as a pastor' .29

First inconsistency It is important for a proper interpretation of the first letter to the Thessalonians to look at the historical context. The Thessalonians find themselves in severe suffering (1 :6) and they have to deal with the hostility of their own (Gentile) countrymen (ETIa9HE ... {mo TWV lotwv aWQ>uAE1:WV 2:14). Paul is a pastor to them by encouraging them. This is seen when following Paul's train of thought in 2:14-16. In the verse before this passage, Paul points out to the Thessalonians that they have accepted the word of God, and that it is also at work in them (EvEpyeLTClL EV UI-Ltv Tote; TILaTEUouaw). But how are they able to know that such is indeed the case? Paul gives the reason (yap) in verse 14: I-LLI-LTltClL

2. See section 6.5.2 above. Riiisanen's interpretation of this passage clearly illustrates that the historical context of this passage is not properly taken into account, and it is precisely this hermeneutical failure which, as I try to demonstrate, has misleading consequences for his interpretation of Paul. In other words, I merely try to check Riiis!!nen's way of interpreting the texts rather than offering my own exegesis. 29 For recent literature on this passage, I refer to C.J. Schlueter, Filling up the Measure. Polemical Hyperbole in / Thessalonians 2./4-/6. Sheffield 1994. Although in this study by Schlueter some attention is paid to the fact that each of Paul's letters should be considered within a different historical context (see, for example, pp. 63, 191-3), Schlueter interprets 1 Thess 2:14-16 from a rhetorical point of view because Paul makes use here of "hyperbole in a polemical context", p. 65. "In each of the clauses of I Thess. 2.14-16 (except 'by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved'), Paul exaggerated a kernel of historicity", p. 74. According to Schlueter, Paul exaggerates by stating, for example, that the Jews have killed Jesus and the prophets, p. 67. The relation between 1 Thess 2:14-16 and Rom 9-11 is also discussed in this same study. Schlueter rejects all kinds of theological harmonizations, pp ..54-64. "By the time he wrote Romans 9-11, Paul's rhetoric against the Jews was more subdued", p. 12 (compare also p. 192). I agree with Schlueter that the relevant verses in 1 Thess 2 are Pauline; it is a pity, however, that these verses are interpreted by using a rhetorical concept. In my view, we get a clearer picture of 1 Thess 2: 14-16 if we look at this passage from the hermeneutical point of view of 'Paul as a pastor'.

174

Chapter 11

EYEV"S11,E, &6EA
Paul as a Pastor

175

(Acts 17:5-9). Paul was suffering in the same way as the Thessalonians. 1 Thess 2:14-16 does not say that Paul was not stimulated by the unbelief of the Jews, as Raisanen asserts3!, but instead merely says something about the fact that the Jews regularly prevented Paul from actually realizing32 his plans. 33 Second inconsistency EL~ LEAO~

(2:16) could have a temporal meaning (thus Riiisanen). Et.:; LEAOe;; could, however, also be interpreted as 'fully'; this meaning in fact fits better in the context (compare &VIl7TATlPWaIlL, same verse). In that case the only point Paul wants to make here is that the full wrath of God wiII come upon the Jews.3 4 Irrespective of which exegesis one prefers to choose35 , Riiisanen's interpretation of this verse goes too far, for he asserts that Paul has in mind here a permanent judgment upon the Jews. 36 But here Paul is saying nothing more than that the (full) wrath of God is upon the Jews who have become antagonistic towards Paul.37 Whether and to what extent, either partly or completely, their antagonistic attitude towards the

31 The opposite would in fact be more accurate: after the conflict with the Jews of Thessalonica (Acts 17: 13), Paul even preached in the Gentile city Athens, Acts 17:16ff. 32 God's wrath has come upon the Jews (verse 16) not because they rejected the Gospel, but because they hindered Paul. In other words, in 1 Thess 2:14-16 Paul does not discuss the theme of Israel in general terms as he does in Rom 11. See T. Baarda, "'Maar de toorn is over hen gekomen ... " (1 Thess. 2:16c)' 29, 35, and 56-60. Kruse comments on the difference between 1 Thess 2:14-16 and Rom 9-11 as follows: "A better approach is to see that the relationship between 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 and Romans 9-11 is not one involving inconsistency, but is rather a case of Romans 9-11 providing extra information for a different situation", Paul, the Law and Justification 252. 33 Acts 13:45-47 expresses both sides: in reality, the Jews hinder Paul (as in 1 Thess 2), but at the same time their unbelief is a sign, and therefore also a stimulus and an encouragement, to go to the Gentiles (as in Rom l1:llff) in accordance with God's plan (quotation from Isa 49:6). 34 I leave the interpretation of e.pettGev (2: 16) undecided (see the above study by Schlueter pp. 17-8); this is of no direct importance for this study. 3S See R.H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy 331 note 175. 36 "Deshalb ist der g5ttliche 'Zorn' endgUltig auf sie gekommen ... einer endgllltigen Verurteilung ... ", 'Analyse' 2925. 37 Compare Schlueter: "The lurid picture of what would happen to the enemies of the people of God is meant to encourage members of the new Thessalonian church by assuring them that their persecutors would get the deserved punishment. The letter to the Romans addresses a different issue: the fate of the Jews, given the successful mission to the Gentiles. Ok eke is right to focus upon the date and occasion of the letters as the proper starting point. This principle avoids the necessity to harmonize or delete contradictions within the Pauline corpus", p. 63.

lIO

L-napler J J

Gospel will come to an end is not discussed here.3 8 Therefore, Raisanen's interpretation is definitely a caricature of this text. 11.2.2.2 Paul as a pastor seeking unity among the Romans in Rom 11: 11-

14 With reference to Rom 11:11-14 Raisanen says that Paul represents himself as an apostle to Israel, whereas in other places he is, in fact, an apostle to the Gentiles. 39 Once again it is necessary to take into account the historical context, in this case of the letter to the Romans. As we have already seen, there was a specific pastoral need in the Roman congregation, because there was a lack of unity. Chapters 9-11 are mainly concerned with the mutual relation between the Gentile Christians and the Jews, since Paul talks here about Jews to Gentile Christians (11: 17). The theological discourse on God's plan of salvation, especially with regard to the Jews, is a very suitable means here for the pastor Paul to establish mutual acceptance, in any case towards the Gentile Christians who should not discriminate against the Jews (11:17-21. Compare also 10:12). In 11:11-14, Paul gives two reasons why they should not do SO.40 The first reason is that the Gentile Christians owe much to the Jews (11:11-12). This is clearly seen if we follow Paul's train of thought in 11:11-12. In verse 11 Paul makes a new start by saying Af:.yw ouv (compare AEYW ouv in 11:1). Once again we read the same definite denial as in 11:1: ~~ yEvovtO. Paul talks here about the stumbling of the Jews so that they are unable to rise any more (compare liL& 1Tavto~ 11: 10 and the Psalms of Solomon 3:9-12). They stumble because they tripped over the stumb1ingstone (9:32). tva (11:11) has a final meaning, because Paul is still concerned here with God's plan with Israel 41 (in 11 :8-10, the Old Testament is quoted several times).42 Due to the fall of the Jews, salvation has come to the Gentiles. In verse 12, Paul underlines Israel's significance for the Gentiles by using a qal wahomer-rule (d liE .. , 1Toac.y ~&Uov 11: 12): Paul asserts that if their fall means riches for the world, and if their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their 38 Holtz: " ... Ek '1:£')..0<; ('gMnzlich') schreibt das Gericht Uber die Juden nicht filr das Eschaton fest! Es steUt allerdings das Gericht uber die unbekehrten Juden fest, doch Hillt der Satz Raum filr die Umkehr der Juden", Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher 1 I O. 39 See section 6.5.4. 40 Compare Bell, Provoked to Jealousy 108-18 and 271-2. 41 By 'Israel' Paul here means the Jewish people. 42 "On the basis of the scripture, Paul argued that it was necessary for Israel to disobey the gospel. Only in that way can the Gentiles be included in the people of God ... The divine intention lies behind these words", Bell, Provoked to Jealousy 112-3.

Paul as a Pastor

177

lTA~pt.lf.!II

bring (compare lTA~pt.lf.!II in 11:25, however here in connection with the Gentiles). Paul probably has in mind here a kind of 'massconversion' ofIsrael: lTlIp&.lT'tt.lf.!II / ~"t1:TJf.!II (11: 12) runs paraIJel to &.lTO~OA~ (11:15), and lTA~pt.lf.!II (l1:12) runs parallel to lTp60ATJf.!IjJL~ (11:15).43 Paul does not complete verse 12; it is, as it were, a mystery beyond description (compare 11 :25ff). His message is clear: the Gentile Christians should not imagine themselves to be any better than the Jews, for the fall and the conversion of Israel mean even greater riches for them. The second reason why the Gentile Christians should not discriminate against the Jews is the fact that in the end the salvation of the Gentile Christians will not be the main purpose of God's plan of salvation (11: 1314). Paul addresses himself to the Gentiles (rOL!; E9vEOLV 11:13). It makes no difference whether this is meant in general (all Gentiles) or not, because there were also Gentile Christians in Rome. The 06~II (11:13) of his ministry is to arouse his O&.PKII (11:14), i.e. the Jews (compare 11:1-2), to envy in order to save some of them (C(\Jtwv 11: 14 refers to the Jews). Thus, in the end, the salvation of Israel will be the main purpose. By means of this theological discourse, the pastor Paul puts the Gentile Christians in their proper place: they have no reason at all to discriminate against the Jews. Here also we can expect a caricature by Rtiistinen. Indeed he gives a distorted picture, for he says: In V. 14 legt der 'Apostel der Vlilker' (V. 13) seine Aufgabe und Motive in einer befremdlichen Weise dar. Der wabre Zweck seiner Heidenmission sei es, der Rettung von Israeliten zu dienen, indem der Apostel unter ihnen 'Eifersucht' gegen die Heidenchristen erweckt. Trotzdem hom er nicht mehr als 'einige' seiner Volksgenossen auf diese Weise zu gewinnen. Doch die Vorstellung einer 'Rettung durch Eifersucht' entpuppt sich leicht als eine nachtrllgliche Rationalisierung. 44

Rliisiinen treats Paul's statements in verses 13-14 on the level of the theme of 'mission to the Gentiles as a means of saving Israel '45; but this is not the actual theme here. 46 In verses 11-14, Paul discusses a different theme with an underlying pastoral purpose (see the historical context), namely: the Gentile Christians have no reason at all to discriminate against

., O. Hofius, Paulusstlldien 186. 44' Analyse' 2913. 45 This is the reason why RlIisllnen gives a caricature. 46 In verses 13-14 Paul does not discuss the question of whether the conversion of the Gentiles is the means of converting Israel (even though this is true in verses 13-14); on the basis of verses 11-12, the opposite could in fact also be argued, namely that the conversion of Israel is the means of converting the Gentiles.

178

Chapter 11

the Jews. 47 Again Raisanen overlooks the fact that Paul writes here as a pastor. At this point, there is another weak aspect in Raisanen's interpretation by which he inevitably comes to a wrong interpretation, for his view is based on an incorrect interpretation o/the expression 'Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles '. In my view, Raisanen ascribes a very peculiar meaning to this expression, for he gives the impression that Paul's missionary work has nothing to do with the proclamation of the Gospel among the Jews. However, the opposite is more accurate. Paul never lost sight of the Jews; on the contrary, he always first went to the synagogue (Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14; [this remains the same after Acts 13:46-47:] 14:1; 17:1 [Thessalonica], 10,17; 18:4, 19; compare also Acts 28:17; see also Rom 1:16 ['Iouocu!J,l '" lTPWtov]; 2:9-11; 10:12). Therefore, the expression 'Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles' should not be interpreted in a narrow sense; rather, it means that Paul was sent into the world to proclaim the Gospel in the Gentile areas. 48 He went to the rnission-field, which simply means: outside Palestine. 49 Even though the Gentiles were prominent within this mission, the Jews still had priority.5o Raisanen asserts, relating to Paul's mission: "Heiden, nicht Juden, zu retten ist seine Aufgabe"51; but as we have seen this assertion is undoubtedly incorrect (compare also Acts 9:15 and 26:1218),52 47 See also Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 6-11 245. Michel: "Oer Bildstoff V 17-24 hat Zug fllr Zug das Verh!!ltnis des Heidenchristen zu Israel im Auge, ist also van Anfang an parllnetisch bestimmt", Der Briefan die Romer 344. 48 Compare also Rom 11: 13a: Paul addresses himself to the Gentiles. There were de facto many Gentiles among his 'converts'. In this sense, he is really an 'apostle to the Gentiles'. Inasmuch as (e$' lIoov) he is sent to the Gentiles, he remains a lover of the Jews. Paul is no apostate. 49 Peter, who was supposed to work among the Jews, even left for Rome according to tradition. ~o Referring to Gal 1:15ff, Rllisllnen says: "Wenn Paulus van seiner Berufung spricht, nennt er ausdrUcklich die Aufgabe, Heiden zu gewinnen ... ", 'Analyse' 2913. But in Gal 1:16, the dative case ('tOL~ E9vEOLV) is not used alone, but this noun is preceded by the preposition EV. Paul is sent among the nations, the Gentiles; but there were also Jews among them. " ... to all who were in Gentile lands ... ", R.Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians 66 (my italics). 5l 'Analyse' 2925. 52 Riiisllnen connects 'Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles' with both the letter to the Galatians and the first letter to the Thessalonians. Again, Riiisllnen ignores the historical context with the consequence that he does not see that it goes without saying that Paul of course appears in these two letters as 'the apostle to the Gentiles'. Gal 1:16 and 2:7-9 are written in connection with his defence of his apostleship among the Gentiles (Paul is writing here to the Galatians who have a Gentile background); his work among the Gentiles is prominent here. And in 1 Thess 2 Paul is hinting at the past events in Thessalonica where he was hindered from speaking to tbe Gentiles. In the letter to the

179

Paul as a Pastor

11.2.2.3 Paul as a pastor exhorting the Corinthians in 1 Cor 7: 19 We have seen in section 2.3 that, according to Raisanen, Paul does not give an unequivocal answer to the question of whether the law has been abrogated. On the one hand, Paul propagates the idea of abrogalio legis, and on the other hand, for Paul, the law is still in force. Raisanen illustrates the latter idea by referring to 1 Cor 7:19: ~ 'lTEpl1:0fln ouoev Eonv Kat ~ &Kpo~U01:(a OUoEV Eonv, &Uoc 1:~PT]OlC; EV1:0AWV Seou. 53 In order to come to a proper interpretation of this text, we again have to look at its historical context. Immorality and several gross sins occurred in the Corinthian congregation (see, for example, 1 Cor 5:1; 6:9-10,18-19). As a pastor, Paul addresses these concrete problems by drawing their attention to Christian ethics. He emphasizes the difference between a sinful and a Christian lifestyle (compare 1 Cor 6:9-11). In 1 Cor 7:19 also, a Christian lifestyle is being emphasized. The immediate context demonstrates the way in which Paul emphasizes such a lifestyle. 1 Cor 7:19 is an illustration of the rule in verses 17,20, and 24: the Corinthians should just remain in the state in which God called them (the other example of this same rule is mentioned in verses 21ft). Neither a Jewish background (circumcised) nor a Gentile background (uncircumcised) makes any difference; such a difference in ethnic background is neither relevant nor important. The only thing which matters is keeping the commandments, i.e. living according to a Christian lifestyle (ethics). In order to indicate the inconsistency, Raisanen contrasts 1 Cor 7: 19 with the texts in Gal 2 and 3. 54 But this is unjustified, because the negative statements on the law in Gal 2 and 3 are not framed within an ethical context as in the letter to the Corinthians, but within a soterioiogical context due to the influence of the Judaizers among the Galatians. 5s This is Romans, on the other hand, Paul is involved in mission work among Gentiles and Jews (Rom 1:16). 53 See Paul 67-8, SI. 54 See section 2.3 above (under part A). 55 Rliisanen also contrasts I Cor 7:19 with Rom 7:7ff (Paul 6S). Again, this is unjustified, because in Rom 7:7ff, Paul says something about the fact that sin misuses the law, which is a completely different issue. r want to clear up a possible misunderstanding here. I do not use the argument that Paul is a pastor in order to prove that in 1 Cor 7:19 Paul did not have the Torah in mind. I want to emphasize that it is not my intention to demonstrate here that Paul did not have the Torah in mind (although I indeed believe that ~~pT1aL~ EV~OAWV aEOU cannot refer to the Torah as such, since EV~OA~ is a very general term in Paul's letters. Compare however Rom 7: I 0, and section 13.2.2.1.2 below. Compare also Jesus Sirach 29: I and 32:24). Basically, this exegetical issue is not important for my critique of R!!is!lnen. My only intention is to demonstrate that, even though Rliisllnen may be right in stating that n .... l

....... A ......... "T"-. __ t. : .. _: ... ..1 ••• t. __

.H_: .. : .......

1 r"I __ ".1

n nu: .. :: ___ ' .. ,___

~_.

___ .*; __ l

_______ L

180

Chapter 11

again a characteristic illustration of the fact that R!l.isiinen simultaneously reads Paul's different statements in different letters without paying attention to the different historical contexts (the fronts in the letter to the Corinthians and in the letter to the Galatians are completely different).56 11.2.2.4 Paul as a pastor warning 'puffed up' and self-assured Christians (judgment according to deeds)

As we have seen in section 4.2.4, Raisilnen detects another problem with reference to the well-known antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ on the one hand, and judgment according to deeds on the other, namely: how could such an antithesis and such a judgment exist together?57 Rilisanen draws a parallel with ludaism: there is actually no difference between Paul and ludaism. 58 " ... it would be possible to claim that Paul actually teaches salvation (or at least reward) by works!".59 Again paying attention to the historical context of the texts in which judgment according to deeds occurs, we are again able to make this inconsistency also transparent, mainly because the historical context will also highlight the fact that 'judgment according to deeds' must in several

to this text is still incorrect, because he compares two texts with different contexts. In other words, I do not use here the idea of 'Paul as a pastor' in order to make a decision on the exegesis itself, but rather I use this idea as a proper hermeneutical tool. 56 Wilckens makes worthwhile remarks about the difference between the letter to the Corinthians on the one hand, and the letter to the Romans and the letter to the Galatians on the other. Although I do not agree with him on all his views, he makes very illuminating remarks because of his attention to the context. "Die Bewahrung der Gebote Gottes in 1 Kor. 7.19 ist also als die ethische Wirklichkeit des Christseins gemeint, die dort anbricht, wo der 'Ruf' Gottes den Unterschied zwischen Beschnittenen und Unbeschnittenen aufhebt", 'Entwicklung' 158-9. This keeping and fulfilling of the commandments seem to contradict the dialectical statements in the letter to the Romans and in the letter to the Galatians; this problem can be solved, however, quite easily. "Vergleicht man die Selbstverstllndlichkeit, mit der hier die Erft1llung der Gebote der Tora - nicht weniger gewichtig als etwa in der Qumran-gemeinde - als die ethische Wirklichkeit christlichen Wandels in Anspruch genommen wird, mit der Dialektik der Gesetzesaussagen des Galater- und Rllmerbriefs, dann springt der Unterschied derart in die Augen, daB man sich fragen mag, wie derselbe Paulus das eine wie das andere geschrieben haben kann. Doch jede Skepsis vergeht, wenn man erstens sieht, welch zentraler Stellenwert in urchristlicher Oberlieferung der Bekehrung als radikaler sittlicher Kehre aus Frevel zu wahrer Gerechtigkeit zukommt (vg!. 1 Kor. 6.9-11); und wenn man zweitens erkennt, daB die Rechtfertigungslehre des Galater- wie besonders auch die des Rllmerbriefes - entgegen entsprechender jUdischer Polemik - den BegriindlmgszlIsammenhang gerade dieser ethischen Kehre Iiefert", 'Entwicklung' 159. My italics. See also E. Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther 1191. 57 This issue will be discussed again in chapter 13. 58 See also Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism 515-8. 59 Paul 186.

Paul as a Pastor

181

cases be interpreted more or less as 'judgment of deeds' .60 Paul writes against different fronts, namely a front where especially the above antithesis appears to be relevant and applicable, and a front where especially the warnings of judgment according to deeds appear to be relevant and applicable. N.M. Watson has rightly highlighted this difference. 61

60 It has to be noted here that 'judgment according to deeds' is not the same as 'judgment 0/ deeds'. Rliislinen mainly has an eye for the contrast between 'faith' and 'judgment according to deeds', whereas in the texts discussed here 'judgment o/deeds' also occurs. Thus, we have to do here also with a partly different topic. The texts will be mainly considered, however, from the point of view of Paul's pastoral care in order to indicate clearly that Raisllnen does not, or in any case does not sufficiently, take into account the historical context. • 1 N.M. Watson, 'Justified by Faith; Judged by Works - An Antinomy?', NTS 29 (1983) 209-21. "In dealing with different passages in Paul's letters, it is all too easy to treat them as all on the same level, all addressed to the same readers in the same situation ... ", 'Justified' 214. Watson's point of departure is based on: E. Synofzik, Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen bei Paulus. Eine tradilionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Gottingen 1977, and W. Joest, Gesetz und Freiheit. Das Problem des Tertius Usus Legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese. G!lttingen 41968. C.H. Cosgrove criticizes Watson by arguing that" ... Paul speaks of future judgment not only negatively, as warning, but also positively, as a hope of reward or commendation for obedient faithfulness (Rom 2:6-7; I Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10)", 'Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection' 653. Compare, however, my own interpretation of these three texts. Cosgrove himself offers a different solution to the problem of the apparent contradiction between justification by faith and future judgment according to deeds: "The sentence 'no one shall be justified by (ex) works of the law' (Gal 2:16; Rom 3:20) speaks of the impossibility of freeing oneself from the situation 'under sin' and thereby becoming just by doing the works of the law. No human doing, not even the practice ofthe law, can release a person from bondage to sin ... The 'works of the law' are not an instrument by which the sinner can become righteous ... Nevertheless, the believer, having been enlivened by the Spirit and liberated from sin's power, does 'the good' and will be justified in the final judgment on that basis (kata ta erga autou). Here the soteriological instrumentality of the law or works is no longer in view. Rather, the relation of work(s) to justification (or recompense, or praise) is that of evidential basis '" In tbe judgment the empirical reality of one's life before God as 'works' will be revealed and evaluated. This is the understanding of future judgment that we meet in I Cor 4:3-5; Rom 2:10; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:13; and Rom 8:33. The expectation of the believer is that judgment according to works will mean justification", 'Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection' 660-1. Compare also Sanders: "Paul's statement 'not by works of law' has to do with entry into the body of Christ. It is not at all inconsistent that he expects correct behavior on the part of those who are in Christ, nor that he thinks tbat transgressions on the part of Christians will be punished. This is in accord with the general Jewish view that election and salvation are by God's grace, while reward and punishment correspond to deeds. There is no conflict between God's mercy and his justice, and in fact on this point Paul is a perfect example of the view which is characteristic of first-century Judaism: God judges according to their deeds those whom he saves by his mercy", Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 105-6 (see also section

182

Chapter 11

There are several texts which are important in connection with judgment according to deeds, such as Rom 2:6, 12-13, 16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:13; 4:1-5; 5:1-5; 6:9-11; 9:24-27; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:19-21, and 6:7-10. Most warnings of judgment according to deeds appear to be directed to the Corinthian congregation. This observation is already significant. Although not completely absent, these kinds of warnings are less relevant to the Galatians, since they believed that a strict observance of the law was necessary (Judaizers!). It was different, however, within the Corinthian congregation where it was believed that one was without any limitations free to do whatever one wished according to one's own judgment (therefore, the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ occurs less prominently in the letter to the Corinthians than in the letter to the Galatians).62 Precisely against such a front in the Corinthian congregation, Paul acts as a warning pastor. His warnings of judgment according to deeds are directed against a certain kind of haughty selfassurance in which context Paul often makes an ethical application. This is clearly seen if we briefly discuss the texts given above. We shall start with the texts in the two letters to the Corinthians.

1 Cor 3:13: Exao'tou 'to EPYOV !jlocvEpov YEVr,OE'tOCL, ~ yocp ~f!EPOC 011AWOEL, on EV lTupl a.;roKOCAUiT'tE'tOCL" Kocl EKao'tou 'to Epyov Cli!oi.ov Eonv 'to lTUP [ocu'to] oOKLf!aoH. This text is written within the context of ministry in God's Churches. Paul draws a parallel with a building (l Cor 3:10ff, WC; oo!jloc; a.PXL'tEKtWV eEf!EALOV EellKOC 3:10). He has in mind especially the builders, i.e. the religious leaders of the congregation. They have to take care how (EKOCO'tOC; oE ~AEiTE'tW lTWC; EiTOLK000f!Ei. 3:10) they build upon the foundation, for there is just one single foundation, namely Jesus Christ. A builder, however, uses different materials (3: 12); but the only thing that counts is to build properly, i.e. to build upon the foundation (3:11). On the day of judgment (~ ~f!EPOC 3:13), it will appear how each builder has built upon

8.4). Compare also P.T. O'Brien, 'Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades' 89ff. 62 Watson writes: "Could it be, then, that the two types of utterance which we have been trying to relate to each other, viz. the message of justification and the warning of judgment, are directed to different addresses, tbe message of justification to those like the Galatians who were overscrupulous, fearfully and meticulously keeping the law in order to earn salvation, and the warning of judgment to those like the Corinthians who were living in the illusion that they were free to do whatever they wished?", 'Justified' 214.

Paul as a Pastor

183

that foundation.63 He will receive a reward (~HOeOV 3:14). The work will be tested by fire (3: 13-15), whereas the believer himself, although a blameworthy builder, will nevertheless be saved (OWe~OE!(H 3:15). To put it more precisely, Paul does not use judicial language in terms of justification, but he speaks in terms of purification (~v 'ITupl 3:13). It is evident in any case that this warning concerns those builders who were treated with too much attention and respect (see below); there were certain preferences for certain leaders (1 Cor 1:11-12 and 3:3-4, 21-22) which resulted in disunity within the congregation. The builders had to come down, as it were, from their pedestal of haughty self-assurance, because what matters is only how they build upon the Foundation Ci.J.TJOEL~ Ka.uxao8w EV civ8pw'ITOl~ 3:21).

1 Cor 4:1-5 - especially: ouoev y&p EIla.u-t:Q OUVOlOa., cin' OUK EV 't:Ou't:{j) OEOlKIXLWIlIXl, 0 oE ciVIXKPLVWV IlE KUPlOC; Eo't:lv,4:4 This (oihwc; 4:1) is how one ought to regard the builders of the congregation (there was some quite unjustified, excessively high esteem for some leaders of the congregation, 3:21), namely as ll'ITTJPE't:IXC; Xplo't:oD KIXL OLKOVOllouc; IlUO't:TJPLWV BEOD (4:1). Such 'servants' and 'stewards' must be found 'ITlo't:oc; (4:2) to God, since they are stewards of the 'mysteries of God' (4:1). Therefore no one should judge them except God alone (verses 3-5). Their praise (E'ITIXLVOC; 4:5) - thus not: acquittal in terms of justification in general such as in Rom 5:1 - will be received from God (ci'ITO 't:oD BEOD 4:5), not from people. The one who assesses and judges (ciVO:KpLvElv) them puts himself into too high a position of haughty self-assurance, for God alone is the one who instructs his servants and stewards, and consequently they will be judged only by God. 54

1 Cor 5:1-5 'IT0PVELO: (5:1) occurred in the Corinthian congregation, of a kind that did not occur even among the Gentiles, for someone had the wife of his father. And yet (KIXl 5:2), instead of such a person being expelled from their midst, they were 'puffed up' (5:2). But how then should they remove such a person? Jewish stoning was not a real option within the Christian congregation, and neither was it allowed to go to law before Gentile 63 Compare also C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthi~ns 88. See also J, Reiling, De Eerste Briefvan Paulus aan de Korintiers 66ff. 64 "He says nothing here about those who will receive not praise but blame; he is still thinking in terms of the Corinthian situation, in which some have praise for Paul, some for ApoIIos, some for Cephas", Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 104. See also Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther J 142-5, and ReiIing, De Eerste Briefvan Paulus aan de Korintiers 72ff.

184

Chapter 11

judges (6:1ff). In Paul's view, such an immoral person had to be handed over to Satan Ete; OAE9pov ·d;e; Oet.pKOe; (5:5). Satan has, however, no control over someone's iTVEuilet., so that ((vet.) on the day of judgment the iTVEU\-let. of such a person will still be saved by God (5:5). The whole procedure is meant to save such a person (5:5). Although it is not clear which precise procedure Paul has in mind here 6s , the congregation is ordered to expel sin (the sinner) from their midst. All arrogance is misplaced; instead, they should reflect on their way of life (ethics), especially on the way of life of the sinner mentioned in verse 1, and also on the attitude of the congregation towards such a terrible sin (sinner).66

1 Cor 6:9-11 There were certain people within the Corinthian congregation who went to law before judges outside the congregation (the term tWV aOlKwv (6: 1) derives its meaning from its opposite, namely twv aYlwv (6:1); the latter term denotes the members of the congregation, the 'insiders' (compare verse 11), so that the former term denotes the 'outsiders'). Paul disapproves of going to law before the 'outsiders': the members of the congregation should go to their own judges among themselves (6:4-5). Paul even goes a step further by pointing at the immoral deeds which give occasion to such legal proceedings (6:8); he moves from the sinful deeds to the sinner himself (6:9). They themselves are &OlKOL (6:9) (compare tWV aOlKwv, the 'outsiders', in verse I; in other words, the mere occurrence of legal proceedings shows that they have actually made themselves identical with the non-Christian Gentiles 67 ). The &OLKOL will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul gives a pastoral warning, namely: the Corinthians should live in full accordance with the fact that they are washed, sanctified, and justified (6:11). They should be ashamed of their bad behaviour (ethics) (6:5); therefore, humility instead of 'puffed up' selfassurance would be more appropriate. R11isanen does not notice these pastoral ethical warnings. 68 He says that the Corinthians, for Paul, risk their salvation by their sinful lifestyle. 69 This is as such a correct See D.H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1-1123. "Paul proceeds to deal not simply with a case of fornication but with the Corinthian reaction to it, which had been marked by levity and arrogance and was perhaps as blameworthy as the deed itself', Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 120. See also Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 689-92. 67 This is not noticed by R!l.isllnen (Paul 185). 68 "The verse, however, is full of ethical overtone and implication", Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 142. 69 "In 1 Cor 6.9 Paul threatens the licentious and quarreling Corinthians by reminding them of the exclusion of the unrighteous (&6LKOL) from God's reign. The implication is 6S

66

Paul as a Pastor

185

observation. But to risk one's salvation by a licentious lifestyle is, however, still a completely different matter from not being able to obtain salvation by a meritorious life on the basis of good works (selfrighteousness). Raisanen does not differentiate between these two different ideas.1°

1 Cor 9:24-27 Paul uses here an illustration derived from the Isthmian Games. 71 See, for example, verse 25: mic; oE Cl &YWVl(o~EVoe; ntIvnt EYKpa'WJE-Cal. EKELVOl ~Ev oilv tva <jl9aptov crtE<jlavov AtI~WcrLV. ~~ELe; 010 &<jl9aptov. It seems that this illustration does not ultimately make any point, because it seems to deny that all Christians will get the prize. The comparison merely concerns, however, the way in which (oihwc; 9:24) Christians may obtain the prize. Christians have to exercise self-control (EYKpatEUEtal 9:25) in all things. They need concentration (9:26) as well as training (9:27). Judgment according to deeds, or to be more precise, the call to be active in grace is used in verse 24 in a positive sense, namely in connection with how to receive the prize. Yet the warnings dominate in this passage, for one has to avoid everything that could hinder obtaining salvation.n

2 Cor 5:10: TOUe; yap navtac; ~~ii.c; <j>avEpw9fivaL OEi: Ef!npocr9Ev toO toG Xp LcrTOG, 'Cva Ko~(crT]tal EKaoToc; ta OLa TOO ow~aToc; npoc; Ii E1Tpa~ev. e'CTE ocya90v E'CTe <j>auAov, ~~~atoc;

Daily life is connected here with judgment according to deeds (Ko~CcrTJTal EKacrtOC; Ta OLa toO crw~atoc; npoc; Ii Enpc£~Ev). The judgment concerns ocya90v as well as <jlaOAov. Judgment according to deeds functions as a warning concerning the daily life (ethics) of the believers who are

that the Corinthians risk their salvation if they continue their bad behaviour (cf. Gal 5.2 I b)", Paul 185, 70 Compare Hays: "The rhetoric of this passage treats the readers as participants already in a new life. The statement that evildoers will not inherit God's kingdom is set forward not as a threat to the Corinthian community but rather as an invitation to them to claim their own baptismal identity as a sanctified people under the lordship of Christ, no longer living under the power of sin", The Moral Vision of the New Testament 41. My italics, 71 See R Garrison, The Graeco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature 95104. 72 See Barret!, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 218.

186

Chapter 11

reconciled to God by grace 73 while at the same time there is also a haughty self-assured attitude (roUt; EV npoowml) KauXWIJ.EvOUC; 5:12).74 It is also possible, however, that there are different fronts within one and

the same letter, so that within the same letter not only the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ occurs, but also the warning of judgment according to deeds. This concerns the remaining texts, namely: Rom 2:6,12-13,16; 14:10-12; Gal 5:19-21, and 6:7-10. Rom 2:6, 12-13, 16 Rom 2:1-16 is directed to the Jews. Paul states that, for God, the gift of the Torah does not make any difference: the Torah does not imply a distinction in terms of salvation history, and consequently it is no proof that the Jews are privileged above the Gentiles (see below). In verse 6 (Ot; a.noowoEl EKa.O"t(l) Ka"ta "ta Epya aU"tou) Paul quotes Ps 61:13 (LXX). This verse does not concern justification by works, since the EPYOC are not contrasted here with faith but with opinion. To put it differently, the Epya do not refer here to merits, but to what they have done. God will not judge the people in verse 1 according to their own judgment or what they think of themselves, but according to what they have actually done. As it appears from verse 12, God makes no distinction between the possession of the law and the non-possession of the law. The law as such is no use, and it does not make the Jew more important than the Gentile. In verse 13 Paul wants to represent the Jews as sinners: the gift of the Torah as such does not amount to anything; what matters is whether one does the law. The contrast here is: ol ttKpoa·wL v6floU - ol nOLTj"taL v6flOU. The Jew also commits sin (verse 1), and even though he possesses the law, he is not better off than anyone else. 75 The Jew has to give up all haughty selfassurance. God will judge everybody, including the Gentiles (2:16); for God, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (compare 2:11). 73 I would like to emphasize that Paul's warnings do not imply that Christians cannot be certain of their salvation. Their salvation, however, will only be received through and after God's judgment according to deeds. 74 See also Lietzmann, An die Korinther J-II 121ff. 7l Wilckens rightly states in his excursus 'Das Gericht nach den Werken II (Theologische Interpretation), in his commentary on the letter to the Romans: "Nicht weil der Jude das Gesetz zu erflillen trachtet, sondern weil er SUnde tut wie der Heide (2,1), konfrontiert Paulus ihn mit dem Gericht nach den Werken. Das paulinische Evangelium ist in seinem Kern keineswegs Werk-feindlich. Der Glaube, den Paulus verkllndigt und zu dem eT TUft, enthalt keineswegs eine ursprUngliche, tiefwirksame Vemeinung aller Aktivitat des Menschen, dem Guten in der Welt Bahn zu brechen und dem Bllsen zu wehren", Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 1-5 145. See also section 13.2.2.2.

Paul as a Pas/or

187

Rom 14:10-12

Paul calls for tolerance in order that one will not discriminate against another (compare 14:3-4). The warning of judgment according to deeds is placed within this context (TTlXV"tE~ yocp 1Tcr:pcm"tl1oofiE9cr: 'e.:) p~ficr:n "toil 9Eoil 14:10). By pointing to this judgment, Paul as a pastor wants to improve the unity of the congregation76 ; in other words, Paul is saying: do not judge someone else, because each of us will stand before God's judgment seat personally to give an account of himself to God (/ipcr: [ouv] EKcr:O"tOe; rillwv 1TEPL Ecr:u"toil AOYOV OWOH ["te.:) 9Ee.:)] 14:12). Gal 5:19-21 In Gal 5:1-12, Paul discusses Christian freedom. Yet this freedom should

not be misused (5:13). Paul clarifies this idea by means of the antithesis between flesh and Spirit (5:16).77 The two expressions"toc epycr: "tile; Ocr:PKOC; (5:19) and b Kcr:p1Toe; "toil 1TVEUfiCl"tOC; (5:22) constitute an antithesis. The warning in verse 21 that sinners will not inherit the Kingdom of God reinforces the call in verse 16 (1TvEuficr:n 1TEPL1Tcr:"tEL"tE Kcr:L E1TL9ufilcr:V Ocr:PKOC; ou fin "tEAEOll"tE)· Thus the warning is again meant here to stress the importance of a Christian lifestyle (ethics)J8 It is striking that the passage 16-26 ends with fin YLVWIlE9cr: KEVOOO~OL (5:26); apparently, there is a relation between works of the flesh and self-exaltation. 79 Gal 6:7-10

After exhorting the Galatians to support each other (6: 1-6), Paul warns of judgment according to deeds (8 yocp eocv 01TElPll /iv9pul1ToC;, "toil"to Kcr:L 76 "Beide, der 'Schwache' wie der 'Starke', werden im nahen Gericht Gott Rechenschaft abzulegen haben, und zwar nicht nur Uber ihre jeweils unterschiedliche Lebenspraxis, Uber die eben nur Gott und nicht die Christen gegeneinander zu entscheiden haben, sondern vor allem wird die Rechenschaft das Verhalten zueinander betreffen", Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 12-1685-6 (my italics). See also section 11.1. 77 This antithesis between flesh and Spirit helps us to understand why Paul gives many exhortations whereas at the same time he believes that Christians do not seem to have the ability to resist sin (compare Rom 7). Only in so far as Christians are led by the Spirit are they indeed in a position to live in accordance with Paul's exhortations. Compare H. Ridderbos, Paulus 298-9 and 301. 78 This way of life implies that one is willing to be led by the Spirit. See H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater 255. 79 "For Paul, as R. Jewett wisely points out, flesh 'is not rooted in sensuality but rather in religious rebellion in the form of self-righteousness which was in his terms a "boasting in one's own flesh'" ... ", F.F. Bruce, The Epistle /0 the Galatians 250. And besides, the Judaizers laid all kinds of legal obligations on Christians, which could indeed result in self-exaltation.

9EPLOEL 6:7). Again, Paul is here encouraging a Christian lifestyle by saying: 1:0 oE Ka.i..ov 1TOLOilv1:EC; ~~ EYKaKw~Ev (6:9).80 It is striking that, within the context of this passage, the phrase EV 1TVEU~a1:L 1TpaOnltoc; (6:1) and the word KauX1lf.La (6:4) are mentioned; there ought to be no place for any haughty self-assurance. Ifwe consider this list of texts, then we come to the conclusion that Paul's warnings of judgment according to deeds are directed to haughty selfassured Christians, and in this same connection ethical issues appear to be important. In this regard, Paul is consistent. sl Such warnings do not deny the fact that the Christian is saved by grace alone. It is necessary, however, to stay within this grace by (works of) faith. 82 When talking at one moment about justification by faith and at another moment about judgment according to deeds (in terms of warnings), Paul is looking at the congregation each time from a different point of view. It just depends on the issues against which Paul as a pastor has to warn at any particular moment. S) We do insufficient justice to Paul as a pastor ifwe read the antithesis (between works of law and faith in Christ) and judgment according to deeds simultaneously, or if we unjustifiably interpret them as two mutually convertible ideas as if justification by works of law were identical with Paul's warnings against antinomianism (in terms of ethics). This is, however, precisely the weakness in Riiisanen's approach to the Pauline texts. S4 80 See Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians 265, and Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater 277-8. 81 Watson writes: " ... Paul's warnings of judgment to come are consistently directed at those who are 'puffed up', guilty of presumption, living in a state of illusion", 'Justified' 216. My italics. 82 With his warning of the final judgment, Paul does not want to lead his readers into despair, but to repentance in order that their lifestyle may be according to Christian standards. Even though there is no need for his readers to rely upon their own righteousness in the final judgment, yet their faith must appear from their deeds. Watson: " ... while the message of the coming judgment is aimed particularly at those who are 'puffed up', there is at the same time the assurance that for those who are living in penitent faith the judgment will hold no terrors", 'Justified' 217. See also Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament 39ff. "To both commend 'good works' and rail against 'works of the law' was no inconsistency for Paul", Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 365. 83 Watson: "It is that the community is being seen each time in a different place and must therefore be addressed in a different way", 'Justified' 219. 84 Watson puts it very well: "Wherever the gospel is misused to provide a basis for security, the message of judgment must be preached. Yet after the word of judgment there comes to expression once again, and often in direct sequence, the whole gospel, full assurance: God is faithful, he will bring it to pass. That can and must be said to him who has been shaken, after it has been said to him who is secure that everything can be

Paul as a Pastor

189

11.3 Conclusion: Paul is a consistent pastor If we take into account Paul's pastoral characteristics, then we are in a better position both to understand his statements and to give a proper interpretation of the texts. If we read all Paul's statements simultaneously, then indeed inconsistencies will inevitably arise. But such a simultaneity is, in point of fact, hermeneutically speaking, unjustified, since Paul is a pastor. Attention to 'Paul as a pastor' makes some inconsistencies completely transparent, and consequently demonstrates that Paul is a consistent pastor who encourages, unites, exhorts, and warns Christians who need one or more of those forms of pastoral advice in their respective concrete situations.

lost ... Yet each of these words, the word of judgment as well as the word of assurance, is unconditionally valid in its own situation ... This does not mean, however, that Paul's teaching is a chaos of contradictory assertions without any unity. To be sure, Paul's theology is not a system whose unity can be set out in a sequence of logically interrelated propositions. But such a concept of Paul's theology is false. The antithetical moments of the apostolic porainesis are not to be understood as the paragraphs of a timeless body of doctrine which mutually qualifY each other but as the stations of a way along which I am led by the one God ... The two messages are not addressed equally to Christians as believers", 'Justified' 219-20. My italics.

Chapter 12

PauI as a Rhetor In the previous chapter we paid attention to Paul as a pastor. We looked at the reasons why Paul wrote his letters by considering their historical context. In this chapter we shall take a detailed look at the way in which Paul wrote his letters by considering their composition. In other words, in this chapter we want to consider Paul as a rhetor. Thus we shall look at Paul from another hermeneutical point of view so that, again, we may hopefully get a clearer picture of Paul's letters. 1 As we have already seen in the previous chapter, Paul wants to change the situation on the spot. In doing so, Paul as a rhetor makes use of a particular way of arguing in order to influence his readers. This will be demonstrated in this chapter.

12.1 Description In order to come to a clear understanding of my own definition of 'Paul as a rhetor', we must briefly look at the contemporary debate on this topic. Subsequently we shall briefly try to assess the results of this debate in order to give a description of 'Paul as a rhetor' which is workable for this study.

1 It strikes me that within New Testament scholarship attention is often paid either to 'Paul as a pastor' or to 'Paul as a rhetor' rather than to both Paul as a pastor and Paul as a rhetor. Thus there is a real danger of believing that we can have an overall picture of Paul if we consider him as a pastor alone. To put it differently, attention to 'Paul as a pastor' can easily detract attention from 'Paul as a rhetor'. An interpreter such as, for example, Deissmann, who rightly characterizes Paul's letters as occasional ad hoc letters (see previous chapter), hardly pays attention to the rhetorical aspects of Paul's letters. The converse situation is, as far as I can see, less serious, since interpreters who study Paul's letters from a rhetorical point of view do sometimes pay some attention to the historical situation of his letters (see, for example, Schlueter; previous chapter), although here also there is the danger of a one-sided interpretation (attention only to 'Paul as a rhetor'). In my critique of Rais!lnen it is important to pay attention to both aspects.

Paul as a Rhetor

191

12.1.1 Renewed attention to rhetorical aspects in Paul

Rhetorical aspects in Paul have been in vogue for quite a few years. H.D. Betz2 claims to be one of the first interpreters to study Paul from a rhetorical point of view. 3 Although others before him did the same, for example, C.G. Wilke (in 1843)4, J. WeiB (in 1897)\ and C. Starcke (in 1911)6, but also Melanchthon and Augustine7 , it must be admitted that Betz has stimulated research into rhetoric. In any case, especially in the last few years, the study of rhetorical aspects of Paul has been very popular.s There are many rhetorical studies within New Testament scholarship.9 In short, by making use of rhetorical rules the debate on 2 H.D. Betz, 'The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians', NTS 21 (1975) 353-79. See also his commentary Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia 1979,21984 (there is also a German translation of this commentary). J "In the process of my studies I also found that the letter to the Galatians can be analysed according to Graeco-Roman rhetoric and epistolography. Apparently, this has never been realized before ... ", 'Composition' 353. 4 C.G. Wilke, Die neutestamentliche Rhetorik: Ein Seitenstuck zur Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Dresden-Leipzig 1843. S J. WeiB, 'Beitrage zur Paulinischen Rbetorik', in: Theologische Studien. Herrn. Wirkl. Oberkonsistorialrath Professor D. Bernhard WeifJ zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht. G5ttingen 1897. E. Norden, however, explains Paul's rhetorical figures by attributing them to 'Asianism' rather than to a knowledge of school rhetoric. See his Die antike Kunstprosa: Vom vi Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeil der Renaissance. Darmstadt 1898, J 1958. 6 Betz himself 'Composition' 357 note 7 refers to C. Starcke; he also refers to J.B. Lightfoot (1865), 'Composition' 353. 7 See C.J. Classen, 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik', ZNW 82 (1991) 1-33. In this article, Classen refers to Augustine and Melanchthon, who even compares Paul with Demosthenes and Cicero. Both Augustine and Melanchthon have, according to Classen, more of an eye for rhetorical figures of speech than for the overall rhetorical structure (see Classen's article for references). In his article, Classen deals with Melanchthon (see also note 109 of his article). In my view, this is an excellent article because it not only contains instructive overviews, but is also well-balanced. 8 Much literature could be mentioned here. I merely mention the following examples,: N. Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans. Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's Dialogue with Judaism. Sheffield 1990; D.F. Watson (Ed.), Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Sheffield 1991; D.A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26. Sheffield 1992; S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (Ed.), Rhetoric and the New Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Sheffield 1993. This last collection offers many different kinds of data on rhetoric in the New Testament. See especially D.F. Watson and A.J. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. Leiden 1994. 9 I limit myself to the research on rhetoric in Paul. See for other studies, for example, the article by Classen (pp. 27-8 note 92) who gives an overview of a number of recent studies in which some other parts of the New Testament are also interpreted from a

192

Chapter 12

rhetoric tries to shed some fresh light on Paul's way of arguing in order to gain proper insight into the way in which he tries to persuade his readers.IO As far as I can see, there are two different approaches within contemporary research 11: CA) Firstly, there is an approach within rhetorical research on Paul's letters which makes a comparison with ancient rhetoric, sometimes with an emphasis on the rhetorical structure of a letter. In other words, a comparison is made between Paul's letters, which are considered in each case as a whole, and ancient letters. In this way, an attempt is made to classify Paul's letters in terms of a specific rhetorical genre. Mostly, three already established rhetorical genres are presumed, namely the so-called judicial genre, the deliberative genre, and the epideictic genre. 12 Within this approach, all kinds of handbooks on ancient rhetoric are regularly used. 13 Several interpreters belong to this approach,. for example,

rhetorical point of view. See also the article by W. WuelIner, 'Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?', CBQ 49 (1987) 448-63. In this article, Wuellner cites much literature, makes a few instructive introductory remarks for those who want to study rhetoric in the New Testament, and offers a brief review of the method used by O.A. Kennedy. 10 "Rhetoric is that quality in discourse by which a speaker or writer seeks to accomplish his purposes", O.A. Kennedy, New Testament interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism 3. I t It is, of course, impossible to make a cast-iron division here. Sometimes a study of genres also occurs within approacb B, and similarly sometimes a study of figures of speech also occurs within approach A. The discussion on these two different approaches is ongoing. See also R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Anderson is in favour of a clear separation of these two approaches. He also offers clear overviews of research on rhetorical aspects in Paul. 12 "The species is judicial when the author is seeking to persuade the audience to make a judgment about events occurring in the past; it is deliberative when he seeks to persuade them to take some action in the future; it is epideictic when he seeks to persuade them to hold or reaffirm some point of view in the present, as when he celebrates or denounces some person or some quality ... In judicial the basic argument involves the question of truth or justice; in deliberative, the question of self-interest and future benefits; in epideictic. a change of attitude or deepening of values such as the honorable and the good, or in a Christian context, belief and faith. The three species have both positive and negative forms: prosecution and defense (or apology); exhortation and dissuasion; encomium and invective", O.A. Kennedy, New Testament interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism 19-20. 13 Such as H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschafl. Stuttgart 3 1990, and his Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Einfiihrung fur Studierende der klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. MUnchen 3 1967. See now H. Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Leiden-Boston-KtHn 1998.

Paul as a Rhetor

193

H.D. Betz l4, G.A. KennedylS, and J. Smit 16. With reference to the letter to the Galatians 17 , these three interpreters believe that it belongs to a specific rhetorical genre. Kennedy18 and Smit 19 believe that it belongs to the deliberative genre, whereas Betz20 believes that the same letter belongs to the judicial genre (apologetic rhetoric). With regard to the letter to the Romans, W. WueIlner21 follows the same procedure as Betz with regard to the letter to the Galatians, for according to Wuellner the letter to the Romans belongs to the epideictic genre. (B) Secondly, there is an approach which considers Paul's letters from a rhetorical point of view without paying much attention to the parallels in antiquity; attention is mainly paid to rhetorical figures of speech and methods of argumentation. In other words, less attention is paid to the overall structure of Paul's letters. The concern here is with the elucidation of Paul's way of arguing. 22 Interpreters with this approach are, for example, F. Siegert23 , J.D. Moores 24, and I.A. Crafton2S .

14 Betz is convinced that Paul's letter to the Galatians can be compared with GraecoRoman rhetoric, 'Composition' 353. IS G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill-London 1984. However, compare also R.D. Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul 23-6. 16 J. Smit, 'The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech', NTS 35 (1989) 1-26. 17 In this chapter I shall confine myself to Gal 3. 18 New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism 144-52. 19 'The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech' 23-4. 20 According to Betz, the letter to the Galatians is an apologetic letter and thus an example of so-called 'judicial rhetoric' (defence before a court). Betz assumes a certain structure in the letter to the Galatians (prescriptum - exordium - narratio - propositio probatio - paraenesis - postscriptum). 21 W. Wuellner, 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans', CBQ 38 (1976) 330-51. 22 Sometimes use is made here of the handbook by Ch. Perelman - 1. OlbrechtsTyteca, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame 1971. 23 Siegert comments on a part of the letter to the Romans by making use of this 'New Rhetoric'. See F. Siegert, Argumentation bei Paulus. Gezeigt an Rom 9-JJ. Tlibingen 1985. 24 J.D. Moores, Wrestling with rationality in Paul. Romans 1-8 in a new perspective. Cambridge 1995. Moores merely discusses one rhetorical figure of speech (or method of argumentation) in Paul, namely the so-called "enthymeme" (a syllogism with one premise). His study is of little interest for this research, because he mainly concentrates on texts other than those which are discussed in this study. 2S J.A. Crafton, 'Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans: Toward a New Understanding', NovT 32 (1990) 317-39. Crafton does pay attention, however, to the letter as a whole. He further elaborates Wuellner's view and connects questions of introduction with rhetoric.

cnapler 1£

The brief overview above gives an impression of what these interpreters attempt to do. They not only pay attention to the different parts of Paul's letters, but they also try to indicate the function of each part according to the method of reasoning used. Sometimes a comparison with (parts of) other ancient letters is referred to, such as within approach A.26 Rhetorical research does not merely confine itself to, for example, the empirical observation that the last part of a letter is a specific kind of conclusion; at the same time, it also tries to define the function of such a conclusion. 12.1.2 Rhetoric in terms of argumentative strategy With reference to the overview above and the discussion on the two different approaches, three critical remarks may be made. They concern the approach described under A in particular. (l) When detecting a number of rhetorical aspects, must we really conclude instantly that we are dealing with a specific rhetorical genre? The approach described under A often appears to be rather artificial, for in describing the specific structure of a letter, structures are borrowed from handbooks on ancient rhetoric, whereas concrete analogous structures among other ancient letters can hardly be found. F. Vouga has written a very brief article in which he tries to support Kennedy's view of the letter to the Galatians by indicating a parallel between this letter and a speech by Demosthenes (IIEPI TRE EIPHNH1:).27 With reference to this parallel, Vouga concludes: "Die Parallele des Aufbaus mit Gal ist kein endgiiltiger Beweis, aber do ch ein wichtiges Argument ftir die deliberative Interpretation des Briefes".28 Even though this speech could be an important parallel in support of Kennedy's view, it constitues in no way an "endgiiltiger Beweis". One parallel is no basis for a conclusion such as Kennedy's. As yet, there is insufficient material to conclude that the letter to the Galatians should be classified in terms of a specific rhetorical genre. 29

26 K. Berger, 'Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede / Zum Formular frUhchristlicher Briefe', ZNW 65 (1974) 190-231 even goes a step further. Comparing Paul's letters with other letters, he comes to the following conclusion: n ••• die Briefe seien nicht als gewlihnliche Gelegenheitsschreiben betrachtet word en, sondem als Dokumente von Aposteln (Offenbarungsmittlem), denen eo ipso das Gebot einer (auch lokal sich ausbreitenden) Publikation und Weitertradierung anhafiete", p. 216 of the article mentioned above. His article, which was published in 1974, is still worth reading. 27 F. Vouga, 'Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes', ZNW 79 (\988) 291-2. 2' 'Zur rhelorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes' 292. 29 Anderson has demonstrated that ancient letters cannot simply be classified in terms of one of the three established rhetorical genres (see his Ancient Rhetorical Theory and PaIl182-90, 100, 103, 106-9, and with reference to the letter to the Galatians: 165-7).

Paul as a Rhetor

195

(2) It goes without saying that Paul's letters consist of different parts. This is evident and needs no further demonstration. Betz, however, mainly concentrates on the mutual dependence of these different parts. But then, in that case, there is the danger of not paying enough attention to a part as such. We also have to study each single part carefully. (3) C.J. Classen rightly states that there is also the rule of dissimulatio artis within rhetoric, ... die Forderung also, die Beachtung der praecepta nicht sptirbar werden zu lassen, so daB die deutlich erkennbare Verwendung der Regeln als Zeichen roangelnder Erfahrung oder FlIhigkeit wirken mul3, jedenfalls im Bereich der dispositio und elocutio ... 30

Thus, within rhetoric, strict schemes and rules do not exist beforehand. This modifies, for example, the approach of Betz, who tries to interpret the texts within the framework of such strict rules. Despite these three critical remarks, the overview above leads us to the conclusion that there is much rhetorical material, indeed rhetoric, in Paul. But now the question is how to describe Paul's rhetoric. On the one hand, this study is not primarily concerned with rhetoric in Paul. It is, therefore, inappropriate to get involved in the above discussion on the two different approaches. On the other hand, contemporary rhetorical research cannot be ignored, since there is simply too much rhetorical material in Paul. Therefore, for my research, it is most appropriate to work with the following 'minimal' description of 'Paul as a rhetor " a description with which everyone will surely agree: Paul tries to persuade and to affect his readers by means of certain argumentative strategies. This minimal description does not decide which approach (see above) is preferable to the other; the text itself must determine such a choice. In any case, the exegete must have an eye for the rhetorical aspects of a text (approach B). But, in my view, the possiblity must also always be left open that Paul makes use of common ancient rhetorical rules, whether they are known to us or not (approach A), without necessarily stating that Paul uses them deliberately.31 We have to be well aware of ancient rhetorical rules.32 The One of his conclusions is that it is unlikely that Paul consciously made use of ancient rhetorical theory (251, 255, and 318). 30 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 31. 31 Classen rightly remarks: " ... Wer Griechisch schrieb, konnte auch Griechisch lesen und kam dadurch, wenn aucb vielleicht nur indirekt und unbewuBt, mit den Regeln der Rhetorik in Bertihrung", 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 4. In this way approach A is modified, because it is not necessary to assume that Paul deliberately made use of such common rules. See also Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul 255-6. 32 Classen: " ... Das Instrumentarium der griechisch-romischen Rhetorik kann mit Gewinn zur Analyse jedes geschriebenen oder gesprochenen Textes verwendet werden",

exegete must thus not only concentrate on questions of introduction (,Paul as a pastor'), but he must also try to trace, analyse, and clarify Paul's argumentative strategy. He must also listen to Paul on the level of reasoning. In other words, he also has to give an answer to the question in what ways Paul tries to persuade his readers in his letters. Wichtig ist, die einzelnen Abschnitte eines Werkes und deren Funktion, vor allem aber die Auswahl, SchlUssigkeit und Abfolge der Argumente zu erklllren, denn optimum interpretandi genus est O[KOVO~((t.v orationis oSlendere. 33

These last words in italics constitute a workable hermeneutical rule which takes sufficient account of 'Paul as a rhetor'. Thus, we do not start from the assumption that there is a specific rhetorical concept which precedes the exegesis 34, but the extent to which Paul makes use of rhetoric must appear from the concrete exegesis itself. It has to be admitted that 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 2-3. See also K. Berger: "Kenntnis der antiken Rhetorik lehrt den Exegeten, Fonnen als Trllger theologischer Gehalte zu begreifen, sie lehrt ihn, den Aufbau sprachlicher Gebilde auf eine Weise zu erfassen, die zur Zeit der Abfassung der Texte selbst praktiziert wurde. So erkennen wir, daB Formen eine Geschichte haben und daB selbst der Sprachgebrauch und die Begriffe eines Autors nur zusammen mit den Formen beurteilt werden kllnnen", Exegese des Neuen Testaments 53. 33 Classen, 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 23. With this rule, Classen follows Melanchthon. Concurring with Classen, I do not yet express an opinion on Melanchthon's thought that ancient rhetoric was not a strict system. Melanchthon not only made use of different aspects of rhetoric, " ... sondem ergllnzt und erweitert sie, soweit es ihm hilfreich und nUtzlich erscheint", p. 26. He made use of rhetoric in order to understand the text. "Dabei geht es ihm einerseits urn eine klare Denkweise, das schlUssige und konsequente Argumentieren, zum anderen um die klare Ausdrucksweise, die dem Gegenstand angemessen ist und auf das Publikum zu wirken vermag", p. 27. I leave these issues concerning Melanchthon. His henneneutical rule as described in the text, however, is very useful. One of the consequences of Melanchthon's view is, according to Classen, "... daB die Exegese vom einzelnen literarischen Coder subliterarischen) Werk auszugehen hat, von dessen Gattung, Autor, Zeit und Adressaten usw., weiter dem Aufbau, der Argumentation, den sprachlichen Ausdrucksmitteln, und sie gilt es im Licht der Theorie zu untersuchen, in ihrer Funktion zu bestimmen und wenn mllglich einander zuzuordnen, urn auf diese Weise die Intention des Ganzen zu ennitteln ... ", p. 27. All the quotations above are from Classen's article mentioned above. 34 "In WirkIichkeit gehen seine Sprache und 'BiIdungselemente' nicht lIber das hinaus, was er innerhalb der griechischsprechenden Synagogen und im Gesprllch mit gebildeten Nichtjuden, dem der Missionar nicht aus dem Wege ging, gelernt haben konnte ... Aber es ist ja das AufflUJige bei Paulus und dem ganzen Urchristentum, daJl wir eine tiefergehende, schulmllBige philosophisch-rhetorische Bildung und einen entsprechenden Stil, wie wir sie bei Philo, Justus von Tiberias oder Josephus antreffen, kaum fmden. Lukas und der Auctor ad Hebraeos sind hier Ausnahmen ... Die Bedeutung der antiken Schulrhetorik fUr Paulus wird heute, einem Modetrend folgend, sem Ubertrieben", M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 266-7. See also p. 7 of this same volume.

Paul as a Rhetor

197

'rhetoric' is used here in rather general terms. Yet it seems to me that this term, as described above, clearly indicates how the approach to Paul's letters in this chapter differs from that adopted in chapter 11 above.

12.2 Critique of Riiisiinen As in the previous chapter, first some general remarks are made, and subsequently some concrete illustrations of our critique of Riiisiinen are given. 12.2.1 General G. Bouwman's criticism again applies here: "R. is geen fundamentalist. Integendeel .,. Maar zijn wijze van redeneren is vaak verwant met het fundamentalistische uitgangspunt: er staat wat er staat".35 It will be demonstrated in this chapter also that Riiisiinen jumps far too rapidly to all kinds of theological implications of the texts instead of accurately studying Paul's method of reasoning. Two factors indicate that Riiisanen's interpretation does not sufficiently take into account rhetorical aspects in Paul. (1) When he is confronted with these aspects, he totally rejects the existence of rhetoric in Paul. (2) Raisanen continuously interprets Paul's statements in logical terms, which conflicts with common principles of rhetoric. (1) Riiisiinen totally rejects the existence of rhetoric in Paul

In his Paul and the Law Riiisiinen responds to Betz's view. 36 He admits that his own view is incompatible with a rhetorical analysis of Paul's texts. 37 Betz's analyses leave for Riiisiinen, however, a "rather strained impression". On the whole I suspect that Betz's cardinal mistake consists in comparing Galatians mainly to text-books of the rhetoricians rather than to actual 'apologetic letters' or the like. 38

3l G. Bouwman, TTh 24 (1984) 415. The same criticism by Bouwman (with my translation) has already been mentioned in section 10.3.2. 36 Paul 267 note 17. 37 "No doubt my assessment of Paul's thought also runs counter to attempts to interpret his letters as carefully planned rhetorical products which follow the set rules of the time (even though good rhetoric does not, of course, in itself guarantee good logic)", Paul 267 note 17. 38 Paul 267 note 17.

198

Chapter 12

With regard to this aspect, Raisanen is indeed right. 39 However, even though Betz can rightly be criticized on some points40, there is too much rhetorical material in Paul to deny him the predicate 'rhetor' in the sense described above (section 12.1.2). Moreover, Riiisanen's objection is met by considering Paul's manner of reasoning by the hermeneutical rule as given in section 12.1.2 (optimum interpretandi genus est OlKOVOf.1l«V orationis ostendere).

(2) RCiisanen continuously interprets Paul's statements in logical terms Rhetoric in the sense described above is used by an author in order to persuade his readers. For this purpose he may, for example, use an argumentum ex concessis, which means that one admits something merely for the sake of gaining confidence in one's own opinion. Or, for example, he may start with a general common opinion in order to persuade his readers. Logic, on the other hand, moves on a completely different leveL41 If it is justified to consider Paul from a rhetorical point of view, as will be demonstrated in this chapter, then we should not only impose logical rules on Paul. Rhetoric is not the same as logic. 42 K. Berger rightly states: Man darf daher keine falsehen Erwartungen an die Exaktheit der paulinisehen Sehlllsse herantragen. Paulus will nieht theoretiseh belehren, sondem die Praxis beeinfJussen ... Denn das einzige Kriterium der Rhetorik ist die Wirkung: Bestatigung oder Verandemng von Verhalten und Einstellung ... Wenn die Argumentationen des Paulus uns heute erreiehen, kann dieses nicht von der Logik abMngig gemacht

39 See my first critical remark in section 12.1.2. 40 See, for example, C.!. Classen, 'Paulus und die antike Rhetorik' 9 note 21. Here Classen enumerates a number of reviews of Betz's work . • 1 "Paulinische Argumentation, namentIieh solche in Verbindung mit Sehriftbeweisen (z.B. R!5m IO,5-1I), vermag redlich urteilende Leser heute oft nicht mehr zu iiberzeugen. Dadurch entstehen haufig systematische Schwierigkeiten. Doeh damit tragen wir ein falsehes Exaktheitsideal an das rhetorisehe SchlieBverfahren heran. Denn anders als Descartes kann Paulus nicht von wahren und ersten Satzen ausgehen, die in sich selbst evident sind. Es handelt sich nieht urn ein deduktives Aussagesystem, und es gibt kein unabhlingiges Kriterium. Vielmehr n!5tigt uns die pauIinisehe Rhetorik, Text und Leser zusammenzusehen: Paulus argumentiert nieht mit wahren Siitzen, sondem mit geltenden Meinungen, mit Ansichten, die nur auf 'sozialer GewiJ3heit' (1. Kopperschmidt) beruhen. Ahnlich wie Seneca liefert Paulus oft nicht-formale Beweise, Zeugnisse eines konkreten Denkens, das auf Praxis und lebendige Anschauung gerichtet ist: Die Uberzeugungskraft dieser Beweise ist nicht unabhlingig von seinen H6rern zu bestimmen, sie ist nur durch deren Homologie (Obereinstimmung mit ihm) erweisbar", K. Berger, Exegese des Neuen Testaments 88-9. '2 This is also seen by Wrede. According to him Paul perhaps has, in modern understanding, a very illogical train of thought; but this is not the case in Paul's own view. "Man kann bei ihm geradezu von einer eigenen Logik sprechen, die von der unsern wesentlich abweieht", Paulus 50.

Paul as a Rhetor

199

werden, sondern nur auf einer Reihe vorgiingiger Einverstiindnisse beruhen, die 'Kommunikation' erst moglich machen. 43

In rhetoric, the use of logic can even cause the opposite effect, namely

suspicion instead of credibility.44 We have seen in chapter 10 that the inconsistencies in Paul which Riiisanen detects are of a logical nature, for he continuously interprets Paul's statements in terms of logic. 45 But if a certain amount of rhetoric appears to exist in the texts (see section 12.2.2), then Riiisanen's assessment of Paul's texts as if they can only be interpreted in terms of logic is definitely incorrect. 46 In short, when we consider Paul from a hermeneutical point of view in terms of rhetoric, we get a completely different picture of his logical contradictions. At the same time, we also' find a way out of the impasse of certain logical contradictions. 47

K. Berger, Exegese des Neuen Testaments 89. Although I do not agree with Betz's approach (see my critical remarks in section 12.1.2), in connection with rhetoric he makes correct remarks concerning the relation between rhetoric and logic. "In fact, for the rhetoricians of Paul's time there could be nothing more boring than a perfect product of rhetorical technology. Therefore, the appearance of an argument as a 'dead' system of inescapable and pre-fonned syllogisms had to be avoided; instead, the arguments were to be presented in a 'lively' way. Quintilian's advice is to achieve 'diversity by a thousand figures', Paradoxically, extremely perfected logic was thought to create suspicion and boredom, not credibility, while a carefully prepared mixture of some logic, some emotional appeal, some wisdom, some beauty, and some entertainment was thought to conform to human nature and to the ways in which human beings accept arguments as true. GaL iii and iv are such a 'mixture''', 'Composition' 369 (my italics). Riiis!inen assesses Paul's statements on the basis of criteria derived from "extremely perfected logic". 4l It is also very popular to apply the so-called dialectical concept to the texts (see section 3.1.2). But, in actual fact, both dialectic and logic move along similar lines. 46 This is, however, also admitted by Raisiinen himself (in his response to Betz): " ... good rhetoric does not, of course, in itself guarantee good logic ... ", Paul 267 note 17. Yet he does not see that Paul can also be considered from a rhetorical point of view other than that adopted by Betz. 47 The study of rhetoric is, in my view, also useful in another way. When detecting inconsistencies in Paul, the reader often believes himself to be compelled to make a choice between two options. On the one hand he can interpret Paul either within a certain logical system, as, for example, R:lis!inen does, or within a certain kind of dialectical concept, which has, in fact, the same presumptions as a logical system. On the other hand he can make use of Text Criticism (read: interpolations). Raisanen does not make use of this latter option (see section 10.1). Ifwe do not want to make use of logic and dialectic, there is no need to feel compelled to make use of this latter option. Rhetoric rises above this dilemma. As we shall see in section 12.2.2, we do not follow Rliisanen, and yet, at the same time, we fully respect the texts. 43

44

200

Chapter 12

12.2.2 Illustrations Galatians 3 is a very suitable chapter for considering Paul from a rhetorical point of view. We shall limit ourselves to the discussion of Gal 3, especially Gal 3:1-20. With reference to Gal 3, Raisiinen has indicated at least two important inconsistencies. 48 It is thus worthwhile to look at this chapter in detail. Yet even if the exegesis below is not right in all its details. il will be demonstrated that Paul tries to persuade his readers in Gal 3 by means of a rhetorical strategy. In this way his 'inconsistencies' will be understood quite differently. 12.2.2.1 By means of a rhetorical strategy, Paul tries to persuade the Galalians that they should not put themselves under the law (Gal 3:1-14) According to Raisiinen Paul says in verse 13 (on the analogy of verse 14) that the Gentiles were under the curse of the law before they were redeemed by Christ. This is, for Raisiinen, an inconsistent statement, because the Torah concerns in the first place the Jews, but not the Gentiles. 49 However, such an 'inconsistency' does not exist; it merely looks as ifit exists. This is not seen that easily, unless we try to follow the argumentative strategy (rhetoric) by which Paul tries to persuade his readers. 50 Before doing this we must in the first place defme the fronl against which Paul is writing. It is evident that Paul has in mind the Judaizers who are active among the Galatians (Gentile Christians). According to the Judaizers, the Galatians must be circumcised (Gal 5:3), and they must See sections 2.1 and 2.5 above. See section 2.1. so A worthwhile article, to which my interpretation is heavily indebted, is: C.D. Stanley, "'Under a Curse": A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10-14', NTS 36 (1990) 481511. Stanley believes that Gal 3 concerns rhetoric iI la Kennedy, except that Stanley is not so strict as Kennedy (no schemes). Stanley also tries to follow Paul's way of reasoning. " ... every theological affirmation has a vital role to play in the step-by-step unfolding of a concrete strategy of persuasion designed to influence the behaviour of Paul's Galatian readers in a particular direction ... In fact, it is the contention of the present study that a proper understanding of Gal 3.10-13 can only be achieved when every statement, every clause, even every word is examined with a view to detennining how each part leads the reader forward in linear fashion through a series of significant moments of understanding toward a hoped-for change in ideas, values and/or behaviour", pp. 486-7 of the article mentioned above. Compare also N. Bonneau, 'The Logic 0.£ Paul's Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10-14'; F.F. Bruce, 'The Curse of the Law'; T.L. Donaldson, 'The "Curse of the Law" and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14', and D. GarIington, 'Role Reversal and Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10-13'. 48

49

Paul as a Rhetor

201

observe certain days and months, etc. (Gal 4:10) in order to be able to belong to the 'sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7). Paul wants both to undermine the Judaizers' arguments and to persuade the Gaiatians that they should not accept the Judaizers' view. If we listen carefully to Paul, we see that he does not want to persuade the Judaizers (his actual opponents), but the Christian Gaiatians whom he is addressing here. Once again Paul does not offer an abstract 'theology of the law and the Christians', but he writes as a pastor to these specific Christians. Yet the question is how Paul tries to persuade the originally Gentile Galatians. To put it differently, in what way is Paul a rhetor here? Let us first try to detect the structural outline of Gal 3:1-14. 51 These verses concern the superiority of faith to the law, for Paul asserts that one is a son of Abraham only by faith (verse 7). This is the central thought. On the other hand, the Judaizers believe that observance of the law must be added to faith. In Gal 3:1-14, Paul uses two arguments in order to dispute this view of the Judaizers. The first is mentioned in verses 2-5 where Paul is claiming that the Holy Spirit can only be received by faith, and this claim is confirmed by the Galatians' own experience (verse 2). Therefore there is nothing to be gained by adding the law (against the Judaizers).52 The second argument is mentioned in verses 6-14. This passage, however, falls into three parts in which Paul gives an answer to the question of how the Gentiles, such as the Galatians, can receive the Holy SpiritS) without the law. These three parts are as follows: (a) in verses 6-9 Paul argues that the Gentiles also receive the Holy Spirit by faith; (b) in verses 10-12 Paul argues that the Holy Spirit cannot be given to the Gentiles by means of conversion to Judaism, i.e. by obedience to the Torah, because in that case they will be confronted with the curse of the law; and (c) in verses 13-14 Paul argues that the promise to the Gentiles is only fulfilled by Christ's death. In this second argument, which thus falls into three parts, the Old Testament is quoted a few times (for example, in verse 10: Deut 27:26; in verse lIb: Hab 2:4, and in verse 12b: Lev 18:5). These two arguments are, however, closely related to each other as appears both from the word Kcc9wc; (verse 6) and from verse 14, which clearly refers back to the beginning of the chapter (compare verse 2 with verse 14). In verse 14, See also H.-J. Eckstein, VerheifJung und Gesetz 82ff. "Aufgrund von Erfahrung und Einsicht milssen die Galater besU!tigen, daB sie den Geist - und mit ihm die Rechtfertigung im G1auben (2,16) und das neue Leben fUr Gott (2,19f.) - allein aus der Glauben wirkenden Verkilndigung des Gekreuzigten empfangen haben und keinesfalls auf der Grundlage der Toraobservanz", Eckstein, VerheifJung und Geselz 93. 53 For the parallel between justification and the reception of the Holy Spirit see the exegesis below with reference to verses 11-12. 5]

52

202

Chapter 11

Paul believes he has demonstrated against the Iudaizers that Gentile Christians also, such as the Galatians, have re~eived the Holy Spirit without the law. In order to come to a critique of Raisanen, we concentrate on verses 10-13. Verse 10 is a problematic verse; it seems to be a non sequitur, for verse lOa states that if we do the law, we are under the curse of the law, whereas verse lOb states that if we fail 10 do the law, we are under the curse of the law. How should we explain (or solve) this apparent contradiction?S4 It is common to assume here that no one is able to obey the law. In that case, Paul's train of thought would be as follows: everyone who does not completely obey the law is cursed, and no one is able to obey the law (assumption), and therefore everyone is cursed. Riiisanen also interprets this verse in this way.55 In any case, in my view, Paul's readers would have noticed the contradiction in verse 10. 56 Probably they would have expected in verse lOb a statement concerning what will happen to those who do the law. Paul, however, does not fulfil these expectations. In other words, verse lOb does not give an actual description of someone who does the law. What, then, is the function of verse lOb? In my view, Ihis verse indicates what could happen 10 someone who fails to do the law. The use of ccroL (verse lOa) is already an indication in favour of such an 54 E.P. Sanders asserts that it is here merely a matter of terminology: Paul was looking for a verse which connects the curse with the law, and the only such passage in the LXX is Deut 27:26. See E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 20ff. T.R. Schreiner questions Sanders' interpretation. "Clearly, Paul selects OT texts because they contain terms which are relevant to the subject at hand, but the selection of texts with such terms does not prove that only the relevant terms are exegetically significant in the OT citation", 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders' 256 (see also p. 258 of this article). 55 Paul 94. Sanders, however, denies that in this verse Paul presupposes the view that the law cannot be fulfilled. See his Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 17-23. See also Schreiner, 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders' 253-60. Bruce, however, writes: "More particularly it may be asked: does liability to the curse, according to Paul, arise for all who rely on legal works for justification (a) simply because no one keeps everything prescribed in the Law or (b) because the mere seeking of justification by the Law is misguided, even if one attains full marks in law-keeping? Probably the latter of these two alternatives represents Paul's thinking", 'The Curse of the Law' 29. See also his The Epistle to the Galatians 157-6J. "Auch im Galaterbrief ... wird die MOglichkeit, durch den v6flO~ die 5LK!tLoaUVTJ zu gewinnen, prinzipiell als irreal ausgeschlossen ... ", Eckstein, VerheifJung und Gesetz 130. 56 Thus, I consider Paul's texts from a reader's point of view in order to find out whether Paul tries to affect his readers in some way or another in terms of rhetoric. If this is indeed the case, then we also have to answer the question what kind of effect Paul tries to achieve.

Paul as a Rhelor

203

interpretation, similarly the expression uno Ka"tocpav (verse lOa), since in verse lOb the term ETrLKa"tocpa"to~ is used; or, to put it differently, the situation described in verse lOb has not yet become a reality for the people of verse lOa. Thus, to paraphrase Paul, in verse 10 he wants to say: 'if you want to participate in Abraham's 'blessing' by means of Torahobservance, then you will be threatened with the curse of the law'. This interpretation is also supported by Paul's use of threatening language in verse lOb. By means of the word mxc; Paul indicates the extent of the curse of the law; again to paraphrase Paul: 'you will definitely find yourself in such a terrible situation; nobody will escape from it'; and by means of the words mXOLV and nOLTjoa.L Paul indicates the conditions of the law; to paraphrase Paul once again: 'you have to do not only some parts of the law, but rather the entire law, and merely a good intention to do the law is not enough; you really have to do the law'. Such an exegesis fits very well in its context, and it also has the great advantage that one does not need to assume that nobody can fulfil the law (although this assumption as such may be true). To summarize the above, in verse 10 Paul wants to warn the Galatians: 'Gentile Christians, you should not follow the Judaizers' prescriptions, because if you do so, the curse of the law will hang over your head'. Within Paul's argumentative strategy, verse 10 functions thus as a threatY Paul is here really a rhetor who tries to affect his readers, in this case by inducing a sense offear by means of his rhetorical strategy. In verses 11-12 Paul moves in another direction as appears already to a certain extent from the particle oE in verse 1]. In verse 10 Paul referred to the curse, while in verses 11-12 life is the central issue. By means of the words EV vOflu.> Paul expresses the thought that the law itselfis not able to justify anyone. S8 The reason for the impossibility of being justified by the law is thus not human inability to fulfil the law, but instead the law itself. Verse 12 functions as a premise of the syllogism in verse 11a: verse lIb is 57 Stanley rightly says in his article mentioned above (p. 501): "At bottom, v. 10 can be said to function as a kind of 'threat', intended to induce the Galatians to reconsider their contemplated course of action by pointing out its possible negative consequences and so inducing a sense of fear regarding its outcome". 58 One of the objections here could be that it is Paul's intention to demonstrate that observance of the law does not result in the reception of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14). However, compare for the parallel between justification and the reception of the Holy Spirit the article by S.K. WiUiams, •Justification and the Spirit in Galatians', JSNT 29 (1987) 91-100. On p. 97 Williams says: " ... at several points in the argument of Galatians 3 Paul so parallels or intertwines the categories of being justified and receiving the Spirit that we can draw this conclusion: the experience of the Spirit and the status of justification are, for the apostle, inconceivable apart from each other. Each implies the other. Those persons upon whom God bestows the Spirit are justified; the persons whom . .. "

204

Chapter 12

the s-o-called major premise (the one who is righteous by faith shall live; quotation from Hab 2:4), while verse 12 is the so-called minor premise (the law has nothing to do with faith; verse 12 is concerned with the contrast between 1TL01:EWC; and 1TO~~OIXC;); this latter premise takes its credibility and authority from the quotation from Lev 18:5. Thus, Paul's argument is as follows 59 : (A) The one who is righteous by faith shal1live 11 b, major premise; (B) The law has nothing to do with faith 12, minor premise; (C) Ergo: No one is justified (= receives life) by law Ila; this conclusion is even evident (OfiAOV).

When we try to follow and analyse Paul's argumentative strategy in this way, then it appears that his rhetoric is indeed very convincing, because the one who wants to observe the law, as the Judaizers demand, will be confronted with two things: in verse 10 the negative potentiality of the law, namely the Curse as a result of non-fulfilment of the law, is affirmed, while in verses 11-12 its positive potentiality, namely life as a result of the fulfilment of the law (observance of the law as the Judaizers demand) is denied; in the former case the Galatians are being threatened with the curse of the law, while in the latter case they are being discouraged, since the way of the law leads to a dead end. 6o Both threat and discouragement are effects which a rhetor can have in mind when speaking (writing) to his listeners (readers). Thus there appears to be a considerable amount of rhetoric (in the sense described in section 12.1.2) in the verses discussed here. S9 Stanley astutely points out that such an argument is only convincing if the readers are already convinced of the fact that righteousness comes onLy through faith (verse llb, the major premise), for the two quotations from Hab 2:4 and Lev 18:5 could be turned to exactly the opposite conclusion, in which case Paul's argument, with the necessary modifications, would be, for Stanley, something like this: "That no one is justified by faith is evident, because 'The one who does these things will live by them.' But faith is not grounded in the law; rather (it says), 'The one who is righteous by faith will live"', p. 504 note 63 of the article mentioned above. Yet, we may assume that the Galatians were already convinced of the fact that righteousness comes only through faith, because the letter to the Galatians is, to be sure, not the first time that the Galatians have listened to the Gospel. See Oall:6. The only thing the Galatians need to become convinced of is the fact that observance of the law is of no use (against the Judaizers). 60 Stanley: "The obvious conclusion is that the Galatians have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from pursuing the way of Torah. Why would anyone want to embark upon such a path?", p. 505 of the article mentioned above.

Paul as a Metor

205

The curse in verse 13 recalls, of course, the curse in verse 10 (Kccra.pOCV 3:10 and Koc-.apocc; 3:13). Verse 13 is concerned with the question of how the Gentile Christians (Galatians) can be redeemed from the negative aspect (the curse) of the law in connection with the observance of the law (verse 10). They will be redeemed from that curse only by Christ's death. Even if the Galatians fall back into such an observance of the law, there is yet no need for them to be afraid that the curse of the law (verse lOb) will become effective in their own lives. In fact, verse 13 does the same as verses 10-12: Where vv. 10-12 had argued against the Gentiles pursuing the way of Torah on the basis of 'first principles', including the potentially disastrous consequences of that course of action, vv. 13-14 now move to make the same point by a consideration of the present status of salvation history. For Gentile believers to turn to Torahobservance as a means of guaranteeing their participation in the 'blessing of Abraham', says Paul, represents an attempt to turn back the clock on what God has already done on their behalf in the redeeming death of Jesus Christ. 61

Paul reaches the conclusion (again to paraphrase him): 'God has justified you in Christ by faith, and your experience of the Holy Spirit confirms it'. Now we come to a direct critique of Raisanen. The question is, who is meant by ~J.L&c; and ~J.Lwv in verse 13?62 Many exegetes believe that Paul has here in mind Jewish Christians (exclusive reading).63 Others, including Raisiinen himself64, believe that Paul is thinking here of both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (inclusive reading).6s As we have seen, Raisanen detects an inconsistency at this point. 66 But by considering Paul's thoughts in Gal 3 from a rhetorical point of view, and by analysing his argumentative strategy, as has been done above, we have shown that in verse 13 Paul clearly has in mind first and foremost the Gentile Christians. 67 This is not seen by Raisiinen. Eventually he indeed comes to the conclusion that verse 13 concerns the Gentile Christians also, but he comes to this conclusion via verse 14: because verse 14 concerns the Gentile Christians, as Raisiinen argues, verse 13 also must concern the same group. Yet such reasoning is unnecessary, because in verse 13 Paul Stanley, '''Under a Curse": A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10-14' 507. See also C.G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification 86-9. 63 E.g., Betz, Galatians 148, and Donaldson, 'The "Curse of the Law" and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14' 97ff. 64 See Paul18ff. 65 E.g., Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians 166-7, and Eckstein, VerheifJung und Gesetz 151ff. 66 See section 2.1 above. 67 Paul's words apply, of course, to the Jewish Christians also. 61

62

206

Chapter 12

has in mind first and foremost the Gentiles. This is only seen if we consider Paul as a rhetor; Raisanen fails to do this, so that he once again immediately assesses and explains Paul's statements on the theological level. Because he has no eye for the above rhetorical aspects, Rtiistinen himself creates an inconsistency, for he himself immediately connects nomos with the Jewish Christians, whereas in the letter to the Galatians the whole issue is, in fact, that the Gentiles (the Galatians) are putting themselves under the nomos (of course, only if the temptations of the Judaizers are successful). Raisanen is right, of course, that nomos in normal circumstances (without the Judaizers) has to do first and foremost with the Jews; but he fails to see that, in the letter to the Galatians, it is in actual fact the Gentiles who might put themselves under the nomos. In sum, Paul does not connect nomos with the Gentiles here, as Raisanen argues, but the Gentiles themselves (the Galatians) make such a connection, that is if they allow the Judaizers to tempt them successfuUy.68 The originally Gentile Galatians should not regard themselves as Jews who have to fulfil the law. 69 Excursus: criticism ofJ.D.G. Dunn's exegesis of Gal 3:10-14 Having considered Gal 3:1-14 from a rhetorical point of view, and having gained' insight into the intention of this passage, we are also able to give some critical remarks on the interpretation of another prominent scholar, namely I.O.G. Ounn.7° He believes that by epyo: VOIlOU Paul means the characteristic Jewish laws, such as circumcision, food laws, and the observance of certain days, etc. (see Gal 4:10). According to him, these laws have a sociological function, for they clearly mark the distinction between Jews and other nations (Jewish laws as so-called "identity and boundary markers,,).71 Ounn 68 S. Westerholm also detects a problem here, and he also believes that Paul puts the Gentiles under the law. In this connection, he speaks of an "unconscious generalization" by Paul. See his Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 192-5. Westerholm also, who wants to adhere to the Lutheran tradition (" ... students who want to understand Paul but feel they have nothing to learn from a Martin Luther should consider a career in metallurgy. Exegesis is learned from the masters", p. 173), overlooks the possibility of the kind of exegesis suggested here. It is a pity, however, that this possibility is overlooked so often. See also the final observations in Stanley's article. 69 It is striking that Raisanen connects this inconsistency (the connection between the Gentiles and the Torah) almost entirely with the letter to the Galatians (see section 2.1); already this makes one suspicious. Perhaps it could be that my remarks in the text also apply mutatis mutandis to the other texts in the letter to the Galatians which are mentioned by Raisanen. In this chapter, however, I limit myself to Gal 3. 70 J.O.G. Ounn, 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)', NTS 31 (1985) 523-42. Compare also Riiisllnen's criticism, for example, Paul xxx. See also J.O.G. Ounn, The Epistle /0 the Galatians 168ff. 71 " ... the phrase "Ii EPYO: "o0 VOiJ.OU belongs to a complex of ideas in which the social function of the law is prominent", 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)' 531. See also his The Theology of Paul the Apostle 153,361-2, and 366. See for critical notes on Ounn's view, for example, T.R. Schreiner, "'Works of

Paul as a Rhetor

207

believes that his view is also applicable to Gal 3:10-14. Although Dunn's exegesis is very attractive in its simplicity72, it can be criticized in many ways: (I) In the letter to the Galatians, Paul does not talk about Jewish food laws (compare 2:12), whereas these laws were, at least for the Jews, very important as "identity markers".13 (2) According to Dunn, Paul means by aaoL ... E~ ~PYWIl V0).10U (verse 10) the Jews. 74 Here Dunn overlooks two things: (a) Paul wants to persuade the Galatians who were, in fact, Gentile Christians, that there is no need for them to put themselves under the law; thus, Paul does not talk in the first place about the Jews; and (b) it is important to emphasize BaoL: whoever, regardless of whether they be Jews or non-Jews. (3) In order to be able to maintain his own view, Dunn has to identify Ell vO).1C¥ (verse 11) with E~ epywv vOl'ou (verse 10).15 In spite of Dunn's reference to the parallel between Gal 2:16 and GaI3:11, such an identification is far from convincing, because of the simple fact that the words in verse 11 are not identical with those in verse 10. My own exegesis does more justice to the literal text. Moreover, Dunn overlooks the fact that verses 11 and 12 belong together (see my own exegesis). (4) Once more, Dunn has to interpret v0).10' (verse 12) as meaning t~ epywv vO).1ou. (5) Dunn sees the following contrasts: (a) 'law' - 'faith' (verse ll); and (b) 'faith' 'by the law' (more precise: EV au"to~<; ) (verse 12). In verse 12, the contrast is, however, 'faith' - 'doing'. (6) Because Christ has taken away the curse, the Gentiles can also be incorporated into the people of God; Dunn connects soteriology with the incorporation of the Gentiles (see section 9.2 above).1 6 As we have seen, Paul wants to persuade his readers that observance of the Torah as a means of guaranteeing their participation in the 'blessing of Abraham' is no longer necessary. Even though the intention in Dunn's view and Paul's actual intention are closely related to each other, they are not identical to each other. 77 (7) Dunn says: ... the leading edge of Paul's theological thinking was the conviction that God's purpose embraced Gentile as well as Jew, not the question of how a guilty man might find a gracious God.7 8

Law" in Paul', NovT 33 (1991) 225-31, and S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 117-9. 72 "In the context of the Galatian situation the train of thought from Gal 2.16 to 3.10 would not be too difficult to follow", p. 535 of the article mentioned above. 13 Dunn states: "It is hardly surprising then that the two main issues with which Paul deals in Galatians are precisely the same two areas of concern - circumcision and food laws (Gal 2.1-14)", p. 525 of the article mentioned above. It appears in no way from the texts, however, that the Judaizers wanted to impose food laws on the Galatians (though they did indeed impose circumcision). 14 See the article mentioned above pp. 533-4. 15 See p. 541 note 48 of the article mentioned above; Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians 161, does the same. 16 See p. 536 ofDunn's article mentioned above. 11 "Circumcision is a badge as Dunn says, but it is the badge of those who want to be justified by the law as a whole (cf. Gal 5:4)", Schreiner, 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View ofE.P. Sanders' 265 (my italics). 18 See p. 539 of his article.

208

Chapter 12

Such an interpretation by Dunn expresses, however, a very narrow understanding of Christ's death. 79 In other words, was the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God the only reason for the death of Christ? Was the overcoming of a wrong, i.e. nationalistic, understanding of the law the only reason why Christ became a curse?

12.2.2.2 In comparison with the promise, the divine law is inferior (Gal 3:15-20)

We have seen in section 2.5 that, with reference to Gal 3:15-20, Raisanen has stated that, for Paul, the law is not of divine origin. We shall consider these six verses also from a rhetorical point of view, and shall examine the validity of R1lisanen' s interpretation. Verses 15-18 are considered first, and subsequently verses 19-20. 12.2.2.2.1 The rhetor Paul persuades by means of an invalid 'argumentum ad hominem' (Gal 3:15-18)

In verse 17, Paul asserts that the olae~K118D (and the promise) cannot be annulled (OUK CtKupol), not even by the law which was introduced 430 years after Abraham. Yet the problem here is: if we assume that God introduced the law, how it is possible that God attempts to annul the olae~Kll by introducing the law, because such an act is, according to verse 15, prohibited. Is the law in that case still of divine origin?81 By considering these texts from a rhetorical point of view, we see that Paul does not state here that the nomos is not given by God, as alleged by Raisanen. 82 The fact that Paul indeed maintains here the view that the law is of divine origin clearly appears when we acknowledge that the rhetor Paul makes use here of an argumentum ad hominem. "This sort of argument proceeds on the basis of premises borrowed from the opponent and turned against him".83 Paul borrows a view from the Judaizers, namely: the inheritance is by the law (verse IBa). In that case, Paul's argumentative strategy is as follows: (1) the Judaizers believe that one has to put oneself under the law again, because (2) according to Paul, they believe that the inheritance is by the law (the argumentum ad hominem). (3) But it is impossible that the inheritance is by the law, because if that is indeed the case, the olae~Kll would be annulled (verse 17), and (4) 7. Compare also his The Theology of Paul the Apostle 208-33. 80 In order not to get involved in the discussion of whether OLIl9~K1] means 'covenant' or 'testament', or even both, I use only the Greek word in the text. 81 See Paul 128-33. '2 My interpretation is heavily indebted to C.H. Cosgrove, 'Arguing like a Mere Human Being. Galatians 3.15-18 in Rhetorical Perspective', NTS 34 (1988) 536-49. Compare, however, also his The Cross and the Spirit. " Cosgrove, 'Arguing like a Mere Human Being' 540. The fact that Paul addresses the Galatians here and not the Judaizers is, in my view, not a real problem.

Paul as a Rhetor

209

everybody knows that such a thing would be impossible and even illegal (verse 15).84 (5) Ergo: the Judaizers err by stating that one has to put oneself under the law. They overestimate the law (see also the next section). The Judaizers' position is, in a manner of speaking, contested by their own convictions; or, to put it more precisely, Paul extrapolates the views of his opponents into their extreme consequences so that a deliberately absurd picture of these views emerges. We come to a critique ofRaisanen. He says the following: The preceding context suggests an invalid addition not willed by the testator; OUOEL<; in v. 15 makes one think of someone other than the testator himself - of an outsider. 85

Raisanen does not want to identify the one who has made the a Lae~KTJ with the one who introduces the law, and who would, therefore, annul the aLae~KTJ. But such an interpretation overlooks the argllmentum ad hominem. In other words, Rilisanen fails to see that it is not Paul but the Judaizers who make the introduction of the law into an invalid addition if they maintain their incorrect view (verse ISa, the argumentum ad hominem 86 ). By this Paul shows to the Judaizers that ultimately their view does not make any sense at all. The "testator" (God) indeed wants the "addition" of the law, but the JlIdaizers make this addition "invalid". In Paul's own view, it is not he himself who makes a contradiction between the divine aLae~KTJ (with the promise) and the law, as Raisilnen wants us to believe, but the Judaizers . doctrine which creates such a contradiction. It is thus incorrect when Raisiinen states that in these verses Paul denies the divine origin of the law, or that he seems to do so. Such a denial of the divine origin of the law would be more a result ofthe Judaizers' view. When considering Paul as a rhetor, we again clearly see that these verses do not concern the question of whether the Gentiles can be 84 Cosgrove: "To regard the law as the instrument of the inheritance is, in effect, to treat the law as a cancellation of the promise and to cast God in the role of one who 'nullifies or amends a previously ratified testament"', p. 541 of his article mentioned above. 85 Paul 129. 86 According to Cosgrove, it is a mere coincidence that argumentum ad hominem is a translation of KO:1:O: Iiv8pW1TOV J..Eyw (verse 15) ("an ironic accident in the history of the use of technical rhetorical terminology", p. 538); in his view the two expressions do not, however, mean the same. With reference to the expression KD:1:a Iiv9pW1TOV J..Eyw, he says: " ... the apostle aims to distance himself at the outset from the idea that the law constitutes an attempt to cancel the promise", p. 546. By means of this expression, Paul indicates at the outset that he rejects a premise which he had first accepted within his argument. Compare also Rom 3:5 and 1 Cor 9:8. Compare also Eckstein, VerheifJung und Gesetz 175ff.

210

Chapter 12

incorporated into the people of God. Paul merely wants to demonstrate here that the inheritance is not by the law, and accordingly, that there is no need for the Galatians to put themselves under the law again, as the Iudaizers advocate. s7 This interpretation surprisingly appears to be in line with the theme in Gal 3:10-13, and it is in complete agreement with the historical context (,Paul as a pastor' and 'Paul as a rhetor' are in agreement with each other).

12.2.2.2.2 The rhetar Paul persuades by means of a valid 'argumentum ad hominem' (Gal 3: 19-20) Not only Raistlnen, but also, for example, Htibner 88 , Schlier 89 , and Bruce90 deny the divine origin of the law on the basis of Gal 3: 19-20. Verses 19d20 are the exegetical problem 91 : liLOCtn:YEt~ liL' ocyyE>..wv EV XELpl f.LEOttOU (3:19d) 0 liE f.LEOLtT]<; EVOC; OUK eOtlV, 0 liE 9EOe; EIe; EOtlV (3:20). Before looking at a few details, there are two important observations to make: (1) Verse 19 has two assertions: (a) the law was added because of transgressions (verse 19b); and (b) the law was ordained (liLOCtOCYELC;) through angels 'by the hand of a mediator' (verse 19d). These two assertions are further elaborated by using a chiasmus: verse 20 elaborates verse 19d, and verses 21-25 elaborate verse 19b. Consequently, liE in verse 20a does not denote a real contrast, but verse 20 is more of an explanation, or even an exposition of f.LEOLtT]e;. In verse 20b liE again occurs; yet now it indeed denotes a contrast, but only within verse 20 (verse 20a and verse 20b are contradictions). (2) Verse 19d, liLoctOCYElC; liL' ocYYElwv EV XELpt f.LEOLtoU can be regarded as a Jewish tradition with which the Judaizers were familiar. See Acts 7:38, 53 and Heb 2:2. The mediation by angels is mentioned nowhere in the Hebrew Old Testament; compare however LXX Deut 33:2: EK liE~LWV ocUtOU iXYYEloL f.LEt' autou (~ - 'fire' - is interpreted as angels by the LXX). According to the Hebrew Old Testament, Moses is the

87 "What Paul does attempt to show in 3.15-18 is that since the promise was made to Christ alone (v. 16), it was not made to law-keepers (or anyone else, for that matter), and therefore that the law has absolutely no legal voice in the terms of the inheritance (v. 17) ... it should be evident that the reception of the eschatological promise by believers ... does not depend upon law-keeping", Cosgrove, 'Arguing like a Mere Human Being' 548. 88 Das Gese/z bei Paulus 28. 89 Der Brief an die Gala/er 161. 90 The Epistle 10 the Galatians 179. 91 Bruce alleges that there are more than 300 different interpretations of verse 20, The Epistle to the Galatians 178; Schlier mentions even higher numbers, Der Brief an die Galater 161 note 2. See also Eckstein, VerheijJung und Gesetz 200ff.

Paul as a Rhetor

211

mediator. Compare also the expression EV XELpt Mwuofi in LXX Lev

26:46 with EV XELpt IJ.EOL'tOU in Gal 3:19; Moses, however, is not mentioned in Ga13:l9. As we have seen above, in verse 18a Paul uses an argumentum ad hominem which is turned against the Judaizers and ultimately rejected, since it is an invalid argument. A similar structure occurs in verse 19d, for in this verse Paul again uses an argumentum ad hominem which is again turned against them. There is, however, one difference, because this time the argument is not being rejected, since it is not invalid (verse 19d can also be found within Jewish tradition already from the time of the LXX92 ). Verse 19d constitutes the premise for verse 20, while IJ.EOL1:T}C; is the connecting word, because Paul wants to clarify the idea of j.lEaL'tT}C;. He wants to describe the nature of the mediator by stating that the mediator is not a 'mediator of one' (flEOL1:T}C; EVOC;); yet, on the other hand (oE), God is one (verse 20). The question of the identification of the flEOL1:T}(; (an angel, angels, or Moses)93 is in this case irrelevant, and this question as asked by many scholars merely obscures the exegesis; moreover, Paul does not write here OU1:0C; oE j.lEOL1:T]C;, but instead just 0 01: flEOL1:T}C;.94 It is therefore important to interpret this verse in such a way that one makes as little use as possible of various assumptions concerning the idea of flEOL'tT}C; which are not based on this text. 95 Every exegesis which tries to ascribe a 92 See Dunn, . Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A TestCase of Text in Context' 460. See also his The Epistle to Ihe Galalians 191. 93 RlIislinen believes that the mediator is not Moses but an angel (or angels), Paltl 130; Wilckens believes that Moses is here the mediator between angels and Israel (not, however, between God and Israel), 'Entwicklung' 172; Schlier also thinks of Moses, Der Brief an die Galater 161; following A. Vanhoye, Bruce thinks of an angel who spoke to Moses, The Epistle to the Galatians 179. 94 However, Kruse's interpretation, with reference to N.T. Wright, is very interesting. "The function assigned to the law was to restrain moral decline in Israel until the coming of [the family ol] Christ to whom the promises applied. Though it had this important function it was nevertheless inferior to the promise because, unlike the promise made directly by God to Abraham, the law was ordained indirectly through angels and with the help of Moses as mediator. And Moses was not the mediator of the one family to which the promises applied (a family made up of people from all nations), but God is one and wants that one family, not two (consisting of Jews and Gentiles). The Galatians, therefore, should not he looking to Moses and obedience to his law for their incorporation into the people of God, but rather looking to Christ and placing their faith in him", Palll, the Law and Justification 92-3 (see also p. 288 of this volume). 9S Schlier also makes an assumption here, namely ..... daB der Begriff des J.!ea(-r'1~ im Sinn des Apostels einen Unterhllndler meint, der eine Gruppe vertritl", Der Brief an die Galater 161. Similarly, we are making an assumption if we ascribe a conditional nature to the J.!Ea[-r'l' (the law!): the law negotiates, for it demands obedience; in contrast to b eea~, for God, in fact, gives grace unconditionally (0 eea, is also mentioned at the end of verse 18 where the term is connected with 1(exO:pLa-rocL). In this same sense, Bruce says:

212

Chapter 12

concrete connotation to IJ.Eal1:TV;, and/or which makes a certain assumption concerning the idea of IJ.EOL 1:1')~, makes a correct interpretation impossible. The text merely states that the nature of the f!EOL1:'11C; is determined by EVOC; OUK eonv (verse 20a): a mediator always has two parties, in contrast (oe verse 20b) to God who is one. 96 Yet, what does this mean? In my view, the key to the hermeneutical problem in verse 20 is the same key which we have already found in section 12.2.2.1. Analysing Paul's rhetorical train of thought in verses 11-12, we found that for Paul in Gal 3 justification and the reception of the Holy Spirit are closely related to each other. 97 A similar relation is also expressed in verse 21: EL yap 1:0681') VOIJ.OC; b ouvrtlJ.EVO~ (U)01To~,;ocn, OV1:WC; ~K vOIJ.OU av ,;V ~ O~K(l:LOOUV1'). The law does not have power to make alive; that means, the law itself does not provide any power to fulfil its requirements. In other words, the law does not have divine power, which, however, can indeed be provided by the Holy Spirit. But then, why does the law not have divine power? In Paul's view, it is because the law was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator who always represents two parties (verses 19-20). Thus a kind of 'third party' was needed, and due to the use of this third party the nomos has lost, as it were, its divine power to make someone alive. On the other hand, God is one, and He works without a third party, so that his words (promise) are powerful. In this sense, the law is inferior to the promise. In sum, Paul persuades as a rhetor by making use of an argumentum ad hominem (verse 19d): the law is inferior to the promise, because the law always has a IJ.EoLnlC; who has, by definition (verse 20), no divine power to make someone alive. In this way, verse 20 is interpreted with a minimum of assumptions. 98 In our critique of Raisanen, it can be justifiably stated that the divine origin of the law is not at all the issue here, even less that such a divine

"It is natural to suppose that Paul has in mind the fact that, in making his promise to Abraham, God acted unilaterally, in sovereign grace. In giving the law, he employed mediation; in bestowing the promise, he acted on his own, as one (Et~). No angelic intervention, no human mediation, was involved: God promised, and Abraham believed", The Epistle to the Galatians 178. 96 It is very attractive to regard sin as the cause of the introduction of the law which is connected here with the idea of a mediator, since if there is a dispute (sin) then a mediator is also needed. Such an exegesis also makes an assumption about the idea of f!ECJL't1'l~. Moreover, this exegesis is not probable, because in verse 19, Paul speaks of 1fllprf~IlCJL<;, not Of&f!IlP~LIl (compare Rom 4: 15). 97 I again refer here to the article by S.K. WilIiams, 'Justification and the Spirit in Galatians', JSNT29 (1987) 91-100. 98 See also Williarns' article p. 96 mentioned above.

Paul as a Rhetor

213

origin is disputecP 9 ; Paul merely wants to demonstrate that the law does not have divine power, and that therefore the law is inferior to the promise. 100 When we further compare with these same verses Raisanen's allegation that, for Paul, the law is not of divine origin, then apart from the remarks mentioned above some other counter-arguments are also justified 101 : (a) In verses 19-21, a passivum divinum occurs three times (all in the aorist tense): npooE"tE9Tj (verse 19)102, 6La"taYEt~ (verse 19; Raisanen does not regard this as a passivum divinum 103), and e669Tj (21 b; according to Raisanen, this is indeed a passivum divinum I04 ). (b) Verse 20 does not say anything about the origin of the law, but instead merely something about the mediation. Thus, Paul does not assert here that the angels are "the originators of the law", as Raisanen alleges. 105 (c) If the purpose of the law is of divine origin (verse 19b), then it is very likely that the same also applies to the law itself. (d) The Galatians, and especially Paul's opponents, would never have accepted a statement from Paul that the law is not of divine origin.

99 Rais!lnen says: "God, being One, needs no mediator between himself and mankind. A mediator was needed, because God was not involved", Paul 130. Compare also Dunn: " ... anyone familiar with Jewish tradition would think most naturally of the well established Jewish belief that angels were indeed associated in the giving of the law ... In other words, the allusion, while marking a contrast with the promise, certainly did not deny the law was given from God ... ", 'Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text in Context' 460. See also Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 139-40. "Da aber wed er der Wortlaut von Gal 3,19 noch der unmittelbare oder weitere Kontext der paulinischen Argumentation die Klassifizierung der .xYYEAOL als dlimonischer Mlichte oder des VOllo, als widergottlicher Verordnung rechtfertigen, IliBt sich diese negative Deutung der Sinai-Tora exegetisch nicht begriinden", Eckstein, Verheij3ung und Gesetz 20 I. 100 Compare O. Hofius: "Von einer 'Inferioritat' der Tora kann dann nur in strenger Relation zu der zuvor gegebenen VerheiBung gesprochen werden, die als verheiBendes Wort das Wort der heilvollen, Juden wie Heiden geltenden Zuwendung Gottes zu den Gottlosen ist", Paulusstudien 62. 101 See also S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith \76-9. 102 " ••• Whose act of cancellation is contemplated in v. 177 Perhaps one will suspect the angel administrators of the law mentioned in v. 19. But these are not the originators of the law, as the divine passive ("rrpoC1HE9T]) shows", C.H. Cosgrove, 'Arguing like a Mere Human Being' 539-40. "Logisches Subjekt von ITp0C1EtE9T] ist ... zweifellos Gott ... ", Eckstein, Verheij3ungundGesetz 192. 103 Paul 130 note 15. 104 Paul 132; is Raisanen himself here consistent? 105 Paul 131.

214

Chapter 12

12.3 Conclusion: some 'inconsistencies' do not exist It appeared in the previous chapter that some 'inconsistencies' are unjustifiably labelled as such. Having studied Gal 3:1-20 from a rhetorical point o/view, we can now conclude that certain inconsistencies indicated by Riiisiinen simply do not exist: they .are merely apparent inconsistencies. As a rhetor,Paul persuades the Galatians that they should not put themselves under the law as the ludaizers want them to do, and that the law is, as a matter of fact, inferior to the promise. Gal 3:1-20 does not give us any reason to conclude that Paul connects the nomos with the Gentiles, or that he would have denied the divine origin ofthe law.

Chapter 13

Paul as a Theologian 13.1 Description

Revelations played an important role in Paul's life. By means of a revelation it was, for instance, made clear to him where he had to go during his missionary journeys (Acts 16:9-10; compare also Gal 2:1-2), or he was encouraged in a very particular way (Acts 18:9-10). Similarly, he received not only his call to apostleship, but also the Gospel, as preached by him later on, by means of a revelation (for example, Acts 9: 1-9 and Gal 1: 12 respectively). As a missionary Paul passed on this revealed Gospel to others, and he applied it to concrete situations. In this sense Paul can be called a theologian. This term must not be understood in its technical sense, as if Paul developed a certain theological concept on his own authority; rather this term must be understood as meaning someone who reflects upon the Gospel revealed to him, and who subsequently applies such reflections to concrete situations. Yet Paul did not pass on this revealed Gospel as a kind of complete dogmatic theological system, but rather he applied the Gospel, as revealed to him, to concrete situations. I To put it differently, as a theologian Paul always remained a pastor. We have seen in chapter 11 that, as a pastor, Paul tries to discuss specific questions; in each case he gives an ad hoc answer to those questions. In chapter I I we emphasized the differences between Paul's letters. 2 But it is also possible that within one letter Paul as a pastor applies the Gospel as revealed to him to a variety of different concrete situations within one and the same congregation. This is the main reason why his letters have a fi'agmentary structure. Each fragment has its own specific theological theme, and within each fragment, as a theologian, Paul elaborates that l " ... Ralph P. Martin ." claims ... that Paul's theology was to be treated as fragmentary responses to pastoral situations delivered ad hoc ... ", P.T. O'Brien, 'Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades', in: D.A. Carson (Ed.), Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Guernsey 1992, p.82. 2 Compare, however, also section 11.2.2.4 where I also indicated the possibility of different fronts within one and the same letter.

216

Chapter 13

theme. In sum, each fragment has its own characteristic theological discourse. This can be illustrated on the basis of the letter to the Romans. It is as if Paul connects his thoughts like links in a chain: one fragment is preceded by another, while at the same time these fragments are linked up with each other. The connection between two of those fragments can be, for example, an introductory question (for example, Rom 6:1, 15; 7:1, 7 ,13; 9:14,30; 11:1, 11). This implies that within one and the same letter, such as the letter to the Romans, Paul discusses different themes (or problems) which are linked up with each other like links in a chain. This chapter demonstrates that it is of paramount importance to pay attention to this fragmentary structure.

13.2 Critique of Riiisiinen As in chapters 11 and 12, we first make a number of general remarks, and subsequently we give some illustrations of our critique of Raisanen. 13.2.1 General Since Paul makes use of a fragmentary structure in his letters, we must interpret his theological statements in a fragment first of all within that same fragment. Such a fragment is, as it were, the theological context which determines the meaning of the theological statements in that same fragment. This also applies, of course, to all Paul's statements on the law: both the meaning and the function of v6iJo~ depend on and are determined by the theological context of the fragment within which such a statement occurs. 3 Raisanen, however, does not sufficiently take into account the 3 A.C. Thiselton's remarks in his article 'Semantics and New Testament Interpretation' are valid in general, and thus also with reference to the term VOf1o~: " ... the meaning of a word depends not on what it is in itself, but on its relation to other words and to other sentences which form its context", pp. 78-9. "Words or other linguistic signs have no 'force', validity, or meaning, independently of the relations of equivalence and contrast which hold between them", p. 82. J.O. Moores also rightly states that the meaning of v0f10~ is entirely dependent on its context (read: theological context): "In Paul's hands, vOf1o~ becomes a term which, like 'security' or 'productivity', designates a factor which can be harmful or beneficial according to the context of its operation. Its meaning now lies precisely in this special kind of indefinability which it has acquired ... It is IiYLOC; where it convicts us of sin and discloses the magnitude of God's gift of forgiveness; it kills where it is thought of as an instrument of privilege or of salvation. When Paul speaks of the law of faith, does he mean the Torah, or not? The fact that we find this question difficult to answer shows how dependent v0f10~ has now become for meaning on the opposing contexts of its operation. Law is thus seen no

Paul as a Theologian

217

fragmentary structure of Paul's letters, so that, in Riiisiinen's interpretation, the meaning of V6~.LOC; is not determined by the theological context inherent in such a fragment. To try to cut loose 'propositions' in the New Testament from the specific situation in which they were uttered and to try thereby to treat them 'timelessly' is not only bad theology; it is also bad linguistics. For it leads to a distortion of what the text means. 4

This is precisely what Riiisanen does. In fact he heaps up aB the possible meanings and functions of v6f.i.o~ without taking into account the theological context within which the term v6f.i.o~ occurs. Therefore J. Barr's well-known criticism of the articles in the Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament ('illegitimate totality transfer'S) also applies mutatis mutandis to Raisanen's method of interpretation. If we pay more attention to the theological context of a statement on the law, then we shall be able to make the alleged inconsistencies more transparent, in which case it also remains to be seen whethei: it is still appropriate to speak of inconsistencies. 6 Here we should, in my view, even go a step further. For RIHsanen speaks as though the law in Paul is an isolated term which is independent of its theological context; yet, such a presumption is incorrect. The law in Paul cannot be considered in isolation, because in Paul it always has a theological context 7 which determines both the meaning and the function of the law. s Thus when interpreting a statement on the law, we must longer as a domain in which a straightforward character of prescriptiveness clarifies its parameters. It is now characterised in terms of the compatibility levels obtaining with regard to such classifiers as Ca) 'salvific', Cb) 'revelatory', Cc) 'condemnatory', Cd) 'deleterious"', Wrestling with rationality in Paul ISO-I. 4 Thiselton, 'Semantics and New Testament Interpretation' 79. 5 "This occurs when the semantic value of a word as it occurs in one context is added to its semantic value in another context; and the process is continued until the sum of these semantic values is then read into a particular case", thus Thiselton, 'Semantics and New Testament Interpretation' 84; Riiisanen does the same with reference to the law in Paul. I do not say that RlIisanen does not differentiate between different meanings of vOJ.lOc;. But my point is that, in doing so, he does not sufficiently take into account the theological context of each occurrence of the word VOJ.lo<;. 6 " ... more attention to the context of Paul's statements will at least reduce the number ofinconsistencies ... ", S. Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 17S. 7 See B. Reicke, 'Paulus Uber das Gesetz', TZ 41 (198S) 243-4. • Moores has expressed himself along similar lines, Wrestling with rationality in Paul ISO-I. In this connection K.R. Snodgrass speaks in his article 'Spheres of Influence. A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law' of "spheres of influence" and "power fields". In his article, he also tries to offer a solution to the alleged inconsistencies in Paul. "The starting point for a solution is a holistic view of Paul's theology of participation in Christ", p. 98. Salvation in Paul is described by Snodgrass as "the transfer from one sphere of lordship to another", p. 98. We must apply this also to

218

Chapter 13

always trace and define its theological context, and subsequently give weight to that theological context. 13.2.2 Illustrations 13.2.2.1 Thefragmentary structure in Romans 7 Rom 7 is undoubtedly one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. 9 Rilisiinen takes it for granted that there is a widespread consensus of opinion on this chapter 10 ; however, such an observation is incorrect. ll Therefore, Rilisanen' s reasoning concerning one of his alleged inconsistencies is weakened at the outset when he says with reference to Rom 7:14-25 that non-Christians cannot do good at all: there is still no consensus at all that Rom 7 indeed concerns non-Christians. 12 At this point we want to pay special attention to the fact that Rom 7 displays a fragmentary structure. Rom 7 consists of three different parts with three different themes 13, namely: (1) verses 1-6 with the theme 'the Christian is discharged from the law'; (2) verses 7-12 with the theme 'the law is holy, etc.' (verse 12); in these verses, Paul gives an apology for the the law in Paul. For the law can be placed by Paul within the "sphere" of sin (Rom 7:13), so that the law is seen in a negative light and so is understood as the cause of death. But the law can also be placed within the "sphere" of faith so that the law becomes an expression of God's will, and consequently gives life (Rom 8:7 and Rom 7:10). "The determinant for the law is the sphere in which it is placed '" VOILa, obtains its function from the sphere in which it is placed. The qualitative genitive forms express not the nature of the law, but the context in which law works", p. 99. Although I do not agree with all Snodgrass' views, he makes worthwhile remarks in his article; he rightly gives attention to the theological context in which Paul's statements on the law occur. 9 See for a rather extensive bibliography on Rom 7: K. Kerte1ge, Grundthemen paulinischer Theologie 174 note 1. 10 "It is hardly necessary to argue once more that the famous passage Rom 7.14-25 is not intended by Paul as a description of the Christian. It can by now be taken for granted that he is speaking of man's existence under the law ... ", Paul 109. 11 Compare O. Kuss, Der Romerbrief 11. Regensburg 21963, 462-85, and D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids 1996, 423ff, who give an overview of different interpretations oUycJ in Rom 7. See also C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans 342ff; C.G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification 208ff, and the article by D.J. Moo, 'Israel and Paul in Romans 7.7-12', NTS 32 (1986) 122-35. There is no need to discuss this issue here. 12 This is also Cranfield's justified criticism, 'Bad Name' 81. If it cannot be stated with certainty that in Rom 7:14-25 Paul has non-Christians in mind, then neither can it be stated with certainty that according to these verses non-Christians cannot do good at all. For Riiisiinen's view of Rom 7: 14-25 see section 2.4 above. 13 If we assume that Paul works with different themes, and if we approach him as such, then we must be aware of the danger of reading-blindness: there is the danger of being so much absorbed in concentrating on the theme of a fragment that we no longer notice other statements of that same fragment which are not in line with the theme. See J. van Bruggen, Het lezen van de bijbeI35-7.

Paul as a Theologian

219

law; and (3) verses 13ff with the theme 'the struggle against sin'. These three parts form, as it were, the links within the chain of Paul's train of thought. As is to be expected, Rom 7 is preceded by other fragments which are similarly connected with each other by the same structure (links in a chain): Rom 7:1-6 is preceded by Rom 6:1-14 and 6:15-23. Thus, Rom 7 consists of three fragments which are preceded by two fragments in Rom 6. It is characteristic of these five fragments that each time they are introduced by a question (6:1, 15; 7:1, 7, 13), followed by a negative answer (except in 7:1-6), sometimes followed by an appeal to experience, and concluded by an elaboration. In our interpretation of Rom 7 it is very illuminating to pay attention to this fragmentary structure. In our critique of Riiisanen, we shall merely look at the two fragments Rom 7:1-6 and Rom 7:7-12.

13.2.2.1.1 Romans 7:1-6. A link in Paul's train of thought In order to demonstrate that Christians are discharged (KIX"t""py~e"f!EV verse 6) from the law, and that they are dead to the law (ESlXvlX"t"wS"n "t"Q VOf!<\J verse 4, OC1TOSOCVOV"t"EC; EV t\i KOC"t"ELXOf!ESOC verse 6), Paul in Rom 7:1-6 draws an analogy with marriage. Scholars mostly interpret this analogy as follows: the woman in the analogy refers to the Christian, the first man to the law, and the second man to Jesus Christ.14 Such an interpretation, however, poses a considerable problem, because verse 4 refers to the death of the Christian, who corresponds to the woman in the analogy. But in Paul's analogy, it is not the woman who dies, but the first husband. ls Riiisiinen also believes that this is an insoluble problem. 16 14 C.K. Barrett: " ... in the analogy as a whole the husband represents the law", A Commentary on the Epistle 10 the Romans 136. IS Barrett: "The analogy is imperfect. In marriage, the husband dies and the wife is free. In Christian life, the law does not die (as analogy would require); Christ dies, and by faith Christians die with him", A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 136. J. Ziesler also argues in his recent commentary that Paul's analogy is inexact: "Although the point being made is relatively straightforward, the passage is complicated by the fact that the analogy Paul uses only partly fits the case ... The trouble with the analogy is that it is not the Law (parallel to the husband) that dies, but the Christian (parallel to the wife) who dies with Christ, and is therefore free from the Law's rule. Probably we should accept that the analogy is inexact without trying to find a more obscure level on which it does operate well", Paul's Letter to the Romans 172. 1. See Paul 46-7 and 61-2. " ... he has to take refuge in a rather tortured allegory, the application of which is lost in internal contradictions", Paul 46. "The argument used is curious. Paul starts from the idea that a law is binding for a human being as long as he or she lives. One would expect the conclusion to be: when a man dies, he is free from the law; Paul actually states this much in v. 4a. Verses 2-3, however, introduce a picture that confuses more than clarifies the issue. Logically, a picture would be needed in which the one who dies corresponds to the Christian who, according to Paul, has 'died' (with

These texts will remain locked unless we make use of two proper hermeneutical keysl7: (1) with reference to the meaning of UiTcw/ipo~ (verse 2) we should not make use of a diachronic approach, but of a synchronic approach to language 1B ; and (2) the theologian Paul formulates his theological statements by means of afragmentary structure. (l) The meaning ofum:w/ipoc;

If we approach the word uiTavopOC; synchronically, then it appears that this word does not mean 'under the man' (uno and &v~p), but simply 'married' .19 Although Riiisiinen does not say it in so many words, the word unavopoc; in his interpretation means de facto 'to be under the man' .20 Once this step has been made, it indeed becomes difficult to see the Christ) to the law. In Paul's analogy, however, it is not the wife who dies, but the first husband, and he must correspond to the law. Christ is then introduced as the new husband, as n;j ErEP~ in 4b (referring to &v/ipL ErEP<¥ in 3b) shows. The analogy is simply confusing: it suits neither the opening statement (v. J) nor the conclusion (v. 4) ... Apparently, Paul had no convenient and persuasive arguments at hand, by which he could have without pains demonstrated that freedom from the law is the obvious consequence of Christ's death and the Christian's death with him", Paul 61-2. R!!islinen is actually saying that Paul was simply unable to make consistent statements here; in Riiisiinen's view, Paul had to state that the Christian is free from the law by the death of Jesus Christ, but Paul was unable to give any sound arguments for such a view. 17 I owe some of my insights into these verses to J.D. Earnshaw, 'Reconsidering Paul's Marriage Analogy in Romans 7.1-4', NTS 40 (1994) 68-88. 18 We should always make a clear distinction between the so-called synchronic and diachronic approach to language. In order to find the meaning of a word, the synchronic approach is preferable. In this connection, F. de Saussure clearly illustrates the point with reference to chess. To understand the state of a game, it is unnecessary to know how the players arrived at tbis state (the diachronic approach); also a certain move of one piece can result in a completely different importance for that same piece. The same applies to our study of language. The main point is to find the meaning of a word at tbis moment, while its place within a sentence is very important. The diachronic approacb (etymology) makes a statement mainly about the 'history' of a word, and not so much about its actual meaning. Moreover in the course of time the meaning of a word can change, or it can even receive an opposite meaning. It is also possible that some metaphors had lost their meaning by the time of the New Testament. A persistent misunderstanding occurs, for example, when one tries to find the meaning of allAlXyxvL(O~IXL in the New Testament by tracing this Greek word back to 'internal organs'. A diachronic approach can even lead to sheer anachronism, for example, when one believes that ~O:P1:Up LOV means 'martyrdom'. Diachronic study can be used if one wants to know, for example, how the meaning of a word has changed within a period of time. See Thiselton, 'Semantics and New Testament fnterpretation'. 19 It is very likely that we have here a so-called dead metaphor. See the article by Earnshaw mentioned above. Compare also Cranfield, Romans 333 note 2, and U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 6-11 64 note 242. 20 Although he says that vcI~o<; is "the master of man", RiiisHnen also speaks of a "change of master (or of 'husband', in the language of the allegory)", Paul 47.

Paul as a Theologian

221

correct meaning of this analogy. Moreover the expression ci.7To tOU vo~ou tOU ci.vlipoc; (verse 2) should already draw our attention to the fact that the thought of a husband's dominant authority over his wife is out of the question, in which case Paul could also have written simply ci.7TO toil ci.vlipOC;.2J With this hermeneutical key we are already able to unlock this text to a certain extent, and we get a hint that Paul here compares Moses' law not with the husband but rather with the law of marriage (not the man, but the law has authorityll - which applies both to the law of marriage and to the law of Moses). This hint is reinforced if we also make use of the second hermeneutical key. (2) Fragmentary structure As already mentioned above, Paul makes use in Rom 6-7 of a fragmentary structure. At this point we shall pay attention not only to what is said within each fragment, but also to the connection of these fragments (their relation to one another). Could it perhaps be that Paul has put Rom 7:1-6 intentionally at this specific place, i. e. after his thoughts in Rom 6? And if this is indeed the case, then what are the consequences for our interpretation of Rom 7:1-6? We can indeed give an affirmative answer to the first question, because if we take a detailed look at Rom 6, then it appears that Rom 6:1-14 is the most important 'link' (fragment) before Rom 7:1-6 (compare 6:14 with 7:1); Rom 6:15-23 can be regarded as a mere 'intermediate link', a kind of excursus. To put it differently, in Rom 7:1-6 Paul the theologian further elaborates his thoughts along the same lines as in Rom 6:1-14. What does this mean, then, for our interpretation of Rom 7:1-6? In my view, there are some parallels between this fragment and Rom 6:1-14: in Rom 7:1-6, Paul clarifies and confirms what he has expounded in Rom 6:1-14. In this passage (Rom 6:1-14) Paul has stated that Christians have died with Christ, and that they are no longer under the law. The same is said by Paul in Rom 7:1-6. As regards content, this means for our interpretation of Rom 7:1-6 that both marriages in the analogy refer to the believer's union with Christ. Due to the fact that Christians have died with Christ (Rom 6:8a), they are not under the law Barrett does not sufficiently emphasize the fact that Paul does not write tt110 ~ou but tt110 ~oii vo~ou ~oii ttvlipo~, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 136. Wilckens rightly states: "Die verheiratete Frau ist durch das Gesetz umlvopo~, d.h. an ihren Mann gebunden, solange dieser lebt. 1st er gestorben, so erlischt die Rechtskraft dieser Bindung; die Frau ist von da an von dem Gesetz, das sie an ihren Mann gebunden hat, frei", Der Brief an die Rdmer. Rom 6-/1 64 (my italics). O. Michel, Der Brief an die Romer 220 also gives a right interpretation with reference to this issue. 22 Moreover, the husband is no less under the authority of the law than the wife; in fact, it is the law which has the ultimate authority here. 21

ttvlipo~,

222

Chapter 13

any more; but also their new life is a life with Christ (Rom 6:8b). This means that the first marriage in the analogy corresponds to the union of Christians with Christ (they have died with Him), and that the second marriage in the analogy corresponds to another union of Christians with Christ (they also live with Him. The expression avopl. hEP41 (verse 3) refers to the liVing Christ). Both the first and the second husband in the analogy correspond to Christ, while the law of marriage (thUS, not the first husband) corresponds to the Mosaic law. The freedom of the wife in the analogy corresponds to freedom from the Mosaic law.23 When Rom 7:1-6 is interpreted in this way, it appears that Paul draws here a wellreasoned and very striking parallel. 24 Both our hermeneutical keys unlock these texts in a similar way.25 In our critique of Rdisanen we can now make three concluding remarks. (1) Rom 7:1-6 is a consistent passage without "internal contradictions"26. Paul's analogy is not problematic in itself, as can be demonstrated only if we make use of the above hermeneutical keys. (2) Paul does not teach in Rom 7:1-6 that the law has been abrogated, as Rais1inen believes. Rather, as in Rom 6:1-14, sanctification is the central issue in Rom 7:1-6 (Christians are not under the law any more as they have died to the law; the law has no more dominion over them, because they have died with Christ and they have been raised with Christ). In other words, Paul does not teach in Rom 7:1-6 an abrogatio legis, but rather an abrogatio servitudinis sub lege.!7 23 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. RIJm 6-11 62ff gives an exegesis which is similar to my own interpretation. 2. Moores, Wrestling with rationality in Paul 93-4 does not see this. This is strange, however, because according to his bibliography he is familiar with the article by Eamshaw. Cranfield believes that Paul does not use here an allegory: "But the decisive clue to the right interpretation of these verses is the recognition that they were not intended to be connected directly with v. 4 but with v. I. They are not an allegory (nor yet a parable), the interpretation of which is to be found in v. 4, but an illustration designed to elucidate v. 1", Romans 335. Such a solution seems to me too easy. 25 Earnshaw's conclusion on page 88 of his article mentioned above seems to be, in my view, somewhat overdone. For he says that the hermeneutical key of these texts (Rom 7:1-6) can be found in Paul's so-called 'participationist soteriology' (the Christian is united with Christ). Although there is a close relation between Rom 6 and 7, there is no Deed to use Earnshaw's rather theological term. 26 Paul 46. 27 T.R. Schreiner makes an interesting distinction here. He believes that when Paul says that Christians are no longer under law he means tbat " ... the Mosaic law in terms of the Mosaic covenant has ceased. He does not intend to rule out authoritative ethical commands from the Mosaic law ... Thus, Paul is making a salvation-historical point", 'The Abolition and Filfillment of the Law in Paul' 55-6. Although Schreiner's

Paul as a Theologian

223

(3) Riiisiinen's allegations that Paul had no clear argument conveniently at hand, and that Paul was at pains to find some argument in order to be able to uphold his view of the negative function of the law, are out of place: 28 Consequently, Riiisiinen's theological explanation for Paul's negative statements on the law in Rom 7:1-6 29 is without any foundation; his explanation is irrelevant, since this inconsistency does not exist.

13.2.2.1.2 Romans 7:7-12. A fragment with a characteristic theological context In this section, we try to give an answer to the question of whether, for Paul, the law indeed gives life. As we have seen in section 2.7, Riiisiinen believes that Paul does not give an unequivocal answer to this question. We also discuss here the relation between law and sin. According to Riiisiinen, Paul makes many inconsistent statements with reference to this relation. Paul asserts on the one hand that sin came into the world at Adam's fall, and on the other hand that sin came into the world following the introduction of the law (see section 2.6). The set of problems concerning the relation between law and sin is, for Riiisiinen, one of the most important reasons for regarding Paul's statements as inconsistent. His view of Paul's statements concerning the relation between law and sin is dependent on his view of the functions of the law in Paul. According, to Rliisiinen, the law in Paul has three functions which are discussed by R!lisiinen also on the basis of Rom 730: (1) Rliislinen finds in Paul a so-called revelatory or cognitive function. This means that the law teaches man what sin is, and that he is a sinner. In this study, the same terminology will be used, especially the term cognitive. (2) Rliisiinen also finds in Paul the so-called definition function. Rliisiinen means by this that, for Paul, the law defines sin as distinction is very interesting, especially with regard to Gal 3, it seems to me that it does not sufficiently underline the idea of sanctification here. However, Schreiner also believes tbat being liberated from tbe law not only signifies liberation from the Mosaic covenant so that the blessings of the law are available to all nations (compare Dunn's 'The New Perspective on Paul'), but also signifies liberation from "the power of sin which uses the law as a bridgebead", 'The Abolition and FilfiIlment of the Law in Paul' 58. In this latter case, to be under the law means to be under sin (so Paul in Rom 6:1415 and 7:1-6). 28 RlIisanen: "Paul is struggling to find a valid reason for the Christian's freedom from the nomos, It seems that he has no clear argument conveniently at hand ... ", Paul 46. "Paul was at pains to find some argument at least for his radical conclusion!", Paul 62. 29 See section 3.2.2.3 above. 30 See Pau1140ff.

214

Chapter 13

'transgression'; the law makes man guilty. Henceforth we shall term this the transforming function in order clearly to indicate that the law transforms sin into transgression. 31 (3) Finally, Raisanen believes he has found in Paul the so-called causative function. He means by this that the law brings about sinning: the cause (causa) of sin is to be found in the law itself. Within this function the law can cause two different kinds of sin, namely sin in terms of legalism and hybris (a la Bultmann), and sin in terms of transgressions as bad deeds. Henceforth we shall use the same term ('causative') to indicate this third function of the law. It is clear that the problems concerning the relation between law and sin are related to this last function as detected by Raisanen, because if Paul indeed asserts in Rom 7, for example, that the law causes sin, then an inconsistency indeed emerges for the simple reason that sin already existed before the introduction of the law, namely since Adam's fall. It is necessary and very illuminating to take another detailed look at the different fragments in Rom 732, which Raisanen, however, fails to do. As has been stated in section 13.2.1, the meaning as well as the function of the law depend on the theological context ofa fragment. 33 Rom 7:7-12 is a fragment with its O'Wll characteristic theological context. It is evident that Paul gives here an apology for the law. The question: 0 VOf.LOt; Uf.Lap'tLa; is followed by the strong negation: f.L~ YEVOL'tO (verse 7). At the end of this fragment, Paul enumerates a number of positive features of VOf.LOt; (verse 12). Raisanen emphatically states that the passage is concerned with the causative function of the law. "The main point, however, is that the law

31 In the excursus below on the relation between law and sin. it will appear that the transforming function of the law in Paul has to be understood in a very wide sense. 32 A verse outside the fragment discussed here, but which is closely related to the question of the different functions of the law, is Rom 7:5. RiHs1!nen believes that in this verse the so-called causative function can be found (Paul 141). However, that remains to be seen, because Paul uses here the preposition OLlX (instrumental), as he also does in verses 7, 8, and 11, to which verses Wilckens rightly refers in interpreting verse 5 ("Zwar sagt Paulus hi er einmal (7.5), daB 'die Leidenschaften der SUnden' durch das Gesetz erregt werden. Doch das wird in 7.7 ff. sogleich in dem Sinn interpretiert, daB es eigentlich die Siinde sei, die das bewirke, die SUnde jedoch erst durch das Gebot der Tora die 'Gelegenheit' dazu erhalte", 'Entwicklung' 171). Strictly speaking, Paul does not say that the law is the cause (causative), but he says that the law is used as a means (instrumental) by sin, as will appear in, for example, verse 11. RlIisllnen, however, admits that, for a Jew, a causative function is not acceptable (Paul 141); already this observation makes his interpretation, in my view, unlikely. 33 Similarly 1.A.D. Weima, 'The Function of the Law in Relation to Sin: An Evaluation of the View ofR. RlIisllnen', NovT32 (1990) 222.

Paul as a Theologian

225

causes (unwillingly, to be sure) men to sin".34 The law "causes" sin, because the prohibition makes the forbidden desire active (a la Augustine).35 However, such an interpretation is not probable for several reasons. 36 Firstly, this interpretation conflicts with the theme of this fragment. The theologian Paul gives here an apology for the law, and how can the law be good (verse 12) if the law constitutes the cause of sin? In actual fact, Paul would have strongly rejected such a causative function of the law. Secondly, Paul uses the word OL&' here four times (verses 7, 8, and 11). This preposition indicates here that the law is not the cause (causative function) of sin, but that the law is merely a means (instrumental function): sin uses the law as a means of killing me (verse 11). Thirdly, &q,op~~ (with the genitive case, see OL&.) means here (in verses 8 and 11) that sin finds an 'opportunity'37 by means of the commandment; thus, sin remains the cause of more sin. 38 Finally, verses 8-9 assume that sin already existed before the introduction of the law; without the law, sin was indeed present, but sin did not become active, sin lay dead as it were. We do more justice to the text if we assume here the cognitive function of the law (compare EYVWV and ij6Hv verse 7)39: the law teaches what sin is. This cognitive function also has, however, an existential aspect, since it teaches me what sin is.40

34 Paul 142. Weima refers to some exegetes who also detect here the causative function, 'Function' 224 note 12. 3S Paul 142, 149. 36 Wilckens rightly remarks that it is not the law but sin that is responsible for (more) sin, Del' Brief an die RomeI'. Rom 6-// 83. See also Michel, Del' Brief an die RomeI' 227-9. 37 See Bauer, WZNT256. l& " ••• die ganze Argumentation in Rom 7,7ff. dient gerade dem Nachweis, daB die Sinai-Tora ihrerseits nicht auf SOnde abzielt und daB sie selbst den SOnde-TodZusammenhang nicht initiiert. Ursache des Unheils ist vielmehr ausschliel3lich die D:IJ.O:P'(O:, die angesichts des gottlichen Gebotes im Menschen Begierde, Ubertretung und folgIich den Tod bewirkt ... ", H.-J. Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz 195-6. Weima detects in Rom 7:5, 8-11 the causative function; in Rom 7:7, he detects the cognitive function. 39 Weima refers to some exegetes who also find here the cognitive function, 'Function' 225 notes 15 and 16. R!iislinen admits, however, that a cognitive function is possible in Rom 7:7, Paul 142. 40 Similarly Wilckens: "Paulus fallt das Gebot als wirkkraftiges Wort auf. Von daher ist das 'Kennenlernen' der Silnde durch das Gebot ein 'kognitiver' Akt von durch und durch 'existenzieller' Wirkung. Denn die SOnde kennenlernen, heillt eben zugleich erkennen, dall ieh ein Silnder bin und als solcher durch das Gebot der Verurteilung zugesprochen bin, die der SUnde als entsprechendes Geschick [olgt ... ", 'Entwicklung' 190 note 83.

226

Chapter 13

As already mentioned above, Rom 7:7-12 is also an important fragment for giving an answer to the question of whether, for Paul, the law gives life. Although Paul uses the word EV"tOA~ instead of V0j.10C;, this question can be answered in the affirmative: ~ EV"tOA~ ~ ELc; (w~v (verse 10). Such an affirmative answer is, of course, to be expected, because we are dealing here with an apology for the law; within such an apology, the statement that the law has a positive function (the ability to give life) is very appropriate. Within such an apology, Paul considers the law per se. To put it differently, within the fragment of this apology for the law, Paul considers the law within a theological context which does not pay attention to God's overall plan of salvation, and within such a theological context, for Paul, the law has a positive function. 41 Referring to Gal 3:21, Raisiinen asserts that the law cannot give life42 ; this reference as such is correct. But in doing so Raisanen forgets that Paul makes such a statement in Gal 3:21 in comparison with the promise. In other words, in Gal 3:21, the theological context is different from the theological context in Rom 7:7-12. In Gal 3:21, Paul considers both the promise and the law within God's overall plan of salvation, and then it indeed appears that the law, only if considered within God's plan, cannot give life. 43 Thus Raisanen '] Westerholm sees the same problem: "The problem remains, however, that the law promises a life which in God's plan it would not and could not give", Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 135. He tries to solve this problem by making a comparison with Christ. Already before the foundation of the world, in Westerholm's view, Christ was destined to die. "Any Christian who believes that the death of Christ for sin was part of God's plan 'before the foundation of the world' (1 Pet. I :20) must believe that sin entered the world both contrary to God's will (God never 'wills' sin!) and according to God's plan (which included, from the beginning, sin's remedy). Paul's view of God's designs with the law conforms to this pattern: God promises life to those who obey his commands, but has planned from the beginning his remedy for transgressors", Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 135. 42 Paul 151. 43 This solution to Paul's inconsistency concerning the question of whether the law is able to give life is mutatis mutandis similar to Thiselton's clarification of the two contrasting evaluations of the believer within the paradox 'iustus et peccator'. How can these descriptive assertions be valid simultaneously? Thiselton answers that each evaluation has its own characteristic "frame of reference". "Whereas two mutually exclusive assertions stand in a relation of contradiction or perhaps 'paradox', this is a misleading way of describing the logical relation between two competing evaluations ... each may be a valid assessment in relation to a different frame of reference ... What is seen remains the same; but how it is seen depends on its function within a system or frame of reference provided by the viewer. If a thing can be 'seen as' more than one possible thing, there must be more than one possible frame of reference within which it can be viewed ... In Pauline thought the Christian is 'seen as' or 'looked on' as righteous or as a sinner, because he can stand within two alternative frames of reference". These two "frames of reference" are eschatology and history respectively. Within the theological context of eschatology a Christian is already justified; but within the context

Paul as a Theologian

227

has unjustly alleged an inconsistency, because both different statements are related to corresponding different theological contexts 44 : if the law is considered per se, then it indeed gives life, but if the law is considered within God's overall plan of salvation, then it does not give life. 45 In our critique of Rtiistinen, with reference to Rom 7:7-12 we come to the conclusion that Paul does not ascribe here a causative function to the law4 6, and that Riiisiinen does not take into account the characteristic of his present historical situation he is still a sinner. "History and eschatology each provide a frame or logical context in which a different verdict on the Christian is valid and appropriate", 'Semantics and New Testament Interpretation' 99. 44 Compare again Hodges' definition of 'inconsistency' in chapter 10 above. 4S Compare O. Hofius: "So bekundet sich im Paradiesgebot - und entsprechend in der Sinai-Tora - der gute Wille des Schlipfers, der das Leben seines Geschlipfes will und nicht seinen Tod. Doch dieses Gebot st0J3t auf die SUnde, und zwar auf die immer schon vorhandene SUnde ... In der Begegnung mit dem Gesetz kommt so heraus, daB der Mensch ein SUnder isl, der sich von seiner SUnderexistenz nicht distanzieren kann. Es kommt heraus, daB er zu dem guten Will en dessen, der sein Leben will, nein sagt und damit nein zu seinem Leben und ja zu seinem Tod, - daB er nicht auf die Stimme seines Schlipfers Mrt, sondern der Stimme der ihn verfilhrenden und verderbenden SUndenmacht hllrig ist", Paulusstudien 59. "Aufgrund dessen saUte in Hinsicht auf das Gesetzesverstandnis bei Paulus weder formuliert werden, daJJ das Gesetz 'nicht mehr' Leben geben kllnne, no ch auch, daB das Gesetz 'als Weg zum Leben gescheiterl' seL DaJJ 'der Mensch theoretisch durch die Werke des Gesetzes zum Leben kommen kllnnte' - oder pr!iziser: das vorgegebene Leben bewahren klinnte -, lieBe sich nur sagen, wenn die Sinai-Tora vor der Sunde in die Welt gekommen w!ire und wenn die SUnde und der Tod in der Zeit von Adam bis Mose no ch nicht Uber den Menschen geherrscht hlltten (vg!. Rom 5,12-14 und die apodiktischen Aussagen in Gal 2,16; 3,10-12). Da es abeT die Sinai-Tora nach paulinischem Verstlindnis van Anfang an nur mit 'erwiesenen SUndern' zu tun haben konnte, scheidet sie nicht nur 'faktisch', sondern auch 'grundsatzlich' als Heilsweg aus", Eckstein, VerheijJung und Geselz 130 (see also p. 148 ofthis same volume). J.D.G. Dunn tries to solve this problem by arguing that obedience to the law is the way to "maintain the life of the covenant". "That this includes the thought of a community life stretching through future generations is implicit. Whether it includes the thought of the individual's eternal life is less clear. But it should also be clear that there is no thought of obedience earning or meriting life or of obtaining a life not previously experienced. Failure to keep the commandments will, by implication, forfeit life. But the life is a gift, and keeping the law is thought of primarily as the way of living appropriate to the covenant and its continuance", The Theology of Paul the Apostle 152. " ... the role of the law was to regulate life already given, not to give life where none was before", The Theology of Paul/he Apostle 154. Obviously, Dunn is here influenced by Sanders' view of Judaism. However, it seems to me that Dunn's interpretation overlooks the fact that Paul's language in Rom 7 is still quite individualized. Even if the "I" refers to Israel, it cannot be denied that Paul also refers to himself as an individual. Furthermore, to interpret ~ EVtOA~ ~ Ete; (w~v (Rom 7: I 0) in the sense that the role of the law was merely to regulate life seems to me to be far too weak in that it underestimates the salvific overtones of this verse. 46 We could at most speak of a 'catalytic' function (the term is from Weima. See his article mentioned above p. 231 note 35).

228

Chapter 13

theological context of this fragment (apology for the law). His allegation that Paul states in Rom 7:7-12 that sin did not come into the world until the introduction of the law is incorrect.47 Consequently, there is no relevance in Rais!l.nen's criticism of Paul that he uses "different standards for Jews and Christians", a failing which Raisanen attributes to the fact that in Paul only the nomos incites to sin, whereas this is not also true of his own apostolic paraenesis. 48 Finally, there is no inconsistency between Rom 7:10 and Gal 3:21, because each statement is uttered within a different theological context; Riiisanen does not take these different theological contexts into account. 49 Excursus: the relation between law and sin in Riiisiinen 's work The relation between law and sin is a separate problem which cannot be discussed here in full. The most important texts concerning this relation are: Rom 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 6:14; 7:5, 7-11, 23; Gal 3:19, and 1 Cor 15:56. Attention will be paid only to Rom 4:15 and Rom 5:13, 20, because in my view Raisilnen has explained away the transforming function of the law in these three texts. Attention is first given to Rom 5:13, especially to the second part of this verse, because Riiisllnen himself has given most attention to this verse.

The transforming jUnction of the law in Rom 5: 13: ItxpL y&p vOILOU KOOILt.;, &lLap~(a

liE OUK

&IL"'P~('" ~v tv

EUOYEt~aL ILT) ovw~ v6lLou.

Rl!isllnen finds this verse very difficult to interpret. SO In his view, Paul tries to show that the coming of the law indeed made a difference; yet Paul is not able to point out this difference. SI We have here a "technical trifle".52 One has to admit that 5.13 is an artificial expedient which disturbs the argument of chapter 5. It is an infelicitous attempt to introduce secondarily the problems of the law into a train of thought with which they originally had nothing to do and into which they do not logically fit. S3

47 Strictly speaking, neither is it correct to define 'sin' as 'transgression of the law', because sin already existed before the introduction of the law. See also H. Weder, 'Gesetz und SUnde' 362-3. 48 See Paul 148-9, and the last part of section 2.6 above. 49 In this way, the problems which Raisllnen detects with reference to these two lines of thought in Paul (the law does not give life, and the law indeed gives life) are also solved: does all this indeed imply that Paul's picture of God is cynical, and that God, in fact, gave a weak law so that Christ is God's second attempt to save mankind (see s~ction 2.7)1 It just depends on the theological context in which Paul places the law: when saying that the law can indeed give life, but that the law does not give life in reality, Paul uses two different contexts which we should not confuse with each other. so He speaks of "a special problem", Paul 145. RlIisilnen, however, is not the only interpreter who labels it as such. R. Bultmann, for example, writes: "Vollends unverstandIich ist V. 13 ... ", Theologie des Neuen Testaments 252. SI See especially Paul 146 note 91. 52 Paul 146. 53 Paul 147.

Paul as a Theologian

229

Because Paul has rejected the law, due to his Christological a priori, he is forced to ascribe a negative function to the law; yet Rom 5:13 shows that Paul did not succeed in doing so.54 In Rilislinen's view, this text is actually without any real significance, and similarly the assumption of a transforming function fails to give any concrete significance to it. 55 Sin has been a concrete reality since Adam's fall, and for R!!islinen the law has nothing to do with it, nor does the law in any way change this reality. In sum, the transforming function does not make any sense. Is Rilislinen indeed right? In my view, he is not. The text still makes good sense if we assume a transforming function. OUK £UOYEt~"l (verse 13b)56 means not so much that there was no gUilt or punishment before the introduction of the law, but that sin was assessed differently. 57 Or to put it another way, the coming of the law does not bring about a change from innocence to guilt but rather a change from sin to transgression. Since the law makes God's will so much more fully explicit than it had been from the time of Adam, sins possess a greater degree of seriousness in the post-Mosaic period. 58 Sin becomes, in fact, rebellion against God. 59 So Rom 5:13 does indeed make good sense, and for Paul there is indeed a difference between the time before the introduction of the law and the time after its introduction. The transformingfunction of the law in Rom 4:15: 0 yocp 010 aUI( ~anv v6~o<;

QuliE

v6\lo~ 6py~v KD:tEpyriCEUl" OD

Tr"pti~D:al<;.

This text is not discussed by R!!is!!nen as fully as the previous text. However, he sees in this text the same difficulties as in Rom 5:13. 60 Therefore, my remarks with reference to Rom 5:13 also apply to Rom 4:15: the transforming function in Rom 4:15 indeed makes sense, because after the introduction of the law sin is characterized as a severe offence against God. This transforming function in Rom 4:15 and Rom 5:13 is not concocted by

See Paul 149-50. "This may indeed be the best interpretation of the verse ... But in the end it only makes it all the clearer that the statement tt\lD:P~(D: OUK Ei..AOyEt~D:l is a mere verbal expedient without any real significance. Paul tries to show that, as regards man and sin, the coming of the law makes a difference; what he actually shows is that there is none", Paul 146 note 91. 56 "If the law is given just an interpretive or clarifying role, the 'not counting' is emptied of all concrete significance", Paul 146 note 91. 57 Weima rightly remarks in his article mentioned above: "OUK eUoyehD:l does not refer, then, to an omission of guilt or punishment but rather to a difference in the way sin is judged', 229 (my italics). Compare Westerholm: "Ouk ellogeitai must refer, not to an absence of guilt or punishment, but to a difference in the way sins are prosecuted", Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 181. 58 Weima, 'Function' 229. 59 "... a greater challenge to his authority and thus a more flagrant act of insubordination than the same deed done in defiance of no law", Weima, 'Function' 229. Similarly Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 183. 60 Paul 147-8. 54

55

230

Chapter 13

Paul, as alleged by Rilisilnen61 , but it rather expresses an Old Testament idea. 62 Consequently, Rilislinen's theological explanation is irrelevant. 63 The transforming function of the law in Rom 5:20: VOIlO, oE 'll'IIpELoii.t9EV, lVII 1T.tEOVOC01J oE h.teovIIoev ~ oclllIP~(II, i!1TEPE'ITEPLOOEUOEV ~ XOCPL<;.

~O 1TIIpoc1T~wlllI' ou

In my view, it is important to underline the fact that both 1To:poc1TtwIlO: and OCllo:pt(o: are in the singular. This may imply that Paul is not hinting primarily at an increase in quantity but rather in quality.64 Rliisilnen chooses the former option: "5.20 refers to an 'objective' increase of sin: an increase of transgressions ... the law just increases the number and significance of the transgressions". 65 In his view, Paul wants to express the thought that sin already existed before the introduction of the law, and that after its introduction sin merely increased in quantity. However, it is also possible to emphasize the notion that the law 'came in' (voIlO, oE 1To:pELoii.t8ev): because the law comes in, the quality of sin changes. Most likely this verse is again concerned with a transforming function 66 , and not a causative function (thus RliiSilnen 67). Conclusion to this excursus

Rliisilnen refuses to ascribe a transforming function to the law in Rom 4:15 and Rom 5: 13, 20, because this fails to give, in his view, any concrete significance to the texts. However, such an interpretation is incorrect. These texts do not refer to a causative function; Paul, in fact, nowhere ascribes a causative function to the law. 68

6' "Paul had to show that the effects of the law are negative ...", Paul 150; "". another purpose must be found for the law, and a negative one at that", 'Difficulties' 19. 62 Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 184, refers to a parallel with Amos 3:1-2: the Gentiles are responsible for their sins, and they will also be punished for their sins; but the gift of the law to the people of [srael makes Israel all the more responsible. Compare Hofius: The Torah"". zeigt die FluchwUrdigkeit der SUnde und das Verflucht-Sein des SUnders auf", Paulusstudien 60. 63 See section 3.2.2.6 above. 64 Similarly Wilckens, 'Entwicklung' [82. See also his Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 1-5329. 6S Paul 144. 66 Weima gives examples of exegetes who also see here the transforming function, 'Function' 232 note 38. Gal 3:19 (1To:po:PtfOEUlV) has, in my view, the same transforming function. Even though Rliislinen also regards this text as a problematic verse ("In Gal 3.19 the context does not provide us with sufficient clues to make out the meaning of the phrase ~WV 1To:po:ptfoewv XttpLV", Paul 144), he nevertheless opts here for a causative function (Paul [48). 67 Paul 143-4, 148. 68 There is also no causative function in 1 Cor 15:56 where Rllisllnen again detects a causative function (Paul 143 and 148). With reference to this text, Weima rightly remarks: "Sin gains power through its misuse of the law iD provoking men to disobedience", 'Function' 234 (my italics); thus, the law is not the cause of sin, but the means of sin. Unfortunately, Weima comes to an incorrect conclusion (there is, for him, a causative function in 1 Cor 15 :56). Thus my interpretation is very dissimilar from Rliisilnen's. He believes he has found both a cognitive function and a causative function of the law in Paul, whereas he questions a transforming function. In my view, Palll nowhere implies a causative junction, perhaps only a catalytic function; Paul indeed teaches a cognitive function

Paul as a Theologian

231

13.2.2.2 Romans 2. A fragment within Romans 1:18-3:20 Another passage in the letter to the Romans which shows that this letter has a fragmentary structure is Rom 1: 18-3 :20. In my view, Rom 2 is a fragment within the passage Rom 1:18-3:20. This means that Rom 2 has its own characteristic theological context along with its own theological theme which is elaborated on a level different from the overall theological line of Rom 1: 18-3 :20. Broadly speaking, Paul wants to demonstrate in Rom 1: 18-3 :20 that everybody is under a curse, and that no one will be justified by works of law (3:20). This theme constitutes the framework of Rom 1:18-3:20. Within this passage, Rom 2 is a fragment with a specific theme, namely: the gift of the nomos does not imply that the Jews are more privileged than the Gentiles, because the Jews will also be judged. Or, to indicate the distinction between these themes more succinctly, Paul states in Rom 2: 13 that it is not the hearers of the law but the doers of the law who will be justified, whereas he states in Rom 3:20 that nobody will be justified by works of law. It thus seems as if Paul is contradicting himself. It is clear that in this connection at least two important alleged inconsistencies are at issue. In the first place, Riiisiinen has stated on the basis of Rom 2:14-15, 26-27 that it seems that the Gentiles are indeed able to fulfil the law, whereas as a matter of fact, in Rom 1:18-3:20, Paul wants to assert the opposite (see section 2.4 under B).69 In the second place, Raisiinen has stated that de facto Paul does after all teach here the doctrine of justification through works of Jaw (see section 4.2.4).1 0 These two inconsistencies are closely related to each other, and they can be reduced to the one question of whether for Paul in Rom 2 the Gentiles are indeed able to fulfil the law in order to be justified by its fulfilment. In other words, is it correct to ask both Rom 2 and Rom 1:18-3:20 the same questions? Or could it perhaps be that Riiisiinen is asking Paul in Rom 2 the wrong questions? This is indeed the case, because Rom 2 is a specific fragment with its own characteristic theological context and theme. 71 (which includes existential element), and a transforming function of the law. These two functions are, however, closely related to each other. 6. "2.14-15,26-27 stand in flat contradiction to the main thesis of the section", Paul 103. "The theological thesis in Rom 1.J8-3.20 is that all are under sin and that, therefore, no one can fulfil the law. Inadvertently, however, Paul admits even within that very section that, on another level of his consciousness at least, he does not share this idea. Paul's mind is divided", Paul 106-7. 70 This has been discussed already in section I 1.2.2.4. 71 Rilisilnen also acknowledges that the theme in Rom 2 consists of the thought that the Jews do not have any privileges because of the possession of the nomos; yet, he does not sufficiently take into account the difference between this theme and the theme in Rom 1:18-3:20.

232

Chapter 13

This appears already from Rom 2:6. Paul writes here: lk &;roowoH KO!1:OC 1:OC epyoc oclrrou. The word epyoc is an eye-catcher because the expression epyoc vOIlOU is part of Paul's famous antithesis between epyoc vOlloU and ;rLon<;. The term epyoc in the plural mainly has a negative meaning in Paul, which is, of course, due to his famous antithesis. However, Rom 2:6 is an exception.12 A first explanation for this is that this verse is a quotation from LXX Ps 61:13b (on ou &;roowoHI; EXtX01:ty KOC1:OC 1:11. epyoc oclhou). It is evident that such an Old Testament quotation is used by Paul in order to gain (more) authority. But what is Paul's point? It is important to look at the antithesis within this passage. The term 1:11. EPYOC is not constrasted here with ;rLonc; - as we perhaps would have expected from Paul - but with opinion. According to verses 1ff, the Jews believe that they will escape God's judgment, whereas at the same time they condemn others (the Gentiles). But Paul says that God will judge the judges (the Jews in verses 1-2) not according to what they think of themselves, but according to what they have actually done (compare epyoc). Thus, verse 6 does not concern a certain reward according to one's merits: the connotation of the term 1:OC epyoc is here not 'merits', but 'what they have actually done' in comparison with their judgment of other people. Thus the term 1:OC epyoc has here a different semantic value than in Paul's antithesis between epyoc VOIlOU and ;rLon<;.73 Verse 13 must be interpreted in the same light. It is once again important to look at the antithesis within this verse, namely between ol &Kpooc1:ocl VOIlOU and ol ;rOVTl1:ocl VOf.Lou. It is not so important to hear the law as to do the law. Although the Jews hear the law, they do not do the law, in spite of the fact that they themselves think they do the law (2:1-2). Thus the Jews also commit sin - just like the Gentiles. There is, therefore, no reason at all for the Jews to be proud because of their possession of the nomos, since their situation is as miserable as the Gentiles': the Jews are no better than the Gentiles. Verse 12 points in the same direction: God makes no distinction on the basis of whether people indeed possess the nomos. In sum, in verse 13 Paul basically accuses the Jews of being sinners in spite of the fact that they possess the nomosJ4 Now we meet a difficult problem, namely: how should we interpret verses 14-15? Let us try not to abandon the theological context of this ji·agment. Paul is here accusing the Jews who pride themselves on their possession of the nomos. Verse 14 can also be interpreted within this same EKtXOn~

Also, for example, Eph 2:10; compare also the Pastorals. Compare also Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 365-6. 74 Similarly Wilckens, 'Entwicklung' 190 note 80.

72 73

Paul as a Theologian

233

theological context: it appears that the Gentiles75 also have the law. Although IJ.~ vOIJ.OV EXOV"t(X, it yet applies to them that"ta "tOil vOlJ.ou lTOLWOLV, so that Eau"tot~ ELOLV vOf.Lo~ (verse 14). Paul emphasizes the same point in verse 15: the Gentiles show "to epyov "toil VOIJ.OU ypa1T"tOV EV "t(Xti; KapQ((xLC; au"twv, and their conscience 76 also bears witness. In short, the Gentiles also have the law (because they do the law). The Jews perhaps did not expect that such would be the case, but the facts are surprisingly different. The possession of the nomos is thus no privilege of the Jews.?7 We come to a critique of Raisanen. He makes the mistake of abandoning the theological context of this fragment by which he drags verses 14-15 into the theological context of justification by faith alone. But this last thought is not the issue here in Rom 2: 14-15. Raisanen interprets these verses as if Paul makes in verse 14 an exception to the rule in Rom 3 :20; yet such an interpretation is due to an incorrect observation. Raisanen's interpretation is to a certain extent explicable, since 1ToLll"taL in verse 13 and 1TOLWOLV in verse 14 seem to have the same semantic value so that verse 14 could very easily be interpreted in terms of justification (although verse 13 merely accuses the Jews of being sinners; see above). However, the two verbs do not have the same semantic value. Verse 13 concerns the antithesis between ol lTOLll"taL VO[.LOU and ol aKpoa"tal vOIJ.OU, whereas verse 14 concerns the antithesis between lTOLWOLV and [.L~ Exov-m I exovCE~. To put it differently, Paul in verse 13 accuses the Jews, because they must not only hear the law but also do the law; whereas in verse 14 75 Paul does not have in mind here the Gentile Christians (against Cranfield, 'Bad Name' 84 note 3); such would, in fact, disturb Paul's train of thought. Michel, Der Brief an die RiJmer 117 rightly remarks that Paul has in mind here the Gentiles, not the Gentile Christians. "The interpretation of any or all of chapter 2 of Gentile Christians requires a considerable stretch of the imagination since Christians are not mentioned or alluded to anywhere from I. 18 to 3. 20", Snodgrass, 'Justification by Grace - to the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul' 74. 76 In my view, Paul's reference to conscience merely functions to show that the Gentiles have the law. 77 My own interpretation differs slightly from Wilckens' exegesis. See his Der Brief an die RiJmer. Rom 1-5 133. He believes that Paul confronts here the Jews with the fulfilment of the law by the Gentiles ("eine Provokation ohnegleichen"), whereas I believe that Paul confronts here the Jews with the fact that the Gentiles also have the law. I also believe that Paul does not assert here that the Gentiles are under the curse of the law, although this assertion as such may be true; in this place, Paul does not give an answer to the question of how it is possible that people who do not have the law are condemned by the law. (In that case, his answer would be that they are doers of the law, and that implies that they also have the law, and therefore, they are under the curse of the law).

234

Chapter 13

he says that although the Gentiles do not have the law, they in fact do the law (which shows that they indeed have the law after all). Thus, TTOLllLCtL in verse 13 has to be understood in terms of an accusation, whereas TTOLW(nV in verse 14 has a more general meaning denoting a certain situation (the mere fact that the Gentiles do the law indicates that they indeed have the law).?8 In verse 14 Paul merely wants to abolish the distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the sense that the gift of the law is not a privilege of the Jews (compare 2: 11)79; thus there is no such thing as a kind of fulfilment of the law by the Gentiles so as to be able to be justified - such a thought is beyond the argument of this fragment. 80 Paul merely wants to say that the fact that even the Gentiles do the law shows that every single human being has the law of God. 8l Raisanen, as it were, puts Paul to task too much by asking him the wrong question. In these verses, Paul does not give an answer to the question of whether the Gentiles fulfil the law so that they will be justified in the eschaton. Even if we interpreted these verses it la Raisanen, then Paul's train of thought would end up nowhere, because according to the rule in verse 13, the Gentiles would in fact be righteous in the eschaton; but verse 15 says nothing about such an eschatological judgment with reference to the rule 78 Verse 14 is placed within the framework of so-called 'natural (general) revelation'; Paul has said in Rom I: 19ff that the Gentiles have received some knowledge about God from creation; in Rom 2:14, Paul says that the Gentiles also have God's nomos. 79 RlIisllnen believes that verse 14 is a further clarification of verse 13, Paul 102; it seems to me that it is more precise to say that verse 14 supports the statement in verse 11 (in spite ofylip in verse 14). 80 In his commentary, Wilckens offers interesting short studies, for example, the excursus 'Das Gericht nach den Werken I (Traditionsgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen)', Der Brief an die RtJmer. Rom 1-5 127-31. He says here, for example: "M it einer forensischen Vergeltungsvorstel1ung von eschatologischer talio hat der Gerichtgedanke in R6m 2 nichts zu tun. Es geht vielmehr darum, daIJ Gott beim Anbruch der Endzeit die Menschen, Gerechte wie Silnder, an die Geschickfolge anheimgeben wird, die ihr irdisches Tun bereits als solches gleichsam angerichtet hat. Die 'Verurteilung' der SUnder besteht darin, daB Gott a1s 'Richter' sie dem selbsterwirkten Unheil, das sich am Ende realisiert, preisgibt: die Errettung der Gerechten darin, daIJ er das Heil an ihnen verwirklicht, das ihrem Tun entspricht", p. 130. Compare also Snodgrass: "There is no doctrine of works righteousness in chapter 2 that is countered in 3. 20 and replaced by the grace of God in Christ. Rather, in chapter 2, there is presented a gracious, acting God who judges righteously. His wrath awaits those who reject him and do evil, but life awaits those who respond in obedience, and this granting of life has its foundation in the death of Christ. As a consequence, Paul's judgment teaching must be seen as the presupposition of his justification teaching rather than as a contradiction or unexpurgated Jewish fragment", 'Justification by Grace - to the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul' 82. 81 In his judgment God therefore makes no clifference between those who have the law and those who do not have the law. Compare Rom 2: 12.

Palll as a Theologian

235

in verse 13. Moreover, their conscience does not give an unequivocal judgment. 82 Riiis1i.nen is thus incorrect in his criticism that Paul uses the fulfilment of the law by the Gentiles as a convenient weapon with which to hit the Jews. 83 After discussing the above verses, we can make a few other remarks relating to another inconsistency. Riiisiinen has alleged with reference to Rom 2: 12- J 6 that Paul does not unequivocally talk about the contents of the Torah but that Paul has rather reduced it unjustifiably to its moral aspects.84 Riiisiinen, however, once again makes an incorrect observation, for it is of course to be expected that Paul does not refer in Rom 2 to the so-called ceremonial side of the Torah, since it is unquestionable that the Jews did indeed sincerely observe the ceremonial side of the Torah. The observance of the ceremonial side is not at all the issue. Rather, the point here is that the Jews did not observe the ethical side of the law (Rom 2:21-24), and it is precisely this negligence of which Paul accuses the Jews. No wonder that Paul is merely referring here to the moral aspects of the law. With reference to our study of Rom 2 from the point of view that we are dealing here with a fragment as described in sections 13.1 and 13.2.1, we can draw three conclusions: (1) In this fragment, Paul does not assert, even indirectly, that the Gentiles can be justified by fulfilling the law: Rom 2:14-15 85 is no exception to the rule in Rom 3 :20 (contra Riiisiinen; see section 2.4 under 8).

82 Wilckens rightly states: "Nur darauf aber zielt Paulus in VV 1Sf - nicht auf das Urteil Gottes liber jene Heiden, das nach der Regel V 13 ja dann eigentlich als Rechtfertigung ausfallen roUBte. Aber diese Konsequenz vermeidet Paulus offenbar bewuBt. Es geht ihm nicht darum, auf seiten der Heiden - entgegen den Juden und zu ihrer Besch1!mung - konkrete GesetzeserfUllung aufzuweisen, die Gott nach der Regel V 13 durch sein Rechtfertigungsurteil anerkennt; sondern es kommt ihm lediglich darauf an - entgegen der jUdischen Wertung der Tora als heilsgeschichtliches Privileg gegenUber den gesetzlosen Heiden -, herauszustellen, daB das Gesetz in seinem Inhalt auch den Heiden sehr wohl bekannt ist, wie sie in ihrem Tun erweisen, und von daher also keineswegs ein Unterschied zwischen Juden und Heiden besteht", Der Brief an die RIJmer. Rom 1-5 136. 83 See PaIlII06. 84 See section 2.2 under a. ss Verses 26-27 are a parallel with verses 12-16: what has been said in verses 12-16 concerning the law is repeated in verses 26-27 concerning circumcision. Compare also Schreiner, 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P.

236

Chapter 13

(2) In Rom 2:6, 13-15, Paul does not de facto state that man, whether Jew or Gentile, can be justified by the epya. VOflOU. Therefore, Christianity and ludaism do differ from each other in terms of their soteriological scheme (contra Riiisiinen; see section 4.2.4). (3) Rom 2:1-16 is no basis for concluding that Paul deliberately reduces the Torah to its moral side (contra RaiSiinen; see section 2.2 under a).

Excursus: criticism of Sanders and of Rtiistinen 's historical explanation Because the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ has been mentioned several times in connection with Rom 2, it is necessary to consider this topic in more detail. In his article "'Works of Law" in Paul', NovT 33 (1991) 217--44, T.R. Schreiner gives a clear overview of different interpretations of the expression EPYOC v6~ou which occurs eight times in Pau1 86 , each time preceded by E~ (except in Rom 3:28). Schreiner does not completely reject Bultmann's view, for they both believe that Paul warns against legalism. S7 Schreiner believes, however, that the desire as such to earn salvation is not regarded by Paul as a sin in itself (contra Bultmann): "What is wrong with boasting in works is that such boasting has no basis because no one can do the necessary works 10 juslify boasling".88 In any case, in my view, Schreiner has convincingly demonstrated that Paul is warning against Jewish legalism (contra Rllisllnen8~. If we assume that Paul indeed also warns against Jewish legalism, which in 86 Rom 3:20, 28; Gal 2:16 (three times); 3:2, 5, ID. 87 According to Schreiner (see the text), Paul's criticism of the idea that we can be justified by works of law is founded on the thought that nobody is able to do the law. Bultmann believes that it is already a sin if one merely wants to be justified by works of law, regardless of the question of whether we are indeed able to do the law. Bultmann: "Aber Paulus geht noch viel we iter; er sagt nicht nur, daB der Mensch durch Gesetzeswerke nicht das Heil erlangen kann, sondern auch, daB er es gar nicht soil ... Der Weg der Gesetzeswerke und der Weg der Gnade und des Glaubens sind Gegenslltze, die sich ausschlieJ3en ... Warum aber ist das der Fall? Deshalb, weil das Bemilhen des Menschen. durch Erfilllung des Gesetzes sein Heil zu gewinnen, ihn nur in die Snnde hineinfllhrt, ja im Grunde selber schon die Siinde iSI", Theologie des Neuen Testaments 264-5. I agree with Schreiner to a great extent; however, Bultmann's view cannot be ruled out completely. See, for example, Gal 3: 11-12, where Paul beforehand denies the positive result of the observance of the law, namely life (see section 12.2.2.1 above). Therefore, why would somebody still have the desire to be justified by works of law? Schreiner's statement is thus incorrect: "Nor does Paul deny that righteousness would be obtained if the works were performed (Gal 3:12, 21)", 'Works of Law' 240. See also Schreiner, 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders' 278. In my view, there is also the idea in Paul (in Gal 3:11-12) that the epytt vci~ou per se are unable to justify man. Bultmann's view can therefore be defended to a great extent on the basis of the letter to the Galatians (against R:!isllnen, Paul 169). Compare H. HUbner: " ... Selbsl vollkommene Werkgerechtigkeit im Rahmen der Torah bedeulet nicht Gerechtigkeil vor Gott!", Das Gesetz bei Paulus 99, and: " ... Selbsl der vollkommene Mensch - nochmals: gllbe es ihn! doch es gibt ihn ja nicht! - ist Sunder!", Das Geselz bel Paulus 100. See also Eckstein, Verheiflung und Gesetz 128ff. 88 'Works of Law' 240. 89 Paul 169-77.

Paul as a Theologian

237

fact seems to be the case, then one of the consequences is that we are being confronted with Sanders' view of Judaism. 90 As we have seen in chapter 4, Rliisanen has accepted Sanders' view by stating that Judaism in Paul's day was not an expression of legalism. Raisanen, however, rightly states that his Paul and the Law is not totally dependent on his acceptance of Sanders' view of Judaism. 91 Moreover, as we have seen in section 7.6, even if Rliisanen's acceptance of Sanders' view is unjustified, then this would not alter his alleged inconsistencies 92 ; in this sense, therefore, there is no need to pay attention to Sanders' view in this study of consistency in Paul's letters. But even though such a possible unjustified acceptance will not, in Raisanen's view, alter his alleged inconsistencies, it will affect both his historical explanation and our assessment of Paul's allegedly inconsistent statements concerning the antithesis between works of law and faith in Christ. 93 Before this is demonstrated, we shall first make a few critical remarks on Sanders' view. 1. Perhaps Sanders was not able to find any written evidence of the existence of Jewish legalism. Nevertheless, Jewish legalism may well have existed, even though we have not found any written original Jewish documentation of such legalism. 2. Justin (Dial 47: I) asserted that Judaism is an expression of legalism. 94 3. Not only did Paul's opponents believe that the law had a soteriological function, it was also Paul's own conviction, for example, in Rom 10:5. 95 4. The law also has a soteriological function in the Old Testament (Lev 18:5).96 5. Within Judaism, the works of law always have in one way or another a soteriological function, because, as has even been stated by Sanders himselt9 7, within Judaism obedience to the law is always a conditio sine qua non. 98 The situation is, however, different in Paul's letters, because for Paul, justification is an eschatological reality in the present, and this reality cannot be influenced by a lack of works of law (Rom 5:1-10; 8:1, 30-34).99 Grace within Judaism is ofa different nature from grace in Paul's letters 100: Paul's statements indeed differ from so-called 'covenantal nomism',

See the excursus on the work of Sanders in chapter 4 above. See Paul xxvI note 60. We have seen at the beginning of section 4.2 and at the end of section 4.2.3 that Rliisllnen's alleged inconsistencies are independent of his view of Judaism. 93 See chapters 5 and 4 respectively. 94 See RlIisanen, 'Legalism' 44-5 Dote 3. Yet Raislinen ..... cannot but refrain from any attempt to draw on Dial. 47,1 as a source for early Jewish Christian legalistic theology", 'Legalism' 44-5 note 3. 9S SO also rightly stated by Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 145. 96 See Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith I 46ff. 97 Paul and Palestinian Judaism 141, 233ff. 98 "Even working from Sanders' premises, one must argue that if works of the law are the means of staying in the covenant and if exclusion from the covenant means loss of salvation, then salvation is by works and not, as Sanders claims, by grace", R.H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy 193. 99 Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 148ff, and N.M. Watson, 'Justified' 210. 100 UEntscheidend am jildischen Denken seiner Zeit ist fUr Paulus, dass Gatt nicht eindeutig als Geber gedacht wird, sondern bloss als bedingter Geber, und dass der Mensch nicht eindeutig als Empflinger gedacht wird, sondern bloss als einer, der empflingt, um besser wirken zu k5nnen. Selbstverstlindlich ist der Mensch in der Welt zugleich Empflinger und Wirkender. Der kritische Punkt ist jedoch dort, wo das 90

91

92

238

Chapter 13

according to which the imperative is preceded by the indicative. In contrast, Paul not only connects grace with the indicative which precedes the imperative, but he also frames even the imperative in terms of grace. 101 Apart from these five critical remarks, the way Sanders and, in fact, also RBisllnen approach Paul can also be criticized. For in my view, methodologically speaking, it is unjustified to criticize Paul's view of works of law on the basis of our insight into ludaism gained by historical investigation l02 ; the exegete's task is, in my view, primarily to study Paul in terms of his own self-understanding. I03 Even if Sanders' description of Judaism in terms of its own self-understanding is correct, Paul assesses Judaism from a different point of view than Judaism's own self-understanding.I°4 And why could Paul's assessment of Judaism from his point of view not have been a kind of eye-opener to the Jews? In that case, Paul has demonstrated that Judaism is basically an expression of legalism, in spite of the fatt that Judaism understood itself in a completely different way (if we assume, of course, that Sanders' description is correct). Thus Sanders', and consequently also RlIisllnen's, view of Judaism, along with their study of Paul, can be criticized in several ways.IOS It is important to see now that the critical remarks above make the cornerstones of Raisanen's historical explanation irrelevant. For this explanation suggests that, apart from other things, Paul made a caricature of ludaism at the time of his conflict with the Jewish Christians; consequently,

Gottesverhiiltnis konsequent als Empfangen gedacht und also Gott konsequent als der Geber wahrgenommen wird", H. Wed er, 'Gesetz und SUnde' 365. 101 "Der paulinische Gedanke der Gnade ist qualitativ anders: Gnade bedeutet filT ihn nicht eine dem Imperativ vorangehende indikativische Gabe. In der Rechtfertigung des Menschen ausserhalb des Gesetzes geht es nicht darum, die indikativischen Voraussetzungen des Handelns zu schaffen, es geht vielmehr um die Rechtfertigung des in der Welt handelnden Menschen. Gnade bedeutet fUr Paulus, dass das Gottesverhllltnis des Menschen auf eine Ebene versetzt wurde, auf welcher weder ein Gesetz noch Werke des Gesetzes etwas zu suchen haben. Gnade heisst, dem Werkzusammenhang enthoben sein und stattdessen in den Zusammenhang des schllpferischen, an nichts anknUpfenden Gottes eingegangen sein", Weder, 'Gesetz und SUnde' 371. Compare also R.B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament 43-5. 102 Similarly Weder, 'Gesetz und SUnde' 359, who also assumes that Paul knew the Judaism of his day very well. 103 Similarly Schreiner: "All interpreters come to the text with certain presuppositions. The goal is to understand Paul on his own terms", 'Works of Law' 244. 104 Schreiner: "To describe something as legalistic is a matter of perspective", 'Works of Law' 241. RlIisl[nen also has to admit this: Paul " ... understood the logic of his opponents' position in a different way than they themselves did", 'Legalism' 49. Compare also J.M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance. Staying in and Falling Away. TUbingen 1990, 207 note 18. Kruse: "Jewish believers might live like nomists if they wished, because they were used to living under the law and for them it meant no change in lifestyle; it entailed no extra conditions for justification apart from faith in Jesus Christ. But in the case of the Gentiles it would mean a change in lifestyle; it would involve extra conditions for justification. So then, what was covenantal nom ism for the Jewish believers became legalism when applied to the Gentiles", Paul, the Law and Justification 111-2. 10S See also J. Neusner, 'Comparing Iudaisms'; S. Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel (2 nd Edition) 347-8 note 14; R.H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy 191-3, and R.B. Matlock, 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of PaUl' 83ff.

Paul as a Theologian

239

the famous antithesis was merely a result of this conjlict. 106 In other words, according to this historical explanation, Paul converted Judaism into a kind of legalism. But now that it appears that Sanders' view of Judaism is questionable (see the critical remarks above), it is clear that Judaism did not become an expression of legalism at the time of this conflict, but that Judaism was characterized by a legalistic nature already before this conflict. Therefore the conflict described by Rilislinen cannot have resulted in the fact that Paul made a caricature of Judaism. In sum, the conflict as described by Rliisilnen never existed. At the same time this means that Paul's famous antithesis cannot have been the result of the conflict with the Jewish Christians or with the Jews as described by Riiisiinell. Rl\isilnen's historical explanation also conflicts with the information given in Acts 13:38-39: Paul's antithesis was a fact already before A.D. 48, whereas RlIisllnen believes that this antithesis originated not before A.D. 48. 107 Furthermore, S. Kim has accused Rliislinen of not having sufficiently taken into account Gal I and PhiJ 3; these two chapters would also conflict with Raisanen's historical explanation (see section 5.4 above). Because RlIisilnen's exegesis of Phi! 3, as a response to Kim, is open to criticism 108 , it again appears that his historical explanation is no longer tenable. It may 106 See section 5.3.2 above. Compare also P. Richardson, 'Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2: 11-14'. 107 "Die Frage nach der Heilsbedeutung der Tora und dem den SUnder rechtfertigenden Werk Christi mu13 ihn von Anfang an, ja u.E. am Anfang besonders intensiv beschliftigt haben. Hier handelt es sich weder, wie A. Schweitzer meinte, urn einen bloBen 'Nebenkrater', noch urn ein 'unnaturliches Gedankenerzeugnis'. Und erst recht kann es sich nicht um eine spate, sekundllre und eher zuflUJige Entwicklung handeln. Im Gegenteil: Die Lebenswende vor Damaskus gipfelt in der Erfahrung der 'Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen' - Saulus aus Tarsus -, und sie bleibt bis zuletzt, bis zum Galater-, Philipper- und RBmerbrief, die Mitte seiner Theologie - der ersten christlichen, von der wir Nachricht haben", M. Hengel and A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien 173 (see also p. 28 of this same volume). K. Kertelge also believes that Paul's doctrine of justification has a positive purpose. "Der Apostel entwickelt seine Rechtfertigungsthese zwar zuerst zum Zweck der Argumentation gegen seine Gegner in Galatien. rnsofern tragi sie einen situationsbezogenen polemischen Akzent: 'Nicht aus Gesetzeswerken'. Seine Rechtfertigungsaussage bleibt allerdings nicht in der Polemik stecken, sondern wend et sich sofort zur positiven Verkilndigung der 'Rechtfertigung aus G1auben', die schon im Galaterbrief und dann noch einmal, in umfassender und grundsatzlicher Form, im Romerbrief zum zentralen Ausdruck seiner Botschaft von dem jetzt offenbar gewordenen und ietztgultig in Kraft gesetzten universalen Heilswillen Gottes wird", Grundthemen 122. Kruse writes: "It is true that justification is not a subject addressed directly or extensively in 1 Corinthians. But it is very significant that, in a passage that makes another point altogether, Paul alludes to justification by faith as a central aspect of the experience of grace when he says: 'And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God' (6:11) ... Justification by faith was far more than a polemic doctrine for Paul, even though it may not function as the centre of his theology", Paul, the Law and Justification 290. See also G.E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament 478ff. 108 r mention here only five items: (I) RlIisanen's exegesis is, as he himself admits, dependent on Sanders' view of ludaism ('Conversion' 410-1); if Sanders' view is incorrect, then consequently Raisllnen's exegesis is no longer tenable. (2) Raisanen himself also has to admit that the step taken by Paul in verse 9 is an "extremely bold" one ('Experience' 27) (there is a "shift" from God-given privileges to Paul's own

240

Chapler 13

also be clear now that the necessity of works of law in Paul functions differently than in Judaism, because in contrast to Paul's view these works are placed in Judaism within a legalistic framework; Paul's antithesis is not inconsistent (compare section 4.2.4).

Conclusion to this excursus Not only Sanders' view, but also the manner in which R!lis3nen approaches Paul, are open to severe criticism. Rllisllnen's historical explanation for both the origin of Paul's antithesis and his 'caricature' of ludaism appears to be no longer tenable.

13.2.2.3 VOjlOC; always has a theological context which determines its meaning As has been stated in section l3.2.1, the law in Paul is not an independent and isolated idea, but always has a theological context which determines its meaning. 109 For example, we have seen in Rom 7 that Paul the theologian can place the law in the theological context of God's plan of salvation, or in the context of an apology for the law. The theological context of the law can thus differ widely. In the discussion of the verses below, we again want to pay attention to the specific theological context, and this context will each time be taken into account in our interpretation of Paul's statements on the law.

Rom 3:27: IIoG ouv " KIlUX1l0LC;; E~EKA.E(091l. liL& no(ou vOjlou; twV EPYWV; OUXc, &H& OL& VOjlou n(otEwc;.1I0 The problem here is the interpretation ofvojloC; n(OtEwc;. As we have seen in section 2.3, Raisanen believes that V0I-IOC; here has a non-literal meaning: Paul plays with the word VOjlOC; which here means 'order' .1Il righteousness. See item 3 below); verse 9 is, when we accept R!lisllnen's interpretation, a rather strange summary of verses 4-6. (3) Paul emphatically refers to 'my' righteousness (verse 9); if Paul has in mind here righteousness as described by RlIis3nen, then Paul would not have written 'my', but 'God's'. (4) It is far from likely that Paul would term the privileges of God's covenant 'loss' and 'rubbish' (verse 8). (5) The righteousness EIC VOIlOD ('my own') and the righteousness EIC BEOIi (verse 9) form a contrast (Paul uses an antithesis); speaking in terms of righteousness, the law has, as it were, nothing to do with God. If Paul means here by his 'own' righteousness the righteousness which results from the covenant with Israel (a la Sanders), then he could never have used the antithesis as described above, because the righteousness which results from the covenant is also EIC BEOU. But now, as a matter of fact, Paul contrasts EIC Beou with the law. Rllisllnen does not interpret this antithesis properly (see also Wilckens, 'Entwicklung' 177-8). Compare also Paul 176 note 75 (rewritten by Rllis3nen; see Edition 1987). 109 Once again, I quote Snodgrass: "The determinant for the law is the sphere in which it is placed ... vOllo, obtains its function from the sphere in which it is placed. The qualitative genitive forms express not the nature of the law, but the context in which law works", 'Spheres ofInfluence' 99. 110 Rom 8:2 is closely related to this text. III Not only Rllisllnen has this view. Many exegetes do nor see here the literal meaning, for example, van DUlmen, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus 87; Hofius,

Paul as a Theologian

241

Although there is no need to deny that Paul can indeed play with the word vOlJ.o<; so that the connotation of vOlJ.o<; can vary (see, for example, Rom 3:21 and Rom 7:21-25), Riiisanen takes the notion of word-play too far. It is especially relevant to note that the connotation ascribed here to vOlJ.o<; by Riiisanen has nothing to do with the Old Testament or Jewish usage of vOlJ.o<;. Riiisanen's interpretation therefore seems very unlikely in such a strongly theological and fundamental passage as Rom 3 :21-31. In his article 'Paul's Word-Play on V0IJ.0c;: A Linguistic Study', Riiisiinen convincingly demonstrates that a non-literal meaning of vOlJ.o<; is indeed possible. Yet he uses many non-Jewish sources, which is unjustified, because VOIJ.OI; in Paul is first and foremost a Jewish term. It is, therefore, very implausible, especially in a theological text ll2, to ascribe a meaning to vOflOc; which has nothing to do with the Torah. In other words, by ascribing the meaning 'order' to vOfl0£;, Riiisanen abandons the semantic field of the Jewish word vOflOc;. In view of Paul's own experience and the usage of the LXX, it is therefore probable that the Greek word vOflOc; in Paul refers in the first place to the Torah. Thus we opt for a literal meaning. l13 This literal meaning also makes good sense. 114 Paul is merely asking here for the determining theological context within which the law should be placed: through what law lls is boasting excluded? Paul points out two different options, namely the law being determined by works (o~a VOflOU EPYWV) (legalism), and the law being determined by faith (o~Ct vOflOU 1TLOtEWC;). Paul's answer is that boasting is excluded only if the law (in its literal meaning) is placed in the context of and interpreted by faith.

Paulusstudien 68 note 61; Michel, Der Brief an die Romer 155; Schlier, Der Romerbrief 1I 6; Thompson, 'Paul's Double Critique of Jewish Boasting: A Study of Rom 3,27 in Its Context' 520 note I, and Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 123ff. 112 RlIislinen also studies non-theological texts (see 'Word-Play'). 113 In addition, a non-literal interpretation of VOIlO, would radically disturb Paul's theme in Rom 1:18-3:20, for God did not first give an "order" (described as VOIlO, EpyWV) by which man could be saved, in order to give subsequently a completely different "order" (described as VOIlO, 1TLO"t"EWC;). Cranfield also assumes a literal meaning, Romans 219-20. " ... Paul's argument would lose its coherence were the nomos on each occasion to be understood as other than the law/Torah", Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 639. 1 [4 See also Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 1-5245. 115 The meaning of liLtt 1fOLOU VOIlO1) is here, thus, not 'by which law' but 'by what kind oflaw' (on 1TOLOC; see BDR § 298,2 note 3).

242

Chapter 13

The genitive cases must be emphasized here ll6 , since they denote the theological context within which vOf,lOI; can be placed.!!7

Rom 8:2: 0 yap vOf,lO~ ,ou nVEUf,lO:'O~ 'fi~ 'wfi~ EV XpLa,~ 'I"aou OE ano ,ou vOf,lOU ,fil; af,lO:p,Co:c; Ko:t ,OU 9o:vtt,ou.

~AEu9EpwaEv

The problem here is the interpretation of v6f,l0e; ,DU lTVEUf,lIX,OC; ,fie; (wfie; and v6f,l0~ ,fic; af,lo:p,[o:e; Ko:t ,DU 9o:vli,ou. With regard to this verse also, Raisanen believes that vOf,lOC; has a non-literal meaning. Consequently, the above criticism of his interpretation of Rom 3:27 also applies to his interpretation of Rom 8:2: Raisanen too easily abandons the semantic field of the Old Testament and Jewish term v6f,l0e;.1l8 Once again the genitive cases must be emphasized I 19: both ,DU 1TVEUf,lO:,OC; and ,fie; af,lo:p,[o:e; denote the factors which affect and determine the v0f,loc;, while the two expressions 'fic; (wfic; and 'DU 9o:vci"tou, which are both in the genitive case, denote the results of the law when determined by the two different factors respectively.12o If this is indeed a correct interpretation, then, in Raisanen's view, Paul would have phrased his thought differently; Christ would then have been the subject, since the nomos itself does not set free. 121 Yet such would, in fact, disturb Paul's argument, because the

11' ..... it is claimed that ... Paul indicates that the law, properly understood, demands faith ... ", Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 122. Such a conclusion is not necessary, however. We can also emphasize the genitive case: the expression v6lJ.o~ !Team'), does not mean that the law demands faith, but that the law is determined by faith. 117 In my view, Snodgrass rightly states: "The words in the genitive are not incidental 'add-ons' for Paul, but often carry as much or more force than the noun they qualify", 'Spheres ofInfluence' 101. In this connection, it would perhaps be appropriate to speak of 'determining genitive cases'. \18 Wilckens also, Der Brief an die Romer. Rom 6-11 122ff, believes that Paul is concerned with the Torah here, in contrast to Michel, Der Brief an die R(Jmer 249. 119 "Again it is the genitive in each case that must be emphasized., but the law is still an actor on the stage". Snodgrass, 'Spheres ofInfluence' 107. 120 Compare Dunn: "For Paul, the objective of God's saving action in Christ was to make possible the keeping of the law! What has made the difference, and what has defeated the power ofsin and the weakness of the flesh? The Spirit. 'The requirement of the law (is] fulfilled in us who walk not in accordance with the flesh, but in accordance with the Spirit' (8.4). It would appear, then, that 'the law of the Spirit' is simply a summary way of speaking of the requirement of the law fulfilled by those who walk by the Spirit", The Theology of Paul the Apostle 646-7. "We should also note the link between 'the law of the Spirit' and 'the law of faith.' In both cases Paul presumably used the term 'law' because he wanted to underline the vital importance of doing, obeying God's will. And in both cases the qualifier ('of faith,' 'of the Spirit') indicates in a summary way how that obedience is made possible", The Theology of Paul the Apostle 648-9. 121 See 'Law' 66.

Paul as a Theologian

243

expression 'in Christ'l21 was already mentioned in verse 1, and verse 2 (yap) wants further to support the statement in verse 1. Moreover, for Paul, it is not the law itself which sets free, but only the law within the

theological context of the Spirit. Gal 6:2:

'AU~A.wV "ta ~cipT) ~ao"tci(E"tE Kal outwC; IlV!l1TA.T)pWOEtE tCV

vo~ov "tou XPLO"tOU.

This verse must be connected with Rom 3 :27 and Rom 8:2. Although Riiisiinen also makes this connection, he treats this text all too easily by not paying sufficient attention to it. 123 According to Riiisiinen, Paul again does not refer to the Torah. Yet vo~o~ in this verse can again be interpreted as the Torah, namely as the VO~OC; as determined by Christ (V0l-LOC; "tOU XPlOtOU)124; vo~OC; also refers to the Torah in 5:14 125, while IlY!l1T~OEl~ connects 5:14 with 5:6 where Paul uses the well-known expression EV XplOtQ. In other words, the VO~O~ toi) XPlOtOi) denotes the

law of love. 126 Conclusion with reference to Rom 3:27; 8:2, and Gal 6:2 These three texts show that Paul does not propagate a kind of abrogatio legis (contra Riiisiinen; see section 2.3). VO~OC; in these three texts refers to the Torah, while the genitive cases must be emphasized. These genitive cases denote each time the theological context in which VOIl0C; has been

122 Wilckens excellently observes that the expression EV XpLCm~ 1T)ooO is " ... die henneneutische Ortsbestimmung der ganzen Aussage und also ... ihre entscheidende Mitte", Der Brief an die R6mer. Rom 6-11123. . l2l See Paul 77-82. "Recently, a somew\1at similar view has been put forward by some interpreters who identify the 'law of faith' (Rom 3.27) and the 'law of Spirit' (Rom 8.2) with the Torah: the 'law of Christ' of Gal 6.2, too, is the renewed Torah. If the arguments advanced earlier to refute this interpretation of Rom 3.27 and 8.2 are sound, we can safely dismiss this corollary of it", Paul 78. "The conclusion is that the talk of the 'law of Christ' refers simply to the way of life characteristic of the church of Christ", Paul 82. 124 Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater 272-3 also emphasizes the fact that Christ detennines the law. " ... the law as lived out and summed up in the life and teaching of Jesus ... ", Dunn, 'Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text in Context' 465. See also Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 654, and his The Epistle to the Galatians 321-4. 125 Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians 261 also connects Gal 6:2 with Gal 5:14. 126 "The deduction is obvious: that by 'the law of Christ' Paul will have been thinking partiCUlarly of the love command", Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 655. Compare Hofius: "Das 'Gesetz Christi' ist vielmehr die Weisung des Gekreuzigten, die verbindliche, die Gerneinde im Gehorsarn an ihren Herrn bindende Proklamation seines

244

Chapler 13

placed. Gal 6:2 concerns an interpretatio christiana: VOf.LO~ is being interpreted anew by Christ's fulfilment of it as the law oflove.127

1 Cor 9:21: tOLe; &vof.LO~e; WC; livolloc;, f.L~ wv Iivof.LoC; BE.OU &U' EVVOf.LOC; Xp~atou, Yvo: KEPl'icivw toue; &vof.Lou~.

The problem here is the interpretation of f.L~ wv Iivof.Loe; BEOU &U' EVVOf.LOe; R1lisanen himself admits that Paul alludes to a substitution of the Mosaic law by 'the law of Christ' if this verse, and also Gal 6:2, indeed refers to the Torah. 129 In his discussion of this verse he says that vOf.LOC; and Torah ought not to be identified with each other.l3O If he is indeed right, then, in my view, this verse would not make any sense: the phrase under discussion has a so-called paralZelismus membrorum, and such a figure of speech would be emptied of all significance if vOf.LOC; in EVVOf.LOC; Xp~atoG did not refer to the Torah. \31 After rejecting the view of Dodd, who believes that the law of Christ refers here to the so-called verba Christi 132 , R1lisanen overreacts in his discussion of this verse by emptying EVVOf.LOC; Xp~atoG ofal! concrete significance. l33 There is indeed no need to follow Dodd, but we should not overreact by denying all direct relation between EVVOf.LOC; Xptatoil and the Torah. By emphasizing again the genitive case, in this verse Xp~atoil134, and by regarding this genitive case as the theological context which determines vOf.LOC; in EVV0f.L0C;, we gain a proper insight into this verse. When Paul says that he is not Iivof.Loc; BEOG, he is simply expressing the idea that he is not beyond the reach of the Torah of God; in other words, he is, as it were, no apostate, but rather he submits himself to the Torah, though only the Torah as determined, Xp~atoG.128

127 "In this phrase 'the law of Christ,' then, we have further confinnation that the law continued to have paraenetic force for the first Christians. But it was the law as taught and as lived out by Jesus, as known to each church through its founding traditions", Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 658. 128 "This is one of the most difficult sentences in the epistle, and also one of the most important ...", Barrett, A Commenlary on the First Epistle 10 the Corinthians 212. 129 Paul77ff. 130 Pauf81. 131 C. Wolff: "Die Wendung EVVO~O<; XPLO"tOU enth!!lt die Begrilndung flir ~~ wv livo~oc; aeou, betont demnach, dafi der Gehorsam gegenilber Christus ein Leben entsprechend dem gottlichen Willen bedeutet, wie er sich in der Thora manifestiert", Der erste Brief des PaulllS an die Korinther 11 32 (my italics). 132 See Paul 78. See also the article by C.H. Dodd, 'ENNOM01: XPI1:TOY'. 133 " ••• there is nothing to suggest a concrete code of precepts", Paul 81. 134 "It is possible ... to emphasize the genitives in relation to the implied law ... , B~rrp.t• .J Commentnrv nn the First F."i.,tle to the Corinthians 212-3.

Paul as a Theologian

245

regulated and fulfilled by Christ 13S : Paul is EVVOIJ.O~ Xp Lenou. 136 Raisanen says about this expression that Paul might as well have mentioned EVVOiJ.O~ geou 137 ; yet a weaker argument is hardly imaginable. This shows that he does not take the text seriously. Conclusion: The genitive case of XPLO"tOU must be stressed emphatically. This text also shows that Paul does not propagate a kind of abrogatio legis. Gal 5:14: 0 yap "ITii~ vOiJ.O~ EV Evl A.oyU) "ITE1TA.~purCctL, EV "t<\i. ocyct"IT~OEL~ "ITA.TlOLOV oou WC; OE(W"tOV.

"tDV

A final text which can be discussed in this connection is Gal 5:14. This text is discussed by Raisanen in several connections, for example, to illustrate his criticism that Paul reduces the Torah to its moral side (see section 2.2 under b). This text is also referred to by Riiisiinen in arguing that Paul makes an unfair comparison between Christians and Jews: the former can fulfil the law, whereas the latter are unable to do the same (see the last part of section 2.4). We shall first discuss Riiisanen's criticism that Paul reduces the law to its moral side. In three places Paul talks about the fulfilment of the law by Christians, namely in Rom 8:4; 13:8-10, and Gal 5:14. 138 In Rom 13:8, 10 and in Gal 5:14, Paul in so many words says that the law is fulfilled by love. But does this indeed imply a reduction of the 135 Wilckens: "Der Zusatz SEoii soll nicht das Gesetz Gottes von der Tora als Gesetz Moses abheben, sondern wngekehrt betonen, daB Paulus, obwoh! nicht unter der Herrschaft der Tora, keineswegs aus dem Bereich der Tora als Tora Gottes ausgeschieden, also nicht ein Apostat ist, sondern vielmehr gerade als Christ innerhalb des Gesetzes, nl!mlich als der von Chrislus beherrschten Tora", 'Entwicklung' !60. Compare Hofius, Paulusstudien 69. 136 In my view, it is important to notice the combination here of EV and vOllo" for there is a difference in Paul between (mo vOIlOV and EV vOIlCol. "U1I0 VOIlOV formuliert Paulus aus der Sicht der christlichen Gesetzesfreiheit, ~v vOIlCol reklamiert er fur das Sein in Christus. U1IO VOIlOV verweist so bereits auf die kritischen Gesetzesaussagen dcr spiiteren Briefe, nach denen das Sein untcr dem Gesetz (GaI.4.4f.,21; RHm.6.19f.) ein Sein unter dem Fluch (GaI.3.10), cin Eingeschlossensein im Geflingnis (GaI.3.23; Rllm.7.5) ist, aus dem Christen befreit sind (GaI.4.5; 5.1; RHm.7.4f.), indem sie nunmehr 'unter der Gnade' Ieben (RHm.6.14f.). Dagegen entspricht EvvolloC; XpLotoii dem Gedanken in I Kor.7.l9 und findet seine spatere Ausfilhrung in GaI.5.l4f.; 6.2; Rom.3.31; 8.2-4", Wilckens, 'Entwicklung' 160. 137 "Had the rhythm of the sentence not demanded a change of the genitive noun, he might as well have mentioned God rather than Christ. It would have made no difference", Paul 81. 138 It is strange that HUbner does not connect Gal 5:14 with Rom 13:8-10 (Das Geselz bei Paulus 37 and 76). This refusal could be a consequence of the fact that he interprets Paul from the point of view of the development theory already mentioned: the existence of positiYe statements on the law in the letter to the Galatians would not fit into this development theory.

246

Chapler 13

Torah, as Raisiinen argues? Although he prefers not to speak of a concentration on the love commandment but rather refers to a reduction of the Torah 139 , there is still good reason to use the former term, since love is "the basic principle or common denominator of the Torah".l4o Additionally, Riiisiinen gives the impression that he interprets 0 llii~ vO)J.oc; (Gal 5:14) as the total of all the different commandments of the Torah, whereas in my view 0 niic; VOI-J.Oc; simply means 'the law as a whole'.141 When speaking of the fulfilment of the law by the love commandment, Paul regards this commandment as the concentration of the Torah and as the essence of the law as a whole (without any differentiation between, for example, ceremonial and ethical commandments).142 ... daraus folgt, daJ3 in der Konzentration auf das Liebesgebot nicht alle Toragebote jeweils ihre Geltung behalten, sondem daJ3 ein so zentrales Gebot wie das der Beschneidung, aber auch z.B. die kuitischen (4.10) und rituellen Gebote (2.14) jedenfalls fUr Heidenchristen - als abrogiert zu gelten haben, ohne daJ3 damit die Tora als solche und ganze abrogiert ist.'43

Regarding Raisiinen's remark that in the letter to the Galatians Paul makes an unfair comparison between Jews and Christians, it must be noted that Raisanen does not observe here the actual contrast. In Gal 5: 13ff, Paul does not contrast the Jews with the Christians, but flesh with Spirit. Within the theological context of 'flesh', the law is not fulfilled; but within the theological context of 'Spirit', the law is indeed fulfilled. 144 139 Compare Paul 27, 33-41. 140 E.1. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul 275 refers to K. Berger, Die Geselzesauslegung Jesu: lhr hislorischer Hintergrund im Judenlum und im Alten Testament I 99-136. Schnabel recalls the rabbinical use of kelal, which is a kind of technical term to indicate a general rule or a kind of summary. Thus, kelal is not the same as mitsvot. Compare also cXVttK~<1>ttA(HOO"tttL in Rom 13:9. Von Dobbeler stresses that there was already in early ludaism a reduction of the Torah according to the principle of the love commandment and the moral commandments, 'Review of H. R!lis!lnen, Paul and the Law' 376 (compare also Paul xxv note 54). Bruce also, The Epistle to the Galatians 241-2, refers to the rabbinical use of kelal. Dunn: " ... the love command is the summary, epitome, condensation of the whole law", The Theology of Paul the Apostle 656. 141 Paul writes in Gal 5:3: DAOV tOV v6~ov; this expression indeed denotes the total of all the commandments. "Whereas DACC; b v6~o, in v 3 is the sum-total of the precepts of the law, 0 11&, v6~o, here is the law as a whole - the spirit and intention of the law", Bruce, The Epistle to the Galalians 241. Compare BDR § 275,2. 142 The love commandment "... shows how the commandments are to be kept including the necessity or otherwise of circumcision!", Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 657. 143 Wilckens, 'Entwicklung' 175. 144 Westerholm believes that, speaking in terms of the law, we have to make a distinction between 1IOL~i:V and 1IAllPoiiv: Paul intentionally uses the latter term only in connection with Christians (see Israel's Law and the Church's Faith 203, also note 18

Paul as a Theologian

247

Again it appears that the theological context in which vO\J.oc; occurs is alldetermining. The conclusion is that, with reference to Gal 5:14, there is no need to speak of a reduction of the Torah to its moral side; instead, it is more precise to speak of a concentration on the love commandment. Raislinen's criticism that Paul makes an unfair comparison between Jews and Christians is unjustified, because in Gal 5:13ff Paul contrasts flesh with Spirit.

13.3 Conclusions At the end of this chapter, we shall draw a few important conclusions. 1. Paul's letters display a fragmentary structure. This can be demonstrated at least with regard to the letter to the Romans. This fragmentary structure simply means that Paul discusses different topics with characteristic themes within one and the same letter. The main reason for such a fragmentary structure is the fact that Paul does not develop his own personal complete theology, but that he contemplates the revelation given by Jesus Christ and that, at the same time, he applies this revelation to different concrete situations. 2. Each single fragment has its own theological context expressed by a genitive case connected with nomos (Rom 3:27; 8:2; Gal 6:2, and 1 Cor 9:21). One of the consequ;pces is that we must interpret Paul's statements on the law which occur in a certain fragment by taking into account the theological context of that same fragment. Such a hermeneutical approach appears to be extremely important in order to give a correct answer to the following questions. (a) Does Paul believe that the nomos can give life? (b) Does Paul indeed teach in Rom 2 that people are able to fulfil the law so as to be justified? (c) Is there indeed the idea of abrogatio legis in Paul? The first question can be answered both in the afftrmative and in the negative, because for both answers there happens to be a correlated theological context. There is, therefore, no inconsistency here. The second question must be answered in the negative, because the theological context in Rom 2 is not: 'the fulfilment of the law so as to be justified'. The third question must also be answered in the negative: the idea of abrogalio legis is not a Pauline thought. on this same page). This distinction is indeed too notable to ignore. Raisanen, however, prefers not to emphasize this distinction in such a way. See Paul 63-4 note 104 (and Palll xIx note 28). According to Westerholm, if a Christian 'fulfils' the law, then he does not necessaril 'do' all the commandments.

248

Chapler /3

3. Rom 7: 1-6 is a consistent passage. This can be seen especially if we pay attention to the way in which Paul connects his fragments. In Rom 7:1-6 Paul does not say that the law has been abrogated, but rather that Christians are no longer under the law. 4. The so-called causative function of the law does not occur in Paul's letters; it is more precise to speak of a catalytic function, which occurs in Paul together with the cognitive and transfonning functions of the law. The alleged inconsistency in Paul's thought that at one moment sin has been a concrete reality ever since Adam's fall and at another moment only since the introduction of the law, is merely an apparent inconsistency. 5. Paul does not deliberately reduce the Torah to its moral side (Rom 2:1-16; Gal 5:14). 6. A thorough study of the way in which Paul contemplates the revelation given by Jesus Christ and applies this to different concrete situations demonstrates that Paul is a consistent theologian.

Chapter 14

Evaluation and Conclusions With reference to a number of publications by Raisanen, we have addressed the issue of the consistency of Paul's letters, especially in relation to the law.! We have focused our attention mainly on an assessment of the inconsistencies detected by Raisanen, and to a lesser extent on his theological and historical explanations. 2 It can be stated that Raisanen's approach to Paul's view of the law is one-sided. To put it differently, Rtiistinen 's grea1!weakness is that he does not make sufficient use of hermeneutical rules appropriate to the interpretation of Paul's letters. It is not Paul who is to blame for the inconsistencies detected by Raisanen, but Rtiistinen's way of reading the texts. 3 Therefore, in this study, we have looked for a number of hermeneutical keys (reading-rules) in order to open up some difficult texts. We have tried to find the hermeneutical keys in the texts themselves. It appeared from the texts that Paul is a pastor, a rhetor, and a theologian. 4 Jt may be that the interpretations offered in part B of this study are not entirely accurate in every detail; this is not very important, however, because even though better interpretations could be offered, our interpretations, based on the use of the three hermeneutical keys, have shed new light upon the alleged inconsistencies in two different ways. Firstly, inconsistencies indeed exist, but Raisanen unjustifiably regards them as disqualifying Paul from being a coherent thinker. Secondly, Raisanen indicates inconsistencies which do not exist in reality (apparent inconsistencies). On the basis of this division, we can make a distinction in Raisanen's work between three groups of inconsistencies: a group of inconsistencies which are I The description of the inconsistencies indicated by Rl!is1!nen concerning Israel was offered only for the sake of completeness and clarity (see section 6.1). 2 Because our interpretation of the inconsistencies was completely different from RlIis1!nen's, as we have seen in part B, there was no need to address the theological explanation which, as a matter of fact, appeared to be irrelevant; the historical explanation appeared to be untenable (see section 13.2.2.2). ] Although Kim's criticism is somewhat exaggerated, he rightly states that it is not Paul who is to blame for the problems, but R1!isanen himself (see section 10.3.!). 4 For a description of a pastor, rhetor, and theologian see the relative chapters.

250

Chapter 14

unjustifiably viewed as disqualifications; a group of inconsistencies which are, in fact, merely apparent inconsistencies, and a group of inconsistencies which are either unjustifiably viewed as disqualifications or are merely apparent inconsistencies. The first group is related to Paul as a pastor: some of Paul's statements are read by Raisanen simultaneously. This is not legitimate, because Paul's pastoral statements are specific to certain situations and only apply to specific people in specific situations (historical context). Raisanen generalizes specific concrete and pastoral statements, which results in a caricature of the texts. The second group (apparent inconsistencies) is related to Paul as a rhetor: here Raisanen does not read the texts properly. He fails to see that Paul makes use to a certain extent of argumentative strategy in order to persuade his readers. If we detect and analyze this strategy, then it appears that a number of alleged inconsistencies do not in fact exist. The third group of inconsistencies is related to Paul as a theologian: if we consider Paul from this point of view, and if we take into account the fragmentary structure of his letters, then we come to the conclusion, firstly, that there are indeed inconsistencies which are, however, unjustifiably viewed as disqualifications, because it appears that there exists each time a different theological context as an inherent characteristic of a certain fragment which determines the meaning of the texts in a specific way; and secondly, we come to the conclusion that some inconsistencies are merely apparent inconsistencies, because Raisanen does not take into account the theological context of a fragment (here Raisanen does not read the texts properly). On the basis of these three groups, we can make the following remarks concerning the content of Paul's view of the law (and Israel): With reference to the first group (inconsistencies which are unjustifiably viewed as disqualifications - Paul as a pastor) Paul does not propagate the view that the Jews face definite destruction (in spite of 1 Thess 2:14-16). Paul is, however, very fierce against the Jews, and he encourages the Thessalonians by saying that the Jews will not escape God's punishment for their attempt to hinder his preaching of the Gospel (see section 11.2.2.1). Paul longs for the salvation of Israel (the Jewish people), and therefore he can be called 'an apostle to Israel' (see section 11.2.2.2). It continually appears that Paul is an apostle who is very much concerned with unity between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians (or Jews) (see the letter to the Romans).

---

---

Evaluation and Conclusions

251--

Paul propagates the idea of abrogatio legis only if the law is regarded as a possible gateway to heaven (soteriology). The inconsistency concerning the question of whether the law has been abrogated is unjustifiably viewed as a disqualification, because ethics (1 Cor 7:19) and soteriology cannot be identified with each other (see section 11.2.2.3). Confronted with haughtiness, Paul the pastor gives strong warnings by referring to the last judgment. Within this context (haughtiness), the works of the law are important, but at the same time failure to keep the law perfectly does not undermine the certainty of salvation. Ethics again play an important role within these warnings. In these concrete situations (haughtiness), Paul points out the necessity of the works of the law to his readers, whereas in other concrete situations where the issue of salvation is raised, the works of the law are superfluous. One may call this an inconsistency, but taking into account the concrete situations one has to be aware that one is not concerned here with inconsistencies in a logical sense or inconsistencies per se (see section 11.2.2.4). In each case it appears that Paul is a consistent pastor who is dealing with specific situations, and who acts consistently in similar situations.

With reference to the second group (apparent inconsistencies - Paul as a rhetor) It appears that in Gal 3 Paul makes use to a certain extent of rhetoric. In a rhetorical way, Paul persuades the Galatians that the way of the law in the sense of a means of obtaining salvation is a dead-end road. In this way the Galatians are being deterred from following this road (Gal 3: I 0-12). In Gal 3 Paul does not connect the Torah with the Gentiles in the way Raisanen alleges (see section 12.2.2.1); this is merely an apparent connection. Gal 3 does not give occasion to state that the law is not of divine origin (see section 12.2.2.2); in Gal 3:15-20 Paul persuades the Galatians that the law is inferior to the promise. It appears that Paul is a rhetor who persuades without inconsistencies.

With reference to the third group (inconsistencies which are unjustifiably viewed as disqualifications, and apparent inconsistencies - Paul as a theologian) The letter to the Romans has a fragmentary structure. Rom 7:1-6, for example, is a fragment. This passage appears to be consistent. Paul does not state here that the law has been abrogated (it merely seems that such is the case. See section 13 .2.2.1.1). Paul says in this passage that believers

have died with Christ, and that they are raised with Him (they are no longer under the law, Rom 6:14). The question of whether the law is able to give life can be answered by Paul both in the affirmative and in the negative. Raisiinen's view that this inconsistency is a disqualification is, however, unjustifiable, because there exists a different correlated theological context for each answer, and therefore the two different answers cannot be compared with each other without due consideration (see section 13.2.2.1.2). The law does not have a causative function (rather a catalytic function at the most). Thus, it is incorrect to state that sin came into the world with the introduction of the Torah (apparent inconsistency. See section 13.2.2.1.2). Although Paul speaks in Rom 2 of a fulfilment of the law, he does not have in mind the possibility of justification by the fulfilment of the law. The fulfilment of the law by the Gentiles shows that the Gentiles also know the law. Once again, there is an apparent inconsistency here, because Rom 2 is a fragment with its own characteristic theological context (see section 13 :2.2.2). The theological context is also important for a correct interpretation of Rom 3:27; 8:2; Gal 6:2, and 1 Cor 9:21; Paul does not propagate the idea of an abrogatio legis (apparent inconsistency. See section 13.2.2.3). With reference to Gal 5:14, it is too much to state that Paul reduces the law to its moral side; neither does Rom 2:12-16 give occasion to such a statement (see sections 13.2.2.3 and 13.2.2.2 respectively). It appears that Paul is a consistent theologian. The answer to the question of whether Paul is a consistent writer depends not only on the point of view from which Paul is being interpreted, but also on the criteria one uses to interpret Paul's letters. According to Rtiistinen's criteria, Paul can be labelled as an inconsistent writer. But it must be noted that Raisiinen only uses criteria of a logical nature (see section 10.2). Such an approach is absolutely unjustified, because Paul did not write logical tracts. If he had done so, then he would have been an inconsistent thinker. This study has demonstrated that our interpretation becomes completely different if we do not use Raisiinen's criteria, but rather the criteria suggested by the texts themselves. In the texts, Paul emerges as a pastor, a rhetor, and a theologian, all in the senses described in this study. In this light Paul's statements do appear to be consistent. Raisiinen does no justice to the nature of the texts, and consequently his assessment of Paul is incorrect. The most important rule for a hermeneutics appropriate to the reading of Paul is as follows: Paul's texts

Evaluation and Conclusions

253

must be read in the way in which they present themselves. Raisanen fails here. The only way to do full justice to the texts is to interpret them with a hermeneutical model deduced from the texts themselves. Only then do we become aware of their message.

BibliographY l Biblical Texts BibleWorks Jor Windows. Programmed by Michael S. Bushell. Published by: HERMENEUTlKA Computer Bible Research Software. Big Fork MT 1992-1995. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, K. ElIiger - W. Rudolph (Ed.). Stuttgart 1975. Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Nestle - Aland (Ed.). Stuttgart 27 1994. Septuaginta, A. Rahlfs (Ed.). Stuttgart 8 1966.

Literature ANDERSON Ir., R.D., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Kampen 1996. AUNE, D.E., The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Cambridge 1987. BAARDA, T., "'Maar de toom is over hen gekomen ... " Cl Thess. 2: 16c)', in: T. Baarda, Hans Iansen, S.l. Noorda and 1.S. Vos, Paulus en de andere joden. Exegetische bijdragen en discussie. Delft 1984, 15-74. BADENAS, R., Christ the End of the Law. Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. Sheffield 1985. BARRETT, C.K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London 1968.

-, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London 1973. BAUER, W., Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und del'friihchristlichen Literatur. Berlin-New York 61988. (WZNT) BEKER, I.C., 'Paul's Theology: Consistent or Inconsistent?', NTS 34 (1988) 364-77.

-, Paul the Apostle. The Triumph oJGod in Life and Thought. Edinburgh 1989. -, 'Recasting Pauline Theology. The Coherence-Contingency Scheme as Interpretive Model', in: I.M. Bassler (Ed.), Pauline Theology. Volume I: Thessalonians. Philippians, Galotians. Philemon. Minneapolis 1991, 15-24.

Provoked to Jealousy. The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-1 J. TlIbingen 1994.

BELL, R.H.,

BERGER, K., 'Apostelbrief und apostolische Rede I Zum Formular fruhchristlicher Briefe', ZNW65 (1974) 190-231.

-, Exegese des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg 3 1991. I

After some ublications the abbreviation used in the text is mentioned in brackets.

256

Bibliography

BERGER, P.L., The Heretical Imperative. Contemporary Possibilities of Religious Affirmalion. New York 1979. BETZ, RD., 'Geist, Freiheit und Gesetz. Die Botschaft des Paulus an die Gemeinden in Galatien', ZTK 71 (1974) 78-93. -, 'The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians', NTS 21 (1975) 353-79. ('Composition')

-, Galatians. A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia 1979. (Galatians) BLASS, F. - DEBRUNNER, A. - REHKOPF, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Gottingen 15 1979. (BDR) BONNEAU, N., 'The Logic of Paul's Argument on the Curse of the Law in Galatians 3:10-14', NovT39 (1997) 60-80. BOUSSET, W. - GRESSMANN, R, Die Religion des Judentums im spathe/lenistischen Zeitalter. TObingen 1966. BOUWMAN, G., 'Recensie H. Raisanen, Paul and the Law', TTh 24 (1984) 415. BRUCE, FT, 'The Curse of the Law', in: M.D. Hooker and S.G. WiIson (Ed.), Paul and Paulinism. Essays in honour ofC.K Barrett. London 1982,27-36.

-, The Epistle to the Galalians. A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids 21992. BRUGGEN, J. van, De Oorsprong van de Kerk te Rome. Groningen 1967.

-, Het Raadsel van Romeinen 16. De apostel Paulus en het ontstaan van de kerk le Rome. Groningen 1970. -, Hetlezen van de bijbel. Een inleiding. Kampen 1981. BULTMANN, R., Theologie des Nellen Testaments. TUbingen 9 1984. CAMPBELL, D.A., The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26. Sheffield 1992. -, 'The MA8HKH from Durham: Professor Dunn's The Theology of Paul the Apostle', JSNT72 (1998) 91-1 11. CAMPBELL, W.S., Palll's Gospel in an /ntercllltllral Context. Frankfurt am Main 1992. CLASSEN, C.J., 'Paul us und die antike Rhetorik', ZNW82 (1991) 1-33. Cos GROVE, C.R, 'Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection', JBL 106 (1987) 653-70.

-, The Cross and the Spirit. A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians. Macon 1988. -, 'Arguing like a Mere Human Being. Galatians 3.15-18 in Rhetorical Perspective', NTS 34 (1988) 536-49. ('Arguing like a Mere Human Being') CRAFTON, J.A., 'Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans: Toward a New Understanding', NovT32 (1990) 317-39. CRANFIELD, C.E.B., 'St. Paul and the Law', SJT 17 (1964) 43-68.

-, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans I-ll. Edinburgh 1975-1990. (Romans) -, 'Giving a Dog a Bad Name. A Note on H. Raislinen's Palll and the Law', JSNT 38 (1990) 77-85. ('Bad Name')

Bibliography

257

DAVIES, W.D., 'Paul and the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation', in: M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson (Ed.), Paul and Paulinism. Essays in honour of c.K. Barrelt. London 1982,4-16. DEISSMANN, A., Paullls. Eine kultllr- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze. Tiibingen 1911. DOBBELER, A. van, 'Review ofH. RlIisllnen, Paul and the Law', NovT26 (1984) 374-6. DODD, C.H., 'ENNOMOE XPIETOY', Studia Paulina. In honorem J. de Zwaan. Haarlem 1953,96-110. DONALDSON, T.L., 'The "Curse of the Law" and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14', NTS 32 (1986) 94-112. DONFRIED, K.P., 'False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans', CBQ 36 (1974) 33255. DONFRIED, K.P., (Ed.), The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition. Peabody 1995. DRANE, LW., 'Tradition, Law and Ethics in Pauline Theology', NovT 16 (1974) 167-78.

-, Paul, Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles. London 1975. DOLMEN, A. van, Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus. Stuttgart 1968. DUNN, I.D.G., 'The New Perspective on Paul', BJRL 65 (1983) 95-122. -, 'Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)" NTS 31 (1985) 523-42.

-, The Epistle to the Galatians. London 1993. -, 'Was Paul Against the Law? The Law in Galatians and Romans: A Test-Case of Text in Context', in: T. Fornberg and D. HelIholm (Ed.), Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in honor of Lars Hartman. Oslo-Copenhagen-Stockholm-Boston 1995,455-75.

-, The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh 1998. -, 'Whatever Happened to Exegesis? In Response to the Reviews by R.B. Matlock and D.A. Carnpbell', .JSNT72 (1998) 113-20. EARNSHAW, 1.0., 'Reconsidering Paul's Marriage Analogy in Romans 7.1-4', NTS 40 (1994) 68-88. ECKSTElN, H.-I., VerheifJung llnd Gesetz. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2, /5-4, 7. TUbingen 1996. ELLIOTI, N., The Rhetoric of Romans. Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul's Dialogue with Judaism. Sheffield 1990. FASCHER, E., Der el'ste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther I. Berlin 21980. FUNG, R.Y.K., The Epistle to the Galatians. Grand Rapids 1988. GAECHTER, P., Petrus llnd seine Zeit. Nelltestamentliche Studien. Innsbruck-WienMiinchen 1958. GARLINGTON, D., 'Role Reversal and Paul's Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10-13', JSNT65 (1997) 85-121. GARRISON, R., The Graeco-Roman Context of Early Christian Literature. Sheffield 1997.

258

Bibliography

GETTY, M.A., 'Review of H. RlIisllnen, Paul and the Law', CBQ 47 (1985) 561-3. GRANT, M., Saint Paul. New York 1976. GUNDRY VOLF, l.M., Paul and Perseverance. Staying in and Falling Away. Ttlbingen 1990. GUTHRIE, D., New Testament Theology. Leicester 1981.

HAHN, F., 'Das Gesetzesverstllndnis im Rtlmer- und Galaterbrier, ZNW 67 (1976) 2963. -, 'Gibt es eine Entwicklung in den Aussagen tlber die Rechtfertigung bei Paulus?', EvT 53 (1993) 342-66. HAYS, R.B., 'Review of H. RlIisanen, Paul and the Law', JAAR 53 (I 985) 513-5.

-, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Community, Cross, New Creation. A Contemporary Introdtlction to New Testament Ethics. Edinburgh 1997. HElL, C., Die Ablehnung der Speisegebote durch Paulus. Zur Frage nach der Stellung .des Apostels zum Gesetz. Weinheim 1994. HENGEL, M., and SCHWEMER, A.M., Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. Die unbekannten Jahre des Apostels. Ttlbingen 1998. HEYER, C.l. den, Paulus. Man van !wee werelden. Zoetermeer 1998. HODGES. W., Logic. Harmondsworth 1980. HOFIUS, 0., Paulusstudien. Ttlbingen 2 1994. HOLTZ, T., Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. Neukirchen-V1uyn 1986. HOOKER, M.D., From Adam to Christ. Essays on Paul. Cambridge 1990. HORN, F.W., 'IKorinther 15,56 - ein exegetischer Stachel', ZNW 82 (1991) 88-105. HOBNER, H., Das Gesetz bei Palllus. Ein Beitrag zum Werden der paulinischen Theologie. Gtlttingen 1978.

-, Gottes Ieh und Israel. Zum Sehriftgebrauch des Paulus in Romer 9-1 I. Gtlttingen 1984. -, 'Rezension H. Raisiinen, Paul and the Law', TLZ 110 (1985) 894--6.

-, Biblisehe Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I: Prolegomena, lI: Die Theologie des Palllus und ihre neutestamentliche Wirkungsgesehichte, Ill: Hebraerbrief, Evangelien und Offenbarung. Epilegomena. Gtlttingen 1990-1995. lOEST, W., Gesetz IInd Freiheit. Das Problem des Tertius Usus Legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese. Gtlttingen 4 1968. JOHNSON, L.T., The Writings of the New Testament. An!nlerpretation. London 1986. KARRIS, RJ., 'The Occasion of Romans: A Response to Professor Donfried', CBQ 36 (1974) 356-8. KENNEDY, G.A., New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill-London 1984. KERTELGE, K., "Reehtferligung" bei Paulus. Studien zur Slruktur und zum Bedeutllllgsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs. MUnster 2 1971.

-, Grundlhemen paulinischer Theologie. Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1991. (Grundthemen) KIM, S., The Origin ofPaIlI's Gospel. Ttlbingen 21984.

Bibliography

259

KLEIN, W.W., BLOMBERG, C.L., and HUB BARD, Jr., R.L., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas-London-Vancouver-Melbourne 1993. KLIJN, A.F.J., De wordingsgeschiedenis van het Nieuwe Testament. Utrecht-Antwerp en 61978. KLIJN, A.F.J., (Ed.), Inleiding tot de studie van het Nieuwe Testament. Kampen 1982. KRUSE, C.G., Paul, the Law and Justification. Leicester 1996. KDMMEL, W.G., Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Heidelberg 2° 1980 . Kuss, 0., Del' Romerbrief Il. Regensburg 21963. LADD, G.E., A Theology of the New Testament. Edited by D.A. Hagner. Grand Rapids 1996 Revised Edition. LAUSBERG, H., Elemenle der lilerarischen Rhetorik. Eine Einfuhrung fur Sludierende del' klassischen, romanischen, englischen und deutschen Philologie. MUnchen 31967.

-, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart 31990.

-, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundationfor Literary Study. Translated by M.T. Bliss, A. Jansen and D.E. Orton. Edited by D.E. Orton and R.D. Anderson. LeidenBoston-K1\ln 1998. LlETZMANN, D.H., An die Korinther I-I!. TUbingen 1949. LlMBECK, M., Die Ordmmg des Hei/s. Untersuchungen zum Gesetzesverstandnis des Friihjudentums. Diisseldorf 1971.

-, Von der Ohnmacht des Rechts. Untersuchungen zur Gesetzeskritik des Neuen Testaments. Dilsse.1dorf 1972. LODEMANN, G., Pau/us, der Heidenapostell. Studien zur Chronologie. GBttingen 1980. MATLOCK, R.B., 'Sins of the Flesh and Suspicious Minds: Dunn's New Theology of Paul', JSNT72 (1998) 67-90. MICHEL, 0., Del' Brief an die Romer. GBttingen

14 1978.

MOO, D.J., 'Israel and Paul in Romans 7.7-12', NTS 32 (1986) 122-35.

-, The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids 1996. Moo RE, a.F., 'Christian Writers on Judaism', HTR 14 (1921) 197-254. MOORES, J.D., Wrestling with rationality in Paul. Romans 1-8 in a new perspective. Cambridge 1995. MOULE, C.F.D., 'Interpreting Paul by Paul. An Essay in the Comparative Study of Pauline Thought', in: M.E. G1asswell - E.W. Fashole-Luke (Ed.), New Testament Christianity for Africa and the World. Essays in honour of Harry Sawyerr. London 1974,78-90. NEUSNER, J., 'Comparing Judaisms', HR 18 (1978) 177-91. NORDEN, E., Die antike Kunstprosa: Vom vi Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance. Darmstadt 1898, 3 1958. O'BRIEN, P.T., 'Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades', in: D.A. Carson (Ed.), Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Guernsey 1992, 69-95.

OSTEN-SACKEN, P. von der, Evangelium und Tora. Aujsatze zu Paulus. Mllnchen 1987.

-, Die Heiligkeit der Tora. Studien zum Gesetz bei Paulus. Mllnchen 1989. PARKES, J., Jesus, Paul and the Jews. London 1936. PERELMAN, Ch. - OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L., The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame 1971. PORTER, S.E., and OLBRICHT, T.R., (Ed.), Rhetoric and the New Testament. EssaysJrom the 1992 Heidelberg ConJerence. Sheffield 1993. RAlsANEN2, H., Das koranische Jesusbild. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Korans. Helsinki 1971. -,

'A Lutheran· Interpretation of New Testament "Mariology"?', Ephemerides Mariologicae 22 (1972) 110-2.

-, Die Parabeltheorie im Markusevangelium. Helsinki 1973. -, Das 'Messiasgeheimnis' im Markusevangelium. Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch. Helsinki 1976. The Idea oJ Divine Hardening. A Comparative Study oJ the Notion of Divine Hardening. Leading Astray and Inciting to Evil in the Bible and the Qur 'an. Helsinki 21976. (Hardening) -, 'The Portrait of Jesus in the Qur'an. Reflections of a Biblical Scholar', The Muslim World 70 (1980) 122-33. -, 'Joseph Smith und die Bibel. Die Leistung des morrnonischen Propheten in neuer Beleuchtung', TLZ 109 (1984) 81-92.

-, The Torah and Christ. Essays in German and English on the Problem oJ the Law in Early Christianity. Helsinki 1986. (TC) -, 'Paul's Theological Difficulties with the Law', TC 3-24. ('Difficulties') -, 'Legalism and Salvation by the Law. Paul's Portrayal of the Jewish Religion as a Historical and Theological Problem', TC 25-54. ('Legalism') -, 'Zum VersU!ndnis von Rom 3,1-8', TC 185-205. ('Verstllndnis')

-, 'Zur Herkunft von Markus 7,15', TC 209-18. (,Herkunft') -, 'lslamsk koranutlllggning och kristlig bibelexeges', SEA 51-52 (1986-87) 203-13.

-, Paul and the Law. Tllbingen 21987. (Paul) -, 'Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law', NTS 33 (1987) 404-19. (,Conversion ') -, 'Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens', ANRW 11 25.4 (1987) 2891-939. ('Analyse') -, 'Pauli brytning med Israels forbund', NorJ g (1987) 28-36.

2 Certain publications by R!lis1l.nen are not mentioned in this Bibliography. These include some books and articles written in Finnish and some earlier editions of articles which are mentioned here in their most recent versions. Finally, no reference is made to his many reviews.

Bibliography

261

-, 'Paul, God, and Israel: Romans 9-11 in Recent Research', in: J. Neusner et al. (Ed.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Essays in tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Philadelphia 1988, 178-206. ('Israel') -, Die Mutter Jesu im Neuen Testament. Helsinki 21989. -, Beyond New Testament Theology. A story and a programme. London-Philadelphia 1990. (Beyoncl) -, The 'Messianic Secret' in Mark. Translated by Christopher Tuckett. Edinburgh 1990. (Secret) -, 'Der Brueh des Paulus mit Israels Bund', in: T. Veijola (Ed.), The Law in the Bible and in its Errvironment. Helsinki-Gllttingen 1990,156-72. ('Bruch') 'The Redemption of Israel. A Salvation-Historical Problem in Luke-Acts', in: P. Luomanen (Ed.), Luke-Acts. Scandinavian Perspectives. Helsinki-Gllttingen 1991, 94--114. -, 'Jesus mellan kristendom och islam', in: N.G. Holm (Ed.), Islam iforskningens /jus. Abo 1991, 139-54. -, 'Mahatma Gandhi and the Sermon on the Mount', Temenos 27 (1991) 83-108. 'Mahatma Gandhi och bergspredikan', in: Antoon Geels (Ed.), Mote med in disk religion. Lund 1992, 29-41. 'MarialMarienfrllmmigkeit I. Neues Testament', Theologische Realenzyklopiidie XXII,!. Berlin-New York 1992,115-9. -, Jesus, Paul and Torah. Collected Essays. Translations from the German by David E. Orton. Sheffield 1992. (JPD -, 'Paul's Call Experience and his Later View ofthe Law', JPT 15-47. ('Experience') -, 'The "Law" of Faith and the Spirit', JPT 48-68. ('Law') -, 'Paul's Word-Play on vOfLOC;: A Linguistic Study', JPT69-94. ('Word-Play') -, 'The Use of E11"leUfL(a and E11"l9ufLELV in Paul', JPT 95-111. ('ETILeUfLLa') -, 'Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism', JPT 112-26. ('Break') -, 'Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7.15', JPT 127-48. (,Food Laws') -, 'The "Hellenists": A Bridge between Jesus and Pau1T, JPT 149-202. ('Hellenists') -, '''Righteousness by Works": An Early Catholic Doctrine? Thoughts on 1 Clement', JPT 203-24. ('Righteousness') -, 'Zion Torah and Biblical Theology: Thoughts on a Tllbingen Theory', JPT 225-51. ('Zion Torah') -, 'The Law as a Theme of "New Testament Theology''', JPT252-77. (,Theme') -, 'The Prodigal Gentile and His Jewish Christian Brother. Lk 15,11-32', in: F. Van Segbroeck - C.M. Tuckett - G. Van Belle - J. Verheyden (Ed.), The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Volume 11. Leuven 1992, 1617-36. -, 'The Effective "History" of the Bible: A Challenge to Biblical Scholarship?', SJT 45 (1992) 303-24. 'Die Wirkungsgeschichte der Bibe1. Eine Herausforderung an die exegetische Forschung', EvT 52 (1992) 337-47.

262

Bibliography

-, 'Freiheit vom Gesetz im Urchristentum', ST 46 (1992) 55-67. -, 'Freedom from the law in early Christianity', TD 40 (1993) 43-8. (,Freedom') -, 'Urkristen eskatologi. En provisorisk skiss', SEA 58 (1993) 125-37. -, 'What Could Christianity and Islam Learn From Each Other?', in: T. Melasuo (Ed.), Dialogue arabo-scandinave. Tampere 1993, 193-208. -, 'Jesus in Context', Reviews in Religion and Theology May 2 (1994) 9-18. -, 'Nytestamentlig teologi', Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift 71 (1995) 58-65. -, 'The Clash Between Christian Styles of Life in the Book of Revelation', ST 49 (1995) 151-66. -, 'The New Testament in Theology', in: P. Byrne and L. Houlden (Ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Theology. London-New York 1995,122-41. -, 'Romans 9-11 and the "History of Early Christian Religion"', in: T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm (Ed.), Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in honor of Lars Hartman. Oslo-Copenhagen-Stockholm-Boston 1995, 743-65. -, 'Die "Hellenisten" der Urgemeinde', ANRW II 26.2 (1995) 1468-514. -, 'The Nicolaitans: Apoc. 2; Acta 6', ANRWII 26.2 (1995) 1602-44. -, 'Coexistence and Conflict. Early Christian Attitudes to Adherents of Traditional Cults', Temenos 31 (1995) 163-80. (,Coexistence and Conflict') -, 'Die frlihchristliche Gedankenwelt. Eine religionswissenschaftliche Alternative zur "neutestamentlichen Theologie"', in: C. Dohmen - T. Sliding (Ed.), Eine Bibel- zwei Testamente. Positionen Biblischer Theologie. Paderborn-MUnchen-Wien-ZUrich 1995,253-65. -, 'Liberating Exegesis', BJRL 78 (1996) 193-204. -, 'faith, Works and Election in Romans 9: A Response to Stephen Westerholm', in: J.O.G. Ounn (Ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law. TUbingen 1996, 239-46. -, 'New Testament Theology?', in: J. Neusner (Ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Volume IX. Atlanta 1996. 197-210. -, 'Exorcisms and the Kingdom. Is Q I1 :20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?', in: Risto Uro (Ed.), Symbols and Strata. Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Helsinki-Gottingen 1996. 119-42. -, 'Understanding Islam', in: S. Silvennoinen - M. Suksi (Ed.), Human Rights and Religion: The Case of the Stldan. Abo 1997, IIS-28. -, Marcioll, Muhammad and the Mahatma. Exegetical Perspectives on the Encounter of Cultures and Faiths. London 1997. -, 'Marcion and the Origins of Christian Anti-Judaism: A Reappraisal', Temenos 33 (1997) 121-3S. REICKE, B., 'Paulus Uber das Gesetz', TZ 41 (l98S) 237-S7. REILING, J., De Eerste Briefvall Paulus aall de Korin/ilirs. Baarn 1997. RlCHARDSON, P., 'Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:11-14', NTS 26 (1979-80) 347-62. RIDDERBOS, H., Paulus. Ontwerp van zijn Theologie. Kampen 41978.

Bibliography

263

ROLOFF, l., 'Rezension H. Raisanen, Paul and the Law', BZ 30 (1986) 137-40. SANDERS, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London 1977. -, 'On the Question of Fulfilling the Law in Paul and Rabbinic ludaism', in: E. Bammel, c.K. Barrctt and W.D. Davies (Ed.), Donum Gentilicium. New Testament Studies in Honour ofD. Daube. Oxford 1978, 103-26. 'Puzzling out Rabbinic Judaism', in: W.S. Green (Ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism JI. Chico 1980,65-79.

-, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. London 1985. -, Judaism. Practice and Belief London 1992. SANGER, D., Die Verkiindigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel. Studien zum Verhtiltnis von Kirche und Israel bei Paulus und im friihen Christentum. TUbingen 1994. SCHELKLE, K.H., Paulus. Darmstadt 1981. SCHUER, H., Der Brief an die Galater. G!!ttingen 41965.

-, Der R6merbrief Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1977. SCHLUETER, C.J., Filling up the Measure. Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16. Sheffield 1994. SCHNABEL, E.J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relalion of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. TUbingen 1985. SCHREINER, T.R., 'Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E.P. Sanders', WTJ 47 (1985) 245-78. -, 'The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul', JSNT35 (1989) 47-74. -, "'Works of Law" in Paul', NovT33 (1991) 217-44. (,Works of Law') SIEGERT, F., Argumentation be; Paulus. Gezeigt an R6m 9-11. TUbingen 1985. SLOAN, R.B., 'Paul and the Law: Why the Law cannot save', NovT 33 (1991) 35-60. SMlT, l., 'The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech', NTS 35 (1989) 126. ' SNODGRASS, K.R., 'Justification by Grace - to the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul', NTS 32 (1986) 72-93. -, 'Spheres ofInfluence. A Possible Solution to the Problem of Paul and the Law', JSNT 32 (1988) 93-113. (,Spheres ofInfluence') SODING, T., '''Die Kraft der SUnde ist das Gesetz" (IKor 15,56). Anmerkungen zum Hintergrund und zur Pointe einer gesetzeskritischen Sentenz des Apostels Paulus', ZNW 83 (1992) 74-84. SPANJE, T.E. van, Inconsistentie bi) Paulus? Een eonjrontatie met het werk van Heikki Rtiistil1en. Kampen 1996. -, 'Contextualization: Hermeneutical Remarks', BJRL 80.1 (1998) 197-217. STANLEY, C.D., "'Under a Curse": A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3.10-14', NTS 36 (1990) 481-511. SrOWERS, S.K., Letter Writing in Greeo-Roman Antiquity. Philadelphia 1989.

264

mOllograpny

STUHLMACHER, P., 'Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie', ZTK 75 (1978) 25180. SYNOFZIK, E., Die Gerichts- und Vergeltungsaussagen traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Gottingen 1977.

bei

Paulus.

Eine

THISELTON, A.C., 'Semantics and New Testament Interpretation', in: l.H. Marshall (Ed.), New Testament Interpretation. Essays on Principles and Methods. Exeter 2 1979, 75-104. THOMPSON, R.W., 'Paul's Double Critique of Jewish Boasting: A Study of Rom 3,27 in Its Context', Bib 67 (1986) 520-31. THUREN, J., 'Paulus och Torah', in: S. Hidal et al. (Ed.), Judendom och kristendom under deforsta arhundradena. Oslo 1986, 165-92. (non vidi) VERSNEL, H.S., Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion 1. Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism. Leiden 1990. (Inconsistencies) VOUGA, F., 'Zur rhetorischen Gattung des Galaterbriefes', ZNW79 (1988) 291-2. WATSON, D.F., (Ed.), Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honol" of George A. Kennedy. Sheffield 1991. WATSON, D.F., and HAUSER, AJ., Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. Leiden 1994. WATSON, N.M., 'Justified by Faith; Judged by Works - An Antinomy?', NTS 29 (1983) 209-21. (,Justified') WEBER, F., Jiidische Theologie au! Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften. Leipzig 2 1897. (non vidi) WEDDERBURN, A.J.M., 'Paul and the Law', SJT38 (1985) 613-22.

-, The Reasons for Romans. Edinburgh 1988. WED ER, H., 'Gesetz und SUnde. Gedanken zu einem qualitativen Sprung im Denken des Paulus', NTS 3 I (1985) 357-76. (,Gesetz und SUnde') WEIMA, l.A.D., 'The Function of the Law in Relation to Sin: An Evaluation of the View ofH. Riiisiinen', NovT32 (1990) 219-35. ('Function') WEISS, 1., 'Beitrage zur Paulinischen Rhetorik', in: C.R. Gregory - A. von Harnack (Ed.), Theologische Studien. Herrn. Wirkl. Oberkonsistorialrath Professor D. Bernhard Weif3 zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht. G6ttingen 1897, 165-247.

-, Das Urchristentum. G6ttingen 1917. WENHAM, D., 'Source Criticism', in: l.H. Marshall (Ed.), New Testament Interpretation. Essays on Principles and Methods. Exeter 21979, 139-52. WESTERHOLM, S., 'On Fulfilling the Whole Law (Gal 5:14)', SEA 51-52 (1986-87) 229-37.

-, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids 1988. -, 'Paul and the Law in Romans 9-11', in: 1.D.G. Dunn (Ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law. Tiibingen 1996,215-37. -, 'Response to Heikki Raisanen', in: 1.D.G. Dunn (Ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law. TUbingen 1996,247-9.

Bibliography

265

WILCKENS, U., Rechtfertigung als Freiheit. Paulusstudien. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974. -, 'Statements on the development of Paul's view of the Law', in: M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson (Ed.), Paul and Paulinism. Essays in honour of C.K. Barrett. London 1982, 17-26. -, 'Zur Entwicklung des paulinischen Gesetzesverstandnisses', NTS 28 (1982) 154-90. ('Entwicklung')

-, Der Brief an die Romer 1-111. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978-1987. WILKE, C.G., Die neutestamentliche Rhetorik: Ein Seitenstuck zur Grammatik des neutestamenllichen Sprachidioms. Dresden-Leipzig 1843. WILLlAMS, S.K., 'Justification and the Spirit in Galatians', JSNT29 (1987) 91-100. WOLFF, C., Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther!l. Berlin 1982. WREDE, W., Paulus. Tiibingen 21907. WRIGHT, N.T., 'Putting Paul Together Again. Toward a Synthesis of Pauline Theology (1 and 2 Tbessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon)', in: J.M. Bassler (Ed.), Pauline Theology. Volume I: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemol1. Minneapolis 1991,183-211.

-, The Climax of the Covenant. Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh 1991. WUELLNER, W., 'Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans', CBQ 38 (1976) 330-51. -, 'Where Is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?', CBQ 49 (1987) 448-63. ZIESLER, J., Paul's Letter to the Romans. Philadelphia J 989.

Index of Authors Anderson Jr., R.D., 163, 192, 193, 194, 195 Aune, D.E., 163

Bulttnann, R., 26, 27, 31, 34, 35, 42, 52,58,59,60,61,131,134,146, 147, 149,224,228,236

Baarda, T., 175 Badenas, R., 145 Bamme1, E., 145 Barr, J., 217 Barrett, C.K., 145,183,184,185,219, 221,244 Bassler, J.M., 153 Bauer, W., 225 Becker, J., 80,154 Beker, J.C., 153 Bell, R.H., 175, 176,237,238 Berger, K., 194, 196, 198, 199, 246 Berger, P.L., 11, 114, 115 Betz, H.D., 145, 191, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199,205 Billerbeck, P., 54 Bonneau, N., 200 Bornkamm, G., 26, 27 Bou55et, W., 52, 146 Bouwman, G., 159, 197 Bruce, F.F., 187, 188,200,202,205, 207,210,211,243,246 Bruggen, J. van, 164, 165,218

Campbell, D.A., 149, 153, 170, 191 Campbell, W.S., 166 Carson, D.A., 215 Cerfaux, L., 33 Classen, C.J., 191, 195, 196, 198 Conzelmann, H., 31, 35, 36 Cosgrove, C.H., 181,208,209,210, 213 Crafton, I.A., 166, 193 Cranfield, C.E.B., 33, 34, 35, 146, 147, 148,152,168,169,218,220,222, 233,241 Cullmann, 0., 31, III Davies, W.D., 145, 170 Deissmann, A., 162, 163, 167, 190 Dobbeler, A. von, 246 Dodd, C.H., 25, 145, 244 Donaldson, T.L., 200, 205 Donfried, K.P., 163, 166 Drane, I.W .• 38, 145, 155 OUlmen, A. van, 147,240 Dunn, J.D.G., 126, 127, 139, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 170, 184,

268

Index ofAuthors

188,206,207,208,211,213,223, 227,232,241,242,243,244,246 Earnshaw, J.D., 220, 222 Eckstein, H.-I., 201, 202, 205, 209, 210,213,225,227,236 E11iett, N., 191 Es1er, P.F., 115 Fascher, E., 180, 183 Fashe1e-Luke, E.W., 33 Friedrich, G., 22, 23 Fuchs, E., 22 Fung, R.Y.K., 178 Gabler, J.P., 142, 143 Gaechter, P., 1 Gager, J.G., 93 Gardner, P., 5 Garlingten, D., 200 Garrison, R., 185 Gasten, L., 93 Gese, H., 125 Getty, M.A., 152 Glasswell, M.E., 33 Grant, M., 2 Grasser, E., 104 Green, W.S., 55 Gressrnann, H., 146 Gundry Velf, J.M., 238 Guthrie, D., 170 Hahn, F., 22,146,147,154 Harnack, A. ven, 132 Hauser, AJ., 191 Hays, R.B., 152, 166, 170, 172, 185, 188,238 Heil, C., 153 Hengel, M., 75, 76, 80, 154, 155, 196, 239

Heyer, C.l. den, 171, 172 Hidal, S., 152 Hedges, W., 157,227 Hofius, 0.,177,213,227,230,240, 243,245 Ho1tz, T., 176 Heltzmann, H.l., 113 Horn, F.W., 151 HUbner, H., 19,22,25,37,38,47,72, 73, 104, 120, 121, 145, 147, 155, 158,169,210,236,245 Jervell, J., 77 Jewett, R., 187 Joest, W., 181 lohnson, L.T., 114 Karris, R.J., 166 KlIsernann, E., 22, 27, 33, 34, 35, 104, 105 Kennedy, G.A., 192, 193, 194,200 Kertelge, K., 145, 155, 164, 169,218, 239 Kim, S., 36, 55, 58, 71, 72,86,87,88, 90,121,152,158,238,239,249 Klein, G., 104 K1ein, W.W., 163 Klijn, A.F.J., 164, 165 Kopperschmidt, J., 198 Kruse, C.G., 154, 170, 175,205,211, 218,238,239 KUmrne1, W.G., 94,164,165,167 Kilng, H., 133 Kuss, 0., 218 Ladd, G.E., 170,239 Larnbrecht, J., 110, 111, 112 Lausberg, H., 192 Lietzmann, D.H., 184, 186 Lightfoot, J.B., 191

269

Index of Authors

Limbeck, M., 52, 53, 57

Ridderbos, H., 187

Lohse, E., 22, 23

Riddle, D.W., 126

Luckmann, T., ll, 114

Ritschl, A., 31

LUdemann, G., 155 Lyonnet, S., 26

Sanders, E.P., 4, 7,9, 10,12,31,38, 44,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,61,

Marshall, LH., 154

62,63,64,67, 106, 116, 118, 119,

Martin, R.P., 215

127, 128, 129, 133, 135, 139, 140, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151,

Matlock, R.B., 149,238 Mauser, U., 26

180, 181,202,227,236,237,238,

Michel, 0., 178,221,225,233,241,

239,240

242

Saussure, F. de, 220

Montefiore, C.G., 65

Schade, H.-H., 140

Moo,D.l.,218

Schlier, H., 22,187,188,210,211,

Moore, G.F., 26, 52, 57

241,243 Schlueter, C.l., 173, 175, 190

Moores, 1.0., 193,216,217,222 Mou1e, C.F.D., 33 MUller, U.B., 105

. Schmidt, H.W., 22 Schnabel, E.l., 246 Schoeps, H.-l., 4, 65

Neusner, I., 55, 56, 238 Noack, B., 105

Schreiner, T.R., 153,202,206,207, 222,223,235,236,238

Norden, E., 191

Schulz, S., 140

O'Brien, P.T., 182,215

Schwemer, A.M., 75, 76, 80, 154, 155,

Schweitzer, A., 70, 140,239 Okeke, G.E., 175

196,239

0lbrechts-Tyteca, L., 193

Sellin, G., 78

01bricht, T.H., 191

Siegert, F., 193

O'Neill, 1.C., 25, 37, 151

Sloan, R.B., 152

Osten-Sacken, P. von der, 22

Smit, 1.,193 Snodgrass, K.R., 217, 218, 233, 234,

Pannenberg, W., 153

240,242

Parkes, 1., I

SOding, T., 151

Pere1man, Ch., 193

Stanley, C.D., 200, 203, 204, 205, 206

Piper, 1., 103

Starcke, C., 191

Porter, S.E., 191

Stendahl, K., 140

Rliisi!nen, H., passim

Straatman, l.W., 151

Reicke, B., 217

Strauss, D.F., 143

Stowers, S.K., 163

Reiling, 1., 183

Strecker, G., 140

Richardson, P., 239

Stuhlmacher, P., 94,125,147

270

Index ofAuthors

Synofzik, E., 181

Wenham, D., 154

Taylor, V., 111 Teeple, H.M., 143 Thiselton, A.C., 216, 217, 220, 226 Thompson, R.W., 241

Westerholm, S., 38, 68,102,152,206, 207,213,217,226,229,230,237, 241,242,246,247 Wilckens, U., 24, 35, 104, 145, 148, 155,165,166,171,178,180,186,

Thurt!n, J., 152 Vanhoye, A., 211 Versnel, H.S., 159 Vouga, F., 194

187,211,220,221,222,224,225, 230,232,233,234,235,240,241, 242, 243, 245, 246 Wilke, C.G., 191 Williarns, S.K., 80, 203, 212 Wilson, 8.G., 77

Watson, D.F., 191 Watson, F., 80, 105, 157 Watson, N.M., 181, 182, 188,237 Weber, F., 52, 146 Wedderburn, A.J.M., 152, 166 Weder, H., 58,145,228,238 Weima, J.A.D., 152,224,225,227, 229,230 WeiJ3, l., 21, 191

Wolff, C., 244 Wrede, W., 1,9,72,93,109,139, 140, 141,142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 169, 198 Wright, N.T., 152, 153,211 Wuellner, W., 192, 193 Zeller, D., 171 Ziesler, J., 148,219

Index of Passages T. Old Testament

Isaiah 49:6

175

Leviticus 18:5 32,201,204,237 26:46 LXX 211

Jeremiah 31 31:31ff

65,71 147

Deuteronomy 21:23 27:26 33:2 LXX

Ezekiel 11 36

65,71 65

Amos 3:1-2

230

Habakkuk 2:4

201,204

Genesis 3

26

71 201,202 210

Psalms 61:13 LXX 186 61:13b LXX 232

n. New Testament Mallhew 5:17

25

Mark 4 4:10-12 4:llff 4:33-34 4:33 4:34 7:15

llD, 111, 112 109,112 112 110 112 112, 113 71,74,75,85,92

Luke 1:6

89

18 18:9-14 Acts 6-8 7:38 7:53 9:1-9 9:15 9:20-22 9:20 10-11 10 10:44ff

56 56

76 210 210 215 162,178 167 178 77 77,85 77

index DJ Passages

272 A cts (continued) 11:19ff 11:19-20 13:5 13:14 13:16-41 13:38-39 13:45-47 13:45 13:46-47 13:50 14:1 14:2 14:19 15 15:1 15:5 15:7-12 15:36 16:9-10 17:1-9 17:1 17:3 17:5-9 17:5 17:10 17:13 17:16ff 17:16-31 17:17 18:4 18:5 18:6 18:9-10 18:12 18:19 19:9 20:3 20:21 21:27 26:12-18 26:22-23 28 28:17-28 28:17 28:23 28:24'-28 Romans 1-8

76 76 178 178 167 239 175 166 162, 178 166 178 166 166 65,73 65 81

77 81 215 174 178 167 175 166 178 166, 174, 175 175 167 178 178 167 166 215 166 178 166 J 66 167 166 162,178 167 165, 166 165 178 167 165

166, 193

1-3 44,98, 112 1-2 98 1:1-16:23 167 1:16-11:36 166 1:16 166,178,179 1:18-3:20 25,26,27,28,43, 86, 117,231,233, 241 1:19ff 234 1:19-32 43 1:24 26 2:lff 232 2 112, 231, 233, 234, 235,236,247,252 2:1-16 67,186,236,248 2:1-2 232 2:1 186 2:6-7 181 2:6 182, 186,232,236 2:9-11 178 2:10 181 2:11 186,234 2:12-16 19,20,235,252 2:12-13 182,186 2:12 18, 186,232,234 2:13-15 236 2:13 181, 186, 231, 232, 233,234,235 2:14-15 27,28,43,80,231, 232,233,235 2:14 112, 232, 233, 234 2:14a 19 2:15ff 235 2:15 233,234 2:16 182,186 2:17-24 43 2:21-24 235 2:25-29 80, 86, 98 2:26ff Il2 2:26-27 27,28,43,231,235 2:27 166 3:1ff 118 3-4 61 3 98, 117 3:1-8 92,98, 117, 129 3:1 98,117 3:3-8 98 3:3 98,129 3:4 98 3:5 129,209

Index oJPassages Romans (continued) 117 3:8 26,98, 117 3:9 26,181,228,231,233, 3:20 234, 235, 236 3:20b 29 24[ 3:21-31 [91 3:21-26 23,241 3:21 31 3:23ff 3:25 80 3:27-28 50 3:27 22,23,24,41,59, 125, 146,240,241,242, 243,247,252 3:28 23,236 22, 86,245 3:3 I 131 4 4:2ff 59 4:2-5 50 52,60,61,64 4:4-5 61 4:4 4:11 65 4:14 50 29,212,228,229,230 4:15 6, 30, 45, 228 5 237 5:1-10 183 5:1 5:12-14 227 5:12-13 29 5:13ff 30 29,228, 229, 230 5:13 5:[3b 229 5:20 29,228,230 221 6-7 219,221,222 6 219,221,222 6:1-14 216,219 6:1 221 6:8a 6:8b 222 6:12 26 6:14ff 245 6:14-15 223 6:14 21,46,221,228,252 6:15-23 219,221 6:15 216,219 245 6:19ff 7:lff 71 7 6,26,27,30,41,44, 45,187,218,219,

273

7:1-6

7:[-4 7:1 7:2-3 7:2 7:3 7:3b 7:4ff 7:4 7:4a 7:4b 7:5 7:6 7:7ff 7:7-8:4 7:7-14 7:7-13 7:7-12 7:7-11 7:7-8 7:7 7:8-11 7:8-9 7:8 7:10 7:11 7:12 7:13ff 7:13 7:14-25 7:14 7:21-25 7:22 7:23 8

8: I 8:2-4 8:2

8:3 8:4

222,223,224,221, 240 21,35,42,218,219, 221,222,223,248, 251 220 216,219,220,221, 222 219 220,221 222 220 245 219,220,222 219 220 29, 224, 225, 228, 245 219 30,59,171,179,224, 225 65 29 29 218,219,223,224, 226, 227, 228 29,30,46,228 27 216,219,224,225 225 225 30,224,225 6,31, 179,218,226, 227,228 224,225 218, 224, 225 219 216,218,219 26,27,42,43,218 29,30,46 241 29,44 46,228 6,93 237,243 245 22,23,24,41, 125, 146,240,242,243, 247,252 6,31 22, 28, 86, 242, 245

274

Index ofPossages

Romans (continued) 29,44,218 8:7 8:30-34 237 8:33 181 9-11 1,4,7,8, 11,86,89, 91,92,93,94,96,98, 99, lOO, 102, 103, 104, lOS, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,116,117, 118, 120, 127, 129, 143, 16S, 166, 173, 175,176,193 9-10 61,89 9 7,94,99, 100, 101, 102,104,105,107, 112 9:3 165,166 9:4 89 9:6ff 97,98,112 9:6-11:10 97 9:6-29 8, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 107 9:6-23 99 9:6-13 95 9:6 89,96 9:11-12 102 9:13 95 9:14-18 95 9:14 216 9:15 102 9:18 102 9:19-23 95 9:30-10:21 8,94,95,96, 107 9:30-10:13 102 9:30 216 9:32ff 96 9:32 60,176 9:32b-33 96 10-11 101 10 104, 105, 112 10:2-3 59 10:2 60 10:3 60,89 10:4 42,141,145 10:5-11 198 10:S-6 50 10:5 32,237 10:11 96 10:12 176, 178 10:16 96

II

II 1-36 II 1-10 11 1-2 III

11:3-10 11:Sb 11:8-10 11:10 11:l1ff 11:11-36 11:11-15 11:11-14 11:11-12 11:11 II :12 11:13-14 11:13 11:13a 11: 14f£ 11:14 11:15 11:17ff 11:17-24 11:17-21 11:17 11:25ff 11:25-32 11:25-27 11:25-26 11:25 11 :25a 11:25c 11:26 11:26a 11:26b-27 11:26b 12:1-2 12:1 13:8-10 13:8 139 13 10 13 lOb 13 13 13 14 14

7, 8, 93, 94, 9S, 97, 99, lOO, 101, 102, 104, lOS, 107, 112, 17S 94,97 97 107,177 176,216 107 97 176 105, 176 100,173,174,175 8, 98, 99, 107 97 8,101,176,177 176,177 97,105,176,216 94,97,176,177 177 177 178 94 97,177 97, 166, 177 59,98,101,102 178 176 164,176 94,100,118,173,177 165 93 108 97, 98, 108, 177 97 94 94,98 94, 97, 98 98 94 21 80 20,22,28, 80, 245 245 26,75,246 245 22 30,47 26 164

Index of Passages Romans (continued) 165 14:1-6 14:1 166 187 14:3-4 14:3 166 14:5 164 182, 186, 187 14:10-12 14:10 187 14:12 187 14:14 21,75,82 21,82 14:20 165,166 15:7 15:10 165 15:19-24 164 15:24 109 15:28 109 164,165, 167 16 16:3ff 164 16:7 165 165 16:11 16:17 165 165 16:21 1 Corinthians 1:10ff 1:11-12 1:11 1:29 2:1-2 3:1-8 3:3-4 3:10ff 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:13-15 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:21-22 3:21 4:1-5 4:1 4:2 4:3-5 4:4 4:5 5:1-5 5:1

164 183 162 59 167 164 183 182 182 182 182 183 182, 183 183 183 80 183 183 182,183 183 183 181, 183 183 181,183 182, 183 162,179,183,184

5:2 5:3 5:5 5:6-8 5:9 6:lff 6:1 6:4-5 6:5 6:8 6:9-11 6:9-10 6:9 6:11 6:12 6:18-19 6:19 7:1 7:17 7:19 7:20 7:21ff 7:24 9:8 9:19-23 9:20 9:21 9:24-27 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 10:6-10 10:23 11:18 11:34 12:13 15 15:12ff 15:56 2 Corinthians 2:4 3-4 3

3:6 3:13 3:14

275 183 163 184 80 162 184 184 184 184 184 179. 180, 182, 184 179 184 184.239 21 179 80 162 179 22,80,171,179,180, 245,251 179 179 179 209 239 82 18,244,247,252 182, 185 185 185 185 185 26 21 162 163 164 101,166 163 29, 151, 228, 230

162 100 6, 8, 35, 99, 100. 102, 105 31 42 105

Index a/Passages

276 2 Corinthians (continued) 3:16 105 4 8,99, lOO, 102 4:4 99 5:10 67,181,182,185 5:12 186 7:7 162 10:11 163 13:10 163

3:2-5 3:2 3:5 3:6-14 3:6-12 3:6-9 3:6 3:7 3:10-14

Galatians 1-2

3:10-13 3:10-12

I

1:6 1:8 1:11-17 1:12 1:15ff 1:15-16 1:16 2:lff 2-3 2 2:1-14 2:1-2 2:7-9 2:8ff 2:8 2:11ff 2:11-14 2:12 2:14 2:15ff 2:15-21 2:16-3:10 2:16 2:17 2:18-19 2:18 2:19ff 2:19a 2:21

3:1-20 3:1-14

101 87, 88, 90,239 162,204 163 87,88 215 178 8,97 76,178 71 61 101,179 207 215 178 73 77,78 75,81,83,84 1,239 207 246 61 21 207 49, 125, 126, 181,201, 207,227,236 132 82 21 201 21 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 60, 118, 119 35,41,44,45,179, 193,199,200,203, 205,206,212,223, 251 200,214 200, 20 1, 206

3:10

3:10a 3:10b 3:11-12 3:11 3:1 la 3:11b 3:12 3:12b 3:13-14 3:13 3:14 3:15ff 3:15-25 3:15-20 3:15-18 3:15 3:16 3:17-18 3:17 3:18 3:18a 3:19ff 3:19-21 3: 19-20 3:19

3:19a 3:19b 3:19d-20

61,201 65,77,78,201,236 236 201 49 201 201 65,201 17, 149, 200, 205, 206,207 200,202,210 25,61,201,205,227, 251 25, 134,201,202, 203,204,205, 207, 236,245 202,203 202,203,205 201,203,204,212, 236 203,207 203,204 201,203,204 32, 203, 204, 207, 236 201 200,201,205 6, 17, 18,42,71,200, 205 17,18,200,201,203, 205 6,71 21 6, 19,28,44,45,208, 251 208,210 208,209 210 31 29,208,210,213 2Il 208,209,211 44 213 171,208,210,212 21,28,29, Ill, 123, 210,211,212,213, 228,230 29 210,213 210

Index o/Passages Galatians (continued) 210,211,212 3:19d 3:20 210,211,212,213 3:20a 210,212 3:20b 210,212 210 3:21-25 6,31,212,226,228, 3:21 236 3:21b 213 3:23ff 19,40 3:23-26 18 3:23-25 18 3:23 245 3:25-26 18 3:26 18 3:28 80,82 104, 199 4 4:1-11 18 4:3 18 4:4ff 42,245 4:5-6 18 18,245 4:5 4:6 18 4:9 18 18,201,206,246 4:10 4:12 82 245 4:21 28 5 5:1-12 187 18,245 5:1 25,200,246 5:3 5:4 25,207 5:6 243 5:12 82 246,247 5:13ff 5:13-14 80 5:13 187 5:14ff 28,245 5:14 20,22, 38, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 252 5:16-26 187 26,187 5:16 182, 186, 187 5:19-21 5:19 187 5:21 187 5:21b 185 187 5:22 5:26 187 6:1-6 187 188 6:1

6:2 6:4 6:7-10 6:7 6:9 Ephesians 1:15 2:10 Philippians 1:3-5 1:6 1:10 1:27 2:25 3 3:2-11 3:2 3:3 3:4ff 3:4-8 3:4-6 3:5 3:6 3:6b 3:7 3:8 3:9 4:2 4:8 CoJossians 1:3-4 2:5 2:11 4:16

277 146, 147,243,244, 245,247,252 188 182,186,187 188 188

162 232

162 163 21 162 162 87, 89,90,239 87,88 88 80 59 89 90, 112,240 89,90 27 89 88 89,240 57, 88, 89, 90, 239, 240 163 21

162 163 80 162

J Thessalonians 173,174 1:6 100,101,173,175, 178 2:13-16 175 8, lOO, 166, 173, 175, 2:14-16 250 2:14 173,174 2:15 174 2:16 173,174,175

Index of Passages

278 1 Thessalonians 2:16a 2:16c 3:6 4 4:1-12 4:5 4:13-18

(continued) 100 175 162 101 163 26 163

Philemon 17

166

Hebrews 2:2

210

1 Peter 1:20 4:12

226 174

2 Thessalonians 2:5 163 2:15 163 3:11 162

Ill. Apocryphal, Pseudepigraphic, and Early Christian Literature 1 Clement 16:17

Gospel of Thomas logion 53 80

135

Augustine Confessions 7:21 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 47:1 237

Jesus Sirach 29:1 32:24

179 179

4 Maccabees

80

Psalms of Solomon 3:9-12 176

IV. Other Ancient Writings Demosthenes UEPI THE EIPHNHE

194

Suetonius Vita Claudii 25

165

Index of Subjects and Names Angels, 28, 210, 211, 213 Antinomianism, 26, 188 Antithesis between works oflaw and faith in Christ, 49,50,51,52,64,67,69,70,83, 88,102,180,181,182,186,239 Apostolic Council, 73 Aquinas, Th., I Argumentum ad hominem, 208, 209, 211, 212 Argumentum ex concessis, 198 Augustine, 2, 27,191,225

Dead Sea Scrolls, 35 Demosthenes, 191, 194 Development theory (see also development in Paul), 37, 38, 72, 104, 155, 156,245 Dialectic, 3, 35, 36, 71,72, 105, 106 Dialectical theology, 113, 114 Dissimulatio artis, 195 Dogmatics, 142, 143, 167, 168, 169,170,172,215

Biblical Theology, 125, 128, 147 Christocentrism/-monism, 118, 119, 127, 128, 129 Church - incorporation of the Gentiles, 60, 61, 63, 77,81,85,90, 146, 148,207,211 - unity of, 82, 83, 84, 105, 164, 165, 166, 176,177,183,187,250 Circumcision, 63, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87,88,207 Claudius' decree, 165 Clement of Rome, 131, 132, 135 Continuity between Old Testament and Paul, 86,101,106,117,124,125,126,127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 148, 149 Covenant, 53, 54 Covenantal nomism, 9, 53, 55, 56, 57, 89, 148

Enthymeme, 193 Eritis sicut deus, 26 Ethics,21,179,182,184,185, 187,188 - indicative and imperative, 63, 65, 132,238 IV Ezra, 56 Harmonization, 34, 35 Hellenists, 73, 74, 75, 76,77,78, 79,80,81 Hermeneutics, 159, 160, 168, 171, 173,179,180,189,196,198, 220,221,222,247,249,252, 253 History-of-Religions, 12, 143

Index ofSubjects and Names

280

Inconsistency, passim - definition of, 2,154,157 - diachronic, 156 - logical, 157, 199 - overview of,S, 6, 7, 8 - theological, 154 Interpolation, 37,151,199 Islam (see also Koran), 12 Israel - election of, 95, 98, 99 - hardening of, 92, 95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105 - human responsibility of, 96 - a special way to salvation?, 93, 94 Jesus - death of, 42, 43, 44,46,48,74,118,201, 205,208,219,220 Judaism, 4,7, 13,55 - caricature of, 9, 10, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61,62,64,66,84,130, 133, 144,237, 239,240 Justification - by faith, 141 - Uudgment) according to deeds, 67,180, 181,182,185,186,187,188,231,232, 234,251 Kerygmata Petrou, 123

Koran (see also Islam), 36, 96, 109, 110 Law, passim - abrogation of, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,37, 41,42,146,179,222,243,245,248,251 - apology for, 218, 224, 225, 226 - of Christ, 243, 244 - concentration on, 246, 247 - curse of, 18, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205 - of faith, 22, 23, 240, 241, 242

~i_

-

fulfilment of, 19,25,26,27, 28,42,43,44, 145,202,203, 204, 231, 246, 247 - functions of, 223, 224, 225, 227,228,229,230,231,248 - and Gentiles, 17, 18, 19,40, 41,200,205,206,207,210, 214,233,234,251 - inferior to the promise, 212, 213,214 - and life, 31, 32, 47, 203, 204, 226,227,228,252 - origin of, 28, 29, 44, 45, 122, 123,208,209,210,212,213, 214 - oscillation of, 17 - reduction of, 19,20,41,235, 236,245 - and sin, 29, 30, 38, 45, 46, 47, 145,152,223,224,225,228, 229,230, 248, 252 - soterio10gical function of, 50, 62, 65, 66, 145,237 - of Spirit, 22, 23, 242 - works of, 61, 83,129,130, 206,236,237,238 Legalism, 10,34,52,53,57,58, 60,131,132,134,146,149, 236,238 Legitimation, 115, 1l6, 117 Logic(al), 198, 199 Love commandment, 20, 246 Luther (see also Lutheran interpretation of Paul), 70, 206 Lutheran interpretation of Paul (see also Luther), 27, 134, 135, 144, 147, 149 Marcion, 36, 122 Me1anchthon, Ph., 166, 191, 196

Index o/Subjects and Names

Messianic Secret, 109, 110, Ill, 112

281

Q-tradition, 109 Qumran, 55, 96, 134

Natural (general) revelation, 234 New Testament Theology, 12, 14, 142, 143, 144,153 Parable theory in Mark, II 0, 111, 112, 113 Pastoral nature of Paul's letters, 162, l63, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 190

Reason for Romans, 164, 165, 166,167 Reformation, 49, 141 Rbetorical genres, 192, 193, 194, 197

Paul, passim

Sanctification, 222, 223

-

apostle to the Gentiles, 80, 82, 90, 97,

Semantics, 216, 217, 220, 232,

-

apostle to Israel, 101, 162, 176, 177, 178,

Soteriological a priori, 40, 46, 47,

-

250 authority of, 33, 34,120,121,124,157,

48,66,67,106,107, 118,229 Spirit

158 continuity with Jesus?, 74, 75

-

-

Damascus Road experience, 71, 76,87

Stoicheia, 18

-

development in Paul (see also development theory), 68, 7l, 72, 73, 85, 86,87,88,90, 140, 141, 142, 154, 155, 156,239,240 dispute between Paul and Peter, I

'Symbolic universe', 114, 115,

101,174,175,176,177,178

-

can a theology of Paul be written?, 39, 169,170,201,215 Philo of Alexandria, 78, 79,196 Predestination (see election of Israel)

-

233,241,242

and Gentiles, 201, 202

Step hen, 75, 76

116, 117 Theodicy, 6, 31, 32 Torah (see law) Tradition, experience, and interpretation, 11, 107, 108, 113,114, liS, 116, 119, 120, 122,124

doctrine of predestination?, 93, 99, 100,

107,112 Ptolemy, 123

Uniqueness of Christianity, 133, 135, 136

Purification, 183 'Zion Torah', 125, 147

Is Paul as inconsistent in his thinking as Heikki Raisanen demonstrates? With the help of several hermeneutical techniques, T. E. van Spanje shows that the contrary is the case.

ISBN 3-16-147188-1

Mohr Siebeck