The Gospel of Paul (Studies in Biblical Literature, V. 56)

The Gospel of Paul

Joong Suk Suh

PETER LANG

The Gospel of Paul

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor

Vol. 56

PETER LANG New York Washington, D.C./Baltimore Bern Frankfurt am Main Berlin Brussels Vienna Oxford

Joong Suk Suh

The Gospel of Paul

PETER LANG New York Washington, D.C./Baltimore Bern Frankfurt am Main Berlin Brussels Vienna Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData Suh, Joong Suk. The Gospel of Paul / Joong S u k Suh. p. cm. - (Studies in biblical literature; vol. 56) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.Bible. N.T. Epistles of Paul-Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. N.T. Epistles of Paul-Theology. 3. Sociology, Biblical. I. Title. 11. Series. BS2650.52.584 2003 225.9'2-dc21 2003007054 ISBN 0-8204-6717-0 ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek. Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the "Deutsche Nationalbibliografie"; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Intemet at http://dnb.ddb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

02003 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 275 Seventh Avenue, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10003 www.peterlangusa.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

For Howard C. Kee & Gerd Theissen

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Series Editor Preface ix Preface xi List of Abbreviations xv CHAPTER ONE

Christ and Resurrection

I

CHAPTER TWO

Resurrection Witnesses

10

CHAPTER THREE

Jerusalem Conference 19 CHAPTER FOUR

Christ and the Law 41 C H A P T E R FIVE

Law and Faith 5 5 CHAPTER SIX

Promise of God 78 C H A P T E R SEVEN

Lord's Supper 87 CHAPTER EIGHT

Christ Hymn 98 Appendix 113 Notes 117 Bibliography I 3 I Index of Modern Authors

I 37

This page intentionally left blank

Series Editor Preface

More than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical stuQes continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order, and which will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume Joong Suk Suh examines in fairly copious detail the nature of the gospel of Paul. Suh argues that the gospel of Paul must be examined in the context of the environment in which Paul functioned. He contends that the tension between Paul’s autonomous ideas and the societal constraints must be maintained. In this regard, the author argues that the voice of the local churches must be heard, and not be relegated to a point of secondary importance as has been the convention. Biblical scholars in general and Pauline scholars in particular will find this study enormously engaging. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai Series Editor.

This page intentionally left blank

Preface

What is ‘Paul’s gospel?’It is a declaration that through faith, even Gentiles can become a part of the people of God (Rom. I. I 5- I 7; I 5 . I 5-1 6), and further that through faith, both Jews and Gentiles can stand before God without distinction (Rom. 3.22, 29-30; Gal. 3.28). But this definition is simply a general overview of ‘Paul’s gospel.’ In practice, Paul did not always maintain this definition in all situations. Rather, depending on the situation between the Gentile group and the Jewish group, he gave greater weight to one side against the other. Paul himself stated that he became all things to all people ( I Cor. 9.22). In Galatians, he defended the Gentile Christians and attacked the Jewish Christians. But in Romans, Paul turned around and gave greater encouragement to the Jewish Christians than to the Gentile Christians. Paul’s attitude toward the unbelieving Jews fluctuates from an attitude of severe criticism ( I Thes. 2.14-16) to an attitude of conditional optimism ( 2 Cor. 3.14-17) to an amicable one (Rom. 9-1 I ) . Paul’s various attitudes toward them are conditioned by the diverse situations and circumstances of the recipient local churches. This applies to Paul’s relationship with the apostles at the Jerusalem church as well. Paul’s attitude toward the apostles is not the same all the time. He ratifies their status (Ga1.2.7-9), while he criticizes them sometimes (Gal.2.11-14). Paul’s view of the gospel cannot be examined apart from his surroundings. His letters not only contain his autonomous thoughts, but the social situation which constrains him. In interpreting Paul’s letters, one cannot sacrifice either Paul’s autonomous thoughts or the situational constraint. Thus, it is necessary to examine the relationships between Paul and the various

xii

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

local churches. This leads to the reconsidering of the traditional method of studying Paul, that the local churches are frail entities without their own voices and in want of direction and teaching, and Paul is a perfect individual with exceeding knowledge and powerful leadership of heroic proportions. It is true that within Paul’s letters, Paul’s voice is louder than the voice of the recipient local churches. However it is inevitable due to the fact that all Paul’s letters which we now have were written by Paul himself, not by the local churches. Paul and the local churches were mutually influenced by each another. That Paul influenced the local churches and also that the local churches influenced Paul are presented within Pauline letters in various places, both explicitly and implicitly. For instance, Paul and the Philippian church share a similar relationship. Paul writes that he thinks of them (Phil. 1.7)’ and that he knows the church thinks of him (Phil. 4.10). This reciprocally influencing relationship is not limited to those local churches that Paul himself established. Even in his relationship with the local church he did not have a hand in establishing, reciprocal influence is presented. For example, Paul introduces his letter to Romans with the comment of his relationship with that church as “mutually encouraging by each other’s faith” (Rom. I. I 2). It was never a one-sided relationship. Implicit within Paul’s expressed views is his attempt to heighten his influence over the local churches while decreasing the influence of the local churches over him. This work is the attempt to capture Paul’s thoughts hidden between the lines of his expressed views. In other words, it explores the sociological implications behind Paul’s diverse theological statements of the gospel. This work was supported by Yonsei University Faculty Research Grant (1998). I appreciate my colleagues for their help in the research toward this publication. Particularly helpful was the assistance by the way of checking and proofreading rendered by Mr. Do-Hyun Kim, Mr. Choong-Hyun Seong, Mr. Hak Chol Kim, and Mr. Tin Oh Bae. The co-operation of Dr. Heidi Burns, Ms. Sophie Appel, Ms. Lisa Dillon, and the staff at Peter Lang was outstanding. Dr. H. Gossal, the series editor, and Dr. Sang J. Ahn read the entire text and made many corrections, which could easily have been overlooked.

Preface

xiii

Special thanks go to Prof. Howard C. Kee and Prof. Gerd Theissen for their valuable comments on the manuscript and corrections for errata in it. This book is dedicated to these two scholars, the pioneers of and the great contributors to sociological interpretation of the New Testament, whose readings of Paul’s letters have fundamentally influenced my own. Joong S. Suh Yonsei University

Abbreviations

Ann Tapan Bib Inst BR BT BTB Bull Bib Res CBQ Exp T HR In t Ir Bib Stud TBL THC JSNT ITS Nov Test NTS RB R e v Exp UTQR WTT ZhW

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute Biblical Research The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Bulletin for Biblical Research Catholic Biblical Quarterly Expository Times History of Religion Interpretation Irish Biblical Studies Journal of Biblical Literature The Journal of Higher Criticism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Revue Biblique Review and Exposit Union Seminary Quarterly Review Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

ONE

Christ and Resurrection

Introduction In I Corinthians 15.3-4,Paul introduces the gospel he “received:” “. . . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.” Concerning the gospel, Paul reveals that he delivered by oral transmission what he himself “received.” Paul “first accepts the connection between himself and those Christians who came before him”1 and now he informs the people of the Corinthian church. What concerns us here is the question regarding Paul’s unique gospel. Specifically, what is the special feature of the gospel that Paul received and delivered? Paul explains that it is “for our sins” that Jesus died. It is understood that “for our sins” is not meant to be a historical explanation, but Paul’s theological interpretation of Jesus’ death. Continuing on, Paul states that fesus’ death and his subsequent burial is recorded in the scriptures. Finally, emphasizing the phrase “in accordance with the scriptures” once again, he proclaims Jesus’ resurrection. This first chapter concentrates on Paul’s purpose in revealing such information and his stated position in regard to the Jerusalem apostles. Namely, how did he distinguish himself from them, and where did he place himself in respect to them?

Paul’s Christ versus the Apostles’ Jesus This chapter notes that within his gospel, Paul mentions only that Jesus died while completely neglecting the primary factors

2

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

involved, be it political or social, that caused Jesus’ death. It seems that for Paul, the only statement that need to be said concerning the death of Jesus is simply that he “died (apethanen).” But in describing Jesus’ death, Paul could have chosen a more descriptive vocabulary. For instance, “he died” could be better qualified with the phrase, “he was executed.” “He died” is an allinclusive phrase that can be used as well for a person who enjoyed longevity. “He was executed’’ on the other hand, is a phrase that exclusively implies a forced impairment of one’s life. The historical life of Jesus was forcibly curtailed by the legal actions of the Jewish high priests, elders, and scribes, and by the approval of his execution by Pilate (Mk. 15.1-1s). In light of this understanding, that Jesus was “executed” would have been the better choice. Nevertheless, Paul remains silent about the social and political factors that resulted in the execution, but instead refers only to the spiritual ramification of Jesus’ death.2 Even when he mentions the resurrection, he refers to the “resurrection of the dead (anastasis nekron)” ( I Cor. I 5. I 3 ) used in the most general sense and neglects to utilize a more explicit phrase, “resurrection of the executed.”3 In review of his gospel, we can conclude that Paul is intentionally being ideological. It is, of course, erroneous to state that all of Paul’s thoughts are ideological. Just the opposite is true: the Pauline epistles as a whole are not written in an ideological sphere without regard for time, but it is a product of a definite place and time written to deal with the real circumstances that demanded its writing. When we consider his flexibility, that similar topics are dealt with differently according to differing situations, we can come to such a conclusion. In fact, it is the definite historical and social context that he shows most interest. With this being the case, why does Paul turn toward the ideological sphere in I Corinthians I 5.3,4? More questions arise: Why does Paul uncharacteristically omit the comments concerning the historical life of Jesus?Also, why does he begin the gospel with the death of Jesus?Finally, why doesn’t Paul discuss the situation that resulted in Jesus’ death? To state casually that the answer lies in Paul’s ignorance of the historical Jesus and his life story cannot be accepted. Paul knew much about the life of Jesus. The previous section in I Corinthians I I .23-25 records Paul’s knowledge of the gospel tradition.

Christ and Resurrection

3

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’

The previous questions can be summed up with the following: why does Paul delete the historical account of Jesus’ life from the core of his gospel formula? The answer to this question lies in his relationship with the twelve apostles of Jerusalem. The apostles claimed their validity from their actual involvement alongside the life of Jesus. They had participated in the life of the historical Jesus. The gospel accounts reveal abundant information to validate their claim. Jesus chose (called) his disciples and taught them. The disciples followed Jesus and communed together. According to the Markan account, the purpose of Jesus’ selection of the twelve is for them “to be with him” (Mk. 3.14).They are given authority to cast out demons (Mk. 3.1 5 ) . In Matthew, Peter, called by Jesus as the “rock,” receives the key to heaven and the This foundarole of the foundation of his church (Mt. 16.18~19). tional role is not limited to Peter but is later extended to include Furthermore, the disciples ate and all of the disciples (Mt. 18.18). drank together with the historical Jesus (Mk. 14.22-25,et al.). This was something Paul could not claim for himself because he did not have the opportunity to meet Jesus of history. If Paul was to officially recognize the historical Jesus or to stress the importance of his historicity, that would indirectly confirm the validity of the apostles’ claim to their importance arising from their involvement with the historical Jesus. Also, because Paul could not himself be a part of that claim and status, he would be subjugating himself below the status of the apostles as a result. Paul did not desire that lower position. Rather, Paul wanted to be at par with and compete with the apostles. For that reason, Paul stressed his independence from the apostolic influence. Paul declares, “the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it” (Gal. I.I 1-1 2). If the apostles claimed their position of authority based upon their “relationship with the historical Jesus,” what did Paul offer in his defense to legitimize his claim to the same apostleship? He

4

THE GOSPEL O F PAUL

utilized such terms as “revelation,” “grace,” “Christ,” and “spiritual resurrection” for that purpose. Paul states that the gospel he proclaims was received “through a revelation of Jesus Christ (apokalupse6s I2sou Christou)” (Gal. I. IZ), and his journey to Jerusalem was also due to the “revelation” he had received (Gal. 2.1,~).For Paul who never met the historical Jesus, this “revelation” became a strong countermeasure to offset the exclusive apostolic authority. “Grace” is a word that Paul used more frequently than ’‘revelation.” Just within the letters to the Romans, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians, “grace” appears about 57 times. That this word never appears in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, the works which recorded the accounts of the historical Jesus, is significant. Even in John, if the prologue (1.1-18)is excluded, this word is nowhere found. But Paul uses the words, “grace of God” ( I Cor. 15.10) or ”grace of Christ” (Gal. 1 . 6 ) repeatedly. Especially in I Corinthians IS, right after the listing of the witnesses to the resurrection, Paul makes it clear that he himself is a product of grace. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of themthough it was not I, but the grace of God that is in me [ I Cor. 15.10).

Paul claims his apostleship as God’s grace given to him and relates the gospel that he proclaims to God’s revelation. But from all perspectives, the works of the historical Jesus is non-existent. Furthermore, Paul uses the title “Christ” more frequently than the name “Jesus.” This can also be explained in the same line of thought. If we follow the direction of Acts, Peter is recorded as declaring this about Jesus, “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonder, and signs that God did through him among you” (2.22).Here, the works of the historical Jesus are emphasized. This type of declaration is not voiced solely by Peter. In the Acts, Peter is seen “standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed” the people (Acts 2.14). Of course, the apostles did not reserve themselves to speaking only about the life of the historical Jesus. They had other points to proclaim. They had witnessed the resurrected Christ. Therefore, they could proclaim either the Jesus of history

Christ and Resurrection

5

or the Christ of the resurrection, or they could combine the two themes and proclaim it together. Paul, on the other hand, does not mention the name of Jesus without a qualifier. For him, it is “Jesus Christ,” or “Christ Jesus,” “Lord Jesus,” or ”Lord Jesus Christ.” And finally, at times, it is “Christ.” “Jesus Christ” or ”Christ Jesus” is used by Paul in 48 instances just in Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, and Galatians. In the same four epistles, “Lord Jesus” or “Lord Jesus Christ” appears 43 times and “Christ” is used 226 times. Among the various titles, the title of “Christ” used alone has a very high frequency of use. Within the same four epistles, it is significant that “Jesus” alone appears only 12 times.4 And in each case, the name is not used to refer specifically to the historical life of Jesus and his works. Rather, the name ”Jesus” is used by Paul ubiquitously for such themes as “faith (pistis) of Jesus” or “marks (stigma) of Jesus.” Even in the designations of “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus,” the name is used solely to reveal his identity as Christ, and not to stress the works of Jesus in his earthly life. In Paul’s understanding, the historical Jesus is important in so far as he “has been raised from the dead” (I Cor. I 5.20) thus becoming the Christ. If the historical Jesus alone is isolated, he is nothing more than a man “born of woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4.4).By this, Paul reduces the importance placed upon the historical Jesus by the apostles. Implicit behind such statements is Paul’s nonrelationship with the historical Jesus.

Spiritual Resurrection versus Physical Resurrection Paul’s emphasis of the spiritual over against the physical (inclusive of the historical Jesus in the flesh) also works to further lessen and remove the importance of the physical. For Paul, even the resurrection of the dead is understood to be a spiritual resurrection. ”What is sown (physical) is perishable, what is raised (spiritual) is imperishable” (I Cor. I 5.42).Paul contrasts ”dishonor” with “glory” ( I Cor. I 5.43),“physical body” with “spiritual body”5 (I Cor. 15.443,and “image of the man of dust” with “image of the man of heaven” (I Cor. I 5.49), and he explains that we shall all be changed, “at the last trumpet,” when “the dead (perishable)will be raised imperishable” (I Cor. 15.52).Going

6

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

further, Paul puts a striking blow to those who emphasize the physical nature-”flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” ( I Cor. 15.50). The emphasis of the spiritual resurrection by Paul resembles the gnostic understanding6 The Christian gnostics interpreted Jesus’ resurrection as a spiritual one. The gnostics also emphasized the spiritual resurrection and therefore confronted the apostles who declared the bodily resurrection. The Gospel of Mary, regarded as a Christian gnostic document, declares that Mary saw Jesus while she was in a trance. Here, it is argued that she witnessed Jesus’ resurrection through a vision. I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him. ‘Lord, I saw you today in a vision.‘ He answered me, ‘Blessed are you, that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure’ (10.1ob-

16).’ In response to Mary’s visions, Andrew declares them as ”strange ideas” (17.14b-15),and Peter agrees. To their vocal opposition, Levi interjects in Mary’s defense accusing the two disciples of fighting with Mary as though she were an enemy. He counters their accusation by declaring that if the Lord showed his favor toward Mary through her vision, then who is he that stand in opposition to her (18.1ob-1zab)?8 Again, the gnostic writer of Apocalypse of Peter reports that Jesus appeared to Peter in a vision and spoke, “I am the intellectual Spirit filled with radiant light” (83.8-IO).~ Here, Peter stands out as an affirming individual. But this Peter is different from the Peter found in the New Testament gospels. The Peter found in the Apocalypse is a representative of the gnostics who speaks on their behalf.10 The Gospel of Philip also understands Jesus’ resurrection as spiritual. According to this gospel, when it is said that Jesus had a bodily resurrection, the meaning of that “body” is not simply a physical body. The [Lord rose] from the dead. [He became as he used] to be, but now [his body was] perfect. [He did indeed possess] flesh, but this [flesh]is true flesh. [Our flesh] is not true, but [we possess] only an image of the true (68.31-37).”

This is a critical response to those who understand Jesus’ resurrection as a bodily resurrection. The body of the resurrected

Christ and Resurrection

7

Jesus is of a different kind from that of our human body. E. Pagels summarizes this situation as follows. What interested these gnostics far more than past events attributed to the ‘historical Jesus’ was the possibility of encountering the risen Christ in the present.12

Despite her insightful study she limits her focus to the repression of the gnostics by the church, and in so doing, she fails to recognize the possibility that the church’s repression resulted in the stance of the gnostics. The four gospels of the New Testament do not claim exclusive bodily resurrection while rejecting its spiritual dimension. When Jesus appeared to the two men on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24.13-32), he appeared to them in a different form. The two did not recognize Jesus (24.16) because Jesus appeared to them differently from the person they knew prior to his execution. Also when they finally recognized the person who spoke with them, “he vanished from their sight” (24.31). Later when the two report their encounter to the disciples at Jerusalem, Jesus appeared in their midst and they thought he was a “ghost” (24.37).It is recognized within the text that their claim of Jesus as ”ghost” was in error, but this text nevertheless reveals that many understood Jesus’ resurrection as a spiritual resurrection. At the traditional ending of Marks gospel ( I6.9-20), Mark introduces the resurrected Jesus as appearing to the two disciples “in another form” (16.12). The resurrected Jesus of the gospel of John instructed Mary Magdalene, “do not hold on to me” (20.17). Although Mary “saw” the resurrected Jesus, John records that ”she did not know that it was Jesus” (20.14). This passage suggests that the appearance of Jesus prior to his resurrection and after were different.13 As the number of those who claimed they had attained the spiritual resurrection increased, the apostolic group worked to suppress the transmission of the spiritual dimension of the resurrection. The growing number of those who declared the spirit resurrection was a direct threat to the apostolic group’s monopoly on the divine authority they had enjoyed. In their attempt to suppress the teachings of those who claimed to have attained their spiritual resurrection, the apostolic church took action. Their activities can be summed up in two ways. First of all, they

8

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

limited the number of witnesses to the resurrected Jesus to those that dined with the post-resurrection Jesus. God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead (Acts 1o.4o-41).l4

Secondly, the duration of the post resurrection event was defined to be forty days. After his suffering he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God (Acts 1.3).

Of course, the teaching of “forty days” seems to have been a late tradition appearing after the writing of the I Corinthians. Not only Pauline epistles, but also Mark’s gospel (approximately 70 CE), and later, the gospels of Matthew and John all do not refer to, suggest to, or respond to the “forty days.”15 The transmission of the “post-resurrection table fellowship group” or the limited duration of “forty days” most likely contributed to the solidifying of the apostolic group’s position and authority. Probably this also worked to strike a blow to the Pauline group’s position. No one within the Pauline group, including Paul, had participated in the dining experienced with the postresurrection Jesus, nor did they meet the risen Lord within the limited period of forty days.

Summary and Conclusion Paul’s gospel as recorded in I Corinthians I 5.3-4 omits the historical life of Jesus and his activities. Such a gospel stems from Paul’s opposition to the Jerusalem’s original apostles who utilized their participation in the historical Jesus’ life as one of the points to validate and authenticate their authority. As one who did not participate in the life of the historical Jesus, Paul determined to establish his authority from elsewhere. “Revelation,” “grace,” “Christ,” and “spiritual resurrection” are the main subjects that Paul utilizes in his defense. Especially in the case of resurrection, Paul contrasts the spiritual and the physical and then concludes, “what is sown (flesh)is perishable, what is raised

Christ and Resurrection

9

(spirit)is imperishable” ( I Cor. I 5.42).As far as this aspect is concerned, Paul resembles the ideology of the gnostics, though he detaches from them in other aspects. For Paul, the historical Jesus (in the flesh) was important only in that God raised him from the dead ( I Cor. 15.15-16).He thus proclaims him the Christ. For Paul, if the historical Jesus is emphasized without the resurrection, he is merely one “born of a woman” (Gal.4.4) without much significance. Such statements reveal Paul’s antagonism and competition toward the original apostles.

TWO

Resurrection Witnesses

Introduction In I Corinthians I 5.5-8, Paul introduces the list of the witnesses to the appearances of the resurrected Jesus. C. H. Talbert has analyzed the structure of I Corinthians I 5.5-9 where the list of the resurrection witnesses is recorded. He arranges the passage in the following literary structure.' He appeared (ophthe) to Cephas Then (eita) to the Twelve, Then he appeared (epeita 6phthE) to more than five hundred; Then he appeared (epeita 6phthE) to Tames; Then (eita) to all the apostles; He appeared (6phthe) also to me. Here, Talbert keenly grasps something that other scholars have overlooked, but he fails to observe the antagonism between Paul and the apostles hidden within the above structure. This chapter reviews the list with the following questions: Why are the women missing from the list? What is the original list of the Jerusalem apostles and why is Paul's list enlarged from the original list provided by the Jerusalem apostles? This chapter aims to seek, behind Paul's theological statements, a sociological reality that produced them.

Resurrection Witnesses

II

Paul, Women, and the Apostles Paul’s understanding of the resurrection appearances is first compared to those found in the gospels. The activity of the women associated with the resurrection appearances can be generally divided into two traditions. First is that the women heard of Jesus’ resurrection second-handedly without them actually witnessing the risen Jesus. The second tradition reported that the women were direct witnesses to the manifestation of Jesus’ resurrection. Within the synoptic gospels, gospel of Mark presents the women as witnesses to the manifestation of Jesus’ resurrection. Mark I 6.1-8 records that Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James and Salome are given news from a young man dressed in white that Jesus “has been raised” (16.6)’ thus they are the first to hear of Jesus’ resurrection. Following this encounter, the epilogue to Mark (16.9-20)’ which is regarded as a later addition to the original text, records that the risen Jesus appeared “first” to Mary Magdalene (16.9)’ and she in turn told “those (disciples)who had been with him (Jesus)”(16.10). Here, the disciples are introduced as rejecting Mary’s report that Jesus was alive and that he appeared to Mary (16.11). The writer of the gospel of Matthew not only reports “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as the first to receive news of the resurrection from the “angel of the Lord,” they also meet the risen Jesus before the disciples (Mt. 28.1,2). The gospel of Luke, on the other hand, paints a different picture. Luke is similar with Matthew and Mark in that “the women who had come. . . from Galilee” (23.55) defined as “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women” (24.10) were the first to receive the news of the resurrection from the “two men in dazzling clothes” (24.4-7). Luke differs from the two gospels in that he does not report that the women actually met the risen Jesus. The gospel of John presents a different picture from that of the synoptic gospels. Here, Mary Magdalene is the first to arrive at the tomb, discover the removal of the stone, and then the empty tomb. She then reports her discovery to Simon Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved (20.1-2). After hearing the news, Peter and the Beloved Disciple go with the purpose to inspect the tomb. The “two angels in white” appear only to Mary and speak to her (20.11-13). After that, Mary meets the resurrected Lord

I2

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

and reports the encounter to the disciples with the statement, “I have seen the Lord” (20.14-18).2 All four gospels, in their approach to the resurrection of Jesus, present the role of the women as incomparably more significant than that offered by the apostles.3 Even in the actual witness to the resurrected Jesus, with the exception of Luke, the three gospels record the women as the first witnesses. Uniquely, the gospel of Luke records that the resurrected Jesus appeared only to “the eleven and their companions gathered together” (Luke 24.3 3); the women are not specifically mentioned. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John clearly delineate the primacy of the women as witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, neglects to record the women as witnesses at all. What’s his reason? As it is also the case with the Acts of the Apostles, two important themes for the gospel of Luke are the supremacy of the apostles and Jerusalem, thus the omission of women can be viewed as Luke’s deliberate deletion. With respect to persons, the apostles receive primary importance for Luke, and with respect to places, Jerusalem is the primary focus. Therefore, Luke selected, arranged, and modified his sources to accommodate his purpose. In case of the women as witnesses, their prominence as the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus ran counter to Luke’s theological emphasis on the primacy of the apostles. For this reason, Luke deleted the presence of the women as witnesses. This being the case with Luke, why are the women missing from Paul’s list of those who witnesses the manifestation of the resurrected Jesus? Was Paul unaware of the tradition that held the women as the first witnesses, or did he know, and yet deliberately omitted them? It is difficult to select between the two as to which is more true to the historical situation. In either case, the text before us remains silent. R. A. Harrisville notes that the reference to the empty tomb (Mk. 16.1-6; Mt. 28.1-6; Lk. 24.1-11, 22-24) and Paul’s omission of the women as witnesses have brought about abundant amount of theories, but none of these offer us anything more than mere guesses.4 It must be noted that Harrisville does not go about describing any of those “guesses,” nor does he offer his own conclusion; the reader is left to guess what those many theories might be. This is irresponsible writing. To criticize further, Harrisville’s attack is directed toward the practice of hypothesis. What he fails to realize is that the best

Resurrection Witnesses

13

scholarly work begins with the best hypothesis. Because the hypothesis is a tool to stimulate the creative process for the scholars, it is not something to be discarded so casually. By reflecting upon Paul’s attitude toward the apostles, an argument can be made for the position that Paul knew of the tradition concerning the women but deliberately omitted them from the list of witnesses. Luke and Paul alone thoroughly omitted the women from those who witnessed the resurrected Jesus. The cornparison between the two suggests similar thoughts. Of course, this is not to say that one writer directly utilized the work of the other for his own composition. Rather, their similarity suggests like motives for the deletion of the women. A credible hypothesis is introduced: The reason for Paul’s omission of the women from the list of witnesses and the reason for Luke’s omission are partly similar and partly dissimilar. Alike Luke, Paul removed the women in recognition of the apostolic superiority and authority. That Paul might have known of the tradition of the women witnesses can be seen in the following examples. In the gospel of John, Mary Magdalene declares, “I have seen the Lord” (20.18).This statement is similar to Paul’s own declaration, “Am I not an apostle?” and “have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” ( I Cor. 9.1) in his effort to claim his apostleship. Also the statement that “he (risen Jesus)appeared first to Mary” found in the gospel of Mark 16.9 is similar in form used by Paul to list the witnesses in I Corinthians I 5.5 8. Paul understood that such tradition would undermine the prominence of the apostles and that the apostles worked to delete this harmful account. In this effort, Paul was in agreement because he counted himself as one of them. On the other hand, Paul differs from Luke in that he sought to suppress the notion of the “significance of the relationship with the risen Jesus” that the women symbolized. Paul did not willingly accept the importance placed upon the resurrected Jesus before his ascension nor the importance placed upon the historical relationship with the resurrected Jesus stressed by the women. This differs from Luke who emphasized the significance of such a historical relationship as bringing “fullness.” To this understanding, Luke wants to limit the extent of that relationship to the original apostles. Because Paul cannot deny the historicity of the relationship, he accepts the significance of that relationship in part and in defining the extent, he removed the

14

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

women, and in their place, increased the number of the witnesses with a new list. The twelve apostles validated their authority not only by declaring their relationship with the historical Jesus prior to his resurrection, but that their relationship continued after his resurrection. They emphasized the point that they dined with Jesus after his resurrection (cf. Acts 1o.q1).5 While Paul recognizes the significance of such a relationship, Paul remains distant from such a view. That is because Paul could not claim such a definite and a direct relationship as those who had dined with the resurrected Jesus. This is Paul’s Achilles’ heel, a point of his great weakness. Paul consents in part to those apostles who stressed their association with the resurrected Jesus as significant. When Paul states that lastly the resurrected Jesus appeared to him also, he utilizes the same verb ophthe that he had used of those who witnessed the historical Jesus in his post-resurrected state. In using the verb for himself, he sought to be seen in the same light as the other witnesses. The reason for Paul’s effort to omit the women from the list of witnesses is because they were a part of this exclusive group that Paul himself could not be a member of. To state further, the reason why Paul excludes the women is because he does not want to recognize the women as having had a relationship with the resurrected Jesus. In reality, the women were not the only ones Paul wanted to remove from the list. He also hopes to diminish the significance of the apostles from the post-resurrection event. But unlike the women whose own tradition did not enjoy widespread recognition, Paul could not simply remove the apostles from the list of witnesses. That is because their official fame as witnesses was widely transmitted and so as to make their omission almost impossible for Paul. In contrast, it was easier to omit the women since the official apostolic tradition did not include them as witnesses. As far as the relationship with the resurrected Jesus goes, the apostles transmitted a different tradition from that of the women. The apostles focused on the meal with the resurrected Jesus, but the women were not participants in that tradition.

Paul’s List versus the Apostles’ List If Paul could not directly remove the apostles from the postresurrection tradition like he did with the women, what method

Resurrection Witnesses

I5

did he employ to reduce the importance of the original apostles? Paul’s list of the resurrection witnesses reveals his method. Paul’s design is found within the unique construction of the list. First question we must pose is this: Is the list provided by Paul the official transmission of the church? C. H. Talbert suggests two reasons for Paul’s disclosure of the witness list. Firstly, Paul wants to affirm the ”common tradition of the church” that was proclaimed during the time the Corinthian community was being established. Secondly, by inserting the latter part of 15.6, “. . . most of whom are still alive, though some have died,” Paul wants to point out that not even those that have witnessed the resurrected Lord are able to conquer death, yet.6 Concerning Paul’s intention, Talbert misses the point. Let us examine his two points separately. His first point, that Paul’s report of the post-resurrection event was a “common tradition of the church” is plausible, but the problem is raised with Paul’s complex construction of the six groupings. If Paul wishes only to convey the message that Jesus resurrected, or to go further, to state that the dead shall also be resurrected, he did not have to painstakingly present such a list that Talbert saw the need to elaborately analyze. Supposing that Paul is here stressing on the common tradition of the church as Talbert suggests, then one can argue that the following passage in I Corinthians I 5.12-20 which also deals with Jesus’ resurrection and the resurrection of the dead can also be interpreted in like manner. But the purpose of I 5.5-8 is entirely different than that of I 5.12-20. As a result, by stating such a blanket purpose for Paul, Talbert fails to utilize his own analysis of the resurrection list. Although his study is efficient in other similar statements of Paul, Talbert fails to closely examine the significance that the witness list uniquely holds.’ Talbert’s second point also fails to convince. The insertion of the latter part of 15.6 is not to speculate on the relationship between the resurrection witnesses and death as he supposes, but rather that statement helps to support Paul’s position that the number of witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection far surpassed the exclusive number taught by the apostles. The point of 15.6 is to reveal that some of these “other witnesses” were still alive and they could validate Paul’s witness list. Returning to 15.5-8, what unique point does this passage hold? Of the six groupings, the three-Cephas, the twelve, and

16

THE G O S P E L OF PAUL

James are probably the list that the original apostles recognized as the so-called official tradition. J. Lambrecht sees I 5.6-8 as the amplification of I 5 .s; for him, the latter four groupings of the list are merely an amplification of the first two groupings (Cephas and the twelve).8 But if we are to carefully consider Paul’s grammatical uses of ophthe, eita, and epeita ophthe then Lambrecht’s argument falls short. The better argument is that the three groupings mentioned above formed the so-called recognized official tradition of the church. The three groupings each utilize different words, Gphthe, eita, and epeita ophthe. It is highly likely that these three formed the so-called official tradition because the Jerusalem apostles wanted to maintain their sole authority. In their attempt to gain control, it would be in their best interest to monopolize such an authority-producing title as “witnesses to the risen Jesus.” They would certainly not say the witnesses numbered over five hundred (v. 6 ) . Furthermore, v.8 clearly defines the witnesses as being there immediately after the resurrection of J ~ s u sand , ~ thus they were historical witnesses. Such a privileged group as the apostles were, it is inconceivable that they would have included Paul, who had witnessed the risen Lord in a different manner,lO within their official list of witnesses. A. Satake argues that after the Jerusalem apostles heard from Paul on his first Jerusalem visit, they acknowledged Paul’s vision of the risen Lord and so they included his name at the end of the list as they imparted the resurrection tradition to Paul. Satake, therefore, argues that the original resurrection tradition included the five groupings with no reference to Paul, to which Paul was included as the final addition.” This argument not only fails to recognize the atmosphere of enmity that existed between Paul and the original apostles, but also the desire of the apostles to monopolize the authority and thus reduce the importance of the other witnesses. When we consider these points, Paul’s list of the resurrection witnesses reveal a specific purpose. Firstly, by placing Cephas at the beginning and himself at the conclusion, Paul distinguishes himself and Cephas as the most important of the resurrection witnesses. This is also shown by Paul exclusive use of 6phthe without eita and epeita only for Cephas and himself. Secondly, Paul’s addition of the 3 groupings to the so-called official tradition is to challenge the claim to exclusive resurrection witness by the original apostles. The reason Paul utilized ophthe, eita,

Resurrection Witnesses

17

and epeita 6phthZ twice each is because the original apostles were using the above verbs once each in establishing their socalled official tradition at the beginning. By using the same verbs twice, Paul seeks to enlarge the official tradition twofold. Thirdly, the reason for Paul’s utilization of the same verbs is to convey to his readers at Corinth the impression that his list is the official tradition. Fourthly, by adding his name to the end of he list, he states that his experience of the witness was similar to the historical witness experience of the original apostles. Paul wanted to diminish the importance of the historical relationship the apostles enjoyed with the resurrected Jesus, but on the other hand, Paul desired to be included among the tradition that formed such a relationship. In fact, with his witness list, he hoped to give that impression. By the use of the particular construction, Paul worked to significantly decrease the high value placed upon the resurrection witness by the apostles.

Summary and Conclusion The list of witnesses to the appearances of the resurrected Jesus as stated by Paul is somewhat complex. Paul desired to suppress the claims of both the women who listed themselves among the first to witness the risen Jesus before his ascension and the apostles who claimed to have dined with the resurrected Jesus in the flesh. This was due to the fact that Paul was not one of those who had witnessed the resurrected Jesus prior to his ascension. Paul went ahead and deleted the women from the witnesses list. This was not a difficult task since the women were already missing from the list of those that had dined with the resurrected Jesus. On this point, it can be said that Paul shared a similar stance as the apostolic Christians who produced the gospel of Luke which also deleted the women from the witnesses. The deletion of the apostles from the witnesses was a more difficult task. That was because the tradition of the meal of the resurrected Jesus with the apostles was extensively circulated. As such, rather than attempting to delete them, Paul goes about to reduce the significance of the witness to the risen Jesus. Utilizing the ophthe, eita, epeita 6phthe formula of the apostles’ exclusive witness list of three groupings, Paul expands the list to six groupings by doubling the original formula thus giving the

18

T H E GOSPEL O F PAUL

impression to the Corinthian church that his list is the official tradition. In this manner, Paul reduces the importance placed upon the resurrection witness by the apostles by removing their exclusive claim. Also, by including over five hundred others and himself among the witnesses, he removes the exclusivity of the apostolic claim or at least loosens it. The counter measure by the apostolic group can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles that was written after the death of Paul. There, the writer attempts to combat those who claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus after a lengthy period as claimed by Paul, his supporters, and the gnostics. The writer does so by confining the period of Jesus’ postresurrection activity to forty days and by restricting the witness list to the apostles who had dined with the resurrected Jesus. Entering the second century, the conservative Judaic Christians persisted in their adherence to the low christology and its historic Jesus, and thus they distanced themselves from the Gentile churches claiming complete independence from them. In time, their restrictive practices led to the church Fathers isolating them and labeling them as “heretical.”12With the Council of Nicea that was sponsored by Constantine and presided by Eusebius in 325 CE, the history rejected the low christology argued by Arius but instead accepted the high christology presented by Athanasius, thus it was Athanasius that became known as the ”father of orthodoxy.” R. E. Brown’s statement is cause for reflection. ”In Christian history, however, some of the most significant heresies have been conservative rather than radical . . . ‘Orthodoxy,’ then, is not always the possession of those who try to hold on to the past.”l3 The original apostles tried to suppress Paul’s authority and categorized him as unorthodox by exposing his non-relationship with the historical Jesus while elevating their own status. But with the passing of time, it was the position of those apostles that had become heretical as the low christology and the physical understanding of Jesus’ resurrection gave way to the high christology (Phil. 2.6-7) and the spiritual understanding of Jesus’ resurrection. That Paul, who had been suppressed by the original apostles, won over the apostles as the later orthodox position is truly an irony of history.

THREE

Jerusalem Conference

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to closely examine explore the historical occurrence concealed within Paul’s report of the meeting between the Antioch church and the Jerusalem church, generally known as the ”Jerusalem Conference” or “Jerusalem Council” recorded in Galatians 2.6-10, and to interpret his intent in the report of it. In this endeavor, four specific questions are addressed. First, does the report of the Jerusalem Conference at Galatians 2.6- 10 presuppose an official written agreement, the so-called apostolic decree? If there existed such a written agreement, do vv.6-10 reflect, to a certain extent, some section of this document? Or, if there never was such a written agreement, why does Paul write in the official manner that he does in the above passage? Second, What can we observe concerning Paul’s attitude towards the Jerusalem apostles as revealed from this report? Third, did Paul receive official recognition of apostleship from the Jerusalem apostles at the conference? Fourth, do 2.7-8 and 2.9 recount the same situation or do they reflect two different situations? The answers to these questions are important because their solutions will assist us in defining the color of the whole Galatian epistle.

Result of the Conference-Agreement or Expectation Was there an existing official agreement between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles? While the answer to this question is a simple yes or no, the arguments that lead to the correct solution are

20

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

complex. Certainly Galatians 2.7-8 is not itself the official written agreement. The brevity of the passage suggests a summary account, or as stated by some, the portions of the actual written agreement. Oscar Cullmann, Erich Dinkler, and Gunter Klein all presuppose an existence of an official written agreement as a result of the conference and further, they agree that 2.7-8 contains a portion of that document. Cullmann is certain of the existence of the written agreement, and he describes it as “an official document, in the Greek translation in which the form Petros was used.”l Dinkler has a similar view but suggests the written agreement was actually produced in two languages, the Greek and Aramaic. Of the two versions, Paul was using the Greek document.2 After Dinkler reconstructs the written agreement, he goes on to state that Paul’s use of the name, Peter, rather than Cephas, reflects the name that appears in the official document to which Paul refers to here. That the name of Peter was included in the official agreement is the view of both Cullmann and Dinkler and is also the view of Klein who states the official written agreement contained the name of Peter, Simon’s formal name. For him, Paul’s use of this formal name at 2.7-8 validates the existence of the official document.3 Recently, A. Schmidt has proposed another view concerning the written agreement.4 He suggests the first agreement occurred prior to the Jerusalem Conference, at the conclusion of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem as recorded in Galatians 1.18. This occurred between himself and Peter. The use of idontes at 2.7 reflects the agreement that was produced at that time between Paul and Peter to which the Jerusalem apostles are referring to at the time of the Jerusalem Conference.5 It was at the conference that the first agreement between the two was officially accepted and made into a formal written agreement. For Schmidt, therefore, there existed at least two agreements, and in this he differs from the above mentioned three scholars. But all four scholars stand behind one common view that the Jerusalem Conference resulted in the creation of an official written agreement between the party representing the Jerusalem church and the party representing the Antioch church. But did the Jerusalem Conference really produce a written agreement between the Jerusalem apostles and Paul? When a grammatical analysis of 2.7-8 is performed, it yields an interesting

lerusalem Conference

2I

observation. The idontes of v.7 is a participle that complements the first person singular. Since ”Peter” is a third person singular, the idontes and “Peter” do not readily match. To correctly balance the use of idontes to include Peter, the “I” ought to be replaced with the matching third person singular, “Paul,” so that ”Peter” and “Paul” stand together side by side. If there was an actual written agreement in existence, Paul would certainly have desired to present the official document or at least share the content of that agreement with the Galatian Christians. If w.7-8 do contain the words of that official document, it certainly is strange that the agreement would only contain the name of Peter while omitting the name of Paul. And it is Paul that is the writer here! If in fact, Paul could not use his name because the agreement did not mention him by name, then a legal document that does not contain the name of the second party cannot be rightly termed an “agreement.” The alternative understanding would be that the agreement contained both the names of Peter and Paul, and in his writing to the Galatians, Paul has removed his name that officially appears in the written agreement and replaced it with the “I” of the first person singular. Now this is certainly odd. If there existed an official written agreement, this document would have provided both Paul and the Galatian congregation with an all-important evidence to establish Paul as one with the valid authority. If there existed such an agreement, Paul would certainly have included his name along with Peter to stress the official nature of this agreement. This would have served a two-fold purpose. First, he would give an impression of word-by-word declaration that is officially stated in the agreement, and second, by placing his name side by side with Peter, Paul would be able to clearly reveal his own authority as being equal with that of Peter. But instead, Paul has removed his name and in the process, lessened the impact of the official document. What was the reason for this? To support his argument that v.7 contains actual words of the written agreement, Dinkler states that the “gospel for the uncircumcised (euangelion tes akrobustias)” and “for the circumcised (tes peritomes)” are non-Pauline terms which show Paul is quoting the words from that agreement. This observation cannot be sustained since the words, “uncircumcised” and “circumcised,” are not, in fact, foreign to Paul’s vocabulary. Romans 3.30 or 4.9,12for example shows these two terms used side by side in

22

T H E GOSPEL O F PAUL

comparison to each other; this style of comparison is particular to Paul. It is therefore difficult to categorize the above terms as non-Pauline. Further, the claim that Paul’s statement at Galatians 1.6,7, “not that there is another gospel” contradicts the stated two gospels of 2.7-one for the uncircumcised and another for the circumcised cannot be sustained. The different gospel of I .6,7 refers to the gospel of those who want to “pervert the gospel of Christ” ( I.7) whereas the gospels for the uncircumcised and the circumcised refer to the same gospel of Christ as proclaimed to the different targeted groups. This is fully revealed in 2.9 where “eista ethne” and “eis ten peritomen” reveal the two groups. Again, when Dinltler categorizes certain terms or phrases as non-Pauline, what is the basis of his results? Dinkler’s criterion for the categorization of non-Pauline terms is that they appear only once in the Pauline texts. But this is certainly problematic since it is a common occurrence for a single writer to use certain terms or phrases only once in his or her writings. Such criterion is inaccurate and inappropriate without further supporting evidence. From the many examples that can be given, the word “visit (historeij)”appears only once (Gal. I. I 8) in the Pauline corpus and really, once in all of the New Testament. “Main streets (dieksodos)” likewise appears once at Matthew 22.9. Their singular appearances do not constitute categorizing them as nonPauline and non-Matthean. After all of this, even if some of the terms in 2.7 are proven to be ”non-Pauline,” it is too simplistic and dangerous to determine therefore that the words came right out of the written agreement. Finally, it cannot be said that 2.7 is wholly a non-Pauline construction. Turning away from the supposed “non-Pauline” terms, Hans Dieter Betz has correctly pointed out that the word pepisteumai (Ihave been entrusted) in 2.7 is clearly a Pauline expression.6 But then Betz goes on to accept, in part, Dinltler’s overall conjecture as he supposes, “the non-Pauline notions . . . may very well come from an underlying official statement.”7 But he states, ”rather than ’quoting’ from the written protocol, Paul reminds the readers of the agreements by using the terms upon which the parties had agreed.”g In the end, Betz does little to offer a different view from that of Dinltler. Betz’ interpretation also fails to properly address the reason for Paul’s removal of his name when recounting the content of the agreement.

Jerusalem Conference

23

It is better to understand that the reason why Paul uses the first person singular when he recounts the Jerusalem Conference‘s result in 2.7-8 is that the conference had ended without an agreement, and so at the time of the writing of the Galatian letter, Paul is writing his “expectation” of such an agreement in the near future between him and the Jerusalem apostles, or at least his “expectation” that such divisions of the mission field will be erected. This is the most favorable interpretation because if there was an official agreement as a result of the conference, whether it be in the oral or written form, Paul would only need to reveal the existence of the official agreement for him to convince others of his authority in the Gentile mission activities. Further, by stating the content of that official agreement with an emphasis on the presence of his name within it, the Galatian members would have had positive proof that it was Paul’s Judaizing opponents (who claimed to be from Jerusalem) who had broken the formal agreement. In fact, if there actually existed such a formal agreement, Paul would have been reduced of such bitter struggle with his opponents. By simply alluding to the agreement that entrusted Paul with Gentile mission, the Galatian church which was made up of Gentiles would find little difficulty in determining the wrongful acts of the Judaizing intruders. But Paul could not utilize that powerful and advantageous document to draw a clearly defining line. That is because the formal agreement had not been reached by the time of the writing. To suggest that Paul had in his arsenal the written document which would clearly prove him right and his opponents wrong, but that he chose to somehow veil it rather than fully disclose it is illogical and unconvincing. Rather, the most natural understanding of 2.7-8 is that Paul discloses his “expectation” rather than the content of any existing “agreement.” This hypothesis can be substantiated by a close exegetical inspection of Galatians 2.7-8. Vv. 7-8 report that Peter was entrusted with spreading the gospel among the circumcised while Paul was entrusted with spreading the gospel among the uncircumcised. But in reality, were there really such distinctive missions emphases? First of all, it was Peter, and not Paul, who first made convert of a Gentile. The Book of Acts records the conversion of Cornelius, the first recorded Gentile convert (Acts 10).It is a matter of interest that

24

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

Cornelius was converted, not by Paul, but by Peter. Acts states that Peter, fully aware that “it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile” (10.28)went ahead with a visit to Cornelius through God’s initiative. Of course, this report in Acts has as its purpose to emphasize Peter’s role in the commencement of and so the validation of the Gentile mission accordingly with Luke’s theological schema, but even taking that into account, this report properly satisfies the claim that Peter’s missionary activity was not limited to the circumcised. Added to that, there is Paul’s recounting of the Antioch incident that follows Galatians 2.7-8. In it, Peter “used to eat with the Gentiles” (2.12) before he withdrew from among them. In this passage, Paul uses the imperfect form of the verb “to eat (sunesthien)” and from this we can surmise that Peter’s participation at the meal table with the Gentiles was not a unique event in which he was unfortunately discovered (2.I 1-14]’ but rather it was an on-going participation on Peter’s part before the recorded incident. Here we must presume Peter’s motive for partaking of the meal with the Gentiles was not merely to satisfy his desire for food. This was in fact one of his means to his evangelistic effort. This was the view Paul expressed when he stated Peter attempted to alter the lifestyles of the Gentiles, that he compelled “the Gentiles to live like Jews” (2.14).9Restated, Paul recognized Peter’s participation in the Gentile mission and further that Peter’s Gentile mission was vigorous and expanding. But not only Peter, the Judaizing Christian evangelists were also very much active in the overall Gentile missions; their entrance into Galatian territory was not an exception. And this was largely the reason for Paul’s Galatian letter. The Judaizing Christians were attempting to ”evangelize” the Galatian Gentile Christians. The Judaizing evangelists were always active. It would be historically incorrect to suggest the Judaizing Christians began their activities into Gentile territory sometime after the breakdown in agreement at the Jerusalem Conference. It would certainly be difficult to argue that for some twenty years from the time of Jesus’ death to the time of the Jerusalem Conference, the Judaizing Christians did not participate in Gentile missions. How then did the Gentile Christians at Antioch receive their gospel if not through the Judaizing Christians? In fact, one great concern of Paul that took him to the Jerusalem Conference was that he dis-

Jerusalem Conference

25

approved of the contrary missionary emphasis of the Judaizing Christians who were also active in the Gentile missions. The hypothesis that 2.7-8 reflects Paul’s expectation rather than a description of the actual existing agreement can be further strengthened by turning to Paul’s activities. Paul’s selfproclaimed statement that he was set apart before birth to become a missionary to the Gentiles (Gal. I . I 6 ) , and his assertion of a certain agreement that confirmed his initial calling (2.7-8) betray his actual missionary activities. In reality, as much as Peter was interested in Gentile missions, so Paul was interested in Jewish missions. Paul himself reveals this desire. Paul clearly declares to the Corinthians that the reason he became like one of the Jews was “to win Jews” ( I Cor. 9.20). He would even state that the reason he was participating in the Gentile missions was so the Jews might be saved (Rom. 11.13-14). At this point, the obvious question must be raised. What then is Paul’s purpose for separating the missionary roles between himself and Peter with Peter becoming the apostle to the circumcised and himself to the uncircumcised? In this instance, Paul’s intension is not in disclosing the content of some existing written agreement, but precisely in attempting to prevent Peter’s involvement in the Gentile missions. Gerhard Ebeling might be the only scholar to hold such a view. Ebeling suggested that Paul intended “to keep him [Peter]on the side of the Jewish Christianity.”lo But he goes on to state with reservation, “I am unable to offer a completely satisfying solution to the complex of problems.”ll The reason Ebeling retreats from his own conclusion is that in order for his hypothesis to convince, he would also have to assert that the Jerusalem Conference did not produce a written agreement. This he would not abandon. So in the end he retreats to the view that the expression, “we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” (2.9)“represents the literal text of the agreement.”12 But this expression at 2.9 also belongs to Paul’s expectation rather than to the actual agreement. Of course, Paul’s expectant expression of v.9 naturally reveals the high probability that there must have been much discussion concerning that specific topic during the conference, but the only historically visible act that resulted from the discussion was, from Paul’s own account, ”the right hand” that Tames, Cephas and John extended to Paul and Barnabas. It is noted that “the right hand” is followed by “of fellowship,” but the “fellowship” itself

26

T H E GOSPEL O F PAUL

cannot be assumed as historical, per se, but rather, it is Paul’s interpretation of that event. The purpose of the handshake follows with two hinu verses. In the first hina at v.9, the phrase, “agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised” does not constitute a part of the content of their supposed agreement. Rather Paul is interpreting the handshake from his own personal observation. The second hinu at v. 10however is not seen as simply Paul’s personal interpretation. In it, the statement, “that we remember the poor” is best seen as an actual request made by the Jerusalem leaders to Paul. This is because in the case of v.10, it is different from v.9 in that Paul describes his own effort at fulfilling that request. Here, it would be incorrect to assert that because v.10 was not part of Paul’s expectation that it must be a part of some existing written agreement. The request of the Jerusalem apostles to Paul concerning the poor could have been delivered informally at the end of the conference, a request Paul was more than glad to oblige. Or else, it could have been an issue that was raised during the conference to which the Jerusalem apostles readdressed at their parting. At 2.7-8, Paul puts a brake to Peter’s interest in Gentile missions and clarifies his own “right” to the Gentile mission. He accomplishes his intention by strategically forming the words of w.7-8 in such a way that his words could be mistaken for an official edict. It was his strategy to create a false atmosphere of mutual respect and agreement by the church leaders concerning the Gentile mission. Paul did this because he felt it was the only means to amplify his influence within the Galatian church. But this must not have been the only reason for Paul. It is possible to see within Paul’s strategy a personal conflict with Peter. Possibly Peter had erred in his actions as an apostle, or going further, there may have been an implied agreement between the two to which Peter had broken, and to which Paul wishes to inform his Galatian members. Whatever the conflict, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul desired to sway the members away from Peter. So Paul stated that the one who commissions Peter to the circumcised is none other than God himself (v.8)-here Paul is not stating any part of some formal agreement, but Paul’s wishful interpretation of their missionary roles. And if God had commissioned Peter to the circumcised, then Peter has acted contrary to God’s will. Paul suggestively reveals Peter’s disobedience in his

lerusalem Conference

27

mission activities among the Gentiles in the past and in the present. In the final analysis, that Peter would agree to curtail and further, to stop altogether the prospering Gentile mission is highly unlikely. It is highly improbable to suggest that Peter would agree to the abolishment of his present Gentile mission activities and further, the prohibition of any such activities in the future-all this for the sake of some “official agreement.’’

Paul’s Detachment from and Attachment to the Apostles Clearly or suggestively discernable within Paul’s report of the conference and its result is his stance toward the apostles. Paul’s attitude toward the Jerusalem leaders is complex and varied and can be broken down into the following three categories. First, Paul seeks to establish himself as having the same rank as that of the Jerusalem apostles. This attitude can be clearly seen in Galatians 2.7-8. In 2.8, Paul writes that as Peter is entrusted to be an apostle to the circumcised, so the same God has entrusted him to be one for the uncircumcised. Here, it is obvious that Paul intends for the readers to see him as equal to Peter in the areas of authority and in the allotment of mission activity. Paul emphasizes this intention of equality when in v.7, he is mentioned before Peter, but at v.8, Paul places Peter before him. For Paul, they are equal precisely because they have equal allotment of mission activities, and they have in common “the same God” and “the same soteriological basis.”13 Of course, the view that Paul and Peter were of equal rank is solely Paul’s own interpretation and not a historical reality.14 Paul is directly refuting the hierarchical view, like the one that appears in the Book of Acts, that God controls Peter, and Peter (or other apostles) in turn, controls Paul. This view, which lowered Paul’s authority and stature, was also found among the attitudes of the false believers who were “secretly brought in (pareiselthon)”(Gal. 2.4) to the Jerusalem Conference. These false believers attempted to ”enslave” both Paul and his works (2.4).Finally, this view was also found among and spread by the opponents of Paul that had entered the Galatian church at the time of the writing of the Galatian letter. Paul declares his status as same rank with Peter by his emphasis on the same God who entrusted them to be apostles.

28

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

Second, Paul seeks to attach himself to the Jerusalem apostles but at the same time desires to detach himself from them. In Galatians I. I 7, Paul states that after his so-called ‘conversion experience,’ he did not “go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before (him).” He makes this comment precisely because he wants to stress his detachment, that he is independent of the Jerusalem apostles. But he follows that verse with a statement that after only three years, he went up “to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days” (1.18).The second comment on the other hand emphasizes his attachment to the Jerusalem apostles. On the one hand, Paul needed to refute the assertion that he was in the position of subordination with respect to the Jerusalem leaders, but on the other hand, he needed to defend against the accusation that he had no connection with the Jerusalem apostles and that they had alienated him from themselves. These two different yet damaging accusations may have surfaced secretly by the “false believers” at the Jerusalem Conference, or else after the conference, at the time of the writing of the Galatian letter, the opponents of Paul who were leading the Galatian members astray may have initiated them. Whatever the origin, at the time of his writing, Paul was placed in a difficult position of having to defend himself from the two different attacks simultaneously. It was to overcome this difficult situation that Paul had to resort to emphasizing both his attachment to and also his detachment from the Jerusalem apostles. He continues this double emphasis at the beginning of chapter 2. In 2.1, Paul states that he had gone up to Jerusalem. So Paul joins himself with the apostles. But then he adds the qualifier, “I went up in response to a revelation15 (kata apokalupsin)” (v.2).He declares that his visit was not due to any command from the Jerusalem leaders but that it was his independent act. Once in Jerusalem, Paul states that he presented his gospel he preached in Gentile lands to the apostles, including a private presentation to the acknowledged leaders (v.2).By recalling this scene, he emphasizes his attachment to the Jerusalem leaders. But then as to make clear he did not do so under any one’s command, he states he did it with a personal desire to ”make sure that I was not running, or had not run in vain” (v.2). In 2.4, Paul severely criticizes the “false believers.” He wants to expose their false claim of belonging to the Jerusalem apostles since they had to be “secretly brought in” (v.4)to the conference.

Terusalem Conference

29

Paul, on the other hand, was not “secretly brought in.” By comparing himself with them, he stresses that he is the one who is properly connected with the Jerusalem apostles. But again, he adds, “what they [Jerusalemleaders] actually were (esan-imperfect tense) makes no difference to me (diapherei-present tense)” (v.6)to maintain his detachment from the apostles. In this statement at v.6, why does Paul utilize the ‘imperfect tense’ and the ‘present tense’ in an apparent disharmony? Or more specifically, why does he use the imperfect tense? This apparent problem has been dealt with largely in two ways. Heinrich Schlier champions a view that Paul is referring to the past “positive” dispositions of the apostles.16 On the other hand, Johannes Munck takes an opposite view in that Paul is highlighting the past “negative” dispositions of the apostles.17 From the immediate text, both interpretations seem credible, but this passage cannot be correctly understood without considering the text that follows. In it, Paul declares, “God shows no partiality (prosopon)“ (v.6). Here Paul is equating appearance with the posture of the false believers who had claimed the Jerusalem apostles as their foundation. This type of appearance, Paul is saying, is not of essential quality. Therefore, when Paul uses the imperfect tense to describe the Jerusalem apostles, he is stating his respect for the past authority, privilege, and governance of the Jerusalem apostles. As such, it is best to understand this text as revealing the positive disposition of the apostles rather than the negative. But that was in the past. In using the imperfect tense for the apostles, Paul is declaring “in principle that their [Jerusalem apostles] past status at the conference cannot now be used as an argument.”’s In other words, whatever the authority and privilege the Jerusalem apostles enjoyed in the past, Paul makes clear to his Galatian readers that in the present, he will not submit to them. The attachment/detachment continues with Paul’s declaration that the apostles did not impose (prosanatitheme) new responsibilities upon him in 2.6. In one sense, the acceptance of the apostles of Paul’s independent activities in Gentile mission validated Paul’s detachment, but the picture drawn by Paul of himself with the apostles is one of unity and coexistence. Again at v.8, Paul stresses attachment when he declares God worked equally through both him and Peter, but also detachment when he uses the preposition ‘eis’to separate their ministry activities.19

30

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Further, Paul does not hesitate to give the Jerusalem apostles their publicly recognized status as the “acknowledged leaders” (2.2, 6d). In this, Paul’s wish to be included among them, to be attached to them, is revealed. But then Paul could turn around and use a biting tone when he refers to them as “those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders” (2.6a)or “who were acknowledged pillars (hoi dokountes stuloi einai)“ (2.9) to reveal Paul’s desire to be separated from them. Betz is correct when he states Paul uses such nuances and expressions so that ”this expression . . . allows Paul both to acknowledge the fact that these men [the apostles] possess authority and power and to remain at a distance with regard to his own subservience to such authority.”20 The third attitude Paul reveals with respect to the Jerusalem apostles is one of criticism. The representative example of this can be found in Paul’s reprimand of Peter for the Antioch incident (2.11-14).Here, Paul wanted to do accomplish two things: he desired to give proof to his superiority over Peter, and he sought to establish himself with the Gentile missions while directing Peter away from it. A more detailed explication of this incident is beyond the scope of this paper. Even if we focus our attention solely upon Paul’s report of the Jerusalem Conference and its result (2.6-10)and not on the whole second chapter, his attitude toward the Jerusalem apostles takes on two evident postures. In one, he presents himself as their equal. And in another, he emphasized his attachment to them but at the same time his detachment from them. From this perspective, Charles B. Cousar’s simplistic and generalized understanding of Galatians 2.1-10 is less persuasive when he summarizes the section as “the search for unity.”21 He fails to notice the complexity of issues surrounding Paul.

Paul’s Apostolic Status- Recognition or Rejection From Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Conference and its result, can we find proof that the apostolic leaders recognized Paul’s apostleship? The solution to this question becomes problematic when at Galatians 2.8, Paul attributes the title of apostleship (upostole) to Peter when describing his defined role to the circumcised, but when he turns to define himself, he omits the title of

1erusalem Conference

3I

the apostle. The answer to the above question must obviously be one of two. Yes, he did receive the recognition of apostleship, or no, he did not receive recognition. To arrive at a proper conclusion, however is not an easy process. One must go through yet another complexity of issues. Franz Mussner argues that the absence of “apostleship” as attributed to Paul in v.8 was not due to Paul’s failure to receive recognition as an apostle but simply a grammatical style to avoid having to repeat the word, “apostleship.”22 And so for Mussner he believed Paul was recognized as an apostle. Bradley H. Mclean wholly accepts Mussner’s argument and adds further evidence to corroborate this view. in the preceding verse (v.7) Paul refrains from repeating the word ’Gospel’ a second time in connection with Peter. Are we then to conclude that Peter’s proclamation is deemed to be unworthy of the term ‘Gospel’?Certainly not.23

As such, both Mussner and Mclean state that the “apostleship” attributed to Peter also applies to Paul and the singular use of the title is explained on the basis of Paul’s rejection of repetition in his writing. But their stance can only be categorized as shallow, as a result of a superficial observation. They err in their singular focus of grammatical analysis and their understanding of the abbreviated form. Against their claim, a question is to be raised to challenge their assumption. Is v.8 really an abbreviated form? The abbreviated form is understood as a style of writing that omits the unnecessary repetition of word(s) for stylistic reasons. The omitted word(s)is then understood to be included in the intension of the writer. From this understanding, it would no longer be defined as an abbreviated form if a certain vocabulary was omitted because that word could not rightly be used. Certainly, one of the reasons why the “gospel” was not added to Peter at v.7 and the ”apostleship” not added to Paul at v.8 was to maintain a balanced structure. The purpose of that balance was to give a false impression that he was quoting from an official agreement. If we follow Mclean’s view, Paul could easily have omitted the word “gospel” from himself at v.7 and then removed “apostleship” from Peter at v.8 and still maintained the balanced structure that he sought. But as it is, he did not write in that

32

T H E GOSPEL OF PAUL

order. Really, he could not write in that way. In order for him to be able to freely change the subjects of the two words (gospel and apostleship), both words must equally be attributable both to Peter and himself, but that was not the case. Paul had not been offered the official recognition of apostleship at the Jerusalem Conference. To state in a different manner, the reason Paul did not use the title “apostleship” for himself was not for some stylistic reason of avoiding repetition, but precisely because it was not rightly applicable for himself. To sum up, in v.7, Paul does not attribute the term “gospel” to Peter (he abbreviates), and in v.8, rather than “abbreviation,” he could not attribute “apostleship” to himself. One who takes the opposite view of Mclean is Gerd Luedemann who states that the reason “apostleship” does not appear with respect to Paul is because only Peter was officially recognized with the title of apostleship. In v.8, the reason Paul introduces the title is to indirectly suggest his desire for the title.24 According to Luedemann’s impressive study, if Paul’s apostleship had been officially recognized and documented, Paul would certainly not have omitted the apostolic title for himself. This is an important point. To the Galatian Christians who were confused between Paul and his opponents, it carries little weight to suggest Paul would casually omit the important reference to his apostleship out of some grammatically aesthetic reason. If the Galatian church had recognized that title for Paul, he would have certainly used it with respect to his name. At the time of the Galatian letter, Paul was not meditating peacefully at some monastery, but he was faced with the critical situation of losing all his Galatian members or gaining them back. Further, the opponents of Paul who were leading the Galatians astray were severely questioning Paul’s gospel and his apostleship. As stated by J. Christiaan Beker, both Paul and his opponents recognized that the gospel and apostleship were “actually connected together.” They [the opponents] are convinced that once this [Paul’s apostolate] has been accomplished Paul’s gospel will be discredited as well . . . Paul must defend both his apostolic status and the truth of the gospel together (Gal. 1.1, 1 1 - 1 2 1 . ~ ~

Recently David Cook also saw that ”Gospel and apostleship are for Paul inseparably linked” and then stated, “both are utterly

1erusulem Conference

33

eschatological.”26 If, as been stated, apostleship were that important for Paul, it is certainly wrong to suggest that Paul had been officially recognized as an apostle, but that in this official-like passage, Paul would omit that title from his name out of stylistic reason. The reason Paul does not attribute the title of apostleship to himself is because he had not received official recognition as such.27 But Paul did receive confirmation of his ‘gospel.QsThat is why Paul was able to confidently use that term when he described his role in v.7. Before we conclude this matter, it is important to inspect for all possible solutions, and in this instance, one more possibility exists. Could it be that Paul had indeed received official recognition of “apostleship,” and rather than omitting that title as an unnecessary duplication, could he have purposely omitted it for some other reason? At a glance, there seems to be some evidence to support this view. At the introductory greeting to his Galatian readers, he states plainly that his apostleship is not “from humans (up anthropon)” nor “by human (di anthropou)” (1.1). If Paul had received apostolic recognition by the Jerusalem leaders and if he claims that for himself, would that not have run counter to his bold ’not by human,’ nor ’from humans’ claim? Would that not clash with his statement that he became an apostle through (diu) Jesus Christ and God? And because he saw the possible conflict in that, wouldn’t Paul have had difficulty proclaiming his recognized status as an apostle as granted by the leaders at Jerusalem?And so, could it be that it finally prevented him from disclosing his apostolic status as granted by the apostles? But, this argument cannot be sustained. If Paul had, within his grasp, the official apostolic status as granted by the Jerusalem leaders, the color and tone of the entire Galatian letter might have looked different. If Paul had indeed received official recognition from Jerusalem, he would not have needed to abandon his claim that he received apostolic commission from Jesus Christ. Paul could state that the Jerusalem apostles merely confirmed his status that was first given to him by Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul could explain to the Galatian members that he became an apostle prior to any human declaration, but as it was, the Jerusalem leaders officially recognized what he already was in Jesus Christ. It is for that reason that the notion Paul was hiding this title at v.8 fails to convince.

34

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

Finally, Mclean who claims Paul was given the official title of apostleship at the Jerusalem Conference makes this observation. If Paul’s apostleship was not recognized at the conference, any illusion

to the conference by Paul in his Galatian letter would only serve to strengthen the position of those who challenged his apostleship.29

But Mclean’s comment is overly generalized and superficial. Even if Paul did not receive apostolic recognition, he could certainly have written the letter as if he had received it. And that is exactly what he did. But as we shall suggest at the conclusion, Paul’s attempt backfired on him. But first, we must attempt to fully understand the reason for Paul’s inclusion of the Jerusalem Conference in his letter. Mclean assumes it is solely because Paul wanted to stress his recognized status. While the apostleship is an important title for Paul, the conference indeed confirmed his gospel and that was equally important for Paul if not more so (in 2.7-8, it is the gospel and then the apostleship). The inclusion of the conference was important to reveal the official confirmation of Paul’s gospel. By this, Paul hoped to improve his position with the Galatian members. Going back to Mclean, since there are other facets to Paul’s use of the conference, it is truly simplistic to state it so generally as to suggest that “any allusion” to the conference would harm Paul.

Period Reflected in the Account of the Conference Just what situation is reflected in Paul’s writing of 2.7-8, and 2.92 Is the period reflected in vv.7-8 the same as the period at v.92 This is certainly a valid question since the two reveal certain discrepancies. First, w.7-8 shows a conference situation between Paul and Peter with vv.7-8 seemingly implying an agreement between the two alone. But at v.9, the conference is enlarged to include James, Cephas, and John on one side and Barnabas and Paul on the other as to reflect a group conference. Second, Peter is seen as the representative figure for the circumcised at vv.7-8, but at v.9, his name appears after James in a group of three as to imply James as the head. Third, at vv.7-8, the name “Peter” is

{erusalem Conference

35

used, but at v.9, it is “Cephas.” In light of these differences, do the two reflect a same situation, or could they possibly reveal two different time periods? Luedemann states that w.7-8 reflect a situation prior to the Jerusalem Conference and v.9 reflects the period of the conference itself, and between the two situations, the authority conferred upon Peter was transferred to James.30 Klein on the other hand states that vv.7-8 reflects the conference in which Peter held the highest position and v.9 reflects a time after the conference to the time just prior to the writing of the Galatian letter during which time James’ escalation of authority resulted in the “three pillars” of authority.3’ Schmidt also saw the two passages as reflecting two different periods, but different from Luedemann and Klein, he states that w.7-8 reflected Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem ( I .I 8)in which the first agreement was reached, and v.9 reflects the Jerusalem Conference in which James and the leaders officially recognized that first agreement.32 While the three scholars have produced different interpretations of the two passages, they agree on the larger view that the two indeed reflect different periods. Against this two-period understanding, J. Lightfoot and C. K. Barrett, and recently, Mclean all propose a single-period understanding, that w.7-8 and v.9 both reflect the Jerusalem Conference. Especially in the case of Mclean, he takes this position due to what he understands to be two valid reasons, “claim to historicity,” and “structural argument.”33 As to “claim to historicity,’ Paul was officially recognized as an apostle, and as to “structural argument,” the pairing of the two participles, idontes of v.7 and gnontes of v.9, followed by v.7’~”entrusted with the gospel” and v.9’~“the grace that had been given to me” were given as proof.34 Before I state my position, an important point must be discussed. What exactly does it mean when a certain passage reflects an “X” period? Does it then mean that that passage can only reflect period X and no other periods? Or, can that passage also contain X, Y, and Z periods, but among them, the X period is most evident? It is precisely because they failed to clarify this point that the scholars who maintain a single-period or twoperiods remain unable to fully provide a satisfactory answer. Historian B. Croce stated, “All history is current history.” This is because the historian’s present concerns and situations dictate the historian’s interpretation of past history. Applying

36

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

this understanding to w.7-8 and v.9, it can be said that before all else, the situation at the time of the writing is most clearly reflected in the passages. In other words, both passages necessarily reflect a single period; both are manipulated and dictated by the concerns and situation at the time of the writing of the Galatian letter. But even while the passages reflect the situation at the time of the writing, the passages certainly contain important past situations that are overlapped with the time of the writing. In this case, the period that overlaps the time of the writing is clearly the Jerusalem Conference. In other words, w.7-8 and v.9 reflect the single period of the Jerusalem Conference that has been largely manipulated and colored by the Galatian situation. Really, it is difficult to see vv.7-8 and v.9 as having different time periods when one considers the intended pairing of the two participles idontes at v.8 and gnontes at v.9. Even if they really portray two different periods, by forming his account in such a way, Paul certainly intended his readers to see them as a single event, namely the Jerusalem Conference. If Paul had wanted to show those as two different periods, he would not have utilized the participle pairs. Further, v.8 and v.9 are not separated, but instead are linked together by the use of kai to show that the report of the Jerusalem Conference continues. Then why are there some discrepancies between the two passages as stated above? First, the reason w.7-8 contain Paul and Peter individually side by side and v.9 has a group versus group situation is not due to different time periods. Rather it is better explained when we see by naming Peter and himself alone, he attempts to show that the two had made a general pact, and then at v.9, by introducing the rest of the important figures, he attempts to show there also existed a specific official agreement. Second, the reason for having Peter stand alone with Paul at w.7-8 and then having James at the position of prominence at v.9 can be explained in several ways: ( I ) Paul seeks to further strain the relationship of Peter and James who were both claiming the role of leadership at Jerusalem, or ( 2 )he is attempting to show that his attitude toward both Peter and James are balanced, or ( 3 )he strategically placed Peter and James in that way to show his readers that there was a leadership struggle between Peter and James. Among the three possible solutions, it is difficult to select just one, but ( 2 )or ( 3 ) seems to be the better reasons than ( I )since the Galatians are the readers of his letter and not Peter

lerusalem Conference

37

or James. If the passage reflects the time period of the Jerusalem Conference, then the second choice seems most probable, but since the passage was written later, and since it reflects the situation of the letter writing, ( 3 )is best. But, which ever is the best of the three above choices, those three certainly satisfy the reason for elevating Peter at w.7-8 and then James at v.9, or from a different perspective, decreasing the status of James at w.7-8 and Peter at v.9. And in the end, the three possible reasons above are certainly more credible than that suggested by Lightfoot and Mclean.35 Their suggestion that the use of Peter at vv.7-8 shows a missions emphasis and inclusion of James at v.9 shows Jerusalem emphasis simply fails to account for the conflicting and strained situation that was present during the time of the writing to the Galatians. Third, at vv.7-8, the name of ’Peter’ is used while at v.9, ’Cephas’ is used instead. What’s to account for the different usage? The suggestion that the two passages are referring to two different persons have again surfaced through Bart D. Ehrman.36 But his so-called evidences are mainly from the 2nd, 3rd-4th, or else 7th or 10th century writings. The problem here is that even if it can be proven that Peter and Cephas are two historically different persons, in our Galatian passage of interest, the two simply cannot be seen as different persons. In his defense, Ehrman argues that the sudden use of the name Cephas at 2.9 is difficult to understand if Peter and Cephas are same persons. For those who do not know that they refer to the same persons, they would not be able know from 2.9 that Cephas was the same as Peter in the above verse.37 Recently Dale C. Allison Jr. has convincingly criticized Ehrman’s understanding and stated among other things that Paul wrote with the assumption that his Galatian readers were fully aware that Peter and Cephas were one and the same.38 Further, Allison Jr. stated that the use of various names for the same person, as in the case of Cephas and Peter, is not uncommon, and as proof he pointed to the “Jacob’s Promise’’ in which Jacob is referred to by various names including, “Jacob,” “Israel,” and “Jacob Israe1.”39 In fact, we need look no further than the New Testament at Mark 14.37 to see a reference to one person being applied two names, ”he said to Peter, ‘Simon, are you sleeping?’” Or in the Book of Acts, Peter is called by such names as “Peter,” “Simon Peter,” “Simon,” and “Simeon.”

38

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

There is yet another important reason to see Peter and Cephas as one and the same that Allison Jr. failed to discover. If Cephas, at Galatians 2.9, were not the Peter of 2.8, then Paul would not have included him among the three “pillars.” Further, if among the three pillars, Peter were not included, it would certainly be strange for Paul to present Peter, who could not even be included among the great pillars, as a representative figure for Jerusalem at 2.7-8. This would have been a disaster for Paul’s argument since it hinges on the very great importance Peter held for Jerusalem. It is simply the correct view to see Peter and Cephas as one and the same. So why does Paul switch from Peter to Cephas? In the Galatian letter, we notice that Paul prefers Cephas to Peter when discussing personal matters (Gal. 1.18; 2.11,14). 2.9 can also be included in this observation. If 2.7-8 can be see as a general summary of the Jerusalem Conference’s result, then v.9 can be seen as Paul’s personal recounting of the specific details of that conference. The personal matter of the handshake of fellowship is specifically mentioned at 17.9. In summary, it can be said that 2.7-8 and 2.9 both refer to the period of the Jerusalem Conference, but in the larger picture, they both reflect the concerns and situations of the time of the writing to the Galatian Christians.

Summary and Conclusion Galatians 2.6-10 which contains the report of the Jerusalem Conference and its result cannot be naively seen as a factual account of what actually occurred at the conference since it is an account as told by one of its participants. The result of the conference is revealed from Paul’s own perspective as the creative and purposeful writer. Viewing the passage from this perspective, it is concluded that 2.6-10 does not contain the summary of any part of an official agreement, but rather the conference ended without an agreement and the passage really contains a summary of Paul’s own expectation. But by forming the words to resemble the official report, Paul hoped that the Galatian readers would regard his expectation as a historical actuality. Paul’s expectation consisted of placing himself in equal footing with that of Peter (2.7-8) and of the apostles in general (2.9)in

Jerusalem Conference

39

the matters of mission activities and ‘apostleship,’ and further, that the Galatian members would accept that Peter or the Jerusalem “pillars” acknowledged Paul’s equality with them. Through this, Paul hoped to steer Peter’s and Jerusalem apostles’ mission activities away from the Gentiles and hoped to claim the right of Gentile missions all to himself. Also, Paul expected the Galatian Christians, upon reading his letter, to distance themselves from the Jerusalem apostles. At the time of the letter writing, the apostles had not discontinued their Gentile mission activities as stated in the letters of the official agreement (which does not really exist); they had breached an agreement to divide the mission field. And since that agreement was sanctioned by God himself (2.8), they were really disobeying God. In this way Paul expected the Galatian Christians to turn against the Jerusalem apostles and side with him. As discussed earlier, Paul’s report is far from being historically reliable. In light of the absence of specifically important terms, and in light of the conflicting information with respect to the other passages, that the conference resulted in an agreement of some sort, or that it produced an official written agreement cannot be supported. It is a high possibility that what is recorded at 2.7-8 was really what Paul expressed at the conference. It is not certain whether the content of 2.7-8 was first expressed by Paul at the conference or if he had been expressing that even before that event, but by the time of the writing of the Galatian letter, it is certain that Paul had understood his call to be integrally connected with Gentile missions (Gal. 1.15-16). Those who claim 2.7-8 as proof for the existence of a written agreement face too much opposition. It would certainly be difficult to imagine Peter or the Jerusalem “pillars” agreeing to give up their mission activities to the Gentiles and that they would form it into an official agreement. Also, it is difficult to suggest Paul received official recognition of ‘apostleship’ at the conference. It is certainly suspicious for Paul to exclude the reference to his apostleship at a section of his letter he hoped to appear official. Galatians 2.7-8 and 2.9 (or vv.9-10) both present the Jerusalem Conference from the concerns and situations of the later time of the Galatian letter writing. Rather than two different situations, vv.7-8 present a general and formal account of the conference in an official tone while v.9 focuses on the specific detail concerning the conference’s conclusion in a more personal

40

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

manner. Through this reporting, Paul sought to establish a dual position with respect to the Jerusalem apostles. On one hand, he recognized their apostolic authority and aligned himself with them so as to gain authority himself, and on the other hand, he sought to distance himself from them to show his independence from their realm of authority. He held his position of “attachment and detachment” in order to defend himself from the verbal charges of his opponents who have entered the Galatian church. Their assertion that Paul was subordinate to the leaders at Jerusalem or that those leaders had alienated him were both addressed by Paul through his stress on the dual position. There are several reasons why Paul gives his filtered account of the Jerusalem Conference. He sought to utilize the official nature of the conference to validate his apostleship, to confirm his rightful mission activities to the Gentiles, and to declare his relationship of equal status with the Jerusalem apostles. Paul needed to resort to his largely interpreted account of the Jerusalem Conference because he faced a critical situation where his opponents were successfully leading the Galatian Christians astray (1.6-10; 3.1, etc.).Through his account, he hoped to drastically curtail his opponents’ influence and activities. Was Paul’s Galatian letter successful in its intent? It is difficult to answer this with certainty, but if we accept the general claim that the Letter to the Romans was written right after the Galatian letter,40 the answer may not be positive. In Romans, Paul’s strongly polarized attitude he had maintained at the Galatian letter is largely removed. One possible reason for this different attitude may be that the Galatian letter had produced a rather negative impact upon its readers so much so that he was negatively received while the authority of the Jerusalem apostles were further increased. If we accept P. J. Achtemeier’s interpretation of Paul’s comment at Rom 15.23, ”but now, with no further place for me in these regions”41 that Paul is not alluding to a sense of final completion, but to a sorrowful confession of missions failure,42 then it can be said that Paul’s Galatian letter did not produce the much desired outcome.

FOUR

Christ and the Law

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to examine the phrase, “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10.4) which is often regarded as a clear reflection of Paul’s view on the law. From it, the word, “end (telos)” will be the focus of this chapter. Although the above phrase is regarded as an important key to understanding Paul’s view on the law, it is not easy to interpret. The difficulty lies on the fact that telos is not confined to a singular definition. It can be defined as “abolition,” but it can also mean “purpose or fulfillment.” Among the English translations of the Bible, the New Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible translates telos in the above passage with the word, “end” which carries the double meaning (both “abolition” and “fulfillment”).On the other hand, the Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, TEV and several others translates it specifically as “abolition”. Pauline theologians are divided into three camps over this issue. In the first camp, among the scholars who translate telos in Romans 10.4 with ”abolition” are E. Kasemann, H. Raisanen, and W. C. Linss. In the second, among those who support the translation, ”purpose or fulfillment” are W. S. Campbell, C. T. Rhyne, and R. Badenas. And in the third, among those who see in the word, telos both “abolition” and “purpose or fulfillment” are J. C. Beker, T. R. Schreiner, and P. J. Achtemeier. This chapter will examine the arguments of each of these camps, and then will suggest an alternative meaning of telos from a different perspective.

42

THE GOSPEL O F PAUL

Christ-Abolition of the Law Among the scholars who believe that Paul meant abolition in Rom 10.4, Kasemann makes his case as such: He sees law and gospel non-dialectically as mutually exclusive antitheses. . . . Christ according to z Cor. 1:19 is God’s “Yes” to us. This “Yes” is unequivocal and irrevocable. . . . the Mosaic Torah comes to an end with Christ. . . . 1

Here, Kasemann argues that Paul describes the law and the gospel to be thoroughly antithetic. But such simple schematization cannot sufficiently explain Paul’s positive reflections on the law that are shown in other passages in Romans. For example, in Romans chapter 7 Paul declares, “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (v.12); he also declares, “the law is spiritual” (v.14).Furthermore, Kasemann does not explain how his simple conclusion of antithetic stance of the law and the gospel applies to Romans 9-11, especially to 9.30-10.4 where the fate of the Jews seems optimistic. Raisanen takes a similar stance on Rom 10.4 as that of Kasemann. He states that in 10.4, Paul contrasts law and faith.2 However, Raisanen is more careful in his analysis when compared to Kasemann. According to Raisanen, in Paul’s understanding of Christ and law, there probably existed the understanding that Christ was also the purpose of the law. He states this is most evident in Romans 9.30-33 where Paul argues that the law in fact demands faith in Christ. Therefore in this passage, Christ is the aim of the law. Here, the criticism of the law is absent.3 But in 10.1 Paul begins his writing with “brothers.” According to Raisanen, this word may be understood as a marker to begin a new paragraph and new thought that is different from chapter 9. In this new paragraph, Paul uses language that is critical towards the law as he contrasts ”the righteousness which is based on the law” as given through Moses to “the righteousness based on faith” with Christ.4 Reflecting on Paul’s differing understanding of Christ and law, Raisanen claims that Paul lacks unity in thought because he sees Christ as the abolition of the law in 10.4 but as the law’s purpose elsewhere. I as a “new paragraph”, but his claim Raisanen considered 10. is misguided. In chapter 9, and right after 10.1,Paul continues to

Christ and the L a w

43

emphasize the difference between his understanding of the righteousness of God to that of the Jews. Also, Raisanen’s understanding of 9.30-33 as Paul’s attempt to make a case for Christ as the purpose of the law is simplistic and incomplete. This passage contains a double meaning. In it, Paul presents two ways to acquire the righteousness of God then rejects the way through observing the law. Contrary to Raisanen’s claim, Christ is not the fulfillment, but rather can be seen as the abolition of the law. But Paul goes further to surmise that since acquiring of the righteousness of God in Christ was the supposed original purpose of the law, Christ is then the law’s fulfillment rather than its abolition. Linss also interprets 10.4 as the abolition of the law.5 He claims that in 10.1-3 the righteousness of God is defined as the right relationship between God and man. Thus, the point of the passage is on the right relationship and not on the merit, either of God or of man. According to Linss, 9.30-10.3 contrasts Gentiles who acquire righteousness with the Jews who due to their ignorance, fail to acquire theirs. For Linss, Jews wrongly believed they could acquire their righteousness through their obedience to the law, but the death and resurrection of Christ revealed that such effort could no longer lead to the path of righteousness. The Jews had believed that the law and their righteousness through their effort were one and the same. V.z declares the error of their belief, and v.3 explains the reason for their error. Thus, v.3 explains the error of acquiring the righteousness of God through the works of the law. Verse 4 then explains why it is the Wrong way: because Christ is the end of the law. By doing the works of the law, no one-Jew or Gentilecan obtain righteousness. . . . The translation “goal,’ would not explain what precedes. . . . Therefore, telos truly has to be understood as “end,” not as “goal“ or “purpose.”6

But Linss’ claim and his argument lack strong support. Of course, attempting to understand the context by studying 10.1-3 to exegete 10.4 is an appropriate effort. However, his foundational work is too one-sided. For example, the purpose of 10.1-3 is not limited to pointing out the error of observing the law in order to attain the righteousness of God. The passage is also intended to point out the misunderstanding of the Jews concerning

44

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

“the righteousness of God” as their exclusive claim when “the righteousness of God” is inclusive-offered to both Jews and Gentiles. In the end, Linss, in attempting to justify his interpretation of this passage, is not able to separate himself from the theme of Christ in opposition to the law. Of course, the passage implies such opposition between the two, but the passage is more complex. Furthermore, Linss criticizes Banenas, who claimed if Paul meant telos with second case to be “termination” or “end,” the idea would have been strange to the ears of the Romans. In Linss’ criticism, he states that in Luke 1.33, Hebrews 7.3 and I Peter 4.7, telos is used with second case, but its meaning clearly is “termination.”7 He goes on to state that his interpretation of telos as “termination” is in accordance with Paul’s writings and offers Romans 7.1-6, Philippians 3.6-9 and Galatians 3.23-24 as his examples.8 Of course, as suggested by Linss, in Luke I .3 3 and Hebrews 7.3 telos is used to mean “termination.” However in case of I Peter 4.7, it could be interpreted as the “termination of all things,’’ but also ”the completion of all things.” But having said this, even though the first two passages (Lk. 1.33; Heb. 7.3) are understood as “termination,” Linss’ criticism misses the essence of Badenas’ comment. Badenas stated that it is difficult to see telos as “termination” in the given passage of Romans; he did not claim that telos could not mean ”termination” in any other passage in the New Testament. Furthermore, Linss’ claim that the word should be understood as “termination” because of the similar use in Paul’s other writings (Rom. 7.1-6; Phil. 3.6-9; Gal. 3.23-24) is hard to maintain because in those passages, the word telos never appear. The reason Linss’ argument is not persuasive is because it is not difficult to find passages that can support his claim once telos is assumed to mean ”termination” as much as it is not difficult to find supporting passages once telos is assumed to mean “purpose” (i.e., Rom. 7.12, 14; 8.3-4; 13.8-10). In Linss’ writing, he claims that solely from the study of the immediate passage, he can show that the word telos in Romans 10.4 means “termination.” In so doing, he states that it is unnecessary to look at any other passages-not in non-Pauline writings nor among the writings of Paul, as he states, ”it is not necessary to first look at other texts in Paul.”9 Such statement by Linss is contradictory to his own method in criticizing Badenas by utiliz-

Christ and the Law

45

ing non-Pauline sources (Lk. 1.33; Heb. 7.3; I Pet. 4.7) as well as other writings of Paul (Rom. 7.1-6; Phil. 3.6-9; Gal. 3.23-24). Furthermore, it opposes his own imperative, which was made about the passage (Rom. 10.4): “The verse cannot be interpreted in isolation but must be seen in the totality of Paul’s statements on the Law.”10 Here, my own criticism of Linss as he criticizes Badenas does not denote agreement with Badenas’ position. The criticism against Badenas’ position will be approached from a different angle.

Christ- Fulfillment of the Law Now, let’s examine the claims of the scholars who understood telos of Romans 10.4 as “purpose” or “fulfillment.” Campbell, who represents this view, understands that the opposition between “the righteousness that comes from the law” (Lev. 18.5) in 10.5 and ”the righteousness that comes from faith” (Deut. 30.12ff) in 10.6 becomes a stumbling block to his view, so he insists that the two verses are not in opposition. Campbell suggests that v.5 and v.6 were not meant to stand in opposition. He argues that Paul would never use one passage of Scripture to disapprove another and suggests the following:” Instead of setting out a contrast between law-righteousness (v.5)and faith-righteousness (v.6), Paul intends both quotations to support his claim that the righteousness now realized in Christ is that to which Moses also pointed.12

However, such claim overly curtails and sacrifices the understanding of righteousness in v.5 in order to insist on defining telos in Romans 10.3 as “purpose”. Campbell’s argument loses strength in that Paul doesn’t have the view of Scripture that Campbell implies he does. In Paul’s understanding of the antagonism between the gospel and the law, he not only wants to revise some parts of Scripture, he attempts to delete some portions of it. Instead, it is more natural to read v.5 and v.6 as Paul’s attempt to set them in opposition. If, as Campbell asserts, Paul understood “the righteousness that comes from the law” of v.5 as equally correct, then it is natural to conclude that Paul acknowledged both ways-by faith and by observing the law-to attain the

46

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

righteousness of God. However, such conclusion is in conflict with Paul’s negative assessment of the “righteousness that is based on the law” in 9.31 and his rejection of ”worl<s” in 9.32. Here, the criticism of Campbell is in his assertion that v.5 and v.6 do not stand in opposition. It is not meant as a criticism of his view that telos of 10.3 should be understood as “purpose.” On the other hand, Rhyne selects the phrase “a law of righteousness” as the key to understand the meaning of 10.4, and then examines Paul’s understanding of the law in Romans 3.214.25. There he evaluates the law in relation to righteousness by faith in positive as well as negative terms (cf. 3.21b-22, 31; 4.3, 9, 22-24 with 3.21a, 28; 4.2, 4-6, 9-10, 13-16). In view of this precedent it is not inconceivable that Paul speaks of nomos in a positive sense here also. Therefore, the position that one should view nomos dikaiosynes in a negative sense here as, e.g., the law which is falsely understood as a way of righteousness, cannot be accepted without question.l3

Rhyne’s claim has a critical flaw in its logic. First, if Paul evaluates the law in both positive and negative terms in 3.21-4.25, then it is only logical to conclude that in 10.4, it can be treated in both ways. However, he cautiously states that it is not unreasonable to assume that Paul evaluated the law positively in 10.4 in light of Paul’s previous understanding of the law as both positive and negative. And then, he boldly asserts that ”therefore,” it cannot be accepted “without a question” that Paul viewed the law negatively. Rhyne shows himself to be lacking in logic as his argument is paper thin. Rhyne’s logic can be used against his own view in this way: ”Paul viewed the law in both the positive and negative sense in the past, so it is not unreasonable to say that he treats the law negatively here. Therefore, the view that he treats the law positively here cannot be accepted without a question.” What this writer is trying to emphasize is not that the antithesis of Rhyne is more convincing, but to point out the weakness of his logic. From this fragile stance, he concludes that Paul saw Christ as being the purpose of the law and its promise of righteousness.14 The problem does not lie in the conclusion, but the process that produced such conclusion. Since he lacks sufficiency in logical arguments that justify his view, his conclusion is like a declaration without a process of clear argumentation.

Christ and the Law

47

Badenas also interprets telos as “purpose.” He states that the law intended as its purpose, that Christ would bring righteousness to humanity.15 If Israel had misunderstood the Torah and God’s righteousness, it is because it failed to recognize in Christ the Messiah who fulfilled the Torah’s main purpose-to lead all men to salvation.16 . . . The suggestion of the present exegetical approach to Rom 10.4 is, that telos should be interpreted in a teleological way rather than in a temporal, terminal or even completive way.”

This interpretation overemphasizes one aspect of the relationship between Christ and the law. Of course, Christ is the intended purpose of the law. However, that is not all. That is not enough to explain Paul’s negative treatment of the law. It can be said that Badenas’ attempt to exegete Romans 10.4by the way of the wider context of chapter 9 to 1 1 is appropriate, but why not go further to the wider context of chapter 5 to I I ? There lies his problem. If he were to expand the context to chapter five, he must deal with such passages as 6.14 and 7.1-6 where Paul writes of the law’s abolishment or its limitation. Because these passages are stumbling blocks to him, he neglects to include them in his discussion. In his entire book, he does not mention 6.14even once. And as for 7.1-6,he does not mention it at all in his main section but relegates it to the footnote section where he bundles it up with other numerous verses. Examining those passages in detail would have made his point of argument very difficult to maintain. But the importance of this criticism of Badenas is that when Paul sent this letter to the Romans, he did not break it up and send chapters 9 to 1 1 alone. Furthermore, even if we agree that Christ was the purpose of the law as Badenas claims, he does not explain why Paul only focused on such a view. Because Badenas couldn’t go beyond his theological perspective, he failed to effectively see Paul’s dual position regarding the law.

Christ-Abolition and Fulfilhent of the Law Now, let’s examine the stance of the scholars who do not limit the interpretation of telos in Romans 10.4to either abolition, or purpose or fulfillment, but instead, claim that the word contains

48

THE GOSPEL O F PAUL

both meanings. According to Beker, Christ is the law’s “goal and its termination”, “for the law constitutes Israel’s selfaggrandizement and boasting in its rebellion against God.”l* Here, he interprets telos with the dual meaning of purpose and abolition. But in his reasoning (self-aggrandizementand boasting that constitutes the law) he fails to offer an explanation for “purpose”. Rather, his reason is more suitable for singularly supporting “abolition.” The following statement demonstrates a similar problem. It [the death of Christ “for us”] abolishes the continuing validity of the law, . . . The death of Christ does not mean the continuation of the law. . . or a covenant renewal. Rather, it means the termination of the law (Rom I O . 4 ) . l 9 Rather, God’s judgment pertains to the poisonous interaction of the law with the human situation. The effect of that interaction excludes humankind from eternal life. . . . henceforth its deadly interaction and effect cease. Because Christ has opened up our new access to eternal life, Christ is both the end (la fin) and expiration of the law, and its fulfillment (le but).20

We see Beker attempting to argue for the dual meaning of abolition and purpose or fulfillment, but most of his argument is focused on the ”termination.” He asserts that Christ is the “termination” of the law with clarity and strength, but he does not clarify in what way Christ is the “fulfillment” of the law. On the other hand, Schreiner offers a somewhat unique theory. He suggests that Paul distinguishes moral laws from suggestive laws. And further that Paul opposed, not the whole law, but only some special suggestive laws within the Mosaic covenant. Thus, Paul believed that this Mosaic covenant was no longer valid to the believers in Christ.21 In this, Christ is the abolition of the law. However, according to Schreiner, Paul is encouraging the believers to fulfil1 the law through love.22 Thus, the moral obligations of the Mosaic law are not abolished for the believers, but rather they can now be fulfilled.23 In this sense, Christ is the fulfillment of the law. Schreiner’s claim is progressive considering the interpretation of telos is neither standardized nor onesided. However, the crucial problem with his claim is that when Paul wrote of the opposition between the law and Christ, he meant the opposition between the whole of the law and Christ

Christ and the Law

49

and not a part of the law and Christ. Paul makes it clear that in order to attain the righteousness of God one must choose either the law as a whole or faith in Christ. For those who seek to persuade others of the dual meaning of telos, it would make it a more persuasive argument to keep the law intact rather than separating it into parts from the beginning. Thus, it would be more convincing to say that in some sense Christ is the abolition of the ”whole law” and in some sense he is the purpose of the “whole law”. Achtemeier also claims that when Paul wrote Christ is the end of the law, he meant both abolition and fulfillment.

. . . Christ is both the fulfillment of the intended role of the law in the relationship of creature with Creator and the end of its primary function in that relationship.24 By making a distinction between the law’s intention and method, Achtemeier saw telos as both fulfillment and abolition. As such, he displays the most impressive and persuasive argument among all the scholars who support dual meaning. But some minor points are unclear. He defines the law’s intention as ”trust in God,”25 but it is difficult to locate clear evidence in the given text in Romans to support that definition. Furthermore, he does not examine why Paul had to use the word in dual meaning as it relates to the circumstances of the Roman church. The thesis of this chapter is to view telos as possessing dual meaning. However, unlike the other scholars with the same claim, different evidences will be presented. First, gar in Romans 10.4indicates continuation from 10.3. In 10.3,what does “righteousness that comes from God (theou dikaiosune; dikaiosune touetheou)” mean for Paul? Does this stand in contrast to “their own?”No, Paul is not contrasting the two. First, “their own” is not accompanied with the word ”righteousness.” When Paul contrasts two opposing ideas, he includes the key word to both sides. For example, when he contrasts between the “heavenly bodies (sbmata epourania)” and “earthly bodies (sbmata epigeia)” in I Corinthians I 5.40, or between “the glory (doxa)of the sun, and another glory (doxa) of the moon” in I Corinthians I 5.41,Paul shows his method in contrasting two ideas. The ”righteousness that comes from God” cannot be contrasted with ”the righteousness of the Jews”. That is because no

50

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

human righteousness can be the object of comparison to the “righteousness that comes from God”. In Romans 10.3, Paul emphasizes the “righteousness that comes from God” as allinclusive in character that gives benefit not only to the Jews but to the Gentiles as well. This is why Paul writes his declaration that “there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” in 10.4. Here, the hidden contrast is not between the “righteousness that comes from God” and the “righteousness of the Jews” but between the “righteousness that comes from God” that Paul understood and the “righteousness that comes from God” that Paul believed the Jews understood. For Paul, “righteousness that comes from God” is a righteousness that can be attained by all believers (both Jews and Gentiles) through faith in Christ. Paul calls the righteousness that is attained this way “righteousness that comes from faith (ek piste6s)” (9.30; 10.6). On the contrary, the Jews claimed that the “righteousness that comes from God’’ could be attained only by the Jews and that “based on works (eks ergon)” (9.32). This righteousness is declared to be “righteousness that comes from the law (ek nomou)” (10.5). Paul believed that the Jews and he both understood that the purpose of the law was attaining this God given righteousness. However, he defined this righteousness to be inclusive, but the Jews defined it to be exclusive. Furthermore, he and the Jews had a disagreement on the matter of the method in attaining this righteousness. In 9.30-33, Paul claims that the Jews could not attain the true righteousness that comes from God because rather than following the righteousness as Paul understood it, they were following after the “righteousness that is based on the law” as they understood it (9.31). The Gentiles, on the other hand, did attain the righteousness that comes from God because rather than following after the righteousness that is based on the law as the Jews did, they followed after the righteousness that comes from God, as Paul understood it (9.30).Paul states that the Jews are not only ignorant to the inclusive characteristic of this “righteousness that comes from God” as he understood it, but they did not even submit to it (10.3). Between the two methods of attaining this righteousness, the new method through faith that Paul teaches stands in contrast to the method through observing the law that Jews believed. As to the method through observing the law, Christ becomes the abolition of the law. But the Jews “did not strive for it on the basis of

Christ and the Law

5I

faith, but as if it were based on works” (9.32).The similar occurrence happens in the contrast between “the righteousness that comes from the law” ( 10.5) and “the righteousness that comes from faith” (10.6). In v.5, Paul quotes Leviticus 18.5 as an incorrect case of the law, and then in v.6, he quotes Deuteronomy 30.12 to support the righteousness through faith. Of the two methods to gaining righteousness as presented in 10.5-6 and 9.30-33, Paul rejects the method of observing the law that Jews have chosen. This leads us to interpret telos as ”abolition.” Because the exclusive method of observing the law in which only the Jews are permitted to engage is now eliminated, Christ becomes the abolition of the law. However, this is only one side of Paul’s view. For Paul, the purpose of the law is to attain the ”righteousness that comes from God.” However, he understands that this righteousness can only be attained through Christ. Furthermore, because the reason God sent Christ is so that “the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8.3-4), Christ can be seen as the purpose of the law. In this case, telos in 10.4 becomes defined as purpose. Thus, Paul uses telos in 10.4 with dual meaning. Not observing the law, but faith in Christ is the only way to attain the righteousness that comes from God, and therefore, Christ is the abolition of the exclusive way. At the same time, the purpose of the law is to attain this righteousness. For Paul that is only realized in Christ. Christ is therefore the purpose of the law. When Paul declares in 10.1-3, especially in v.3, that the Jews do not know the “righteousness that comes from God” and do not submit to this righteousness, Paul means the inclusive “righteousness that comes from God” as he understands and not the exclusive one as understood by the Jews. As for the reality of God’s inclusive righteousness (Paul’s understanding of the purpose of the law) and the inclusive method used to bring the reality, Christ becomes the intension of the law, and as for the reality of God’s exclusive righteousness (Jewishunderstanding of the purpose of the law) and the exclusive method used to bring the reality, Christ becomes the abolition of the law. It is because Paul understood Christ to carry a dual meaning in respect to the law that he purposely chose to use telos that has dual meaning. And if this view is correct, then what circumstance led Paul to emphasize this theological idea?

52

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

The Roman church was composed of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.26 Both the Jews and the Gentiles believed that the purpose of the law was to obtain the “righteousness that comes from God.” However, as for the nature of this righteousness-its boundary and the method to attain it, the Jews and the Gentiles disagreed. Firstly, concerning the recipients, the Jews believed that it was a special privilege that was uniquely given to them, so they distinguished themselves from the other races and attempted to build a wall between them. On the other hand, since the Gentiles thought that the righteousness that comes from God could be attained by “all who believe’’ (Rom. 10.4) and not exclusively by the Jews, as co-recipients of this righteousness, they asserted that there could be no dividing wall between them. In regards to the method, the Jews believed it was through the observation of the law and hence developed an exclusive attitude. Through their method, they were able to build a wall between themselves and the Gentiles. However, the Gentiles believed that the way to righteousness was “faith in Christ.” And since the door is open to all who believe-whether one is a Jew or a Gentile, they believed that there cannot be a wall between them. The Gentile Christians understood Christ as the one who had broken down the walls established by the Jews through their wrongly understood exclusivity and method and supported the inclusive understanding of the Gentiles and their correct method toward obtaining the righteousness that comes from God. However, on the contrary, the Jewish Christians understood Christ as the one who maintained the exclusivity and the method that they held unto and rejected the inclusivity and the method supported by the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians did not want to forsake their special privileges and superiority that came from observing the law even in the church of Rome. This condition is reflected in 2.17-29. “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God . . . You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” (Rom. 2.17~23). Paul criticize the Jews by saying, “For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly. . . Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly” (Rom. 2.28-29). Paul corrected the Jewish Christians’ error, and persuaded them to understand the situation of the Gentile Christians. That is why Paul emphasizes,

Christ and the L a w

53

”For one believes with the heart and so is justified . . . ‘No one who believes in Him will be put to shame’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. . .” (Rom. 10.10-12). Paul criticized the Jewish Christians for supporting the claims of the Jews, who believed that righteousness can only be attained by Jews through observing the law, and he supported the position of the Gentile Christians who believed that the righteousness can be attained by anyone through Christ.

Summary and Conclusion The word telos in Romans 10.4 is used with a dual meaning of abolition and purpose. This chapter supported this view with evidences that are different from the ones presented by the scholars with similar views. Paul contrasts his understanding of the “righteousness that comes from God” to that of the Jews. The former declared that it is “based on faith,” and the latter declared it is ”based on the law”. Also, Paul regarded the obtaining of the “righteousness that comes from God” to be inclusive of all people, and the Jews exclusive. According to Paul, as for the method to attaining “righteousness that comes from God,” he believed it came through inclusive faith whereas the Jews chose the method that was exclusive observation of the law. In this manner, Christ is the abolition of the latter method. No longer does one observe the law for gaining righteousness. However, as for the purpose of the law, that is, the inclusive attainment of righteousness that comes from God, Christ fulfills this purpose. Thus, the laws as the Jews understand it, establishes exclusive boundaries and wrongful method, Paul sees the abolishment of this understanding by Christ and so Christ is the abolishment of the law. At the same time, the law that is inclusive and has as its purpose the attainment of righteousness as he defines it, Paul sees Christ as fulfilling this purpose and so the purpose of the law. The reason for Paul’s use of the dual meaning can be found in the circumstance of the church at Rome. To the Gentile Christians who were the majority of the church, Christ stood as the abolition of the law as the Jews understood it and as the purpose of the law that the Gentiles understood. In other words, the Gentile Christians believed that to understand the law as the attainment

54

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

of righteousness offered to an exclusive group and through the method of obedience would create a dividing wall and in this case, Christ is the abolition of that law; but if in Christ, the inclusive righteousness of God is obtained by faith, and so fulfil1 the purpose of the law, then Christ is the purpose of the law. Paul sympathized with the Gentile Christians in the Roman church and corrected the Jewish Christians who were in opposition. The reason why Paul supported the view that the righteousness of God is inclusive was to show the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles may be accepted as true heirs of God’s promise to Israel. By this he reveals he stood on the side of the Gentile Christians and became their support. Paul identified himself as “the apostle to the Gentiles’’ (Rom. 1 1 . 1 3 ) . The reason why he proclaimed such a label was because the people he could receive wholehearted support from were not the Jewish Christians as he would have liked, but the Gentile Christians. In other words, more than anyone else, Paul could not but be greatly influenced, motivated, and constrained by the Gentiles.

FIVE

Law and Faith

Introduction Paul stated, ”a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” Paul’s criticism of the works of the law and his assertion for justification by faith as it appears in Galatians and Romans will be the subject of this fifth chapter. To examine the above subject, the following set of problems is posed. Is Paul’s criticism of the works of the law derived from his criticism of Judaism’s foundational view on salvation? But if Judaism’s soteriology differed from the way Paul stated them to be, then does it mean Paul was mistaken in his criticism of it? Although there were a variety of sects of Judaism in existence in the first century, could it be said that they all shared the same ideology? And what exactly is Paul referring to when he writes about the “works of the law” that demanded his criticism, and what social function did this criticism serve? And finally, what does it mean to be ”justified by faith”-what are its belief and purpose, and what social implication does it hold?

Works of the Law Paul states, ”a person is justified not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2.16a; also Rom. 3.28; Gal. 3.11). First of all, who stands in opposition to this statement that Paul has to declare it? To those who respond that the opposition here is one who upholds the Judaism’s view of salvation, two problems are raised. First, is Judaism a “merit-based” (or “effort-based”) religion that believes

56

THE GOSPE L OF PAUL

salvation is obtained through the “works of the law (erga nomou)”?And can Paul’s statement above be used to substantiate that belief? Second, is Judaism of the first century a unified entity? In that period of history, was Judaism of one unified color? The first question is closely related to the second question. The first question will be dealt with first. Can Judaism be defined as a merit-based religion? The positive response to this view has been strongly opposed. E. P. Sanders represents this opposing view. Sanders defines Palestinian Judaism of Paul’s time as being based upon “covenantal nomism.” According to covenantal nomism, the covenant was established, not by the efforts of the people, but by God’s initiative, and the law exists within this covenant to work beside it; the law is not the means or a way to enter into this covenant. Therefore salvation is given by the grace of God and the obedience to the law is the proper response to the grace of God by the person in the covenant relationship.’ The covenantal nomism that Sanders defines closely resembles the basic premise of Protestantism. The understanding is that grace is first and the human efforts are the response to God’s initiative, and so the good works are not the method by which salvation is gained, but they are the product of one that is saved. Of course, Sander’s definition of first century Palestinian Judaism, that it did not teach salvation through the works of the law was not an original thought. Already, the Jewish scholars such as R. J. Z. Werblowsky and S. Sandmel had stated that much. Werblowsky titled his thesis, “Torah of Grace” and stated clearly that the Jews did not seek righteousness from the Torah. Rather the reason for the Jewish affinity toward the Torah was that, receiving God’s guidance with a thankful heart, the Jews wanted to live as one of the members of God’s chosen community.2 Sandmel cites the wrongful view of first century Judaism by the Christian scholars and criticized their subjective prejudice. He states that it is impossible to engage in a scholarly dialogue with Christians since they perpetuate their misunderstanding of Judaism’s view of the law. Sandmel writes that his desire is not to bring about a favorable view of Judaism from them. His is that the Christian scholars would base their understanding of Judaism from responsible and unbiased position.3 Sanders’ contribution was as a Christian scholar, he brought attention to and effectively challenged the notion that Judaism was a merit-based religion within the Christian scholarly circle.

L a w and Faith

57

He writes that before 70 CE, the Judaism had a balanced view of grace and works and it treated God‘s laws neither trivially nor with hypocritical attention.4 Sanders’ work was important in that it effectively revised the rather fixed idea held by the Christian scholars concerning the first century Judaism. But of course, not all are convinced of Sanders’ position. H. Ridderbos and R. Jewetts represent the group that continues to maintain a stance toward Judaism as a “merit-based religion,’’ and they do not accept the criticism of the Jewish scholars that their assessment of first century Judaism is incorrect. But they stand among the minority of Christian scholars. Although they may differ in the finer points, the majority of the scholars have come to accept Sanders’ position and his correction of the “misunderstood Judaism.” In fact, C. L. Porter and James D. G. Dunn so wholeheartedly accepted Sanders’ work that they went as far as to revise their previously published works in light of it.6 If we go ahead and accept Sanders’ position that Judaism of Paul’s time was not a merit-based religion but a religion based upon grace, we must ask the following question: Was Paul mistaken about his understanding of Judaism? H. J. Schoeps states that Paul completely misunderstood the law when he assumed the law was the basis for salvation. This charge is included in the chapter appropriately titled, ’’Paul’s fundamental misapprehension.”7 H. Raisanen goes further in support of the view that Paul misunderstood. For him, when Paul attacked the belief that works of the law was the method to becoming justified, Paul misinterpreted Judaism. Paul incorrectly defined Judaism as a religion that taught the works of the law led to being justified, and then he attacked it. And so Raisanen corrects Paul, that the law never maintained such limited intention.8 Raisanen concluded that Paul’s criticism of Judaism and its works of the law is undeserved and in error. Of course, to support this view is to believe that Paul was simply ignorant about Judaism. But this stance is difficult to maintain. Even if we discard information concerning Paul’s close link with Judaism found in Acts and in his own writings, Paul reveals his past intimate familiarity with Judaism when he calls himself, “a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee” (Phil. 3.sff). From Paul’s own writings it is certainly difficult to convince that he was ignorant about the teachings of Judaism. Differing from Raisanen, Sanders believes Paul’s criticism of

58

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

the law was in fact, a “limited rejection” of the law. He writes that when Paul attacks righteousness that is gained through the law, he is attacking the people who use the law as qualifications to enter the believing community.9 Sanders’ view is that Paul’s criticism of the works of the law was to be understood as his “limited rejection” of the law, that Paul well understood the first century Judaism and its teachings on the law. Paul’s criticism is toward the Jewish believers who impose law-obeying demands on the Gentiles who seek salvation. But Sanders makes his case on the basic premise that first century Judaism was singular in belief. This premise will be closely examined and problems posed later. Further, Sanders limits Paul’s statement, “a person is justified not by works of the law” to apply only to the Gentile converts. But Paul is obviously challenging a group that demanded “works of the law as method to enter salvation.” For Sanders, this is a unique idea not present in Judaism. But the problem of identifying whom it was that proposed this unique idea, the origin of this idea, and the identity of this community are not clearly presented. Accordingly, that Sanders shows caution toward his view to some extent is not surprising. He states that in the final analysis, with respect to Paul and the law, he cannot with certainty determine whether Paul was successful in identifying and explaining the error of Judaism to his readers.10 Firstly, for his work, Sanders used three general sources: the Tannaitic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal writings. He utilized the three sources to define Judaism’s covenantal nomism and then compared it with Paul’s writings. That he attempted to set side by side, Paul’s writing with Jewish sources that are several generations in the making was an unreasonable undertaking. Concerning this attempt, the Jewish scholar J. Neusner stated, “But Sanders does not come to Rabbinic Judaism . . . to uncover the issues of Rabbinic Judaism. He brings to the Rabbinic sources the issues of Pauline scholarship and Paul. . . . But Sanders does not describe Rabbinic Judaism through the systemic categories yielded by its principal documents. His chief purpose is to demonstrate that Rabbinism constitutes a system of covenantal nomism. . . . the polemic in behalf of Rabbinic legalism as covenantal does not bring to the fore what Rabbinic sources themselves wish to take as their principal theme and generative problem.”ll

L a w and Faith

59

Neusner is critical of Sanders‘ work in his lack of use of important sources. Neusner points out that in the Mishnah, “the first document of Rabbinic Judaism,” what Sanders deems important to Judaism is discussed as only a fringe topic; concerning Sanders’ point, it is discussed minimally.12 Now, Neusner accepts Sanders’ conclusion on “the conceptions of covenant and grace” as “wholly correct”13 but his criticism remains valid that Sanders’ study was overly focused on comparing and contrasting Paul with Judaism rather than allowing Judaism to stand on its own, and so in that regard, it is a correct criticism. Now the second problem is dealt with. Was the first century Judaism a singular entity? Did it maintain a unified form? In the time of Paul, Judaism was not a unified body with singular belief. According to Josephus, prior to 70 CE, Judaism consisted of three groups: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.14 But he was only citing the larger sects. There were also the ’Samaritans,’ the ‘Galileans,’ the ‘Baptists,’ the ‘Genistae,’ and the ’Nasaraioi’ who existed in the same period and categorized as a part of Judaism.15 And concerning early Christianity, “during the first stage of its development, Christianity constituted one Jewish sect among others.”16 After 70 CE, the Pharisees became a dominant force and represented the “traditional” Judaism, but prior to 70 CE, within Judaism “no absolutely strict line of demarcation could be drawn between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.”17 M. Smith agrees with this assessment while adding that if there was in existence a singular ‘’traditional Judaism,” we have absolutely no knowledge of i t . 1 8 W. D. Davies stands in a similar line of thought but adds a vague description. The hospitable, comprehensive, theological tolerance and fluidity of Judaism before 70 C.E. allowed various groups to remain within its ambience. Among these were early Christians.19

Here Davies suggests that there was in existence a single definable Judaism and that this Judaism allowed the various sects to coexist within it. When he uses the word, “allowed,” there is an implied authority behind it. His latter statement that the earliest Christians were considered as a sect of Judaism is commonly accepted without refutes. But the former statement must be corrected so as to read, “various groups allowed each other” to remain within Judaism. The view that there was in existence one

60

THE G O S P E L OF PAUL

definable Rabbinic Judaism in Palestine in the period right before 70 CE can no longer be accepted. Neusner, A. F. Segal, C. J. G. Montefiore and other Jewish scholars use the terms, “Judaisms” or “many Judaisms” instead of “Judaism” when referring to Judaism of pre-70 CE.20 In his description of “covenantal nomism,” Sanders failed to take into account these various sects of Judaism and their differing patterns of thought. It is noted that he made a commendable contribution to scholarship through his research into first century Palestinian Jewish writings and his presentation of evidence that convincingly rejected the commonly held notion that Judaism was work-based. But contrary to Sanders position that there was one definable Judaism before 70 CE, in fact at that time, there were many Jewish sects and they did not agree on all aspects, and even within each sect, there was not a complete agreement on all teachings-all this existed within Judaism. Sanders failed to take into account that the various Rabbinic literatures might possess conflicting or differing view points. It is likened to comparing the whole of the New Testament with other sources in regard to the law even though the New Testament itself contains various views concerning the law, such as the Markan view of the law and the Pauline view of the law. Even if we accept that Mark and Paul share similarity of thought in some areas, to treat the New Testament as if it held a singular view concerning the law and then compare that view with other sources is to deny the existence of differing views within the New Testament and so sacrifice other views for the sake of one. In the Qumran community, for instance, one finds literature that reflects “covenantal nomism,” but also contained within the Qumran literature, we discover that repentance and purity are not only means to arrive at the door of salvation, but methods to enter it. In the Society Manual found in the Qumran Community, it declares, ”By his soul’s humility towards all the precepts of God shall his flesh be cleansed when sprinkled with lustral water and sanctified with flowing water” (3.4-9). It continues, ”Thus not only does water replace the expiatory fire of sacrifice, the ritual bath symbolizes the communication of salvation.”zl And even within the Old Testament, we have ”the righteous live by their faith” (Hab. 2.4),but also its conflicting view, “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live” (Lev. I 8.5).According to Leviticus, one’s salva-

L a w and Faith

6I

tion is dependent upon one’s action. Here, to the one who observes the law, “he will stand in the living divine fellowship of salvation and holiness.”22 Paul rejects this Leviticus passage by introducing “faith” in Galatians 3 . I I, but the point is that the Leviticus passage proves that within Judaism, there existed a sect that declared “salvation through the works of the law.” In Galatians, Paul first acknowledges that before God, there existed “two disparate spheres of life” and then pits the two views against each other.23 Likewise in the New Testament, Paul’s view that Abraham was justified through his “faith” (Rom. 4.2-3) is contrasted with the writer of James who states that Abraham was justified by “works” (Jam. 2.21).When these differences are put forth as added evidence, it is clearly seen that the first century Judaism’s diversity is real and it cannot be defined with one color. In Paul’s case, as a product of the Pharisees, he avoids the Old Testament texts that carry the message of salvation through the works of the law. Or if he utilized some of them, he did so negatively as a criticism against the sect that taught salvation through works of the law. But in doing so, he reveals his affinity with the stance and theology of his former Pharisaic Judaism. That during the time of Paul, Judaism was not a unified body but a general term that encompassed a variety of groups with varying thoughts gives us a clue as to the identity of the specific group that is the subject of Paul’s criticism. Paul is critical, not of the whole of Judaism, but specifically one sect within it that holds to the teaching that righteousness was to be attained through the works of the law (works-salvationgroup).And in his criticism, he reveals his own former training, that he belonged to a sect of Judaism that rejected the works based religion. Paul was from “the tribe of Benjamin” (Rom. 11.1; Phil. 3.5), and “as to the law, a Pharisee” (Phil. 3.5). He identified himself as a Jew. Paul never used the term ’Christian’ when he referred to himself. Sandmel writes that Paul would not have understood that term, ‘Christian’ to apply to himself. The name is anachronistic, not only because it arose after Paul’s time, but also because Paul had no sense of his being something other than a Jew. He was fully aware that convictions separated him from his erstwhile coreligionists, but he had no sense that he was abandoning Judaism. . . . he does not discuss who is the true “Christian,” but still, who is the true 1ew.24

62

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Davies makes a similar point. Although the communities that Paul founded differed from Judaism in several areas such as discipling methods and in their professing Jesus as Christ, but overall, Davies remarks, “in the time of Paul this differentiation did not spell separation. ”25 This view is convincing because the term, “New Israel” did not come into usage in the first century. Prior to 70 CE, the churches were considered as one of the many sects of Judaism, as competing bodies for available proselytes. Of course, Paul’s mission effort was toward the “Gentiles” (Rom. I 1.13)~ but that did not nullify his identity as a Jew. Paul was a product of Pharisaic Judaism. Pharisaic Judaism was small in number but in influence, it was a leading sect. Neusner describes this sect as a small philosophical sect within Palestinian Judaism that maintained a unique system of conviction and praxis.26 The Pharisaic Judaism did not teach its members that salvation was obtained through works of the law. What Paul was criticizing was not the teaching on salvation by the whole of Judaism nor was he criticizing the teachings of his Pharisaic past. Rather, he was introducing the Pharisaic Judaism’s teaching on salvation that rejected the works of the law to obtain righteousness and set it side by side with another specific sect that taught its members that salvation was to be attained through works of the law. He desired to attack the latter view by this method. Accordingly, for the Pharisaic Judaism, Paul’s statement, ’,a person is justified not by the works of the law” was nothing new. That’s the teaching of covenantal nomism. And so when Paul attacked the attempt by some to link salvation with the works of the law, the Pharisaic Jews did not consider themselves as the recipients of Paul’s criticism. Pharisaic Jews were equally critical on that issue. But Paul did not fully agree with all of covenantal nomism. There was a part of it that Paul did criticize. Covenantal nomism contains two important parts. One is that of election and the resulting covenant through the ’grace’ of God, and the other is the law as the rule for life within that covenantal relationship. As to the issue of covenant, Paul agreed on the primacy of ’grace’ but he expanded it to include the Gentiles. As to the law, if that was used to place a barrier around the Jews and excluded the Gentiles, then he criticized it. So we see that Paul was borrowing a portion of the Pharisaic Judaism’s teaching of ‘covenant nomism’ and applying it to understanding faith in Jesus the Messiah.

L a w and Faith

63

Contrary to the view of Raisanen, Paul’s attack against the works of the law as the way of salvation did not rise out of his misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Judaism. He considered the teaching of the works-salvation group, that salvation is obtained through doing the works of the law, as inferior to that of the teaching of Pharisaic Judaism, and from this position, he made his attack. Here, Paul was not criticizing the whole of what Sanders describes as “Palestinian Judaism” and its soteriology (‘covenantal nomism’ without Christ Jesus),Rather Paul was attacking a segment of it, the works-salvation group that differed from the Pharisaic Judaism’s belief in salvation by grace. This view alleviates the intense animosity that wrongly exists between Judaism and Christianity to a greater extent than that of Sanders’ work. Having said that, Paul’s statement that “a person is justified not by the works of the law” was not directly aimed at Judaism’s works-salvation group, but directed toward the Jewish Christians who shared the same view. What is not wholly clear is whether those being criticized by Paul, the “acknowledged pillars” (Gal. 2.9) was a reference only toward Cephas, or toward all three pillars, or others who pointed to the three pillars as their authority. In Galatians, those being criticized are referred to as ‘Christians’ because they also presented the “gospel.” They were gospel-proclaiming Christians. But Paul defines their gospel as a “different gospel (heteron euanggelion)” (Gal. I .6). For these ‘Christians’ with a ‘different gospel,’ the teaching of the workssalvation group was attractive because in their understanding of God’s covenant with Abraham and through him God’s covenant with the Jews, a simple faith in Jesus Christ was deemed insufficient. For them, ” ‘Torah-keeping’ means the obligation to become a member of the Jewish people and therefore circumcision marks your entrance into the line of salvation-history that started with Abraham and finds its fulfillment in Christ.”27 For them, circumcision became a validating sign (Gal. 2.3; 4.11; 5.3). Paul assumed that the Galatian church was influenced greatly by these Jewish Christians and so challenged their ‘gospel.’ The Jewish Christians that appear in Galatians probably share in the belief of the “false believers” (Gal. 2.4) that appear during the Jerusalem Conference, an event that preceded the writing of the letter. Those false believers slipped in secretly (Gal. 2.4) into the Jerusalem Conference. The reason Paul attacks these

64

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

false believers from the past is that the Jewish Christians that presently influence the Galatian people share the same view. Paul seeks to contain their activity within the Galatian church and to refute the Galatian people who have accepted their view as the truth. Further, Paul seeks to break any ties that may exist between the Jewish Christians and the Galatian believers. Paul attacks them in the present by attacking the activities of the Jewish Christians he encountered in the past. Also in Romans, Paul expected the Jewish Christians to be the primary recipients of his letter. However, unlike the Galatian Jewish Christians who appeared to them later, in the Rome’s believing community, they were a part of the founding membership. In his letter to the Romans, Paul does not call the Jewish Christians there as “false believers.’’ Rather they are called ”saints” along with the Gentile Christians (Rom. 1.7). Further, Paul recognizes that these Jewish Christians are founding members and internal leaders in the Roman Christian community rather than ones who have penetrated the community from the outside. But even here, as in the Galatian community, Paul supposed that they shared the view of the works-salvation group and so he attempted to correct their thoughts. Paul uses the phrase, ”works of the law” three times in a single verse in Galatians 2.16. How does Paul define the “works of the law” he so opposes? Among the scholars, Dunn gave the most influential response to this question. According to Dunn, Paul’s opposition to the view that righteousness could be attained through works of the law was due to his opposition to the teaching that observation of circumcision and food laws determined righteousness: We may justifiably deduce, therefore, that by ‘works of law’ Paul intended his readers to think of particular observances of the law like circumcision and the food laws. . . . just these observances were widely regarded as characteristically and distinctively Jewish.28

Here Dunn reduces the law in ‘works of the law’ to several particulars and not the whole law.29 Concerning this I. G. Hong rejects Dunn and states, ”the expression ’works of the law’ is not to be interpreted as doing certain parts of the law but as the works demanded by the entire law.”30 As proof, he states that the enemies of Paul that appear in Galatians were defending not only

L a w and Faith

65

the portion of the law that promotes self-righteous practices but they were defending the whole law.31 Hong adds that “works of the law” found in Romans 3.20 and 3.28 are functionally same as the “works” of Romans 4.2 and 4.6 and they do not refer to selfrighteous practices alone but to the works of the whole law. In this Hong supports the view of D. J. Moo. Hong’s argument against Dunn and his subsequent claim toward the whole law are convincing. It is correct to see that in Galatians, Paul’s attack against his enemies was not limited to defining laws as self-righteous practices. However when he introduces Romans to supplement his argument, he loses credibility. In his argument, he himself states that the words found in each letter must be evaluated on “its own terms” for their unique rhetorical devices and social settings.32 But when he makes his argument that the ‘works of the law’ found in Galatians must be understood to encompass the whole of the law, he cites the same phrase found in Romans to add to his case. When he does so, he must assume both letters use the “common terms” because as he does so, he himself contradicts his view that each letter’s words must be evaluated on “its own terms” for their unique rhetorical devices. When Dunn cites passages that deal with circumcision (Gal. 2.1; 5.2) or passages that deal with food laws (2.11ff), or when he cites passage that deals with ”days, and months, and seasons, and years” (4.IO), certainly they deal with self-righteous practices. When Dunn made his arguments for ‘works of the law,’ he cited the above passages as examples of Paul’s definition of the ‘works of the law’ because Dunn desired to show in what unique ways the Jews differed from the Gentiles. But Dunn need not have limited the understanding of the ’works of the law’ because even when the whole law is meant, he could have maintained his position. That is because even when the Jews observe the law’s other practices that may seem similar to the Gentiles, their inner conviction is uniquely Jewish. They acted in accordance with the law’s obedience, and in their action, they believed they separated themselves from the Gentiles and enjoyed special privileges as Jews. Further, in Galatians 3.11, Paul writes that man is not justified by observing the “law.” Here, he uses the word, ‘law’ alone and not the phrase, ‘works of the law.’ From this passage, it is easier to understand ‘works of the law’ to equate with the whole law rather than to differentiate it.

66

THE G O S PE L OF PAUL

Contrary to Dunn’s understanding of Paul’s motive for his emphasis on the law’s works, Paul was not attempting to highlight some of the special items within the law. Rather from the many facets of the whole law (i.e. law’s ‘purpose,’law’s ‘meaning,’ law’s ‘limitations,’ etc.), Paul wanted to place his attention on one facet and then through it look at the whole law. The law exists so that what is written in it may be observed. Paul writes in Galatians 3.10, “everyone who does not observe and obey all things written in the book of the law,” that is ‘do them,’ that person will be ”cursed” (Deut. 27.26). If this Old Testament statement is inverted, it becomes one who abides by all things written in the book of the law will not be cursed. While this statement can raise another question, namely, can anyone obey all the requirements of the law, the intended meaning of this passage is that the law was given for the specific purpose of being obeyed; the people ought to obey it. This is the reason why Paul used the phrase ’works of the law’ to describe the law. For Paul, ‘works of the law’ was a definitive statement describing the purpose of the law. Paul sought to place the law in direct opposition to the ’faith in Christ.’ From this Paul used the phrase ‘works of the law’ rather than simply ‘law’ for a more effective and clear comparison. And so in Galatians 2.16 where he makes that comparison twice, he preferred to contrast ’faith in Christ’ with ‘works of the law’ rather than ’law’ with the view that for Paul, ‘works of the law’ and ‘law’were interchangeable. For Dunn the works of the law were not actions that the Jews believed would garner the favor of God (that is, salvation) nor are they “good works” or “self-achievement” as the scholars from the Luther school have posited.33 Far worse, to start our exegesis here from the Reformation presupposition that Paul was attacking the idea of earning God’s acquittal, the idea of meritorious works, is to set the whole exegetical endeavor off on the wrong track. If Paul was not an idiosyncratic Jew, neither was he a straightforward prototype of L ~ t h e r . 3 ~

Dunn’s position here is partly correct and partly wrong. That ‘works of the law’ was wrongly understood as ‘good works’ from the time of Luther is a correct assessment by Dunn. The works of the law are different from those works that have no relations with the law since the works of the law are required

Law and Faith

67

from specifically the law. However it cannot be said with blanket certainty that Judaism rejected the notion of salvation through works of the law. That depends on which Judaism is defined. It has already been pointed out that first century Judaism contained within it, coexisting diverse sects. The Pharisaic Judaism was a covenantal nomism sect that rejected the notion of salvation by works of the law, however, works-salvation sect declared that works of the law was the condition for salvation. Paul was attacking the latter group and in so doing, contrary to Dunn’s position, Paul was attacking the teaching of meritorious works of the law as the condition for God’s salvation. Paul did not misunderstand nor misrepresent the Pharisaic Judaism that was one of the leading sects within Judaism during his time. Rather he is in their corner when he argues that the ‘works of the law’ are for the one who ’remains’ in the covenant but cannot be the condition for ‘entrance’ into the covenant. Paul’s criticism toward the ’works of the law’ was an attack towards those who state that ‘works of the law’ was not only for those who ‘remain’ in the covenant, but it was the condition for those who desire to ’enter’ into the covenant. They were the works-salvation group and they were the Jewish Christians who maintained the similar belief. Now we turn our attention to the works of the law as a social function. The works of the law carried an important social function for the Jews. The works of the law ‘separated’ the Jews who were the people chosen to participate in the covenant of God from the Gentiles. As such, the works of the law acted as kind of ‘discriminator,’ or they functioned as ‘identity marlters.’35 The Old Testament’s command to obey the law was a call to separate themselves from the unholy nations (Deut. 7.1-1 I; Ezek. 10.11). The Jews who received the law separated themselves by their works of the law from the Gentiles who did not receive the law. To receive the law meant they were chosen as the people of God. The works of the law were the clearest method to drawing a line between themselves and the Gentiles. Dunn stated, “Jews would be particularly sensitive at the points where the boundary seemed to be threatened and consequently their own identity challenged.”36 The works of the law were the means for the Jews to feel superior or privileged to that of the Gentiles. In the end, the feeling that arose out of the works of the law, the feeling of privilege, put a wall between themselves and the Gentiles. Paul

68

THE GOSPEL O F PAUL

worked to remove this wall. When Paul criticized the works of the law, he meant not only the works of the law as a condition for salvation but also for its social function of erecting a wall. As to the former, the criticism is aimed at one sect of Judaism. However, as to the latter, the criticism is meant for all Judaism prior to 70 CE. That is because the law was used socially to function as the wall builder not only by one sect of Judaism, but by all Jews. Paul’s attack against Peter who was one of the pillars of Jewish Christians (Gal. 2.9) was about Peter compelling the Gentiles to “live like Jews” and by it supporting the position that Jews are privileged and in so doing he created a wall of discrimination between the two groups. Paul was wary that the wall he had worked to demolish was being put up again (see Gal. 2. I 8).

Justification b y Faith When Paul declares, “a person is justified not by (ean me) the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2.16a) what does ”is justified” mean? For what purpose does Paul teach on justification and what is its social function? Paul places this teaching in the context of his conflict with Peter at Antioch. It is not clear whether Galatians 2.16 is a continuation of Paul’s criticism toward Peter (Gal. 2.11-14), or if it is a part of his speech toward other people right after his criticism of Peter. If it is former, then the interpretation is simplified, but even if it is the latter, v.16 is deeply related to what he said about Peter. Peter is described as a person who compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews in v. 14. The content of Peter’s persuasive demand is that to enter completely into the people of God, one must follow the law as well as have faith in Jesus Christ. In v.15, Paul states, ”we ourselves are Jews by birth (phusei) and not Gentile sinners.” Here Dunn separates v. I 6a from v. I 6bcd. He premises that “is justified” of v. I 6a is particularly Judaic and it is used only for the Jews by birth in that it separates the Jews from the Gentile sinners. Dunn insists that Paul deliberately uses the word, “is justified” to appeal firstly to ”the standard Jewish belief.”37 According to Dunn, the justification by God is recognition by God regarding Israel as his people on the basis of his covenant with Israe1.38 Dunn defines ”being justified” thus: God’s justification is not his act in first making his covenant

Law and Faith

69

with Israel, or in initially accepting someone into the covenant people. God’s justification is rather God’s acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant.39 Dunn makes this claim because he seeks to understand the verb, “is justified (dikaiousthai)” (Gal. 2. I 6a) from within the sphere of covenantal nomism. Therefore, for Dunn, that verb does not apply to those that seek to ‘enter,’ but applies only to those who ‘remain’ and so it is a “day-to-day conduct” by those already within the covenant. In this, according to Dunn, “covenantal nomism itself is not challenged or called in question.” What Paul has done is to redefine or restrict those being justified from the new perspective, that is within the relationship with Christ.40 Raisanen refutes Dunn’s claim. Raisanen first accepts Dunn’s supposition that in the Antioch situation (Gal. 2.1 1-14) the problematic topic was the “day-to-day conduct of those who had already believed.” However in the following passage at Galatians 2. I 6, Raisanen asserts that Paul changed the topic to soteri0l0gy.41 Differing from Dunn, Raisken states that Paul meant to use v. I 6a to mean the ‘entrance’ into the Christian community. The reason being that in v. I 6b, Paul states, “and we have come to believe in Christ Jesus” using the aorist verb episteusamen to mean a one time event. Further in v. I 6c, Paul states, “so that we might be justified (hina dikaiothomen) by faith in Christ” to suggest that a new relationship is being formed as a result of faith. V.16a is of the same line of thought.42 Adding to his argument against Dunn’s interpretation, Raisanen states that the whole of v.16 does not show “a contrast between the beginning and the end”, and further, the whole verse shows smooth unity of thought.” Raisanen asserts that “justification by works of the law, then, is denied throughout v. I 6.”44 The positions of the two scholars shall be evaluated here. Firstly, Dunn posits that in v.16a, the covenantal nomism is restricted and not rejected. We have already stated that Paul was not fighting against covenantal nomism but sought to redefine it. From this perspective, Dunn’s interpretation seems reasonable. But in v.16a, what Paul was rejecting was the view of the works-salvation sect, one of the sects of Judaism and the Jewish Christians who claimed the similar view. This group taught that even after coming to faith in Jesus Christ, the works of the law were still a requirement to salvation. Their view went against covenantal nomism. From this perspective, Dunn’s position to

70

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

understand, “is justified” of v.16a, not as ‘entrance’ into but limited to those who ’remain in’ is inappropriate. It is noted that the interpretation of this passage, v.16a in light of the verb, ean me is not so easy. However the comparison between ‘works of the law’ and ‘Christ’ continues at v.16~and there the same verb is used. In v. I 6c that verb cannot be translated as ’remain’ and so to say that in v. I 6a, that verb must be translated as ‘remain’ is difficult to uphold. From this, Raisanen’s position on v.16a as ‘entrance’ into salvation is more convincing than that of Dunn. However, Raisanen’s suggestion that the topic of 2.11-15 is interrupted at v.16 by another topic is less convincing. In v.14, Paul was critical of Peter because he demanded the Gentiles “to live like Jews (ioudaizein).” To live like the Jews is to do the works of the law. They are precisely the works of the law that identifies one to be Jewish. According to Paul, Peter’s position is that more than faith in Christ is needed. For a Gentile who has faith in Christ to completely ‘enter’ into the covenant, one must also do the works of the law. If Peter was requesting the works of the law as means only for those who ’remain in’ the covenant and not as a condition for ones to ‘enter into’ it, then Peter did not have to “compel (anangkazein)”anyone. That is because as long as works of the law was used as means for those who ‘remain in’ the covenant, and not as a condition for ’entrance into’ salvation, Paul did not object to it and so he would not have viewed Peter’s request as forced. It is therefore the same theme that runs throughout this passage at 2. I I- I 5 and at v. I 6, that is the theme of Paul’s criticism against the teaching that works of the law was a condition for entrance into salvation. Contrary to Dunn’s position, the phrase in 2.16a, “justified by works of the law” is best understood as ’entrance into’ and so as an issue of soteriology. And contrary to Raisanen’s position that in v. I 6 there is a call for an end to Judaism’s soteriological teaching, in v.16a, there is a call for an end to the soteriological teaching of Judaism’s one unique sect and not to the whole Judaism. In fact, rather than cessation, from the perspective of Pharisaic Judaism of which Paul was a part, it is continuation of their soteriological teaching. Right before Paul begins to unfold his thoughts on justification by faith at Galatians 2.16, he makes a statement, “we ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners” (Gal. 2.15).45 This statement was a commonly used phrase that established a

L a w and Faith

7I

boundary between the Jews and Gentiles. Paul uses this to show he clearly recognizes this thought. It is a thought that labels Gentiles as sinners because they have not the law, nor have they obeyed any of it. On the other hand, the Jews are not sinners because they have received the law from God and follow it, and so they are naturally the people of God. The obedience to the law was a show of gratitude and duty in appreciation for God’s election of Israel. By doing the works of the law, the Jews maintained their covenant relationship and at the same time, they could distinguish themselves from the Gentiles. The purpose of the law was that the sovereignty of God would be affirmed in the lives of the people of God when they follow the precepts of the law. God elected them because of his ’grace.’ It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you-for you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you . . . (Deuteronomy 7.7-8)

To those who observe the law, God blesses, and to those who neglect the law, he brings down curses (Deut. 7.9-10). Through obedience to the law, Israel is a nation “for him to set . . . high above all nations that he has made” (Deut. 26.19). In Galatians I. 14, Paul speaks thus about his past, “I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous (zealot; zdotes) for the traditions of my ancestors.” And about his past persecution against the church, he states that it arose out of his ”zeal” (Phil. 3.6). Here, the word ‘zeal’ was a term that highlighted a unique Jewish exclusivity with respect to their relationship with God. “God’s jealousy” is related to his demand for exclusive relationship God wanted with Israel. ”You shall not make for yourself an idol, . . . for I the LORD your God am a jealous (zealous)God” (Ex 20.4; 34.12-16). The Jews persisted in demanding such exclusivity as a means to erect a boundary between Israel and other nations. “Zealot” was a word that was defined as “the use of force to defend the Torah against a perceived threat.”46 Differing from the ‘zealots’ that arose with weapons during the Jewish-Roman War of 66-70 CE,47 the ‘zealot’ of Paul’s time was connected to an attitude of desperate defense of communal righteousness through the observance of the law.48

72

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

This type of zeal was a cause for “boasting (kauchesis)” (Rom. 3.27; 4.2). In the past, this “boasting” was interpreted by scholars

as an individual character of pride; boasting done by an individual. This was the stance of Augustine and Luther of the past, and in the present, Bultmann and Kasemann are the representative scholars that continue to propagate this understanding and further root it. R. Bultmann defines this boasting as a Jewish person’s general attitude of desire to be a confident person who seeks glory in God’s presence.49 And according to E. Kasemann, this boasting is “self-boasting.” Further “faith and self-boasting are incompatible, for the believer no longer lives out of or for himself.”50 These explanations of boasting as an individualistic term are incorrect in that for the Jews, this boasting is a boasting about the law and about God who presented them with the law.51 H. Hubner correctly understands that in Romans, “the Jew’s boasting in God coincides with his boasting in the law, but since he does not keep the law, this boasting is sin.”52 In reality, Jews defined their exclusivity in their boasting about the law given only to them (Rom. 2.17, 23). Dunn clarified this position. In other words, the boast is not the boast of self-confidence, but of Jewish confidence, the boasting of one conscious of his privilege as a member of the people of Israe1.53

Paul’s justification by faith rejects precisely this ‘zeal’ and ‘boasting’ about the law. That is because the Jews used that as means to erect a boundary of separation between themselves and the people of other nations.54 This boundary established exclusivity. Before he announces his clear declaration, “a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law” (Rom. 3.28), he precedes it by rejecting Jewish exclusivity. “Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith” (Rom. 3.27). Romans 3.28 is then understood as ”to form the basis for the conclusion that boasting is excluded’’ in Romans 3.27.55 Paul’s justification by faith or ”justified by faith in Christ” assumes that the Israelites are chosen people of God and the Gentiles were at one time, ”aliens from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2.12). When Paul states, “justified by faith,” he emphasizes the point that being “justified” is not an exclusive privilege of

L a w and Faith

73

the Jews who are separated from the Gentile sinners. Through faith, the privilege of being “justified” is open indiscriminately to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul’s doctrine of justification has as its focus, that through faith in Christ, the boundary that separated the Jews from the Gentiles through works of law is abolished. In Ephesians, that point is clearly and rightly described. For he [Christ] is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the divilng wall, that is, the hostility between us. (Eph 2.14)

The literal translation of “dividing wall of hostility (mesotoichon tou phragmou)” is ‘middle wall of separation.’ Christ then has become one who has broken down this wall that once created two groups. It is true that Ephesians is not included among the seven genuine letters of Paul, but this understanding of Christ strikes at the center of Pauline thought. It is generally accepted that among the deutero-Pauline letters, Ephesians best captures the thoughts of Paul. The purpose of Paul’s doctrine of justification is the abolition of the separating wall. This is the reason why right after his justification of faith statement in Romans 3.28, he states that God is not God only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles (Rom. 3 . ~ 9 ) ~ and also that both the circumcised and the uncircumcised can be justified by God through faith (Rom. 3.30). It is difficult to declare the electing work of the monotheistic God of the Jews when the Gentiles held onto their individual gods. However “if the monotheistic God justifies everyone by faith, then, of course, he is really the God of the Gentiles.”56 Paul states, ”now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for ’the one who is righteous will live by faith.’” (Gal. 3.11). Here, the latter part of v.11 appears again in Romans 1.17. This latter statement is from Habbakuk 2.4 where “Habbakuk’s faith was in the universal sovereignty of God.”57 Paul saw in Habbaltuk’s writing, the same understanding about God in Christ and so used him appropriately.58 In so doing, Paul was declaring that God was the God of the Gentiles also. Paul’s doctrine of justification is generally focused on removing the boundary between the Jews and Gentiles. Following Dunn’s writing,

74

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Justification by faith is a banner raised by Paul against any and all such presumption of privileged status before God by virtue of race, culture or nationality, . . . against any and all attempts to preserve such spurious distinctions by practices that exclude and divide.59

Summary and Conclusion Jewish scholars such as Neusner and Segal made a point that when one speaks about Judaism of the pre-70 CE era, one cannot speak of singular Judaism but rather of ‘Judaisms’ because at the time the sects of Judaism were many and diverse. The importance of this point is that there is an error in the countless number of scholarly opinions on Pauline study as to whether Paul supported or attacked Judaism in that those opinions stood on wrongful assumptions, namely that Judaism was of singular thought. Paul criticized the works of the law in only two situations. Firstly, when the works of the law was applied as ‘condition of salvation’ and secondly, when it was used as a ‘means to erect a barrier.’ In other situations, although Paul pointed to the law’s inferiority (when compared to the ‘promise’) and its temporal quality (until the coming of ’Christ’), he did not criticize it. In the first situation, he was critical of the religious function of the law (from the perspective of the covenantal nomism, a misunderstood religious function), and in the second, he attacked the social function of the law. In the first situation, through his criticism of the works of the law, Paul opposed the sect of Judaism (from the diversity of Judaism in that time) that emphasized the works of the law as condition for salvation, the ’workssalvation’ sect. In so doing, he also rejected the ‘Jerusalem apostles’ or ’Jewish Christians’ that shared similar stance in relation to the function of the works of the law. These asserted that even after believing in Christ Jesus, the works of the law were still necessary as a condition for salvation. On the other hand, one of the leading sects of Judaism was Pharisaic Judaism and it did not assume works of the law as a condition for salvation. It taught ‘covenantal nomism,’ that is salvation by grace. Paul, who was once a part of this Pharisaic Judaism, maintained a similar position when he asserted that one could not be justified through the works of the law. In this, he criticized the position of

L a w and Faith

75

the ‘works-salvation’ sect and the ‘Jerusalem apostles’ that stood in agreement with them. From this, contrary to Raisanen’s position, Paul did not misunderstand the teaching of Pharisaic Judaism that was one of the leading sects of Judaism at the time. Further, contrary to Sanders’ position, Paul did not stand in opposition to all of ‘Palestinian Judaism’ but rather to one of the sects of Judaism, the ‘works-salvation’ sect, and further, he stood in opposition to the Jewish Christians that maintained a similar view. Paul was critical of the works of the law in two situations as stated above-works of the law applied religiously as condition for salvation and works of the law applied socially as a barrier. In the first, Paul’s criticism was limited to a portion of Judaism whose soteriology demanded works of the law. In the second, Paul’s criticism extended to the whole of Judaism as the works of the law functioned to erect and sustain a dividing wall. The criticism applied to all of Judaism because using the works of the law to separate themselves from the Gentiles and declare a privileged status was the stance not of one sect, but the whole of Judaism. The ‘works of the law’ functioned socially as a separator, as the Jews distinguished themselves from the Gentiles through it. From this, the Jews declared themselves the privileged people. This point was Dunn’s contribution. But contrary to Dunn’s position that Paul’s use of the ’works of the law’ was limited to circumcision and dietary laws, in fact the ‘works of the law’ covered all of the law. As an example, in Galatians 3 . I I, ‘works of the law’ is interchangeable with the ‘law.’ Paul was adamantly opposed to the works of the law as it was used to establish a dividing wall. For Paul, faith in Christ became a solid basis for the removal of the dividing wall. Contrary to Dunn’s position that being “justified” (Gal. 2.16a) is not ‘entrance into’ but rather limited to ’remaining in’ from the position of covenantal nomism, being “justified” cannot be limited to ’remaining in.’ The contrast between works of the law and Christ that appears in v. I 6a also appears in v. I 6c and in both contrasts, the same verb is used. In the case of v. I 6c, because the verb cannot be read as being limited to ’remaining in,’ it is difficult to argue that in ~.16a,the same verb must be understood as being limited to ’remaining in.’ Rather in v. 16a, ’justified’ is best understood in reference to entering into salvation through works of the law and Paul stands in opposition to it.

76

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Justification by faith, that one is justified through faith in Christ Jesus, is Paul’s theological response to the issue of whether Gentile Christians can be included in the people of God, included as the people of the covenant. This response addresses the issue of the whole of Judaism as well. In his effort to respond affirmatively to this issue, Paul removes the boundary that existed between the Jews and Gentiles and redefines the traditional understanding of ’people of God.’ First of all, Paul identifies ‘zeal’ toward the law and ‘boasting’ about the law as the important traits of being Jewish. It is through this ‘zeal’ and ‘boasting’ that a Jew identifies himself as a member of the people of Israel, the ones with privilege, and are the means to maintain that status. From this position, the boasting done by the Jews are not ‘boasting about the self,’ a view held historically by those who maintained an individualistic perspective including Augustine, Luther, Bultmann, Kasemann and others. It is ‘boasting about the law.’ At the same time Paul is unfolding his doctrine of justification, he attempts to reject the Jewish boasting about the law (Rom. 3.27). The doctrine of justification of Romans 3.28 is given as a basis for removing this boasting. Paul’s doctrine of justification emphasized the abolition of the dividing wall between the Jews and Gentiles that was established through the works of the law, and that is now removed through the faith in Christ. This doctrine of justification is not to be understood in an individualistic manner focused on the change to the individual character. Rather it is to be focused on the social dimension, in the restoration of correct human relationships. The doctrine of justification declares as its basis that there is no difference between the two groups, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, the Jews and Greeks (Gentiles).To abolish the wall between the Jews and Gentiles, Paul expands the understanding of Jewish exclusivity. God is also the God of the Gentiles (Rom. 10.12). Here Paul redefines the understanding of the ‘people of God.’ He contrasts between the ‘external’ Jew and the ‘internal’ Jew and between the ’circumcision of the flesh as an external sign’ and the ’circumcision of the heart’ (Rom. 2.28-29). In this redefinition of the people of God, there are those who are Jews by birth but rejected and there are those who are Gentiles but accepted. “Those who were not my people, I will call ‘my people”’ (Rom. 9.25). Paul states that God

L a w and Faith

77

will “justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith” (Rom. 3.30). By his statement, Paul reveals that he sought to unify the two groups who shared the common faith into one group, that is salvation by faith.

SIX

Promise of God

Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to explore the crucial issues of Romans 9-1 I , and by doing so, to contribute indirectly, partly, and tacitly to the understanding of an aspect of Paul’s gospel. Romans 9-1 I is constructed by the two major themes: the disobedience of Israel (A) and the faithfulness of God (-A).These two major themes are seen in three separate sections in Romans 911. After the A theme (9.1-5) and -A theme (9.6-29) are presented, they are enlarged in 9.30-10.21 (AA) and 11.1-27 (-AA) respectively. The A and -A themes are repeated in the last section of 9-11, 11.28a (A’)and 11.28b-32 (-A’).All three sections are like a “sonate form” of classical composition. A and -A represent “presentation,” while AA and -AA illustrate “development.” The last section, A’ and -A’, symbolize “recapitulation.” In this fashion Paul relates the theme of Israel’s rejection with the theme of God’s faithfulness: Israel rejected Christ (9.1-5); God did not revoke His promise (9.6-29); Israel rejected the gospel ( ~ . ~ o - I o . z I11.28a); ; and God did not abandon Israel (11.127,28b-32).

Faithfulness of God The theme of God’s faithfulness is prominent in Romans 9-1 I. Does the unbelief of the Jewish people signify a failure of God’s word? This is the crucial question, the one that formulates the problem of the entire three chapters. Through stating his intense concern for Jews in Romans 9.1-3 and recognizing their many

Promise of God

79

and great advantages in 9.4-5, Paul urges that they have a continued place in God’s purpose. It is incredible that God’s declared purpose for them should become a dead letter, “it is not as though the word of God had failed” (9.6a).This primary thesis (9.6a)is developed in terms of God’s sovereignty, which he assumes and refuses to impugn (9.14-29). Throughout history a principle of selection has been at work (9.11). God has ’chosen’ some, such as Isaac (9.7)and Jacob (9.13), and ’hated’ or rejected others such as Esau (9.13). Paul introduces two similar objections (9.14-29; 11.1-32) and inserts the theme about Israel’s rejection of the gospel (9.3010.21) between the two. The first objection that God has acted unjustly: “is there injustice on God’s part?” (9.14) infers that God’s election is arbitrary, a capricious sifting of men without purposeful end. The accusation is not allowed to stand; Paul insists on I ) the freedom of God’s mercy apart from human merit (9.15-23), and 2 ) the revealed goal of God’s electing purpose ( 9.2 4- 2 9 1. Before introducing the second objection, Paul states that it is the Gentiles who are now ready to accept the gospel and are being incorporated into ’Israel’ while the Jewish people are being disobedient (9.30-10.21). He implies that the mission to the Jews has failed; they have ’heard’ the gospel but they have rejected it ( 10. I 6-2 I ). The second objection takes up the dialogue of chapter 9: “has God rejected his people?” ( I1.1). The answer is clear; the election of God has not displaced Israel. Its rejection is partial ( I1.1-10) and temporary ( II . I 1-27). It cannot be said that the Jewish people as a totality has been disobedient. In the time of Elijah, 7,000 did not bow the knee to Baal (1I.Iff.). So too there are those among the Jews who hear and accept the gospel and those who do not ( I1.5). A remnant has believed and it remains true that the nucleus of the people of God is still Jewish-as Jewish as Paul himself! The Jews’ rejection of the gospel for Paul is temporary. Through their very rejection, they themselves would ultimately be reconciled and thereby bring to completion the reconciliation of the world. For Paul the whole process of history-past, present, and future, is under the mysterious and sovereign control of God who is reliable. God has consigned all men (includingthe Jews)to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (including the Jews,

80

T H E GOSPEL O F PAUL

11.32). God has been, is and will be faithful to his promise. The divine purpose runs its full course; God has not wavered from his first intention ( I1.28-32).

Destiny of Israel It is only in Romans, and explicitly in Romans 9-1 I, that Paul directly addresses the question of the status and the future of the Jews. Although the expression, “Jew first” (Rom. 1.16) does not directly appear in Romans 9-1 I, the implication seems to be pervasive throughout the passage. Each of the three chapters of Romans 9- I I begins with a statement of Paul’s personal and emotional involvement in the problem of Israel,’ and with a reference about Paul’s designation of himself as an Israelite and a preacher to them (9.1-5; 10.1-2,13; 11.1-2). This must be considered not as literary exaggeration,z but as a concrete entity before Paul uses them.3 It is necessary to examine some scholars who maintain that Paul’s concern is on the balance between Jews and Gentiles or even on the Gentiles only. On the issue of chapters 9-1 1,4 Krister Stendahl has presented this: To me the climax of Romans is actually chapters 9-11, i.e., his reflections on the relation between church and synagogue] the church and the Jewish people-not “Christianity” and “Judaism,” not the attitudes of the gospel versus the attitudes of the law. The question is relation between two communities and their coexistence.5 The real center of gravity in Romans is found in chapters 9-11, in the section about the relation between Jews and Gentiles, the mystery of which had been revealed to Paul (Rom.1.25 and Gal.1.12; cf. Rom. I 6.25). . . . In Romans 9-1 I. . . . The central issue claiming Paul’s attention is that of the inclusion both of Gentiles and Jews.6

In regard to the quotation of the first half, Stendahl’s argument that Paul’s concern is on the relation between church and synagogue is less possible. Did ‘church’ as a religious movement clearly distinguished, separated from ‘synagogue’, exist at all before 70 CE? Up till then, was it not a movement within Judaism in competition with other ’Jewish’ movements variously interpreting a common tradition? P. Richardson’s thesis that the term

Promise of God

81

‘new Israel’ does not appear until the second century shows this clearly.’ In the case of the quotation of the second half, I agree with Stendahl in regard to the degree to which Paul’s concern is on the “relation” between Gentiles and Jews, and the ”inclusion” of both of them. I doubt, however, that it was all that Paul wanted to be concerned with. Stendahl’s argument seems to be oversimplified. Moreover such a view cannot explain the aspect of Paul’s intense concern for Jews reflected in Romans 9-1 I. Furthermore Stendahl suggests that Paul always restricted his own apostleship to the Gentiles, as far as the object of his mission is concerned. Rather, the center of gravity in Paul’s theological work is related to the fact that he knew himself to be called to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.8 . . . Paul had to register the ‘No’ of the Jews before he was allowed to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. This is what is theologically expounded in Romans 9-1 I .9

According to him, by implication, the Jews function as just a vehicle for the salvation of the Gentiles. In his argument, the ‘’relation” between Gentiles and Jews is not the balanced one, rather, the one-sided relation in favor of the Gentiles at the cost of the Jews. Thus, the meaning of Paul’s intensive anguish for the Jews is minimized in Stendahl’s understanding of the passage. Moreover, for Stendahl, it is just his tactics that Paul shows his concern with the Jews. However, the text seems to give an opposite evidence. At the very beginning of chapters 9-1 I, Paul shows the deep and thorough concern for the Jews. I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying . . . I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh (9.1-3).

It is hard to understand this strong statement as the tactical registration on ”the ’No’ of the Jews before he (Paul)was allowed to bring the gospel to the Gentiles”. Rather, Paul shows himself as a preacher to the Jews (Rom. 2.17). E. P. Sanders, despite his disagreement with Stendahl in many

82

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

details, takes a similar position in terms of Paul’s concern which is, for Sanders, exclusively limited to the Gentiles. He proposes that Paul never set out to evangelize Jews, and presents three reasons for it: the probability that Paul’s self-conception was always . . . that he was the apostle to the Gentiles; the absence of any clear reference to a Jewish component in any one of the churches which he founded. The second observation leads to the third point . . . If Paul never addressed himself to Jews, it explains why it took him so long to consider the question of the significance of the Jewish rejection of the Christian gospel.10

Consequently it is only natural for Sanders to state the following: 9-1 I are not the center of gravity of Romans, but represent Paul’s taking a second breath after the long discussion of the status of Gentiles . . . and turning to a problem which, while it had occupied less of his life, was nevertheless of anguishing importance to him . . . 11

Of course, we have no letters of Paul to the Jews or to the Christian Jews but only to largely Gentile communities. These Christian communities, however, were probably composed of Jews and of Gentiles. In the case of Romans we have an evidence, against Sanders, that Paul directly addressed Jews: Romans 2. I 7; cf. 3.1, 9. Furthermore, according to Acts, though there is a general tendency of exaggeration in it, Paul always went first to the Jews and only then to the Gentiles (Acts 13.5, 14, 44-48). The statement in Romans 1.16, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” makes the fact more reliable. Of course, there can be no doubt that the thrust of Paul’s apostolic ministry was mainly toward the Gentiles (Rom. I 1 . 1 3 ) ~as Sanders and Stendahl maintain.12 But it would be unrealistic to harden that statement into: Hence he never witnessed to a Jew or he ”never set out to evangelize Jews as such” (Sanders).Paul seemed to recognize the fact that other Jews-like himself-were drawn to Jesus. Actually that fact is of great importance to him (Rom. 11.5). Moreover, the explicit statement that “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews,” (I Cor. 9.20) indicates that Paul typically went to the Jews.13 There is another obvious evidence in Romans 11.13-14,

Promise of God

83

against Sanders, that Paul set out to evangelize Jews: “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them.” Here even Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is only for the purpose of saving the Jews. Rather, in Paul’s statement in Romans 9-11, the concern for the Gentiles is minimized in comparison to his concern for the Jews. The Gentiles belonged to the covenant community only because God had grafted them into the “olive tree” ( I1.17ff.).If they now begin to boast of themselves over the Christian Jews and the Jews, then they are incorrect. It is possible that some Gentile Christians arrogantly went so far as to claim that the Jews had been lopped off by God with the very purpose of incorporating Gentiles ( I I. IS), the implication being that God had preferred them to the Jews. Chapter I I, and possibly the whole of three chapters 9-1 I reveal a Paul conscious of an emerging counter-Judaism among Gentile Christians. Paul seems to take steps to guard against the rise of this tendency of Gentiles who are boastful towards the Jews.14 Paul’s major concern in I I. 17ff. is that Gentile believers have to recognize their indebtedness to the Jews (cf. I 5.26f.).Paul refers deliberately to the Gentile Christians as a wild olive. The condition of the Gentiles is that of wildness: they are not ‘cultivated.’ As over against Israel, even the Israel after flesh, they have not undergone as equal divine discipline. In 9.4 Paul enumerates the benefits of being a Jew by natural descent. In his mind the advantages of the Jews had been the means of producing the cultivated olive that could bear fruit. On the contrary, Gentiles constitute a ’wild olive’ that by nature never produces useful oil. The Gentiles in being engrafted into the root contribute nothing. The Gentiles had been grafted on to the olive, not because of any superior virtue on their part. They were wild and fruitless; the sole reason for their engrafting was their belief ( II .19-20). Just as the Jews who had not believed were lopped off, so Gentiles who were now engrafted through their belief could also be lopped off through disbelief. Paul tries to explain that the Gentiles have no ground for claiming any superiority over Jews whether believing or unbelieving. Through Christ the Gentiles have now been made partakers of the people of God and share in the benefits that spring from its root, but this does not eliminate the advantage of the Jews in that

84

T H E G O S P E L OF P A U L

root: ”it is not you (the Gentiles) that support the root, but the root that supports you” ( I 1.18). The Jewish root is a necessity to Gentile Christians; they cannot live without it. All Gentiles’ boasting toward the Jews is ruled out. In comparison to this disadvantage of the Gentiles, the advantage of the Jews for Paul is a real advantage (11.24; 9.4-5). In Romans 9-11 and especially in chapter 11 Paul seems to hold that within God’s purpose the Jews always remain the chosen people. Their rejection of the gospel has affected only part of Israel and is temporary. The acceptance of Jesus as the Christ is finally assured and will prove to be the prelude to the age to come when God’s supreme and infinite mercy will be shown to all, Jews and Gentiles. The salvation of the whole Gentile world is to precede but is not to be apart from that of Israel. However, Paul does not allow to the Jews any superiority on the ground of race, ethnicity or nationality. He does allow them a historical or chronological advantage in terms of the strong possibility to be easily motivated to believe in the Christ whom their historical God sent. “How much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree” ( I1.24). Thus, this advantage does not imply the superiority of the Jews. It is worthy to note that Paul’s rejection of the Gentiles’ priority do not necessarily mean his establishment of the superiority of the Jews. With regard to sin, judgment, and salvation “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek” (Rom. 10.12; 3.9; cf. 5.12-21). In Romans 11.25-32 Paul reveals a mystery about the future. The “hardening” of Israel has distinct limitations in numbers; when the full complement of the Gentiles has received the gospel, then the hardening of Israel will disappear. As a conseWhat is the quence, the whole Israel will be saved (11.25-26).15 scope of the phrase pas Israel (“allIsrael”)?The designation is to be understood in a collective sense, “Israel as a whole.” ”All Israel” in this collective sense indicates a future conversion of the Jews, so universal that the separation into an ’elect remnant’ and ‘the rest who were hardened’ shall disappear. What condition is implied for the salvation of “all Israel?” K. Stendahl suggests that there is no soteriological element here: It should be noted that Paul does not say that when the time of God’s kingdom, the consummation, comes Israel will accept Jesus as the Messiah. He says only that the time will come when ’all Israel will be

Promise of God

85

saved’ [ I 1.26). It is stunning to note that Paul writes this whole section of Romans (10.17-11.36) without using the name of Jesus Christ. This includes the final doxology ( II .33-36)’ the only such doxology in his writings without any christological element.l6

But this passage (11.25-36)can never mean that the Jews, without any condition, will be saved. Though faith, as E. P. Sanders argues, the condition of mercy for “all people” is not stated in I 1.32,the previously stated condition still applied not only for Gentiles, but for the Jews as well.17 Thus it is unthinkable that Paul would contemplate the salvation of Israel by any other means than faith in Christ (I1.23).18

Summary and Conclusion Romans 9-1 I justifies the promise of God on the one hand, and is concerned with the historical situation which Paul faced, on the other hand. The very validity or efficacy of the promised gospel that Paul preached was poignantly, even agonizingly, challenged against him by the refusal of his own people to accept it. This was present in Paul’s mind as he wrote Romans. The failure of the mission to the Jews raised acutely the question of the reliability of the very God who justified even the ungodly. So 9-1 I may be firstly regarded as Paul’s intentional presentation of his deep and thorough concern for the Jews by his justification of God’s faithfulness. It is directly addressed to the Roman congregation that consists of predominantly Gentile Christians who take a confrontational position in terms of their priority over the Christian Jews within the congregation and the Jews outside the congregation. Romans 9- I I reflects the situation of an emerging arrogant attitude of the Gentiles toward the believing or unbelieving Jews. Paul is conscious of this situation, and is determined to combat it. The symbols of the cultivated and the wild olive reflect Paul’s efforts to acknowledge the place of the Jews in the dispensation of the Gentile Christians. Paul’s rejection of the Gentiles’ priority, however, does not necessarily bring about the superiority of the Jews. It is true that in Romans 9-11 there is implied that the Jews have advantage, but this advantage does not mean superiority. Rather it means

86

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

that it is easier for ”the root” (the Jews)to believe in the Christ than ”the branches” (the Gentiles) which have never known God before, because God of Abraham, God of “the root” is the same whom “the root” reGod who sent his promised Son (1.1-4) jected. So this advantage is related solely to their easy accessibilThus the ity or motivation towards faith in Christ (cf. 11.24). Gentiles and the Jews stand on the same condition, as far as the other categories except “the accessibility or the motivation to faith” are concerned. They will be saved on the same ground. Here Paul provides ground for mutual tolerance and respect between the Gentiles and the Jews in terms of faith in the promised gospel, the Christ. The purposes of Romans,19 if we consider them from the perspective of the major issues in Romans 9-1 I, are the following: there is a necessity to sum up for the Roman congregation Paul’s understanding of the gospel as he faced the failure of the mission to the Jewish people on the one hand; on the other hand, there is an urgency for Paul to exhort the Gentile Christians in Rome not to take a confrontational attitude against the Jewish Christians through his own understanding of the place of Israel. Furthermore, Paul exhorts the Jewish Christians to recognize, and to admit the rights of the Gentile Christians through his own understanding of the gospel. Paul stresses the equality and coexistence between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians in the Roman congregation. For if the unity of the two groups in the Roman congregation is not accomplished, Paul is to lose one of his supposed bases for his Gentile mission. Since Paul anticipates an irreconcilable confrontation between the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and himself,20 the cohesiveness of the Roman congregation is of urgent matter.

SEVEN

Lord’s Supper

Introduction Paul introduces the Lord’s supper specifically in 11.23-25.

I

Corinthians

The Lord Jesus . . . took a loaf of bread (arton), and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This (touto)is my body that is for you. Do this (touto)in remembrance of me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup (touto to potgrion) is the new covenant in my blood. Do this (touto),as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Paul proclaims that he received this tradition “from the Lord” ( I Cor. 11.23). It is significant that only Paul uses the term, “Lord’s supper (kuriakon deipnon)” ( I I .zo) among all the New Testament writers.’ Three questions will be explored in this chapter: I ) What is the meaning of “this” in I 1.24b, I 1 . 2 4 ~and II.ZSC, and what is the purpose of doing this? 2 ) What is the social situation surrounding the Lord’s supper within the Corinthian church? 3 ) What is the social function of the Lord’s supper as Paul understands it?

Table Fellowship In the clause, ”this is my body,” the discussion has focused mainly on the verb “is.” Several possible answers have been proposed: “A is transformed into B,” “A is like B,” “A contains B,” or “A becomes B.” The disputes about the correct answer arose between the Reformers and the Catholics and even between the

88

THE G O S P E L OF PAUL

Reformers themselves. This chapter does not seek to address this much-discussed topic. Rather the concern centers on the exploration of the meaning of “this” as the subject. What is the meaning of “this” in the clause, “this is my body”? A simple and commonly accepted answer is that “this” means the bread. H. Conzelmann endorses this answer.2 And for C. H. Talbert, the understanding of “this” as to mean the bread is so clearly evident that he does not bother to spend time discussing the meaning of “this” in 11.24b.3 But when this clause is seen in the Greek, this position cannot be sustained. In this passage, “this (touto)” is a neuter demonstrative pronoun, while the “bread” is a masculine noun. If ”this” had demonstrated “bread”, a masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun, houtos would have been used. In the case of the “cup (poterion),” touto, a neuter appears as its matching demonstrative pronoun since “cup” is a neuter noun ( I Cor. I 1.25). In the case of ‘‘this bread” at I 1.26, Paul uses touton, a masculine demonstrative pronoun for the masculine noun. Thus, when Paul introduces the phrase, “this is my body,” “this” (neuter) does not demonstrate “bread” (masculine). Rather, I suggest that when Paul says “this,” he means the supper practice that shares the bread, namely, the table fellowship. For Paul, the table fellowship formulates the body of Christ which consists of members of the new covenant community. I Corinthians epitomizes this idea in the phrase “you are the body of Christ” (12.27). Paul scrutinizes this phrase in 12.12, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.” Consequently, the focus of the Lord’s supper is on becoming one body through sharing the same bread and the same cup. This idea is represented in a more clear manner in I Corinthians 10.16-17. The cup . . . , is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

The participators in the Lord’s supper become one body not through a certain efficacy of the bread itself, but through sharing the same bread. The bread itself is not the body of Christ. Sharing the one bread together is the body of Christ. Paul is emphasizing

Lord’s Supper

89

the commonness of the supper. The participators in the table fellowship become members of the new community. What is the meaning of ”this” in the clause, “do this” (II .24c, sc)?“This” is a designation for the idea contained in the previous allusion. The command, ”do this’’ does not appear in the Markan tradition on the Lord’s supper. The twice appearance of this command in Paul’s instruction shows that the Lord’s supper is in the process of settlement as a Pauline ritual. This command is not simply to eat or to drink. The instruction is to become one through the sharing of bread and cup. It stresses the significance of the commonness at the same table. All members are integrated through the supper table fellowship and become the one body of Christ. Since the body of Christ represents the community members who share the supper fellowship, anyone who breaks it or who does not recognize its divine character will be regarded as “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (I Cor. I 1.27, RSV). The reason for Paul’s rejection of the individual manners in eating (I1.21)is that those manners result in the renunciation of the meaning of the supper, that is to become the body of Christ. The ‘body’ of Christ and ‘believers’ are synonymous. Someone who cannot examine himself or herself, cannot examine the body of Christ. Paul hears that there are divisions in the Corinthian congregation (11.18). Paul indicates that the members neither meet together nor eat the Lord’s supper because of the division ( I 1.20). The negative results of the violation of commonness of the Lord’s supper are that many of the members are “weak and ill, and some have died” (II . 3 0 ) . This is the reason why Paul rejects the individual manners and exhorts them to “wait for one another” ( I I .33)when they come together to eat. What is the purpose of the Lord’s supper? J. Jeremias translates the phrase, eis ten emEn anamnesin into “that God may remember me.” He argues that ”remembrance” means remembrance of God in Palestinian Judaism.4 But he fails to convince since in the Hebrew Bible, remembrance of God is predominantly related to God’s protection or salvation. God is portrayed as remembering his covenant “with Jacob . . . Isaac . . . Abraham . . . the land” (Lev.26.42). God also pronounces that “I will . . . remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31.34). If Paul’s phrase denotes, as Jeremias argues, “God may remember me [ J ~ s u s ]then ~ ” we would have to understand the believers as having participated in the supper to

90

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

ask God to protect Jesus even after he has been exalted. In other words, Jeremiad reading presupposes that Jesus needs the protection even after he has been resurrected. This reading, however, is less than satisfactory since Paul’s image of Jesus indicates the different understanding. According to Paul, Jesus Christ was in the form of God and was equal to God, though he did not count equality with God (Phil. 2.6). C. H. Talbert on the other hand translates the phrase as “for my remembrance.”5 This reading is better than Jeremiah’s proposal, but the problem still remains. In Talbert’s reading, the purpose of the Lord’s supper is not to remember Christ, but to ask Christ to remember the new covenant. But I Corinthians I I .26 rejects this assumption: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Talbert, of course, acknowledges this clause to be a hindrance for his reading. Thus, he gives a new interpretation on it. Does this addition demand a reading of vv.13-25 only in terms of the first understanding mentioned above? Not necessarily . . . To give thanks to God for the new covenant sealed by Christ’s sacrifice involves not only disciples’ remembering but also a reminder to God/ Christ of the new covenant. . .6

This interpretation, however, does not match his reading of the phrase in I I 2 4 4 5 as ”for my remembrance.” His reading of the phrase includes only ”a reminder to Christ of the new covenant” while it cannot include the remembering by the “disciples.” Rather it is most appropriate to translate the phrase eis ten em2n anamnesin as ”in the remembrance of me.”7 The purpose of the Lord’s supper is to remember Jesus Christ. Then, what is the purpose of the remembrance? It is the ”integration” or “oneness” through the table fellowship. In Paul the essence of the Lord’s supper is in the common idea of fellowship. Paul’s idea of table fellowship not only retrospects the last supper fellowship of Jesus and the table fellowship of the resurrected Christ, but prospects the manner of the eschatological messianic table fellowship. Paul calls Jesus’ last supper the “Lord’s supper” (11.20), since he retrospects the table fellowship of the resurrected Christ. The introducing clause, “the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed” ( II . 2 3 ) , legitimates the foundation of the Lord’s supper and justifies its ritualism. The last supper of

Lord’s Supper

91

Jesus is a condensation of the many public table fellowships that occurred before the final supper. But it is noteworthy that Paul does not allude to any of the other public table fellowships except for the last supper. I suggest the silence is deliberate on the part of Paul. The many public table fellowships are one of the foundations for the authority of the original apostles, and Paul here does not want to recognize that point. He could not however suppress the last supper which was another foundation for the authority of the Jerusalem apostles. If Paul had disregarded even the last supper, he could not have gained the historical foundation for the Lord’s supper and the Lord’s supper was a necessary institution for Paul. Nevertheless, Paul reduces the apostles’ authority by deleting the information of those who participated in the last supper with Jesus. Rather, he turns his emphasis to the eschatological character of the Lord’s supper that the apostles do not emphasize. Paul’s clause, “until he comes” ( II .26) insinuates this understanding.

Divisions Paul’s tradition on the Lord’s supper is placed in I Corinthians I 1.17-34 in which the conflict between the relatively poor and the relatively rich is disclosed. Paul hears (akou6) of the divisions (schismata) in the Corinthian church ( II .I 8). These divisions are regarded as haireseis in the next verse. It is not obvious as to who informs Paul of the divisions. It may be the people of Chloe’s household ( I .I If.). G. Theissen surveys the division between the strong and the weak in the Corinthian church. He identifies the strong with the gnostics. For him The strong base their position on their “gnosis.“. . . . For a comparable ”liberal” position on meat sacrificed to idols the only analogies within Christianity come from Gnostic groups.8

Theissen is cautious to state this rigidly, since he acknowledges that there were ascetic gnostics in the time of Paul. It cannot simply be assumed . . . that eating meat sacrificed to idols was common to all Gnostic groups . . . Eating such meat is not the typical, but one typical behavior of the Gnostics.9

92

THE GOSPEL O F PAUL

For Theissen, the Christian gnostics of the second century may have come from the upper class. Similarly, the Corinthian gnostics, according to him, may have belonged to the upper class in terms of a certain level of education, the significance of knowledge for salvation, and elitist self-consciousness.10 For him, the strong in the Corinthian church, who are “wise . . . POWerful . . . of noble birth” (1.26),more easily integrated into the Gentile world than the weak. Theissen postulates that Paul recommends a plea for consideration of the lower class by the higher class. Paul’s recommendation, according to Theissen, is a compromise. Paul’s recommendation. . . that the higher classes accommodate their behavior to the lower classes, only mitigates the tension between the two but allows the differing customs to continue to exist.”

It is a compromise, since wealthy Christians are allowed to eat their own meals privately at home (11.33-34).Their behaviors are restricted only in the church. Theissen’s argument is, on the whole, very impressive and convincing. But some minor points are unclear. For example, he does not define the meanings of the terms, “higher class” and “lower class” sufficiently and does not present what kind of standard for distinction had been adopted between the two terms. In the social dynamics, the “liberal” position is not the general proclivity of the so-called upper class. Rather, the socalled upper class usually takes the “conservative” position in order to evade infringements upon their vested rights. Furthermore, there are some who belong to the upper class in one aspect but belong to the lower class in other aspects. For instance, someone who was of ”noble birth” can be classified within the lower class in terms of economic scale. Thus, the terms, “upper” and “lower” can only remain vague unless they are clearly defined. Theissen analyzes gnosticism of the Corinthian congregation at the middle of the first century from the understanding of gnosticism of the second century. Using the understanding of the “later Christian gnosticism’’ to assess the particular gnosticism of the Corinthian church is inappropriate since not only the first century gnosticism, but the second century gnosticism had their own colorful thoughts which produced diverse gnostic sects. If

Lord’s Supper

93

the strong in the Corinthian congregation had been gnostics, their level of social integration, contrary to Theissen, might be lower. For the symbolic world of gnosticism in general is different from the symbolic world of the secular society. In the case of socialization as W. A. Meeks notes, the weak rather than the strong might suffer a much lower degree of inconsistency among their dimensions of status, and thus, within their own social circles, might be better integrated than those who were more mobile and more exposed.12

The meeting at Corinth most probably was held in the individual houses of wealthy Christians. The wealthy Christians misunderstood the meaning of the Lord’s supper. One of the reasons for Paul’s introducing the tradition on the Lord’s supper was that they did not practice it according to the tradition. The wealthy Christians were one of Paul’s competing groups. Paul presents four conditions to them: I ) same space; 2 ) same time; 3 ) same quality; 4) same quantity. As to the ‘same space,’ the Corinthian members should eat ”together” ( I1.20’34) in the same location. As to the ’same time,’ they should all eat together at the same time ( I1.21a, 33). As to the ‘same quality,’ they should all eat the same quality food, lest someone “goes ahead with (one’s) own supper” (11.21a). And finally, as to the ’same quantity,’ they should all eat of the same quantity, lest “one goes hungry and another becomes drunk’’ (11.21b, cf. v.22). For Paul, the violation of even one of the four conditions leads to the disregard for and the violation of the Lord’s supper. The supper that does not meet the requirements of the four conditions is not to be accepted as the Lord’s supper. Rather, that kind of supper is to be counted with the acts that “show contempt for the church of God” ( I1.22). The violators of the four conditions in the Corinthian congregation were relatively wealthy Christians. Paul warns against his wealthy competitors that their violations of these four conditions have been leading to humiliation of “those who have nothing” ( II .22). To the tradition on the Lord’s supper, Paul adds Jesus’ command, “do this in remembrance of me,” twice (11.24, 25). This command presupposes the first two conditions of ‘same space’ and ‘same time’ concurrently since the Lord’s supper took place ”on the night when he was betrayed’’ ( II .23).Paul is establishing

94

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

his first two conditions through historical precedence. Moreover, Paul exhorts the Corinthian congregation to eat “of the bread (ek tou artou)” and to drink “of the cup (ek tou potErion)” in 11.28. This exhortation of commonality stresses on the conditions of ‘same quality’ and ‘same quantity.’ Through this instructive verse, not only the practice of eating one’s own meal, but the phenomenon that “one goes hungry and another becomes drunk” ( I I .2I) is excluded. It is those who do not acknowledge the significance of the commonness of the table fellowship and yet participate in the Lord’s supper who will not discern the body of the Lord. Consequently, they will “eat and drink judgment against themselves’’ ( II .29). Paul warns the Corinthian members to remember that many of them are “weak and ill, and some have died’’ (II . 3 0 ) because of this (dia touto) lack of discernment concerning the Lord’s body.

Inner Solidarity and Outer Demarcation Rituals, according to H. J. Mol, articulate and reiterate a system of meaning. They maximize order by strengthening the place of the individual in the group, or society, and vice versa by strengthening the bonds of a society vis-a-vis the individual.13

R. N. Bellah postulates that rituals are particularly relevant at times of crisis, or when a change of identity takes place.14 The reason for Paul’s demand to the Corinthian congregation that they practice the Lord’s supper is to repeat and emphasize the sacred symbolic world in which the whole congregation becomes one body of Christ through eating from one bread and drinking from one cup. Rituals are means of regenerating the experience of the sacred that called the community into being.15 The practice of the Lord’s supper is “a symbolic accomplishment of social interaction”(G.Theissen).l6 It is especially true as Paul saw it as a significant symbolic act to overcome the critical ”divisions” (I1.18).And so Paul is stressing the importance of this basic act of inner integration for the Corinthian congregation. Paul defends the rights of the relatively poor in I I .28.This can be seen between the lines where the costly foods including meat

Lord’s Supper

95

are not mentioned. Only listed are the basic items, namely, bread and wine. Even the relatively poor are able to prepare these items. Within the Corinthian congregation, the relatively rich had prepared and had initiated the Lord’s supper up to this time. The relatively poor had passively followed the preparation and initiation of the relatively rich. But according to Paul’s instruction, from now on, whoever wants to prepare and initiate the Lord’s supper, regardless of his or her social standing, will be able to do it. Paul stresses on the equality between the two groups and the Lord’s supper functions to integrate them intrinsically. Paul’s concept of sacrifice also functions as a symbol for integration. Paul explains the content of the cup: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (II .25). Unlike the Marltan tradition in which “covenant (diatheki?)” is modified by the “blood (hairnu),” ”blood” is modified by the “covenant” in the Pauline tradition. The concept of “blood” for Paul includes the notion of sacrifice. So Paul stresses the ‘new’ covenant in Jesus’ sacrifice. A community that has a unifying symbol like the scapegoat functions to integrate divisions more effectively than a community which does not have it. The focus on the scapegoat eliminates divisions and mitigates tension originating from them. The inner solidarity of a community becomes powerful when its members concentrate together on the scapegoat and its joint effort to become rid of it. Paul’s emphasis on the sacrificed Christ functions to mitigate the inner tension of the Corinthian congregation. Furthermore, the sacrificed Christ is portrayed as the powerful judge. ’Whoever . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner,” namely, whoever violates equalities of space, time, quality, and quantity will be “guilty of profaning the RSV). This stern warning body and blood of the Lord” (11.27, functions as an inner integration for the Corinthian church. As the Lord’s supper is utilized for inner solidarity, it also has another function. It functions to demarcate the Corinthian church from the outer world. Paul concentrates on the “new (kaini?)IJ covenant which is differentiated from the old (palaias) covenant (2Cor. 3.14). The members in the Corinthian congregation are to reiterate the meaning of the “new” covenant in Jesus’ blood whenever they drink wine from one cup. They are to separate themselves from those who do not hold to this kind of ”new” symbolic ritual. Thus, the demarcation is proclaimed as follows.

96

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons ( I Cor. 10.21).

The more the rituals are reiterated, the more demarcation is strengthened. The Corinthian congregation is exhorted to reiterate the Lord’s supper in 11.25-26. These verses not only presuppose the reiteration of the Lord’s supper, but function to preserve the inner solidarity and the outer demarcation through the reiteration as well.

Summary and Conclusion Within Paul’s tradition of the Lord’s supper ( I Cor. 11.23-26), “this” in the clause “this is my body” does not demonstrate the bread. Rather, “this” means the supper practice which shares the bread. In other words, it demonstrates commonness of table fellowship. “This” in the clause, “do this . . .” also does not demonstrate eating and drinking practice itself, but demonstrates the common practice of table fellowship which shares the bread and the cup. Paul’s tradition on the Lord’s supper not only retrospects the last supper of Jesus and the table fellowship of the resurrected Christ, but prospects the eschatological messianic table fellowship. Paul never alludes to the public table fellowships of Jesus before the last supper. Furthermore, when he introduces the last supper, he never mentions those who participated in it. Also, he calls it, not the “last supper,” but the “Lord’s supper” ( I Cor. I I .zo).These “revisions” of Paul’s are to be interpreted in terms of Paul’s reluctance to relate the historical origin of the Lord’s supper to the Jerusalem apostles. In doing so, he refuses the authority of the apostles. Rites are ”one of the fundamental defense mechanisms of society against the tendency to anomie.”17 Paul introduces the tradition on the Lord’s supper in the context of the divisions in the COrinthian congregation. Paul’s competitors at Corinth failed to observe the four conditions he had emphasized. Paul’s four conditions consist of same time, same space, same quality, and same quantity. The first two conditions belong to the form of the supper, while the last two conditions to the food of the supper. Failing

Lord’s Supper

97

to observe these four conditions, Paul’s competitors produce anomie and divisions. Stressing on eating from one bread and drinking from one cup, Paul attempts to rectlfy the wrongful actions of his competitors. The Lord’s supper confirms and sustains the symbolic world in which the sharing the same quality and the same quantity of the bread and cup become the body of Christ. The Lord’s supper establishes the framework for inner integration in the context of divisions. Now, not only the relatively rich, but the relatively poor prepare the Lord’s supper because of the simplicity of the food (onlybread and wine). The Lord’s supper functions to establish an inner solidarity for the two groups which participate in the table fellowship. This implies egalitarianism between them. At the same time, the practice of the Lord’s supper strengthens the outer demarcation by stressing the “new covenant” in Jesus’ blood. The Lord’s supper is the ritual which separates its participants from the outer world which does not have the same symbolic world of the ”new covenant.” By maintaining the boundaries between the participants and the non-participants, the Lord’s supper sustains and strengthens the inner solidarity. In this effort, Paul faces an awkward dilemma. It was Paul who had criticized the Jewish boundaries and the consciousness of their national privilege separating them from the pagan world. And now he is himself establishing the base for the Christian demarcation that separate him and his congregations from the outer world by stressing the exclusiveness of the Lord’s supper which the Christians alone practice. I believe that Paul was aware of this contradiction, but he does not openly discuss it. He had come to an understanding that the presence of demarcation was an inevitable factor of a religion or a sect.

EIGHT

Christ Hymn

Introduction Philippians 2.6-11 is the so-called “Jesus Christ-hymn” or a “christological hymn.” Gordon D. Fee objects to it being called a hymn as he insists each of those sentences is not a “hymn” but a typical ”prose” written in Paul’s language.’ He developed his argument with a premise that a “hymn” is, by his narrow definition, a “poem.” Regarding Philippians 2.9-1 I, it is obviously closer to a prose than to a poem. However, “hymn” is an inclusive term. Its form can be either a poem or a prose. If the content of a passage consists of praising Jesus Christ, though it is in a form of a prose, one is certainly able to call it a “hymn.” Therefore, we shall use that term as a matter of convenience. There have been many studies focused on the Philippians hymn.2 Yet, as David Seeley estimated, “many solution have been presented, but none has achieved a consensus.”3 In this chapter, we will first take a look at the composition of the hymn. Then narrowing the spectrum of discussion down to assuming the function of the hymn, we will approach this with a different perspective from the ones previous stated.

Composition of the Hymn The studies concerning the Philippians hymn have focused on three areas: its form, author, and background.

Christ Hymn

99

Form First, some studies focus on the form of the hymn. By viewing the hymn as a poem, they observe the number of stanzas and verses within it. J. Jeremias broadly divided the hymn into three stanzas with four verses in each. He insists that the three stanzas correspond to the three stages of existence of Jesus: his preexistence, his life on earth, and his glorification.4 However, in order to make the hymn fit his structure, he excluded portions of the hymn-v.8c, V.IOC and V.IIC.G. Strecker roughly classified the hymn into two stanzas with six verses in each,5 whereas R. Martin analyzed it as six stanzas with two verses in each.6 Both Strecker and Martin emphasized the length and balance of each stanza. Yet, Strecker omitted all of v.8 and Martin eliminated v.8c, V.IOCand V.II C in order to fit their argument. Diverse forms of the hymn have been suggested: four stanzas with four verses in each (C. H. Talbert), five stanzas with different number of verses in each (M. Dibelius), and so on. Nevertheless, these kinds of analyses have shown to be defective in that they eliminate some portions of the hymn that do not easily fit their proposed structures. The whole proposal becomes unproductive when an analysis attempts to adhere to the number of stanzas and verses at a cost of removing some portions of the hymn. And, whether the hymn contains two stanzas or six, that hardly affects the analysis into the thought of Paul or the Philippian church.

Author Second, some studies attempt to identify the author of the hymn. Deciding whether the Philippians hymn is Pauline in origin or not has been the focus of these studies. In other words, the focus has been on linguistic study of vocabulary or phrases to determine the content as being typically Pauline or not. There are two extreme views on this. One is the left extreme assertion that Paul was not involved in any sense to the final composition of the hymn, supported by J. Murphy-O’Connor.7 The other is the right extreme assertion that Paul is the author of the whole hymn as supported by Seeley.8 The two extreme positions are unreasonable because it will be shown later that the Philippians hymn contains both Pauline and non-Pauline features.

I00

THE G O S P E L O F PAUL

Describing the content as either ‘Tauline” or “non-Pauline” is determined by specific words used in each verse. A certain word can be generally identified as Pauline when it is shown that word was used by Paul within his seven genuine letters. If the word appears only in this hymn and nowhere else in the Pauline corpus, it is categorized as “non-Pauline.” But of course, this cannot be an absolute criterion. For instance, supposing a certain word is used only in this hymn, one can argue that this is the one letter where Paul used that word. However, from the perspective of probability, if a word is used only once in this hymn and nowhere else in Pauline corpus, it is with greater probability that the word is non-Pauline rather than Pauline. An analysis of the author will be done using this criterion. To begin with, the word, “form (morphi?)’, of v.6a and v.7b can be found only in this letter among those written by Paul. This is also true for the words, “exploit (harpagmos)” in v.6b and “equality (isos)” in v . 6 ~ The . word, ”form (skema)” in v.7d is found once in I Corinthians 7.31 but in it, it is used to mean ”form of this world.” From this, skema as applied to a human (Jesus)is uniquely found in Philippians 2.7b. The word, “exalt (hyperupso)” in v.9a is also unique. These are the words with high probability of being non-Pauline. On the other hand, the word, “empty (kenoo)” of v.7a is found in many other letters of Paul.9 Also ”likeness (homoioma)”in v.7c is found four more times in Romans.10 The word, “humble (tapeinoo)” at v.8a is used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11.7 and 12.21 as well as in Philippians 4.12. On the ground that Paul relates this word to himself in all three cases, “humble” in v.8a is judged to be highly probable “Pauline.” This is also true of the word, ”give (karizomai)”in 9b as it is found eight more times in the seven genuine letters of Paul, not counting the one in the hymn.11 From the position that the words appear elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, it shows higher probability that the hymn is a Pauline construction than it is non-Pauline, or at least that Paul had a hand in its final form. In Philippians 3.20-21, the verses regarded as an echo of the Philippians hymn, the word, “citizenship (politeuma)” in v.2oa appears only here and so is determined to be non-Pauline, but that stands contrary to other words in v.zob and v.zIabc where they are judged to be typically Pauline. It is this author’s position that in both the hymn and in this paragraph of 3.20-21, we see

Christ Hymn

Io I

two set of fingerprints-the smudges of Paul is clearly visible, but so are the smudges of another author. We identify that other as the Philippian church. More specifically, the Philippian church’s contribution is at 2.6, 7bd, 9a and 3.20a, and Paul’s insert is identified at 2.5, 7ac, 8, 9bc, 10-11, and 3.2ob, 21. This author is not the first to present this co-writing proposal. But within those whose proposal is similar, many lean toward Paul’s larger contribution. Concerning this, W. Schenk and J. Reumann reject the studies that focus on the contribution of authoritative Paul to the inferior Philippian church. Rather, they suggest that the focus should be placed upon the Philippian community that affected Paul’s theological views.12 Such perspective is a welcome warning to prior works that only highlight Paul’s thoughts, and so sacrificing the influence of the churches as they relate with Paul. Having said that, their assertion, however, goes too far. Even though the letter is Paul’s construction, Paul’s contribution is treated with insignificance while the authority and contribution of the Philippian church is overly and erroneously heightened. This writer attempts to see in the final Philippians hymn, the balanced relationship of exchange of thoughts between Paul and the Philippian church. It premises “mutual influence, ” meaning Paul was influenced by the Philippian church and the church was influence by Paul at the same time. Accepting the original hymn, which was sent to him from the Philippian church, Paul added his own thoughts to it. By such addition, Paul not only validated it but also altered its highlighting points.

Background Many hypotheses have been suggested regarding the background of the composition of the Philippians hymn. Murphy-O’Connor insists the hymn exhibits “a wisdom pattern,” D. Georgi states that the hymn reveals a “Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom speculation,” E. Kasemann sees an influence from “Hellenistic, preChristian gnosticism,” and J. A. Sanders posits a reflection of “Jewish gnosticism.” J. D. G. Dunn suggests that the hymn reflects the “Genesis account of Adam,” 0. Cullmann suggests it is a combination of heavenly Son of Man and Adam speculation in Jewish literature, J. Jeremias suggests it shows the influence of the suffering servant of God (ebed Yahweh), and E. Schweizer sees the righteous man speculation in the Old Testament.13 D.

I02

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Seeley viewed not just one of these hypotheses but suggested several of them as background to the hymn, namely Isaiah 45, the stories of the Suffering Righteous, and the Greco-Roman ruler worship. 14 In view of the “whole” Philippians hymn, each of the hypotheses enumerated above makes sense only by sacrificing some of the specific items in it. To support the Jewish wisdom influence, v.7b must be sacrificed because the conflict of the divine being and the servant is not Jewish. Gnosticism hypothesis sacrifices v.8abc for the obedient death is not gnostic. The influence of Adam speculation must contend with his disobedience versus Jesus’ obedience and his curse verses Jesus’ exultation. Ebed Yuhweh hypothesis must eliminate v.6abc because ebed Yuhweh is not equated with God. Complex hypotheses, several hypotheses compound together such as Seeley’s, is based on a premise that a shortcoming of one hypothesis can be complemented by other hypotheses. Apart from Seeley’s hope, those complex hypotheses are less persuasive than single hypothesis and rather insincere because they work properly only when shortcomings from the hypotheses are intentionally hidden. Though it is difficult to set gnosticism as the background of the “whole” Philippians hymn, as we have already seen, it is still appropriate to see in the hymn a strong influence from Christian gnosticism in a “part” of the hymn. Pheme Perkins stated, “like Christianity, gnosticism was a new phenomenon, not a variant of an existing religious group.”l5The validity of her argument relies on her definition of “Christianity” and “gnosticism.” Whether Christianity is defined as a kind of modified Judaism or a new religion is a big issue of debate in modern New Testament studies, and this situation applies exactly to gnosticism as well. In other words, there is Judaic gnosticism which is related to or formed out of Judaism, and Christian gnosticism which contains Christian elements. In Christian gnosticism, the name of Christ or Jesus is simply added to the man of wisdom or the immortal man but not much attention is given to his historical significance. But at the same time, the description of the savior descending from the divine sphere, from “completeness” or “abundance (pleromu)” and then ascending once more is closely related to the description of Jesus by John or Paul. In short, the “Christian gnosticism” is a specific type of gnosticism that includes both Christian and non-Christian features.16

Christ Hymn

103

In the “Author” section above, we stated that the composition of the final hymn is the product of both the Philippian church and Paul. We stated that the Philippian church sent to Paul the first draft of the hymn which Paul accepted and modified, adding his own thoughts to the first draft. The Philippian church’s original hymn is found in 2.6abc, v.7bd, b.9a and 3.2oa. From this, it can be divided into two groups: the two are the core headings (2.6a, 7d, 9a; 3.2oa) and their comments of acceptance or revision. The core headings, “though he was in the form (rnorphg) of God” (v.6a), “being found in (hos)human form (schema)” (v.7d),“God also highly exalted him” (v.9a),and ”our citizenship is in heaven” (3.2oa),are typical themes within Christian gnosticism. It will therefore be assumed that the origin of these core headings is gnostic. Christian gnosticism which was introduced to the Philippian church helped explain to its adherents their own essence in Christ as they identified with the divine essence of Jesus. In other words, by emphasizing the divine essence of Jesus, that is his divine descending and ascending, Christian gnostics recognized their own divine origin-that they also possess a heavenly home from which they came-and by that, they are assured of their proximity to salvation. Though they generally accepted the premise of the Christian gnostics, the Philippian church rejected and modified some of their stances to keep them at arms length. Jesus “did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited” (v.6bc)but he also took ”the form of a slave” (v.7b). Paul accepted the hymn from the Philippian church that was largely influenced by Christian gnosticism. The Philippian church had accepted the Gnostic thoughts and then expanded and revised it. Now, Paul accepted the hymn and he further expanded and revised. To the original hymn, Paul added a strong stress on the incarnation by adding a clear declaration that Jesus “emptied himself” (v.7a) and “being born in human likeness (homoi6ma)” ( v . 7 ~ )To . further seriously combat gnosticism, Paul added that Jesus humbled himself (v.8b),the degree of his obedience reached death (b.8bff), and that death was the cross (v.8~). On the other hand, Paul expanded on the topic of ascension and glory in v.9bc that the Christian gnostics introduced in v.9a. By beginning v.10 with hinu, and continuing the thought to the end of v.11, he clearly signaled the theme of v.9. Paul expanded that to say God exalted him to the highest place and gave

104

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

him the name of that is above every name. Through this, Paul rejected the attempt by the Christian gnostics of trying to revive their divinity with their own gnosis and intuition, but clarifies that God is the subject who will revive the glory of his people. To summarize, each of the three circles, Christian gnostics, the Philippian church and Paul, having some ideological commonalities together with differing independent thoughts, played a role in composing the completed Philippians hymn. But it must be noted that in the end, the final composition was the product of Paul.

Function of the Hymn The christology revealed in Paul’s Philippians hymn is similar to that revealed in the gospel of John. Both Paul and John describe Jesus with a pattern of ‘state of divinity-descending-obedient life on earth-ascending-recovery of divine state.’17 Comparing the christology of Paul and John, W. A. Meeks pointed out that “both use the christological motif to interpret the experience of the Community and thus to shape and reinforce certain attitudes and patterns of behavior in that cornmunity.”18 In his refute against Kasemann’s assertion that exhortative interpretation of the hymn is improper, Meeks insisted “Paul quotes the poem to support a central part of his exhortation,” which “is much more direct and overt than in the gospel.”lg Regarding Meeks’ assertion, the first quote is partly persuasive. This is because it is a description that gives greater attention to the influence of Paul or John toward the community, and lacks the consideration that the Community also influences John or Paul. If Philippians is “a sample of rhetoric of fellowship”z0as Brown puts it, or “a letter of gratitude, friendship, and exhortation”21 as Meeks himself describes it, reciprocal influence should be premised. The second and third quotes concerning exhortation are also not completely persuasive because Meek’s very broad standard of “exhortation,” which Meeks used to criticize Kasemann for his narrow definition, must also be criticized. If “exhortation” is not narrowly defined, one can say then that Paul used the topic of christology simply to introduce his exhortation. This can be said for christology in the gospel of John as well, that it was used to open for exhortation. Especially in Paul’s

Christ Hymn

10s

hymn, he did not introduce christology simply for the function of exhortation. This author identifies four general functions toward the Philippian church that Paul, the author of the final product, had in mind: awakening of the divine origin, peaceful coexistence, endurance of suffering, and hope of restored glory.

Awakening of the Divine Origin Paul completely accepted the divine nature of Jesus. Christ Jesus is described as being in the “form (morph2)’, of God. It is not clear as to the meaning of that description. First, it could be understood that Jesus was not created and is equal with God, in a similar way that the ’God as Word‘ in gospel of John is understood. However, it could also mean that Jesus was created by God in his own image, as in Genesis 1.27, as one inferior to God. The next expression “did not regard equality with God’’ is also unclear. It is not evident whether Jesus Christ was already equal with God but refused to hold onto it, or he was not equal with God but when the offer to become equal was given, he refused to claim that position. These two problems can be properly resolved when the meaning of ‘form (morphe)’is defined. According to Paul’s understanding, the phrase ’Jesus was in the form of God’ means he “is from heaven,’’ not like Adam who “was from the earth’’ ( I Cor. I 5.47). He was “rich” before his life on earth ( z Cor. 8.9). In no other place in Paul’s letters does he infer that Jesus was created by God. First, he took “the form of a slave” (Phil. 2.7b). Then he took on flesh and became “poor” (z Cor. 8.9). He was a man “born of a woman, born under the law’’ (Gal. 4.4). He was a Jew (Rom. 9.5) and actually a descendant of David (Rom. 1.3). Paul comprehends Jesus as one who was not created but descended from heaven as man. Such interpretation is closer to the incarnation speculation in the beginning of gospel of John rather than to Genesis I .27. Paul confirms the statement of the Philippian church that Jesus is of the form of God and is equal with God. ”Toutophroneite en hymin ho kai en Christ8 I&sou”(z.gab).Here, the imperative phroneite does not exclude v.6a, but includes v.6a along with the rest of v.6b. And therefore, it is improper to interpret touto phroneite as “have this mind” (RSV)or “your attitude should be” (NIV) as if phroneite does not also include the thought of v.6a. The imperative does not clarify what we are to do with Jesus who

106

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

is “in the form of God” in these translations. Rather the meaning is ‘consider this’ or ’recognize this.’ The object is “what you see in Christ Jesus.”22 Said again, it means recognize the divine origin and essence of Jesus. Of course, the Philippian church knew this. But in v.5, Paul tells them to find ‘in them (en hymin)‘ what they see ‘in Jesus’ which is his divinity, so that they can recognize the divine origin and essence ‘in (en)’ them. The reason they possess their divine origin and essence is the fact that their “citizenship” is in heaven (3.2oa),and they are also “children of God” (Rom. 8.16). Here the ‘essential oneness’ of Christians and Jesus is stressed. It is for this reason that the Christian gnostics, “the Valentinians, like other Christians, were fascinated by the christological passage of 2.6-1 I ./I23

Peaceful Coexistence With the recognition that Jesus is in the form of God in agreement with the Christian gnostics, the Philippian church added Jesus “did not regard equality with God something to be exploited” (v.6bc)and took ”the form of a slave” (v.7b).These additions partially modified gnosticism. For the gnostics, even though the idea of humility is not foreign to them, the refusal of equality with God or the taking up of the form of a servant is unfamiliar territory. Seeley explains the reason why he rejects the gnostic background of the Philippians hymn this way, “his (the gnostic redeemer) descent is not marked by the humility.’Q4However, his explanation proved to be inaccurate when seen from the gnostic text, Interpretation of Knowledge. According to it, the savior declares, ”I have become very small. That is because through my humility, I intend to take you to the height from which you have fallen. . . If you believe in me now, I am the one who will take you up with me.45 When the Philippian church added v.6bc and v.7b to the subject of Christian gnosticism, they functioned to emphasize leniency and to explore ways toward peaceful coexistence among its church members. To that, Paul added further lines concerning Jesus such as he ”emptied himself (ekenosen)” (v.7a)and he “humbled himself (etapeinosen)” (v.8a) to the Philippian church’s composition in order to confirm and reinforce their position. In so doing, Paul urged the Philippians to have the same , he thought, same love, same will, and same heart ( z . ~ )while warns against selfish ambitions and arguments (2.3).

Christ Hymn

107

Knowing that there was relational trouble within the Philippian church, Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche to have the same heart in regard to their conflict (4.2).Their argument must have been one of the motivations for Paul to write his letter to the Philippians. Paul’s coworkers took the role as mediators for peaceful coexistence among church members, but in their attempt, they might have fueled the division. Paul introduces Timothy as someone who was genuinely concerned about the Philippian church (2.19-20). Paul writes about Timothy, while “all of them are seeking their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (z.zI), Timothy is a model of one whose greater interest lies in his passion for evangelism rather than his own work. Timothy is one person who shares like spirit with Paul (z.zo),and at the time of Paul’s difficulty, he acts as Paul’s representative, “in this Timothy mirrors Paul’s selfless concern, a concern that Paul identifies as reflective of Christ.”26 Paul also introduces Epaphroditus as his brother and fellow worker ( 2 . 2 5 ) .Epaphroditus also has a genuine concern for the Philippian church (2.26) and therefore he is someone whom the church should honor (2.29). Paul states that as for his personal preference, his “desire is to depart and be with Christ” ( I.23),but for the sake of the believers at Philippi he will remain in the flesh. By this, he implies that he set a personal example for his own exhortation to “look not only to your own interests, but to the interests of others” (2.4).Just as Jesus emptied himself (2.7a) and humbled himself (2.8a), Paul also emptied himself and humbled himself for the sake of the gospe1.27 Paul declares that it would make his joy complete (2.2) if the Philippian believers would set aside their differences and explore a way for peaceful coexistence. He also underlined that divine essence is not about elevating oneself but rather emptying oneself and being humble. By this emphasis on the divine essence, Paul wanted to remove arguments and conflicts that arose out of their interests in the matters of the divine and their consciousness of elevated state, to offer a teaching on it and so encourage peaceful coexistence.

Enduring of Suffering In this Philippians hymn Paul emphasized Jesus’ obedience and further, offered the degree of Jesus’ obedience as “to the point of death (mekri thanatou).” The Philippian church was facing not

I08

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

only the inner conflict mentioned above but also external threat. In 1.28, Paul recognized the frightened feeling that existed among them from their external opponents. To encourage the Philippians, Paul speaks of himself as one who has sufficient courage to face the difficulty, whether “by life or by death,”28 and to this he introduces Epaphroditus as a model as well. Epaphroditus is a model person mentioned in 2.8, a person of thorough obedience who obeyed to the point that he “nearly died (mekri thanatou)” (2.27),“risking his life” ( 2 . 3 0 ) .He is not only a fellow ) ~ he is also called an ‘apostle (apostolos)’ who worker ( 2 . 2 ~but fulfills Paul’s needs. Of course, Paul does not carry the strictest meaning of the word, apostle, in that he uses it for himself as well in other letters, but the appearance of the word ‘apostle’ for Epaphroditus is still worth noting and meaningful. Epaphroditus’ obedient life is introduced to the Philippians as a model to be followed, just like the model of Jesus in the hymn and Paul who himself is an apostle. In the hymn, Paul emphasizes the obedience of Jesus “to the point of death” and explains that death as “death on a cross (thanatou de staurou).” Paul’s theology in Philippians can be titled as the “Theology of the C ~ O S S And . ” ~ ~within the hymn, “death on a cross” is connected with extreme suffering. Those who refuse to suffer-those who seek only to satisfy their stomachs, who seek only their own glory, and whose mind is only foare “enemies of the cross of Christ cused on earthly things (3.19) (tous echthrous tou staurou tou Christou)” (3.18).30 Paul discloses to the Philippian church that he intends to participate in the suffering of Christ and become like him in his death ( 3 . 1 0 ) . And he earnestly requests that the church would “join in imitating” Paul (3.17).He makes clear that the participation in suffering does not end in suffering, but is a precursor to “attain the resurrection from the dead” ( 3 . 1 I ) . Meeks states that ”Paul’s world, nevertheless, seems a somewhat brighter and more open world than that of John,” and further observes that “irony, so characteristic of the Johannine narrative and, in a different way, of Paul’s more polemical writing, is virtually absent from Philippians. ”31 However, Meeks’ diagnosis of Philippians is rather ambiguous. First, his description of Paul’s world as “somewhat brighter” is solely an opinion based on the scholar’s psychological disposition. Second, to his position that polemic writing does not exist in Philippians, that depends

Christ Hymn

109

greatly on which passage the scholar focuses on because not all have arrived at the same conclusion. In fact, Demetrius K. Williams asserted that the whole third chapter of Philippians is consistent in its exhaustive arguments with the opponents.32 Mikael Telbe goes even further to assert that 3.1-1 I was written to address the constant conflict between the church and its romanized Philippian society.33 Further, Meeks’ diagnosis can only be accepted by sacrificing the extremely confrontational words that are scattered about in Philippians, such as “beware of the dogs” (3.2). While making such a diagnosis, that Meeks does not refer even once to the above phrase in 3.2 shows that in his attempt to understand Philippians from his position, he disregarded the passages that did not suit him. On the contrary, Philippians was written with regard to the dangerous situation facing the church from the threat of its enemies.34 Through the hymn at 2.8, Paul emphasizes obedience even to the point of death on the cross, and by doing so, compels the Philippian church to separate themselves from gnostic teaching in part, and provides them with a new worldview in which they are expected to receive the suffering inflicted by their external intimidators. R est ora tion of Glory

The worldview in which suffering is accepted as reality as put forth by Paul is further expanded in the hymn at vv.gbc- I I. He admits the catchphrase of the Christian gnostics, ”God also highly exalted him” (v.9a)and endorses the position of the Philippian church which accepted v.9a. However, to that statement, Paul supplements w.gbc-11. Thus he adds “and gave him the name that is above every name” (v.gbc), and further he writes w.10-11 to give reason for his addition at v.gbc. That reason being ”that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (v.10)and that “every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (v.1I ) . After the name “Christ Jesus” is introduced before the start of the hymn at v.5, that name in any form does not reappear in the Philippians hymn in vv.6-9. It only appears in v. roa (Jesus)and v.11b (JesusChrist). Vv.10-11 consists of a passage that strongly highlights the restoration of glory of Jesus and contains the most

I10

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

definable Pauline features. Here, by declaring “Jesus Christ is Lord” ( v . I I ~ )Paul , brings to the fore that every restoration of glory is a result of obedient endurance of suffering. Hereby he produces a worldview which assures that endurance of suffering is an inevitable step toward the restoration of glory. Paul defines this worldview more concretely in 3.20-21. He states that “our citizenship is in heaven” (v.20) adding the Lord Jesus Christ “will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory (summorphos)“ (v.zra).The union of Christ and the believers is repeatedly emphasized here. These two will become similar in bodily form. Paul stated that he himself desired to follow Christ in his suffering and in his death so that “if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (3.I 1).35 At this point, Paul finds a point of agreement with gnostic teaching, that salvation is arrived at when one recognizes his original spiritual essence, and that the person’s origin is in heaven. Regarding this, the believers at Philippi were partially influenced by both Paul and gnosticism, and through it, they must have together rejected the threatening libertines, whose “god is the belly; . . . their minds are set on earthly things” (3.19). Darrell J. Doughty states that Paul’s opponents that are contained in 3.2-21 are not specific people who are associated with an identifiable community. He insists that since ”the concrete controversies that characterized Paul’s own life are no longer in view,”36 32-21, by its character, reveals itself to be deuteroPauline, and that all lessons “have been universalized”37 to every believer in all times and all places. However Paul’s warning to ”beware of the dogs, . . . of those who mutilate the flesh” (3.2) and his definitions of the ”enemies of the cross” (3. I 8-1 9 ) are too concrete to understand this passage as universal in nature. Were Doughty’s position be accepted, all the concrete controversies appearing in other letters of Paul should also be understood as ‘universal controversies.’ His position lacks persuasiveness because such stance is possible only by sacrificing many passages. Paul and the Christian gnostics shared a similar understanding about the believer’s citizenship. They both rejected earthly citizenship and emphasized their citizenship in heaven. However, Paul partly separated from the gnostics by declaring that the subject of the restored glory is God (2.9a; 3.21bc) while the gnostics

Christ Hymn

111

believed the subject of their restored glory was personal gnosis, the recognition through intuition. Paul separated himself further by establishing a different means to that restored glory. For Paul, restoration of glory comes through emptying oneself to the point of suffering and obedient death. Through his writing at 2.9-11 and 3.20-2 I, Paul provides the Philippian church with a hopeful worldview that obedient suffering at the present leads towards the restoration of glory.

Summary and Conclusion In the final composition of the Philippians hymn, three groups or persons took part: the Christian gnostics, the Philippian church, and Paul. The Christian gnostics were involved in 2.6a, 7d, 9a, and 3.20. The Philippian church accepted those and attached 2.6bc and 7d. Finally, Paul, upon receiving the first draft of the hymn, accepted their work and further, added the rest of the lines to the hymn in his typically Pauline language. Through these attachments, the highlighting points of the first draft hymn were altered. Using the initials of the three group or people G (gnostics),PI (Philippian church) and P2 (Paul),the mathematical set theory can be utilized for clearer understanding. The composition of the hymn occurred as GcPIcP~, a “subset,” while their speculations in (GnP1)nPz=Gn(P1nPz),a “intersection set.” The Philippian church exalted Jesus in his divine nature, and in his descending and the restoration of glory. However, the hymn was not limited to defining Jesus. It reflected the experiences and hopes of the members within the Philippian community. They declared that their citizenship was in heaven and anticipated their own restoration to divine glory. Paul validated the Philippian community worldview. He strengthened it by clarifying for them that such restoration of glory comes after their complete obedience unto death. In addition, he exhorted them to explore a way for peaceful coexistence by ’emptying themselves,’ and encouraged them to endure suffering even to the point of “death on the cross.” In this hymn, Paul adds to their worldview; emptying oneself and enduring the suffering are inevitable steps to one’s restoration of glory. There at the Philippian church, was

I12

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

a situation where the prospect of martyrdom, the “death on the cross” was an immanent reality and in the face of it, the Philippian church stood helplessly. However, with Paul’s help, they created a worldview in which they withstood suffering through the recognition that they already possessed Christ-“like (summorphos)” bodies, that is “his glorious body (somati t& doxi%).”

Appendix

Paul’s Gospel and Someone Else’s Foundation Paul desired to establish in the city of Rome, a mission outpost or a place of stop as he sought to work toward the evangelization of the Western world. The ‘gospel’ was Paul’s ‘central message’ to be delivered to the Gentiles.’ In Romans I 5 24, Paul requests the help of the Roman Christians as he looked to Spain as his next missionary journey. Paul states that he is unwilling to build his In the letter, Paul regospel on someone else’s foundation (15.20). veals that his purpose for his plan to visit Rome is not to share his gospel with them but to enjoy their fellowship as he intended to pass by and to receive from the Romans any additional aid they might be able to provide for him ( I5.24).This purpose is already stated in his first chapter. In it, he writes to the believers in the church at Rome that he would like to be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith when he arrives (1.12).But are we to understand that Paul’s intention of going to Rome was simply to be mutually encouraged? First, Paul reveals in 1.13 that he attempted to go to Rome on many occasions but he was prevented from going (also see I 5.22). He desired to go to Rome to bear fruit in that city as he had done among other Gentiles. In I . I 3’ Paul shares his heartfelt desire of having wanted to become the first missionary to Rome. Although he states in his letter to the Romans that he would not proclaim the gospel in places with “someone else’s foundation,” why does he go on and proclaim his gospel to the Romans? Isn’t there an apparent contradiction? Concerning this, F. Watson explained that this problem can be resolved if we understand the

114

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Gentile Christians of Rome as consisting of those who were converted by Paul and those whom Paul considered as his fellow workers. From this understanding, Paul’s mission to Rome would not be building on someone else’s foundation.2 This explanation is not convincing. First, if the Gentile Christians in Rome were already converted by Paul, he would not see the need to proclaim his gospel to them again. The letter would not have contained lengthy gospel proclamations. Also, Paul’s letter to the Romans contains proclamations that are not the comforting and encouraging type that are usually exchanged between fellow workers. Rather they are argumentative proclamations meant to convince the reader of the truth of his gospel. Second, if the Gentile Christians at Rome were indeed converted by Paul, then the church at Rome would not be “someone else’s foundation.” Paul would have called it, ‘Paul’s foundation.’ Paul states in 15.20 that he would not proclaim the gospel in another’s foundation. And then he begins the next verse in 15.21 with “but.” By this he indirectly rejects his previous statement of v.20. “But (alla) as it is written, ‘Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.’” Here Paul assumes that the church in Rome has not yet seen nor understood the essence of his gospel and anticipates their seeing and understanding after they have been exposed to it. Further, Paul clarifies that when he visits the church in Rome, he would “come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ” (I5 2 9 ) . Therefore what is rejected in I 5 .ZI is precisely contained in I 5 .zo. And from v.20, Paul is not rejecting Rome as “someone else’s foundation” but rather, he is implicitly rejecting the notion that he will not build. He will build, and he will build because the other man’s foundation does not contain Paul’s gospel. In Paul’s letters, he refers to his readers as the ’church (ekklesia)’ except in Romans. In Romans the title is oddly missing. Why would Paul not use the term ‘church’ to refer to them? H. W. Bartsch and W. S. Campbell state that it was because there was ‘division’ within the Christians at Rome.3 Their explanation cannot be substantiated. In the case of Christians at Corinth, there was clearly a ‘division’ among them (I Cor. I I.I 8)and yet Paul calls that community the ‘church’ (I Cor. 1.2).Another to propose suggestions is L. Ann Jervis. She suggests that Paul did not call the Christians at Rome ’church’ because he may not

Appendix

11s

have been familiar with them, or Paul deemed them unworthy of that title, or rather than addressing them as a group, he sought to speak to them as individuals.4 Rather than suggesting weak explanations that focus on Paul and his individual taste and familiarity with his readers, it is more convincing if Paul’s deletion of ‘church’ is related to his understanding of ‘his gospel.’ For Paul, if ‘his gospel’ was not proclaimed there, that community was not a ’church’ in the strictest sense. From that perspective, the church at Rome were the ones “who have never been told of him,” they were the ones “who have never heard of him” ( I5 .z I ) .The church at Rome will be accepted by Paul as a ‘church’ after they read Paul’s letter written to them and accept his gospel as truth.

This page intentionally left blank

Notes

Chapter I : Christ and Resurrection I. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

I I.

12.

13.

W. F. Orr and J. A. Walther, I Corinthians, Anchor Bible, vol.32 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), 320. Joong S. Suh, Discipleship and Community. Mark's Gospel in Sociological Perspective (Claremont, C A CAAh4, School of Theology at Clarem o w 19911, 159. Ibid., 160. Rom. 3.26; 8.11; I Cor. 12.3 ( 2 times); 2 Cor. 4.5; 4.1oa,b; 4.11a, b; 4.14; 11.4; Gal. 6.17. In this instance, rather than sarx (flesh),"s6ma," is used for the "body." Concerning this topic, refer to E. Pagels, The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), especially 53-100 where I & 2 Corinthians are dealt with. J. M. Robinson, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library. rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1990)~525 (henceforth Nag Hammadi Library). Ibid., 526. Ibid., 377. The understanding of Peter by the gnostics is widely divided. One group is antagonistic toward Peter while another group is favorable toward him. The latter group represents Peter as a true gnostic. This group has produced such works as the Apocalypse of Peter, Letter to Philip by Peter, and The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Disciples, while the former group produced such works as Gospel of Mary, Wisdom Faith, First Apocalypse of James, and Secret Letter of James. This is covered in depth by Pheme Perkins, The Gnostic Dialogue. The Early Church and the Crisis of Gnosticism (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), 113-156. Nag Hammadi Library, I 5 I. E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage Books, 1981), 14. In the Gospel of John 20.27, the resurrected Jesus commands Thomas to "put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side." But Thomas recants without actually touching him. It is therefore not clear whether this passage seeks to prove Jesus' fleshly resurrection or just that Jesus resurrected.

118

THE G O S P E L OF PAUL

14. Cf. Luke 4.36 and John 21.9 for the Gospels’ records of the post-

resurrection meal between the risen Jesus and his disciples. I S . This tradition which appears in Acts does not appear in the Gospel of

Luke, but since the Gospel records the ascension of the resurrected Jesus [ Lk. 24.25), t h s tradition’s presence is suggested.

Chapter 2 : Resurrection Witnesses C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians. A Literary and Theological Commentary on I and 2 Corinthians [New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, I987),97. 2 . The Gospel of Mary insinuately stresses that the authority of Peter is subjected to that of Mary (17.16-18.12). 3. For a convincing analysis of the synoptic tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library, see C. M. Tuckett, Nag Hammadi Library and the Gospel Tradition [Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1986). 4. R. A. Harrisville, I Corinthians, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, I.

1987)’253.

5 . Mark 16.14 contains a different tradition from this tradition. There, Jesus appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table. It is not certain whether Jesus dined with them. It is certain, however, that he rebuked them for their unbelief. This shows that the Markan anti-apostolic tendency was retained even in the post-Markan period. 6. C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians, 97. 7. J. N. Vorster’s position stated in “Resurrection Faith in I Corinthians IS,’’ Neotestamentica 23 ( 2 , 1989): 287-307, can be rejected by similar argument. He states that this passage’s goal was to bring under control those who opposed the resurrection. If one were to rely on such generalized hypothesis, he could not uncover the importance that the list of the resurrection witnesses holds. 8. J. Lambrecht, “Line of Thought in I Cor 15, 1-11,” Gregorianum 72 (4, 1991): 655-670. 9. Conzelmann suggests that Paul has established himself as an “ektroma” in verse 8. He feels that Paul has Leviticus 12.12 [LXX), which

contains the same word, in mind as he made this statement. H. Conzelmann, I Corinthians, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)~ =s9. 10. J. Moiser

states that Paul’s experience was similar to Jesus’ transcendental journey towards God. J. Moiser, “ I Corinthians IS,” Ir Bib Stud 14 ( I , 1992): 1-30.

A. Satake, “ I Kr IS, 3 und das Verhalten von Paulus den Jerusalemern gegenuber,” Ann Japan Bib Inst 16 [ 1990): 100-1 I I. 12. R. E. Brown, The Communityof the Beloved Disciples (New York: Paulist Press, 1979)~79. 13. Ibid., 80. 11.

Notes

119

Chapter 3: Jerusalem Conference I. 0. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study, 2nd rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962)~20. 2 . E. Dinkler, Signum Crucis (Tubingen: J.C.B.Mohr, 1953), 279f. 3. G. Klein, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 19691, 109. 4. A. Schmidt, “Das Missionsdekret in Galater 2.7-8 als Vereinbarung von Ersten Besuch Pauli in Jerusalem,” NTS 38 ( I , 1992): 149-152. 5. Ibid., 151. 6. H. D. Betz, Galatians. A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 96, esp. footnote 367. 7. Ibid., 97. 8. Ibid. 9. Peter in this Galatian passage is described correctly by Paul Fredriksen

as one who was passive in one sense and yet very much in the offensive because even as he was withdrawing from the gentiles, he was compelling them nevertheless. P. Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians I and 2,” ITS 42 ( 2 , 1991): 531-564, esp. 560. 10. G. Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel. An Exposition of Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1 9 8 5 ) ~107. 11. Ibid., 107. 12. Ibid. 13. H. D. Betz, Galatians, 98. 14. G. Luedemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 198411 76f. I 5.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

24. 25.

William 0. Walker, Jr. interprets “revelation” as God’s affirmative response to a certain situation, and in this incident at /2:1-5), Paul received ”revelation” in that he was commanded to go up to Jerusalem and meet and discuss with the apostles. From his “Why Paul Went to Jerusalem: The Interpretation of Galatians 2:1-5,” CBQ 54 (3, 1992): 503-5 10, esp. 5 10. H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th ed., 1971), 75f. J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (London:SCM, 1957), 99. H. D. Betz, Galatians, 95. Here, ‘eis’ refers to “two ethnic divisions, not geographical territories,” ibid., 100. Ibid., 92. C. B. Cousar, Galatians (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 37-44. R. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (Freiburg:Herder, 1 9 7 4 ) ~116, 91. B. H. Mclean, “Galatians 2.7-9 and the Recognition of Paul’s Apostolic Status at the Jerusalem Conference: A Critique of G. Luedemann’s Solutions,”NTS 37 ( I , 1991): 67-76, esp. 69. G. Luedemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 76f. J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980)~42-47, esp. 43.

I20

T H E GOSPEL OF PAUL

26. D. Cook, “The Prescript as Programme in Galatians,” ITS 42 (2, 1992): 511-519, esp. 513. 27. Betz states that although the Jerusalem apostles accepted Paul’s gospel

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

38. 39. 40.

41.

42.

as similar to theirs, they never recognized him as an apostle, H. D. Betz, Galatians, 98. G. Luedemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 68-80, 12s. B. H. Mclean, “Galatians 2.7-9 and the Recognition of Paul’s Apostolic Status,” 76. Italics mine. G. Luedemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 64-80, 125. G. Klein, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation, 12-113,124-125. A. Schmidt, “Das Missionsdekret in Galater 2.7-8,” 151f. B. H. Mclean, “Galatians 2.7-9 and the Recognition of Paul’s Apostolic Status,” 72f. Ibid., 73. Ibid., 73-74. B. D. Ehrman, ”Cephas and Peter,” JBL 109 (1990):463-474. Ibid., 468. He also states that the name of Cephas that appears in I Corinthians 15:s does not necessarily have to mean one of the Twelve. Ibid., 470-473. D. C. Allison, Jr., “Peter and Cephas: One and the Same,” JBL 111 (3, 19921: 489-495, esp. 491. Ibid., 491. To cite some examples, W. G. Kummel dates Galatians and Romans at 54-55 and 55-56 respectively, J. A. T. Robinson suggests a late 56 and early 57 respectively, and H. Koester gives them a 52-55 and 55-56 dating respectively. W. G. Kiimmel, Introduction t o the N e w Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1 9 7 ~293-320; )~ J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the N e w Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976), 352; H. Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, v01.z (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 104. E. Kasemann observes that “these regions” is in the plural form (klimata) and points drectly to Paul’s present regions of mission activity. Then the “regions” would include the region of Galatia and Asia Minor (which includes Ephesus), and also Macedonia and to the larger area of Greece (including Corinth). E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 397. P. J. Achtemeier, “An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church,” CBQ 48 (1986), 1-26, esp. zsf. J. D. G. Dunn also states, ”the words [ 1 ~ . 2 3 ]should certainly not be read as a claim to have done all that could be done,“ Romans 9-16, Word Biblical Commentary, vo1.38b (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1988), 871.

Chapter 4: Christ and the Law I.

E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans (Michigan, Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 282-283.

Notes

121

H. Raisanen, Paul and the L a w (Tubingen:J.C.B. Mohr, 1983)~ 56. Ibid., 53f. Ibid., 54. W. C. Linss, “Exegesis of telos in Romans I O : ~ , ” BR 33 (1988):5-12. Ibid., 10. Ibid. Ibid., 11. Ibid., 10. 10. Ibid., 5. 11. W. S. Campbell, “Christ the End of the Law: Romans I O : ~ , ” in Studia Biblica 1978: 111. Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies. Oxford, April 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone (Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1979)) 173- 181. 12. Ibid., 78. 13. C. T. Rhyne, “ N o m o s Dikaiosynes and the Meaning of Romans I O : ~ , “ CBQ 47 (1985): 486-499, quoted from 489. 14. Ibid., 499. I 5. R. Badenas, Christ t h e End of t h e Law. Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1985)~112-117. 16. Ibid., 117. 17. Ibid., 118. 18. J. C. Beker, Paul t h e Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1980)~ 91. 19. Ibid., 186. 20. Ibid., 187. 21. T. R. Schreiner, ”The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law in Paul,” JSNT35 (1985):45-74, quotedfrom 56. 2 2 . Ibid., 59. 2 3 . Ibid., 66. 24. P. J. Achtemeier, Romans (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985)~ 168. 2 s . Ibid., 168f. 2 6 . Cf.Rom.z.17f.;11.13f. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Chapter 5: Law and Faith E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian [udaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977),4~pff.;Idem, Paul, t h e Law, and the Iewish People (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1983)~17-64. 2 . R. J. Z. Werblowsky, “Tora als Gnade,” Kairos 14 (1972): 156-163, quoted from 159. 3. S. Sandmel, The First Christian Century in Tudaism and Christianity: Certainties and Uncertainty (New York: Oxford University Press, I969),98. 4. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian [udaism, 427. 5. H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. I.

I22

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Eerdmans, 197s), 14, 334f.; R. Jewett, “Major Impulses in the Theological Interpretation of Romans Since Barth,” I n t 34 (I, 1980): 17-31. 6. C. L. Porter, “A New Paradigm for Reading Romans: Dialogue Between Christians and Jews,” Encounter 39 (1978):257-272; Tames D. G. Dunn, “The Justice of God. A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith,” ITS 43 ( I , 1992): 1-22. Dunn writes forcefully, “to define Judaism as a merit based religion is not only contemptible, it is simply wrong.” Ibid., 18. According to Dunn, “So, we may say, in attacking the covenantal nomism of the Judaism of his day Paul was attacking neither the law, nor the covenants (as we shall see), but a covenantal nomism which insisted on treating the law as a boundary around Israel, marking off Jew from Gentile, . . . it was the law abused to which Paul objected, not the law itself.” T h e Partings of the Ways. Between Christianity and Tudaism and their Significance for t h e Character of Christianity (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991)~138. 7. H. J. Schoeps, Paul. T h e Theology of t h e Apostle in t h e Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961)~21 3218. 8. H. Raisanen, Paul and t h e L a w (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 19831, I77ff. 9. E. P. Sanders, Paul, t h e Law, and t h e lewish People, 48. 10. Ibid., 48. 11. J. Neusner, “Comparing Judaisms,” H R 18 (1978): 177-191, esp. 179180. 12. Ibid., 181. 13. Ibid., 180. 14. F. Josephus, T h e Jewish War, tr. and ed. by G. Cornfeld (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 11: 120. When defining

IS.

16. 17. 18.

the three sects of Judaism, Josephus used the term “philosophy” to describe them. Barrett remarks that Josephus’ term to define the sects, “a most inappropriate term.” Barrett suggests that Josephus used that term in light of the Greek readership’s familiarity with that term. C. K. Barrett, T h e N e w Testament Background (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, I 96 I), 126. Whether the term “philosophy” is inappropriate or not is determined by how the word is defined when used. If it is used in a manner of “systematic thought,” then “philosophy” is not an inappropriate word. Neusner states that the most important writing of Rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah must be read as “philosophy.” J. Neusner, Judaism as Philosophy: t h e Method and Message of t h e Mishnah (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991). According to Neusner, between AD zoo and 400, “Judaism changed from a philosophy to a religion.” J. Neusner, T h e Transformation of Judaism: From Philosop h y t o Religion (Chicago:University of Illinois Press, 199z),ix. M. Simon, Tewish Sects at t h e T i m e of Tesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967)~85-107. Ibid., 180. Ibid., 7. M. Smith, ”Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Israel: Its Role

Notes

123

in Civilization, ed. M. David (New York: Harper &Brothers, 1956)~6781, esp. 81. 19. W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 ( I , 1977): 4-39, quoted from 20. 20. J. Neusner, et al. (ed.),Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); A. F. Segal, The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987); C. J. G. Montefiore, ludaism and St. Paul (London: Goschen, 1914).

M. Simon, Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus, 76. 22. H. J. Schoeps, Paul, The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, 2 I 5 . 23. J, P. Braswell, “‘The Blessing of Abraham’ versus ‘The Curse of the Law‘: Another Look at Gal 3.10-13,” WTJ 53 ( I , 1991): 73-91, esp. 77. 24. S. Sandmel, The Genius of Paul. A Study of History (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979))21. 25. W. D. Davies, [ewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 21.

19841, 97. 26. J. Neusner, ludaism in the Beginning of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984)~53. 27. J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle. The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, I 980), 43. 28. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law. Studies in Mark

29.

30.

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

and Galatians (Louisville,KY: John Knox Press, 1990)~19 I. Dunn was not the first one to make this point. Before him, Fuller had stated the same. Fuller wrote that ‘works of the law’ is not to be equated with the Mosaic law, that it was a misunderstanding, that it refers to the practices that promote self-righteousness. D. P. Fuller, “Paul and ’The works of the law’,” WTJ38 (1975): 28-42, esp. 37-40. I. G. Hong, The Law in Galatians (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 146. Ibid., 134. Ibid., I S . Ibid., 194. Ibid., 191. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus,Paul, and the Law, 194. Ibid., 231. Ibid., 190. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 195. H. Raisanen, Jesus, Paul and Torah (Sheffield,England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992)~115f. Ibid., 116. Ibid., 121. Ibid. Dunn opines that Paul’s use of the phrase, “gentile sinners,” and also “works of the law” and “live like a gentile” show the influence of the

124

46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

51.

52. 5 3. 54.

55.

56. 57.

58. 5 9.

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

Jewish sect. J. D. G. Dunn, “Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” JBL 112 (3, 1993): 459-477. “The ‘echoes of intra-Jewish polemic in Paul’s letter to the Galatians’ thus confirm that the fiercest debates within first-generation Christianity were among (Christian)Jew conscious of the traditional boundaries marking off Jew from Gentile, over the question of whether or to what extent these boundaries should still be maintained.’’ Ibid., 477. T. L. Donaldson, “Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s ChristTorah Antithesis,” C B Q 51 (4, 1989): 655-682, esp. 655. Ibid., 673. Ibid. R. Bultmann, Theology of the N e w Testament (London: SCM Press, 19521, I, 242f. E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. E. Publishing Company, 19801, 102. For more arguments from an individualistic position, that Paul was more interested in an ”individual” rather than a “community,” see P. Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” JSNT 44 (1991): 89-11 I. H. Hiibner, Lawin Paul’s Thought (Edinburgh:T. &T. Clark, 1984)~124. J. D. G. Dunn, “The Justice of God,” I I. This “separation” was interpreted from the modern rhetorical perspective ably by J. N.Vorster, “Dissociation in the Letter to the Galatians,” Neotestamentica 26 (2, 1992): 297-310. R. W. Thompson, “The Inclusion of the Gentiles in Rom 3.27-30,“ Biblica 69 (4,1988): 543-5461 esp. 544. Ibid., 546. J. A. Sanders, “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 19931, 98-1 17, see I 13. Ibid., 1 1 s . J. D. G. Dunn, “The Justice of God,” I 5.

Chapter 6: Promise of God I.

It is not concerned with “Paul’s patriotic sentiments.” Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 19571,175.

It is not necessary here to enter into the literary history of various parts of the epistle. On this see R. Scroggs, “Paul as Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 9-11,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians, Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity, ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 270-298. 3. J. A. Fischer, “Dissent within a Religious Community: Romans 9-1 I,” BTB 10 (1980):10s-110, esp. 106-7. 4. This issue would be quite different if it were treated by, for example, Kasemann and G. R. Beasley-Murray.As a matter of fact, Kasemann en2.

Notes

125

titles chapters 9-1 I as “The Righteousness of God and the Problem of Israel,” Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, I 980), 2 5 3-322. Similarly Beasley-Murray names it as “The Righteousness of God in the History of Israel and the Nations,” in RevExp. 73 (1976):437-450. 5. K. Stendahl, Paul Among Iews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976),4. 6. Ibid., 28. 7. P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Age, SNTS Monograph Series 10 (Cambridge:At the Univ. Press, 1969), 1-32. 8. K. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, IS. 9. Ibid., 29. 10.E. P.

Sanders, “Paul‘s Attitude Toward the Jewish People,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 33 (1978): 178. 11. Ibid., 180. See also his other work, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 29-42. 12. Introducing Leon Festinger’s theory of “cognitive dissonance” J. G. Gager interprets Paul’s self-definition of “the apostle to the Gentile’’ in terms of socio-psychological perspective. J. G. Gager, “Some Notes on Paul’s Conversion,” NTS 27 (1980-81): 697-704. 13. J. Munck, Paul et) the Situation of Mankind, tr. Frank Clarke (London: SCM Press, 1959)~120. 14. W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 (1977-78): 4-39. See also M. D. Tolbert, “Life Situation and Purpose of Romans,” Rev E X P 73 (1976):397. IS.

16. I7.

18. 19.

20.

The Gentile mission is ended with the salvation of “all Israel.” T. E. Donaldson, ”Riches for the Gentiles (Rom I I: 12): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission,’’ JBL 112 ( I , 1993): 81-98, esp. 92-98. K. Stendahl, Paul Among 1ews and Gentiles, 40. E. P. Sanders, ‘/Paul’sAttitude Toward the Jewish People,” I 8 3. B. Corley, “The Jews, the Future, and God,“ Southwestern Journal of Theology 19 (1976): 53. For the recent debate for it, see K. P. Donfried ed., The Romans Debate, rev. and exp. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991); W. S. Campbell, “Why did Paul Write Romans?” ExpT 85 (1973-74): 264269; A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again,” ExpT 90 (1976-79): 137-141; Ann Jervis, The Purpose of Romans (Sheffield,England: Sheffield Academic Press, 199 I ) . I? J. Achtemeier maintains that the unity between Paul and Jerusalem is never accomplished. “An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church,” CBQ 48 (1986): 1-26.

Chapter 7: Lords Supper I.

Revelation 19.17 refers to ”the great supper of God” (to deipnon to mega tou theou).

126

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

H. Conzelmann, I Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, I975), 197. According to Conzelmann, “the alternative as to whether the crucified body or the body of the exalted Lord is meant, should not be raised: in the sacramental food the executed body of the-now-exalted Lord is presented.,, Ibid., 198. But his assumption for this integration is far from obvious. For it is not the “body1‘that is to be presented in the sacrament. 3. C. H. Talbert, Reading Corintluans. A Literary and Theological Commentary on I and z Corinthians (New York Crossroad Publishing Company, I98711T6-79. 4. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of lesus (London: SCM Press, 1 9 6 6 ) ~

2.

229-246. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

I 3.

14. IS.

16. 17.

C. H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians, 76-77. Ibid., 78. H. Conzelmann, I Corinthians, 199. G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982)~132f. Ibid., 133. Ibid., 136f., 138. Ibid., 139. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social world of the Apostle Paul (NewHaven and London: Yale University Press, 1983), 70. H. J. Moll Identity and the Sacred. A Sketch for a N e w Social-scientific Theory of Religion (NewYork: The Free Press, 1976)~233. R. N. Bellah ed., Religion and Progress in Modern Asia (NewYork: The Free Press, 1965)~173. M. Y. Macdonald, The Pauline Churches. A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1988), 70. G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 167. T. Parsons, The Structure of Social Action (Glencoe, ILL: Free Press, 194911713.

Chapter 8: Christ Hymn I.

2.

For instance, verses 6-8 contains two full sentences, and they are under control of two different verbs each accompanied by reflective pronoun. Fee calls this as one of the evidences; this is a feature of Pauline prose. G. D. Fee, “Philippians 2 : 5-1 I: Hymn of Exalted Pauline Prose!” Bull Bib Res 2 (1992): 29-46. . E. A. C. Pretorius, “New Trends in Reading Philippians: A Literature Review,” Neotestamentica 29 ( 2 , 1995): 273-297. For studies about the Philippians Hymn, refer to related theses among the documents in 293-

298. 3. David Seeley, “the Background of the Philippians Hymn (2:6-I I ) , ” IHC I (1994):49-72, quoted from 49.

Notes

127

4. J. Jeremias, “Zu Phi11 ii.7 : iau-rbv CK~VOUEV,” N o v Test 6 (1963): 182188. 5 . G. Strecker, ”Redaktion und Tradition im Christushymhus, Phil. 2:61 1 , ” 2 N w 5 5 (1964): 63-78. 6. R. Martin, Carmen Christ: Philippians ii: 5-11 in Recent Interpreta-

tion and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (2nd ed.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983)~36-38. 7. J. Murphy O’Connor, “Christological Anthropology in Phil. 11:6-1 I,” RB 83 (1976):25-50. 8. David Seeley, “The Background of the Philippians Hymn (2:6-I I 1,’ 36. 9. Rom. 4.14; I Cor. 1.17; 9.15; 2 Cor. 9.3. 10. Rom. 1.23; 5.14; 6.5; 8.3. 11. Rom. 8.32; I Cor. 2.12; 2 Cor. 2.7, 10; 12.13; Gal. 3.18; Phil. 1.29; Phm. 1.22. 12.

W. Schenk, Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984), 173-175, 195; J. Reumann, “Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and to Early Christianity,” NTS 39 (1933): 438-

457. 13. For individual discussion on these, refer to G. D. Fee, “Phillippians 2 : s I I: Hymn of Exalted Pauline Prose?” 34-37; and D. Seeley, “The Background of the Philippians Hymn (2:6-I I),”49-72. 14. D. Seeley, ibid. I 5. Pheme Perkins, Gnosticism and the N e w Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Ausburg Fortress, 1993), 9. 16. In his persuasive thesis which deals one of the texts of Christian Gnosticism, The Gospel of Truth, Attridge studied those “familiar” and ”un-

familiar” characteristics of the text with Christianity by titling each chapter with them. Refer to Harold W. Attridge, “The Gospel of Truth as an Exotic Text” in Nag Hammadi Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, ed. by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1986), see 239-25 5. 17. For an interpretation of Jesus’ descending, his life on the earth, and his ascending as described by John, as forfeiture of glory, struggle for glory, and retrieval of glory, see Joong S. Suh, The Glory in the Gospel of fohn. Restoration of Forfeited Prestige (Oxford, OH: M. P. Publications, 19951. 18. W. A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Paul’s Letter to the Phillip-

ians,” in the Future of Early Christianity. Essays in Honor Of Helmut Koester, ed. by B. A. Pearson (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991), 329-336, quotedfrom 331. 19. Ibid, 331f. 20. R. E. Brown, An Introduction t o the N e w Testament (New York: Doubleday, 19971,483. 2 I. W. A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Philippians,” 3 36. 22. Meeks properly translated v.sb, “ho kai en Kristo-Ie-sou“ as (’what you see in Christ Jesus.” Yet, his translation does not address the “practical reasoning” behind it as it relates to v.ga and so it lacks persuasiveness. Refer to W. A. Meeks, ”The Man from Heaven in Philippians,” 332.

128

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

23. Elaine H. Pagels, T h e Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of t h e Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 134. From Seeley’s “The Background of the Philippians Hymn (2:6-I I),” 49. T h e Interpretation of Knowledge CG XI I, 10.27-33. James M. Robin-

son ed. T h e Nag H a m m a d i Library (2nd ed., New York: Harper Collins, 1994,476. 26. L. Gregory Bloomquist, T h e Function of Suffering in Philippians (Sheffield, England Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 175. 27. McClendon views the parallel between this hymn and 3.4-11 where

Paul brings out his past. Paul wanted his readers to recognize the parallel. “Considering that his story exactly resembles that of Jesus, it was a standard to imitate.” James Wm. McClendon, Jr, “Philippians 2: 511,”R e v Exp 88 (1991): 439-444, quoted from 440. 28. For a thesis that interprets Paul’s speculation upon life and death into the concept of “adiaphora”, which is defined as a concept that works that cannot contribute to happiness or unhappiness at all, see James L. Jaquette, “Life and Death, Adiaphora, and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies,” N o v Test 38 ( I , 1966): 3-54. 29. For a recent study focusing on the theme of Paul’s theology in Philippians, see to Demetrius K. Williams, “Enemies of the Cross of Christ: A Rhetorical Analysis of the ”Theology of the Cross” in Conflict in Paul’s Philippian Correspondence” (Th. D. Diss., Harvard Divinity School, 19971. 30. Refer to ibid, 193-203 for a discussion on the identity of the “enemies

of the cross of Christ.” 31. W. A. Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Philippiam,” 336. 32. Demetrius K. Williams, Enemies of t h e Cross of Christ, esp. 116-208. 33. Mikael Telbe, “The Sociological Factors behind Philippians 3.1-1 I and the Conflict at Philippi,” JSNT 5 5 (1994): 97-121. 34. Telbe suggested a unique hypothesis in his diagnosis that the situation

was based on the Philippian church and Roman empire. That is, Jewish communities enjoyed social privilege and protection from the Roman emperor, which were not extended to Gentile Christian churches like the ones in Philippi. According to Telbe, from a sociological point of view, Jewish teachings must have become attractive to the believers in Philippi who had to endure persecution for being Christians. In this context, Paul strongly encouraged them to fight against the temptation to accept the Jewish faith as a method of achieving protection and social identity provided by Rome, and to participate in the suffering and power of Christ. Ibid., I 17-120. This hypothesis, though it is original, is weakened by the insufficient evidence as to whether the Roman authority distinctly separated the Jews and Christians in the mid-first century. 3s. For a thesis taking up the subject of Paul’s seeming hesitation at his participation in resurrection, see Randall E. Otto, “ ’If Possible I May Attain the Resurrection from the Dead’ (Philippians 3:11),” CBQ 57 (1995 J:324-340. According to Otto, confronting imminent martyrdom,

Notes

129

Paul dealt with his insecurity as to whether he could continue his confession or not, and for that reason he was skeptical about his participation among the “first resurrection,’’ the resurrection specially for the martyrs of faith. 36. Darrell J. Doughty, “Citizens of Heaven-Philippians 3.2-21,” NST 41 (1995): 102-122. Quoted from 103. 37. Ibid.

Appendix Eduard Lohse, “E6ayykXtov €kop. Paul’s Interpretation of the Gospel in His Epistle to the Romans,” Biblica 76 ( I , 1995): 127-140, esp. 140. 2. E Watson, ”The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14.1-15.13,’’ in Romans Debate, rev. and exp. ed. K. P. Donfried (Peabody,Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 213-214. 3. H. W. Bartsch, “The Historical Situation of Romans,” Encounter 33 (1972): 329-339, esp. 301-331; W. S. Campbell, “Why Did Paul Write Romans?”ExpT 85 (1974): 269. 4. L. A. Jervis, The Purpose of Romans (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, I.

I99I), 162.

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

Achtemeier, P. J. Romans. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985. . “An Elusive Unity: Paul, Acts, and the Early Church.’’ CBQ 48 (1986):1-26.

Allison, D. C. Jr. (‘Peter and Cephas: One and the Same.” IBL

III

(3, 1992):

489-495.

Attridge, Harold W. “The Gospel of Truth as an Exoteric Text.’’ In Nag Hammadi Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr., 239-25 5 , Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1986. Badenas, R. Christ the End of the Law Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1985. Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. New York: Harper, 1957. . The N e w Testament Background. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1961. Bartsch, H. W. “The Historical Situation of Romans.” Encounter 33 [ 1972): 329-3 39.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. “The Righteousness of God in History of Israel and the Nations.” Rev Exp 73 (1976):437-450. Beker, J. C. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Bellah, R. N. ed., Religion and Progress in Modern Asia. New York The Free Press, 1965. Betz, H. D. Galatians. A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Bloomquist, L. Gregory. The Function of Suffering in Philippians. Sheffield, England Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Bowers, P. “Church and Mission in Paul.” TSNT 44 (1991): 89-111. Braswell, J. P. “‘The Blessing of Abraham’ versus ‘The Curse of the Law‘: AnotherLookatGal3:10-13.”WTTs3 [ I , 1991):73-91. Brown, R. E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

132

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

. An Introduction to the N e w Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Bultmann, R. Theology of the N e w Testament. London: SCM Press, 1952. Campbell, W. S. “Why Did Paul Write Romans?’’ExpT 85 (1974): 264-269. . “Christ the End of the Law: Romans I O : ~ . ” In Studia Biblica 1978: III. Papers on Paul and Other N e w Testament Authors. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies. Oxford, April 1978, edited by E. A. Livingstone, 173-r81. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. Conzelmann, H. I Corinthians, Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Cook, D. ”The Prescript as Programme in Galatians.” JTS 43 ( 2 , 1992): 5 I 1-5 19.

Corley, B. ”The Jews, the Future, and God.” SIT 19 (1976): 42-56. Cousar, C. B. Galatians. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. Cullmann, 0. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study. 2nd rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Davies, W. D. Teewish and Pauline Studies. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. . “Paul and the People of Israel.” NTS 24 ( I , 1977): 4-39. Dinkler, E. Signum Crucis. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953. Donaldson, T. E. “Riches for the Gentiles (Rom II:IZ): Israel’s Rejection and Paul’s Gentile Mission.” JBL 1 1 2 ( I , 1993): 81-98. Donaldson, T. L. ”Zealot and Convert: The Origin of Paul’s Christ-Torah Antithesis.” CBQ 51 (4, 1989): 655-682. Doughty, Darrell J. “Citizens of Heaven-Philippians 3.2-2 I .” NTS 41 (1995): 102-122.

Dunn, J. D. G. “Echoes of Intra-Jewish Polemic in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” IBL 112 ( 3 , 1993):459-477. . fesus, Paul and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1990, . “The Justice of God. A. Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith.” ITS 43 (1,1992): I-zz. . The Partings of the Ways. Between Christianity and Tudaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. . Romans 9-16. Word Biblical Commentary, 38B. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1988. Ebeling, G. The Truth of the Gospel. An Exposition of Galatians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. Ehrman, B. D. “Cephas and Peter.” IBL 109 (1990): 463-474. Fee, Gordon D. “Philippians x5-1 I: Hymn of Exalted Pauline Prose?” Bull Bib Res z (1992): 29-46. Fischer, J. A. “Dissent within a Religious Community: Romans 9-1 I .” BTB 10 (1980): 105-110.

Fredriksen, Paul. “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians I and 2.“ ITS 42 ( 2 , 1991): 531-564.

Bibliography

I33

Fuller, D. P. “Paul and ’The works of the law‘.“ WTI 38 (1975): 28-42. Gager, J. G. “Some Notes on Paul’s Conversion.” NTS 27 (1980-81): 697-704.

Georgi, Dieter. Theocracy in Paul’s Praxis and Theology. Trans. D. E. Green. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991. Harrisville, R. A. I Corinthians. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, I 987. Hong, I. G. The Law in Galatians. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Hiibner, H. Law in Paul’s Thought. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1984. Jaquette, James L. “Life and Death, Adiaphora, and Paul’s Rhetorical Strategies.’’ Nov Test 38 ( I , 1966): 30-54, Jeremias, J. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1966. . “ZUPhi1 ii.7 : iauT6v ~ K ~ V O C I E V . ”Nov Test 6 (1963): 182-188. Jervis, L. Ann. The Purpose of Romans. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1991.

Jewett, R. “Major Impulses in the Theological Interpretation of Romans Since Barth.” Int 34 ( I , 1980): 17-31. Josephus, F. The Jewish War. Tr. and ed. by G. Cornfeld. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982. Klein, G. Rekonstruktion und Interpretation. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969. Koester, H. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Introduction to the N e w Testament. v01.z. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Kasemann, E. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. E. Publishing Company, 1980. Kiimmel, W. G. Introduction to the N e w Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975. Lambrecht, J. “Line of Thought in I Cor I S , I - I I . ” Gregorianum 72 (4, 1991):655-670.

Linss, W. C. “Exegesis of telos in Romans I O : ~ . ” BR 33 (1988): 5-12. Lohse, Eduard. “E6ayyiXtov &oG. Paul’s Interpretation of the Gospel in His Epistle to the Romans.” Biblica 76 ( I , 1995): 127-140. Luedemann, G. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress, I 984. McClendon, James Wm. Jr. ”Philippians 2:5-11.” Rev Exp 88 (1991): 43 9-444.

Macdonald, M. Y. The Pauline Churches. A Socio-historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I 988. Mclean, B. H. “Galatians 2.7-9 and the Recognition of Paul’s Apostolic Status at the Jerusalem Conference: A Critique of G. Luedemann’s Solution.” NTS 37 ( I , 1991): 67-76. Martin, R. Carmen Christ: Philippians ii: 5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1983.

134

THE GOSPEL O F PAUL

Meeks, W. A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven and London: Yale Universtiy Press, 1983. . “The Man from Heaven in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians.” In The Future of Early Christianity. Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, edited by B. A. Pearson, 329-336. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991. Moiser, J. “ I Corinthans IS.” Ir Bib Stud 14 ( I , 1992): 10-30. Mol, H. J. Identity and the Sacred. A Sketch for a N e w Social-scientific Theory of Religion. New York: The Free Press, 1976. Montefiore, C. J. G. fudaism and St. Paul. London: Goschen, 1914. Munck, J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. London: SCM, 1959. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “Christological Anthropology in Phil. 11: 6-1 I.” RB 83 (1976): 25-50.

Mussner, F. Der Galaterbrief. Freiburg: Herder, 1974. Neusner, J. ”Comparing Judaisms.” HR 18 (1978): 177-191. . [udaism as Philosophy: The Method and Message of the Mishnah. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991. . Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. . The Transformation of fudaism: From Philosophy to Religion. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992. Neusner, J. et al. (ed.).Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Orr, W. F. and Walther, J. A. I Corinthians. Anchor Bible. Vol.32. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976. Otto, Randall E. ” ’If Possible I May Attain the Resurrection from the Dead’ (Philippians 3:11).” CBQ 57 (1995): 324-340. Pagels, E. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1981. . The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Parsons, Talcott. “An Outline of the Social System.” In Theories of Society, edited by T. Parsons, E. Shils, K. D. Naegele and J. R. Pitts, 30-38. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1949.

Perkins, Pheme. The Gnostic Dialogue. The Early Church and the Crisis of Gnosticism. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. . Gnosticism and the N e w Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. Porter, C. L. “A New Paradigm for Reading Romans: Dialogue Between Christians and Jews.” Encounter 39 (1978): 257-272. Pretorius, E. A. C. “New Trends in Reading Philippians: A Literature Review.” Neotestamentica 29 (2,1995): 273-298. Reumann, J. “Contributions of the Philippian Community to Paul and to Earliest Christianity.” NTS 39 (1933): 438-457.

Bibliography

I3 5

Rhyne, C. T. “Nomos Dikaiosynes and the Meaning of Romans I O : ~ . ” CBQ 47 (1985):486-499.

Richardson, P. Israel in the Apostolic Age. SNTS Monograph Series 10. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1969. Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, I 97 5. Robinson, J. A. T. Redating the N e w Testament. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976, Robinson, J. M. (ed.). The Nag Hammadi Library. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCobs, 1990. Raisanen, H. Tesus, Paul and Torah. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. . Paul and the Law. Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1983. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Tudaism: A Comparison of Patterns o f Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. . ”Paul’s Attitude Toward the Jewish People.’’ UTQR 33 (1978): 17 5-1 87.

. Paul, the Law, and Tewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Sanders, J. A. “Habaltkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament.” In Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. by C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, 98-1 17. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Sandmel, S. The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity: Certainties and Uncertainty. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. . The Genius of Paul. A Study of History. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Satake, A. “ I Kr 15,3 und das Verhalten von Paulus den Jerusalemern gegeniiber.,’ Ann Japan Bib Inst 16 (1990): 100-1I I. Schenk, W. Die Philipperbriefe des Paulus. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, I 984. Schlier, H. Der Brief an die Galater. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 14th ed., 1971. Schmidt, A. “Das Missionsdekret in Galater 2.7-8 als Vereinbarung vom Ersten Besuch Pauli in Jerusalem.” NTS 38 ( I, 1992): 149-152. Schoeps, H. J. Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, I 96 I. Schreiner, T. R. “The Abolition and Fulfillment of the Law.” JSNT 35 (1989):47-74.

Scroggs, R. “Paul as Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 9-11.” In Tews, Greek and Christians, Religious Cultures in Late Anitiquity, edited by R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs, 270-298. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.

Seeley, David. “The Background of the Philippians Hymn (2:6-11).” JHC I (19941: 49-72.

Segal, A. F. The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

136

T H E G O S P E L O F PAUL

. Paul the Convert. The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven, C T Yale University Press, 1990. Simon, M. lewish Sects at the Time of /esus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Smith, M. “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century.” In Israel: Its Role in Civilization, edited by M. David, 67-81. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956.

Stendahl, K. Paul Among lews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

Strecker, G. “Redaktion und Tradition im Christushymhus, Phil. 2:6-I I .” ZNW 5 5 (1964):63-78. Suh, Joong S. Discipleship and Community. Mark’s Gospel in Sociological Perspective. Claremont. CA: CAAM, School of Theology at Claremont, 1991.

. The Glory in the Gospel of Tohn. Restoration of Forfeited Prestige. Oxford, OH: M. P. Publications, 1995. Talbert, C. H. Reading Corinthians. A Literary and Theological Commentary on I and 2 Corinthians. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1987.

Telbe, Mikael. “The Sociological Factors behind Philippians 3.1-1 I and the Conflict at Philippi.” ISNT 5 5 (1994): 97-121. Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays on Corinth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Thompson, R. W. ”The Inclusion of the Gentiles in Rom 3, 27-30.’’ Biblica 69 (4,1988): 543-546.

Tolbert, M. D. “Life Situation and Purpose of Romans.” Rev Exp 73 (1976): 397.

Tuckett, C. M. Nag Hammadi and The Gospel Tradition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986. Vorster, J. N. “Dissociation in the Letter to the Galatians.” Neotestamentica 26 (2, 1992): 297-310. . ”Resurrection Faith in I Corinthians I 5.” Neotestamentica 23 (2, 1989): 287-307.

Walker, William 0. Jr. “Why Paul Went to Jerusalem: The Interpretation of Galatians 2:1-5.” CBQ 54 (3, 1992): 503-510. Watson, F. “The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14.1-15.13.’’ In Romans Debate, rev. and exp. Edited by K. P. Donfried, 203-2 I 5. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991. Wedderburn, A. J. M. “The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again.” ExpT 90 (1976-791: 137-141.

Werblowsky, R. J. Z. “Tora als Gnade.” Kairos 14 (1972): 156-163. Williams, Demetrius K. ”Enemies of the Cross of Christ: A Rhetorical Analysis of the ”Theology of the Cross” in Conflict in Paul’s Philippian Correspondence.” Th. D. Diss., Harvard Divinity School, I 997.

Index of Modern Authors

Achtemeier, P. J. 40, 41, 49,

Ebeling, G. 25, 119, 132 Ehrman, B. D. 37,120,132

120,

121,125,131

Allison, D. C. Jr. 37, 38, 120, 131 Attridge, Harold W. 127, I 3 I Badenas, R. 41,44,45,47,121,131 Barrett, C. K. 35, 122, 124, 131 Bartsch, H. W. 114, 129, 131 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 124, 125, 131 Beker, J. C. 32/41/48, 119, 121, 123, 131

Bellah, R. N. 94, 126, 131 Betz, H. D. 22, 30, 119, 120, 131 Bloomquist, L. Gregory 128, I 3 I Bowers, P. 124, I 3 I Braswell, J. P. 123, 131 Brown, R.E. 18, 104, 118, 127, 131 Bultmann, R. 72,76, 124,132

Fee, Gordon D. 98, 126, 127, 132 Fischer, J. A. 124, 132 Fredriksen, Paul I I 9, I 32 Fuller, D. P. 123, 133 Gager, J. G. 125,133 Georgi, Dieter 101, 133 Gossai, H. ix, xii Harrisville, R. A. I 2, I I 8, 133 Hong, I. G. 64,65, 123, I33 Hubner, H. 72,124,133 Jaquette, James L. 128, I33 Jeremias, J. 89, 90, 99, 101, 126, 127, I33

Campbell, W. S. 41/45, 46, 114,

121,

125,129,132

Conzelmann, H. 88,118,126, 132 Cook, D. 32,120,132 Corley, B. 125,132 Cousar, C. B. 30,119,132 Cullmann, 0.20,101,119,132 Davies, W. D. 59, 62, 123, 125, 132 Dinkler, E. 20, 21, 22, 119, 132 Donaldson, T. E. 125, 132 Donaldson, T. L. 124, 132 Doughty, Darrell J. I 10,129, 132 Dunn, J. D. G. 57, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 123,124,132

101, 120, 122,

Jervis, L. Ann. 114, 125, 129, I33 Jewett, R. 57, 122, 133 Josephus, F. 59, 122, 133 Kaseman, E. 41, 42,72,76,

101,

104,

120,124, I33 Kee, H. C. xiii Klein, G. 20, 35, 119, 120, 133 Koester, H. 120, 127, 133 Kummel, W. G. I 20, I 3 3

Lambrecht, J. 16, 118, 133 Linss, W. C. 41,43,44,45, 121, 133 Lohse, E. 129, 133 Luedemann, G. 32,35,119,120, I33

138

THE GOSPEL OF PAUL

Macdonald, M. Y. 126,133 Martin, R. 99, 127, 133 McClendon, James Wm. Jr. 128, 133 Mclean, B. H. 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 119, 120,

I33

Meeks, W. A. 93,104, 108, 109, 126, 127,128, I34

Moiser, J. 114, 134 M o ~H. , J. 94, 126, 134 Montefiore, C. J. G. 60,123,134 Munck, J. 29,119,125,134 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 99, 101,132 Mussner, F. 31, 119, 134 Neusner, J. 58, 59, 60, 62, 74,

122,

Sanders, J. A. 101, 124, 135 Sandmel, S. 56, 61, 121, 123, I35 Satake, A. 16,118, 135 Schenk, W. 101,127,135 Schlier, H. 29, 119, 135 Schmidt, A. 20, 35,119, 120,135 Schoeps, H. J. 57,122, 123, 135 Schreiner, T. R. 41,48, 121, 135 Scroggs, R. 124, 135 Seeley, David 98, 99, 102,106, 126, 127,128, I35

Segal, A. F. 60, 74, 123, 135 Simon, M. 122,123, 136 Smith, M. 59, 122, 136 Stendahl, K. F. 80, 81, 82, 84, 125, 136

123, I34

Strecker, G. 99, 127, 136 Suh, Joong S. 117,127,136

Orr, W. F. 117, 134 Otto, Randall E. 128, 134

Talbert, C. H. 10,15, 88, 90, 99, 118, Pagels, E. 7, 117, 128, 134 Parsons, Talcott 126, 134 Perkins, Pheme 102, 117, 127, I34 Porter, C. L. 57, 122, I34 Pretorius, E. A. C. 126, 134 Raisanen, H. 41, 42, 43, 57, 63, 69, 70,75,121,

122,123,

I35

Walker, William 0. J. 119, 136 Watson, F. 113, 129, 136 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 125, 136 Werblowsky, R. J. Z. 50, 121, 136 Williams, Demetrius K. 109, 128,

Sanders, E. P. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 121, 122,

136

Thompson, R. W. 124, 136 Tolhert, NI. D. 125, 136 Tuckett, C. M. 118, 136 Vorster, J. N. I 18, 124, 136

Reumann, J. 101,127,134 Rhyne, C. T. 41,46,121,135 Richardson, P. 80, 125, 135 Ridderbos, H. 57, 121, 135 Robinson, J. A. T. 120,135 Robinson, J. M. 117,128, 135

75, 81, 82, 83, 85,

126, 136

Telbe, Mikael 109, 128, 136 Theissen, G. xiii, 91, 92, 93, 94, 126,

125,

136