Christ in the Letters of Paul: In Place of a Christology [Reprint 2012 ed.] 3110189925, 9783110189926

Citation preview

Hendrikus Boers Christ in the Letters of Paul

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 140

W DE G Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York

Hendrikus Boers

Christ in the Letters of Paul In Place of a Christology

w DE

G_ Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · N e w York

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN-13: 978-3-11-018992-6 ISBN-10: 3-11-018992-5 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Catahging-in-Publication

Data

Boers, Hendrikus. Christ in the Letters of Paul : in place of a Christology / Hendrikus Boers. p. cm. — (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die ncutcstamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ; Bd. 140) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 3-11-018992-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Jesus Christ — History of doctrines — Early church, ca. 30 — 600. 2. Bible. N.T. Epistles of Paul — Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series. BT198.B615 2006 232.092-dc22 2006016014

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche

Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografic; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at < http://dnb.ddb.de >.

© Copyright 2006 by Walter de Gruytcr GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin \I rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin

For Ernst Käsemann July 12, 1906 - February 17, 1998

Preface This study is a reading of Paul in an attempt to learn from his writings what Christ meant for him. For that reason I quote him repeatedly to focus on his own formulations of his thoughts to prevent the development of abstractions of his meanings based on prior readings, also those that develop in the course of the investigation. Methodologically, this procedure is important for the investigation. It ensures that the Pauline text always remains in focus, not an abstraction from memory. Thus, the repeated readings were not always identical in meaning, leading frequently to different, sometimes corrected, understandings of the texts. The investigation proceeded on two levels. At the basic level it is a reading of those texts which express the meaning of Christ for Paul, without attention to the secondary literature, as described in the previous paragraph. This constitutes the main text. At a second level, represented by the footnotes and excurses, I take into account the texts exegetically, to make sure that there are not meanings I missed, and to control possible misreadings. Here too my interest is not primarily in abstractions or abstracts of the scholarly discussion, but to present the accumulation of scholarly insights on the texts. Only rarely do I find it necessary to engage in the general issues involved in their interpretation. I hope they make good reading for the Pauline scholar. My interest at this second level is not limited to what these texts reveal about the meaning of Christ for Paul, but extend to all aspects of the texts as background to the readings that form the substance of the investigation at the primary level. They can be read in that way; I tried to make sure that one could move fluently from the primary investigation in the main text to this exegetical level in the footnotes and excurses. I dedicate this investigation to Ernst Käsemann, who, along with Herbert Braun, was a decisive influence on my thinking throughout my entire academic career. My relationship with him continued to the end of his life, as my initial methodological reflections in this investigation will show. A few expressions of appreciation are in order. I started this investigation at the Philipps-Universität in Marburg, and remember with appreciation the hospitality I received there, especially from the colleagues in New Testament, Dieter Liihrmann, Wolfgang Harnisch and Gerd Schunack. Part One was read by Wolfgang Harnisch of the Philipps-Universität in Marburg and Steve Kraftchick of Emory University in Atlanta. Both provided important

Vlll

Preface

information about details, and Steve especially made some insightful and sensitive observations about the content, including that the original title was misleading about the purpose of the investigation, which lead to many hours of reflection to find one that more accurately expressed that purpose. Carl Holladay encouraged and supported my submission of the manuscript to Walter de Gruyter for possible publication. At the press I found understanding support from the editor of the Beihefte. Given the history of our family names — Bur- (North-West German) = Boer (Dutch) — , I would like to think of him, not as Carsten Burfeind, but as what he has been to me, Carsten Burfreund. To all of them my sincere appreciation.

Table of Contents Preface

vii

Introduction: In search of a method

1

Part One The meaning of Christ for Paul personally

8

1. Christ's appearance to Paul Excursus: Issues in the Interpretation of Gal 2:19-20 Assessment

8 26 31

2. The meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia Excursus: The Interpretation of Rom 7:24-25 a. Four categories in the interpretation of the passage (i) Existential tension in Paul (ii) Paul retrospectively under the Law (iii) A Jew under the Law (iv) Gentiles who are not believers b. Restructuring of the text of Rom 7:23-8:2 Assessment

32 36 36 36 39 42 43 46 49

3. Three expressions of the meaning of Christ for Paul a. 2 Corinthians 13:3-5 b. 2 Corinthians 1:8-11 c. 2 Corinthians 4:7-14 Summary Conclusion

58 58 61 64 67 69

4. Paul's call: Proclamation of the gospel Excursus: The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:16-18 a. Two ways of reading verses 17-18a b. Rewards? c. The problem of works of supererogation Summary of Part One

70 74 74 75 76 99

X

Table of Contents

Part Two The meaning of Christ for the believer

107

1. Paul's earlier preaching as foundation of his reasoning a. 1 Cor 2:2

107 108

Excursus: The Meaning of Christ in 1 Cor 1:4-4:21 Themes in 1 Corinthians 1-4 (i) Paul's relationship with his readers (ii) The factions (iii) Paul's apostleship (iv) Wisdom (v) Christ crucified Conclusion b. 1 Cor 15:1-7, 12-19 c. Gal 3:1-5 Conclusion

112 117 135 140 143 146 149 154 155 162 171

2. The Meaning of Christ's Death, Resurrection and Parousia 172 a. Distinguishing between what Paul says and what he means 174 (i) 1 Thess 5:1-11 174 Excursus: Issues in the Interpretation of 1 Thess 5:1-11 175 a. The structure of the passage 175 β. Verse 1 in the form of a rhetorical praeteritio 176 γ. Apocalypticism 178 δ. The addressees, gnosticism and the concept of time 178 ε. Relationship to a baptimal formula, or other traditions ... 179 ζ. Theology and Christo logy 182 η. Faith, hope and love 183 Θ. The paraenesis of verse 11 184 (ii) Rom 14:1-13 190 b. A model of possible levels of meaning 193 Excursus: Christ's death ύπέρ ήμών 196 Summary 198 c. The meaning of Christ's Death, Resurrection and Parousia 199 (i) Dying with Christ and living in him 199 (ii) Christ's death and resurrection as liberation from sin 201 (iii) Other benefits from Christ's death, resurrection and par 202

Table of Contents

xi

3. Levels of the meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia Paul 203 a. 1 Thess 1:6-10 203 b. 1 Cor 15:3c—8 206 c. 1 Cor 15:12-23 208 d. 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 213 Introduction 215 (i) The syntactic and semantic structure of the passage 217 (ii) What Paul means in the passage 220 (iii) The meanings of the individual christological and theological statements and their internal relationships 223 Conclusion 232 (iv) The meaning of Christ in the passage 232 e. Gal 3:1-5 234 f. Gal 3:6-14 237 Excursus: Issues in the Interpretation of Gal 3:6-14 238 (i) General issues 238 (ii) The promise to Abraham — Gal 3:6-9 241 a. Inheritance through circumcision and obedience to the Law 241 X. Paul's understanding of Abraham's justification 242 3. Traditinal Jewish understanding of Abraham's justification 244 (iii) The issue of the Law — Gal 3:10-13 246 a. Justification through the Law and by faith 246 β. The curse of the Law 248 γ. The curse on Christ 251 g. Rom 4:23-5:11 260 (i) The structure of the passage 260 (ii) The textual syntax of the passage 262 (iii) Levels of the meaning of Christ in the passage 271 h. Rom 6:1-14 278 (i) Baptism in the history of the interpretation of Rom. 6:1-14 . 279 (ii) Levels of the meaning of Christ in the passage 280 (iii) The emergence of a chiastic structure in the passage 282 (iv) The progression of Paul's thought in Romans 6:1-14 286 i. Rom 8:31-39 288 (i) The Interpretation of Rom 8:31-39 288 a. Scripture and Tradition in the Passage 289 β. The structure of the passage 294 Summary 297

xii

Table of Contents

(ii) A text-syntactic analysis of the structure of the passage 298 (iii) The levels of meaning of God and of Christ in the passage . 302 Conclusion 308 Summary of Part Two 313 Assessment 342 Appendix 353 Works Cited 355

Christ in the Letters of Paul In Place of a Christology Introduction: In search of a method In my previous studies of the way Paul thought it had become increasingly clear that Christ was one of the most fundamental factors in his thinking. The question arose whether Christ may not be the unifying center of his thought. With that in mind I gathered the texts in which Christ plays a central role to determine whether it was not possible to find some central configuration which determined the direction of his thought. My approach was to avoid secondary literature at the beginning of the investigation, not because of a lack of appreciation for contemporary Pauline scholarship, 1 but because my interest was in a study of Paul's thought through a concentrated investigation of his own writings. I was concerned not to allow a single text that could provide insight into the role Christ played in his thought to escape my attention. It soon became clear that his statements concerning Christ do not arise from anything approximating a unified conception. However, it also became clear that my intention of discussing every text in which Christ plays a role would have been an impossible task. I had to limit the scope of the investigation to make it manageable. I limited myself to texts in which the meaning of Christ for Paul personally comes to expression, and to those expressing the meaning of Christ's death/crucifixion, resurrection and parousia for the believer. What played an important role in my initial attempts at understanding the place of Christ in Paul's thought was correspondence with Ernst Käsemann just as I was preparing for this research. Considering this correspondence in the context of my search for a method it appeared to me that Käsemann had an understanding of Christ so similar to Paul that he did not seem to have to reflect on Paul's usage, and I assumed that that meant a similarly clearly defined conception of Christ. I found myself at a great disadvantage in not having the religious sensitivities through which I might find access to Paul's thought, but I hoped to find guidance from Käsemann. I was sure that Paul must have had a deeply religious sensitivity through which Christ determined

1

After completion of m y investigation, I consulted the secondary literature in search of supplementary information and as a control of m y results.

2

Christ in the Letters of Paul

his thinking, something for which Käsemann appeared to have had an almost innate affinity. The question was how I could gain access to it. I did not consider appropriate the method I used to understand the grammar of Paul's thought through an investigation of his use of critical terms, originally suggested in "A Context for Interpreting Paul" with a preliminary investigation of his use of πίστις, 2 followed by an investigation of his use of άγάπη and χάρις, 3 and then of νόμος and the large number of terms related to it, εντολή, έργον/έργάζομαι, 'Ιουδαίος /περιτομή, and έθνος /άκροβυστία. 4 It was not that I had become persuaded that Paul thought in terms of some fundamental principle which functioned as the basis of his reasoning as he addressed the various issues with which he found himself confronted, but I did expect Christ to be a reality which determined his thought in a way that could provide an important key to understanding him. My intention remained to clarify the grammar of his thought. What was different was that the subjectmatter was now not lexical-syntactic, but semantic. It concerned no longer the forms of his expressions, but their content. My problem was that I did not know how to gain access to this aspect of his thought. Unlike in the previous lexical-syntactic studies in which I investigated the ways in which Paul used the available linguistic means to express his thoughts, the issue now concerned the content of his thoughts, in which it was clear that there was no content except what was expressed by means of the lexical-syntactic resources available to him. The task remained an understanding of a material feature of his thought, without falling back into taking the expressions themselves as the content. Christ determined Paul's thought — about that I had no doubt —; the question was how that took place. My problem was to avoid identifying an abstraction from Paul's expressions as the foundation of his thought. Such an abstraction would be an idea, the idea of Christ as the foundation of his thought, which was precisely what I wanted to avoid. Even after I had given up the idea of Christ as a central reality which informed Paul's thought, I was still trying to arrange his thoughts in such a way that a fundamental configuration could emerge — or something like that. I was not sure what it was I was looking for, but hoped that it would emerge through a constant engagement with the texts. More than once I thought there was progress, only to find that I was once more at a dead-end. I was able to overcome this impasse only when I realized that there was no fundamental configuration of the meaning of Christ which informed Paul's 2

3 4

H. Boers, " A C o n t e x t for Interpreting Paul," Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essay in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. Τ. Fornberg, Helh o l m ; O s l o - C o p e n h a g e n - S t o c k h o l m - B o s t o n : S c a n d i n a v i a n University Press, 1 9 9 5 ) 4 2 9 53. " Α γ ά π η and Χάρις in P a u l ' s T h o u g h t , " CBQ 59 ( 1 9 9 7 ) 6 9 3 - 7 1 3 . "Paul and Justification Through the L a w " (Unpublished).

Introduction

3

thinking, but that in a variety of contexts he placed his understanding of himself and of his readers in the context of Christ as he experienced him, and as he expected his readers to experience him. Even though Christ could not have functioned like a word which Paul used to express a variety of meanings, his fundamental commitment to Christ made it possible for him to come to new insights about Christ as he engaged with issues in continually changing circumstances. His understanding of Christ was as a real being, not a theological idea, the person whom he had encountered at a time when he was still persecuting the church, as he states in Gal 1:15-16b: 15

οτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοΰ 16 άποκαλύψαι τον υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοί, ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν . . . Paul's purpose in this statement is not to clarify who Christ is, not even by referring to him as God's son, 5 but to interpret the meaning of God revealing Christ "in me" (έν έμοί) 6 as the foundation of his conversion — by implication from the textual setting 7 —, grounding it in God through Christ. He also interprets the meaning of God's revelation of Christ έν έμοί explicitly as having been for the sake of his commission as an apostle to the gentiles, ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν (v. 16b).8

5

G o d ' s revelation of Christ to Paul did reveal s o m e t h i n g about w h o Christ was, as J a m e s D. G. D u n n ( T h e Epistle to the Galalians [BNTC; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrikson, 1995]) states, "[The revelation of Jesus Christ] also m e a n t the recognition that God had ack n o w l e d g e d as indeed his Son the very one w h o m the law had c o n s i g n e d , like the Gentiles, to the status of an outsider" (67). Similarly, Richard N. Longenecker (Galatians [WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1990]), " W h a t Paul received by revelation on his w a y to D a m a s c u s was (1) a new u n d e r s t a n d i n g of Jesus Christ, which he shared with others w h o had c o m e in contact with the resurrected Lord" (31). However, Paul does n o t present G o d ' s revelation of Christ here as a statement about Christ, b u t of what Christ had n o w c o m e to mean to him.

6

On έν έμοί, see Hans Dieter Betz (Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979]): " W e should n o t suppose that Paul feels he contradicts himself in Gal 1:16 [where the m e a n i n g is primarilly internal] and 1 C o r 9:1; 15:8 [where the m e a n i n g is clearly external]. Apparently for h i m the two forms of the visions (external and internal) are not as distinct as they m a y be for s o m e c o m m e n t a t o r s . . . . The 'in m e ' corresponds to Gal 2:20 ( ' C h r i s t . . . lives in m e ' ) and 4:6 ( ' G o d has sent the Spirit of his Son into our h e a r t s ' ) " (71). In this interpretation he is followed b y Dunn (Galatians, 64) and Longenecker ( G a l a t i a n s , 31).

7

So D u n n , "The implication clearly is that it was a n e w perception of Christ w h i c h m a d e the transformation ( f r o m zealot within J u d a i s m to 'apostle to the G e n t i l e s ' ) b o t h possible and n e c e s s a r y " (Galatians, 67).

8

So Adolf Schlatter (Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon [Schlatter's Erläuterungen z u m N e u e n Testament; Stuttgart: C a l w e r Verlag, 1908; 4th ed. 1928, reprint 1949]): "Gott hat [Paulus] deshalb z u m E m p f ä n g e r seiner G n a d e g e m a c h t , d a m i t er ihr W e r k z e u g sei" (26). Also Herman Ridderbos (The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia [Grand Rapids: W m . B. Eerdmans, 1976] 64) and D u n n (Galalians, 71).

4

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Paul does not develop the meaning of Christ into a configuration of ideas at the basis of his thought — a christology — because Christ continually achieves new meaning for him in changing situations. The pervasiveness of Christ in his letters makes it clear that Christ was in his mind almost all the time. Because of the pervasiveness of Christ in his life, Paul evidently did not try to define what Christ meant to him, but discovered that meaning anew in ever changing situations. Even though Christ was not like another term he used to express his meanings, there is nevertheless a similarity in the way Christ functioned in his thinking and the way he used terms to express his meanings. As little as of words, does he appear to have had a defined meaning of Christ. Nowhere does he attempt to provide a coherent explication of such a meaning; nowhere is there a suggestion of a teaching about Christ, a christology. 9 There are cases where he does make use of existing expressions of the meaning of Christ, most notably in the tradition he quotes in 1 Cor 15:3b—7, 3|,

παρέδωκα γάρ ύ μ ΐ ν έν πρώτοις, ο και παρέλαβον, οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών κατά τάς γραφάς, 4 καϊ οτι έτάφη, και οτι έγήγερται τη ημέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς, 5 καϊ οτι ώφθη Κηφά, ειτα τοις δώδεκα· 6 έπειτα ώφθη έπάνω πεντακοσίοις άδελφοΐς έφάπαξ, έξ ων οί πλείονες μένουσιν έως άρτι, τινές δέ έκοιμήθησαν· 7 επειτα ώφθη Ίακώβφ, είτα τοις άποστόλοις πάσιν·

and in the Philippians hymn, Phil 2:6-11, 16

δς έν μορφή θεοΰ ύπάρχων ούχ άρπαγμόν ήγήσατο τό είναι 'ίσα θεώ, άλλά έαυτόν έκένωσεν μορφήν δούλου λαβών, έν όμοιώματι άνθρώπων γενόμενος- και σχήματι εύρεθείς ώς άνθρωπος 8 έταπείνωσεν έαυτόν γενόμενος υπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δέ σταυροΰ. 9 διό και ό θεός αυτόν ύπερύψωσεν και έχαρίσατο αύτώ τό δνομα τό ύπέρ πάν ονομα, 7

9

A f t e r I had been well into this investigation, I c a m e across Calvin J. R o e t z e l ' s Paul: The Man and the Myth ( C o l u m b i a , South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1998). He has an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of P a u l ' s "theologizing" which agrees with the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of P a u l ' s "christologizing:" to which I c a m e in this study. He points out the "[his] a p p r o a c h will necessarily leave out m u c h that is important in order to m a k e a rather simple point that is widely a c k n o w l e d g e d in theory b u t denied in practice, namely, that it is inappropriate to speak of P a u l ' s theology as a fixed entity or as a systematic achievement. T o put it directly, Paul c o m p o s e d letters, not a systematic theology. A n d , while he |93| hardly c a m e to the epistolary context theologically empty, he responded to each context in a certain ad hoc m a n n e r . The letters thus o f f e r a w i n d o w onto P a u l ' s interpretation of the gospel for a variety of contexts — situations in which persecution u n d e r m i n e d c o n f i d e n c e in P a u l ' s gospel and h o p e for the f u t u r e (1 Thess.), situations in which religious e n t h u s i a s m generated factions that threatened the very existence of the church (1 Cor.), situations in w h i c h competing apostles ridiculed Paul and sought to discredit his gospel (2 Cor.), situations in which r u m o r s of P a u l ' s notoriety threatened to u n d e r m i n e support for his mission ( R o m . ) " (op. cit., 9 3 - 9 4 ) .

Introduction

5

10

ϊνα έν τφ ονόματι Ίησοΰ πάν γόνυ κάμψη έπουρανίων και έπιγείων και καταχθόνιων, Π καϊ πάσα γλώσσα έξομολογήσηται οτι κύριος Ίησοΰς Χριστός εις δόξαν θεοϋ πατρός. In neither case, however, does he use the quotation as the basis for an exposition of the meaning of Christ. In 1 Corinthians the tradition he quotes functions as the foundation for his reasoning in support of the resurrection of the dead in verses 12-23, εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμϊν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; (ν. 12),10 and in Philippians he quotes the hymn for purely paraenetic reasons, 11 as is shown by the statements with which he introduces the hymn, 4 5

μή τά έαυτών έκαστος σκοποϋντες, άλλά [και] τά έτέρων έκαστοι. τοΰτο φρονείτε έν ύμΐν ö καϊ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (Phil 2:4-5),

and by the statement with which he concludes: ώστε, αγαπητοί μου, καθώς πάντοτε ύπηκούσατε, μη ώς έν τη παρουσία μου μόνον άλλά νϋν πολλώ μάλλον έν τη άπουσία μου, μετά φόβου καϊ τρόμου την έαυτών σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε (Phil 2:12). In neither case does the quotation function as the foundation for the presention of a teaching about Christ. More typically, Paul does not rely on existing expressions of the meaning of Christ in his reasoning, but on the experience of Christ, his own as well as that of his readers. For example, in Philippians, to answer the charge that he has abandoned obedience to the Law, he describes the overwhelming experience he had of Christ, 7

ατινα ην μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα ήγημαι διά τόν Χριστόν ζημίαν. 8 άλλά μενοΰνγε και ηγούμαι πάντα ζημίαν είναι διά τό ύπερέχον της γνώσεως Χριστού Ίησοΰ τοΰ κυρίου μου, δι' δν τά πάντα έζημιώθην, και ηγούμαι σκύβαλα ϊνα Χριστόν κερδήσω 9 καϊ εύρεθώ έν αύτώ, μη έχων έμήν δικαιοσύνην την έκ νόμου άλλά την διά πίστεως Χριστού, την έκ θεοϋ

10

11

So, for example, Hans Conzelmann (Der erste Brief an die Korinther [K.EK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969]): "Das Thema wird dem Leser . . . erst von V. 12 ab sichtbar. Im Rückblick sieht man dann, wie V. 12ff. durch V. 1-11 vorbereitet wurden." (293). So Wilhelm Luecken ("Der Brief an die Philipper," Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971 ] 383-402): "Man muß, um die dogmatische Bedeutung dieser berühmten Stelle nicht zu überschätzen, im Auge behalten, daß das Ganze eigentlich nur ein Nebensatz ist, der den Zweck hat, die vorbildliche Demut Christi auszuführen. Man darf die Stelle aber auch nicht zur bloßen Erläuterung einer sittlichen Mahnung verflüchtigen. In diesem Zusammenhange hat Paulus freilich keine Lehre über Jesu vorirdisches und gegenwärtiges Dasein geben wollen." (390). Similarly, Marvin R. Vincent, (The Epistles to the Philippians and Philemon [ICC; Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1950] 78-9).

6

Christ in the Letters of Paul

δικαιοσύνην έπί xf| πίστει, 10 τοΰ γνώναι αύτόν και τήν δύναμιν της ά ν α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς αύτοΰ καϊ [τήν] κοινωνίαν [των] παθημάτων αύτοΰ, συμμορφιζόμενος τω θανάτω αύτοΰ, " ε ϊ πως καταντήσω είς τήν έξανάστασιν τήν έκ νεκρών (Phil 3:7-11). And in Galatians, after he argued biographically to prove the validity of his proclamation of the gospel to the gentiles, he does not rely on that reasoning when he addresses his readers, but on their experience of Christ, 'ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; 2 τοϋτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών, έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεύμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (Gal 3:1-2) Similarly, in 1 Corinthians, he challenges his readers to compare for themselves his and their relationships with Christ, ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δε φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ- ήμεΐς ασθενείς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι (1 Cor 4:10). And in 2 Cor 13:5 explicitly as a self-test: έαυτούς πειράζετε εί έστέ έν τη πίστει, έαυτούς δοκιμάζετε- ή ούκ έπιγινώσκετε έαυτούς οτι Ίησοΰς Χριστός έν ύμίν; εί μήτι αδόκιμοι έστε. These texts will receive more detailed attention in the investigation which follows. In discussions which follow below, the texts which express the meaning of Christ for Paul himself, and the meaning of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and parousia for his readers show that in his letters Paul relies very little on teachings about Christ, nor does he produce any of his own. What he relies upon are his own experiences and the experiences which he attempts to call forth among his readers. How is it possible to write a christology of Paul when what Christ meant to him and to his readers kept finding new expressions as they, he himself and his readers, were confronted by new situations? There is no foundation in Paul's letters for a Pauline christology. Studies on Pauline christology have validity as scholarly abstractions drawn from Paul's letters, as constructive products of the scholars who engage in such endeavors, not as presentations of Paul's own christology. 12 12

As I have c o m m e n t e d a n u m b e r of times, the s a m e applies to so-called theologies of the N e w Testament. Those theologies too are abstractions f r o m the N e w T e s t a m e n t b y their authors. The m o s t m a g n i f i c e n t e x a m p l e r e m a i n s Rudolf B u l t m a n n ' s Theology of the New Testament. T o d a y we k n o w h o w well he served his own time b y writing a "Theology of the N e w T e s t a m e n t " that was relevant for the time between the two world wars. Karl Barth recognized the issue very well when he a b a n d o n e d his project of writing a Christian Dogmatics in favor of a C h u r c h Dogmatics. In this regard W i l h e l m B o u s s e t ( K y r i o s Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus [Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1913; 5th

Introduction

7

One cannot take it as if Paul's relationship with Christ, even though personal, was similar to the relationships he had with other living persons, such as, Barnabas, Apollo, Peter, his readers, etc. On the other hand, Christ was not someone he knew and thought about in the abstract, either from information (teachings) which he received from others or a configuration of his own ideas about him. Christ was present to him as a living being, in the spirit, not in the flesh, and not only for him, but also for his readers. In this regard his denial of having received his gospel from human beings gains new significance, as he states in Galatians, "γνωρίζω γάρ ύμίν, αδελφοί, τό εύαγγέλιον τό εύαγγελισθέν ύπ' έμοΰ ο τ ι ο ύ κ έ σ τ ι ν κατά ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ν · 1 2 ούδέ γ ά ρ έ γ ώ παρά α ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ παρέλαβον αύτό, οΰτε έδιδάχθην, άλλά δι' άποκαλύψεως Ίησοΰ Χρίστου (Gal 1:11-12). He did not know Christ through a teaching, but through revelation: 15

οτε δέ εΰδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοΰ Ι6 άποκαλύψαι τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοΐ ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις εθνεσιν, εύθέως ού προσανεθέμην σαρκί καίαϊματι (Gal 1:15-16). The purpose of this study, thus, is not to extract the meaning of Christ for Paul from his thoughts, but to try and understand the role Christ played in his thinking. I begin with the meaning of Christ for Paul personally.

ed. 1965]; E T John E. Steely [tr.], N a s h v i l l e / N e w York: A b i n g d o n Press, 1969) s o u n d s a very different tone. Christ was a living reality for Paul and on that basis he should be understood. " F ü r den Apostel ist der in der christlichen G e m e i n d e verehrte Herr eine Wirklichkeit, die er als selbstverständlich und gegeben vorausetzt. Aber das alles wird für ihn n u n f r e i l i c h n u r d e r A u s g a n g s p u n k t f ü r e i n e w e i t e r e E n t w i c k l u n g . In d e r C h r i s t u s f r ö m m i g k e i t des Paulus klingt nun doch eine ganz neue Note an und wird zur D o m i n a n t e : das intensive Gefühl der persönlichen Zugehörigkeit und geistigen V e r b u n d e n h e i t mit d e m erhöhten H e r r n " ( K y r i o s Christos, 104; ET, 153).

Part One The meaning of Christ for Paul personally 1. Christ's appearance to Paul One of the clearest expressions of Christ's meaning for Paul is Phil 3:2-14. After listing those virtues which made of him, to use his own words, a perfect Jew, 5

περιτομίϊ οκταήμερος, έκ γένους Ισραήλ, φυλής Βενιαμίν, 'Εβραίος έξ 'Εβραίων, κατά νόμον Φαρισαΐος, 6 κατά ζήλος διώκων τήν έκκλησίαν, κατά δικαιοσύνην τήν έν νόμω γενόμενος αμεμπτος (Phil 3:5-6),

he explains what the encounter with Christ meant for him, 7

ατινα ήν μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα ήγημαι διά τον Χριστόν ζημίαν. 8 άλλά μενοϋνγε και ήγοΰμαι πάντα ζημίαν είναι διά τό ύπερέχον τής γνώσεως Χρίστου Ίησοΰ τοΰ κυρίου μου, δι' δν τά πάντα έζημιώθην, και ήγοΰμαι σκύβαλα, ϊνα Χριστόν κερδήσω 9 καϊ ευρεθώ έν αύτω, μή εχων έμήν δικαιοσύνην τήν έκ νόμου άλλά τήν διά πίστεως Χρίστου, τήν έκ θεοΰ δικαιοσύνην έπϊ τή πίστει, 10 τοΰ γνώναι αύτόν και τήν δύναμιν τής ά ν α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς αύτοΰ καί [τήν] κοινωνίαν [των] παθημάτων αύτοϋ, συμμορφιζόμενος τω θανάτω αύτοΰ, Π ε ϊ πως καταντήσω εις τήν έξανάστασιν τήν έκ νεκρών (Phil 3:7-11). Taken by itself, this statement could be understood as a clarification of the meaning of Christ in a generally valid sense, that is, as a meaning from which Paul could draw to express his thoughts. The context in which it occurs, however, makes it clear that what Paul wrote was not the expression of a general truth, but was formulated as a direct response to a personal challenge: 1 2

βλέπετε τούς κύνας, βλέπετε τούς κακούς έργάτας, βλέπετε τήν κατατομήν. 3 ήμεΐς γάρ έσμεν ή περιτομή, οί πνεύματι θεοΰ λατρεύοντες

1

In all of these cases I a m not interested in the question whether Paul w a s r e p o n d i n g to actual a c c u s a t i o n s or challenges, also not h o w well he understood challenges that m a y have been b r o u g h t against him. M y interest is entirely in the way Paul f o r m u l a t e s his responses, w h i c h m a k e s it irrelevant w h e t h e r that to w h i c h h e r e s p o n d e d w a s real or f o r m u l a t e d rhetorically. 1 d o a s s u m e , however, that the accusations to which Paul responded were not f o r m u l a t e d rhetorically purely for the sake of his responses, but that he formulated the accusations as well as his responses to actual situations in the churches to which he wrote. So, for e x a m ple, the challenge to w h i c h he responds in the Philippians f r a g m e n t has to be distinguished concretely f r o m that to which he responds in Galatians.

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

9

και καυχώμενοι έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ και ούκ έν σαρκί πεποιθότες, 4 καίπερ έγώ εχων πεποίθησιν και έν σαρκί. εϊ τις δοκεΐ άλλος πεποιθέναι έν σαρκί, έγώ μάλλον (Phil 3:2-^). 2 It is important to note that here, whatever may have prompted his attack, Paul does not answer a challenge concerning the justification of the gentiles, but a challenge to his credentials as a Jew. 3 His defense is of himself personally. In verse 3, he begins by referring generally to ήμεΐς as the circumcised, but then, in verse 4 he turns to himself, personally, with έγώ, as the one whom he defends. 4 Paul reinforces this focus on himself by referring to Christ

2

There is an abrupt break between these verses and what precedes, although scholars disagree where the break actually occurs. Pierre Bonnard places it between 2:30 and 3:1, b u t possibly between 3:1a and l b (L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens [CNT; NeuchatelParis: D e l a c h a u x & Niestle, 1950] 59). Gerhard Friedrich considers the b r e a k to occur b e tween 3:1a and l b , assigning 3:1b to the discussion which follows. " D i e nächsten Worte p a s s e n n i c h t in den Z u s a m m e n h a n g . W a h r s c h e i n l i c h ist mit d e r E n t s c h u l d i g u n g des Apostels, daß er i m m e r wieder dasselbe schreibe, nicht die E r m a h n u n g zur Freude gemeint — w a r u m sollte eine so s c h ö n e A u f f o r d e r u n g d e m Paulus lästig werden und der G e m e i n d e Sicherheit geben? — , sondern die W a r n u n g vor Ihrlehrern" (Der Brief an die Philipper [ N T D ; G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1963] 116). He p o i n t s o u t that w i t h his w o r d s in verse l a , Paul frequently introduces his final r e m a r k s (2 C o r 13:11; Gal 6:17; 2 Thess 3:1; Phil 4:8). "An 3,1a k ö n n t e sich gut 4,10 oder 4,21 a n s c h l i e ß e n " (op. cit., 115). Irrespective of where the break actually occurs, P a u l ' s turn to an attack in 3:2 is abrupt, w i t h o u t a connection to what precedes.

3

The a b r u p t b r e a k between 3:2 and w h a t precedes, wherever one places the break, leaves n o context within w h i c h P a u l ' s reasoning can be placed. Thus, there is n o t h i n g b y m e a n s of which one can determine what Paul m e a n s by his abrupt turn to an attack on opponents. For m o s t s c h o l a r s the o b v i o u s solution is that it m u s t h a v e been P a u l ' s J u d a i z i n g o p p o n e n t s : J. B. Lightfoot (St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians and Philemon [Peabody, M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H e n d r i c k s o n , 1 8 8 1 ] 1 4 3 , c f . 6 9 - 7 0 ) ; V i n c e n t (Philippians and Philemon, 9 2 - 3 ) ; Karl Barth (Erklärung des Philipperbriefs [Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1947] 9 1 - 2 ) ; Friedrich (Philipper, 116); Schlatter (Die Briefe and die Thessaloniker, Philipper, Timotheus und Titus [Schlatters Erläuterungen z u m Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: C a l w e r Verlag, 1908; 4th ed. 1928; 1949] 84); B o n n a r d (Philippiens, 60). Ernst Lohmeyer considers the opponents to have been non-believing Jews in a g r e e m e n t with the different context he established for the letter. A c c o r d i n g to h i m , the local s y n a g o g u e tempted the believing c o m m u n i t y to b e part of J u d a i s m as the m e a n s b y w h i c h they could avoid martyrd o m for b e i n g involved in an illicit religion (Der Brief an die Philipper, an die Kolloser und an Philemon [KEK; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1917] 1 2 4 - 2 6 ) . For Lohmeyer the topic t h r o u g h o u t the letter is m a r t y r d o m . B o n n a r d correctly rejects m a r t y r d o m as the context: ". . . c o m m e n o u s l ' a v o n s d e j ä n o t e , n o u s ne t r o u v o n s d a n s toute 1'epitre a u c u n e allusion explicite au martyre" (op. cit. 59).

4

So, explicitly Lohmeyer: "Hatte Pis. bisher von ' W i r ' g e s p r o c h e n , so redet er jetzt nur noch von s i c h " (Philipper, Kolloser und Philemon, 128); Also B o n n a r d (Philippiens, 61), w h o refers to Gerhard Heinzelmann (Das Neue Testament Deutsch [1935]): " H e i n z e l m a n n releve q u e la passion avec laquelle Paul s ' e x p r i m e fait penser q u ' i l ne se defend pas seulement contre des adversaires lointains, mais contre une tentation personnelle de r e t o u m e r aux valeurs juives; l'apötre est encore d a n s le c o m b a t de la foi." ( B o n n a r d , op. cit., 64). I have n o t been able to trace a copy of H e i n z e l m a n n ' s book.

10

Christ in the Letters of Paul

as [ό κύριος] μου, in contrast with the more typical ό κύροις ημών. 5 He continues in this personal vein beyond his attack on his opponents all the way through verse 16. Only in verse 17 does he begin to apply his own experience of Christ to his readers, but by then he has left his attack on his opponents well behind. It is difficult to see how what Paul wrote in 3:2-11, especially in the context provided by verses 2-6, could apply to the situation in Philippi. 6 Within the larger context, however, the challenge about Paul's un-Jewish behavior does concern his proclamation to the gentiles. It was within that context that he surrendered submission to the Law for the sake of what he found in Christ. Here, however, the issue is specifically his having given up living as a Jew under the Law. Listing his virtues as a Jew in verses 5 - 6 brings to expression what he means by his denial of reliance on the flesh, καίπερ έγώ έχων πεποίθησιν και έν σαρκί. εϊ τις δοκεϊ άλλος πεποιθέναι έν σαρκί, έγώ μάλλον (ν. 4). That it is an issue of the justification of the Jew, and not the gentile, 7 is also clear from the words with which he introduces his defense, ήμεΐς γάρ έσμεν ή περιτομή, οί πνεύματι θεοΰ λατρεύοντες και καυχώμενοι έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ και ούκ έν σαρκί πεποιθότες (ν. 3), in contrast with what he perceives about his accusers, βλέπετε τούς κύνας, βλέπετε τούς κακούς έργάτας, βλέπετε την κατατομήν (ν. 2). He formulates it as an issue of circumcision. Against those who are, in his understanding, challenging him concerning circumcision in the flesh he replies with circumcision in the spirit. Verses 7 - 1 1 give expression to what he understands to be the true meaning of being circumcised. In 2 Cor 11:22 Paul responds to what appears to have been a similar challenge to his credentials as a Jew, 'Εβραίοι είσιν; καγώ. Ίσραηλΐταί είσιν; καγώ. σπέρμα 'Αβραάμ είσιν; καγώ. What is different is that he understands the challenge to which he responds in 2 Corinthians to have been aimed at his credentials as an apostle as well, διάκονοι Χρίστου είσιν; παραφρονών λαλώ,

5

6

7

So, Friedrich: "Die Worte des Apostels Paulus haben an dieser Stelle den Charakter eines persönlichen Bekenntnisses. Er nennt sonst Christus 'den Herrn', oder, wenn er sich mit den andern Christen zusammenschließt, 'unsern Herrn'. Im Gegensatz dazu steht hier das bei Paulus ungewöhnliche 'mein Rerr"'(Philipper, 118). A solution of the problem how Paul's attack on his opponents relates to the Philippians is that he presents himself as an example. So, for example, Vincent: "In illustration of the statement that Christians have no confidence in the flesh, he adduces his own case, showing what exceptional ancestral and ecclesiastical advantages as a Jew he renounced for Christ's sake" (Philippians and Philemon, 94); Friedrich (Philipper, 116). Or as a warning against false teaching; Bonnard (.Philippiens, 60-1). Also Luecken, even though he considers it not to have been an issue that arose in Philippi. "Vielleicht hat Paulus gerade aus einer andern Gemeinde schlimme Nachricht erhalten oder in Rom selbst schweren Verdruß durch seine alten Gegner gehabt" ("Philipper," 395). As we will see below in connection with Gal 1:16, however, Paul's understanding was that Jews too were not justified by their submission to the Law, but through the faith of Christ.

The Meaning for Paul Personally

11

ύπέρ έγώ (v. 23a-c). The similarity of Paul's Jewish credentials in 2 Corinthians to what he states in Phil 3:2-14 is such that one might well wonder if his outburst in Philippians may not have been prompted by the same kind of a challenge to which he responded in 2 Cor 11:22- 23c. 8 Even then, however, the difference in the expressions should be noted. In the 2 Corinthians passage apostleship is included among the credentials about which he defends himself, whereas in Phil 3:5-6 it is solely his Jewish credentials which stand over against the life he found in Christ for which he surrendered reliance on his superlatives as a Jew (vv. 7-11). The list of what Paul suffered for the sake of Christ in 2 Cor 11, 23d

. . . έν κόποις περισσοτέρως, έν φυλακαίς περισσοτέρως, έν πληγαΐς ύ π ε ρ β α λ λ ό ν τ ω ς , έν θανάτοις πολλάκις· 2 4 ύπό 'Ιουδαίων πεντάκις τεσσεράκοντα παρά μίαν έλαβον, 25 τρϊς έραβδίσθην, άπαξ έλιθάσθην, τρις έναυάγησα, νυχθήμερον έν τω βυθω πεποίηκα· 2 6 όδοιπορίαις πολλάκις, κινδύνοις ποταμών, κινδύνοις ληστών, κινδύνοις έκ γένους, κινδύνοις έξ έθνών, κινδύνοις έν πόλει, κινδύνοις έν έρημία, κινδύνοις έν θ α λ α σ σ ή , κ ι ν δ ύ ν ο ι ς έν ψ ε υ δ α δ έ λ φ ο ι ς , 2 7 κ ό π ω και μ ό χ θ ω , έν άγρυπνίαις πολλάκις, έν λιμώ και δίψει, έν νηστείαις πολλάκις, έν ψύχει και γυμνότητι- 28 χωρϊς των παρεκτός ή έπίστασίς μοι ή καθ' ήμέραν, ή μέριμνα πασών των έκκλησιών. 29 τίς άσθενεϊ, καί ούκ άσθενώ; τίς σκανδαλίζεται, καί ούκ έγώ πυροϋμαι; (2 Cor 11:23d-29),

8

Scholars disagree who Paul had in mind with his challenge in 2 Cor 12:22-29. One view is that the "pillars" in Jerusalem were intended: Schlatter (Die Korintherbriefe ausgelegt für Bibelleser [Schlatters Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 3. Auflage 1920, reprint 1950] 338-39, also Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung seiner Briefe [Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1934; 2nd ed. 1956; 1962] 636-41), Hering (La Seconde epitre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens [CNT; Neuchatel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestie, 1958] 83) and Barrett (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [BNTC; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1973] 278). Others consider it to have been a direct attack on Paul's opponents in Korinth: Alfred Plummer (The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians [ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915] 319), Hans Windisch (Der Zweite Korintherbrief [KEK; Göttingen, 1924] 330, 350 and 352) and Bultmann (Der zweite Brief an die Korintlier [K.EK; G ö t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p r e c h t , 1976] 205, 210 and 216). Hering, as others, distinguishes between the opponents in Corinth who challenged Paul and the Jerusalem apostles with whom Paul compares himself: "II est difficile de ne pas penser aux freres de Jesus et aux Douze, qui aux yeux de certains missionaires judeo-chretiens etaint les seuls qui comptaient, ce qui ne prouve pas absolument qu'ils aient denigre eux-memes l'ouvre de Paul" (loc. cit.). It is difficult to prove either understanding conclusively. Schlatter (Der Bote Jesu, 636-41) and Windisch (op. cit., 352) provide extensive discussions which carefully weigh the evidence on both sides. Bultmann considers the opponents in Corinth not as Judaizers, but as gnostic pneumatics: "[Es ist] ausgeschlossen, daß die Gegner Judaisten sind; denn der νόμος und die Beschneidung stehen nirgends in Frage. Sie sind vielmehr die gnostisierenden Pneumatiker" (op. cit., 216).

12

Christ in the Letters of Paul

also clearly places the focus on his apostleship as what he perceived to have been the main challenge, in which, in contrast with Phil 3:2-11, the challenge to his Jewish credentials fades into the background. Returning to the meaning of Christ's appearance to Paul: In Phil 3:2-11 it was the challenge to his credentials as a Jew which prompted him to state what it meant for him to have given up reliance on his virtues as a Jew, that is, what his acceptance of Christ meant to him. He is not drawing on an idea of Christ, but on the reality of Christ in his life. The understanding to which he gives expression is not a general truth, but something which he formulates specifically in answer to the challenge that he no longer lived according to what was expected of a Jew under the Law. In his reply to the challenge, Christ plays the central role. The meaning which Christ has for him in Phil 3:2-11 arises from the challenge to which he responds, and is formulated specifically with that challenge in mind. Christ was so real to him that he did not have to rely on preformulated ideas about him. In my discussions with Käsemann I had been led to believe that what Christ meant to Paul was the manifestation of a, for me, incomprehensible religious power. That, in part, lead me astray. It now appeared that there had been nothing particularly incomprehensible about the great religious power which Christ had over Paul. Something Käsemann wrote now became clear, a close parallel to that about which Paul wrote in Phil 3:2-11. Like probably many others, I had always wondered what Käsemann meant when he said that he "learnt theology from the Nazis." In this letter he explained how he had appropriated, inexplicably, as applicable specifically to himself a saying he heard when he was still at school, aged 15 or 16, quoted from memory: "Every human being must find his [or her] own master whom he [she] would follow to Olympus." The question he asked himself was who his master was. Where did he have to follow? Where was the Olympus that would and could give meaning to his life? The first to give him directions was the Essener youth pastor, Weigle, whose answer too he would not forget, "Do you ask who he is? . . ." [For an answer, Weigle advised]: He [Käsemann] had to become a theologian, not a pastor nor a teacher, as most of his relatives had been. He had to read the Bible; study! The way was prepared by Erik Peterson, Rudolf Bultmann, Adolf Schlatter, Karl Barth, Julius Schniewind, Hans Lietzmann, . . . until he encountered the Nazis. "Paradox: One has to have seen the devil to know, 'there is no other God.'" The question was to whom the world belonged. The identity of the person he would follow to Olympus became clear when he observed Gestapo informers among the presbyters sitting on the bench next to the pulpit, writing down what he preached: Jesus Christ, whose

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

13

lordship over the world was denied by the Nazis. 9 An even closer parallel to Käsemann's experience may be Gal 2:11-16. "οτε δέ ήλθεν Κηφάς εις Άντιόχειαν, κατά πρόσωπον αύτω άντέστην, οτι κατεγνωσμένος ήν. 12 πρό τοϋ γάρ έλθεΐν τινας άπό 'Ιακώβου μετά των έθνών συνήσθιεν- οτε δέ ήλθον, ύπέστελλεν και άφώριζεν έαυτόν, φοβούμενος τούς έκ περιτομής. 13 καί συνυπεκρίθησαν αύτω [και] οί λοιποί 'Ιουδαίοι, ώστε καί Βαρναβάς συναπήχθη αύτών xf| ύποκρίσει. 14 άλλ' ο τ ε ε ί δ ο ν ο τ ι ο ύ κ ό ρ θ ο π ο δ ο ΰ σ ι ν π ρ ο ς τ η ν ά λ ή θ ε ι α ν τοΰ εύαγγελίου, είπον τω Κηφά έμπροσθεν πάντων, εί σύ 'Ιουδαίος ύπάρχων έθνικώς καί ούχί Ίουδαϊκώς ζης, πώς τά έθνη άναγκάζεις Ίουδαϊζειν; 15 ήμεϊς φύσει'Ιουδαίοι καί ούκ έξ έθνών άμαρτωλοί, 16 είδότες [δέ] οτι ού δικαιούται ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς έξ έ ρ γ ω ν ν ό μ ο υ έάν μη διά πίστεως Ί η σ ο ϋ

9

"Irgendwann in m e i n e m Schultage hat sich ein Wort unvergeßlich bei m i r eingebohrt. Ich zitiere frei: 'Ein j e d e r m u s s sich seinen Herren suchen, d e m er die W e g e z u m O l y m p n a c h gehen will'. Erstaunlich, d a ß ich, zu Hause, in der Schule und Kirche schon damals ein Rebell, — mein Vater w a r 1915 gefallen, meine Mutter hatte weder Zeit n o c h Kraft, m i c h zu lenken, die Schule h a ß t e ich bis auf ein p a a r Lehrer, die ich respektierte, o h n e m i c h ihnen zu f ü g e n , — dieses ' M u ß ' hörte, als sei es mir gesagt und m e i n t e m i c h allein. W o w a r mein Herr? W o hatte ich zu folgen? W o war der O l y m p , der m e i n e m Leben Sinn geben sollte und k o n n t e — gegen all meinen Willen? Der Essener Jugendpfarrer, vielleicht der unübertreffliche Charismatiker f ü r tausende von Schülern und Lehrlinge, gab mir Antwort, die ich a u c h nie vergessen konnte: 'Fragst du, wer der ist' . . . Ich m u ß t e Theologe werden, nicht Pastor, schon gar nicht Lehrer, wie meine ganze V e r w a n d s c h a f t es war. Ich m u ß t e die Bibel lesen, studieren. W e n n es sonst etwas N o t w e n d i g e s gab, f ü r m i c h gab es nur dieses Eine, 15-16-jährig. N i e m a n d anders konnte m e i n Lehrer sein und werden. Peterson, Bultm a n n , Schlatter, Barth, S c h n i e w i n d , Lietzmann bereiteten den W e g , bis ich zu den N a z i s k a m und in kurzer Frist, wieder u n u m k e h r b a r , durch m e i n e G e m e i n d e lernte: Die nicht und nie. Da w a r nur n o c h Einer, der nicht Hölle verkörperte, die weltweit auf Erden herrschte. " B u l t m a n n s A n t h r o p o l o g i e w a r n a c h P e t e r s o n zu i n d i v i d u e l l . E x e g e s e h a l f a u c h z u r Anthropologie. Ihr T h e m a aber war: W e m gehört die W e l t h e r r s c h a f t ? N i c h t nur die Bibel h a t t e es m i t d e n D ä m o n e n zu t u n . Ich sah s i e in j e d e r P r e d i g t b e i m B l i c k a u f d i e Gestapoleute, die mitschreiben, in den Presbytern auf der B a n k neben d e m Altar. Hier gab es nur eins zu entscheiden. Es ging nicht m e h r u m den Sinn einer W e l t a n s c h a u u n g , auch nicht bloß u m die H u m a n i t ä t des Idealismus. Entmythologisierung b e d u r f t e nicht nur einer sakralen Sprache. Entmythologisiert werden m u ß t e der M e n s c h und eine M e n s c h h e i t , die wie i m Sündenfall A u t o n o m i e und Emanzipation begehrte. Ihr Herr rief dazu gegen alle Philosophie, welche sich i m Besitz der Wahrheit dünkte. Jesus entmythologisiert, ' d e r Herr Z a b a o t h . ' ' D a ß J e s u s C h r i s t u s sei m e i n H e r r ' w a r , d a s 1. G e b o t i n t e r p r e t i e r e n d u n d konkretisierend, die A n t w o r t auf meine Lebensfrage — " P a r a d o x : M a n m u ß den Teufel gesehen habe, u m zu wissen: ' U n d ist kein anderer Gott.' " (From a letter dated, M a y 1995). Unlike Paul, Ernst K ä s e m a n n had n o p r o b l e m recognizing those w h o led h i m to Christ — his youth pastor, Peterson, B u l t m a n n , Schlatter, Barth, S c h n i e w i n d , Lietzmann — b u t in the end there is n o difference. He did not learn w h o Christ was f r o m those w h o pointed the way. For that reason he could state, so m a n y times, paradoxically, I learnt theology f r o m the Nazis. In the end, like Paul, he did not receive his gospel f r o m any h u m a n being, b u t through the encounter with the reality of Christ himself, b r o u g h t a b o u t by those w h o dared to challenge C h r i s t ' s sovereignty over the world.

14

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Χρίστου, καί ήμείς εις Χριστόν Ίησοΰν έπιστεύσαμεν, ϊνα δικανωθώμεν έκ πίστεως Χρίστου και ούκ έξ έργων νόμου, οτι έξ έργων νόμου ού δικαιωθήσεται πάσα σάρξ. In each case it was the actions of opponents which led to a deeper, not a new, understanding of the reality and meaning of Christ. In the Antioch incident that meaning for Paul was that in Christ there could be no separation between Jewish and gentile believers; that Jews too, similar to gentiles, were not justified by the Law unless, έάν μή,10 it was through the faith of Christ. Jews too were justified through the faith of Christ, which meant that in Christ there was no difference between Jewish and gentile believers. In the Philippians passage it was the value of what he found in Christ which justified him to count as nothing those qualities which, he could claim, made of him a perfect Jew. For Käsemann the issue was to whom the world belonged, to Christ or to the Nazis. The challenge of the Nazis gave decisive new meaning to his understanding of Christ. Paul presents the incident in Antioch as a watershed in the relationship between Jewish and gentile believers. That is what it may indeed have been, also from the point of view of those against whom he positioned himself. From their point of view it was a question of the integrity of Jewish believers; whether, in the face of the acceptance of gentiles into their community, they could abandon their adherence to the Law.11 From Paul's point of view, 10

Dogmatic considerations continue to prevent interpreters from accepting that Paul is not posing works of the Law and justifaction by faith as irreconcilable opposites here. So explicitly Ernest De Witt Burton: "έάν μή is properly exceptive, not adversative . . , but it may introduce an exception to the preceding statement as a whole or to the principle part of it — in this case to ού δικαιούται άνθρωπος έξ έργων νόμου or to ού δικαιούται άθρωπος alone. The latter alternative is clearly to be chosen here, since the former would yield the thought that a man can be justified by works of the law if this is accompanied by faith, a thought never expressed by the apostle and wholly at variance with his doctrine as unambiguously expressed in several passages" (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920] 121). Also Lightfoot: "έάν μή] retains its proper meaning, but refers only to ού δικαιούται, 'He is not justified from works of law, he is not justified except through faith.'" (St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians [J. B. Lightfoot's Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publisheres, 1993] 115). Similarly Albrecht Oepke (Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater [ T H K N T ; Leipzig: A. D e i c h e r t s c h e V e r l a g s b u c h h a n d l u n g , 1937] 45-6).

11 A decision had evidently not yet been made with regard to restrictions on Jewish belivers in their relationships with gentiles. Peter had been uncertain on how he had to behave towards gentile believers, which led to his ambivalence when the brothers from James arrived. Scholars generally agree that no-one was in the wrong when the incident occurred. So already Burton: ". . . the situation at Antioch was not the result of repudiation of the Jerusalem agreement by any of the parties to it, but was simply the coming to the surface of the contradictory convictions which were only imperfectly harmonised in the compromise in which the Jerusalem conference issued" (Galatians, 106). Similarly, Oepke (Galater, 4 3 4); Schlatter (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon, 43); Dunn (Galatians, 125).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

15

Christ meant full acceptance of gentile believers without the boundaries of the Law which separated them from Jewish believers. The conflict had become inevitable. In Paul's presentation, he had been able to assert his point of view. In reality it was almost certainly the other point of view which prevailed. All the Jewish believers, including Barnabas, had already sided with Peter. 12 It was not as if Käsemann encountered Christ for the first time in the Nazi challenge, or Paul in the challenges to which he responded in Phil 3:211 and Gal 2:11-16, but the challenges to which they responded brought greater, more decisive clarity concerning who Christ was, and of the meaning of their callings in Christ. 13 What made Christ a new revelation for Käsemann was when Christ's authority over the world was challenged by the Nazis, similar to the deeper meaning Paul found in Christ when he found his understanding of the meaning of Christ challenged by the behavior of Peter and the other Jewish believers in Antioch, and, in the Philippians passage, when certain persons challenged him because of his un-Jewish behavior. Paul's presentation of the incident in Antioch is not a factual report, but part of his means of guiding his gentile Galatian readers in their decision concerning circumcision. 14 In that regard, there is an important difference be12

H a n s Lietzmann f o r m u l a t e s the issue well: "Als Erfolg ist natürlich stillschweigend vorausgesetzt, d a ß sich Petrus der Rüge des Pls b e u g t und somit selbst dieses H a u p t der Zwölf die p a u l i n i s c h e A u t o r i t ä t a n e r k e n n t . O b der Vorfall von der G e g e n s e i t e e b e n s o a n g e s e h e n w u r d e , ist eine a n d e r e F r a g e " (An die Galater [ H N T ; T ü b i n g e n : J. C. B. M o h r [Paul Siebeck], 1971] 15). A c c o r d i n g to Longenecker ". . . while we m a y believe that Paul's case w a s r i g h t in the c o n f l i c t at A n t i o c h , we d o not k n o w h o w the s i t u a t i o n was a c t u a l l y resolved in the c h u r c h there. Paul tells us what he said to Peter (see also the discussion of 2 : 1 5 - 2 1 to follow), b u t he does not tell us h o w Peter, B a r n a b a s , or the Antioch c h u r c h reacted to what he s a i d " (Galatians, 79). Paul m a y not tell us h o w Peter and the others reacted, but his report leaves little doubt that he had p r o b a b l y been defeated. B a n a b a s n o longer a c c o m p a n i e d him.

13

K ä s e m a n n ' s experience does not have to be considered unique, and accordingly, also not Paul's. Another p o w e r f u l example which c o m e s to mind is Martin Luther K i n g Jr. Similar to K ä s e m a n n , K i n g ' s s t u d i e s at C r o z i e r T h e o l o g i c a l S e m i n a r y and B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y prepared the way, but the challenge of Selma provided h i m with a decisive e n c o u n t e r with Christ, what Christ m e a n t to him, and what his call in Christ required of him. It is not as if King had not previously been deeply involved in the struggle for civil rights, as Paul had been in a life in Christ and K ä s e m a n n in opposition to the Nazis, b u t in each case the manifestation of radical opposition led to a new, deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the m e a n i n g of Christ.

14

The main concern in interpretations of the p a s s a g e is whether Paul reports w h a t he actually said to Peter, and if so where his speech to Peter ends and c h a n g e s to an address to his readers. This is f o r m u l a t e d in its plainest f o r m by Lightfoot: " W e r e all the c o n c l u d i n g verses of the chapter actually spoken by St Paul at the time, or is he a d d i n g a c o m m e n t while n a r r a t i n g the i n c i d e n t afterwards to the Galatians; and if so, where does the text cease and the c o m m e n t b e g i n ? To this question it seems impossible to give a definite answer. St P a u l ' s narrative in fact loses itself in the reflexions suggested by it. Text and c o m m e n t are so b l e n d e d together that they c a n n o t be separated w i t h o u t v i o l e n c e " ('Galatians, 1 1 3 - 1 4 ) . Similarly, Lietzmann (Galater, 15); Burton (Galatians, 111); Dieter

16

Christ in the Letters of Paul

tween the Philippians and Galatians passages. In Phil 3:2-11 we have a direct confrontation with the issue at hand: In Gal 2:11-21 Paul does not address the situation in Antioch, but the situation in Galatia. The meaning of Christ for him in the Philippians passage was immediate in his response to that of which he found himself accused: In the case of Galatians, in addition to the meaning which Christ had for him in his confrontation with the issue which arose in Antioch, Paul made that meaning immediately relevant for the issue of circumcision in Galatia through the context in which he placed his account of the incident. This is clearly shown by the unmarked transition in Paul's speech from Peter to his Galatian readers, and vividly by Paul's implicit reference to circumcision in his accusatory question to Peter, πώς τά εθνη άναγκάζεις ίουδαϊζειν,15 for which there is no reason in his report of what happened.16 He read it back into the incident to make it relevant for the situation in Galatia. As Kang-Yup Na has shown, in Paul's report of the incident, what he said to Peter was not intended for Peter's or the other Jewish believers' ears, but for the ears of his Galatian readers.17 In Gal 2:11-21, thus, Christ has a double meaning, first for Paul himself in the confrontation with Peter and the other Jewish believers in Antioch, and then, through his report of the incident, for his readers in Galatia. Paul made the meaning Christ had for him in the Antioch incident relevant for his readers in Galatia through his report of the incident. We do not have direct access to what Christ meant for him in the incident; we have access to that meaning

15

16

17

Lührmann (Der Brief an die Galater [Zürcher Bibelkommentare NT 7; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1978] 41); Dunn (Galatians, 132). Basing his inquiry on Wilhelm Dithey's concept of autobiography, Kang-Yup Na ("The Meaning of Christ in Paul. A Reading of Galatians 1.11-2.21 in the Light of Wilhelm Dilthey's Lebensphilosophie" [Atlanta: Emory University, 2001]) has shown that not only Paul's reported speech in Gal 2:14d-21, but his entire autobiography in 1:13-2:10 was formulated with his Galatian readers as his primary focus. So, for example, Heinrich Schlier (Der Brief an die Galater [KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949, 4th Schlier edition, 1965] 87): "Ίουδαϊζειν meint hier nicht nur mit der jüdischen Lebensweise sympathisieren, sondern an ihr teilnehmen, wobei Paulus im Sinn seiner damaligen Rede natürlich an den konkreten Fall der Unterwerfung unter die jüdischen Speisegebote dachte. Im Blick auf die jetzige Auseinandersetzung mit seinen galatischen Gegnern gehört zum ίουδαϊζειν vor allem die Beschneidung." Burton's explantation is to the point: "[The Jewish believers] were not dictating to the Gentile Christians what course they should pursue; it did not concern them which horn of the dilemma the Gentiles chose, whether they elected to observe the Jewish law, or to constitute a separate body from the Jewish believers; they were concerning themselves only with the conduct of Jewish Christians" (Galatians, 113). ". . . although what Paul says in 2.15-16 does not apply directly to the Gentile Galatians, but to Cephas and the other Jewish believers in Antioch, it is really not intended with Cephas and the others in mind. Hence, even though 2.15-21 may be addressed to Cephas and the others in Jerusalem, they are actually intended for the ears of Paul's Galatian audience" ("The Meaning of Christ in Paul," 157).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

17

only through his report of it with a view to its relevance for his Galatian readers. In a similar way Paul makes the meaning which Christ had for him in his initial encounter with Christ relevant for his readers through his report of that event in Gal 1:15-16, to which I already referred above in connection with his conversion: 15

οτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοΰ 16 άποκαλύψαι τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοί, ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν, εύθέως ού προσανεθέμην σαρκΐ και αϊματι. Here too we have a statement that is formulated to have meaning in the context of the issues in Galatia to which Paul was responding. Paul's narrative of Christ's revelation to him is not intended as a report of his conversion and of his call, but to underscore the divine origin of his commission to proclaim the gospel to the gentiles, and so his authority in the face of the Galatians' temptation to have themselves circumcised. This appeal to the divine origin of his call is already indicated in the prescript of the letter, Παΰλος άπόστολος ούκ άπ' άνθρώπων ούδέ δι' άνθρώπου άλλά διά Ίησοΰ Χρίστου και θεοΰ πατρός τοϋ έγείραντος αύτόν έκ νεκρών (Gal 1:1),

re-affirmed in the following: "γνωρίζω γάρ ύμΐν, άδελφοί, τό εύαγγέλιον τό εύαγγελισθέν ύπ' έμοΰ ο τ ι ούκ ε σ τ ί ν κατά άνθρωπον- 1 2 ούδέ γάρ έ γ ώ παρά ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ παρέλαβον αύτό οΰτε έδιδάχθην άλλά δι' άποκαλύψεως Ίησοΰ Χρίστου (Gal 1:11-12). We may leave aside here the question whether Paul had actually been accused in the sense in which he formulates what he negates. 18 The point of his

18

M o s t scholars a s s u m e that P a u l ' s authority as an apostle (or the gospel as he proclaimed it) had b e e n denied and that the p u r p o s e of his statements had been to defend his authority by insisting that he had his authority f r o m God. This a s s u m p t i o n is based on w h a t has b e c o m e k n o w n as "mirror r e a d i n g , " that is, r e a d i n g b a c k f r o m w h a t is perceived as P a u l ' s defense to w h a t it was he had been accused of. So, most explicitly, Longenecker: ". . . b y a process of ' m i r r o r reading,' we can say with some c o n f i d e n c e that P a u l ' s converts had u n d o u b t e d l y been given by the agitators at Galatia an a c c o u n t of his apostleship quite different f r o m w h a t he told t h e m or w h a t they had been led to believe b y his early evangelistic p r e a c h i n g — an a c c o u n t which claimed that, despite what he asserted, Paul had actually received his authority f r o m certain Christian leaders b e f o r e h i m " (Galatians, 4). Similarly, D u n n : " T h e fact that Paul puts the negative part of the definition first strongly suggests that he was rebutting and r e b u k i n g an alternative way of d e f i n i n g his apostolic status. Paul had evidently heard that there were those a m o n g the Galatian churches . . . w h o a f f i r m e d w h a t he here denies — that his apostleship was ' f r o m men and through m a n ' . W h a t they would be referring to, n o doubt, was the fact that Paul had been c o m m i s s i o n e d as a missionary by

18

Christ in the Letters of Paul

formulation is an affirmation of the gospel as he proclaimed it over against an opposed gospel to which the Galatians were subjecting themselves: 6

Θαυμάζω οτι οϋτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε άπό τοΰ καλέσαντος ύμάς έν χάριτι [Χρίστου] εις ετερον εύαγγέλιον, 7ö ούκ εστίν άλλο- εΐ μή τινές είσιν οί ταράσσοντες ύμας και θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τό εύαγγέλιον τοΰ Χρίστου. 8 άλλά και έάν ημείς ή άγγελος έξ ούρανοΰ εύαγγελίζηται [ύμΐν] παρ' ö εύηγγελισάμεθα ύμΐν, άνάθεμα έστω. 9 ώς προειρήκαμεν,

the church of Antioch (Acts xiii. 1 - 3 ) " (Galatians, 25). The view that what Paul had been accused of was that his apostleship depended on human beings is also the view of Pierre Bonnard: "Personne ne contestait ä Paul le droit de se nommer apötre. Mais ses adversaires en parlaient comme d'un apötre de second ordre, comme d'un tard venu tenant son autorite autant des hommes que de Jesus-Christ. . . . on peut imaginer qu'on le presentait soit comme un envoye d'une Eglise (Antioche, par ex., v. 2 Cor. 8. 23; Ph. 2. 25), soit comme un emissaire des apötres de Jerusalem" (L 'Epitre de saint Paul αιιχ Galates [CNT; NeuchatelParis: Delachaux & Niestle, 1953] 19). Similarly, Burton ( G a l a t i a n s , 2 ) ; Lietzmann (Galater, 3); Schlier (Galater, 25); Ridderbos (Galatians, 40). Some of these scholars understand the focus of the objection against Paul to have concerned specifically the gospel he p r o c l a i m e d , for e x a m p l e , L i e t z m a n n (op. cit., 6); S c h l i e r (op. cit., 2 5 ) ; B e t z (Galatians, 56). Lührmann is cautious. With regard to Gal 1:1 he writes, "Gegen welche Vorwürfe er [seine Unabhängigkeit unterstreicht] wußten natürlich seine Leser in Galatien sehr genau. Für uns, die wir nicht mehr in ihrer Lage sind, läßt sich von [Vers] 1 her noch nichts über die Art dieser Vorwürfe sagen" (Galater, 15-6), but then, on the basis of 1:11— 12 he concludes, "Als Vorwurf, auf den Paulus hier eingeht, ist dann zu erschließen, daß er für sein Evangelium keine Legitimation vorweisen könne wie seine Gegner, die Tradition und Lehre hinter sich hatten" (op. cit., 22-23). Schlatter understands the issue to have been a question of specifically the authority of Peter versus that of Paul (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser unci Philemon, 15-6). The essential unity of the interpretation among so many scholars about the purpose of paul's claim that he received his authority from God to proclaim the gospel is based on the assumption that the only way to understand what Paul meant in these passages was that he was defending himself against accusations that are reflected in what he wrote. George Lyons (Pauline Autobiography. Toward a New Understanding [SBLDS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985]) has argued convincingly, based on contemporary parallels, against this limited view. What is especially questionable about these interpretations is that an alternative purpose for Paul's statements is not considered. Furthermore, no attention is given to the place of these statements in the structure of Paul's reasoning. Within the structure of the letter as a whole, Paul's claim that he received his call to proclaim the gospel from God is recognizable as the establishment of the divine source of his authority and of the gospel he proclaimed as the foundation for his rejection of the suggestion that the Galatians should have themselves circumcised. Paul understood the Galatians' willingness to consider having themselves circumcised as submission to another gospel, as he wrote, Θαυμάζω ότι οϋτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε άπό τοΰ καλέσαντος ύμάς έν χάριτι [Χριστοΰ] είς έτερον εύαγγέλιον, ö ούκ έστιν άλλο- εί μή τινές είσιν οί ταράσσοντες ύμάς και θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τό εύαγγέλιον τοΰ Χρτστοΰ (Gal 1:6-7). Such an interpretation allows for a coherent understanding of the letter, including what had been at issue in the Antioch incident.

The Meaning for Paul Personally

19

και άρτι πάλιν λέγω, εϊ τις υμάς εύαγγελίζεται παρ' ö παρελάβετε, άνάθεμα έστω (Gal 1:6-9). 19

19

Scholars generally recognize that, at least here, Paul is not defending his apostic authority, but the gospel. So, explicitly, and well formulated, Longenecker: "It is the message of the gospel that is all important and not Paul's authority or anyone's status, however exalted. Of course, the authority and character of the preacher are important, as Paul has asserted of himself in 1:1 and will continue to assert throughout the autobiographical section of 1:112:14 . . . Their importance, however, is secondary to that of the gospel itself. . . . Paul saw the preacher's authority as derived from the gospel, and not vice versa. So he was not prepared to allow any change in the focus or content of that gospel on the basis of someone's credentials or by an appeal to some more imposing authority" (Galatians, 16-7). Furthermore: "[Paul] subordinates all authority and status — including his own and that of even an "angel from heaven" — to the one true gospel" (op. cit., 19). Similarly, Bonnard: ". . . Paul rappelle aux Galates, d'abord, que son autorite personnelle d'apötre repose tout entiere sur la verite de sa predication; l'apötre ne peut se contredire" (Galates, 25). Less incisive is the formulation of Ridderbos who understands the truth of the gospel and Paul's authority to be more integrated: ". . . this gives expression [on the one hand] to how deeply conscious the apostle was of the divine truth of the gospel he preached and of his apostolic authority; on the other, it gives expression to how entirely subjected as a person he wanted to be to this truth and to the commission assigned him" (Galatians, 50). An important issue concerning the passage for most interpreters is the question of "another" gospel, focussing especially on whether Paul does actually admit the existence of another gospel, that is, his apparent recognition of a έτερον εύαγγέλιον at the end of verse 6, but then immediatly denying such an alternative in the beginning of verse 7 with ö ούκ έστιν άλλο. It might be possible to find a solution if one takes έτερος and άλλος as having distinctive meanings, ετερος as enumerative, "another of the same kind" and άλλος as differentiative, "another of a different kind," as in Oepke's clarification, "Wo unterschieden wird, hat ετερος (= alter) enumerativen, άλλος (= alius) qualitativen Sinn. Ein zweiter Sperling gegenüber dem ersten wäre ετερος όρνις, ein Adler gegenüber einem Zaunkönig wäre άλλος όρνις (Galater, 17). The problem is, as Oepke, in agreement with other interpreters, notes, "Dieser Unterschied ist aber tatsächlich weithin verwischt" (loc. cit.). This problem extends beyond the question of distinctive meanings. Burton, after citing examples to show that the terms could be used as equivalents, interprets the distinctive meanings of the two terms in exactly the opposite way: ". . . in so far as there is a distinction between the two words ά λ λ ο ς is enumerative and ετερος d i f f e r e n t i a t i v e " ( G a l a t i a n s , 421). Longenecker follows Burton: ". . . here in context there seems little doubt that he means to suggest a qualitative difference, with ετερος signaling 'another of a different kind' and ά λ λ ο ς ' a n o t h e r of the same k i n d ' " (op. cit., 15). It is difficult to figure out h o w Longenecker can conclude: ". . . Paul moves to an analysis of the problem at Galatia and a definition of the gospel that excludes any possible alternative version" (op. cit. 19). Why would Paul write ο ούκ έστιν άλλο, in the sense of Burton and Longenecker, that there could not be another version of the gospel of the same kind, for example, the gospel as proclaimed to the Jews, which he evidently accepted also when he wrote in his report of the Jerusalem conference that the pillars recognised ότι πεπίστευμαι τό εύαγγέλιον της άκροβυστίας καθώς Πέτρος της περιτομής (2:7). More to the point is Bonnard who does not consider there to be a difference in meaning between Paul's usage of the terms: " . . . le neutre άλλο = autre est pleonastique et exprime ici la meme idee que έτερον = autre du verset precedent" (op.cit., 23-24). He sees Paul as correcting himself: "Paul se corrige, cet autre evangile n'existe pas, est impensable. . . . un tel autre (έτερον — άλλο) evangile n'existe pas. Par cctte expression l'apötre ne veut pas relever 1'impossibilite intellectuelle d'une autre predication evangelique que la sienne; il ne veut pas non plus nier la possibilite d'une autre predication apostolique ä cöte de la sienne

20

Christ in the Letters of Paul

He responds by insisting that he proclaims the gospel in obedience to God's call, as a slave of Christ: άρτι γαρ άνθρώπους πείθω ή τον θεόν; ή ζητώ άνθρώποις άρέσκειν; εί έτι άνθρώποις ήρεσκον, Χρίστου δοΰλος ούκ αν ήμην (Gal 1:10), and reinforces his defense with even greater clarity in the verses that follow, that is, Gal 1:11-12, quoted earlier. In the context of the challenge as he understands it, in Gal 1:15-16 Paul recalls the revelation of Christ to him at a time when he was still persecuting the church. It was the result of God's will even before he had been born. The purpose of that revelation, also relevant for the context of the letter as a whole, was that he was called to proclaim the gospel to the gentiles, of whom the Galatians were a part. It is a calling that had become relevant for what was at issue in Galatia, that is, the question whether it was necessary for the Galatians as gentiles to become circumcised, that is, proselytized as Jews, in order to participate in the salvation in Christ. Paul does not depend on a doctrine of Christ to defend his gospel but on the reality of Christ's appearance to him, similar to his insistence that his readers face up to the reality of Christ among them in Gal 3:1-2, which I will discuss in more detail below in connection with the meaning of Christ for the believer,

s'exprimant en d'autres termes et sur d'autres levres; le mot autre porte sur le fond ou le contenu de l'evangile: il ne peut exister, en substance, un autre evangile que celui de Paul puisqu'il en a ete directement charge par Jesus-Christ lui-meme" {op. cit., 23-24). That does not altogether solve the problem of Paul's formulation because he writes, literally, the Galatians were turning to another gospel, which is not another [gospel]. His intention is clear: The Galatians were turning to something which they also call a gospel, but there is no other gospel than the one he proclaimed to them. Betz has a different take on the matter. "There is also a strange disagreement here compared with Gal 2:7, where Paul distinguishes between 'the gospel of uncircumcision' (τό εύαγγέλιον της άκροβυστίας) and 'the gospel of circumcision' ([τό εύαγγέλιον] τής περιτομής). He seems to hesitate in calling the latter a 'gospel' and we must supplement what is left out. He also connects only the 'gospel of uncircumcision' with the notion of grace. But the whole context of the conference in Jerusalem presupposes that there were two gospels. What the conference agreed upon was that there is no material difference between the two gospels and that both are the work of God . . . Therefore, Paul would not have denied the quality of 'grace' to the 'gospel of circumcision' at the time of the Jerusalem conference. In the meantime, however, things have changed (since Antioch, 2: 11-14). N o w Paul and his o p p o n e n t s d e n y each other the salvific p o w e r of their g o s p e l " (Galatians, 49). Without getting too deeply involved in an issue which is of little real significance for this study, it is nevertheless worth noting that in Paul's formulation in Gal 1:7, ϊδόντες οτι πεπίστευμαι τό εύαγγέλιον της άκροβυστίας καθώς Πέτρος της περιτομής, there is no need to supplement, as Betz suggests, what would be a redundent second εύαγγέλιον. Furthermore, it is an unproven assumption that what Paul had to contend with in Galatia was the εύαγγέλιον της περιτομής for which Peter had been responsible, and that Paul denied "grace" to the "gospel of circumcision". In any case, Betz' interpretation too does nothing to resolve the difficulty with Paul's formulation.

The Meaning for Paul Personally

21

'ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οίς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; 2 τοϋτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών, έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; similar to the challenge he throws out to his Corinthian readers in 1 Cor 4:10, as we will also see below in the discussion of the meaning of Christ for the believer: ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ- ήμεΐς άσθενεΐς, ύμεϊς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι. Whereas the appearance of Christ to Paul functions in support of his apostolic claim in a highly complex form in Gal 1:1, 11-12 and 15-16, it is expressed in a straightforward way in 1 Cor 9:1, ούκ ειμί έλεύθερος; ούκ ειμί άπόστολος; ούχί Ίησοΰν τόν κύριον ήμών έόρακα; That Paul saw Christ functions here explicitly in support of his claim that he is an apostle. 20 He does not report his having seen the Lord Jesus, but recalls it in support of his apostleship. Taken by itself, it is a very narrow basis, but it shows what a fundamental meaning having seen Jesus — or Jesus having appeared to him — had for Paul: It meant affirmation of his call to the apostleship. In that regard Paul's report of the appearances of the resurrected Christ in 1 Cor 15 is an interesting case. It culminates with the appearance to him-

20

This is recognized by Schlatter, "Er ist Bote; denn 'er hat Jesus, unseren Herrn, gesehen'. Daran ist nicht zu zweifeln, daß er mit dem zweiten Satz den ersten begründet . . ." (Der Bote Jesu, 269) and Conzelmann, "V. l b begründet seinen Anspruch auf diese Stellung mit seiner Christusvision . . ." (Koriniher, 180). It is generally understood by interpreters that having seen Christ and having been called by him was fundamental to apostolic authority. So, for example, again Conzelmann, "[Seine Christusvision] ist ein schlüssiges Argument, sofern die Beauftragung durch den auferstandenen Herrn für den Apostelbegriff konstitutiv ist" (loc. cit.)\ Similarly Jean Hering: "Un premier signe indispensable de l'apostolat, c'est le privilege d'avoir vu le Christ ressuscite et d'avoir ete appele par lui." (La Premiere epitre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens [CNT; Neuchatel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestie, 1949] 70); also Barrett (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [BNTC; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1968] 200-1). Conzelmann qualifies his formulation: "[Das Argument ist dann] wieder nicht schlüssig, da offenbar nicht jede Vision diese Würde verleiht. Daher wird ein Argument ad hominem hinzugesetzt [ού τό έργον μου ύμεΐς έσιε έν κυρίω;], das doch keineswegs subjektiv ist, da das Verhältnis von Apostel und Gemeinde kein beliebiges ist: Die Gemeinde in Korinth ist sein Werk" (loc. cit.). Similarly, Barrett: "How could [those whom Christ commissioned] be distinguished? Apart from their own claim (made e.g. by Paul in Gal. i. 1, 16), by the results of their apostolic activity" (op. cit., 201). Philipp Bachmann sees it less as the fulfillment of another condition: "Dieser seiner apostolischen Stellung fehlt es aber auch nicht an einem apostolischen Werke (cf 4, 20), also nicht an der Gewährleistung durch eine greifbare Tatsache. Wie dieses Moment durch die Stellung von τό έργον am Anfang stark heraustritt, so hebt das am betonten Ende stehend έν κυρίω hervor, das jener Erfolg in dem Herrn begründet ist, daß also auch der Herr sich tatsächlich und auf die Dauer zu dem Apostel bekannt hat, den er einst b e r i e f ' (Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther [KNT; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Werner Scholl, 1910] 310).

22

Christ in the Letters of Paul

self: έσχατον δέ πάντων ώσπερεί τω έκτρώματι ώφθη καμοί (1 Cor 15:8). Having provided the relevant evidence for the resurrection of Christ with the list of appearances in verses 5-8, Paul could not refrain from deviating from his primary concern — the resurrection of the dead for which the resurrection of Christ is the foundation, all of which is gathered together in the single statement, εϊ δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; (ν. 12). The reference to Christ's appearance to him with which he concludes the list of those to whom Christ appeared leads him to deviate from his primary topic, the resurrection of the dead, to a discussion of his own call to the apostleship, and what it means in relationship to the others, to which verse 8 forms the transition 8

έσχατον δέ πάντων ώσπερεί τω έκτρώματι ώφθη κάμοί. 9έγώ γάρ είμι ό έλάχιστος τών άποστόλων δς ούκ είμι ικανός καλεΐσθαι άπόστολος, διότι έδιωξα την έκκλησίαν τοΰ θεού- 10χάριτι δέ θεοΰ είμι ö είμι, και ή χάρις αύτοΰ ή εις έμέ ού κενή έγενήθη, άλλά περισσότερον αύτών πάντων έκοπίασα, ούκ έγώ δέ άλλά ή χάρις τοΰ θεοΰ [ή] σύν έμοί (1 Cor 15:8— ΙΟ).21 For Paul, the meaning of Christ's appearance to him cannot be separated from his call to the apostleship. The point of his reasoning in 1 Corinthians 15 is Christ's resurrection as an argument in support of a general resurrection of the dead — to which he returns in verse 12 and in what follows, after the interlude concerning his apostleship —; his point in the chapter is not his call to the apostleship, but here in verses 8-10 his reference to the appearance of Christ to him, although called forth by different circumstances, immediately brings to his mind his call to the apostleship. In verse 11 he makes the transition to the main point of his reasoning, είτε ούν έγώ είτε έκεΐνοι, οϋτως κηρύσσομεν και οϋτως έπιστεύσατε. The mere appearance of Christ to him is not Paul's intended meaning. It was not that to begin with, but along with the appearances to the others it had meaning in the context of the problem of the resurrection of the dead, of which Christ was the firstfruits as he makes clear in verse 20. But here in verses 8-10 it serves briefly to bring to expression another meaning, that of

21

Wilhelm Bousset provides an interesting, positive interpretation of the appearance of Christ to Paul. It was a vision, which also applies to the other apostles. "Wir werden . . . also das Erlebnis des Paulus — und somit auch das der ersten Jünger — als eine innere geistige Erfahrung in der Form der Vision zu verstehen haben. Der Inhalt derselben war immer derselbe: Sie sahen mit dem Auge des Geistes den Herrn lebendig vor sich, sie hörten daneben vielleicht dieses oder jenes kurze Wort, sie kamen zu der Überzeugung: der Herr lebt . . . Aber deshalb darf man nicht von Einbildung, von Illusion reden" (Der erste Brief an die Korinther [Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917] 153)

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

23

his own call with particular emphasis on its relationship to the call of the other apostles. 22 There is a multivalence of meaning in Paul's reference to Christ's appearance to him and to the others: The original meaning as the foundation of his reasoning concerning the problem of the resurrection of the dead, and a second meaning which it brings to mind parenthetically, the appearance of Christ to him as his call. Of particular significance is a comparison of this expression of Paul's encounter with Christ with the way he expresses it later in Gal 1:15-17 where the relationship to the other apostles also comes to expression, but in a different way, that is, to set off his call from an involvement with the others. The most important difference between the two passages is that whereas the revelation of Christ to Paul in Gal 1:15-17 is expressed as the outcome of what God had prepared for him before he had even been born, Christ's appearance to him in 1 Cor 15:8-10 is presented initially with a deep sense of shame, ώσπερεί τω έκτρώματι ώφθη καμοί (ν. 8). References to the same incident in which Paul himself had been involved thus also appear in a different way multivalent, for which the fact that he refers to it as Christ's appearance to him (ώφθη καμοί) in 1 Cor 15:8 and as a

22

Paul mentions specifically that c o m p a r e d with the other apostles, C h r i s t ' s a p p e a r a n c e to h i m was as to an έ κ τ ρ ω μ α . Scholars generally agree that έ κ τ ρ ω μ α is not used in a temporal sense b u t as an expression of radical unworthiness. So, for example, B a c h m a n n : " έ κ τ ρ ω μ α selbst aber bezeichnet nicht den zwar zu früh geborenen, aber lebensfähigen, sondern den l e b e n s u n f ä h i g e n , durch einen Abortus aus d e m M u t t e r s c h o ß e hervorgegangenen E m b r y o (cf L X X Hiob 3, 16; Eccl 10, 3; Ps 58, 9: N u 12, 12), der eben d e s h a l b das Licht nicht zu sehen v e r m a g , sondern tot an das Licht k o m m t (Theodoret: 5 τ ω τ ω ν ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν ούκ έγκατείλεκται καταλόγω). D a m i t fallen alle die D e u t u n g e n , welche das Bild auf die Plötzlichkeit u n d U n v e r m i t t e l t h e i t der B e k e h r u n g des n i c h t l a n g s a m z u m G l a u b e n a u s r e i f e n d e n PI beziehen, von selbst w e g " (Erste Koriniher, 4 2 9 - 3 0 ) ; also Hering: " " Ε κ τ ρ ω μ α n'est pas une «naissance tardive», c o m m e le contexte pourrait le suggerer, mais le contraire. Aussi le point de comparaison ne reside-t-il pas dans l'epoque de la conversion de l'apötre, mais d a n s l'idee d'inferiorite et d'indignite" ( P r e m i e r e Corinthiens, 136). Also Schlatter (Der Bote Jesu, 4 0 0 ) and Barrett: "It suggested the characteristics of an u n f o r m e d , undeveloped, repulsive, and possibly lifeless f o e t u s " (First Corinthians, 344). The extremely negative connotation of the term leads scholars to a s s u m e that Paul m a y h a v e taken it over f r o m his opponents. For example, Hering: "De fait έ κ τ ρ ω μ α etait un terme injurieux. L'article τ ω devant έ κ τ ρ ώ μ α τ ι pourrait m e m e indiquer q u e d'autres l'avaient d e j ä designe p a r ce terme grassier et insultant; m a i s il pourrait aussi s'agir d'un s e m i t i s m e , vu q u e l'hebreu a f f e c tionne l'emploi de l'article dans les c o m p a r a i s o n s («enrouler le ciel c o m m e le livre» dit Esai'e 34. 4 d a n s le texte mass.). En tout cas l'apötre accepte, ou a d o p t e ce terme, parce qu'il avait persecute les Chretiens (Gal. 1. 13; Actes 9. 1 - 2 ) " (loc. cit.). To m a k e up for this negative aspect of his calling, Paul claims that he worked harder than all the others, which, rhetorically, m a y have been his p u r p o s e all along. B a c h m a n n : " D e n vermeintlichen N a c h w e i s seiner A p o s t e l w ü r d e hätte hier PI nicht an die Christuserscheinung, sondern an seine b e r u f l i c h e Tätigkeit und ihren Erfolg g e k n ü p f t ; denn eine Christusers c h e i n u n g war j a a u c h soeben den F ü n f h u n d e r t zugeschrieben worden, die nur Brüder und nicht Apostel h e i ß e n " (op. cit., 431).

24

Christ in the Letters of Paul

divine revelation (άποκαλύψαι τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοί) in Gal 1:16 is certainly not without meaning. That it is referred to as a revelation in Galatians clearly has to do with the context of Paul's denial that he received his gospel from human beings; he received it from God through the revelation of Christ. In 1 Corinthians the emphasis is on the fact that Christ who had died was resurrected and appeared to a series of persons, finally to Paul himself. To these two expressions of the meaning of Paul's encounter with Christ we may add 1 Cor 9:1, ούκ ειμί έλεύθερος; ούκ είμι άπόστολος; ούχί'Ιησοΰν τόν κύριον ήμών έώρακα; ού τό έργον μου ύμεΐς έστε έν κυρίφ; and Phil 3:7-11, 7

ατινα ην μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα ήγημαι διά τόν Χριστόν ζημίαν. 8 άλλά μενοΰνγε και ήγοΰμαι πάντα ζημίαν είναι διά τό ύπερέχον της γνώσεως Χρίστου Ίησοΰ τοΰ κυρίου μου, δι δν τα πάντα έζημιώθην, και ήγοΰμαι σκύβαλα, ϊνα Χριστόν κερδήσω 9 καϊ εύρεθώ έν αύτω, μή έχων έμήν δικαιοσύνην την έκ νόμου άλλά την διά πίστεως Χρίστου, τήν έκ θεοΰ δικαιοσύνην έπι τή πίστει, 10τοϋ γνώναι αύτόν και τήν δύναμιν της άναστάσεως αύτοΰ και [τήν] κοινωνίαν [των] παθημάτων αύτοΰ, συμμορφιζόμένος τφ θανάτω αύτοΰ, Π ε ϊ πως καταντήσω είς τήν έξανάστασιν τήν έκ νεκρών, to which I already referred above, each of which again has another meaning: In 1 Cor 9:1 the appearance of Christ to Paul serves as straightforward proof in support of his apostleship and in Phil 3:7-11 his relationship to Christ functions as the foundation for his answer to the challenge concerning his unJewish behavior. What that shows is that Christ, in these four cases specifically Paul's encounter with him, means something different in different situations. In simplified language: In different situations the same incident in Paul's life, his encounter with Christ, had something different to say to him, which he then also brought to expression in different ways. Paul gives expression to a meaning of Christ for him similar to Phil 3:711 in Gal 2:19-20, 19

έγώ γάρ διά νόμου νόμφ άπέθανον, ϊνα θεώ ζήσω. Χριστώ συνεσταύρωμαι· 20ζώ δέ ούκέτι έγώ, ζή δέ έν έμοϊ Χριστός- ο δέ νΰν ζώ έν σαρκί, έν πίστει ζώ τή τοΰ υίοΰ τοΰ θεοΰ τοΰ άγαπήσαντός με και παραδόντος έαυτόν ύπέρ έμοΰ. It comes at the conclusion of his apology for the validity of his gospel to the gentiles (Gal 1:10-2:16), in which 2:11-16 forms a transition to the issue at hand in Galatia, Judai'zing of gentiles through circumcision.23 Unlike 23

Scholars generally recognize Gal 2:19-20 as an answer to the question raised in verse 17, εί δέ ζητοϋντες δικαιωθήναι έν Χριστφ εϋρέθημεν καί αύτοϊ αμαρτωλοί, αρα Χριστός άμαρτίας διάκονος; So Wilhelm Bousset (Der Brief an die Galater [Die Schriften des

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

25

in Philippians, it is not a defense of his un-Jewish behavior, but a challenge to those who want to make Jewish identity a foundation for the existence of believers. A brief excursus on issues in the interpretation of Gal 2:19-20 and its textual context may be appropriate here.

Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die G e g e n w a r t erklärt; Göttingen: V a n d e h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1917] 49): " D a s ' d e n n ' , mit d e m V. 19 beginnt, b e g r ü n d e t , inwiefern f ü r Paulus C h r i s t u s ' n i m m e r m e h r ' ein B e f ö r d e r e r der S ü n d e ist." Also L i e t z m a n n , w h o c o n s i d e r s verse 18 a parenthesis: " γ ά ρ k n ü p f t wie v. 19 ü b e r h a u p t an das μή γ έ ν ο ι τ ο v. 17 an, so daß v. 18 als P a r e n t h e s e e r s c h e i n t " ( G a l a t e r , 17). F u r t h e r m o r e , Schlier ( G a l a t e r , 98), Ridderbos (Galatians, 103), and Betz, w h o , contrary to L i e t z m a n n , considers verse 1 9 - 2 0 an answer "the question rased in w 1 7 - 1 8 " (Galatians, 121).

26

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Excursus: Issues in the Interpretation of Gal 2:19-20 The context of Gal 2:19-20 is the report of Paul's sharp criticism of Peter and the others because, according to him, they expected gentile believers to be Juda'ized through circumcision. The context of his reasoning here, thus, is the justification of the gentiles by faith, his fundamental concern in the letter as a whole. In verse 14 he accused Peter of living like a gentile and not a Jew.24 How do they, thus including himself and the others, want to Judai'ze the gentiles, when they, themselves Jews, and not from the gentiles, sinners (v. 15) know that they are not justified by virtue of being Jews, but through the faith of Christ, και ήμεΐς εις Χριστόν Ίσοΰν έπιστεύσαμεν, ϊνα δικαιωθώμεν έκ πίστεως Χρίστου και ούκ έξ έργων νόμου, οτι έξ έργων νόμου ού δικαιωθήσεται πάσα σάρξ (v. 16c—f). Effectively, thus, even they as Jews are justified not as Jews, but as gentiles, a justification on which

24

Interpreters differ on what Paul means by έθνικώς ζβς (v. 14c). There is agreement that it means to adopt gentile customs. The question is how far that goes. Most interpreters understand it to refer to table fellowship with gentiles. So, for example, Lightfoot: "έθνικώς ζης] i.e. mix freely with the Gentiles and thus of necessity disregard the Jewish law of meats" (Galatians, 114). More emphatically, Dunn: "It is important to recognize here that these are relative terms: 'to live like a Gentile' does not necessarily mean that they had wholly abandoned everything that would normally mark out a Jew ('Cephas' total emancipation f r o m J u d a i s m ' — Betz 112); the contrast is primarily with 'live like a J e w ' , and is d e t e r m i n e d b y w h a t ' l i v e like a J e w ' w a s u n d e r s t o o d to m e a n in t h a t c o n t e x t " ('Galatians, 127-28). He justifies this as an accusation of Peter by Paul by claiming that Paul is echoing an accusation by the brothers from James: "Here, then, we should probably recognize that Paul was using not his own language (by that time Peter had ceased 'living like a Gentile'), but the language used against Peter earlier by the 'individuals from James'. That is to say, Paul was probably echoing the accusation made by those from James against the practice of 'eating with the Gentiles'; for the James group, what Peter was doing when they arrived was 'living like a gentile and not like a Jew" (op. cit., 128). That is an odd reasoning; that Paul should have accused Peter exactly of that to which he (Paul) was opposed. More convincing is the view that Peter's gentile behavior went beyond his table fellowship with gentile believers. So, for example, Schlier: "Das έθνικώς και ούκ Ίουδαϊκώς ζην bezieht sich natürlich auf die Tischgemeinschaft mit den Heidenchristen. Das Präsens bei ζην steht nicht deshalb, weil damit ausgedrückt werden soll, daß Petrus sein Verhalten nur in bezug auf die Tischgemeinschaft geändert hat, während er sonst bei dem έθνικώς ζην bliebe. . . . Es ist vielmehr auf das dauernde Verhalten des Petrus gesehen, dem die jetzige Tat überraschend gegenübersteht" (Galater, 86). Well-founded by Betz: "[Peter] lives like a Gentile (έθνικώς), that is, no longer in observation of Jewish customs and law (ούκ Ίουδαϊκώς). The present tense of ζης ('you are living') implies much more than an act of table fellowship with Christian Gentiles. It suggests that the table fellowship was only the external symbol of C e p h a s ' total emancipation from J u d a i s m " (Galatians, 112). So also Burton, with the further observation that "Peter had not really in principle abandoned the Gentile way of life, though temporarily from fear returning to the Jewish way of living" (Galatians, 112). Similarly Longenecker: ". . . as Paul saw it, Cephas had not abandoned a nonlegal style on any permanent basis, but only temporarily as a matter of expediency (Galatians, 78).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

27

Peter — and by implication also the others — is dependent since he, even though a Jew, lives like a gentile, 'Ιουδαίος ύπαρχων έθνικώς και ούχϊ Ίουδαϊκώς ζης (v. 14c). Paul sees a problem arising from this: If we who seek justification through Christ are found to be sinners, does Christ then not become a servant of sin? εί δέ ζητοΰντες δικαιωθήναι έν Χριστώ ε ύ ρ έ θ η μ ε ν και αύτοϊ αμαρτωλοί, αρα Χριστός αμαρτίας διάκονος; μή γένοιτο (ν. 17). Paul replies to this objection by observing that it would be valid only from the point of view of the Law, that is, if the Law which had been broken down through Christ is reaffirmed, as Peter and the others in effect want to do, only then are "we" confirmed as sinners, that is, transgressors of the reaffirmed Law, as he states in the next verse, εί γαρ α κατέλυσα ταΰτα πάλιν οικοδομώ, παραβάτην έμαυτόν συνιστάνω (ν. 18). It is important to note that Paul has moved here from άμαρτωλοί in the sense of gentile sinners in verse 15 to the sense of transgressors of the Law in verse 18. In verse 17, εύρέθημεν και αύτοί άμαρτωλοί, the term is ambiguous, but verse 18 makes Paul's intended meaning clear, παραβάτην έμαυτόν συνιστάνω. 25 According to Paul's reasoning in verse 18, gentile sinners cannot be transgressors of the Law because they are not under the Law, but does a Jew 25

P a u l ' s reasoning appears straighforward, but it is not perceived like that by interpreters. O e p k e r e m a r k s : " D i e s e V e r s e sind bei den A u s l e g e r n a u ß e r o r d e n t l i c h u m s t r i t t e n . Es e r s c h e i n t z u n ä c h s t b e i n a h e a u s s i c h t s l o s , den Sinn d e r h a s t i g h e r v o r g e s t o ß e n e n W o r t e genau zu ermitteln" (Galater, 46). The difficulties with the interpretation of the passage is not caused by what Paul wrote, but b y the expectations of the interpreters w h o obviously find it difficult to take what he wrote at face value. The following interpretations are proposed: B e i n g ά μ α ρ τ ω λ ο ί in verse 17 is taken in an ethical sense. So again O e p k e : " M a n darf d e m Einwand nicht d a d u r c h vorzeitig die Spitze abbrechen, d a ß man ά μ α ρ τ ω λ ο ί ausschließlich im rituellen, nicht i m tieferen sittlich-religiösen Sinne faßt. . . . Die enge B e z i e h u n g zwischen ά μ α ρ τ ο ί λ ο ί u n d α μ α ρ τ ί α ς m u ß e r h a l t e n b l e i b e n , u n d dies letztere ist sicher i m sittlichen Vollsinn zu verstehen. Die Frage, die gestellt werden soll, ist wirklich diese, ob die christl Rechtfertigungslehre den Ernst des geistig-sittlichen Gottesverhältnisses kürzt " (op. cit., 47). The u n d e r s t a n d i n g is that justification by faith entails an ethical danger. So, explicitly, Ridderbos: " T h e objection has reference to the s e e m i n g ethical d a n g e r of the doctrine. Does it not m a k e for godless and normless living?" (Galatians, 101). L o n g e n e c k er considers the accusation to be relevant for moral liberinism a m o n g P a u l ' s Galatian readers: He understands the accusation as: "If you do not live a c c o r d i n g to the M o s a i c law, then you have n o way to check licentious living" (Galatians, 89). ". . . it is not too difficult to s u p p o s e that in saying ' w e are f o u n d to be sinners' Paul is r e s p o n d i n g to a charge of his o p p o n e n t s and granting the truth of their underlying observation: that Christians, though c l a i m i n g a h i g h e r standard for living, yet sin. For while forensic righteousness and ethical righteousness are intrinsically part and parcel of one another, the latter, sadly, is n o t always worked out in life as it should be. The premise of the sentence, therefore, is true in b o t h its parts — the first in what it proclaims; the second in what it a c k n o w l e d g e s " (op. cit.. 90). However, the accusation that Christ p r o m o t e s sin is not true: " T h e conclusion that "Christ is a minister of s i n " and so actually "promotes s i n " or "furthers s i n ' s interests," however, is assuredly not true." (loc. cit.).

28

Christ in the Letters of Paul

who becomes a transgressor of the Law through table-fellowship with gentiles not stand condemned? Has Christ then not become a servant of sin because it is through him that Jews become transgressors of the Law? Paul's answer is simple: Only if Jews re-affirm the Law they had abandoned for the sake of Christ. Christ would be a servant of sin only within the framework of a reaffirmed Law. In this new context, what had been a discussion about the justification of the gentiles becomes existential for Paul: 19

έγώ γάρ δια ν ό μ ο υ ν ό μ ω ά π έ θ α ν ο ν , ϊ ν α θεφ ζήσω. Χριστώ συνεσταύρωμαι- 20ζώ δέ ούκέτι έγώ, ζη δέ έν έμοί Χριστός· ö δέ νΰν ζω έν σαρκί, έν πίστει ζώ τη τοΰ υίοΰ τοΰ θεοΰ του άγαπήσαντός με και παραδόντος έαυτόν ύπέρ έμοΰ (νν. 19-20). Paul is clearly not interpreting a dogma here — also not recalling a dogma — but allowing the reality of Christ's death to become the final word for him. He allows the reality of Christ's death in his own life to interpret the meaning of the justification by faith of the gentiles, which in this case includes Jews as well. It is, so to speak, an existential, "existentielle," not an existentialist, "existentiale," interpretation. After that he returns to the issue at hand, ούκ άθετώ την χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ- εί γάρ διά νόμου δικαιοσύνη, άρα Χριστός δωρεάν άπέθανεν (ν. 21). Phil 3:7-11 and Gal 2:19-20 reveal parallel structures. Both concern Paul's break with the Law, and in different ways both ground the break in Christ. In the Philippians passage Paul's break with the Law was qualified as having been for the sake of what he found in Christ, ατινα ην μοι κέρδη, ταϋτα ήγημαι διά τον Χριστόν ζημίαν (3:7): In Galatians the break is absolute; he died to the Law in order to live for God, διά νόμου νόμφ άπέθανον, ϊνα θεφ ζήσω (2:19ab).26 In both cases his relationship to Christ is crucial, 26

Interpreters tend to focus more on the paradigmatic (Betz' term) significance of Paul's statement for all believers than on its significance for himself, personally. So, carefully formulated, Oepke: "Wie das betont vorangestellte έγώ zeigt, tritt nun an die Stelle figürlicher Ichrede das persönliche Bekenntnis des Pls, dessen Inhalt freilich für den Standpunkt der Glaubensgerechtigkeit zugleich typische Bedeutung h a t " (Galater, 48). Betz is more emphatic: "The Τ (έγώ) to which Paul refers is not so much the personal Ί ' but the paradigmatic Ί , ' which had occurred already in ν IB" (Galatians, 122). Longenecker sees a difference between the first person singular in verses 18 and 19: "The use of the first person singular, which in ν 18 was unemphatic because Paul was applying to himself a charge that was really directed against others, is here emphatic by the placement of the pronoun έγώ ( Ί ' ) as the first word of the sentence" (Galatians, 91), but nevertheless takes the term in a general sense: "Its use is gnomic, referring to all who by an act of personal commitment ('faith') have based their hopes on Christ . . ." (loc. cit.). Dunn emphasizes that the statement applies to Paul himself: "Whether the Ί ' is generalized or not (true of all believers), the sentence is certainly a personal statement of Paul h i m s e l f ' Galatians, 143). It is safe to assume that Paul did not make the statement purely with himself in mind, but it was nevertheless autobiographical. As Na ("The Meaning of Christ in Paul") has argued,

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

29

but Christ means differently for him in each case, in part due to a different challenge he faced in each case. In Galatians, his relationship to the Law had become radicalized, possibly due to the situation he now faced in connection with the demand for circumcision. The difference between the qualified break with the Law in Philippians compared with the radical break in Galatians could also have been due to a development in Paul's thought, but the more radical break is clearly demanded by the situation in Galatia: In the face of what Paul perceived as a suggestion that the gentile Galatians should have themselves circumcised — which he interprets as subjection to the Law — an unqualified break with the Law had become necessary. In neither case was Paul's purpose to present a teaching about Christ. In each case Christ functions as fundamental to his reasoning: In Philippians as the reason for his break with the Law, ατινα ήν μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα ήγημαι διά τόν Χριστόν ζημίαν (3:7), and in Galatians participation in Christ's death on the cross is presented as the event through which the break occurred, έγώ γάρ διά νόμου νόμω άπέθανον, ϊνα θεω ζήσω. Χριστφ συνεσταύρωμαι (Gal 2:19). 27 In the Galatians passage too, Paul does not interpret what it means to have been crucified with Christ 28 but what it means for him to have complete-

27

28

all of P a u l ' s autobiographical statements were m a d e with their relevance for his Galatian readers in mind. M o s t interpreters understand being co-crucified with Christ as a clarification of d y i n g to the L a w , in that w a y p r o v i d i n g d y i n g to the L a w w i t h a f o u n d a t i o n in Christ. So D u n n (•Galatians, 144), "Paul was anxious to m a k e it clear that his a b o u t - f a c e regarding the law was n o mere idiosyncratic decision on his part; on the contrary it was the inevitable working out of C h r i s t ' s death . . ." Also Bousset (Galater, 49), " E r f ü g t aber noch die etwas rätselhafte A n d e u t u n g hinzu, d a ß j e n e s Sterben für das Gesetz ' d u r c h das G e s e t z ' selbst gewirkt sei. Die Erklärung gibt das Folgende: 'Ich bin mit Christus g e k r e u z i g t . ' " Furthermore, Oepke, "Die zweite Vershälfte deutet auf geschichtliche Z u s a m m e n h ä n g e . Der Kreuzestod Christi w a r Vollzug des G e s e t z e s f l u c h e s " (Galater, 48), Schlier: " D e r Sachverh a l t w i r d d e u t l i c h e r , w e n n wir z u n ä c h s t b e a c h t e n , d a ß P a u l u s d a s δ ι ά ν ό μ ο υ ν ό μ ω ά π έ θ α ν ο ν durch eine zweite Formulierung ergänzt, die das Fortwirken des V o r g a n g e s mit Χ ρ ι σ τ ώ σ υ ν ε σ τ α ύ ρ ω μ α ι b e s c h r e i b t " (Galater, 99), and Betz: " T h e aorist ά π έ θ α ν ο ν ( Ί have d i e d ' ) in a metaphorical way points to s o m e kind of death experience, which is clarified by the following thesis: Ί have been crucified together with C h r i s t ' " ( G a l a t i a n s , 122). Similarly, Herrmann W o l f g a n g Beyer (Der Brief an die Galater [ N T D ; Göttingen: V a n d e n hoeck & Ruprecht, 1963] 21), but formulated in a way which does not take C h r i s t ' s death clearly as a clarification of d y i n g to the Law: " D u r c h den Kreuzestod Christi, den die G e s e t z e s m a c h t h e r a u f g e f ü h r t hat (daher ' d u r c h das G e s e t z ' ) , hat das Gesetz die M a c h t über Christus, damit aber auch über alle, die ihm im Glauben angehören, verloren." Even less so Longenecker, whose formulation appears rather to take d y i n g to the Law as an interpretation of the m e a n i n g of C h r i s t ' s death: "Here, however, Paul speaks of C h r i s t ' s death and our spiritual identification with that death as releasing believers f r o m the jurisdiction of the Mosaic law . . ." ( G a l a t i a n s , 92). T h e question what Paul m e a n s by being co-crucified with Christ is raised b y m a n y interpreters. Earlier interpreters understood the relationship between the L a w and Christ in the sense of the Law as π α ι δ α γ ω γ ό ς εις Χριστόν. So, for example, Lightfoot: " T h e law m a y be said in t w o different ways to be π α ι δ α γ ω γ ό ς εις Χριστόν. . . : i. Its economical purpose.

30

Christ in the Letters of Paul

ly broken with the Law by presenting it as having been crucified with Christ. In that way he grounds his radical break with the Law in Christ. According to Gal 1:16b Paul understood the purpose of Christ's revelation to him to have been ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αυτόν έν τοις εθνεσιν. He brings to expression more than once the understanding that the purpose of his call was to proclaim the gospel, for example, exclusively, in 1 Cor 1:17a, ού γάρ άπέστειλέν με Χριστός βαπτίζειν άλλά εύαγγελίζεσθαι, and more generally in Rom 1:1, Παύλος δοΰλος Χρίστου Ίησοΰ, κλητός άπόστολος άφωρισμένος εις εύαγγέλιον θεοΰ.

'The law bore on its face the marks of its transitory character. Its prophecies foretold Christ. . . .' [and] ii Its moral effects. The law reveals sin; it also provokes sin; nay, in a certain sense, it may he said to create sin . . . At the same time it provides no remedy for the sinner" (Galatians, 118). So too Burton (Galatians, 133). Other interpetations include the understanding that dying to the Law was the result of its curse on Christ, Gal 3:13, for example, Oepke (Galater, 48); Liihrmann (Galater, 45), and that it is an allusion to Paul's persecution of the church. So Schlatter (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon, 61). The tendency more recently is to look to Romans 6 and 7, individually and in relation to each other, for an answer. So Lietzmann (Galater, 17), Burton (Galatians, 133), Oepke (Galater, 48), Beyer (Galater, 21), Schlier (Galater, 99-101), Betz (Galatians, 122, 123— 24), Dunn (Galatians, 143^15) and Longenecker (Galatians, 92). Schlier finds an answer to the question specifically in baptism: "Die Erläuterung [zu Χριστώ συνεσταύρωμαι] gibt Rom 6,6. Das Sterben, mit dem ich dem Gesetz entnommen bin, fand in der Taufe statt" (op. cit. 99). In a chain reasoning he appeals, in turn, to Rom 7:4 to interpret how it is that baptism functions in this way: "Die Frage, wie sie jetzt zu stellen ist, zielt auf die Beteiligung des Gesetzes bei dem Sterben, das in der Taufe bereitet ist. So rätselhaft die Antwort erscheint, so kann doch auch hier eine parallele Aussage des Apostels Aufschluß geben. Dem έγώ γάρ διά νόμου νόμφ άπέθανον ϊνα θεώ ζήσω entspricht Rom 7,4: και ύμεΐς έθανατώθητε τω νόμφ διά τοϋ σώματος τοΰ Χρίστου εις τό γενέσθαι ύμάς έτέρω . . . " (loc. cit.). Lietzmann (loc. cit.) and Beyer (loc. cit.) too had already expressed the view that being crucified to Christ should be understood in the sense of baptism. Other scholars reject the solution of, specifically, baptism. So in an extensive argument, Betz — who does accept that a "more detailed interpretation is found in Rom 6 : 1 - 1 0 " (op. cit., 123) — points out that "Paul mentions baptism only once, in Gal 3:27, where it may be part of a pre-Pauline baptismal formula." But then: "Strangely, in 3:27, Paul does not mention the dying together with Christ, while in 5:24; 6:14, when he speaks of the death together with Christ he does not mention baptism. In none of the passages does he mention Christ's resurrection, or any of the other concepts of Romans 6. This difference cannot be accidental" (loc. cit.). He concludes: "Galatians seems to express a similar restraint with regard to baptism as we find in 1 Cor 1:13-17" (loc. cit.). Similarly Dunn points out that the tense of the verb συνεσταύρωμαι is not in the aorist, but perfect: ". . . (I have been nailed to the cross with Christ, and am still hanging there with him); so also in Gal. iii.l, vi.14 and Rom. vi.5" (loc. cit., 144), but in a footnote argues that the perfect tense excludes baptism: ". . . the tense makes an allusion to baptism highly improbable — still immersed!" (loc. cit.). It is almost as difficult to imagine how the believer continues to hang with Christ on the cross, especially since Christ himself no longer hangs there.

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

31

Assessment The texts we discussed above reveal that Paul appealed to Christ as his fundamental defense when he found himself challenged about his call or his proclamation of the gospel to the gentiles; his appeal was not to a doctrine or teaching about Christ, but to the concrete reality of Christ as he experienced him, to which he expected his readers to respond as they too experienced Christ. Christ was a living reality for Paul. He did not rely on a doctrine, on teachings about Christ, but on Christ as he experienced him, beginning with Christ's original revelation to him (1 Cor 15:8; Gal 1:15-16) — which brought about a transformation of his understanding of himself. The meaning of Christ which comes to expression in these texts is as a dynamic, living power who determined Paul's entire existence. 29 One can sense something of what that meant when one takes note of his continually renewed expressions of what Christ meant to him in response to continually changing situations. A "christology" of Paul, thus, would have to present his understanding of Christ, not in terms of a rounded off set of doctrines, but as a dynamic reality; as a living being, not as a configuration of ideas about Christ. Paul wrote considerably more about his call to proclaim the gospel, but before we come to that we need to note that his call involved more than a mere appearance/revelation of Christ to him. Included in Christ's appearance/revelation to Paul was the complex series of events: Christ's death, resurrection and parousia.

29

O n l y twice in his letters does he deny h a v i n g had a revelation about s o m e t h i n g specific f r o m Christ: In 1 C o r 7:12a, τοις δέ λοιποΐς λέγω έγώ, ούχ ό κύριος, and again in 7:25a, περί δέ των π α ρ θ έ ν ω ν έπιταγήν κυρίου ο ύ κ έχω, m a k i n g it clear that in these cases he spoke for himself; in the second case with the qualification that through C h r i s t ' s mercy what he wrote was trustworthy, γ ν ώ μ η ν δέ δίδίομι ώ ς ή λ ε η μ έ ν ο ς ύ π ό κ υ ρ ί ο υ π ι σ τ ό ς είναι (v. 26b).

32

Christ in the Letters of Paul

2. The meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia In 1 Cor 2:2 Paul writes concerning his proclamation, ού γάρ έκρινά τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον. It is a statement in which he brings a central feature of his proclamation into such sharp focus that, taken at face value, it cannot be true. On the one hand, it is flatly contradicted in the same letter by 15:14—15b, 14εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή καί ή πίστις ύμών· 15εύρισκόμεθα δέ και ψευδομάρτυρες τοΰ θεοΰ, οτι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά του θεοΰ οτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, in which he affirms the resurrection of Christ as an essential feature of his proclamation. So central is Christ's resurrection to the proclamation that if he had not been raised, the proclamation would be empty, as would be faith. On the other hand, in addition, the Christ whom Paul proclaimed was the Christ who appeared to him, that is, the Christ who had not only been crucified but also resurrected,30 To this one can add that it was also the Christ whom Paul expected to return as culmination of the act of redemption which began with his death and resurrection. Thus, when Paul wrote that he decided to know nothing among his readers εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον, it would be a mistake not to recognize that included in that sharp focus on Christ's cracifix-

30

Generally, scholars have not seen this as a problem. Where it might come into consideration, it is taken in stride. So, for example, A. R. Robertson and A. Plummer: "The Apostle regards the Person and Work of Jesus the Messiah as comprising in essence the whole Gospel, and the Crucifixion, which with him involves the Resurrection, as the turning point of any preaching of his work" (First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians [ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911] 31), and F. W. Grosheide: "Hij noemt het kruis, wijl dat den meesten aanstoot verwekte" (Paulus' eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe [Korte Verklaring; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1933] 29). Conzelmann draws attention to similar statements in Paul: "V. 2 bringt die positive Inhaltsangabe und zeigt, daß die entsprechenden Aussagen 1, 17. 23 erschöpfend gemeint waren" (Korinther, 70). Bachmann draws extensive attention to the issue: "Die Geschichte der Auslegung zeigt, daß dieselbe doch nicht ganz um das Mißverständnis herumgekommen ist, als ob mit jener durch καϊ οΰτος eingeführten Näherbestimmung eine Beschränkung des Stoffes der Predigt solle angedeutet werden. Das ist objektiv und subjektiv unmöglich. Objektiv denn das Kreuz Christi wird für PI ganz bedeutungslos ohne den Zusammenhang mit der Auferstehung. Subjektiv; denn die Predigt des gekreuzigten Heilands konnte am allerwenigsten früheren Heiden gegenüber (12, 2) ohne monotheistische Grundlegung geschehen. . . . PI setzte sich also nicht bloß mit dem Gedächtnis der Korinther, sondern auch mit seinen eigenen Rückverweisungen in Widerspruch, wenn er mit jener Bemerkung den Umfang seines Stoffes beschreiben wollte. Wenn aber nicht dies, dann muß er die Qualität desselben im Auge haben. Sie ist ja schon zur Genüge dadurch bestimmt, daß Jesus Christus ihr Inhalt ist; sie wird aber durch den Zusatz vollends in scharfes Licht gestellt" (Erste Korinther, 111-12). To the last Statement Conzelmann reacts critically: "Bachmann: V. 2 könne nicht den Umfang der Predigt bestimmen, sondern nur die Qualität. Das ist eine unpaulinische Alternative. Gewiß sind vergegebene Inhalte vorhanden, die anscheinend zur Lehre vom Kreuz hinzukommen: die Eschatologie usw. Aber für alle ist das Kreuz das Kriterium. Nur dieses kann 'verkündigt' werden" (loc. cit., fn. 14).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

33

ion was his resurrection and expected parousia as well. In Paul's understanding none of these three components had meaning without the other two. With the series of events, crucifixion, resurrection, and parousia, thus, we seem to have a central christological complex on which Paul's thought is based. Such a christological complex is however an abstraction with which Paul does not operate. He does not necessarily have in mind the entire series of events at any specific moment. In that regard 1 Cor 2:2 with its exclusive focus on Christ crucified is revealing. As with Christ's appearance/revelation to him, Paul allows the meaning of the events of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and parousia to emerge as they become relevant in various situations. Nothing reveals more clearly than 1 Cor 2:2 and 15:14-15 taken together the degree to which Paul's understanding of Christ is functional in the sense that he thinks of Christ not in terms of an abstract idea, but as Christ becomes relevant to his reasoning. That does not mean that the only meaning Christ had for Paul was functional, but it does mean that one no longer has to look for some central idea as the key to Christ's meaning in his thought. A functional approach may be indicated by Paul himself with the introduction of his statement concerning Christ crucified in 2:2, ού γάρ έκρινα τι είδέναι έν ύμϊν εί μή . . , in which he makes clear that he made a specific decision here to focus on Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον. At the level of the expressions 1 Cor 15:14-15 contradicts 1 Cor 2:2, but if one understands what Paul wrote functionally, that is, in terms of the point he was trying to make, and not in terms of a general truth about his proclamation, there is no need to consider 15:14-15 a contradiction of 2:2. What Paul means is that at that point of his reasoning with his readers he wants to focus exclusively on Christ, and specifically on his crucifixion, because that is what is relevant to the argument he wants to advance. The issue, one should point out, is not Christ as such — the resurrection also concerns Christ — but the qualifying focus, και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον. In 1 Cor 3:11 he has a formulation which reveals how he probably meant the statement, θεμέλιον γάρ άλλον οϋδεϊς δύναται θεΐναι παρά τόν κείμενον, ος έστιν Ίησοΰς Χριστός. Christ is the foundation of his entire proclamation, and wherever necessary he focuses on that aspect which he recognizes as relevant for what he wants to argue. The focus on Christ's resurrection is not exclusive in 1 Cor 15:14—15b, but at that point one could also get the impression that it is the center of Paul's thought, and indeed at that moment it is, until he expands it in verse 20 with the idea of Christ as the firstfruits of a general resurrection, νυνϊ δέ Χριστός έγήγερται έκ νεκρών άπαρχή των κεκοιμημένων, with further details in verses 21-28, in a way in which Christ's ultimate victory functions as an interpretation of the meaning of his resurrection, and of his death as well.

34

Christ in the Letters of Paul

That does not exhaust the meaning of Christ's resurrection and expected parousia. Indeed, its full meaning has not yet been expressed at all, except that it was touched upon in the second part of verse 14, [εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται], κενόν τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών, and hinted at in the second part of verse 20, Χριστός [έγήγερται έκ νεκρών] απαρχή των κεκοιμημένων. Paul rejected the denial of the resurrection, not as a dogma, but because of what such a denial meant for the proclamation, Ι6 εί γάρ νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται· 17εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών (verse 16-17). With that something has been said about the meaning in general of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia in Paul's thought, that is, as it relates to all believers. Fundamental to that meaning, however, is what those events meant to Paul personally. I will discuss the texts that express the meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia for all believers below under "The meaning of Christ for the believer." My purpose here is to focus initially on what that series of events meant specifically for Paul. We already encountered something of that meaning in Phil 3:10-11, 10 . . . τοΰ γνώναι [Χριςτόν] και τήν δύναμιν τής άναστάσεως αύτοΰ και [τήν] κοινωνίαν [τών] παθημάτων αύτοΰ, συμμορφιζόμενος τω θανάτφ αύτοΰ, Πε'ί πως καταντήσω εις τήν έξανάστασιν τήν έκ νεκρών. That Paul gave up as worthless all the virtues he had accumulated as a Jew had a more specific meaning than the mere surrender of the value of a Jewish existence. It meant knowing the power of Christ's resurrection and participation in his suffering, becoming cophysical with his death in the hope of encountering through him the resurrection from death. The next verses reveal that this had become the controlling power of his entire life, 12

ούχ ότι ήδη έλαβον ή ήδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δέ εί και καταλάβω, έφ' ω και κατελήμφθην ύπό Χριστού [Ίησοΰ], 13άδελφοί, έγώ έμαυτόν ού λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι· έν δέ, τά μέν οπίσω έπιλανθανόμενος τοις δέ έμπροσθεν έπεκτεινόμένος, 14κατά σκοπόν διώκω εις τό βραβεΐον τής άνω κλήσεως τοΰ θεοΰ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (Phil 3:12—14).31 31

So, for example, Barth. He points out what he, like many other interpreters, consider the main point of the passage: "Es ist sinnreicher, das Objekt έλαβον («ergriffen habe») nicht zu ergänzen, weder mit «es» noch mit «Christus», noch gar mit «Gerechtigkeit». Das tertium comparationis ist der Wettläufer, wie er mit ausgestreckten, leeren Händen dahinrast. . . . Als erhobenen Hauptes dem Horizont Zuschreitender — nein, heisst es jetzt viel stärker: als Dahinjagender will Paulus verstanden sein — aber, und das ist die Pointe an unserer Stelle: nur als der, gar nicht als schon ergriffen Habender, ganz nur als nach dem Ergreifen in n a m e n l o s e r S e h n s u c h t sie A u s s t r e c k e n d e " ( E r k l ä r u n g des Philipperbriefs, 107-8). Which raises the question for him: ". . . wenn das die christliche Situation ist, ist sie dann nicht von erschreckender Leere? Kann man so existieren?" to which he responds in Paul's name: "έφ' ω, antwortet Paulus, daraufhin, dass ich vom Christus Jesus ergriffen bin. Daraufhin, interpretieren wir aus dem Vorausgehenden: dass er sich mir als

The Meaning for Paul Personally

35

He brings to expression a similar tension between still being subject to what he refers to as "this body of sin" and having found it in Christ in Rom 7:24-25, 24

ταλαίπωρος έγώ άνθρωπος- τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοϋ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; 25 χάρις δέ τφ θεώ δια Ίησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ κυρίου ήμών. άρα οΰν αύτός έγώ τω μέν νοϊ δουλεύω νόμφ θεοΰ τη δέ σαρκά νόμω άμαρτίας. The interpretation of these verses and what precedes them in 7-23 should count among the most controversial of anything Paul has written. The complexity of its interpretation requires a separate discussion in an excursus.

der Herr zu erkennen gegeben hat, dass seine Gerechtigkeit mich im Glauben nicht mehr loslässt, dass die Kraft seiner Auferstehung mich in die Gemeinschaft seiner Leiden versetzt hat" {op. cit., 108). See also Vincent {Philippians and Philemon, 108); Schlatter {Thessaloniker, Philipper, Timotheus und Titus, 92); Wilhelm Michaelis {Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper [THKNT; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1935] 59.)

36

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Excursus: The Interpretation of Rom 7:24-25 No agreement has been reached on the interpretation of this passage. Commentaries do not bear out the following comment by Stanley K. Stowers: "Since W. G. Kümmel's monograph, most scholarship on Romans 7 has agreed that the first person singular in 7:7-25 is the fictive Ί . ' The technique dramatically presents a general idea. In Romans 7, the fictive I is not autobiographical, and it does not include Paul."32 Complete justice cannot be done here to the interpretations to which this passage was subjected. All I can do is to present an image of their complexity as a means of investigating the meaning of Christ for Paul in verse 25a. For a more complete discussion, I refer to the extensive investigation by Otto Kuss, "Zur Geschichte der Auslegung von Rom 7,7-25." 33 a. Four categories in the interpretation of the passage Interpretations of the passage can be divided into four main categories, each with individual refinements: The passage is taken: (i) at face level as a reference to Paul's present situation; (ii) as a retrospective description of Paul as a Jew under the Law; (iii) as an understanding of a Jew under the Law in general, i.e., not specifically Paul, seen from the point of view of faith; or (iv) as a presentation of the situation of a person in general outside of faith, also seen from the point of view of faith. (i) Existential tension in Paul In a sensitive, more hermeneutical than existential, interpretation, Schlatter writes, "So spricht der, der sich geborgen weiß und der Sünde deshalb furchtlos ins Auge schaut, weil er ihren Überwinder kennt." 34 Similarly, Theodore Zahn,35 Karl Barth,36 Anders Nygren37 and, it would seem, C. Ε. Β. Cranfield, "The assertion that this cry could only come from an unconverted heart, and that the apostle must be expressing not what he feels as he writes but the vividly remembered experience of the unconverted man, is, we believe, totally untrue. . . . The man, whose cry this is, is one who, knowing

32 33 34 35 36 37

S. K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1994) 264. Kuss, Der Römerbrief (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1959) 462-95. A. Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1935; 2nd. ed 1952, 3rd ed. 1 9 5 9 ; 4 t h e d 1965)251. Theodore Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (KNT; Leibzig: A. Deichert'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910)366. Karl Barth, Der Römerbrief (Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1918; 2nd ed. 1921; 8th repr. 1947)253. Anders Nygren, Der Römerbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951)205.

The Meaning for Paul Personally

37

himself to be righteous by faith, desires from the depths of his being to respond to the claims which the gospel makes upon him (cf. v. 22)." 38 Most scholars who understand the passage to be an expression of the existential tension Paul experiences in the present do not think he expresses these thoughts merely to provide autobio-graphical information, but intends them for the benefit of his r e a d e r s ' understanding of themselves. So Schlatter, 39 Zahn, 40 Nygren, 41 Ernest Best 42 and Th. C. De Kruijf. 43 In a lone dissenting voice within this category, Dunn interprets the passage as a reference specifically to Paul personally. 44 An important argument in favor of Paul referring to himself is the eschatological situation in which he found himself, a situation shared by his readers. The believer still lives in the world and is still subject to the power of sin. So Schlatter, 45 Cranfield, 46 and Nygren. 47 Barrett emphasizes what he calls the ambiguous situation of the believer, taking chapters 6 - 8 as a unity in

38

C. Ε. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1975) 366. 39 "Gilt dieses Lebensbild auch von denen, die an Christus Glauben? Gewiß! gerade den an Christus Glaubenden hält der Apostel dieses Bild vor als ihr eigenes Bild, das ihnen zeigt, was sie selber sind." (A. Schlatter, Der Brief an die Römer [Schlatters Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1908; 4th ed. 1928; reprint 1948] 144). Also, "Durch diese Einkehr in sich selbst, zu der Paulus die Christen durch sein eigenes Beispiel angeleitet hat, wird kein anderer Mensch sichtbar als der, zu dem Paulus bisher gesprochen hat." (Römerbrief.\ 249). 40 "Unwahrscheinlich ist auch, daß PI nachdrücklich auf seine eigene Person hinweise im Gegensatz zu anderen Personen, von denen man das, was er hier von sich aussagt, eher erwarten möchte, als gerade von ihm, dem bewährten Christen und Apostel" (Römer, 368). 41 Römerbrief 205. 42 Ernest Best, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (CBC; Cambridge: University Press, 1967) 84-5. 43 Th. De Kruijf, De Brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen. (Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1986) 159. 44 "Here cerainly Paul speaks for himself, and not merely as a spokesperson for humanity at large; this is not the stylized formulation of one who is long since removed from the situation in question. The one who cries for help so piteously cries from within the contradiction; he longs for deliverance from the endless war and frequent defeat. 'The body of this death' is Paul in his belonging to this age, and to that extent still under the dominion of sin and death" (Dunn, Romans 1-8 [WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988] 410). 45

46

47

"Das Werk des Christus ist aber für uns zum Teil erst zukünftig; deshalb ist die Lebensgestalt, die wir ohne ihn haben, noch gegenwärtig für uns. Unser Leib bleibt ein Todesleib, und im Organismus unserer Glieder bleibt das Gesetz der Sünde wirksam. . . . Deshalb finden wir das gute und geistliche Wollen und die Kraft zum Vollbringen nur im Glauben, das heißt nur dadurch, daß wir über uns selbst hinausgreifen" (Römerbrief 145). "The implication of v. 25a then is not that the speaker has already been delivered έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου, but that he knows that God will surely deliver him from it in the future" (Romans, 367-68). "Wenn der neue Äon einmal in seiner Vollendung da ist, dann wird keine Spannung zwischen Wollen und Ausführen bestehen. Solange der Christ aber nicht nur 'in Christus', sondern zugleich auch 'im Fleisch' ist, wird diese Spannung bestehen" (Römerbrief 214).

38

Christ in the Letters of Paul

that sense. Chapter 6 already expresses the ambiguity, which reflects the eschatological situation of the believer.48 Dunn chides interpreters who failed to recognize Paul's eschatological situation as the key to understanding the 49

passage. Contrary to these views, many scholars doubt that Paul could have written Rom 7:7-23 about himself. Many of these doubts are expressed in very general terms, but there also a number based on precise exegetical arguments. So, in a general sense, already William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam who interpret it as a retrospective interpretation of Paul's life under the Law.50 An exceedingly well-argued reasoning is presented by Kümmel. He recognizes that moral dilemmas cannot be excluded in Paul, but considers it impossible for Paul, who wrote ούδέ έμαυτόν άνακρίνω (ICor 4:3c), to have exclaimed τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; (Rom 7:24).51 After further close reasoning, he lists among others the following as decisive dif48

"Ch. vi has already made clear the ambiguous position of the Christian in this world. In baptism, by faith, he has died with Christ to sin, and been raised with him to live a new life. Yet, true as this is, it is still necessary for the apostle to urge him to do what he has already done — to die to sin, and to offer himself to God as one whom God has raised from the dead. He is, and he is not, free from sin; he lives, and he does not live, for God; he is at the same time a righteous man and a sinner . . . This ambiguous personal position reflects the eschatological situation. The Age to Come has dawned, in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus; but the present age has not passed. The two exist uneasily side by side, and Christians still look earnestly for the redemption of the body (viii. 23), knowing that they have been saved in hope (viii. 24)" (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [BNTC; N e w York, E v a n s t o n , and L o n d o n / P e a b o d y , M a s s P e a b o d y , Mass.: Harper & Row/Hendrickson, 1973, reprint 1991] 142^13).

49 "Many commentators fail to appreciate the eschatological tension fundamental to Paul's understanding of the process of salvation. They judge that Paul must be speaking here of life in the old epoch, and therefore life before faith, life under the law as γράμμα, and conclude that since it fits so poorly after ν 25a, v. 25b must be displaced . . . or a gloss . . . Paul is speaking of life in the old epoch of Adam in this section, but since the epoch runs through till death (5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-26) believers perforce still belong to it, 'in the flesh,' 'mortal bodies'" (Romans 1-8, 398-99). 50 "It is difficult to think of this as exactly St. Paul's own experience: as a Christian he seems above it, as a Pharisee below it — self-satisfaction was too ingrained in the Pharisaic temper, the performance of Pharisaic righteousness was too well within the compass of an average will. But St. Paul was not an ordinary Pharisee. He dealt too honestly with himself, so that sooner or later the self-satisfaction natural to the Pharisee must give way: and his experience as a Christian would throw back a lurid light on those old days 'of which he was now ashamed'" (W. Sandy and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans [ICC; New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1899] 183). 51

". . . wer sagen kann ούδέ έμαυτόν άνακρίνω [ICor 4:3] der kann nicht zu gleicher Zeit sagen: τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; Denn wenn auch sittliche Kämpfe innerer Art nicht ausgeschlossen sind, so verträgt sich mit dem dargestellten Bewußtsein des Paulus doch nicht das Übermanntwerden und Versklavtsein durch die Sünde und ganz besonders nicht die hilflose Frage 7,24" (W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament [TBü; M ü n c h e n : Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974] 103).

The Meaning for Paul Personally

39

ficulties in considering the passage as applicable to either Paul's present or his past: The difficulty of understanding 7:7-13 as something Paul experienced and the impossibility of attributing 7:7-13 to Paul's Pharisaic past. 52 Similarly, Otto Michel, who emphasizes the difference between Rom 6:15-23 which expresses submission to the lordship of Christ and being torn between two kinds of lordship in 7:7-25. 53 There are thus three remaining alternatives categories to the interpretation of Rom 7:7-23 as a reference to Paul's present circumstances: (ii) Paul in his earlier life as a Jew; (iii) Jews under the Law; and (iv) gentiles who were not believers. (ii) Paul retrospectively under the Law This view was already expressed in a general way by Sandy and Headlam, as stated above. They consider what Paul presents in Rom 7:7-23 is a composite, retrospective picture of his life as a Jew. 54 Similarly Charles Harold Dodd. 55 Ethelbert Stauffer sees a radical tension between Romans 7 in the sense of a retrospective presentation of Paul while he was still under the Law and his own claim in Phil 3:6, κατά δικαιοσύνην την έν ν ό μ φ γ ε ν ό μ ε ν ο ς άμεμπτος, which he formulates in a similar way in his equation φύσει 'Ιουδαίοι = ούκ έξ έθνων αμαρτωλοί in Gal 2:15. He rejects Kiimmel's

52

"Vergegenwärtigen wir uns kurz, was gegen die Deutung von Rom. 7,7ff. auf Paulus zu sagen war: die S c h w i e r i g k e i t , 7 , 7 - 1 3 als E r l e b n i s des P a u l u s zu v e r s t e h e n , die Unmöglichkeit, 7,14ff. dem Pharisäer Paulus zuzuschreiben, der enge Zusammenhang beider Abschnitte, schließlich der Übergang zu Kap. 8 — alles das weist darauf hin, daß wir es aufgeben müssen, Rom. 7,7-24 als biographischen Text des Paulus zu verstehen und zu verwenden" (Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus [Leipzig: J. G. Hinrichsche Buchhandlung, 1929] 118).

53

"Der Unterschied zu Rom 6,15ff. tritt stark heraus: der Christ wechselt die Herrschaft, steht also eindeutig unter der Gewalt Jesu Christi, während der in Rom 7,7ff. beschriebene Mensch durch eine zweifache Herrschaft zerrissen ist" (O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer [KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955, 3rd ed. 1963] 180). ". . . the whole description is so vivid and so sincere, so evidently wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience, that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. It is really not so much imaginary as imaginative. It is not a literal photograph of any one stage in the Apostle's career, but it is a constructive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements supplied to him by self-introspection. We may well believe that the regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the conviction of Sin. The incubus of the Law he had felt most keenly when he was a 'Pharisee of the Pharisees'" (Romans, 186).

54

55

"As Paul, in his vivid description, recalls his condition in the past, he is overcome with the poignant emotions of his despair: Miserable wretch that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? . . . With equal vividness he feels over again the emotions of his deliverance: Ί thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!'" (C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [MNTC; London: Hodder & Stouphton, 1932, reprint 1947] 116).

40

Christ in the Letters of Paul

"rhetorisch-generelle" interpretation as premature.56 According to him nothing can be done to relieve the tension between Paul's description of his situation under the Law in Phil 3:6 and Gal 2:15 and the desperation he describes in Rom 7. Stauffer solves this contradiction by interpreting Phil 3.6 and Gal 2:15 as descriptions from the preliminary point of view of a Jew under the Law and Rom 7 as a description from the final point of view of the believer. The latter point of view exposes the hopeless situation of the Jew under the Law. 57 Paul's previous assessment of himself under the Law reveals self glorification as its real danger, the distinctive sin of the Jews. For that reason Paul renounces the situation of Phil 3:6 in 3:7, ατινα ήν μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα διά Χριστόν ήγημαι ζημίαν and of Gal 2:15 in 2:19, έγώ γάρ διά νόμου νόμφ άπέθανον ϊνα θεφ ζήσω. Χριστώ συνεσταυρωμαι.58 Stauffer in the end also comes out cautiously in favor of the passage as a retrospective description of Paul himself.59 A similar view is expressed by Hans Wilhelm Schmidt, whose interpretation is, however, not exegetical, but relies heavily on a highly abstract presentation of Paul's development from a Jew under the Law to a believer in the redemption in Christ. He begins with a summary of his understanding of what Paul presents in the passage — a person with an undivided, unbroken will but

56

"Damit wird die Spannung zwischen R 7 und dem κατά δικαιοσύνην αμεμπτος von Phil 3, 6 in n e u e r Weise z u m Problem. Diesem Problem aber kann man nicht d u r c h eine rhetorisch-generelle Deutung entrinnen. Denn diese Deutung gerät ihrerseits in Spannung mit der Gleichung Gl 2, 15: φύσει 'Ιουδαίοι = ούκ έξ έθνών αμαρτωλοί. Die Spannung bleibt somit hier wie dort, das Problem muß in seinem ganzen Umfang gesehen und gelöst werden" (E. Stauffer, "έγώ," TWNT II [G. Kittel; Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1935] 359).

57

" D e r v o r c h r i s t l i c h e P a u l u s wird e i n m a l als α μ ε μ π τ ο ς b e z e i c h n e t u n d e i n m a l als verzweifelter Kampfer. Das Toravolk wird einmal als ein sittenstrenger Verband bezeichnet und einmal als ein Haufe hoffnungsloser Sünder. An der Gültigkeit und der Spannung beider Aussagen ist nicht zu rütteln. Dann aber kann der Widerstreit der Aussagen nur aus der Gegensätzlichkeit der Standorte erklärt werden. Paulus spricht in Phil. 3, 6 und Gl 2, 15 von dem vorläufigen Standort des Juden aus, in R 7 von dem endgültigen Standort des Christen aus. Erst auf dem Standort des Christgewordenen wird die Lage des vorchristlichen Juden in ihrer ganzen Hoffnungslosigkeit offenbar" (loc. cit.).

58

"Auch die bisherige Selbstbeurteilung offenbart nun ihre furchtbare Gefahr, die Gefahr der Selbstherrlichkeit — die eigenste Sünde des Juden, der den Eifer hat u m das Gesetz, und die gefährlichste Form der Sünde überhaupt, hervorgerufen durch die Tora! So verwirft denn Paulus auch selbst die Position von Gl 2, 15 in Gl 2, 19 und die von Phil 3, 6 in Phil 3, 7: άτινα ήν μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα ή γ η μ α ι . . . ζημίαν . . . και σκύβαλα. Die Selbstbeurteilung des Juden hat sich als furchtbare Täuschung erwiesen" (op. cit., 359-60). "Erst έν Χριστώ kann der Jude diese Täuschung durchschauen und die Hoffnungslosigkeit seiner früheren Lage erkennen. Paulus tut es in R 7. Er tut es in dem Bewußtsein unbedingter Verbundenheit mit seinem Volk. Aber er ist nicht nur irgendein Jude. Er ist 'der' Jude. In ihm hat sich der heilsgeschichtliche Durchbruch des Toravolkes von der Krisis zu Christus entscheidend vollzogen. Paulus ist die απαρχή seines Volkes. Das gibt dem έγώ von R 7 seinen beziehungsreichen Sinn" (op. cit., 360).

59

The Meaning for Paul Personally

41

who cannot achieve what he or she intends 6 0 —, but then, in the same sentence moves to a statement which does not draw from the passage, but from his understanding of Paul's religious development — a person who thinks he or she has achieved what he or she intended, who served God correctly. 61 In Rom 7:7^25, Paul does not present a person with a broken, guilry, struggling will, but a self-righteous person who considers him- or herself as unblemished. 62 It soon becomes clear that Schmidt relies on an abstract understanding of Paul, who only later as a believer recognized that he had been involved in sin.63 The Law could not reveal his error to him. Only in Christ did this become possible. 64 On that basis Schmidt interprets Rom 7:7-25 as Paul's witness to his religious past under the Law. 65 It is incomprehensible how Schmidt reconciles the statement that it is not a person with a broken, guilry, struggling will whom Paul presents in Rom 7:7-25, but a self-righteous person who considers him- or herself as unblemished with the struggle to which Paul gives expression in the passage. His description may apply to what Paul states in Phil 3:6b, κατά δικαιοσύνην τήν έν νόμφ γενόμενος αμεμπτος, but not to what Paul wrote in Rom 7:7-25.

60

61 62 63

64

65

"Es wird ein Mensch mit einem einheitlichen, ungebrochenen Willen gezeigt, der nur nicht erreicht, was er ausrichten will . . ," (H. W. Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer [THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1872] 127). ". . . der sogar meint, er habe erreicht, was er will; er habe einen rechten Gottesdienst geleistet" (loc. eil.). "Es ist also nicht der Mensch mit einem zerbrochenen, schuldigen, verzweifelt ringenden Gewissen, sondern der selbstgerechte Mensch, der sich für untadelig hält" (op. cit., 128). "Erst später, als Christ, hat er erkennen müssen, daß sein vermeintlicher Gottesdienst ein Sündenwerk war. An der Geschichte des Paulus veranschaulicht: gemessen an der Gesetzesgerechtigkeit war er untadelig. Er meinte, durch seinen Gesetzesdienst, gerade auch als Verfolger der christlichen Gemeinde, Gottes Willen zu erfüllen, und sah dann bei seiner Bekehrung, daß er in Wirklichkeit Gottes Werk zerstörte; ohne es zu wissen, die Sache der Sünde betrieb. Es ist also nicht der M e n s c h mit einem z e r b r o c h e n e n , s c h u l d i g e n , verzweifelt ringenden Gewissen, sondern der selbstgerechte Mensch, der sich für untadelig hält. Die Not, welche ihm das Gesetz bereitet, besteht nicht darin, daß es seinen Willen überfordert, sondern darin, daß es ihn irreführt. Das geschieht, weil die Sünde den Gotteswillen im Gesetz verfälscht und den Menschen zu einer antichristlichen Werkfrömmigkeit verleitet" (op. cit., 127-28). "Das Gesetz konnte von sich aus diesen Trug nicht enthüllen. Erst die Christusgabe macht dem Willen den Weg zu Gott frei und gibt ihm die Möglichkeit eines Kampfes gegen das Böse" (op. cit., 128). "So verstanden ist die Stelle 7,14ff. zugleich ein Selbstzeugnis des Apostels über seine religiöse Vergangenheit" (loc. cit.).

42

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Kuss too understands the passage as retrospectively a reference to Paul under the Law,66 but earlier he interpreted as applicable to everyone before faith as well.67 Similarly, Ulrich Wilckens.68 (iii) A Jew under the Law Althaus argues that Paul could not have been describing his own experience before his encounter with Christ. He correctly distinguishes Paul's experience from that of Luther. Paul's transition from a Jew under the Law to Christ does not begin with a situation such as he describes in Rom 7:7-25, from desperation about fulfillment of the Law.69 Thus Althaus interprets the passage as a presentation of a Jew in general under the Law from the point of view of faith.70 A question Althaus does not ask is what Paul could have meant by presenting a Jew under the Law in this way. What could Paul have expected his readers to learn from such a presentation? Neither do any of the other scholars who interpret the passage in this way. Kümmel provided an answer to the question how what appears to be an autobiographical statement in the first person by Paul could have been intended by him as a statement in the mouth of another person. After his extensive discussion of the issues concerning the passage, he concludes that Rom 7:7-25 is written in a stylistic form, a "Stilform," of Hellenistic literature. 71 More about this in the next section in the discussion of Stanley Stowers. 66

67

68

69

70 71

". . . obwohl nicht eindeutig bewiesen werden kann, daß der theologisch interessierten Schilderung des Apostels eigene Erfahrungen seiner jüdischen Vergangenheit zugrunde liegen, so spricht doch manches dafür, daß er, durch solche Erfahrungen belehrt und sie freilich erst rückblickend richtig würdigend, aus jüdischem Blickwinkel schildert, was früher oder später auf irgendeine Weise jeder Mensch wahrnimmt'. . . ." (Römerbrief, 484). ". . . aus dem Zusammenhang scheint mit Sicherheit hervorzugehen, daß der Apostel zuerst und zunächst den Zustand des Menschen vor Christus und ohne Christus beschreiben will" (op. cit, 482). "Dieses Bild des Ich ist so nur im Rückblick des Getauften auf seine Lage ante Christum möglich" (U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer [Rom 6-11] [EKKNT; Neukirchen-Vlyn - Zürich - Köln: Neukirchener Verlag, Einsiedeln, Benzinger, 1980, 2nd ed. 1987] 96). "Für Paulus ging der Weg des Menschen zu Christus nicht von der Erfahrung in Rom. 7 aus. Auch er selber ist diesen Weg nicht gegangen. So gewiß Rom. 7 Consessio ist — schwerlich will das Kap. die innere Geschichte und Stimmung des Paulus vor seiner Bekehrung wiedergeben. Wir dürfen uns die innere Entwicklung des Paulus vor seiner Erkenntnis Christi nicht nach dem Muster der inneren Geschichte Luthers denken. Nicht das Scheitern am Gesetz, nicht das Leiden unter der Sündenmacht hat Paulus zu Jesus geführt. 'Untadelig nach der Gerechtigkeit des Gesetzes' (Phil. 3,6) — das wird eher die Stimmung und das Selbstbewußtsein des Pharisäers Paulus gewesen sein" (P. Althaus, Der Brief an die Galater [NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963] 70-1). "7, 14ff. ist das Bild des Menschen unter dem Gesetze, wie der Glaube es sieht. Nur von Christus her kann man es sehen" (op. cit., 71). "Es bleibt nur die eine Möglichkeit übrig, daß man die erste Person irgendwie als Stilform betrachtet. Es ist nach der oben gegebenen Erörterung klar, daß der geschilderte Mensch

The Meaning for Paul Personally

43

In many cases where it is argued that Paul is referring to a Jew under the Law, he himself is not necessarily excluded, but it is not always clear whether he is included. So Bultmann, accepting Ktimmel's interpretation of the issues; 72 also Franz-J Leenhardt. 73 (iv) Gentiles who are not believers Adolf Jülicher interprets Rom 7:14-23 as a reference to timeless universal humanity 74 as seen from the point of view of a believer. 75 His interpretation is a perfect example of 19th century liberalism, with, it appears, polemics against the "religionsgeschichtliche Schule" in whose series his commentary appeared. According to him, it frees the Pauline proclamation from the suspicion of neglecting moral in favor of religious issues. Rom 7 and 8 are not concerned with a crowd of depraved gentiles or Jews desirous of renewal,

nur der Nichtchrist, d. h. hier der Mensch unter dem Gesetze sein kann" (Bekehrung,

117-

18).

72

"Mir scheint, daß diese Fragen hinreichend diskutiert sind, und daß die Antwort nicht zweifelhaft sein kann: die Situation des unter dem Gesetz stehenden Menschen überhaupt wird hier charakterisiert, und zwar so, wie sie für das Auge des vom Gesetz durch Christus Befreiten sichtbar geworden ist. Die neueste Monographie, die m. W. dies Problem zum Thema hat, die von W. G. Kümmel, hat die Fragen mit mustergültiger Vorsicht und Sorgfalt und mit richtigem Urteil behandelt" (R. Bultmann, "Römer 7 und die Anthropologie des Paulus," Imago Dei. Beiträge zur theologischen Anthropologie. Gustav Krüger zum ziebzigsten Geburtstage am 29. Juni 1932 dargebracht [Glessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1932] 53, reprinted as R. Bultmann, "Römer 7 und die Anthropologie des Paulus," Libelli CXVIIl; Der alte und der neue Mensch in der Theologie des Paulus [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964] 28).

73

"En d'autres termes, ici est exposee la situation de l'homme sous la loi, mais interpretee par un homme qui n'est pas victime de l'illusoire satisfaction que la loi donne ä celui qui, comme le Juif, se confie en eile. Ce que le Juif ne savait pas de sa propre situation, le Chretien, eclaire par l'Evangile, l'a appris" (F.-J. Leenhardt, L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Romains [CNT; Neuchatel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestie, 1957] 113). ". . . im Namen der vorchristlichen Menschheit redet Paulus, wie er in deren Namen schon von V.7 an sprach, aber jetzt in der Zeitform der Gegenwart, weil es sich nicht mehr um Darstellung eines verhängnisvollen Moments in der Geschichte handelt, sondern um etwas Zeitloses; die vorchristliche Menschheit, die Schar der ersten Adam ist doch noch nicht ausgestorben?" (A. Jülicher, Der Brief an die Römer [Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1917] 278).

74

75

"Man darf also wohl sagen: 7,14ff. schildert Paulus den vorchristlichen Menschen, wie er, vom christlichen Standpunkte her gesehen, erscheint', w e n n ein G l ä u b i g e r sich zurückversetzen könnte in die Zeit vor seiner Erlösung, so würde er empfinden, was Paulus so erschütternd als hoffnungslosen Kampf des Gewissens gegen die Allmacht der Sünde im Menschen hier abbildet. Und doch ist auch das noch nicht das letzte Wort zu dieser Sache" (op. cit., 279).

44

Christ in the Letters of Paul

but persons with pure hearts and sensitive consciences: instinctive Christians.76 In two studies, Stanley K. Stowers77 investigated the rhetorical form to which Kümmel refers here as a "Stilform." Stowers identifies this form as προσωποποιία,78 literally the making of a face, a mask, and from there creating a Active person, as a rhetorical way of introducing another character in the first person into a discourse. According to Stowers Paul's letters reveal a level of education which makes it likely that he received primary instruction in gammar and rhetoric,79 which consisted of learning how to read ancient texts and to identify characters who are not specifically identified in them, and composition using προσωποποιία.80 In learning how to read texts by identifying characters and persons, Homer was a clear, even though not the most telling example. 81 Paul's education involved both activities. Particularly relevant is the involvement of προσωποποιία in the composition of his letters: "Paul's ability to read and write letters, even if not in the traditions of high literary culture, makes it almost certain that he had been instructed in προσωποποιία."82 Stowers is persuaded "that not only the first person speech of Romans 7 but also the

76

77

78 79

80

81

82

"[Rom 7:7-25] befreit das paulinische Gnaden-Evangelium endgültig von dem Verdacht, das es die sittlichen Interessen zugunsten der religiösen vernachlässige. Man zerreiße nur nicht die innige Verkettung von Kap. 8 mit Kap. 7, so sieht man, daß die Menschen, die durch Christus Jesus der Verdammnis entgehen und Gerechtigkeit und Herrlichkeit geschenkt erhalten, nicht eine bunt z u s a m m e n g e w ü r f e l t e Schar von h e i d n i s c h e n Lasterknechten und neuerungslustigen Juden waren, geistiges Proletariat aller Arten, daß es Menschen sind mit einem trotz aller Sündenschuld reinen Herzen und zarten Gewissen: unbewußtes Christentum" (loc. cit.). S. K. Stowers, "Romans 7,7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία)," Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Τ. Engberg-Pederson; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 180-202, and Rereading. "Fortunately, Paul's rhetoric in chapter 7 can be identified and explained. The texts in question are a type of prosöpopoiia, speech-in-character" (Rereading, 264). "On general grounds even before observing Paul's specific use of προσωποποιία, the level of education reflected in the letters makes it likely that Paul received instruction in the subject. Paul's Greek educational level is roughly equivalent to that of someone who had primary instruction with a grammaticus or a 'teacher of letters' and then had studied letter writing and some elementary rhetorical exercises" ("Romans 7,7-25," 181). Primary education involved the following: "First, . . . learning how to read ancient Greek texts involved the identification of characters and persons. Second, προσωποποιία was one of the elementary exercises closely related to learning prose and poetic composition" {op. cit., 181-82). "Homer . . . was the favorite text for elementary instruction although many others were also used. Sometimes Homer speaks in the authorial voice; sometimes one character or another speaks but often without the poet specifically indicating that such-and-such has begun to speak except by keeping the words in character with the speaker" (op. cit., 183). "Romans 7,7-25," 182.

45

The Meaning for Paul Personally

apostrophes in 2.1-16 and 2.17-29 and the dialogue in 3.1-9 and 3.27-4.2 ought to be considered types of προσωποποιία." 83 Stowers identifies the literary context of Rom 7 as "the long and varied ancient discussion of akrasia, lack of self-mastery, 84 which goes back to Euripides' Medea,85 It is the key to how Paul's readers would have read the text. 86 Accordingly Paul's readers would have found clues in what he wrote which would have made it possible for them to recognize that he did not write about himself. 87 Stowers claims that if "one asks whether Paul gives his readers any c l u e s at all e l s e w h e r e in the l e t t e r t h a t t h i s m i g h t b e his autobiography, the answer is clearly 'no'. Nor does this picture even fit with what he says about himself in other letters." 88 Stowers' question is strange. The real question is whether Paul gives his readers a clue that his statements in the first person in the passage are not autobiographical. Stowers' answer is that this is indicated by "an abrupt change in voice following a rhetorical question that serves as a transition from Paul's authorial voice." But the rhetorical structure in 6:1 and in 6:15 is exactly the same as in 7:7. In each case it is the rhetorical question which introduces "another voice." If Paul uses his authorial voice in 6:1-7:6 it is incomprehensible why that would not be true for 7:7-25 as well. As in the previous cases, what follows in 7:7d-24 provides a substantiation of Paul's μή γένοιτο in verse 7:7c. It is incomprehensible why a reader would have looked for another voice. Both Kümmel and Stowers refer to Origin as the first who advanced this interpretation. 89 Stowers also mentions Nilus of Ancyra, who "follows the terminology of the later rhetorical tradition describing the Ί ' in chapter 7 as ηθοποιία. This shows that his judgment came independently of Origen." 90 83 84 85

86 87

"Romans 7,7-25," 187. "It represents what can be described as the tragic position in literary depictions and philosophical discussion of 'the will,' or self-mastery in moral psychology" (Rereading, 260). "The text remembered as the starting point for this tradition is Euripides' Medea 1077-80: Ί am being overcome by evils. 1 know that what 1 am about to do is evil but passion is stronger than my reasoned reflection and this is the cause of the worst evils for humans.' These words of Euripides' Medea became the classic text for the long and varied ancient discussion of akrasia, lack of self-mastery" (loc. cit.). "I am convinced that echoes of this medean myth would have been a component of a likely reading of Romans 7 by Paul's contemporaries" ("Romans 7,7-25," 199). "The section begins in v. 7 with an abrupt change in voice following a rhetorical question that serves as a transition from Paul's authorial voice that has previously addressed the readers explicitly described by the letter in 6.1-7.6. This constitutes what the grammarians and rhetoricians described as change of voice (εναλλαγή or μεταβολή). These ancient readers would next look for διαφωνία, a difference in characterization from the authorial voice" {op. cit. 191; identical in Rereading, 269).

88 loc. cit., 192. 89 Kümmel, loc.cit., 119; Stowers, "Romans 7,7-25," 193-96, and Rereading, 90 "Romans 7,7-25," 197.

266-68.

46

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Unlike Kümmel, Stowers considers the person who speaks in the passage a gentile: "The gentile who is torn between his will to follow the law of God and the life of the flesh cries out in 7:24 asking for a savior."91 A number of interpreters who consider the passage to represent a person before faith, do not make it clear whether Paul himself, a Jew or a gentile is meant. This may be because the issue is less what type of person is represented than the conviction that it does not apply to a believer. So, for example, Herman Ridderbos, who understands the passage as a reference to persons before faith, but does not make it clear whether this includes Jews as well.92 b. Restructuring of the text of Rom 7:23-8:2 Another issue in connection with the passage, particularly with verses 24-25, is the sequence of Paul's thoughts. In verse 24 he expresses a cry of almost despair, ταλαίπωρος έγώ άνθρωπος- τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; to which the relief comes with the consolation, χάρις δέ τω θεώ διά'Ιησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ κυρίου ήμών (v. 25a),93 but then, in verse 25b, he is back with the issue of verses 14-24, άρα οΰν αύτός έγώ τω μεν νοϊ δουλεύω νόμω θεοΰ, τη δέ σαρκι νόμω άμαρτίας (v. 25b-d). Problems with the flow of Paul's thought in Rom 7:23-8:2 have been recognized at least as far back as Lietzmann94 and Jülicher.95

91

92

93 94

95

Rereading, 281. Also: "Verse 25 is best read as a parenthetic interjection of the authorial voice within the speech of the imaginary persona. The person's speech continues and concludes in v. 25. Paul then ends his prosöpopoiia by addressing the imaginary gentile in 8:1-2. The apostle tells him that he is freed from condemnation and from the law of sin and death through the Spirit of Jesus Christ, which will effect a renewed mind (8:1-11)" (loc. cit.). "Naar onze mening gaat het althans in de vss. 7-13 over de uitwerking van de wet in het leven van de zondige mens, met wie Paulus zieh hier in de verleden tijd vereenzelvigt, niet fictief, maar exemplarisch" (Romeinen, 147). Similarly in the following: "Hiermee is ο. i. tevens bevestigd, dat de vss. 14-24 betrekking hebben op de mens, die (of voorzover hij) niet onder de verlossende heerschappij van Christus leeft. . ." (op. cit., 160). I follow here the verse subdivision according to the discussion of the issue, not in accordance with my own more detailed divisions. ". . . er stockt und unterbricht sich selbst — ähnlich ergeht es ihm nicht selten vgl. 1,13 5,13 I Cor 15,56 Π Cor 3,17 5,16 — wiederholt scharf zuspitzend den Gedanken von v. 23 nochmal, um dann erst 8,1 mit dem neuen Thema, der Antwort auf die Frage v. 24 voll einsetzen" (H. Lietzmann, An die Römer [HNT; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1906; 2nd ed. 1913; 4th ed. 1933; 5th ed. 1971] 78). "Der Text in 7,25 scheint verdorben, obwohl jedes Wort gut paulinisch klingt. V. 25a ließe sich leicht als Randbemerkung eines alten Lesers begreifen, die versehentlich in den Text gedrungen wäre, aber 25b ist unmittelbar hinter dem Weheruf 24 auch unerträglich. Man hat vorgeschlagen, V. 25 von 7,14-24 loszulösen und als Einleitung von 8,1-11 zu fassen: 25b verhindert das; 25b könnte bloß vor 7,24 gestanden haben. Und zur Not wäre 25a als Übergang von 7,24 zu 8,1 ohne Ergänzungen verständlich" (Römer, 279).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

47

This issue was thoroughly investigated by Friedrich Müller 96 and Rudolf Bultmann. 97 Müller considers verses 24-25a and 8:2 together as having been intended originally as a transition between chapters 7 and 8, written in the margin, but were then seperated with 24-25a placed between verses 23 and 25b, and 8:2 between 8:1 and 8:3, as we now have them. 98 Basing his reasoning on Müller's investigation, Bultmann, contrary to Müller's understanding, considers 7:25b, and not 24-25a, as the first interrupting gloss. 99 He does not believe that one can reconstruct the original text by placing it after verse 23, as in Müller's sequence; it has to be removed. 100 However, Müller's work lead Bultmann to conclude that 8:1 is also an exegetical gloss, and not 8:2 as in Müller's analysis. 101 According to him, thus, the two glosses were introduced together between 7:25a and 8:2. Müller's and Bultmann's reconstructions of Rom 7:23-8:2 have been met with wide-spread skepticism. So, for example, Barrett. 102 Leenhardt proposes an alternative possible explanation for the problem of verse 25b. He recognizes that it could be explained by the Jewish habit of interpolating doxologies with summary remarks which result in broken sequences, 103 but in

96 97 98

F. Müller, "Zwei Marginalien i m Brief des Paulus an die R ö m e r , " ZNW 4 0 ( 1 9 4 1 ) 2 4 9 - 5 4 . R. B u l t m a n n , "Glossen im R ö m e r b r i e f , " TLZ 72 ( 1 9 4 7 ) 1 9 7 - 2 0 2 . "In d e m Exemplar, von d e m unsere gesamte Oberlieferung a b h ä n g t , sind diese Sätze dann von e i n e m A b s c h r e i b e r statt als z u s a m m e n g e h ö r e n d e s Stück richtig zwischen v. 7 , 2 5 b und v. 8,1 e i n g e f ü g t zu werden, geteilt und jeweils an der räumlich besten, aber falschen Stelle in den Text eingefügt worden: v. 2 4 und 25a z u s a m m e n hinter v. 23, v. 2 hinter v. 1" (op. cit., 252).

99 op. cit., 198. 100 loc. cit. 101 "Ist die These, d a ß V. 2 5 b eine s e k u n d ä r e Glosse ist, n i c h t neu [Nestle shows it as deleted by M i c h e l s o n ] , so hat m i c h M . ' s Analyse weitergeführt zu der Erkenntnis d a ß a u c h 8, 1 eine exegetische Glosse ist. Durch das ά ρ α ν ΰ ν gibt sich der Satz (ebenso wie 7, 2 5 b durch das ά ρ α οΰν) als Folgerung aus d e m V o r a u s g e h e n d e n und kann deshalb n i c h t auf das χάρις δέ τω θ ε φ κτλ. 7, 25a, folgen, das vielmehr selbst eine B e g r ü n d u n g verlangt." He colcludes: "Also d ü r f t e 8, 1 wie 7, 2 5 b eine exegetische Glosse sein. Beide Glossen wollen das Ergebnis der paulinischen A u s f ü h r u n g e n 7, 1 5 - 2 3 b z w . 7, 25a; 8, 2. 3 z u s a m m e n f a s s e n zu gleichsam aus d e m Text abstrahierten sentenziösen oder d o g m a t i s c h e n Sätzen; b e i d e sind charakteristisch formuliert als F o l g e r u n g e n " (loc. cit.). 102 " T h o s e w h o interpret this p a r a g r a p h on psychological lines almost always feel obliged to transfer v. 2 5 b to a different place, or to omit it altogether. These, however, are expedients to w h i c h resort m a y b e had only if the words in question prove quite unintelligible where they stand. But this is not so. They are an apt s u m m a r y of the p a r a g r a p h " (Romans, 2nd Ed., 142). 103

" O n p e u t i n v o q u e r , p o u r e x p l i q u e r ce style h a c h e , l ' h a b i t u d e j u i v e d ' i n t e r c a l e r d e s doxologies qui paraissent r o m p r e le fil du d e v e l o p p e m e n t " (L 'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Romains, 112).

48

Christ in the Letters of Paul

the end accepts that it may not belong in the text because it does not provide a satisfactory summary of what precedes.104 Michel too points to the same alternative solution of the problem of verse 25b, which had already been proposed by E. Gaugler; 105 similarly De Kruijf.106 Kuss also recognizes the problem.107 In response to the attempts to reconstruct the passage, specifically by Müller, he expresses caution,108 but nevertheless remains cautiously open to the possibility that verse 25b was a gloss, in which Rom 7:7-24 was for the first time interpreted as a reference to the believer.109 Like Kuss, Käsemann too considers the gloss as a first Christianized interpretation of verses 7-24. 110 104 "II faut cependant remarquer que 25b ne donne point un resume satisfaisant de ce qui precede, car l'homme qui s'exprime plus haut approuvait la loi de Dieu, mais il ne pouvait certes pas dire qu'il en etait l'esclave, ce qui supposerait qu'il lui obeisse. Faudrait-il alors considerer ce v. 25b comme n'appartenant point au texte original?" (Joe. cit.). 105 "Gaugler (E. Gaugler, Der Römerbrief [Prophezei. Schweitzerisches Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde; Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1945-63]) R 232 hält an der überlieferten Textfolge fest und schlägt vor, die umstrittenen Verse 'jüdisch' zu lesen: der Jude unterbricht seine Rede leicht durch lobpreisende Antworten und vorwegnehmende Inteqektionen. Er denkt lebhaft bewegt" (Römer, 179-80). 106 "Wanneer men v. 24b en 25a als in de joodse gebedstraditie gewortelde uitroepen beschouwt, is er geen reden waarom men v. 25b niet als de verwachte conclusie van de perikoop zou mögen opvatten" (Romeinen, 161). 107 "V. 25b »klappt nach«, der Gedanke geht anscheinend wieder hinter V. 25a zurück. V. 25a muß aber ein wesentlicher Schlüssel zum Verständnis des Zusammenhanges VV. 7 - 2 4 , bzw. 14-24 sein; der Dank an Gott »durch Jesus Christus« ist der Dank dessen, der sich »grundsätzlich« den eben geschilderten tödlichen Gefahren entnommen weiß. Nun stellt nach diesem Hinweis auf die befreiende Lösung und vor der starken Heilsaussage der V. 2 5 b n o c h e i n m a l den h e i l l o s e n Z w i e s p a l t i m M e n s c h e n f e s t , u n d j e t z t in e i n e r Formulierung, die wie eine Art Zusammenfassung des vorher Gesagten klingt" (Die Briefe an die Römer, Korinther und Galater [NT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1940] 460). 108 "Die berechtigte (im Resultat für die ganze Konstruktion freilich tödliche) Frage, »wie denn diese ursprüngliche Gedankenfolge in das merkwürdige Durcheinander geraten k o n n t e , d a s den U r s p r u n g unserer g e s a m t e n O b e r l i e f e r u n g b i l d e t « , wird mit der komplizierten, durch rein gar nichts zu stützenden Hypothese beantwortet, das Stück 7,24.25a; 8,2 müsse »in ältester Zeit einmal am Rande neben dem fortlaufenden Text gestanden haben . . .«" (op. cit., 461). 109 " W e n n der Sinn von V. 25b i n s o f e r n n i c h t genau mit d e m Inhalt der V V . 1 4 - 2 4 übereinstimmen sollte, . . . müßte man aber in der Tat mit einem exegesierenden Einschub rechnen; in dem Zeitraum, der dem frühesten ζ. Z. erreichbaren Stadium unserer handschriftlichen Überlieferung vorausgeht, wäre dann möglicherweise der Zusammenhang W . 14-24 zum ersten Mal auf den Glaubenden gedeutet worden — zwingend ist das freilich nicht. Da es ganz willkürlich bleibt, durch Umstellungen »Ordnung« in den Zusammenhang zu bringen, wird man, falls V. 25b sich mit dem in VV. 14-24 beschriebenen Sachverhalt decken sollte, entweder annehmen müssen, Paulus selbst habe, die eben geäußerten Gedanken überblickend, nochmals eine Zusammenfassung geben wollen oder aber — wahrscheinlicher — es sei hier die Glosse eines Lesers oder Abschreibers in den Text geraten" (loe. cit.). 110 "Wenn irgendwo, liegt hier die Glosse eines späteren Lesers vor . . , welche die erste interpretatio Christiana von 7 - 2 4 bringt" (E. Käsemann, An die Römer [HNT 8a; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1973; 2nd ed. 1974] 202).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

49

Restructuring the passage is also rejected by Best, 111 and Cranfield." 2 Wilckens expresses reservations about Miiller's reconstruction 113 and Bultmann's deletion of verse 25b as a gloss." 4 In the end, however, he also accepts verse 25b as a gloss. 115 Assessment For a study of the meaning of Christ in Paul, the restructuring of 7:23-8:2 is of less significance, important as it may be for a consideration of the interpretation of the passage. The main issue for this study is the meaning of the reference to the rescue έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου (v. 24b) by Christ: χάρις δέ τω θεω διά Ίησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ κυρίου ήμών (v. 25b.). For the meaning of Christ in Paul the question is whether this christological statement applies to Paul's situation in the present, which would make its meaning parallel to Phil 3:12-14, 12

ούχ οτι ήδη έλαβον ή ήδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δέ εί και καταλάβω, έφ' ω και κατελήμφθην ύπό Χρίστου [Ίησοΰ], 13 άδελφοί, έγώ έμαυτόν ού λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι· εν δέ, τά μέν όπίσω έπιλανθανόμενος τοις δέ 111 " T h e second half of the verse a p p e a r s to go b a c k on w h a t has j u s t been said as if the ' r e s c u e ' had been ineffective. S o m e scholars have t h o u g h t it misplaced and have inserted it between verses 23 and 24. There is n o evidence in any m a n u s c r i p t that its place is other than where we have it. It is a s u m m a r y of the a r g u m e n t of verses 7 - 2 4 w h i c h is to be fully answered in chapter 8. W e have a long statement of the p r o b l e m (7: 7 - 2 4 ) ; a short statem e n t of the answer (first half of verse 25); a short restatement of the p r o b l e m (second half of verse 25); a long statement of the answer (chapter 8)" (Romans, 84). 112 " . . . while the possibility of a primitive corruption which has a f f e c t e d all the surviving witnesses to the text c a n n o t of course be ruled out absolutely, an exegesis which rests on a rea r r a n g e m e n t of sentences or on the exclusion of an alleged gloss, when there is not the slightest suggestion of support in the textual tradition for either p r o c e d u r e , is exceedingly hazardous, and, when sense can be m a d e of the text as it stands, has little claim to be regarded as r e s p o n s i b l e " (Romans, 368). 113 " D a s b e z i e h u n g s l o s e N e b e n e i n a n d e r der beiden als Folgerung eingeleiteten Sätze 7 , 2 5 b und 8,1 bildet vielmehr ein schweres exegetisches Problem. M a n hat es d a d u r c h zu lösen versucht, d a ß man V 2 5 b n a c h V 23 und 8,1 nach 8,2 umstellte. A b e r einerseits besteht zwischen 7,23 und 7,24 kein Hiatus, der durch V 2 5 b geheilt w ü r d e ; andererseits schließt 8,3 an 8,2 so e n g an, d a ß 8,1 dazwischen eher stören als passen würde. Vor allem aber läßt sich keinerlei Erklärung d a f ü r geben, wie die U n o r d n u n g des Textes z u s t a n d e g e k o m m e n sein k a n n , der von der gesamten h a n d s c h r i f t l i c h e n Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g b e z e u g t ist" (Rom 6 11,96). 114

" D a s g l e i c h e l ä ß t sich f r e i l i c h g e n a u s o g e g e n ü b e r der A u s s c h e i d u n g v o n V 2 5 b als s e k u n d ä r in den Text geratener Randglosse e i n w e n d e n " (loc. cit).

115 " D o c h legt sich gleichwohl diese Urteil nahe. Denn V 2 5 b faßt das V o r a n s t e h e n d e in e i n e m Sinn z u s a m m e n , der d i e s e m widerspricht. . . . Deswegen k a n n der Satz V 2 5 b nicht i m Paulustext belassen und m u ß als diesen m i ß v e r s t e h e n d e R a n d g l o s s e eliminiert werden. Da j e d o c h sämtliche h a n d s c h r i f t l i c h e n Zeugen den Satz an derselben Stelle i m Kontext lesen, m u ß dann allerdings v e r m u t e t werden, d a ß die gesamte T e x t ü b e r l i e f e r u n g n i c h t auf das paulinische Original, sondern auf eine H a n d s c h r i f t zurückgeht, in der die Glosse bereits in den Text e i n g e f ü h r t w a r " (op. cit., 9 6 - 9 7 ) .

50

Christ in the Letters of Paul

έμπροσθεν έπεκτεινό μένος, 14κατά σκοπόν διώκω είς τό βραβεΐον της άνω κλήσεως τοΰ θεοϋ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. However, if the passage presents Paul's life before his conversion, the christological statement would not give expression to the eschatological tension of his present existence, but Christ having saved him from an existence under the Law. If it represents either Jews under the Law or persons before faith in general, the christological significance would not be for Paul personally, but for believers as a retrospect of their life before faith. Critical for an evaluation of the various proposed solutions to the issues concerning the passage is to understand what Paul could have meant when he wrote it. It is insufficient to make sense of the passage in itself. The question is what Paul meant with it. The situation at the textual level of the passage is similar to what one has at the level of a sentence where four possible meanings of a word have been identified, for example, by means of a dictionary or lexicon, leaving as the final task to determine which of those meanings makes sense of the sentence. At the textual level of Rom 7:24-25 the question is how each of the four ranges of meaning we have established allows us to interpret what Paul could have meant when he wrote Rom 7:24-25. The passage begins with 7:7, τί ούν έροϋμεν; ό νόμος άμαρτία; μή γένοιτο· άλλά τήν άμαρτίαν ούκ έγνων εί μή διά νόμου, τήν τε γάρ έπιθυμίαν ούκ ήδειν εί μή ό νόμος έλεγεν, ούκ έπιθυμήσεις, in which Paul replies to his reasoning in 7:1-6, concluding with, νυνΐ δέ κατηργήθημεν άπό τοΰ νόμου, άποθανόντες έν φ κατειχόμεθα, ώστε δουλεύειν ήμάς έν καινότητι πνεύματος και ού παλαιότητι γράμματος (ν. 6). The entire section concludes in chapter 8 with Paul's encouragement of his readers that, notwithstanding the travails they are still experiencing in the present, they are assured of their future redemption, including redemption of the body, αύτοι τήν άπαρχήν τοΰ πνεύματος έχοντες ήμεΐς και αύτοι έν έαυτοΐς στενάζομεν υίοθεσίαν άπεκδεχόμενοι, τήν άπολύτρωσιν τοΰ σώματος ήμών (8:23). I will not attempt a detailed interpretation of the passage, but will concentrate on the structure of Paul's thought. Paul begins his reasoning with a defense of the Law in response to the question of verse 7b, ό νόμος άμαρτία; and substantiation of its negation in verse 7c, μή γένοιτο, beginning with an affirmation of the validity of the Law, τήν άμαρτίαν ούκ έγνων εί μή διά νόμου, τήν τε γάρ έπιθυμίαν ούκ ήδειν εί μή ό νόμος έλεγεν, ούκ έπιθυμήσεις (v. 7de). He argues that it is the power of sin which corrupts the holiness of the Law. The Law identifies sin, but has no power over it. To the contrary, έλθούσης δέ της εντολής ή άμαρτία άνέζησεν, έγώ δέ άπέθανον, και ευρέθη μοι ή έντολή ή είς ζωήν αϋτη είς θάνατον (ν. 9b—10). What complicates the situation is that sin enslaves the person who

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

51

tries to keep the Law: ή γάρ άμαρτία άφορμήν λαβοϋσα δια της έντολής έξηπάτησέν με και δι' αύτής άπέκτεινεν (ν. 11). Sin places the person who wants to keep the Law out of its reach, οϊδαμεν γάρ οτι ό νόμος πνευματικός έστιν· έγώ δέ σάρκινος είμι, πεπραμένος ύπό τήν άμαρτίαν (ν. 14). From this reasoning Paul draws the conclusion that sin prevents a person from doing the good he or she intends, drawing on a topic well-known in Hellenistic thought, as discussed extensively by Stowers, ού γάρ ö θέλω τοΰτο πράσσω, άλλ' ö μισώ τοΰτο ποιώ (v. 15bc), repeated in a slightly different form in verse 19, ού γάρ δ θέλω ποιώ άγαθόν, άλλά ö ού θέλω κακόν τούτο πράσσω. Paul exonerates the person who is caught in this trap by placing all the blame on sin in a statement which he repeats twice in exactly the same formulation, ούκέτι έγώ κατεργάζομαι αύτό άλλά ή οικούσα έν έμοϊ άμαρτία (νν. 17 and 20bc). With the repetition of this statement, Paul completes this sub-section in his reasoning. The structure of his reasoning is strange. In his letters he frequently repeats statements in slightly different formulations, but, as will become clear below in the discussion of Rom 6:1-14, those repetitions can function as very important steps in the development of his thought. In Rom 7:15-20 there is no development of thought in his repetitions. Verses 19-20, ι9

ού γάρ ο θέλω ποιώ άγαθόν, άλλά ö ού θέλω κακόν τοΰτο πράσσω. 20 εί δέ ο ού θέλω [έγώ] τοΰτο ποιώ, ούκέτι έγώ κατεργάζομαι αύτό άλλά ή οίκοΰσα έν έμοί άμαρτία. merely repeats what he had written in verses 15-17, ls

o γάρ κατεργάζομαι ού γινώσκω- ού γάρ ö θέλω τοΰτο πράσσω, άλλ' δ μισώ τοΰτο ποιώ. 16εί δέ ö ού θέλω τοΰτο ποιώ, σύμφημι τω νόμω οτι καλός. 17 νυνί δέ ούκέτι έγώ κατεργάζομαι αύτό άλλά ή οίκοΰσα έν έμοϊ άμαρτία, concluding with the identical formulation of verse 17 in verse 20bc. In verses 21-23, after having made the point of verses 15-20, Paul returns to the reasoning of verses 7-14 concerning the Law. Clearly, the Hellenistic reasoning of verses 15-20 is not the main point of his overall reasoning in the passage; it serves to clarify a central point of verses 7-14. His main point is the Law and problems which arise from it for the person who tries to fulfill its requirements, but is unable to do so due to the power of sin. He draws on his reasoning of verses 15-20 in support of the conclusion in the next step in his reasoning in verses 21-23, βλέπω . . . έτερον νόμον έν τοις μέλεσίν μου άντιστρατευόμενον τω νόμω τοΰ νοός μου καί αίχμαλωτίζοντά με έν τω νόμω της άμαρτίας τω οντι έν τοις μέλεσίν μου (ν. 23).

52

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Paul's use of the Hellenistic reasoning of verses 15-20 as a clarification of an issue in his reasoning concerning the Law does not have to mean that he had in mind the description of a gentile before faith. His statement in 7:1, γινώσκουσιν γάρ νόμον λαλώ, almost certainly includes gentiles in his reasoning, but that does not make Romans 7 a discussion with specifically a gentile who had been familiar with the Law before coming to faith in mind. His focus is to begin with on the Law itself, and his defense of it against a conclusion which might be drawn from his reasoning in verse 1-6; his focus is not on a person who tries to keep the Law, but such a person becomes drawn into the discussion because of his or her inability to fulfill the Law. Paul considers the Law holy: ό μέν νόμος άγιος, και ή εντολή άγία και δικαία και άγαθή (V. 12), and even argues that a person's inability to do good confirms τω νόμφ οτι καλός (v. 16). His reasoning concerns all who are confronted with the inability to do the good which the Law identifies. That excludes the passage having in mind specifically the gentile who knows the Law but is faced with the inability of fulfilling it. In verses 7-14 Paul uses νόμος unambiguously for the Jewish Law, but then in verses 21-23 he makes use of the multivalence of the term to move his argument forward. In these verses νόμος refers to a principle, first as the principle of not being able to do what one intends, [ό νόμος] τω θέλοντι έμοΐ ποιεΐν τό καλόν οτι έμοι τό κακόν παράκειται (ν. 21), and the principle of sin which wages war against the principle of the mind, subjecting the believer to the principle of sin, βλέπω δέ ε τ ε ρ ο ν ν ό μ ο ν έν τοις μ έ λ ε σ ί ν μου άντιστρατευόμενον τω νόμφ τοΰ νοός μου και αίχμαλωτίζοντά με έν τω νόμφ της άμαρτίας τω οντι έν τοις μέλεσίν μου (ν. 23). In verse 22 he returned to the meaning of the term in the sense use of a law, ό νόμος τοΰ θεοΰ. That it is highly improbable that Paul had specifically the situation of a gentile before faith in mind in the passage does not resolve the issue whether he describes himself in his present situation, himself before his conversion, or a Jew under the Law before faith. If he expresses himself personally in the passage, whether as a believer or before his conversion, it would be safe to assume that he does not present his reasoning as applicable to himself exclusively. His introduction to the issue in 7:1-6, ή άγνοείτε, άδελφοί, γινώσκουσιν γάρ νόμον λαλώ (v. lab) should leave no doubt about that. After his cry of despair, ταλαίπωρος έγώ άνθρωπος· τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; (ν. 24), Paul concludes this reasoning with the expression of relief, χάρις δέ τω θεώ διά Ίησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ κυρίου ήμών (v. 25a). In verse 25bc he returns to his reasoning in verses 7-23 by repeating its concluding main point, άρα οΰν αύτός έγώ τω μέν νοϊ δουλεύω νόμφ

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

53

θεού, xf| δέ σαρκί νόμφ άμαρτίας. This has been recognized as a problem by a number of interpreters, leading to attempts at rearranging the order of the text, 116 a solution that has not been met with widespread acceptance. Textually, verse 25bc establishes a continuity between chapters 7 and 8 by recalling the final issue of chapter 7, which has the effect of connecting the discourse which follows in chapter 8 to his reasoning in 7:7-24. 117 He introduces a new step in his reasoning by drawing a general conclusion from the preceding chapter in 8:1, ούδέν άρα νΰν κατάκριμα τοις έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ. Whereas 7:7-25 was written in the first person singular, the conclusion in 8:1 applies the reasoning to those who are in Christ Jesus in general. In the next verse he then addresses the individual reader personally in the second person singular by drawing a conclusion for him or her, ό γαρ νόμος τοΰ πνεύματος της ζωής έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ ήλευθέρωσέν σε άπό τοΰ νόμου της άμαρτίας και τοΰ θανάτου (8:2). In that verse and the two that follow it, he draws his reasoning concerning the Law and sin to a conclusion by applying the redemption of Christ to the liberation of the Law from sin, τό γάρ αδύνατον τοΰ νόμου, έν φ ήσθένει διά της σαρκός, ό θεός τόν έαυτοΰ υίόν πέμψας έν όμοιο'ψατι σαρκός άμαρτίας και περί άμαρτίας κατέκρινεν την άμαρτίαν έν τη σαρκί (ν. 3), and then clarifying the purpose o f t h a t liberation as having been for the sake of believers in general, but including himself as well by changing to a first person plural, ϊνα τό δικαίωμα τοΰ νόμου πληρωθη έν ήμΐν τοις μη κατά σάρκα περιπατοΰσιν άλλά κατά πνεϋμα (ν. 4). In the next four verses (5-8) Paul states some relevant principles in the third person singular and plural, returning again to his readers in a paraenesis in verses 9-15, mainly in the second person plural, interspersed with a statement in which he includes himself as well, άρα ούν, άδελφοί, όφειλέται έσμέν, ού τη σαρκί τοΰ κατά σάρκα ζην (ν. 12), and the statement once more of a general principle in verse 14. The focus of the passage remains paraenetic. It is important to note that when Paul moves to an actual admonition in verse 12, he uses the first person plural, thus including himself. Noteworthy in verses 10 and 11 is Paul's assurance to his readers of the eschatological redemption of their bodies, ό έγείρας Χριστόν έκ νεκρών 116 Müller: Originally 23, 25b; 8:1, 3, with verses 2 4 - 2 5 a and 8:2 introduced at their current locations f r o m a single gloss; B u l t m a n n : Originally 2 5 a ; 8:2, with verses 2 5 b and 8:2 a gloss. 117

B e s t ' s S u m m a r y of P a u l ' s reasoning here captures the s e q u e n c e very well. "The second half of the verse [25] appears to go b a c k on w h a t has j u s t been said as if the ' r e s c u e ' had been ineffective. S o m e scholars h a v e thought it misplaced and have inserted it between verses 23 and 24. There is no evidence in any m a n u s c r i p t that its place is other than where we h a v e it. It is a s u m m a r y of the a r g u m e n t of verses 7 - 2 4 which is to b e fully answered in chapter 8. W e have a long statement of the p r o b l e m (7: 7 - 2 4 ) ; a short statement of the answer (first half of verse 25); a short restatement of the p r o b l e m (second half of verse 25); a long statement of the answer (chapter 8)" ( R o m a n s , 84).

54

Christ in the Letters of Paul

ζφοποιήσει και τά θνητά σώματα ύμών διά τοϋ ένοικοϋντος αύτοΰ πνεύματος έν ύμΐν (ν. 1 lb), recalling the cry for redemption from the body of death in 7:24b, τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος του θανάτου τούτου; The redemption from this body of death of 7:25a, χάρις δέ τφ θεώ διά Ίησοΰ Χριστού τοΰ κυρίου ήμών, is here interpreted eschatologically. The parallel between 7:24b-25a, τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; χάρις δέ τω θεώ διά Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ τοϋ κυρίου ήμών, and 8:11b, ό έγείρας Χριστόν έκ νεκρών ζφοποιήσει και τά θνητά σώματα ύμών, reveals that 7:24b-25a does not mark a transition from an existence before faith to a redeemed existence, but expresses something with which the believer still has to struggle. The admonition in the first person plural in verse 12, άρα οΰν, άδελφοί, όφειλέται έσμέν, ού τή σαρκϊ τοΰ κατά σάρκα ζην, also reveals that neither Paul nor his readers have yet been redeemed from the danger of the flesh. From verse 17 on all the way to the end of the chapter, Paul's tone turns to a consistent use of the first person plural — except for the statement of a general principle in verse 24c, ο γάρ βλέπει τίς έλπίζει; — revealing the degree of solidarity with which he interprets himself with his readers. In his reference to the redemption of creation in verses 19-23, Paul does not change to a new topic. The reference to the redemption of creation functions as a continuation of his concern to assure his readers of their eschatological redemption, as is shown by the statement which leads up to it in verse 18, λογίζομαι γάρ οτι ούκ άξια τά παθήματα τοϋ νΰν καιρού πρός τήν μέλλουσαν δόξαν άποκαλυφθήναι είς ήμάς. This is reinforced by his repeated focus on the redemption of the children of God: Creation looks forward to τήν άποκάλυψιν τών υιών τοΰ θεού (ν. 19) and to its own liberation άπό της δουλείας της φθοράς είς τήν έλευθερίαν της δόξης τών τέκνων τοΰ θεοΰ (ν. 21). Finally, in verse 23, Paul returns to a focus specifically on the redemption of believers, which includes the redemption of their bodies, ού μόνον δέ, άλλά και αύτοι τήν άπαρχήν τοΰ πνεύματος έχοντες ήμεΐς και αύτοι έν έαυτοίς στενάζομεν υίοθεσίαν άπεκδεχόμενοι, τήν άπολύτρωσιν τοΰ σώματος ήμών. In these verses it becomes clear that redemption is a matter of hope, not an existing reality, which Paul makes explicit in verse 24, τή γάρ έλπίδι έσώθημεν· έλπίς δέ βλεπομένη ούκ έστιν έλπίς· ö γάρ βλέπει τίς έλπίζει;

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

55

The passage concludes in verses 28-39 with Paul assuring his readers of the absolute certainty of their eschatological redemption. He places this r e d e m p t i o n in the c o n t e x t of the b e l i e v e r s ' w e a k n e s s , τό π ν ε ΰ μ α συναντιλαμβάνεται τη άσθενεία ήμών (v. 26a), and a threatened condemnation, τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; θεός ό δίκαιων· τίς ό κατακρινών; Χριστός [Ιησοϋς] ό άποθανών (νν. 33-34b). 118 It should now be possible to follow the general flow of Paul's reasoning throughout these two chapters. It does not appear to be the presentation of an understanding which he had previously thought through systematically, but thoughts which follow from each other. Each string of thought concludes with a statement which raises new matters to consider: 7:6 ends with what appears to be a final conclusion, νυνϊ δέ κατηργήθημεν άπό του νόμου, άποθανόντες έν ω κατειχόμεθα, ώστε δουλεύειν ήμάς έν καινότητι πνεύματος και ού παλαιότητι γράμματος, but that raises a new question, τί ούν έροϋμεν; ό νόμος άμαρτία; μή γένοιτο (7:7ab). Similarly, Paul's reply to the cry of despair in 7:24, ταλαίπωρος έγώ άνθρωπος- τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; appears to find a final resolution in 7:25a, χάρις δέ τω θεφ διά Ίησοϋ Χρίστου τοΰ κυρίου ήμών. However, he evidently does not consider it as such, but returns to the issues with which 7:7-24 ended by recalling them in a summary, άρα ούν αύτός έγώ τω μέν νοϊ δουλεύω νόμω θεοΰ, xf[ δέ σαρκί νόμω άμαρτίας. In chapter 8 he makes it clear that the redemption in Christ is something which has not already taken place, but that will be fulfilled eschatologically. At the same time he is concerned to assure his readers that it is not something that lies entirely in the future, but is already effective in the present in the lives of believers through the Holy Spirit, as he already states in the beginning of this final reasoning, ό γάρ νόμος τοΰ πνεύματος της ζωής έν Χριστφ Ίησοΰ ήλευθέρωσέν σε άπό τοΰ νόμου τής άμαρτίας καί τοΰ θανάτου (8:2). The task he sets for himself in chapter 8 is to make that clear. With that an answer to the question which of the four proposed meanings of Rom 7:24-25 makes the best sense has found an obvious answer. The purpose of Paul's presentation of a person prevented by sin from keeping the Law, from doing good, is to provide a model through which his readers could recognize themselves. He does that very effectively by providing the model autobiographically in the first person singular. By drawing attention to himself, he avoids challenging his readers, in that way assuring himself their attention without resistance. But then, in 8:2, ό γάρ νόμος τοΰ πνεύματος τής ζωής έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ ήλευθέρωσέν σε άπό τοΰ νόμου τής άμαρτίας καί τοΰ

118 These considerations c o n f i r m those scholars mentioned a b o v e w h o e m p h a s i z e d the central i m p o r t a n c e of P a u l ' s eschatology for an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of R o m 7 : 7 - 2 5 .

56

Christ in the Letters of Paul

θανάτου, by using the second person singular, he draws each of them individually into the reasoning positively, before he turns briefly to the first person plural to include himself as well with his readers in verse 4. He again addresses them personally with the second person plural in verses 9-11 and 1315, with a brief first person plural statement in verse 14, and then again consistently including himself to the end of the chapter by means of the first person plural. It is incomprehensible why one should doubt that Paul could have written about himself the way he did in 7:7-25 when one considers that final redemption is presented by Paul as something believers are assured of eschatologically (8:23-25). Is it really conceivable that Paul considered what he wrote in 7:7-25 as not applicable to himself? Can one assume that when one becomes a believer, moral limitations, such as Paul describes in the passage, become something of the past? It appears thus from an investigation of the interpretation of Rom 7:7-25 that the most probable reading of the passage is to take it at face level as a description of Paul's present existence from which he draws conclusions for his readers in chapter 8: ούδέν άρα νΰν κατάκριμα τοις έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ· ό γάρ νόμος τοΰ πνεύματος της ζωής έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ ήλευθέρωσέν σε άπό τοΰ νόμου της άμαρτίας και τοΰ θανάτου (8:1-2). Phil 3:12-14 and Rom 7:24-25 appear to be close parallels Christ's death, resurrection and parousia were not dogmatic truths for Paul, but realities of the new life he had found in Christ. Faith for him had nothing to do with the distinction between fides quae creditur and fides qua creditur. Faith for him meant being grasped by the reality of Christ, the reality of his death on the cross, his resurrection and anticipation of his parousia. To put it differently, faith had no object for him, fides quae creditur, but meant being engaged by the reality of Christ, a reality which manifests itself in a variety of ways throughout his letters. One of the most intense expressions of Paul's understanding of how the death, resurrection and parousia of Christ encompassed his entire existence, giving meaning to it, is Phil 1:21-26, 21

έμοΐ γάρ τό ζην Χριστός και τό άποθανεΐν κέρδος. 22 εί δέ τό ζην έν σαρκί, τοϋτό μοι κ α ρ π ό ς έργου, και τί α ί ρ ή σ ο μ α ι ού γ ν ω ρ ί ζ ω , "συνέχομαι δέ έκ των δύο, τήν έπιθυμίαν έχων είς τό άναλΰσαι και σύν Χριστώ είναι, πολλω [γάρ] μάλλον κρεΐσσον· 24 τό δέ έπιμένειν [έν] τη σαρκϊ άναγκαιότερον δι' ύμας. 25 καΐ τοΰτο πεποιθώς οίδα οτι μενώ και παραμένω πάσιν ΰμΐν είς τήν ύμών προκοπήν και χαράν τής πίστεως, 26 ϊνα τό καύχημα ύμών περισσεύη έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ έν έμοΐ διά τής έμής παρουσίας πάλιν προς ύμάς.

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

57

Paul evidently found himself in a life-threatening situation. We do not need to try to determine the exact circumstances in which he found himself, nor how well he interpreted those circumstances. Our concern is entirely with the way in which he interpreted his situation as determined by Christ, in life and in death. In one of his essays on the historical Jesus, Ernst Fuchs makes the following discerning statement, freely translated: In the interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son one should not move too quickly from the father in the parable to God. With the parable, Jesus defends his own behavior. He interprets the will of God by reading it off from his own behavior. 119 Something similar can be said about Paul's statement here in Phil 1:21-26. He finds meaning in the complex series of events: death, resurrection and parousia, by reading what it means from his own situation, that is, interpreting his situation by what Christ's death, resurrection, parousia means for him in life and in death. In a partially chiastic reasoning he first states that for him to live is Christ and [accordingly] to die advantageous, έμοΐ τό ζην Χριστός και τό άποθανεΐν κέρδος, and then interprets what not to die, that is, life in the flesh, would mean for him, εί τό ζην έν σαρκί, τοΰτό μοι καρπός έργου, but then announces that there is an alternative, τί αίρήσομαι ού γνωρίζω, συνέχομαι δέ έκ των δύο, and returns to interpret why life in Christ makes dying preferable, because it would mean being with Christ, τήν έπιθυμίαν έχων εις τό άναλΰσαι και σϋν Χριστώ ε ί ν α ι . The undogmatic character of his reasoning is highlighted by his uncertainty as to which is preferable. He first indicates that to die and be with Christ is preferable, τό άναλΰσαι και σύν Χριστώ είναι, πολλω μάλλον κρείσσον, but in the end it is clear that he thinks continuing in this life more compelling for the sake of his readers, τό δέ έπιμένειν έν τη σαρκϊ άναγκαιότερον δι' ύμάς, and then shifts the focus entirely to clarifying why that is the case. One may find Paul's deliberation that he would prefer to die and be with Christ, but finds it more compelling to remain in this \ife for the sake of his readers, unconvincing. It nevertheless shows the degree to which he tries to make sense of the life-threatening situation in which he finds himself by placing it within the framework of his call as an apostle and finding the meaning of his existence in its determination by Christ's death, resurrection and parousia. None of these is specifically mentioned, but they provide the basis without which the entire reasoning would have no meaning.

119 " M a n p f l e g t bei der A u s l e g u n g etwas zu rasch v o m Vater auf Gott selbst zu schließen, Sieht m a n genauer h i n , so verteidigt Jesus sein eigenes Verhalten. . . . Es ist also nicht so, d a ß erst die Parabel Jesu Verhalten erklärt, obwohl sich Jesus mit ihr verteidigt, sondern u m g e k e h r t , Jesu Verhalten erklärt den Willen Gottes, mit einer an Jesu Verhalten ables-

58

Christ in the Letters of Paul

3. Three expressions of the meaning of Christ for Paul Paul does not find consolation through Christ only in the direct confrontation with death, as in Phil 1:21-26, but also as a way of coping with the harsh realities of his existence in this life, including dangers of death. He expresses his reliance on Christ in such situations frequently throughout his letters. I refer only to the three texts in which he places these expressions within the framework of a resurrection from death, all three of them from 2 Corinthians. It is not my intention here to engage in the issue of possible letters that have been collected in 2 Corinthians. It is nevertheless important for our present purposes to note that the three expressions probably do not come from a single letter, although they occur within the framework of the same general situation, Paul's complex relationship with the Corinthians at this phase of his activities. I assume that 2 Cor 10-13 is the so-called letter of tears and that it precedes 2 Cor 1-8, possibly 9. Furthermore, it is possible that 2:13 was originally followed by 7:5 in the so-called letter of reconciliation, 1:1-2:13; 7:5-8:24 or -9:15, which would leave 2:14-7:4 as a third letter. If that were the case, the question remains where 2:14-7:4 originally belongs in the sequence of these letter fragments. It is a question I do not wish to discuss here. a. 2 Corinthians 13:3-5 Proceeding on the assumption that chapters 10-13 belongs to the earliest letter of what went into the current 2 Corinthians, I will discuss 2 Cor 13:3-5 first. 3

έπεΐ δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοι λαλοΰντος Χριστού- δς εις ύμάς ούκ άσθενεΐ άλλα δυνατεΐ έν ύμΐν. 4καϊ γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ άσθενείας, άλλά ζη έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ. και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτφ, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτφ έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ εις ύμάς. 5έαυτούς πειράζετε εί έστέ έν τη πίστει, έαυτούς δοκιμάζετε· ή ούκ έπιγινώσκετε έαυτούς οτι 'Ιησούς Χριστός έν ύμΐν; εί μήτι άδόκιμοί έστε. The setting for what Paul writes here is the challenge to which he responded earlier in the letter, chapters 10-12, in particular the challenge to his apostleship to which he responded in 10:7-8, and his impassioned defense, including the reference to heavenly visions as part of his calling in 12:1-5. We will return to the latter two texts below in connection with Paul's understanding of his call to proclaim the gospel. Significant for an understanding of the present text, 13:3-5, is that Paul found himself in a situation

baren Parabel" ("Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus," Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1960] 154 (Originally in ZTK [53] 1956,210-29).

The Meaning for Paul Personally

59

of having to defend himself against challengers who questioned his credentials as an apostle. Paul's final appeal in the face of the challenge he perceives to have come from Corinth is to appropriate the reality of Christ's death in weakness and life in the power of God as applicable to himself, και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτφ, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτφ έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ είς ύμάς (v. 4c-d). 1 2 0 In this way he provides his own response to the test whether Christ speaks in

120 Interpreters are in remarkable agreement on the meaning of the passage, formulated most succinctly by Bultmann: "Der Grund dafür, daß in dem als ασθενής gescholtenen und tatsächlich auch in ασθένεια lebenden Paulus die δύναμις Christi wirksam werden wird, liegt darin, daß auch bei Christus selber ασθένεια und δύναμις aneinander gebunden sind" (Zweite Korinther, 245). More fully by Schlatter: "Bei Jesus und darum bei Paulus finden sich Schwachheit und Stärke zusammen. Darum wäre es eine Täuschung, wenn sie nur auf seine Schwachheit achteten und meinten, sie würden nie etwas anderes an ihm sehen als sie. . . . Aber er besitzt nicht nur das, was durch seine Schwachheit entstand, sondern nun ward auch die Kraft Gottes an ihm offenbar, aus der er sein ewiges Leben in Herrlichkeit hat. Ebenso macht Jesus auch Paulus schwach, mit derselben Schwäche, durch die er sein Kreuz trug, so daß auch Paulus nicht strafen kann, sondern dulden muß und das Böse nicht überwindet, sondern unter ihm leidet" (Korintherbriefe, 355). Similarly, among others, Windisch (Zweite Korintherbrief, 418-19). See also Hering (Seconde Corinthiens, 102); Wendland (Die Briefe an die Korinther [NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963] 230-31). There is less certainty concerning the question whether the life with Christ should be taken as future, suggested by the future tense in ζήσομεν, or in the present, as suggested by Paul's reference to sharing the life of Christ with his readers with his qualification, (ζήσομεν) είς ύμας. Bultmann has no doubt that the life with Christ refers to the present: "Das ζήσομεν kann im Zusammenhang nicht das künftige Auferstehungsleben meinen wie Rom 6,4f. oder dieses doch nur, sofern es sich schon in der Gegenwart als wirksam erweist. Denn daß an die gegenwärtige Wirksamkeit gedacht ist, zeigt das είς ύμάς, das dem είς ύμας und έν ύμϊν V. 3 entspricht. . . . Das Futur ζήσομεν ist statt des Präsens gewählt wegen des bevorstehenden Erweises der Lebenskraft in Korinth. Gnomisches Futur kann es hier ja nicht sein" (loa. cit., 246). Windisch provides a more extensive argument in favor of this understanding: "Schwierig ist das Futurum ζήσομεν . . . Wie in den verwandten Stellen Rom 6,4. 5 άλλά και της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα, so ist nämlich auch hier nicht ganz deutlich, ob das aus der Leidengemeinschaft schon jetzt sich entfaltende Leben oder die künftige Auferstehung gemeint ist: man erwartet erstere Beziehung (wegen V. 3b und 4a ζή), aber ζήσομεν σύν αύτφ erinnert sehr an 4,14 και ήμάς σύν'Ισοΰ έγερεΐ oder I Thess 4,14 . . . άξει σύν αύτφ. Doch sichert der Zusatz είς ύμάς die Beziehung auf die Gegenwart; dann ist ζήσομεν ein Futurum der logischen Folge wie wahrscheinlich auch Rom 6,5, oder es bezieht sich auf die immer höher hinaufführende Entwicklung der Lebenskraft, vgl. 4,1 Off., oder αύτφ bezeichnet also die ständige Gemeinschaft mit Christus, die das Leben des P. trägt, vgl. I Thess 5,10" (op. cit., 419). Similarly, Hering: "Pour l'apötre la mort et la resurrection ne sont pas seulement des evenements historiques ayant cause un bouleversement cosmique par la victoire sur le diable et les «puissances», mais deviennent des elements constitutifs de la vie personnelle des Chretiens, ce que l'apötre a ressenti d ' u n e maniere particulierement dramatique" (loc. cit.). Wendland is more circumspect: "Dies Futurum bezieht sich zunächst wohl auf die zukünftige Vollendung, ist aber durch die Worte 'an euch' doppelsinnig geworden, indem es zugleich sagt, daß dies Leben aus der Kraft Gottes den Korinthern gegenüber bei seinem neuen Kommen zu ihnen als schon gegenwärtig erwiesen wird" (op. cit., 231),

60

Christ in the Letters of Paul

him, έπεί δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοϋντος Χρίστου (v. 3 a) because the power with which he appears among them is coordinate with the power of Christ's resurrection from death, a death which signified Christ's weakness, καϊ γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ ασθενείας, άλλά ζή έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ (v. 4a-b). Paul formulates Christ's crucifixion as having been from weakness specifically to coordinate with the challenge that he is weak in physical appearance and contemptible of speech in contrast with the weightiness and heavy-handedness of his letters (2 Cor 10:10). This challenge sets the central theme in this letter of tears, beginning with 2 Cor 10:7-11, which is in many ways recalled in our passage, for example, εϊ τις πέποιθεν έαυτφ Χρίστου είναι, τοΰτο λογιζέσθω πάλιν έφ' έαυτοΰ, οτι καθώς αύτός Χρίστου, οϋτως και ήμεΐς (2 Cor 10:7) is recalled by έπεί δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοΰντος Χρίστου, δς εις ύμάς ούκ άσθενεΐ άλλά δυνατεΐ έν ύμΐν (2 Cor 13:3). The crucial challenge from Corinth which appears to have been at the heart of what was at issue, οτι αί έπιστολαί μέν, φησίν, βαρεΐαι και ίσχυραί, ή δέ παρουσία τοΰ σώματος άσθενής και ό λόγος έξουθενημένος (2 Cor 10:10), is recalled in the contrast between Christ's death which was also in weakness and his resurrection which was through the power of God, έσταυρώθη έξ άσθενείας, άλλά ζη έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ. και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτώ, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτω έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ εις ύμάς (2 Cor 13:4). Finally, τοΰτο λογιζέσθω ό τοιοΰτος, οτι οίοι έσμεν τω λόγω δι' έπιστολών άπόντες, τοιοΰτοι και παρόντες τω έργφ (2 Cor 10:11), his insistence that his physical presence will be, as in his letters, βαρεΐαι και ίσχυραί (v. 10b), is recalled in the challenge which he now throws out as introduction to the coordination of his own activity with Christ's death in weakness and resurrection in power: Τρίτον τοΰτο έρχομαι πρός ύμάς· έπί στόματος δύο μαρτύρων και τριών σταθήσεται πάν ρήμα. 2προείρηκα και προλέγω, ώς παρών τό δεύτερον και άπών νΰν, τοις προημαρτηκόσιν και τοις λοιποΐς πάσιν, οτι έάν έλθω εις τό πάλιν ού φείσομαι (13:1-2) Paul does not contest the charges against him. His defense is that, true as the charges may be, who he is and how he acts is coordinate with Christ's crucifixion in weakness and his life from the power of God. Paul does not end

The Meaning for Paul Personally

61

with the concession of his weakness, but draws strength from the contrast between Christ's weakness in death but power in life to challenge his opponents, confident that when he returns there would be no reason for him to show restraint because in himself and in his ministry he represents the weakness which Christ's crucifixion signifies and the power of God manifest in his resurrection. b. 2 Corinthians 1:8-11 Our second text has a completely different flavor, but also with an expression of trust in the power of the resurrection, 2 Cor 1:8-11, 8 ού γάρ θέλομεν ύμάς άγνοεΐν, αδελφοί, ύπέρ της θλίψεως ήμών της γενομένης έν τη 'Ασία, οτι καθ' ύπερβολήν ύπέρ δύναμιν έβαρήθημεν, ώστε έξαπορηθήναι ήμας και τοΰ ζήν· 9 άλλά αύτοί έν έαυτοΐς τό άπόκριμα τοΰ θανάτου έσχήκαμεν, 'ίνα μή πεποιθότες ώμεν έφ έαυτοΐς άλλ' έπΐ τω θεώ τώ έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς· , 0 δς έκ τηλικούτου θανάτου έρρύσατο ήμάς και ρύσεται, είς öv ήλπίκαμεν [οτι] και έτι ρύσεται, "συνυπουργούντων και ύμών ύπέρ ήμών τη δεήσει, ϊνα έκ πολλών προσώπων τό είς ήμάς χάρισμα διά πολλών εύχαριστηθή ύπέρ ήμών. Christ is not mentioned in this passage. 121 Although Paul may not have conceived of trust έπΐ τώ θεώ τώ έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς (v. 9c) without having Christ's resurrection in the back of his mind, his focus here is theological. His Jewish heritage provided a sufficient basis for his confidence έπΐ τφ θεώ τώ έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς. It recalls the second petition of the Eighteen Petition Prayer, 122 quoted here in its relevant parts from the first Palestinian recension: D'Tian α^π VpVjip . . . crna crpa ετη^ν τι . . . ππκ, 123 "You . . . live in eternity, raise the dead, . . . sustain the living, make alive the dead."

121

So, explicitly, Windisch: "Die Ausdrucksweise ist also altsemitisch und wird schon lange vor P. im Judentum gebräuchlich gewesen sein. Man beachte, daß jede Beziehung auf Jesus Christus fehlt: Die jüdische Formel ist hier noch nicht christianisiert" (Zweite Korintherbrief, 47). 122 This is widely recognized by interpreters. So already Wilhelm Bousset (Der zweite Brief an die Korinther [Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917] 175), to whom many others refer back, for example, Plummer (Second Corinthians, 18). Others who refer to the Eighteen Petition Prayer include, Schlatter ( K o r i n t h e r b r i e f e , 222), Windisch (Zweite Korintherbrief, 47), Hering (Seconde Corinthiens, 22), Barrett (Second Corinthians, 65), and Bultmann (Zweite Korinther, 33). Windisch adds: "Daß sie in Israel schon früher bekannt war, ist vielleicht aus Dt 32,39 [έγώ άποκτενώ και ζήν ποιήσω] 1 Reg 2,6 [κύριος θανατοϊ και ζωογονεί, κατάγει είς ςίδου και άνάγει] und IV Reg 5,7 [the Israelite king's denial: μή θεός έγώ τοΰ θανατώσαι και ζωοποιήσαι] zu entnehmen, vgl. auch Job 5,11 Ps 112(113) 7 und Sir 48,5" (loc. cit.). 123 O. Holtzmann, Berakot (Gebete) Text, Übersetzung und Erklärung (Die Mischna. Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung; Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1912) 11.

62

Christ in the Letters of Paul

The second pair of statements is repeated in the concluding benediction, ΠΓΙΝ D'rian n?na • , , n ^ D a . . -,124 "You . . . sustain the living, make alive the dead." This repeated expression of assurance is of particular significance as the context for Paul's reliance on God's power to resurrect the dead. His expressed concern was not an actual resurrection of the dead, but sustenance in the face of the άπόκριμα του θανάτου (v. 9a) which he understood himself to have faced in the present, described more fully in verse 8, ού γάρ θέλομεν ύμάς άγνοεΐν, άδελφοί, ύπέρ της θλίψεως ήμών της γενομένης έν τη 'Ασία, οτι καθ' ύπερβολήν ύπέρ δύναμιν έβαρήθημεν, ώστε έξαπορηθήναι ήμάς καί τοΰ ζην, but he does not spell out what the threats he faced were. He is somewhat more specific about his travails in 7:5, έλθόντων ήμών εις Μακεδονίαν ούδεμίαν έσχηκεν άνεσιν ή σαρξ ήμών άλλ' έν π αντί θλιβόμενοι· έξωθεν μάχαν, έσωθεν φόβοι, and describes his relief in 7:6-7, 6

άλλ' ό παρακαλών τούς ταπεινούς παρεκάλεσεν ήμάς ό θεός έν τή παρουσία Τίτου, 7ού μόνον δέ έν τή παρουσία αύτοΰ άλλά και έν τή παρακλήσει ή παρεκλήθη έφ' ύ μ ΐ ν , άναγγέλλων ή μ ΐ ν τήν ύμών έπιπόθησιν, τόν ύμών όδυρμόν, τόν ύμών ζήλον ύπέρ έμού ώστε με μάλλον χαρήναι. This resolution of what Paul experienced as a threat coordinates with the relief which he already expressed in 1:10, δς έκ τηλικούτου θανάτου έρρύσατο ήμάς καί ρύσεται, είς öv ήλπίκαμεν [οτι] και έτι ρύσεται. Although Paul expresses as his confidence trust έπί τώ θεώ τώ έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς in verse 9c, it is the repeated pair of statements, P31??1? n"a αιτπ naiv», "You . . . sustain the living, make alive the dead," in the Eighteen Petition Prayer which fits his situation more completely. The appeal to Christ who . . . έσταυρώθη έξ ασθενείας, άλλά ζή έκ δυνάμεως θεού to which he referred in 13:4ab was not applicable to the situation to which he refers here in 1:8-11. The passage makes it clear that Paul could refer to God's power to resurrect the dead without calling Christ's resurrection to mind. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Christ's resurrection could be taken for granted in the passage.125 Paul does not say that he trusted in the god who resurrected Christ

124 Holtzmann, loc. cit., 12. 125 So Bultmann, who accepts Windisch's statement that the reference to trust έπί τ φ θεφ τφ έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς has not been christianized, "'Christianisiert' ist die Formel 'nicht', wie Windisch, 47, mit Recht sagt: 'Jede Beziehung auf Jesus Christus fehlt'" (Zweite Korinther, 33), but then adds, "Aber für Paulus ist selbstverständlich, daß der radikale Glaube an Gott im Glauben an das Kreuz Christi erwachst. Im σταυρός hat Gott geoffenbart, da er die Toten erweckt, denn der Gekreuzigte ist der Auferstandene" {loc. cit.).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

63

from the dead. On the other hand, that in this passage he was able to reach back to his Jewish heritage, does not mean that he abandoned God's decisive act of raising Christ from the dead. If this passage is indeed from a letter which Paul wrote after he had written the letter which is now represented by chapters 10-13, the parallel images of the overcoming of death through the power of the resurrection in 13:4 and here in 1:9-10 are remarkable. Moving is the way in which he refers here to what he referred to in chapter 13 as the foundation of his defense against the Corinthian charges against him, God's power to resurrect the dead, now in an appeal to the Corinthians for solidarity with his personal situation. However, whereas he relied on God's power in the resurrection of Christ as the basis for his confidence in a life with Christ in 13:3-5, και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτφ, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτω έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ (v. 4cd), here in 1:8-11 he relies on the power of God to raise the dead, without a reference to Christ's resurrection, to sustain him in the desperate situation in which he faces (a condemnation to) death, άλλά αύτοί έν έαυτοΐς τό άπόκριμα τοΰ θανάτου έσχήκαμεν, ίνα μή πεποιθότες ωμεν έφ' έαυιοίς άλλ' έπί τω θεώ τω έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς (ν. 9). The ways in which Paul expresses his reliance on God's power to raise the dead to interpret his situation on the two occasions were different, which is at least partly due to the fact that the situations themselves could hardly have been more different. In 13:3-5 he found himself called upon to defend his apostleship and to announce his intended personal presence to manifest the power which he had in Christ; in 1:8-11 he made an appeal to what appears to have been the same readers for solidarity because of the desperateness of the situation in which he had found himself. And so, in 13:3-5 he appealed to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as the basis for the power which he claimed for his apostleship also among the Corinthians, and in 1:811 he trusted in God's power to resurrect the dead in a sense more general than the resurrection of Christ, to sustain him in a situation that was desperate to the point of death (1:8-9). Although 2 Cor 1:8-11 does not reveal what Christ meant for Paul directly, the significance of the passage is that it reveals a broader dimension for the meaning of Christ's resurrection for him by placing it within the framework of his Jewish understanding of God's power to resurrect the dead. God's power to raise the dead manifested itself in the resurrection of Christ, but in Paul's thinking it was not limited to that event. Without diminishing its significance, the passage makes it clear that Christ's resurrection was part of God's overall activity, which certainly must have included creation as well.

64

Christ in the Letters of Paul

c. 2 Corinthians 4:7-14 The general setting of 2 Cor 4:7-14, our third text, is similar to the setting of 13:3-5, but the situation is different. 7

εχομεν δέ τον θησαυρόν τοΰτον έν όστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν, ϊνα ή υπερβολή της δυνάμεως η τοΰ θεοΰ και μή έξ ήμών· 8 έν παντί θλιβόμενοι άλλ' ού στενοχωρούμενοι, άπορούμενοι αλλ' ούκ έξαπορούμενοι, 'διωκόμενοι άλλ' ούκ έγκαταλειπόμενοι, καταβαλλόμενοι άλλ' ούκ άπολλύμενοι, 10 πάντοτε τήν νέκρωσιν τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι περιφέροντες, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι ήμών φανερωθή. 11 άεΙ γάρ ήμεΐς οί ζώντες εις θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα διά'Ιησοΰν, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ φανερωθή έν τή θνητή σαρκί ήμών. 12ώστε ό θάνατος έν ήμΐν ένεργεΐται, ή δέ ζωή έν ύμΐν. 13έχοντες δέ τό αύτό πνεΰμα της πίστεως, κατά τό γεγραμμένον, έπίστευσα, διό έλάλησα, και ήμεις πιστεύομεν, διό καϊ λαλοΰμεν, 14είδότες οτι ό έγείρας τον κύριον Ίησοΰν και ήμάς συν Ίησοΰ έγερεΐ και παραστήσει σύν ύμΐν. Whereas Christ's death and resurrection function as Paul's means of justifying the forcefulness of his approach to the Corinthians in 13:3-5, to which he refers in verse 3, έπεΐ δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοΰντος Χριστού- δς εις ύμάς ούκ άσθενεΐ άλλά δυνατεΐ έν ύμΐν, that is, through Paul's presence, in 4:7-14 Christ's death and resurrection function to justify the weakness of his approach to the Corinthians, to which he refers in verse 10, πάντοτε τήν νέκρωσιν τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι περιφέροντες, ϊνα καϊ ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι ήμών φανερωθή, cf. verse 11 and 14. In contrast with the letter of tears, of which 13:3-5 is part, where Paul noted that his letters are criticized as βαρεΐαι και ισχυρά (2 Cor 10:10b), in 2 Cor 3:2-3, just prior to our passage, he claims the Corinthians themselves as his letter of recommendation in Christ, 2

ή έπιστολή ήμών ύμεΐς έστε, έγγεγραμμένη έν ταΐς καρδίαις ήμών, γ ι ν ω σ κ ο μ έ ν η και ά ν α γ ι ν ω σ κ ο μ έ ν η ύ π ό π ά ν τ ω ν ά ν θ ρ ώ π ω ν , 3 φανερούμενοι οτι έστέ έπιστολή Χριστού διακονηθεΐσα ύφ' ήμών, έγγεγραμμένη ού μέλανι άλλά πνεύματι θεοΰ ζώντος, ούκ έν πλαξίν λιθίναις άλλ' έν πλαξίν καρδίαις σαρκίναις, similar to presenting the Corinthians as ή γάρ σφραγίς μου τής άποστολής in 1 Cor 9:2c. What is important in connection with Paul's travails in 4:7-14 compared with 1:8-11 is that in 4:10-11 he interprets the travails to which he refers in verses 8-9 as connected to his proclamation of the gospel, whereas in 1:8-11 his suffering ώστε έξαπορηθήναι ήμάς και τοΰ ζήν (v. 8d) is personal. In 2:12-13, he distinguishes his success in the proclamation of the gospel from

The Meaning for Paul Personally

65

these personal troubles, έλθών δέ εις τήν Τρφάδα εις τό εύαγγέλιον τοΰ Χρίστου, και θύρας μοι ά ν ε φ γ μ έ ν η ς έν κυρίψ, ούκ έσχηκα άνεσιν τω πνεύματί μου τω μή εύρεΐν με Τίτον τόν άδελφόν μου, άλλά άποταξάμενος αύτοΐς έξήλθον είς Μακεδονίαν. In 2 Cor 4:7-14 Paul does not refer to specific troubles. The afflictions to which he refers concern his apostleship in general, έν παντί θλιβόμενοι άλλ' ού στενοχωρούμενοι, άπορούμενοι άλλ' ούκ έξαπορούμενοι, διωκόμενοι άλλ' ούκ έγκαταλειπόμενοι, καταβαλλόμενοι άλλ' ούκ άπολλύμενοι (4:8-9). He interprets the antitheses of the tribulations and continued perseverance as coordinate with dying with Christ in order that the life of Christ becomes manifest in his body (v. 10), in his flesh (v. 11). Whereas the tribulations and perseverance are placed in mere antithetical statements by means of άλλ' ού(κ) in verses 8-9, he interprets the tribulations as signs of bearing the death of Christ in order that the life of Christ becomes manifest έν τω σώματι ήμών in verse 10, and έν τη θνητή σαρκί ήμών in verse 11, by means of ϊνα. 126 10

πάντοτε τήν νέκρωσιν τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι περιφέροντες, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι ήμών φανερωθή. Π άεϊ γάρ ήμεϊς οί ζώντες εις θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα δια Ί η σ ο ΰ ν , ϊ ν α και ή ζωή τοΰ Ί η σ ο ΰ φανεροίθή έν τή θνητή σαρκί ήμών (νν. 10-11). The life of Christ in these verses is not future, but paradoxically present in Paul's suffering in the present. 127 In verse 14 his thoughts turn to the fu126 A point emphasized by Bultmann: "Die antithetischen Sätze sind in V. 10f. nicht mehr wie in V. 8f. durch άλλ' ού verbunden, sondern durch ϊνα, so daß die Paradoxie des Lebensbegriffes noch deutlicher wird: gerade der am äußeren Dasein wirkende Tod muß das innere Leben zur Erscheinung bringen" (Zweite Korinther, 117). 127 Bousset distinguishes between the way in which Paul formulates this in verses 10 and 11. In verse 10 he interprets it as a mystical expression. ". . . das alles faßt sich nun für Paulus in einem Wort gesteigerter Mystik zusammen. Er schleppt den Tod (wörtlich: die Tötung) Jesu an seinem Leibe umher. Er ist so eins, wie mit dem auferstandenen, so auch mit dem gestorbenen Herrn, daß er auch sein Todessiegel am Leibe trägt" (Zweite Korinther, 187). Bousset does not have in mind a mere inner, spiritual experience, but physical experiences in the body. "Die Christus-Mystik des Paulus erscheint hier auf dem Gipfelpunkt, die Wirkung der Gemeinschaft mit Jesus wird nicht nur als eine innerlich geistige, sondern geradezu als eine leibliche gefaßt. Aber das alles hat eine gottgewollte Kehrseite: Es soll auch das Leben Jesus in seinem Leibes, durch seinen Leib offenbar werden. Die Hinopferung des Leibes geschieht j a im Dienste des apostolischen Amtes, in welchem die Lebensmacht Jesu zum Ausdruck kommt" (loc. cit.). And then in verse 11, Paul substitutes for this mystical expression a more straightforward constant danger for the sake of Christ. "Für den mystischen Ausdruck V. 10a setzt Paulus nun den einfacheren: wir werden um Jesu willen ständig in den Tod gegeben. Er denkt dabei nicht so sehr an die besonderen Gefahren seines Lebens, sondern an seinen den Körper antreibenden täglichen Dienst" (loc. cit.). Similarly, Hering: "Le v. 10 semble rouvrir la perspective eschatologique: l'apötre partieipe a la mort du Christ par ses souffrances actuelles (νέκρωσις = mortification), qui tuent le vieil Adam, afin que le nouvel Adam puisse surgir. Mais les v. 11 et 12 montrent qu'il pense aussi ä une manifestation actuelle de cette vie nouvelle" (Seconde Corinthiens, 44).

66

Christ in the Letters of Paul

ture, leaving behind the paradox of the suffering through which Christ's life becomes manifest in him. In verse 12, with characteristic flair for rhetorical self-effacement, he allowed himself to represent death, and his readers life, ώστε ό θάνατος έν ήμίν ένεργεΐται, ή δέ ζωή έν ύμίν, but he does not leave it at that. In verse 14 he reunites himself with his readers apocalyptically: είδότες οτι ό έγείρας τον κύριον Ίησοϋν καί ή μας σύν Ίησοϋ έγερεΐ και παραστήσει σύν ύμΐν. 128 Paul does not present his readers as sharing the paradoxical life of Christ in the suffering of the present. For them it is reserved

Also Wendland: "Er deutet [in V. 10] die Gegensätze in seinem Dasein [V. 8 - 9 ] als Übergang des Sterbens Jesu auf ihn selber. Seine Todesnot ist die Fortsetzung des Todesleidens Jesu an seinem Leibe. Denn er steht in Leidensgemeinschaft mit Jesus (vgl. 1,5; 13,4; Rom. 8,17; 1. Kor. 15,31; Phil. 3,10). Das Schicksal Jesu wird in seinem Leben und Berufe, in dem er sich verzehrt, nachgebildet. Christus-Gemeinschaft ist Leidens-Gemeinschaft" (Korinther, 165). He points out, however, that in verses 13-14 Paul turns to the future. " M i t V. 13 b e g i n n t ein n e u e r G e d a n k e n a n s a t z , insofern P a u l u s jetzt auf die zukünftige Auferweckung hinausblickt (V. 14): in diesem endgültigen Durchbruch des Auferstehungslebens tritt der letzte Sinn seines Leidens zutage: durch Leiden zur Herrlichkeit. . . . Der Inhalt des Glaubens ist also (ganz 1. Kor. 15 entsprechend) die eschatologische Gewißheit der zukünftigen Erweckung von den Toten" (op. eil., 166). This understanding is discussed with great care by Bultmann. ". . . das την νέκρωσιν τοϋ Ίησοϋ ist nicht = in Lebensgefahr sein, sondern bedeutet: real im Sterben sein, nämlich wirklich διαφθείρεσθαι hinsichtlich des σώμα (des έξω άνθρωπος) der Todesmacht preisgegeben sein. Das eben ereignet sich in dem θλίβεσθαι, άπορεΐσθαι, διώκεσθαι und καταβάλλεσθαι V. 8f. Und eben das V. 8f. beschriebene Geschehen bezeichnet Paulus in V. 10 in seinem Sinn als ein περιφέρειν der ν έ κ ρ ω σ ι ς τού Ί η σ ο ϋ (also nicht einfach wie Lietzmanns Interpretation, 115f., voraussetzt, der νέκρωσις oder des θάνατος allgemein). Die Antithesen V. 8f. haben deshalb Gültigkeit, weil alle Leiden für Paulus nicht Leiden im menschlichen Sinne sind, sondern die νέκρωσις τοΰ Ίησοΰ, weil er also in ihnen am T o d e J e s u t e i l n i m m t , w e i l s i c h in i h n e n d i e κ ο ι ν ω ν ί α π α θ η μ ά τ ω ν α ύ τ ο ΰ d a s συμμορφίζεσθαι τφ θανάτφ αύτοΰ (Phil 3,10) vollzieht. Es sind freilich Leiden, die auch vom menschlichen Gesichtspunkt aus Leiden sind; das συμμορφίζεσθαι τω θανάτφ αύτοΰ vollzieht sich also nicht in mystischer Kontemplation, sondern im Schicksal einer L e b e n s f ü h r u n g " (Zweite Korinther, 118). Also: "Paulus gebraucht νέκρωσις im sakramentalen Sinn; und zwar sagt er νέκρωσις statt θάνατος, weil das Sterben mit Christus hier nicht in dem grundsätzlichen Sinn gemeint ist, in dem es in der Taufe ein für allemal (antezipierend) geschehen ist, sondern sofern es sich im konkreten geschichtlichen Leben dauernd vollzieht. Das christliche (bzw. apostolische) Leiden ist der dauernde Prozeß, in dem der Tod Jesu am Christen (bzw. am Apostel) wirksam wird als ständige Abtötung oder als ständiges Ersterben, als das εις θάνατον παραδίδοσθαι V. 11" (op. cit., 119). 128 See Windisch, "Weil damit die Einführung in das volle Heil gegeben ist, fügt P. noch σύν ύμΐν hinzu, keineswegs aus Ironie (Bt.), sondern aus derselben ap. Gesinnung heraus, die ihn V. 12 ή ζωή έν ύμΐν sagen ließ. Er kann nicht von 'unserem' Heilsgenuß reden, ohne die Leser ausdücklich einzuschließen; dort vor Christi Stuhl, beim Austeilen der Kränze (I 9,25 II Tim 4,8) gehören die Ap. und ihre Gemeinden zusammen, vgl 11,2 IV Makk 17,18. Deutlich rechnet P. hier mit einem 'persönlichen Wiedersehen' und einer Wiederaufnahme oder Fortsetzung der hienieden begründeten persönlichen Gemeinschaft im Jenseits (11,2)" (Zweite Korintherbrief, 150). Also Bultmann: "[και παραστήσει σύν ύμΐν] ist traditionell, aber für Paulus ist das Wesentliche das σύν ύμΐν, vgl. 1,14; IThess 2,19; Phil 2,16. Nicht als Einzelner steht man im Heil, sondern in der Gemeinde" (Zweite Korinther, 124).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

67

apocalyptically in the future. The future resurrection of Paul and his readers is not presented in an apocalyptic judgment scene, 129 but as a presentation before God, for which 1 Thess 4:16-17 could be a model, 130 16

ÖTt αύτός ό κύριος έν κελεύσματι, έν φωνή άρχαγγέλου και έν σάλπιγγι θεοΰ, καταβήσεται άπ' ούρανοΰ, και οί νεκροί έν Χριστφ άναστήσονται πρώτον, 17 έπειτα ήμεΐς οί ζώντες οί περιλειπόμενοι άμα σύν αύτοΐς άρπαγησόμεθα έν νεφέλαις είς άπάντησιν τοϋ κυρίου είς άέρα· και οΰτως πάντοτε σύν κυρίω έσόμεθα. In verses 10 and 11, Paul presented the life of Christ taking place paradoxically through his suffering in the present; in verse 14 he presents the resurrection with Christ as something to be expected with confidence as a future event, είδότες δτι ό έγείρας τόν κύριον Ίησοΰν και ήμας σύν Ίησοΰ έγερεΐ καί παραστήσει σύν ύμΐν, in which his readers will also participate. Summary In 2 Cor 4:7-14, Paul returned to Christ's death and resurrection as the foundation of his reasoning, as he had done in 13:3-5. One may wonder why he based his trust in the god who resurrects the dead without reference to Christ's resurrection in 1:9-10. Note especially the contrasting formulations in l:9bc, μή πεποιθότες ώμεν έφ' έαυτοΐς άλλ' έπί τω θεω τω έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς, and in 4:14, είδότες οτι ό έγείρας τόν κύριον Ίησοΰν καί ήμάς σύν Ίησοΰ έγερεΐ. There is no information on the basis of which we can explain this difference, but we can at least establish the following: There is an important difference in the situations in which Paul found himself on the three occasions. In both 13:3-5 and 4:7-14 his concerns were with the proclamation of the gospel: In 13:3-5, Christ's death and resurrection function as Paul's means of justifying the forcefulness of his approach to the Corinthians, καί γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ άσθενείας, άλλα ζη έκ δυνάμεως

129 So W i n d i s c h , " S o d a n n f ü g t P. hier noch hinzu καί π α ρ α σ τ ή σ ε ι σύν ύ μ ΐ ν . M a n ist versucht έ μ π ρ ο σ θ ε ν τοϋ β ή μ α τ ο ς τοϋ Χ ρ ι σ τ ο ΰ 5,10 b z w . αύτοΰ zu ergänzen; doch darf hier nicht an ein Erscheinen vor Gericht gedacht werden, . . . sondern es ist die n o r m a l e π α ρ ά σ τ α σ ι ς , die " V o r f ü h r u n g " echter, in der G e m e i n s c h a f t mit Christus entsündigter Christen, vgl. 11,2 Kol 1,22. 28 Eph 5,5,27 . . ." (Zweite Korintherbrief, 150); B u l t m a n n , " Z u s a t z zur traditionellen Formel wird die Fortsetzung sein: και π α ρ α σ τ ή σ ε ι σύν ύ μ ΐ ν . Das π α ρ α σ τ ά ν α ι ist hier nicht die V o r f ü h r u n g vor das β ή μ α Gottes ( R o m 1,10, vgl. 2 K o r 5,10), w o das Urteil erst e m p f a n g e n wird, sondern die V o r f ü h r u n g der Gerechtfertigten, wie 11,2; I K o r 8,8; Kol 1,22.28; E p h 5,27. Vgl. O d Sal 2 1 , 6 f . " (Zweite Korinther, 123). 130 See Barrett: " T h e p h r a s e points (as such expressions — with Jesus, with the Lord, and so on — c o m m o n l y d o in Paul) to the eschatological f u t u r e ; Christians will b e raised up as Christ w a s raised up, so as to be for ever with h i m ; c o m p a r e 1 Thess. iv. 17. This m e a n s that Paul and his readers will be together (with you), and all will b e in the presence of God (this is already implied b y the π α ρ ά in π α ρ ί σ τ η μ ι ) " (Second Corinthians, 143).

68

Christ in the Letters of Paul

θεοΰ. και γάρ ήμεϊς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτφ, άλλα ζήσομεν σύν αύτώ έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ εις ύμάς (ν. 4). By contrast, although in 4:7-14 his reasoning again finds a basis in Christ's death and resurrection, in this case it functions to justify the weakness of his approach to the Corinthians, 10 πάντοτε τήν νέκρωσιν τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι περιφέροντες, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι ήμών φανερωθη. Π ά ε ί γάρ ήμεΐς οί ζώντες εις θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα διά Ίησοΰν, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ φανερωθη έν τη θνητή σαρκΐ ήμών (νν. 10-11), challenging his readers with bold irony: ώστε ό θάνατος έν ήμΐν ένεργεΐται, ή δέ ζωή έν ύμΐν (ν, 12). In 1:8-10, on the other hand, his travails were evidently obstacles to his personal well-being, ού γάρ θέλομεν ύμάς άγνοεΐν, άδελφοί, ύπέρ τής θλίψεως ήμών της γενομένης έν τή 'Ασία, οτι καθ' ύπερβολήν ύπέρ δύναμιν έβαρήθημεν, ώστε έξαπορηθήναι ήμάς και τοΰ ζήν (ν. 8).131 Paul does refer to the fullness of his suffering and consolation through Christ in his proclamation of the gospel to the Corinthians in verses 5-7, 5

καθώς περισσεύει τά παθήματα τοΰ Χριστοΰ εις ήμάς, οϋτως διά τοΰ Χριστοΰ περισσεύει και ή παράκλησις ήμών. 6ε'ίτε δέ θλιβόμεθα, ύπέρ τής ύμών παρακλήσεως και σωτηρίας· ε'ΐτε παρακαλούμεθα, ύπέρ τής ύ μ ώ ν παρακλήσεως τής ένεργουμένης έν υπομονή τών αύτών παθημάτων ών και ήμεΐς πάσχομεν. 7 καϊ ή έλπίς ήμών βεβαία ύπέρ ύμών, είδότες οτι ώς κοινωνοί έστε τών παθημάτων, οϋτως και τής παρακλήσεως, but in verse 8a he identifies the tribulations with which he was concerned differently, ού γάρ θέλομεν ύμάς άγνοεΐν, άδελφοί, ύπέρ τής θλίψεως ήμών τής γενομένης έν τή 'Ασία. There is no need to argue what is well-known, that in Paul's thinking everything in which Christ had been involved had its foundation in God, beginning for him with God's revelation of Christ to him, δτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά τής χάριτος αύτοΰ άποκαλύψαι τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοϊ ϊνα ευαγγελίζομαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν (Gal 1:15-16b). Note also the way in which the introduction to 2 Cor 4:7-14 places the entire discussion within the framework of the power of God: έχομεν δέ τόν θησαυρόν τοΰτον έν όστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν, ϊνα ή ύπερβολή τής δυνάμεως ή τοΰ θεοΰ και μή έξ ήμών. 2 Cor 1:8-11 expands Paul's horizon within this framework. Christ's death and resurrection are the central events in God's plan of salvation, but, in Paul's understanding, God's activity is not confined to those events. He was able to rely directly on God

131 Without mentioning 1:8-11, Bousset recognizes this distinction in connection with 4:10. "Er denkt dabei nicht so sehr an die besonderen Gefahren seines Lebens, sondern an seinen den Körper antreibenden täglichen Dienst" (Zweite Korinther, 187).

The Meaning for Paul Personally

69

for his personal well-being, which he distinguished from his activity in the gospel in 2 Cor 2:12-13 in the contrast between success in his proclamation of the gospel, έλθών δέ εις την Τρφάδα είς τό εύαγγέλιον τοΰ Χρίστου, και θύρας μοι άνεωγμένης έν κυρίφ (ν. 12), and his personal troubles, ούκ εσχηκα άνεσιν τω πνεύματί μου τω μή εύρείν με Τίτον τόν άδελφόν μου, άλλα άποταξάμενος αύτοΐς έξήλθον είς Μακεδονίαν (ν. 13). For certain more personal concerns Paul appears to have been able to rely on what he knew about God from his Jewish heritage. Conclusion The purpose of Paul's reasoning in all three of these passages was not to interpret the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection (13:3-5, 4:10-11), nor of the power of God to resurrect the dead (1:8-11). He may have quoted well-established tradition in 4 : 1 0 - 1 1 , as Windisch' 3 2 and Bultmann 1 3 3

132 "Das Stück Glaubenslehre, das dem Zeugnis zugrunde liegt, lautet in seiner einfachsten Form: ό έγείρας τόν κύριονΊησοΰν και ήμάς . . . έγερεΐ, vgl. I 6,14 Rom 8,11 I Thess 4,14. Es ist das Leitmotiv des paulin. Zeugnisses von der Auferstehung, wie es namentlich in der großen apologetischen Lehrverhandlung I 15 deutlich durchschlägt: die Auferweckung Christi die Bürgschaft unserer Auferstehung . . ." (Zweite Korintherbrief, 149). He interprets the resurrection of Christ as an example of the cult of the the resurrected god or divine human being, quoting a saying about Osiris, pointing out that in this kind of saying a parousie is excluded. ". . . das Grunddogma einer Religion, in der der Kult eines vom Tode erstandenen Gottes oder göttlichen Menschen im Mittelpunkt steht, vgl. den dasselbe besagenden Os/ns-Spruch '(Osiris) lebt, der Unas (Pharao des 5. Dynastie) lebt; Er ist nicht tot, der Unas ist nicht tot; Er ist nicht vernichtet, der Unas ist nicht vernichtet'. Es ist ein fixierter Katechismusspruch, der die Parusie ganz ausschaltet und wohl auch nicht mit ihrem Erleben rechnet, also ein offenkundiger 'Totenspruch'." (loc. cit.). What characterizes Paul's application of the concept to Christ is that it is God who resurrects Christ, in whose resurrection believers will participate in the apocalyptic future. "Charakteristisch ist nur für P., daß er in all den Sätzen Gott zum Subjekt macht, die Auferweckung Christi also als eine Tat Gottes hinstellt, die andere gleiche Taten versichert, d. h. das Schema anwendet: der Gott, der das eine getan hat, wird auch das andere tun . . . έγερεΐ meint also nicht die mystische Aneignung der Auferstehungskraft Jesu, sondern den künftigen eschatologischen Akt . . ." (loc. cit.). He considers such a future resurrection of believers to agree with the sense of the Osiris saying. "Mit dem Zusatz σύν Ίησοΰ wird in auffälliger Weise die Gleichsetzung, die Zusammengehörigkeit unserer Auferweckung und der Christi betont (ähnlich wie in dem Osiris-Spruch)." (loc. cit.). Windisch's elimination of the parousia is puzzling, since he does understand the believers' resurrection as a future eschatological act. What he probably has in mind is that it would not take place as an act of apocalyptic judgment. 133 Quoting Windisch, but without reference to the parallel in the Osiris saying, referred to in the previous footnote: "V. 14 beschreibt den Inhalt des Glaubens, nun aber nicht so, daß dieser die gegenwärtige ζωή zum Inhalt hat, sondern die künftige. Die Formulierung ist wohl nach der Tradition gegeben (Windisch, 149: 'fixierter Katechismusspruch')" (Zweite Korinther, 123-24). Bultmann refers to similar expressions of believers participating in Christ's resurrection in Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 6:14 and 15:22-23, presumably to emphasize the traditional character of the saying that God resurrected Christ from the dead. (op. cit., 124). He does however point to a decisive difference between Paul and mystery religions

70

Christ in the Letters of Paul

maintain, but he did not refer to his tribulations to interpret the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection. To the contrary, he referred to Christ's death and resurrection to interpret the meaning of his tribulations. In 13:3-5 too, he interpreted his experiences in the proclamation of the gospel by placing them in the context of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, and in 1:8-11 he drew relief for his personal adversities from his trust in God who resurrects the dead. In these three passages, Christ's death and resurrection and God's power to resurrect the dead function as Paul's means of interpreting the meaning of tribulations in his proclamation of the gospel in 13:3-5 and 4:714, and of his encounter with what he understood to have been personal adversities in 1:8-11. 4. Paul's call: Proclamation of the gospel Paul's entire existence as a believer was absorbed in his call to proclaim the gospel. His call to the apostleship made of him a mediator between Christ and his readers, an ambassador, as he writes in 2 Cor 5:20, ύπέρ Χρίστου οΰν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ήμών δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χρίστου, καταλλάγητε τω θεω. His apostleship was grounded in his experience of Christ, of God's revelation of Christ to him, as he states in Gal 1:15—16b: δτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καί καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοΰ 16άποκαλύψαι τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοϊ ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν. Christ's meaning for him with regard to his apostleship, thus, was as the foundation of his call. The worth of Paul's was something he guarded with great jealousy, and one can follow his changing understanding of that call throughout his letters as he tried to address new situations and to meet new challenges. What remained consistent in this continually readapted understanding, and critical to it, was Christ as the one to whose call his proclamation was a response. Paul had evidently been very sensitive about his relationship to the other apostles. He considered Christ's appearance to him as equivalent to the appearance to the others, except that it came last, and ill-timed, έσχατον δέ πάντων ώσπερεΐ τω έκτρώματι ώφθη καμοί (1 Cor 15:8). In 1 Cor 15 the setting was rather neutral with regard to his call. It was not at the center of what was at issue in the chapter. For that reason he was able to be rather ambivalent about the circumstances and his worthiness at the time of his call, except that he was not able to resist claiming that he worked harder than any of the others, περισσότερον αύτών πάντων έκοπίασα (1 Cor 15:10c). Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians he also found it important to give expression to the equivalence of his calling and that of Apollo. sayings. "Bezeichnend für Paulus (im Unterschied von Mysteriensprüchen, vgl. Windisch, 149), daß Gott und nicht Jesus das Subj. des Satzes ist" (loc. cit.).

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

71

5

τί οΰν έστιν Άπολλώς; τί δέ έστιν Παΰλος; διάκονοι δι' ών έπιστεύσατε, και έκάστφ ώς ό κύριος έδωκεν. 6 έγώ έφύτευσα, Άπολλώς έπότισεν, άλλα ό θεός ηϋξανεν· 7 ώστε οϋτε ό φυτεύων έστίν τι οΰτε ό ποτίζων άλλ' ό αύξάνων θεός. 8 ό φυτεύων δέ και ό ποτίζων έν είσιν, έκαστος δέ τόν 'ίδιον μισθόν λήμψεται κατά τόν ίδιον κόπον- 9 θεοΰ γάρ έσμεν συνεργοί, θεοΰ γεώργιον, θεού οικοδομή έστε (1 Cor 3:5-9). I will discuss this text more extensively below in "The meaning of Christ for the believer" in the excursus on "The Meaning of Christ in 1 Cor 1:4-4:21." Significant about the equivalence of Paul's calling and that of Apollo is that they are both placed in subservient positions as the only way of allowing the effects of the gospel, which depend on God's activity, to be assured. Here is no faked humility, but a clear understanding of the true nature of the proclamation. When Paul was challenged about his credentials compared with that of the other apostles, however, as had evidently been the case as he perceived it in Galatia, it became a very different story. The foundation of his defense was that his call to the apostleship was grounded in the revelation of God to him in Christ. His sensitivity about the issue reveals itself in his insistence that after Christ appeared to him he did not go down to Jerusalem to the other apostles to be instructed by them, but went to Arabia and from there returned to Damascus (Gal 1:17). This sensitivity becomes manifest again when he finds it necessary to introduce a disparaging parenthesis about recognition of the so-called pillars in the report of his second visit to Jerusalem, άπό δέ των δοκούντων ειναί τι - όποϊοί ποτε ήσαν ούδέν μοι διαφέρει· πρόσωπον [ό] θεός άνθρώπου ού λαμβάνει - έμοϊ γάρ οί δοκοΰντες ούδέν προσανέθεντο (Gal 2:6). For good measure he then also reports that he had been able to confront Peter when it became obvious to him that Peter failed to act in accordance with the gospel, οτε δέ ήλθεν Κηφάς είς 'Αντιόχειαν, κατά πρόσωπον αύτω άντέστην, οτι κατεγνωσμένος ήν (Gal 2:11), and more specifically, οτε εΐδον οτι ούκ όρθοποδοΰσιν πρός τήν άλήθειαν τοΰ ευαγγελίου, ειπον τω Κηφά έ μ π ρ ο σ θ ε ν πάντων· εί σύ 'Ιουδαίος ύ π ά ρ χ ω ν έθνικώς καί ούχϊ Ίουδαϊκώς ζής, πώς τά έθνη άναγκάζεις ίουδα'ΐζειν; (Gal 2:14). This last statement makes clear that as much as it had been a question of Paul's ego, more had been involved: It was a question of the gospel itself, or, to put it differently, Paul's ego had become inseparable from his understanding of the gospel as he proclaimed it to the gentiles. The gospel he preached, as was the case with his call, had its grounding in his experience of Christ. So when he insists that he does not have his gospel from human beings, but from Jesus Christ, in statements, such as, Παΰλος άπόστολος ούκ άπ' άνθρώπων ούδέ δι' άνθρώπου άλλά διά Ίησοΰ Χριστού καί θεοΰ πατρός τοΰ έγείραντος

72

Christ in the Letters of Paul

αύτόν έκ νεκρών (Gal 1:1) and άρτι γάρ άνθρώπους πείθω ή τόν θεόν; ή ζητώ άνθρώποις άρέσκειν; εί έτι άνθρώποις ήρεσκον, Χρίστου δοΰλος ούκ αν ήμην (Gal 1:10). In these statements he appeals, on the one hand, in a complex reasoning to Christ as the foundation of his gospel in defense of his authority and that of the gospel which he proclaims. On the other hand, a much simpler truth is involved: Whatever could be said about his apostleship and his proclamation, he understood himself to have been called by God in Christ, and he understood the gospel he proclaimed to have come through the revelation of Christ to him, not on the authority of those who had been called to be apostles before him. This simple truth is the basis for his more complex defense of himself. His defense may have remained contestable: His understanding of its basis was beyond question. There can be no question about the originality of the gospel as he understood it to have been revealed to him. The freedom with which he allowed the meaning of Christ to emerge under a variety of circumstances agrees with an understanding according to which he did not receive instruction about Christ from the other apostles, which he then in turn passed on to his hearers/readers, but that he allowed the truth of the gospel to emerge to meet the demands of different occasions, confident that he was trustworthy, as he writes in 1 Cor 7:25b, after admitting that in this particular instance he did not have a directive from the Lord, γνώμην δέ δίδωμι ώς ήλεημένος ύπό κυρίου πιστός είναι. His claim that his apostleship is ούκ άπ' άνθρώπων ούδέ δι' άνθρώπου άλλά δια Ίησοΰ Χρίστου και θεοϋ πατρός τοΰ έγείραντος αύτόν έκ νεκρών (Gal 1:1) is not as a rhetorical argument, but the expression of a conviction that was determinative for who he was and for everything he did. On that basis all his other statements concerning his call to proclaim the gospel have to be interpreted. Paul repeats the statement that he is a slave of Christ (Gal 1:1 Od) in Rom 1:1, Παύλος δοΰλος Χριστού Ίησοΰ, κλητός άπόστολος άφωρισμένος είς εύαγγέλιον θεού, here explicitly connected to the proclamation of the gospel as the purpose of his call. In 1 Cor 9:16-18 he gives the clearest expression of what such slavery might mean, 16

έάν γάρ εύαγγελίζωμαι, ούκ εστίν μοι καύχημα· ανάγκη γάρ μοι έπίκειται· ούαϊ γάρ μοί έστιν έάν μή εύαγγελίσωμαι. 17εί γάρ έκών τούτο πράσσω, μισθόν έχω- εί δέ άκων, οίκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι· 18τίς ούν μού έστιν ό μισθός; ϊνα εύαγγελιζόμενος άδάπανον θήσω τό εύαγγέλιον είς τό μή καταχρήσασθαι τη έξουσία μου έν τώ εύαγγελίφ. He understands himself as a slave with the responsibility to administer the estate of the one from whom he receives his instructions, without the expecta-

The Meaning for Paul Personally

73

tion of compensation. 134 The interpretation of the passage is complicated beyond what is immediately relevant for the present study. To do justice to the issues concerning its interpretation, I will discuss them briefly in an excursus.

134 Summarized well by Lietzmann: "Da ich aber gegen meinen Willen von Gott gezwungen (15,5 ff. Gal 1 12 ff.) dies tue, so versehe ich lediglich den Dienst eines οικονόμος, also eines rechtlosen Sklaven, habe somit auch keinen besonderen Lohn zu erwarten" (An die Korinther I - II [HNT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1907; 4th ed. 1949] 43). Similarly, Schlatter: "Weil er sein Amt ohne seinen Willen empfangen hat und mit ihm nichts als seine Pflicht vollzieht, der sich nicht entziehen kann, ohne daß er sich selbst verdirbt, darum gleicht seine Arbeit der des Verwalters, den sein Herr in sein Amt nach seinem eigenen Ermessen eingesetzt hat" (Korintherbriefe, 109). Also Wendland: "Also ist er wie ein 'rechtloser Sklave' (Lietzmann), der seine Arbeit zu tun hat, ohne daß es einen Lohn dafür gibt. Anspruch auf Lohn hätte er nur dann, wenn er als freier Mann, ganz aus freien Stücken das Evangelium verkündigte. Das heilige Müssen auf den Befehl Gottes hin wird also mit dem Zwange des Sklavendienstes verglichen. Das, was er zu der Pflicht, dem gottgesetzten Muß der Verkündigung freiweillig, über sein Amt hinaus, dazu tut, ist die Unentgeltlichkeit seiner Verkündigung" (Korinther, 66). Somewhat more nuanced, but with the same meaning, Hering: "Ce qu'il faut maintenir avec l'Evangile et l'apötre Paul, c'est que la recompense est toujours une grace, vu qu'en derniere analyse nous ne sommes toujours que de «mauvais serviteurs»" (Premiere Corinthiens, 74).

74

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Excursus: Issues in the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:16-18 In the passage, there is what appears to be a certain ambivalence in Paul's attitude towards rewards. He writes, εί γάρ έκών τοΰτο πράσσω, μισθόν εχω (17ab), giving the impression that he could have expected a reward only if he had acted of his own free will, but then nevertheless asks, τίς οΰν μού έστιν ό μισθός; (18a), as if he did expect a reward, and replies, ϊνα εύαγγελιζόμενος άδάπανον θήσω τό εύαγγέλιον (18b). He appears to claim that his reward is the very fact that he proclaims the gospel without recompense. There are a number of unresolved issues in connection with the interpretation of the passage. a. Two ways of reading verses 17-18a Barrett considers alternative ways of taking verse 17: One can take verse 17a as an unfulfilled conditional sentence: εί γάρ έκών τοΰτο πράσσω, μισθόν έχω ("If I were doing this . . . I should have . . , " ) and verse 17b as an alternative possibility which is true: εί δέ άκων [τοΰτο πράσσω], οίκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, which leaves Paul without a claim on a reward, leading to the question in verse 18a: τίς ούν μού έστιν ό μισθός, with the implied answer that there is none. The question in verse 18a follows on verse 17. He considers this the best way of taking verses 17- 18a.135 According to Barrett, there is a second possibility, taking [εί γάρ έκών τοΰτο πράσσω,] μισθόν εχω and [εί δέ άκων,] οίκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι as alternatives,136 for which, however, he finds no good reason: "Why, if I am entrusted with an office, should I not be rewarded for carrying it out?" and suggests taking τοΰτο πράσσω, "I do this," and οίκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, "I have been entrusted with an office," as synonymous, "or nearly so."137

135 "The first clause appears to mean that if Paul, master of his own lot, had voluntarily undertaken to preach he could legitimately claim not only pay from his churches but a reward from God, whom he would be doing a kindness. This involves us in taking the conditional sentence as one implying an unfulfilled condition — If I were doing this . . . I should have . . . ; this is not impossible, since at least in theory the question is an open one. The second clause puts the alternative possibility, which is in fact true. Paul is not a free workman, contracting to hire out his labour (to God). He is a slave whom God has acquired, and put to work as he, God, decides. This means that he is in no position to claim pay, or reward, and the question is naturally raised, What then is my reward? the implied answer being, I have no right to one. This seems to be the best way of taking verses 17, 18a . . ." (First Corinthians, 209-10). 136 He points out that it is "more usual to place a full stop at the end of verse 17. The meaning then becomes: If I do this of my own will, I have a reward: but if I do it not of my own will, I have been entrusted with an office. Ί have a reward' and Ί have been entrusted with an office' now become alternatives . . ." (op. cit. 210). 137 loc. cit..

The Meaning for Paul Personally

75

Jacob Kremer has an understanding contrary to Barrett's final suggestion. He maintains that the conception of the relationship between a custodian and a master in Paul's time would not have allowed him to claim a reward or pride of achievement ("Ruhm"). 138 Raymond F. Collins also takes the two conditional clauses as antithetical. 139 Conzelmann interprets verse 17 as parenthetic, 1 4 0 in which case one should take the question in verse 18a, τίς ούν μού έστιν ό μισθός; as following from verse 16. b. Rewards? Schlatter formulates the issue concerning rewards as a case of Paul seeking a reason for pride of achievement ("Ruhm") which would provide him with the prospect of a reward f r o m God. According to Schlatter, for Paul, work without joy and hope — which would not honor him — is worse than death. But if he has reason for pride, he would have the prospect of being rewarded by God. To emphasize his point, Schlatter repeats chiastically that work without being rewarded by God would be incomparably worse than death. 141 It is clear to Schlatter that Paul knows that, having been made a custodian — referring to 1 Cor 4:1, οϋτως ήμάς λογιζέσθω άνθρωπος ώς ύπηρέτας

138 "Entsprechend der damaligen Auffassung vom Verhältnis eines Verwalters zu seinem Herrn (vgl. Lk 17,9 f) kann der Apostel für seinen unfreiwilligen Dienst weder den Anspruch auf Lohn noch auf Ruhm erheben." (Der erste Brief an die Korinther [RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1997] 191). Note also the rest of his interpretation of the verse: "Paulus erläutert die Aussage von V. 16, indem er statt von Ruhm nun von Lohn spricht: »Wenn ich dies nämlich freiwillig tue, erhalte ich einen Lohn«. (Vom Kontext her ist dieser Bedingungssatz als irreale Aussage aufzufassen: »Wenn ich dies freiwillig täte, hätte ich einen Lohn«.) Würde er das E v a n g e l i u m a u f g r u n d eigenen E n t s c h l u s s e s verkünden, stünde ihm dafür eine Belohnung zu. Dies aber ist nicht der Fall, wie der parallel formulierte Nachsatz zeigt: »wen« aber unfreiwillig, bin ich mit einem Hausverwalteramt betraut«. Als Verkünder des Evangeliums und »Verwalter der Geheimnisse Gottes« (4,1) ist ihm der Dienst der Verkündigung anvertraut (vgl. 1 Thess 2,4) und als Pflicht auferlegt" (loc. cit.) 139 First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999) 348. 140 "Nur freiwillige Arbeit verdient und gewinnt Lohn. Es ist abwegig, diese Regel aus dem Rahmen der Argumentation zu lösen, sie zu verselbständigen und dann einen jüdischen Rest von Denken in Werken und Verdiensten zu finden. Der Satz hat seine klare Hilfsfunktion zwischen V. 16 und 18. 'Wenn freiwillig' ist einfach die Folie für den wirklichen Fall des Paulus, daß er 'unfreiwillig' mit einer Verwaltung beauftragt ist" (Korinther, 186). 141 "Eine freud- und hoffnungslose Arbeit, die ihn nicht ehrte, deren er sich vielmehr schämen müßte, ist für ihn ein schrecklicher Gedanke, so schrecklich, daß er lieber den Tod litte, als daß er so arbeite. . . . Hat er einen Anlaß zum Ruhm, so hat er auch Aussicht auf Gottes Lohn. Zerbricht ihm sein Ruhm, so verliert er den Lohn. Und wie soll ihm nicht alles daran liegen, daß ihn Gott lohne? Eine Arbeit ohne Gottes Lohn ist für Paulus wieder ein schrecklicher Gedanke, unvergleichlich furchtbarer als der an dem Tod" (Korintherbriefe, 108).

76

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Χρίστου και οικονόμους μυστηρίων θεοΰ, — obliges him to be loyal in carrying out all his Lord's commands, but that that does not satisfy Paul.142 Barrett takes Paul's statement in stride: Paul does not expect to be specially rewarded by God; the preaching without recompense is itself his reward.143 Protestant interpreters nevertheless find a problem with what appears to be works of supererogation in Paul's claim to have achieved more than the other apostles by not making use of his privileges as an apostle. c. The problem of works of supererogation Schlatter expresses surprise at Paul's statement concerning an implied reward for proclaiming the gospel without recompense. His desire for a reward appears to contradict his doctrine of redemption.144 A number of other interpreters also consider Paul's reasoning in the passage as a potential problem for his "doctrine" of justification by faith. Conzelmann refers to it specifically as a q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by C a t h o l i c e x e g e s i s c o n c e r n i n g w o r k s of supererogation.145 Cautiously, Hering too recognizes that Paul's statements at least remind of works of supererogation.146 The tendency of Protestant interpreters is to find a solution by interpreting Paul's works as representative of his obedience,147 which is rewarded by 142 "Denn er ist, wie er auch I 4, 1 sagte, zum Verwalter gemacht, dessen Pflicht ist, treu zu sein, und der seine Treue dadurch beweist, daß er alle Gebote seines Herrn pünktlich erfüllt. So wunderbar groß dieser Beruf ist, er genügt Paulus noch nicht" (Der Bote Jesu, 276). 143 "Paul does not mean that his practice of taking no pay from men will lead to his being rewarded by God; the preaching without charge (the parallel with verse 16 shows that without charge is emphatic) is itself the reward, because it means that he is putting no stumbling-block in the way of the Gospel (verse 12), and thus has a better chance of seeing the Gospel flourish than would otherwise be possible" (First Corinthians, 210). Similarly, Christian Wolff: "Hat Paulus also gar keinen Lohn? Doch! Sein Lohn besteht darin, daß er sich rühmen kann, unentgeltlich zu verkündigen und mit diesem Verzicht die Kraft des Herrn zu bezeugen, die ihm solche Freiheit schenkt" (Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther [ThHKNT; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1996] 200). 144 "Dieses Selbstbekenntnis des Paulus überrascht, weil es seiner Heilslehre und der in ihr b e g r ü n d e t e n F o r m u n g des Willens zu w i d e r s p r e c h e n scheint. Hier b e g e h r t er ein überpflichtiges Handeln, ein Verdienst, das ihm Lohn einträgt und dessen er sich rühmen kann" {Der Bote Jesu, 277). 145 "Auf die von der katholischen Exegese aufgeworfene Frage, ob hier der Gedanke der opera supererogatoria erscheine, geben die nächsten Sätze [verse 17] Auskunft" (Korinther, 186). 146 ". . . il ne faut pas se laisser troubler par le fait que l'apötre parle effectivement de quelque chose qui pourrait rappeler les oeuvres surerogatoires. Car on ne peut pas nier qu'une fois accorde le droit de se nourrir sur la paroisse, l'apötre ait pratique un renoncement volontaire" (Premiere Corinthiens, 74). 147 So Schlatter: ". . . sein ganzes Apostelwerk bleibt Gehorsam, der tut, was er muß. Hätte er nicht mehr, so erschiene ihm das Leben arm, nicht lebenswert. Was ist noch größer, als der Gehorsam? Die Liebe, die frei mit eigenem Willen Gott alles gibt, was sie kann und hat. Erst diese freie Liebe hat Ruhm, volle Zuversicht und Seligkeit, und die krönt Gott mit seinem Lohn" (Korintherbriefe, 109). Also: "Nur die freiwillige Leistung wird gelohnt,

The Meaning for Paul Personally

77

God's kindness. Hering, however, argues that the idea of reward is not absent in the New Testament, 148 and that in Lk 6:32-35, 149 μισθός and χάρις are treated as synonyms. 150 What he does not recognize is that in this synonymy it is not μισθός that is interpreted as χάρις, but χάρις as μισθός. There may be Catholic commentaries that raise the issue of works of supererogation, but none of those I consulted mention it. Joseph Sickenberger does recognize that Paul finds it necessary to contribute more than his mere duty. In addition to what he is obliged to do, Paul undertakes duties which provides him with a special reward. 151 However, Sickenberger interprets Paul's reward, similar to Protestant interpreters, as the works themselves. 152 und er begehrt Lohn und rühmt sich, daß er so handelt, daß ihn der Herr belohnen wird. Was er freiwillig tun kann, ist, daß er die Botschaft 'unentgeltlich macht', da er mit Verzicht auf sein klares Recht von denen, denen er sie gibt, keine Gegenleistung verlangt" (Der Bote Jesu, 276). Similarly, Wendland: "Das, was er zu der Pflicht, dem gottgesetzten Muß der Verkündigung freiwillig, über sein Amt hinaus, dazu tut, ist die Unentgeltlichkeit seiner Verkündigung, In dieser Tatsache sieht er seinen 'Lohn', der nun aber nicht ein äußerer, dinglicher ist. Diesen Liebesdienst an Denen, die er als Apostel für Christus gewinnen will (V, 19ff.), begehrt er als seinen Ruhm" (Korinther, 66). Also Conzelmann: "Nur freiwillige Arbeit verdient und gewinnt Lohn" (Korinther, 186). 148 "Quant ä l'idee du μισθός, on sait qu'elle n'est nullement absente de l'Evangile. Ce qu'il faut maintenir avec l'Evangile et l'apötre Paul, c'est que la recompense est toujours une grace, vu qu'en derniere analyse nous ne sommes toujours que de «mauvais serviteurs». "De plus, dans certains textes du Sermon sur la Montagne nous voyons que μισθός ne signifie pas forcement la recompense; ce mot par metonymie peut etre synonyme de «quelque chose qui est meritoire ou d'une maniere generale extraordinaire ». Oil est votre μισθός?, dit Matthieu 5. 46; et le parallelisme de 5. 47 (τι περισσόν . . .) fait de cette question l'equivalent de «qu'avez-vous fait d'extraordinaire? »" (Premiere Corinthiens, 74). 149 και εί αγαπάτε τούς αγαπώντας ύμάς, ποία ύμΐν χάρις έστίν; καϊ γαρ οί άμαρτωλοϊ τούς αγαπώντας αυτούς άγαπώσιν. και [γάρ] έάν άγαθοποιήτε τους άγαθοποιοϋντας ύμάς, ποία ύμΐν χάρις έστίν; και οί άμαρτοολοί τό αύτό ποιοΰσιν. καϊ έάν δανίσητε παρ' ών έλπίζετε λαβείν, ποία ύμΐν χάρις [έστίν]; καϊ αμαρτωλοί άμαρτωλοΐς δανίζουσιν ϊνα άπολάβωσιν τά ίσα. πλην αγαπάτε τούς έχθρούς ύμών καϊ άγαθοποιεΐτε και δανίζετε μηδέν άπελπίζοντες· και έσται ό μισθός ύμών πολύς, και έσεσθε υιοί υψίστου, ότι αύτός χρηστός έστιν έπί τούς άχαρίστους καϊ πονηρούς. 150 " Q u a n t ä Luc 6. 32-35, il emploie μισθός c o m m e synonyme de χ ά ρ ι ς ! " (Premiere Corinthiens, 74). 151 "Sein Ruhm besteht aber darin, daß er zu der pflichtmäßigen Missionsarbeit, der er sich, ohne eine Sünde zu begehen, nicht entziehen darf, noch freiwillige Verpflichtungen auf sich nimmt, die ihm auch einen besonderen Lohn eintragen. Würde er lediglich tun, was seine Berufspflicht ist — Paulus gibt hier dem Begriffe der Freiwilligkeit bzw. Unfreiwilligkeit ebenso wie dem Lohnbegriff einen besonderen Sinn — , so würde er einem gedungenen Verwalter gleichen, einem Mietling, der nur seine Schuldigkeit, aber nicht mehr tut, also auch auf besondere Belohnung nicht Anspruch h a t " (Die Briefe des Heiligen Paulus an die Korinther und Römer [HSchrNT; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1932] 43). 152 "Die Frage, welchen besonderen Lohn sich denn dann Paulus erwerbe, beantwortet er überraschenderweise damit, daß er erklärt: 'Der Lohn liegt im Werke selbst; ich halte auf diese Weise vom Evangelium alle materiellen Begleiterscheinungen fern und stelle es so hoch, als es mir nur möglich ist.' Die Freiheitsgeister in Korinth konnten an diesem heroischen Beispiel lernen, wie man sich um des Evangeliums willen auch in an sich erlaubten Dingen Einschränkungen auferlegen soll" (op. cit., 43-44).

78

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Similarly, Otto Kuß: Paul distinguishes himself from the other apostles by not availing himself of his apostolic privileges. He finds his reward in serving Christ without the hint of an earthly reward.153 According to Kremer, Paul understood himself in a situation similar to that of the prophets Amos (3:8) and Jeremia (20:9) who had no grounds for pride before God or human beings.154 Previously, in 3:8, Paul mentioned that the one who plants and the one who waters each receives a distinctive reward. Paul's reward is not recompense for his work, but the opportunity itself to proclaim the gospel without recompense.155 Similarly, Raymond F. Collins: "Ironically Paul's reward for preaching the gospel is that he preach it free of charge, thereby not laying a burden on the Corinthians (cf. 2 Cor 11:7-12; 12:14-15). Preaching the gospel is its own reward."156 Actually, Paul does express support for being rewarded for good works elsewhere in his letters, for example, in Rom 2:13, ού γάρ οί άκροαταϊ νόμου δίκαιοι παρά τφ θεφ, άλλ' οί ποιηταΐ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται. If there are questions whether this is an accurate expression of his views, there is also 1 Cor 15:1 Od, περισσότερον αύτών πάντων έκοπίασα, which implicitly but clearly expresses Paul's certainty that there would be recognition for what he achieved, and that he had achieved more than any of the other apostles. He obviously had not lost his sober Jewish appreciation of good works.

153 "Paulus verzichtet auf seine Ansprüche; dadurch zeichnet er sich vor den andern Boten aus. In diesem königlichen Bewußtsein, ohne den Schatten eines irdischen Vorteils ganz und gar der Sache Jesu Christi zu dienen und sich dabei zu verzehren, findet er seinen Lohn" (Römer, Korinther und Galater, 155). 154 "Wenn er predigt, tut er das nicht aus freiwilligem Entschluß, wie beim Verzicht auf Unterhalt; er fühlt sich dazu vielmehr genötigt, so wie die Propheten Arnos (3,8) und Jeremia (20,9) sich z u m Predigen gezwungen sahen. Die zu Beginn des Kapitels erwähnte Berufung zum Apostel versteht er als eine Beschlagnahmung durch Gott bzw. den Auferstandenen. Ihr kann er sich ebensowenig widersetzen, wie nach der Schilderung der Evangelisten die Jünger Jesu sich gegen ihre Berufung sträuben konnten (vgl. Mk 1,16 20par). Deshalb gibt es für ihn keinen Grund, sich wegen der apostolischen Tätigkeit vor Gott oder den Menschen zu rühmen" (Erste Korinther, 190-91). 155 "Vorher (3,8) hatte er doch selbst geschrieben, daß der Pflanzende wie der Begießende einen ihrem Einsatz entsprechenden »eigenen Lohn» erhalten. Also muß auch der Apostel mit einem »Lohn« rechnen. Dieser aber liegt — im weiteren, fast paradoxen Sinn des Wortes — darin: » D a ß ich als Verkünder das Evangelium kostenlos hinstellen werde«. Sein »Lohn« ist also nicht ein Entgelt für seine Tätigkeit, sondern die Möglichkeit, das Evangelium gerade ohne Lohn, unentgeltlich (adapanon) zu verkünden . . ." (op. cit., 191). 156 First Corinthians, 349.

The Meaning for Paul Personally

79

Returning to our more general discussion: Earlier in the same letter Paul already referred to his calling as that of an administrator, a servant of Christ responsible for the administration of, as he writes, the mysteries of God, ήμάς λογιζέσθω άνθρωπος ώς ύπηρέτας Χρίστου και οικονόμους μυστηρίων θεοϋ (1 Cor 4:1). Having been entrusted with this weighty responsibility did not make him independent, which he expresses, on the one hand, by interpreting himself as an ambassador of Christ, ύπέρ Χρίστου ούν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ήμών· δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χρίστου, καταλλάγητε τω θεώ (2 Cor 5:20), that is, as someone who can act only on the instructions of those who sent him, and, on the other hand, more importantly, by recognizing that with regard to his own ability he remained unfit for the task. Paradoxically, however, that did not prevent him from accomplishing the task, because he acted not in accordance with his own ability but with the power afforded him by those who sent him, God through Christ. He expresses this variously, explicitly in 2 Cor 3:4-6, 4

πεποίθησιν δέ τοιαύτην [διακονίαν] έχομεν διά τοΰ Χρίστου πρός τον θεόν. 5 ούχ οτι άφ' έαυτών ικανοί έσμεν λογίσασθαί τι ώς έξ έαυτών, άλλ' ή ικανότης ήμών έκ τοΰ θεοΰ, 6 ος και ίκάνωσεν ήμάς διακόνους καινής διαθήκης, ού γράμματος άλλά πνεύματος· τό γάρ γράμμα άποκτέννει, τό δέ πνεΰμα ζωοποιεΐ. 157

157 Well formulated by Denney: ". . . the ground of his confidence was not in himself. The courage which he had to speak as he did he had through Jesus Christ, and that, too, in relation to God. It was virtually confidence in God, and therefore inspired by God" (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [The Expositer's Bible; New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1894] 112); also "The Gospel is God's concern, and only those who have been capacitated by Him are entitled to speak as Paul has spoken" {op. cit., 113). Similarly, Barrett: "No human being can bear the burden of proclaiming a Gospel that is at the same time 'an odour issuing from death and leading to death, and an odour issuing from life and leading to life'. Only God himself can make men sufficient for such a task. It is this task that is now redefined as that of ministers (servants, agents) of a new covenant" (Second Corinthians, 111). Also, Windisch: "Man versteht all diese Aussagen nur, wenn man sich ihre Voraussetzung klar macht: daß es nämlich etwas Unfaßliches ist, wenn ein Mensch Gott gegenüber 'bestehen', in Gottes Dienst 'stehen' kann, wenn er zu Gott 'Zugang' hat; vgl 2,16b Joel 2,11 Apk 6,17 (s. o.); das Unfaßliche findet seine Erklärung in διά X., das hier soteriologisch zu fassen ist (vgl. o. S. 69f.) und womit der Begriff der έπιστολή Χρίστου weitergeführt wird" (Zweite Korintherbrief, 107). He compares Paul's awareness with that of the Prophets: "Der echte Αρ. wie der echte Prophet ist sich seiner eigenen Unkraft voll bewußt und weiß, daß er in allem, was er ist und schafft, ein 'Empfangender' ist . . ." (op. cit., 108), a humbleness before God which comes to expression also in Hellenistic Judaism: "Schon im jüdischen Hellenismus ist dann der Gedanke 'nicht von uns, sondern von Gott' zum Grundprinzip der Frömmigkeit überhaupt geworden; so bei Philo, bei dem sich einige Äußerungen auch wörtlich mit unserer Stelle berühren, vgl. de ebr. 166 . . ." (loc. cit.). Furthermore, Hering: "Si Paul a conscience d'etre apte pour sons oevre, c'est parce que Dieu lui-meme l'a habilite (ικανότης έκ τοϋ θεοϋ) et non pas sa propre capacite (άφ' έαυτών)" (Seconde Corinthiens, 36).

80

Christ in the Letters of Paul

But then also emphasizing the authority with which he writes, by explaining that he does not write on his own authority, but on the authority of Christ, in Romans: ,5

τολμηρότερον δέ έγραψα ύμΐν άπό μέρους ώς έπαναμιμνήσκων ύμάς διά την χάριν την δοθεΐσάν μοι ύπό τοϋ θεοΰ 16είς τό εΐναί με λειτουργόν Χρίστου Ίησοΰ εις τά έθνη, ίερουργοΰντα τό εύαγγέλιον του θεοΰ,158 ϊνα γένηται ή προσφορά των έθνών ευπρόσδεκτος, ήγιασμένη έν πνεύματι άγίω. 17έχω οΰν [την] καύχησιν έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τά προς τόν θεόν- 18ού γαρ τολμήσω τι λαλεΐν ων ού κατειργάσατο Χριστός δι' έμοΰ εις ύπακοήν έθνών, λόγφ και έργφ, 19έν δυνάμει σημείων και τεράτων, έν δυνάμει πνεύματος [θεοΰ] (Rom 15:15—19b). He understands his proclamation of the gospel as Christ working through him.159 158 Most interpreters understand λειτουργός in a non-liturgical sense, but that Paul does then introduce a liturgical meaning by his use of ίερουργεΐν. So, most explicitly Zahn: "Daß PI unter λειτουγός (-γεΐν) nicht einen priesterlichen Dienst versteht, zeigt sich hier wiederum deutlich . . . ; denn in diesem Fall wäre kein B e d ü r f n i s gewesen, erst n o c h d u r c h ίερουγοΰντα auf diesen Charakter seiner Arbeit für die Bereitung der Heidenwelt zu einer Gotte wohlgefälligen Opfergabe (cf 12, 1) hinzuweisen" (Römer, 597). He is contradicted by Käsemann: "Für sich genommen kann διάκονος noch profan den Amtsträger bezeichnen. D o c h hat ί ε ρ ο υ ρ γ ε ΐ ν eindeutig kultischen Sinn, n ä m l i c h priesterlichen Dienst vollziehen (vgl. den Aufsatz von Wiener; Lietzmann; Michel; Schlier, Liturgie 249 ff.). Das gibt (anders Zahn) auch dem Substantiv sakrale Bedeutung" (Römer, 375). Similarly, Lietzmann: "λειτουργόν hier, wie das folgende zeigt, in sakralem Sinne, s. zu 13,6: ίερουργόν ist Terminus technicus 'Priesterfunktion ausüben'" (Römer, 120) and Leenhardt: " L 'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Romains, 207). So, also Wilckens (Der Brief an die Römer [Rom 12-16] [ E K K N T ; N e u k i r c h e n - V l y n - Zürich - Köln: N e u k i r c h e n e r Verlag, Einsiedeln, Benzinger, 1982, 2nd ed. 1989] 118), de Kruijf (Romeinen, 279) and Dunn (Romans 9-16 [WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988] 859). Schmidt does not differentiate between a non-cultic use of λειτουργός and the cultic meaning introduced by Paul's use of ίερουργεΐν: "λειτουργός (13,6) hat hier, dem Sprachgebrauch der LXX gemäß, kultische Bedeutung, was ausdrücklich durch die erläuternde Apposition ίερουργοΰντα sichergestellt wird" (Römer, 244). According to de Kruijf, Paul does not function as a priest; it is the proclamation of the gospel which functions as such: "Men zou het zo kunnen zeggen: niet Paulus functioneert als een cultische priester, maar de bediening van het evangelie heeft de functie van een priesterlijke 'abodah (gr. leitourgia), omdat zij de volken de ware dienst van God brengt" (op. cit., 280). It is a distinction not made by most other interpreters. So, explicitly, Achtemeier: "Paul understood his apostolic commission in priestly terms: it was his task to bring the gentiles as an acceptable offering to God . . ." (Romans [IBC; Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1985] 230). It is then also mostly assumed that the gentiles are presented to God as a sacrifice. So Lietzmann: "Die έθνη sollen ein geheiligtes Opfer werden, das Pls Gott darbringt v. 16" (loc. cit.). So, also, Schlatter (Römer, 238), Zahn (loc. cit.), Leenhardt (loc. cit.), Wilckens (loc. cit.). 159 All interpreters agree on such an understanding. Cf. Leenhardt: "C'est Christ qui agit et qui donne ä ce ministere sa merveilleuse fecondite (cf. 2 Cor. 3. 5; 4. 7; 13. 3). II a institue la predication de l'Evangile et il continue d'accomplir, par l'apötre, la täche qu'il avait en vue quand il institua l'apostolat" (L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Romains, 207-8); Schlatter:

The Meaning for Paul Personally

81

Paul makes the same point in a different way in the so-called letter of tears. Understanding his authority to have been challenged, he responds by emphasizing not his weakness, which he concedes, but the authority which he has in Christ: 7

τά κατά πρόσωπον βλέπετε, εϊ τις πέποιθεν έαυτω Χρίστου είναι, τοΰτο λογιζέσθω πάλιν έφ' έαυτοΰ, οτι καθώς αύτός Χριστοϋ, οϋτως και ήμεΐς. 160 8 έάν [τε] γάρ περισσότερόν τι καυχήσωμαι περί της έξουσίας

"Daß er als Apostel zu den Römern spricht, das steht auf den Werken des Christus, die Christus durch ihn vollbracht hat. Christus hat ihm alle Ausrüstung gegeben, die er als sein Bote bedarf . . . " (Römer, 239). Lietzmann points to the interweaving of two thoughts in verse 18. "Zwei Gedanken verschlungen: 'ich kann nichts berichten, was nicht Christi Werk wäre' und 'ich würde nicht wagen, dies zu sagen, wenn es nicht Christi Werk wäre'" (Römer, 120). Note also Barrett's formulation: "The sentence is confused because Paul is trying to say two things at once. These are (i) I would not dare to speak of this if it were not Christ's work (rather than mine); (ii) I would not dare to speak of this if it were not Christ's work through me (rather than anyone else). The conversion of the Gentiles has been the work of Christ, through Paul. This double fact is that in which he can glory" (Romans, 2nd Ed., 253). Käsemann refers approvingly to both of them: "Dabei verknüpfen sich (Lietzmann; Barrett) zwei Gedanken: Nur von Christi Werk durch ihn kann der Apostel sprechen, und anders würde er nicht davon zu reden wagen" (Römer, 376). 160 An important issue in the commentaries in connection with verse 7 is to whom τις refers, particularly, whether is refers to the so-called "Christ party" in 1 Cor 1:12, λέγω δέ τοΰτο, ότι έκαστος ύμών λέγει, έγώ μέν είμι Παύλου, έγώ δέ Άπολλώ, έγώ δέ Κηφά, έγώ δέ Χριστοϋ. Many interpreters recognize the possibility of such a link, but consider the connection doubtful. So, Denney (Second Corinthians, 301), Plummer (Second Corinthians, 280), Bachmann (Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther [KNT; Leipzig: A. D e i c h e r t s c h e V e r l a g s b u c h h a n d l u n g Werner Scholl, 1918] 348), W i n d i s c h (Zweite Korintherbrief, 301), Hering (Seconde Corinthiens, 79), Wendland (Korinther, 204), Barrett (Second Corinthians, 257) and Bultmann (Zweite Korinther, 189). An exception is Schlatter: "In dieser Beziehung schien es aber bei den Gegnern des Paulus aufs beste bestellt zu sein, da sie mit besonderem Nachdruck versicherten, daß sie zum Christus gehören. Sie haben also dieses zum Parteinamen mißbrauchte Wort, das schon zur Zeit des ersten Briefes die Gemeinde verwirt hat, 1 Kor. 1,12, festgehalten trotz allem, was seither geschehen war. Was Paulus über den rechten Sinn dieses Bekenntnisses gesagt hat, 1 Kor. 3, hat sie nicht belehrt und auch sein Besuch sie nicht davon abgebracht. Während wir von den anderen Parteinamen im zweiten Brief nichts mehr hören, haben die, die gegen Paulus in einen vollständigen Gegensatz geraten sind, immer noch die Berufung auf Christus, der mit ihnen in besonderer Weise verbunden sei, als Kampfmittel gegen ihn gebraucht" Korintherbriefe, 323-24). Unconvincing is the argument that the Christ party did not exist because we have practically no knowledge of it, "Da wir andererseits von der 'Christus-leute' in 1. Kor. 1,12 faktisch nichts wissen, ist es auch nicht angebracht, die polemische Wendung des Paulus auf die ' C h r i s t u s p a r t e i ' im Sinne einer Gruppe von enthusiastischen P n e u m a t i k e r n zu beziehen. . . ." (Wendland, loc. cit.), or because the existence of such a party is uncertain, ". . . l'existence de ce parti est douteuse" (Hering, loc. cit.). The fact that we know pratically nothing about such a party and that its existence is doubtful does not exclude that it may have existed and could have been involved. More convincing is the argument that with his claim that he too belongs to Christ, Paul would hardly have used "language which would almost inevitably be understood to mean that he was a member of the 'Christ' party"

82

Christ in the Letters of Paul

ήμών ής έδωκεν ό κύριος εις οίκοδομήν καϊ ούκ είς καθαίρεσιν ύμών, ούκ αίσχυνθήσομαι (2 Cor 10:7-8).161 It was not as if Paul did not have problems with the weakness to which he was subject. So he asked Christ to remove it, referring to it as a thorn in his flesh, 7

ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι, έδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τη σαρκί, άγγελος σατανά, ϊνα με κολαφίζη, ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι. 8 ύπέρ τούτου τρις τόν κύριον παρεκάλεσα ϊνα άποστή άπ' έμοΰ (2 Cor 12:7b—8). Christ refused, ε'ίρηκέν μοι, άρκεϊ σοι ή χάρις μου· ή γάρ δύναμις έν άσθενεία τελείται (12:9a-c). It was precisely Paul's weakness in which Christ's power was realized. Paul brings to expression the significance of Christ's refusal to remove the thorn in his flesh by placing it in contrast to his rapture into the third heaven and into paradise, concluding with the statement that he would boast about someone who received such a revelation, but not about himself, as if

(Plummer, loc. cit.), cf. Barrett: "Paul claims that he too belongs to Christ, and can hardly mean that he is a member of the Christ-party" (loc. cit.). Important for the issue of Paul's authority, which comes in sharper focus in verse 8, is that he does not deny his opponent(s) claim to belong to Christ, but merely claims that he too belongs to Christ. So Plummer: ". . . we notice here his abstention from denying that his opponents are in any sense Christ's ministers. All he says is that he can give ample evidence that he is a minister of Christ, invested with His authority. Contrast xi. 1 3 - 1 5 " 0loc.cit.), Windisch: "Merkwürdig ist 1), daß P. den Spieß nicht umkehrt und erklärt 'nur ich gehöre zu Chr., ihr nicht', sondern nach dem Schema '. . . ich auch' (11,21) nur seine Gleichberechtigung erweist. . ." (op. cit., 300); also Bachmann (op. cit., 347, 349). 161 What was at issue in verse 7, Paul's belonging to Christ, comes into focus in verse 8 as a question of P a u l ' s authority. So, forcefully, B u l t m a n n : " G e g e n s t a n d des R ü h m e n s [περισσότερόν τι καυχήσωμαι] ist die έξουσία, die apostolische Vollmacht des Paulus wie 13,10 nicht die christliche Freiheit wie IKor 8.9, aber vgl.lKor 9,4ff. Sie ist ihm mit dem auszeichnenden Χριστοί) είναι V. 7 gegeben, und in diesem Sinne begründet V. 8 den V. 7; der Gegner, der dem Paulus das Χριστοΰ είναι abstreitet und damit die έξουσία bestreitet, wird diese έξουσία und damit das Χρίστου είναι verspüren" (Zweite Korinther, 190). See also Bachmann: "Denn in 8 erklärt PI, in der Lage zu sein, in seinem Rühmen noch weiter zu gehen — natürlich weiter, als er mit dem unmittelbar vorhergesagten gegangen war. Als Gegenstand seines καυχάσθαι benennt er aber in 8 geradezu seine apostolische έξουσία, und zwar das nicht so, als ob er sagen wollte: ich könnte zu dem Satze, daß ich mit meinem persönlichen Heilsleben Christo angehöre, noch etwas Rühmliches hinzufügen über die m i r v e r l i e h e n e berufliche Vollmacht — d a s w ä r e j a ein ά λ λ ο , a b e r n i c h t e i n e περισσότερόν. Vielmehr so, daß das περισσότερόν als eine Steigerung von solchem erscheint, was schon vorher über den Inhalt dieser έξουσία gesagt worden war" (Zweite Korinther, 348). Furthermore, Denney (Second Corinthians, 301), Plummer (Second Corinthians, 280), Hering (Seconde Corinthiens, 7 9 - 8 0 ) , Schlatter (Der Bote Jesu, 620), Wendland (Korinther, 2 0 4 - 5 ) and Barrett (Second Corinthians, 257-58).

The Meaning for Paul Personally

83

the description is not about something in which he himself had been involved. 162 162 Sharply formulated by Bachmann: "PI hält also die objektivierende Redeform fest, j a steigert sie bis zur direkten Entgegensetzung zwischen jenem 'Betreffenden' und sich selber, wobei doch zugleich in καυχήσομαι sich verrät, daß PI an dem τοιούτος ein eigenes Interesse besitzt. In der so eigentümlichen Ausdrucksweise spricht sich der Gedanke aus, PI werde sich zwar jener Begebenheit rühmen, aber dabei vergessen oder zurückstellen, daß er es ist, dem sie widerfuhr, also sich rühmen unter gleichzeitiger Abstraktion von seiner Persönlichkeit, wie ja auch keinerlei Leistung seinerseits zu jener Begebenheit mitwirkte" (Zweite Korinther, 395). Similarly Denney ( S e c o n d Corinthians, 346), Lietzmann (Korinther, 153), Windisch (Zweite Korintherbrief, 369), Schlatter (Der Bote Jesu, 661), Käsemann (Die Legitimität des Apostels. Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther 10-13 [Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Reihe Libelli; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956] 54-5), Wendland (Korinther, 219), Barrett (Second Corinthians, 307) and Bultmann (Zweite Korinther, 221). Various interpretations have been given to explain what was behind Paul's reference to his experience in the third person. According to Käsemann it calls to mind the disinction between the human as profane being and as spiritual, "der antiken Unterscheidung zwischen profanem Menschen und seinem »pneumatischen Doppelich«" (loc. cit.). Similarly, Hering: "Le v. 5 peut de nouveau donner l'impression que l'apötre distingue deux personnes en lui: l ' h o m m e (άνθρωπος), qui r e f u t des graces particulieres, et lui-meme (έμαυτοΰ), qui n'a aucune raison de se vanter. Cependant il nous semble qu'il ne s'agit pas d'une scission reelle, mais seulement d'une distinction entre deux aspects de son etre" (Seconde Corinthiens, 95). As indicated in the quotation, Hering does not want this to be understood as a split in the human beging. Earlier he pointed out that in contrast to a Philonian distinction between an "I" who leaves the body and a person as such, referring to Windisch, Paul takes it to be the person, άνθρωπος, who is taken up into heaven. "Pour la comprehension du rapt, Windisch (p. 369) renvoie ä la distinction philonienne entre le «moi» qui quitte le c o r p s et l ' h o m m e c o m m e tel. Mais chez Paul c ' e s t l ' h o m m e (άνθρωπος) qui est enleve!" (op. cit., 93). For the distinction of two persons within the human being, see also Wendland: "Paulus unterscheidet hier zwei Menschen in sich selbst: den Menschen in Christus, wir dürfen auch sagen: den Geistes-Menschen, von dem natürlichen, irdischen Menschen des Fleisches" (loc. cit.), with which Barrett agrees: "Wendland is not far wrong in saying that Paul distinguishes two men within h i m s e l f ' (loc. cit.). Windisch is skeptical: "P. unterscheidet nicht etwa seinen natürlichen Menschen und den Träger der Offenbarungen, d. i. den pneumatischen Menschen, den er in seinem tiefsten Kerne in sich birgt (vgl. 4, 16), vielmehr stellt er den letzteren als eine dritte Person vor, einen Vollmenschen (bestehend aus Geist und Körper — und im Geiste mit Christus geeint); der andere, der im Himmel war, ist nicht 'sein Himmelsgast', nicht sein 'anderes Ich', sondern eine andere Person, über die er Bericht erstattet; und erst V. 5 deutet er an, daß dieser Mensch — er selbst ist" (Zweite Korintherbrief, 369-70). Formulated even more sharply : "Die Antithese ύπέρ έμαυτοΰ ist scharf und deutlich: jener Mensch ist nicht einmal sein Doppelgänger, sondern ein 'Dritter' und sein Zusammenhang mit der Person des P. ist zunächst nur daraus ersichtlich, daß P. sich desselben und seiner Himmelreise rühmt (op. cit., 380). For a different view, see Bousset: "Für Paulus wäre dann 'jener Mensch', der in die Himmel entrückt wurde, gar nicht mehr identisch mit seinem empirischen, menschlichen Ich, sondern gleichsam ein höheres Doppelgänger-Wesen in ihm" (Zweite Korinther, 217). Bultmann states the most that can safely be said: "Paulus redet von sich in dritter Person wie sonst nie. 'Bescheidenheitsstil' ist das schwerlich (Windisch, 370). Eher beruht es auf dem Gedanken V. 5, daß sein verantwortliches Ich dabei nicht beteiligt war, daß etwas mit ihm geschehen ist, dem er gleichsam zusah, bzw. das sich rückblickend an ihm als an

84

Christ in the Letters of Paul

In this way he signals already from the beginning that his purpose with the report of his rapture was not as a defense of his apostolic authority. 1

καυχάσθαι δει, ού συμφέρον μέν, έλεύσομαι δέ εις οπτασίας και άποκαλύψεις κυρίου. 2οίδα άνθρωπον έν Χριστώ πρό έτών δεκατεσσάρων, ε'ίτε έν σώματι ούκ οίδα, εϊτε έκτος του σώματος ούκ οίδα, ό θεός οΐδεν, άρπαγέντα τον τοιούτον εως τρίτου ούρανοΰ. 3 καί οίδα τον τοιούτον ανθρωπον, εϊτε έν σώματι ε'ίτε χωρίς του σώματος ούκ οίδα, ό θεός οΐδεν, 4 οτι ήρπάγη είς τόν παράδεισον καί ήκουσεν άρρητα ρήματα α ούκ έξόν άνθρώπω λαλήσαι.163 5ύπέρ τοΰ τοιούτου καυχήσομαι, ύπέρ δέ έμαυτοΰ ού καυχήσομαι εί μή έν ταΐς άσθενείαις (2 Cor 12:1-5). 164

einem Fremden vollzog ('sich von dem berichteten Geschehen zu distanzieren', Käsemann, Z N W 41, 1942, 64)" (loc. cit.). Note especially the purpose which he quotes f r o m Käsemann (op cit., 55). 163 The expression, αρρητα ρήματα, reminds of the mystery religions. So Windisch: ""Αρρητα ρήματα ist sonach ein technischer Ausdruck, den P. mit Bewußtsein aus der Kultsprache der Mysterien entnommen haben muß. Der Unterschied zwischen dem damit angedeuteten Mysterienbrauch und dem Fall des P. ist freilich der, daß in den Mysterien Kreise von Eingeweihten bestanden, die rite die Geheimnisse schauten und vernahmen, während dem P. j e d e Mitteilung verboten ist" (Zweite Korintherbrief, 378); Hering: "L'expression αρρητα ρήματα = des paroles ineffables pourrait etre empruntee au langage des mysteres, oil les inities pouvaient entendre, en etat supranormal, des paroles proferees par des dieux, sur lesquelles il fallait soit garder le silence complet, soit donner des renseignements aux elus seuls et sur le sceau du secret. On voit ς υ ' ά ρ ρ η τ α n e signifie pas f o r c e m e n t «inexprimable en langage humain», mais en tout cas interdit de r0v0ler" (Seconde Corinthiens, 95; also, without reference to the mysteries, Schlatter, who considers the vision to have been of Christ (see below, footnote 168): "Er war ein anderes Mal am Ort der entschlafenen Gerechten, und er sah nicht nur die, die Gott im Paradies geborgen hat, sondern er hörte auch Worte, an die sich aber das Gebot heftete, daß er sie nicht auf Erde anderen sage; denn es sei ihm damit etwas gewährt worden, was über das hinausrage, was dem Menschen in seinem irdischen Stand gebührt" (Korintherbriefe, 345). 164 An insoluble problem in connection with Paul's vision is whether paradise is to be distinguished from the third heaven. Interpreters differ: Denney, "The rapture had a second stage, under the same incomprehensible conditions, and in it the Christian man passed out and up from the third heaven into Paradise" (Second Corinthians, 349); Bousset, "Wenn er dann noch einmal ebenso feierlich anhebt und berichtet, daß er ins Paradies entrückt sei, so werden wir schwerlich verstehen sollen, daß Paradies und dritter Himmel dasselbe seien, daß er sich also in seiner Aussage nur wiederhole. Vielmehr wird das Paradies ein andere Ort, als der dritte Himmel sein" (Zweite Korinther, 215); Schlatter: "Daß er hier nicht wieder sagt, wie weit es zurückliege, trägt den Schluß nicht, daß die Versetzung in das Paradies und die in den dritten Himmel derselbe Vorgang sei" (Der Bote Jesu, 663). In support of his view, he points to the fact that Paul refers to a plurality of revelations: "Er spricht nicht nur Vers 1, sondern auch wieder Vers 7 von den αποκαλύψεις, die ihm zuteil geworden seien" (loc. cit.). Hering, to the contrary, argues that the emphasis is not on the n u m b e r of revelations, but on the superiority of their quality: "Tfl υ π ε ρ β ο λ ή τ ώ ν άποκαλύψεων pourrait en principe faire allusion ä un grand nombre de revelations; mais c'est le sens de υπερβολή = qualite suriminente qui seul convient ici; car de la quantite il n'est pas question" (Seconde Corinthiens, 95). Bultmann is emphatic that it was a single event: "Natürlich ist das Erlebnis von V. 3f. mit d e m von V. 2 identisch" (Zweite Korinther, 223).

85

The Meaning for Paul Personally

In due course it becomes clear that what he had in mind in the passage was to present his vision(s) as contrary to what had been the real foundation of his authority as an apostle. Paul refuses to make use o f t h a t extraordinary experience in defense of the authority of his apostleship, placing it outside the current discussion, once more emphasizing his weakness. The transition is marked by 12:6-7, έάν γάρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, ούκ εσομαι άφρων, άλήθειαν γάρ έρώ· φείδομαι δέ, μή τις είς έμέ λογίσηται ύπέρ ö βλέπει με ή άκούει [τι] έξ έμοΰ 7 καΐ τη υπερβολή των Αποκαλύψεων, διό, ϊ ν α μή ύπεραίρωμαι, έδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τή σαρκί, άγγελος σατανά, ϊνα με κολαφίζη, ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι. 165 He expresses his intended meaning in the passage by

Windisch presents the two parts of the report in parallel columns: I οιδα ανθρωπον έν Χριστώ πρό έτών δεκατεσσάρων εϊτε έν σώματι ούκ οιδα, είτε έκτος τοΰ σώματος ούκ οιδα, ό θεός οΐδεν — άρπαγέντα τόν τοιούτον εως τρίτου ούρανοϋ.

II a και οΐδα τόν τοιούτον ανθρωπον b είτε έν σώματι εϊτε χωρίς του σώματος ούκ οΐδα, ό θεός οίδεν — c οτι ήρπάγη είς τόν παράδεισον . .

He allows for both interpretations: "Beide Momente leiten nämlich zu der exegetisch wichtige Frage, ob II auch sachlich mit I identisch ist (1) oder einen zweiten Akt der Entrückung bezeichnet, der vom 'dritten Himmel' nach dem 'Paradies' führte (2). Im ersten Fall ist das Paradies im dritten Himmel gedacht, im zweiten darüber, etwa im 'vierten H i m m e l ' liegend; und nur dieser Aufenthalt im Paradies wäre durch die Audition 'unaussprechlicher Worte' Ausgezeichnet gewesen. Die Frage ist auch für die Stilbeurteilung von Bedeutung. Folgt der Inhalt von II sachlich und zeitlich I (2), dann sind zwei Hälften eines Erlebnisses gleichlautend zum Ausdruck gebracht, während im anderen Fall (1) die Erzählung zunächst bis zum Ziel der Reise gebracht, dann in vollem Gleichlaut wiederholt und nun endlich zu Ende geführt sein würde; solch echt semitischer Stil klingt in unseren Ohren manieriert, hätte aber doch einen Sinn: der Vf. schreibt voll Scheu, das Heilige zu profanieren; er bringt es zunächst nur fertig, den Akt der Entrückung zu beschreiben, und erst beim zweiten Anlauf gelingt es dem Mystiker, auch noch Heiligste, was er erlebt, wenigstens andeutend in Worte zu setzen: auf diese letzte Zeile Ild fiele dann der größte N a c h d r u c k " (loc.cil.). W e n d l a n d is similarly open to both i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s (Korinther, 220-21). There is no solid basis for deciding the issue. 165 Interpreters generally consider there to be a problem with the text. As it now stands the δίο with which verse 7b begins makes it necessary to connect verse 7a to verse 6. But there is nothing with which it can be appropriately connected. Windisch discusses the issue extensively: "Nach jetzt üblicher Lesung (Nestle, v. Sod., Vog.) gehören allerdings die ersten Worte von V. 7 (και τη υπερβολή των αποκαλύψεων) noch zu V. 6 und stellen eine zu μή τις κτλ. hinzukommende Begründung des φείδομαι dar, eine Verbindung, die indes aus stilistischen wie logischen Gründen unmöglich ist: weder kann die p r ä p o s i t i o n a l e Wendung dem Finalsatz beigeordnet sein, noch gibt sie einen Grund für die Zurückhaltung (φείδομαι) ab, die P. übt" (Zweite Korintherbrief, 382). It is not clear what he means when he writes: "weder kann die präpositionale Wendung dem Finalsatz beigeordnet sein . . ." The "prepositionale Wendung" must be ύπέρ ö βλέπει με ή άκούει [τι] έξ έμοΰ (v. 6f), but

86

Christ in the Letters of Paul

contrasting the report of his magnificent experience in verses 1-5 with his reconciliation of himself with his weakness,166 represented by the thorn in his to w h i c h " F i n a l s a t z " does he refer? The only possibility would seem to be ί ν α μή ύπεραίρωμαι (v. 7b, less probably 7f). If that is what he intends, the only reason it cannot be connected to the prepositional expression would be the intervening διό, but that would be a mere restatement of the problem. Windisch considers other possibilities as well. "Nun heißt τ. ύπ. τ. άπ. 'durch oder wegen des Überschwungs der Offenbarungen' d. i. ihrer Häufigkeit und (oder) wegen der mit ihnen verbundenen Auszeichnung'[sie] (vgl. 4,7 ή ύπερβολή τή δυνάμεως). Diese Wendung kann sachlich nur mit καυχήσασθαι oder mit ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι (oder einem synonymen Ausdruck) verbunden sein. Das Nächstliegende wäre die Verbindung mit dem folgenden Sätzchen: dem steht aber διό entgegen; so würde die Streichung des διό (mit W- und ICZeugen, darunter vg. sah. — nicht boh.) die einfachste Lösung sein; doch ist dieser Text wohl Korrektur. Dann hat man anzunehmen, entweder daß κ. τ. ύπ. τ. άπ. sehr früh einmal am Rande nachgetragen wurde und dann an verkehrte Stelle geraten ist, also (ohne καί) hinter ύπεραίρωμαι gehört oder (weniger gut) hinter καυχήσασθαι; oder daß die Wendung das Rudiment eines verloren gegangenen Satzteils oder Satzes darsstelt" (op. cit., 382-83). Hering has an uncomplicated solution, which characterizes others as well: "Nous pensons d'ailleurs qu'il faut rattacher ce bout de phrase ä la suite, en biffant διό avec de nombreux excellents temoins, ainsi que le point mis par Nestle avant cette conjonction. Le sens du v. 7 est alors tout ä fait clair: pour que l'apötre ne s'eleve pas au-delä de ce qui convient (ίνα μή ύπεραίρωμα) ä la suite des revelations, on lui a donne une echarde ou un mal (σκόλοψ) dans la chair, et on precise qu'il s'agit d'un envoye de Satan, qui doit le «souffleter»" {Seconde Corinthiens, 95). Similarly, through a more complicated reasoning, Schlatter {Der Bote Jesu, 664-65). There is general agreement that Paul's intended meaning is clear. Wendland is staightforward: "Trotz dieser Unsicherheit ist der Sinn des Folgenden klar: jede Überhebung, die aus der besonderen Begnadigung entstehen könnte, ist unmöglich gemacht, weil Paulus nicht nur der ekstatische Verzückung teilhaftig geworden ist, sondern ein Leiden an sich trägt, das er als einen Dorn im Fleisch und als die Wirkung eines Satansengels bezeichnet" {Korinther, 223). Similarly Barrett {Second Corinthians, 313). Bultmann puts his finger on the f u n d a m e n t a l issue: "Gehört καί τή ύ π ε ρ β ο λ ή τ ω ν άποκαλύψεων zum Folgenden, so muß διό fehlen (so ρ 4 6 I i D pi latsy Ir Or, gegen S A B bo G). . . . Dann ist die Konstruktion glatt und der Sinn klar. Aber ist die sekundäre Einfügung von διό zu erklären?" {Zweite Korinther, 226). He provides further considerations: " L i e g t s t ä r k e r e V e r d e r b n i s des Textes vor? G e h ö r t καί τή ύ π ε ρ β ο λ ή τ ω ν άποκαλύψεων hinter έάν γάρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι oder hinter 'ίνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι am Schluß von V. 7 ? " {loc. cit.), revealing that even if P a u l ' s m e a n i n g m a y be clear, reconstuction of the original text remains speculative. 166 So, clearly formulated, Lietzmann: "Pis beginnt sich der hohen göttlichen Offenbarungen zu rühmen, bricht aber (ähnlich wie 11,23) schon nach dem ersten Beispiel mit der v. 5. 6 gegebenen Motivierung ab und setzt v. 7ff. lieber das 'Sich der Schwachheit rühmen' fort" {Korinther, 153). And then: "Pis setzt den Ruhm des Apokalyptikers deutlich in direkten Gegensatz zu dem Ruhm der Schwachheit und erklärt, dies letztere allein sei hier sein Thema (vgl. 11,30). . . . seine Autorität soll nicht auf einer j a doch unkontrollierbaren Geheimniskrämerei beruhen (auf die sich auch ein Schwindler berufen könnte), sondern nur auf dem, was die Korinther sehen und hören können — und das ist die 'Schwachheit' des Pls, d. h. sein Leiden um Christi willen und die Tapferkeit, mit der er ihm standhält" {op. cit., 155). See also Windisch: "Trotzdem wird P. sagen wollen, er wolle nur auf Grund seiner gewöhnlichen, and die Erde gebundenen, für jedermann zugänglichen Taten und Äußerungen beurteilt werden und wünsche, daß man die geheimen Erlebnisse, von denen er soeben eines mitgeteilt hat, nicht auf sein Konto nehme, also bei der Beurteilung seiner Person und im Verkehr mit ihm nicht in Rechnung ziehe. . . . Um der Selbstüberhebung

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

87

flesh. It is in his weakness, not in those things about which he could pride himself like others, that the power of Christ is revealed in him. We do not know what the thorn in his flesh was, 167 but Christ's answer is revealing with regard to Paul's apostleship, and Paul understands himself accordingly: 9ι1

ήδιστα ο ΰ ν μ ά λ λ ο ν κ α υ χ ή σ ο μ α ι έν τ α ί ς ά σ θ ε ν ε ί α ι ς μου, ϊ ν α έπισκηνώση έπ' έμέ ή δύναμις τοϋ Χριστοΰ. 10διό ευδοκώ έν άσθενείαις,

auf G r u n d des einzigartigen O f f e n b a r u n g e n , die i h m g e s c h e n k t worden ware, zu entgehen, hatte j a P. 1) einen anderen M e n s c h e n z u m Helden der H i m m e l f a h r t g e m a c h t und 2) ausdrücklich alles, was nicht S c h w a c h h e i t war, aus s e i n e m S e l b s t r u h m ausgeschaltet" ( Z w e i t e Korintherbrief, 3 8 2 - 8 3 ) . Schlatter brings a perspective on P a u l ' s s u f f e r i n g f r o m the p o i n t of v i e w of his vision: " E r preist also seine Leiden n i c h t deshalb, weil er nichts anderes von sich zu sagen hätte, als d a ß er s c h w a c h sei, und nichts W u n d e r b a r e s und unbegreiflich Herrliches erlebte; vielmehr weil er so Großes erlebt hat, preist er seine S c h w a c h h e i t ; denn seine höchsten E r f a h r u n g e n m a c h e n , statt ihn v o m Preis seiner Leiden w e g z u z i e h e n , seine Ü b e r z e u g u n g , d a ß sie d i e B e d i n g u n g s e i n e s W i r k e n s s e i e n , v o l l e n d s f e s t " ( D e r Bote Jesu, 668). K ä s e m a n n emphasizes especially P a u l ' s distancing of himself f r o m the vision: "Jedenfalls verbindet Paulus aber mit der »objektiven F o r m « seiner E r z ä h l u n g die Absicht, sich von d e m berichteten G e s c h e h e n zu distanzieren, wie in v. 5 b e s o n d e r s k r ä f t i g unterstrichen wird. U n d eben m i t dieser D i s t a n z i e r u n g k o m m t das eigentliche p a u l i n i s c h e Interesse in dieser Stelle zur Geltung. Es hat das Endziel unserer Interpretation zu sein, ihren G r u n d a u f z u d e c k e n " (Legitimität des Apostels, 55). Also: " P a u l u s will dort auf sein K o n t o n u r das g e b u c h t wissen, was man bei ihm »sehen und h ö r e n « k a n n . Das bedeutet, d a ß er einzig von seiner Diakonia aus verstanden werden will. Die E n t r ü c k u n g hat ihn f a k tisch a u s seiner a p o s t o l i s c h e n E x i s t e n z , a u s d e m g e s c h i c h t l i c h e n Z u s a m m e n h a n g d e r G l i e d e r a m C h r i s t u s l e i b h e r a u s g e h o b e n u n d ihn e i n e r i n d i v i d u e l l e n A u s z e i c h n u n g gewürdigt, die für seinen Dienst nicht direkt f r u c h t b a r zu m a c h e n ist" ( o p . cit., 64). W e n d land too c o o r d i n a t e s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of P a u l ' s vision and of his s u f f e r i n g : " A b e r auch diese G n a d e ist G n a d e im Leiden, und so schließt sich von V . 5 an der G e d a n k e n g a n g wieder mit 11,30 z u s a m m e n : die G n a d e geschieht an d e m Leidenden, die K r a f t vollendet sich in der S c h w a c h h e i t " ( K o r i n t h e r , 219). Similar views are also expressed b y D e n n e y ( S e c o n d Corinthians, 3 4 6 - 4 7 ) , B o u s s e t (Zweite Korinther, 217), Hering (Seconde Corinthiens, 95) and B u l t m a n n (Zweite Korinther, 227). Lietzmann radically devalues the m e a n i n g of P a u l ' s vision, "Vorher motiviert er aber in ν. 6 n o c h ausdrücklich, u m j e d e r b o s h a f t e n V e r d r e h u n g vorzubeugen, w a r u m er die O f f e n b a r u n g e n nicht zur r ü h m e n d e n E m p f e h l u n g seiner Person benützen will: seine Autorität soll nicht auf einer j a doch unkontrollierbaren G e h e i m n i s k r ä m e r e i beruhen (auf die sich auch ein Schwindler b e r u f e n könnte), sondern nur auf d e m , was die Korinther sehen und hören können — und das ist die ' S c h w a c h h e i t ' des Pls, d. h. sein Leiden u m Christi willen und die Tapferkeit, mit der er ihm standhält" (op. cit., 155). Similarly K ä s e m a n , " W a s II C o r 12 2 f f . erzählt wird, ist nicht Manifestation des Logos, sondern ein Gewahren von Mysterien. Es ist kein V o r g a n g , dessen m a n in der B r u d e r s c h a f t des Leibes Christi teilh a f t i g wird, sei es auch als Charismatiker, sondern ein einmaliges Erleben, dessen sich der Apostel allein r ü h m e n kann. Es ist so auch nicht derart soteriologisch ausgerichtet, d a ß es eine praktische K o n s e q u e n z für den Dienst an der G e m e i n d e n a c h sich z ü g e " (op. cit., 59). 167 Earlier there had evidently been considerable speculation on P a u l ' s thorn in the flesh. The tendency had been to interpret it as s o m e t h i n g physical. So, Denney: "I d o not feel called on to a d d a n o t h e r to t h e n u m b e r l e s s d i s q u i s i t i o n s on P a u l ' s t h o r n in t h e f l e s h . T h e resources of imagination h a v i n g been exhausted, people are returning to the obvious. The thorn in the flesh w a s s o m e t h i n g p a i n f u l , which affected the A p o s t l e ' s b o d y ; it was s o m e thing in its nature purely physical, not a solicitation to any kind of sin, such as sensuality or pride, else he would n o t have ceased to pray for its removal . . ." (Second Corinthi-

88

Christ in the Letters of Paul

έν ϋβρεσιν, έν άνάγκαις, έν διωγμοΐς καν στενοχωρίαις, ύπέρ Χρίστου· οταν γαρ άσθενώ, τότε δυνατός είμι (2 Cor 12:9d—10). What Paul makes clear in the passage is that his apostleship is not grounded in a vision of the third heaven or paradise, even if he could claim that too, but in Christ's clarification of the nature of his apostleship in 12:9ac, which reminds of God's revelation of Christ to him with the command to proclaim the gospel to the gentiles in Gal. 1:15—16b, 15οτε δε εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καϊ καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοΰ 16άποκαλύψαι τον υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοϊ ϊνα ευαγγελίζομαι αύτόν έν τοις εθνεσιν. There is no vision of Christ in 12:1-5. 168 It was in his beseeching Christ to take away the thorn in his flesh and in Christ's response, thus, that Paul exans, 352). More recent interpreters tend to focus more on the significance of Paul's statement, rather than speculate about what it might refer to. So, Hering: "Le sens du v. 7 est alors tout ä fait clair: pour que l'apötre ne s'eleve pas au-delä de ce qui convient (ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμα) ä la suite des revelations, on lui a donne une echarde ou un mal (σκόλοψ) dans la chair, et on precise qu'il s'agit d'un envoye de Satan, qui doit le «souffleter». II va sans dire que ni Satan ni son «ange» n ' o n t agi sans l'autorisation d i v i n " (Seconde Corinthiens, 95) and Käsemann: "Der Apostel weiß sich in solcher Haltung mit dem göttlichen Willen in klarster Obereinstimmung. Gott selbst hat ihn durch den nicht von ihm genommenen σκόλοψ aus den Höhen des Mystikers in die Realität seines apostolischen Dienstes zurückgerissen und ihn so auch objektiv zu der Distanz seinem ekstatischen Erlebnis gegenüber gezwungen, in der wir das besondere Kennzeichen des Berichtes 12 2ff. erblickten" (Legitimität des Apostels, 65). A view worth considering is Schlatter's, that the thorn was the angel of Satan to "beat him in the face." The thorn in the flesh should thus be understood as a metaphor for affliction on Paul by the angel of Satan. "Der Pfahl für sein Fleisch besteht darin, daß ein Engel des Satans zu ihm gesendet wird mit dem Auftrag, ihn in das Gesicht zu schlagen. . . . Das Erdulden der satanischen Anklagen zog sich also durch eine längere Zeit hin. Das Subjekt von άποστη [v. 8b] ist άγγελος; Paulus bat nicht um die Heilung einer Krankheit, sondern u m die Entfernung einer geistigen Macht, die ihm seine Schuld und Ohnmacht zeigte, άγγελος, nicht das bildliche σκόλοψ, ist in der Aussage des Paulus der Hauptbegriff' (Der Bote Jesu, 666-67). Without knowledge of Schlatter's work, David Abernathy came to the same conclusion: "The alternative then, to seeing σκόλοψ τη σαρκί, άγγελος Σατανά as two metaphors in apposition with no known concrete referent is to take σκόλοψ τη σαρκί as the metaphor and άγγελος Σατανά as the concrete referent. . . . Evidence that Paul is speaking of a literal angel of Satan is seen when we look at his prayer for relief. Paul's appeal to the Lord ϊνα άποστή άπ' έμοΰ is translated 'to take it away from m e ' by the NIV, but a more literal translation would be 'that he/it depart from me' (cf. NRSV 'that it would leave me'). This more literal rendering would be consistent with what we would expect if Paul actually were asking God to free him from the aggressions of a demon" ("Paul's Thorn in the Flesh: A Messenger of Satan?" Neot 3 5 [ l - 2 ] [2001] 74). 168 So Hering: "II s'agit de «visions» (όπτασίαι) et de «revelations» (αποκαλύψεις). Le genetif τοϋ κυρίου peut signifier apparitions du Seigneur ou visions accordees par le Seigneur. Le rapt au troisieme ciel (v. 2) peut faire pencher vers la deuxieme explication. Car les apparitions du Seigneur sur le chemin de Damas et au temple de Jerusalem n'ont pas necessite de «rapt»" (Seconde Corinthiens, 93): Käsemann: "Allerdings m u ß sofort einschränkend bemerkt werden, daß Paulus tatsächlich von einer Offenbarung Gottes oder Christi nicht spricht. Was er erfahren hat, sind himmlische Räume und unaussprechliche Worte d. h.

89

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

perienced Christ. He abandons his vision in 12:1-5 as a defense of his authority as an apostle, by opposing to it his encounter with Christ and what follows from it in 12:7-10. His experience of Christ is not the expression of a christology, but the foundation from which a christology could emerge. Paul was not interested in formulating a christology. In 1 Cor 15:30-32, Paul coordinates his sufferings in service of the proclamation of Christ directly with the reality of the resurrection of the dead: 30

τί και ήμείς κινδυνεύομεν πάσαν ώραν; 31 καθ' ήμέραν αποθνήσκω, νή τήν ύμετέραν καύχησιν, [αδελφοί,] ήν έχω έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίο) ήμών. 32 εί κατά ανθρωπον έθηριομάχησα έν Έφέσω, τί μοι τό όφελος; εί νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται, φάγωμεν και πίωμεν, αΰριον γάρ άποθνήςκομεν.[ 169 solche, über die er sich weder äußern kann n o c h d a r f ' (Legitimität des Apostels, 56-7); W e n d l a n d : " D e r Genitiv ' d e s H e r r n ' besagt n i c h t , d a ß er Christus geschaut h a b e ; denn d a v o n ist im Folgenden nicht die Rede, sondern d a ß der Herr ihn dieser Gesichte gewürdigt habe. Sie stehen also nicht auf einer Linie mit der O f f e n b a r u n g Christi vor D a m a s k u s , die den Apostolat des Paulus begründete, so wie das ekstatische Gebet des Z u n g e n r e d n e r s , das n u r diesen mit Gott verbindet, f ü r die G e m e i n d e aber u n z u g ä n g l i c h bleibt (1. Kor. 14,2)" (.Korinther, 219); B u l t m a n n : "Ist κ υ ρ ί ο υ Gen. obj. oder subj.? a u c h zu ο π τ α σ ί α ς ? Jedenfalls ist von einer S c h a u des κύριος V . 4 nicht die Rede. Schwerlich wird also κ ύ ρ ι ο υ Gen. obj. s e i n " ( Z w e i t e Korinther, 220). An exception to this u n d e r s t a n d i n g is Schlatter: " D e r Genetiv wird a u c h hier, wie 1 1 , 7 , den n e n n e n , der sichtbar g e m a c h t wird; κύριος ist somit der N a m e Jesu. Paulus erzählt, wie Jesus sich i h m durch eine in i h m sich vollziehende S c h a u g e z e i g t h a b e " ( D e r Bote Jesu, 6 5 8 ) ; also " D a s , w a s P a u l u s e r l e b t e , w a r ' e i n e S c h a u u n g und E n t h ü l l u n g des H e r r n ' . D e n n o c h spricht er nur v o m Ort, an den er gebracht w u r d e , nicht v o m Herrn, den er dort s a h " (op. cit., 662). 169 P a u l ' s christological statement is not w h a t drew interpreters' attention. But note, Sickenberger: " P a u l u s selbst liefert sodann durch sein eigenes Leben einen in die A u g e n fallenden A u f e r s t e h u n g s b e w e i s . Die großen G e f a h r e n , die ihn j e d e n A u g e n b l i c k b e d r o h e n , und die sogar Lebensgefahren bedeuten, bilden den B e w e i s g r u n d " (Korinther und Römer, 78). Cf. a l s o , R o b e r t s o n a n d P l u m m e r , First Corinthians, 7 8 ; K u ß , Römer, Korinther und Galater, 189. W h a t d r e w interpreters' attention was P a u l ' s reference to his θ η ρ ι ο μ α χ ί α in Ephesus in verse 32, εί κ α τ ά α ν θ ρ ω π ο ν έ θ η ρ ι ο μ ά χ η σ α έν Έ φ έ σ φ , particularly the i m p r o b a b i l i t y of such a thing h a v i n g literally taken place. T w o related but distinguishable questions are involved, w h e t h e r the conditional sentence, εί κ α τ ά α ν θ ρ ω π ο ν έ θ η ρ ι ο μ ά χ η σ α έ ν Έ φ έ σ φ , should be taken as real or hypothetical, and, if real, whether θ η ρ ι ο μ α χ ε ΐ ν should be taken as literal or metaphorical. In m o s t cases the t w o questions are not distinguished, with a focus on one or the other of the issues involved, w h i c h does not h a v e to p o s e a p r o b l e m . C o n z e l m a n n clearly distinguishes the two questions: "Zwei Fragen kreuzen sich: "1. Ist der Konditionalsatz real oder irreal? "2. Ist θ η ρ ι ο μ α χ ε ΐ ν wörtlich oder übertragen g e m e i n t ? " (Korinther,

329).

J o h a n n e s W e i ß interpreted the conditional sentence as hypothetical ("irreal"). I was not able to trace his own statement, b u t already Lietzmann (Korinther, 83) and W i l h e l m Bousset (Erste Korinther, 158) refer to h i m . So also, C o n z e l m a n n (Korinther, 3 2 9 - 3 0 ) . Cf. also H e r i n g : " Κ α τ ά α ν θ ρ ω π ο ν = selon des vues humaines, a v e c un h o r i z o n l i m i t e p a r l ' h u m a n i t e terrestre, c'est-ä-dire sans esperance de resurrection. II va sans dire q u e cette att i t u d e p u r e m e n t h u m a i n e ne f u t p a s Celle d e P a u l ; de t o u t e m a n i e r e il s ' a g i t d ' u n e

90

Christ in the Letters of Paul

In this coordination, Paul does not refer to the resurrection of the dead to interpret the meaning of his sufferings for Christ's sake, but to his sufferings as a means of underscoring the reality of the resurrection of the dead. That there is a certain consistency in the way in which he understood himself in the tension between things about which he could boast if necessary and his comhypothese irreelle: «si j'avais combattu dans un esprit purement humain, etc. . . .» Mais il s'agit de savoir si un deuxieme element d'irrealite n'est pas introduit par έθηριομάχησα. Alors le sens serait: «Suppose que j'eusse lutte contre les betes ä Ephese (ce qui n'est pas arrive, quoique je fusse pret ä soutenir ce combat), et suppose en plus que je l'eusse fait κατά ανθρωπον, alors . . .»? Une pareille interpretation est grammaticalement possible, p a r c e q u e l ' i n d i c a t i f p e u t tres b i e n i n d i q u e r u n e h y p o t h e s e i r r e e l l e " ( P r e m i e r e Corinthiens, 144). Lietzmann points out that such a hypothetical interpretation is improbable after the real examples mentioned previously (loc. cit.), presumably, τί βαπτίζονται in verse 29 and τί κινδυνεύομεν in verse 30. See also Conzelmann, op. cit., 330, referring to J. Schmid (Zeit und Ort derpaulinischen Gefangenschaftsbriefe, 1931,42^t3). If Paul's conditional Statement, εί κατά ανθρωπον έθηριομάχησα, is hypothetical there is no problem in taking it as literal, especially, in Weiß' interpretation of κατά ανθρωπον as "in accordance with the will of humans" ("nach Menschenwillen"), if humans were to have subjected me to fight with beasts in the arena (cf. Conzelmann, loc. cit.). On the other hand, if the conditional sentence has to be taken as real, it leads to the second question whether θηριομαχεΐν should be taken literally. There is unanimous agreement among interpreters that Paul could not have been thrown into the arena to fight with wild beasts. Three reasons are given: 1. As a Roman citizen Paul could not have been thrown into the arena. So, Kuß (loc. cit.), Hering (loc. cit.), Karl Barth (Die Auferstehung der Toten. Eine akademische Vorlesung über 1, Kor. 15 [Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1924, 4. Auflage 1953] 105), Wolff (Erste Korinther, 399), and Kremer (Erste Korinther, 349-50). Hering points out that this may not have counted for much in a riot (loc. cit.). In that sense, Lietzmann (loc. cit.), Sickenberger (loc. cit.), Wendland, (Korinther, 131), Barrett (First Corinthians, 366), and Conzelmann (op. cit., 329) merely mention that if Paul has indeed been thrown into the arena, it would have meant that he had lost his Roman citizenship, Lietzmann and Barrett pointing out that according to Acts 22:25 (Barrett) Paul still had his citizenship at the time of his arrest in Caesarea, 2.Most interpreters refer to the absence of such an incident in Paul's listing of his sufferings in 2 Cor 11:23-29. Paul's listing is strong evidence against his having faced wild animals in the arena: Robertson and Plummer (First Corinthians, 362), Sickenberger (loc. cit.), Kuß (loc. cit.), Hering (loc. cit.), Barth (loc. cit.), Wendland (loc. cit.), Barrett (loc. cit.), Conzelmann (op. cit., 329), Wolff (loc. cit.), Kremer (op. cit., 349). 3. If Paul had been thrown into an arena to face wild beasts he would almost certainly not have come out alive. Grosheide points out that someone who was condemed "to the beasts" was thrown without weapons into the arena (Eerste Korinthe, 199). Similarly, Hering concludes that the mere fact that Paul came alive from Ephesus is proof that he had not been thrown in the arena (loc. cit.). So also, Barrett (loc. cit.). Almost all of the interpreters mentioned above thus take the meaning of θηριομαχεΐν as metaphoric, frequently refering to a statement of Ignatius as an example of such a usage: από Σ υ ρ ί α ς μέχρι ' Ρ ώ μ η ς θ η ρ ι ο μ α χ ώ διά γ η ς καϊ θ α λ ά σ σ η ς . . . δ ε δ ε μ έ ν ο ς δ έ κ α λεοπάρδοις, ö έστιν στρατιωτικόν τάγμα (Rom. 5:1), quoted from Lietzmann (op. cit., 83). But note Hering's reservation: "Prendre έθηριομάχησα au sens figure, c'est-ä-dire au sens de «lutter contre des hommes qui se comportaient comme des betes », nous semble peu indique dans ce contexte, oü il s'agit de dangers de mort" (loc. cit.). Schlatter interprets the expression in the sense of the mortal danger to which Paul was constantly subjected by the

The Meaning for Paul Personally

91

plete dependence on the power which he received from Christ is shown by the way in which in Phil 3:2-11 he also negated the value of his virtues as a perfect Jew for the sake of what he found in Christ, which we discussed above in connection with Christ's appearance to him. Only once does Paul burst out in enthusiasm about the glory which shines forth from his proclamation: 14

τώ δέ θεώ χάρις τω πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ημάς έν τω Χριστώ και την όσμήν της γνώσεως αύτοΰ φανεροΰντι δι' ημών έν παντί τόπφ· 15 δτι Χ ρ ί σ τ ο υ ε ύ ω δ ί α έ σ μ έ ν τω θεώ έν τ ο ι ς σ ω ζ ο μ έ ν ο ι ς και έν τ ο ι ς άπολλυμένοις, 16οίς μέν όσμή έκ θανάτου είς θάνατον, οΐς δέ όσμή έκ ζωής είς ζωήν. και πρός ταϋτα τίς ικανός; 17 ού γάρ έσμεν ώς οί πολλοί καπηλεύοντες τόν λόγον τοΰ θεοΰ, άλλ' ώς έξ ειλικρίνειας, άλλ' ώς έκ θεοΰ κατέναντι θεοϋ έν Χριστώ λαλοΰμεν (2 Cor 2:14-17). The reason for Paul's enthusiasm about his apostleship here is unclear. In the text as it now stands he had just reported the heavy-heartedness with which he departed for Macedonia upon not finding Titus in Troas, ούκ έσχηκα άνεσιν τώ πνεύματί μου τω μη εύρεΐν με Τίτον τόν άδελφόν μου, άλλά άποταξάμενος αύτοΐς έξήλθον είς Μακεδονίαν (2 Cor 2:13), which is hardly a cause for rejoicing. Some interpreters suggest that Paul anticipates the joy with which he reports later the arrival of Titus in Macedonia with good news about his visit to Corinth in 7:5-7. 170

Jews in Ephesus: "Er ist keine Stunde frei von Gefahr und muß sich Tag um Tag zum Sterben bereit halten. . . . Es plagen ihn nicht unnütze Befürchtungen, sondern er weiß, wie erhitzt der Haß seiner Gegner ist und welche Mittel sie gern gegen ihn gebrauchten. . . . In Ephesus tat er, was ein Gladiator tut, der sich dazu verkauft, um in den Tierkämpfen aufzutreten, und dabei sein Leben aufs Spiel setzt. Immer wieder stellte er sich auf den Kampfplatz, wich der Todesgefahr nicht aus und betrat die jüdische Häuser unerschrocken, obgleich er nie wußte, ob er sie lebend verlassen werde" (Korintherbriefe, 199-200, cf., Der Bote Jesu, 425). There is little comment on verse 32b-d, εί νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται, φάγωμεν και πίωμεν, αύριον γάρ άποθνήσκομεν, except to note that it contains a saying quoted literally from Is 22:13 (Sickenberger, loc. cit., Kuß, op. cit., 190, Conzelmann, op. cit., 330, Wolff, loc. cit., Kremer, op. cit., 350). 170 So, for example, James Denney: "The next three verses [7:5-7] carry us back to chap. ii. 12 ff., and resume the story which was interrupted there at ver. 14. The sudden thanksgiving of that passage — so eager and impetuous that it left the writer no time to tell what he was thankful for — is explained here" (Second Corinthians, 251); Bousset: "Was Paulus dann (2,14) in dem dort angestimmten Triumphlied nur hat erraten lassen, das sagt er jetzt ausdrücklich: Titus ist angekommen und hat ihm von der veränderten Stimmung der Gemeinde Nachricht gebracht. Und seine trübe Stimmung ist in helle Freude umgeschlagen" (Zweite Korinther, 200); Wendland: "Mit dieser Schilderung der Lage des Paulus in Mazedonien wird nun endlich der 2,13 fallen gelassene Faden wieder aufgenommen. Von da her erscheinen die Ausführungen 2,14-7,4 wie eine Einlage in den eigentlichen Gedankengang, die einerseits durch die Notwendigkeit der Verteidigung gegen korinthische Vorwürfe, andererseits, doch mit dem Ersteren ganz eng verbunden, durch

92

Christ in the Letters of Paul 5

καί γάρ έλθόντων ήμών είς Μακεδονίαν ούδεμίαν έσχηκεν άνεσιν ή σαρξ ήμών άλλ' έν παντί θλιβόμενοι· έξωθεν μάχαι, εσωθεν φόβοι. 6άλλ' ό παρακαλών τούς ταπεινούς παρεκάλεσεν ήμάς ό θεός έν τη παρουσία Τίτου, 7ού μόνον δέ έν τη παρουσία αύτοΰ άλλά και έν τη παρακλήσει ή παρεκλήθη έφ' ύμΐν, άναγγέλλων ήμΐν την ύμών έπιπόθησιν, τον ύμών όδυρμόν, τον ύμών ζήλον ύπέρ έμοΰ ώστε με μάλλον χαρήναι. In whatever way one takes the issue of the integrity of this part of the letter — one may take 2:13 and 7:5-7 as originally connected, but one could also understand what comes in between as an extended digression into more immediate matters between Paul and the Corinthians before he returns to the issue of Titus' absence — the material connection between 2:13, Paul's leaving for Macedonia, and 7:5, his arrival there, is obvious. The question is what connection there might be between 2:14-17 and 7:5-7. If Paul anticipates in 2:14-17 what he was to write in 7:5-7, it could not be a reference to his personal relief,171 but to the success of Titus' visit to Corinth. What Paul writes in 2:14-17 does not concern personal relief, but the significance of his and probably Titus' activity in the promotion of God's triumph in Christ. Noteworthy is his stab at what could be those whom he considers as his opponents in Corinth in verse 17, ού γάρ έσμεν ώς οί πολλοί καπηλεύοντες τόν λόγον του θεού, άλλ' ώς έξ ειλικρίνειας, άλλ' ώς έκ θεοΰ κατέναντι θεοΰ έν Χριστώ λαλοΰμεν. Such an understanding makes perfect sense of 2:14-7:4 as an extended digression preparing for his report concerning Titus' return from his successful visit to Corinth. Thus, what appears as a sharp turn in Paul's reasoning from 2:13 to 2:14 does not have to be interpreted as due to part of a different letter having been inserted at that point. There is a difficult problem in connection with the interpretation of [θεός ος] πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ήμάς in 2:14. After χάρις, one expects an expression concerning success for which Paul owes thanks to God, that is, translating θριαμβεύοντι ήμάς as "made us triumph," but there are serious problems with such a translation.172 Most scholars recognize that θραμβεύειν does not den Gott dargebrachten Dank für die Herrlichkeit des apostolischen Amtes (2,14-17) hervorgerufen worden ist. Jetzt erst wird es ganz deutlich, warum Paulus 2,14ff. den Hymnus auf den Triumphzug Gottes angestimmt hat" (Korinther, 190). 171 But see Bachmann: "In dem ersten der beiden dazu dienenden Partizipialausdrücke weist PI sich (und denen, die neben ihm für die k Gemeinde unter dem in 8, 1 ff. maßgebenden Gesichtspunkt in Betracht kommen). . . nach der hier wahrscheinlichsten Bedeutung des Verbums die Stelle eines Besiegten an, den Gott in feierlichem Triumphzug aufführt. Rasch verständlich ist dieses kühne Bild dann freilich nur unter der Voraussetzung, daß PI mit 12 f. wirklich so etwas wie eine Niederlage, eine Flucht, ein Erliegen von sich ausgesagt hat" {Zweite Korinther, 127-28). 172 So Windisch: "Eine große Schwierigkeit macht in V. 14a das den Ton angebende Wort θριαμβεύειν. Man erwartet nach χάρις ein Wort für die Erfolge, die die Ap. Gott zu danken haben; also möchte man übersetzen: triumphieren lassen (Schm., Bis., Gdt.), zum Siege

The Meaning for Paul Personally

93

mean to cause a person to triumph, but, when used with a direct object, to triumph over someone, frequently referring to Col 2:15 as an example, άπεκδυσάμενος τάς άρχάς και τάς έξουσίας έδειγμάτισεν έν παρρησία, θριαμβεύσας αύτούς έν αύτω. 173 It is not Paul who triumphs, but God who triumphs over him, in Christ. 174 Because such a meaning appears difficult, a number of scholars understands it not to have been Paul over whom God triumphed, but God's enemies, with Paul accompanying God as a participant in God's triumph, for example, as a victorious general in God's company. 175 It is probably correct not to understand Paul presenting himself as an enemy over whom God triumphed, but as he describes himself in Gal 1:13führen (Weizs.). Nur ist die Bedeutung (1) sonst nicht nachgewiesen" (Zweite Korintherbrief.\ 96). He lists five further reasons why such an intepretation is not viable. So also, a m o n g o t h e r s , D e n n y : " T h e p e c u l i a r and d i f f i c u l t word in this t h a n k s g i v i n g is θριαμβεύοντι. The sense which first strikes one as suitable is that which is given in the Authorised Version: 'God which always causeth us to triumph.' Practically Paul had been engaged in a conflict with the Corinthians, and for a time it had seemed not improbable that he might be beaten; but God had caused him to triumph in Christ — that is, acting in Christ's interests, in matters in which Christ's name and honour were at stake, the victory (as always) had remained with him; and for this he thanks God. . . . But appropriate as this interpretation is, there is one apparently fatal objection to it. There is no doubt that θριαμβεύειν is here used transitively, . . ." (Second Corinthians, 86-7). Similarly, Bousset: "Wir sollen erwarten, daß Paulus sagen würde: Gott sei Dank, der mich triumphieren läßt. A b e r was P a u l u s sagt, e n t s p r i c h t ganz seiner s o n s t i g e n D e n k w e i s e . Gott ist der Triumphator und Paulus der Gefangene in seinem Triumphzuge" (Zweite Korinther, 180). 173 So Lietzmann: "θριαμβεύειν τινά heißt wie Col 2,15 zunächst 'jemand im Triumphzug a u f f ü h r e n ' " (Korinther, 108); Plummer: "The victorious commander is God, and the Apostles are — not His subordinate generals, but His captives, whom He takes with Him and displays to all the world" (Second Corinthians, 67). See also the discussion of possible meanings by Windisch (Zweite Korintherbrief, 9 6 - 7 ) , quoted by Bultmann (Zweite Korinther, 66-7). 174 So, with a variety of nuances, Lietzmann (Korinther, 108); Plummer (Second Corinthians, 68); Bachmann {Zweite Korinther, 128-29); Bultmann (Zweite Korinther, 66-7). 175 So, explicitly, Hering: "θριαμβεύω signifie habituellement «triompher sur quelqu'un», sens inacceptable ici. II s'agit du triomphe de Dieu par le Christ (έν τω Χριστφ) sur les ennemis visibles; mais l'apötre y est associe, non comme un vaincu naturellement, mais comme un general victorieux" (Seconde Corinthiens, 23). Also Schlatter (Korintherbriefe, 239-40, and Der Bote Jesu, 495); Wendland: "Hier gehr Paulus scheinbar ganz unvermittelt zu einem Lobpreis Gottes über, der jedoch daraus begreiflich wird, daß Paulus eben seine Erlebnisse in Troas und Mazedonien vergegenwärtigt. So dankt er Gott für die wunderbaren Führungen, die dieser seine Aposteln zuteil werden läßt; er vergleicht Gott mit einem Triumphator, die Apostel mit den Herolden oder Soldaten, die die Siege verkünden und an dem Triumphzuge teilnehmen. Nach Meinung Anderer hat sich Paulus hier als gefangenen, Überwundenen des Triumphators Gott bezeichnet, aber nach dem Zusammenhange liegt die erste Erklärung näher; denn Paulus preist Gott, weil dieser ihn zum Siege führt. Er nimmt teil an dem Siegeszuge Gottes in Christus, und V. 14b—16 lassen erkennen, daß Paulus an seinen Aposteldienst denkt und die wunderbaren Wirkungen, die von diesem ausgehen" (Korinther, 152); Barrett: "Notwithstanding the lack of supporting lexical evidence it is right to follow L.S., Alio, and Kümmel in taking Paul to represent himself as one of the victorious general's soldiers sharing in the glory of his triumph" (Second Corinthians, 98).

94

Christ in the Letters of Paul

16, someone who καθ' ύπερβολήν έδίωκον τήν έκκλησίαν τοΰ θεοΰ και έπόρθουν αύτήν (v. 13b), whose animosity was overcome οτε . . . εύδόκησεν ό θεός . . . άποκαλύψαι τον υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοί ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις εθνεσιν (νν. 15-16). He had earlier been an enemy of God over whom God had triumphed. Here in 2 Cor 2:14-16, he writes very much the same: τω δέ θεφ χάρις τω πάντοτε θριαμβεύοντι ήμάς έν τω Χριστώ καϊ τήν όσμήν της γνώσεως αύτοΰ φανεροΰντι δι' ήμών έν παντϊ τόπω (ν. 14).176 It is widespread for interpreters to take θριαμβεύειν as a metaphor of a victorious leader entering Rome.177 There is no necessity to assume that that had been what Paul had in mind. Liddell and Scott give as the first meaning

176 So, Denney: "Paul had once been the enemy of God in Christ; he had fought against Him in his own soul, and in the Church which he persecuted and wasted. . . . That was the beginning of God's triumph over him; from that hour God led him in triumph in Christ" (Second Corinthians, 88) 177 As the following quotations reveal, scholars interpret the significance of the metaphor in different ways, and with various degrees of explicitness. So, Denney: "[Paul] is the captive who is led in the Conqueror's train, and in whom men see the trophy of the Conqueror's power" {Second Corinthians, 87); also "Of course in an ordinary triumph, such as the triumph of Claudius over Caractacus, of which St. Paul may easily have heard, the captives had no share in the victory; it was not only a victory over them, but a victory against them" (op. cit., 88); with particular mention of clouds of incense, Plummer: "When a Roman imperator triumphed, clouds of incense arose all along the route; and in the triumph-train of the Gospel the incense of increased knowledge of God is ever ascending" (Second Corinthians, 67); Bousset: "Wir dürfen daran denken, daß vor oder hinter dem Wagen des römischen Triumphators die Gefangenen einherziehen. Von dort gewinnt Paulus seinen Vergleich: Gott zieht jetzt im Triumph durch die Welt und der Apostel gleichsam als Gefangener vor seinem Wagen!" (Zweite Korinther, 179-80); Bachmann: "In dem ersten der beiden dazu dienenden Partizipialausdrücke weist PI sich (und denen, die neben ihm für die k Gemeinde unter dem in 8, 1 ff. maßgebenden Gesichtspunkt in Betracht kommen). . . nach der hier wahrscheinlichsten Bedeutung des Verbums die Stelle eines Besiegten an, den Gott in feierlichem T r i u m p h z u g a u f f ü h r t " ( Z w e i t e Korinther, 127-28); Windisch: "Hat P. hier seine Missionstätigkeit im Auge, dann hat man ihn sich vielmehr aktiv vorzustellen, sei es als Träger seiner Trophäen (Thdt., Chrys.), sei es als Träger der Weihrauchsfässer, sei es als Herold, der die Siege verkünder, sei es als Unterführer oder Soldat, der die Gefangenen an der Hand führt" (Zweite Korintherbrief, 97); Schlatter: "Seine Wanderung ist ein Triumphzug ähnlich dem, durch den die römischen Feiherrn nach der Heimkehr aus dem Feldzug ihren Sieg feierten" (Korintherbriefe, 239), also "Paulus und Timotheus sind aber in die Schar, die den Sieger begleitet und seinen Sieg verkündet und feiert, hineingestellt: τ φ θριαμβεύοντι ήμας; vgl. Kol. 2,15. Das hat ihnen Christus gebracht; in ihm macht Gott aus ihnen die Teilnehmer an seinem Triumph. Da sich Paulus als Mitarbeiter Gottes weiß, kann er seinen Anteil am Triumph Gottes mit dem vergleichen, den die haben, die für den Feldherrn kämpften und nun mit ihm seinen Sieg feiern und verkünden. Aber . . . die Weise, wie Paulus vom Triumph Gottes in Christus über die himmlischen Mächte gesprochen hat, Kol. 2,15, macht es wahrscheinlich, daß er sich in die Schar derer gestellt hat, die vom Sieger überwunden sind und nun seinen Sieg dadurch verkünden, daß sie in seinem Triumphzug mit ihm ziehen" (Der Bote Jesu, 495); Barrett: "Notwithstanding the lack of supporting lexical evidence it is right to follow L.S., Alio, and Kümmel in taking Paul to represent himself as one of the victorious general's soldiers sharing in the glory of his triumph" (Second Corinthians, 98).

The Meaning for Paul Personally

95

of θριαμβεύω, triumph, άπό τίνος triumph over, and then, as a second meaning, lead in triumph, of conquered enemies. Such a metaphor also does not appear to be suggested by Col 2:15, άπεκδυσάμενος τάς άρχάς και τάς έξουσίας έδειγμάτισεν έν παρρησία, θριαμβεύσας αυτούς έν αύτω. The suggestion of a triumphal entry is also called to mind for some interpreters by Paul's reference to the όσμή της γνώσεως in verse 14,178 but such a connection is denied by others. 179 Some interpreters find a more probable 178 So, for example, Denney: "Incense smoked on every altar as the victor passed through the streets of Rome; the fragrant steam floated over the procession, a silent proclamation of victory and joy. But Paul would not have appropriated this feature of the triumph, and applied it to his ministry, unless he had felt that there was a real point of comparison; that the knowledge of Christ which he diffused among men, wherever he went, was in very truth a fragrant thing" (Second Corinthians, 90); Plummer: "When a Roman imperator triumphed, clouds of incense arose all along the route; and in the triumph-train of the Gospel the incense of increased knowledge of God is ever ascending. The Apostles cause this increase of knowledge, and therefore they themselves are a fragrance to the glory of God, a fragrance that is life-giving to those that are on the road to salvation, but will prove deadly to those who are on the other road" (Second Corinthians, 67); Bousset: "Sollte der Ausdruck nicht doch mit dem vorhergehenden Bilde zusammenhängen? Daß Rauchgefäße vor dem einziehenden Triumphator einhergetragen wurden, läßt sich allerdings nur bei dem Einzug des jüngeren Scipio Africanus nachweisen (vgl. Lietzmann); aber es mag doch häufiger vorgekommen sein. Paulus hätte dann ein großes Bild gezeichnet: Wohin Gott in seinem Zuge kommt, steigt überall der Opferduft der neuen Erkenntnis — denn das Evangelium bringt vor allem auch bessere Erkenntnis — empor" (Zweite Korinther, 180); also with regard to verse 15, Windisch: "In der Erläuterung V. 15 erleidet die Anwendung des Bildes eine leichte Verschiebung, wie das oft bei P. vorkommt: statt der Erkenntnis wird ihr Vermittler, der Αρ., selbst zum Wohlgeruch. Dürften wir noch an die Szenerie des Triumphzuges denken, so wären die Ap. nun geradezu die Weihrauchskessel (Daechsel 236). Geschmakvoller scheint es, sie als Personen vorzustellen, die einen bestimmten Duft ausströmen, weil ein Odeur, eine Narde über sie Ausgegossen ist . . ." (Zweite Korintherbrief, 98); with some qualifications, Schlatter: "Die Erkenntnis Gottes, die durch seinen Triumph überall entsteht, nennt Paulus einen Geruch. Vom Triumphzug ging die Vorstellung leicht zum Wohlgeruch hinüber, weil der Siegeszug in eine Wolke von Wohlgerüchen eingehüllt war, die seine Ankunft weithin anzeigte. Dies ist aber nur der äußere Anlaß zum Bild. Die Vergleichung der Erkenntnis Gottes mit dem Geruch beruht darauf, daß sich der Geruch unaufhaltsam verbreitet und vom Menschen wahrgenommen wird, ohne daß er sich ihm entziehen kann" (Der Bote Jesu, 495-96); finally, Barrett: "The best explanation of the new figure (see Windisch and Lietzmann; also Knox, P.G., p. 129, with important references) is that the use of incense was customary in triumphal and quasi-triumphal processions, both royal and religious. Goudge rightly raises the question whether this practice was one that would have occurred to a Jew, such as Paul, but it is hard to think of a better explanation" (Second Corinthians, 98). Barrett refers to Lietzmann, but Lietzmann questions a reference to a triumphal entry. "Der seltsame Ausdruck όσμή της γνώσεως ist wohl kaum durch die Vorstellung der Weihrauchdüfte verursacht, welche den Triumphzug begleiten" (Korinther, 108). 179 So Lietzmann, already quoted in the previous note, and Bachmann: "Wohl wurden bei den Triumphzügen, die Rom seinen Siegern bereitete, Weihrauchbecken vor dem Triumphator hergetragen, und auch die Tempel an den Straßen sandten durch ihre offenen Tore Räucherdüfte dem Zuge zu. Aber hinter dem Schaugepränge des ganzen Zuges, hinter Musik und Gesang und dem Schmuck der Bildwerke trat jenes einzelne Moment doch so zurück, daß schon deshalb nicht anzunehmen ist, PI bewege sich mit την όσμήν usw. noch

96

Christ in the Letters of Paul

analogy in Sir 24:15, ώς κιννάμωμον καϊ άσπάλαθος άρωμάτων δέδωκα όσμήν καϊ ώς σμύρνα έκλεκτή διέδωκα έωδίαν . . . (v. 15ab) and 39:14, και ώς λίβανος εύωδιάσατε όσμήν καϊ άνθήσατε άνθος ώς κρίνον, διάδοτε όσμήν καϊ αίνέσατε ασμα, εύλογήσατε κύριον έπί πασιν τοις έργοις.180 Bachmann understands it as a new and independent metaphor in Paul.181 In verse 14 ή όσμή τής γνώσεως τοΰ θεοΰ was revealed through the apostles, but in verse 15, they themselves become ή εύωδία Χρίστου τω θεώ. As Bachmann states, out of the weak, probably by nature recalcitrant, human instrument God realizes and glorifies God's victorious energy and reveals God's victory in this person in Christ.182 That is how Paul understood himself in his relationship to Christ, as someone who had become an instrument of God through Christ, reminding of his call in Gal 1:15-16b, 1 5 οτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά τής χάριτος αύτοΰ 16άποκαλύψαι τον υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοϊ ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν, almost like a report on the result of his call. Paul was not beyond being tempted to boast about what he achieved in the proclamation compared with others, for example, in 1 Cor 15:10b where

in dem durch θριαμβεύοντι gezeichneten Bilde; anderenfalls würde j a auch das Bild aufs stärkste verschoben, da die ήμεΐς, die vorhin als Besiegte im Triumphzug gehen, nun als zu den d i e n e n d e n P e r s o n e n g e h ö r i g b e t r a c h t e t w e r d e n m ü ß t e n , die den W a g e n des Triumphators umgeben (δι ήμών)" {Zweite Koriniher, 129). 180 So, citing Ernst Lohmeyer, Lietzmann: "ELohmeyer Heidelb. Sitz.-Ber. 1919, 9 S. 26 ff. hat in Sir 24,15 39,13[14?] die spätjüdische Wendung vom 'Wohlgeruch der Weisheit' als eine Vergeistigung der vielfach in antiken Religionen begegnenden Vorstellung vom 'göttlichen Wohlgeruch' nachgewiesen, der mit dem Gott wohlgefälligen Opfer und mit dem Paradies verbunden ist" (Korinther, 108). Also Hering: "όσμή τής γνώσεως = parfum de connaissance est une expression qui n ' a pas ete inventee par l'auteur. On la trouve dejä dans la litterature de la Sagesse (cf. Siracide 24. 15; 39. 14. ainsi que Apoc. Syriaque de Baruch 67. 6). Mais il y a un curieux progres dans la maniere d'utiliser l'image" (Seconde Corinthiens, 32—3). 181 "Mit neuer und selbständiger (aber vielleicht antiker Verbildlichungsweise überhaupt naheliegender) Metapher also wird Gott beschrieben als der, der seine Erkenntnis, d. h. nicht die ihm eignende, sondern die ihn erfassende Erkenntnis o f f e n b a r macht, τής γνώσεως αύτοΰ expliziert τήν όσμήν; dies Bild selbst aber kann dem Zusammenhang mit dem machtvollen θριαμβεύοντι nach nur die Kräftigkeit und die Herrlichkeit, das Sieghafte und Unmittelbare, Unaufhaltsame der göttlichen Wirkung (nicht, wie Chry., Thdt., Pel., die Unvollständigkeit und Indirektheit der Offenbarung, die sich dem Auge entziehe und ihren Gegenstand nur dem Geruchssinn wahrnehmbar mache) hervorheben wollen" (Zweite Korinther, 130). 182 "An dem schwachen, ja vielleicht sogar aus seiner Natur heraus widerstrebenden menschlichen Werkzeug betätigt und verherrlicht Gott seine sieghafte Energie und macht diesen Sieg an der Person selber der Welt offenbar und tut das πάντοτε, also unangesehen den Wechsel der persönlichen Lage des Apostels, genauer auch gegenüber etwaigen stärksten Erschwerungen solches Siegeserweises, έν τώ Χριστώ aber, indem durch diesen sich alle jene Siegerherrlichkeit und Selbstdarstellung Gottes vermittelt" (Zweite Korinther, 129). Similarly, Denney: "That was the beginning of God's triumph over him; from that hour God led him in triumph in Christ" (Second Corinthians, 91).

The Meaning for Paul Personally

97

he claims to have worked harder than all the others, περισσότερον αύτών πάντων έκοπίασα, but then he retracts again in the realization that he is setting himself up in a way that is not consistent with his own understanding, and probably also experience, of himself, ούκ έγώ δέ άλλά ή χάρις τοϋ θεοΰ [ή] σύν έμοί (1 Cor 15:10c). One cannot escape the suspicion that he may have had to cope with a psychological problem of self-aggrandizement, but I leave a judgment about that to persons who are qualified in that area. We have seen above that Paul also tried to cope with his own limitations by coordinating, not only the authority which he exerted with the power of Christ's resurrection, but also with the weakness manifest in Christ's death, at the culmination of his defense of himself in 2 Cor 13:3- 4, which I discussed extensively above, 183 3 έπεϊ δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοϋντος Χρίστου, δς εις ύμάς ούκ άσθενεΐ άλλά δυνατεί έν ύμϊν. 4 καϊ γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ άσθενείας, άλλά ζη έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ. και γάρ ήμείς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτω, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτω έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ εις ύμάς. The understanding of himself in terms of the weakness of Christ in his death is not a completely new discovery, but has a basis in his understanding of the gospel he understood himself to have been commissioned to preach, as in the following two statements: 1 Cor 2:1-2, 'καγώ έλθών προς ύμάς, άδελφοί, ήλθον ού καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας καταγγέλλων ύμΐν τό μυστήριον τοϋ θεοΰ. 2 ού γάρ έ κ ρ ι ν ά τι ε ί δ έ ν α ι έ ν ύ μ ΐ ν εί μή Ί η σ ο ΰ ν Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ν και τ ο ύ τ ο ν έσταυρωμένον. 1 Cor 3:11, θεμέλιον γάρ άλλον ούδείς δύναται θεϊναι παρά τ ο ν κείμενον, ος έστιν 'Ιησούς Χριστός. I will discuss these texts as well as the next one, 1 Cor 1:17-18, more extensively below in "The meaning of Christ for the believer" in the excursus on "The Meaning of Christ in 1 Cor 1:4- 4:21." That the cross had not yet become in a certain sense a symbol of glory, as it did in the Christian church, is clear from what he wrote a little earlier in the same letter, 17

ού γάρ άπέστειλέν με Χριστός βαπτίζειν άλλά εύαγγελίζεσθαι, ούκ έν σοφία λόγου, ϊνα μή κενωθη ό σταυρός τοΰ Χριστοΰ. 18ό λόγος γάρ ό τοΰ σταυρού τοις μέν άπολλυμένοις μωρία έστίν, τοις δέ σφζομένοις ήμίν δύναμις θεοΰ έστιν (1 Cor 1:17-18), yet another expression of the paradoxical coordination of power and weakness.

183

Pp.58-61

98

Christ in the Letters of Paul

That the crucifixion as such, that is, without the resurrection, cannot be τοις σφζομένοις ήμΐν δύναμις θεοΰ is something we already discussed above. Paul himself was well aware of that with the conclusions he drew from a denial of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12-15, which included for him inevitably a denial of the resurrection of Christ, 12

εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; 13 εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται- 14εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών· 15 εύρισκόμεθα δέ και ψευδομάρτυρες τοϋ θεοΰ, οτι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεοΰ οτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, ον ούκ ήγειρεν ε'ίπερ άρα νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται. 184 In 1 Cor 15 it is the resurrection of Christ around which everything turns in his understanding of the gospel. The key to the relationship between 1 Cor 1:17-18 and 2:2, on the one hand, and 15:12-15, on the other, may be found, as suggested above, in 1 Cor 3:11 where the crucifixion of Christ is presented as the foundation of the proclamation of the gospel, θεμέλιον γάρ άλλον ούδεΐς δύναται θεΐναι παρά τόν κείμενον, ος έστιν Ίησοΰς Χριστός, leaving the appropriate place for the resurrection to be built upon that foundation. Undeniably, Paul was overbearing in his relationships with his readers. He himself does not contest it when he is accused of being βαρεΐαι και ίσχυραί in his letters (2 Cor 10:10), but challenges the Corinthians that he would not spare them when he returns (2 Cor 13:2). As we have seen, he draws the courage for asserting his authority in this way by the coordination of his own weakness and strength with Christ's dying in weakness and living from the power of God who raised him from the dead, και γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ άσθενείας, άλλά ζή έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ. και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτώ, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτώ έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ εις ύμάς (2 Cor 13:4).

184

Cf. the discussion above, pp. 3 2 - 3 3 .

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

99

Summary of Part One There is no conclusion to be drawn from the first part of this investigation, except that there was not a central configuration of the meaning of Christ on which Paul drew in his statements about Christ as it related to him personally. It is possible to abstract such a configuration from his statements about Christ, but such an abstraction is not what informed his thinking. Drawing a conclusion has also not been the purpose of the investigation, but to understand the meaning of Christ for Paul as it comes to expression in his letters. What thus remains now is to summarize the findings. What informed Paul about Christ was his experience of him, at the most fundamental level, Christ's appearance to him, but also by Christ's continued determining influence of his life, and by his expectation to encounter Christ again at his parousia. Two of the most fundamental expressions of Christ's meaning for Paul are Phil 3:7-11, 7

άτινα ήν μοι κέρδη, ταϋτα ήγημαι διά τον Χριστόν ζημίαν. 8 άλλά μενοΰνγε καί ήγοϋμαι πάντα ζημίαν είναι διά τό ύπερέχον της γνώσεως Χρίστου Ίησοΰ τοΰ κυρίου μου, δι öv τά πάντα έζημιώθην, και ήγοΰμαι σκύβαλα ίνα Χριστόν κερδήσω 9 καϊ ευρεθώ έν αύτώ, μή έχοίν έμήν δικαιοσύνην την έκ νόμου άλλά την διά πίστεως Χριστοί), τήν έκ θεοϋ δικαιοσύνην έπί τη πίστει, 10 τού γνώναι αύτόν καί τήν δύναμιν της ά ν α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς αύτοϋ καί [τήν] κοινωνίαν [τών] παθημάτων αύτοΰ, συμμορφιζόμενος τω θανάτω αύτοΰ, Π ε ϊ πως καταντήσω εις τήν έξανάστασιν τήν έκ νεκρών, and Gal 2:11-16, 14

. . . οτε είδον οτι ούκ όρθοποδοΰσιν προς τήν άλήθειαν τοΰ εύαγγελίου, εΐπον τω Κηφά έμπροσθεν πάντων, εί σύ 'Ιουδαίος υπάρχων εθνικώς καί ούχί Ίουδάίκώς ζής, πώς τά έθνη άναγκάζεις Ίουδάί'ζειν; 15 ήμεΐς φύσει 'Ιουδαίοι καί ούκ έξ έθνών άμαρτωλοί, 16 είδότες [δέ] οτι ού δικαιούται άνθρωπος έξ έργων νόμου έάν μή διά πίστεως Ίησοΰ Χριστού, καί ήμεϊς είς Χριστόν Ίησούν έπιστεύσαμεν, ϊνα δικαιωθώμεν έκ πίστεως Χριστού καί ούκ έξ έργων νόμου, οτι έξ έργων νόμου ού δικαιωθήσεται πάσα σάρξ(νν. 14-16). In both cases he had been challenged, in each case for a different reason. He based his defense on Christ, not by drawing on already formulated conceptions of Christ's meaning, but allowing that meaning to become clear as he experienced Christ in the face of the challenges: In Philippians it concerned him personally; in Galatians the integrity of the gospel as he proclaimed it, which Paul also understood as a personal challenge. A challenge to the gospel

100

Christ in the Letters of Paul

as he understood it was at the same time a challenge to him personally, about which his report of the incident in Antioch leaves no doubt. In 2 Cor 11:22, Έβραΐοί είσιν; καγώ. Ίσραηλΐταί είσιν; καγώ. σπέρμα 'Αβραάμ είσιν; καγώ, as in Phil 3:2-11, Paul also faced a challenge to his credentials as a Jew, but in that case the challenge included his apostleship as well. In Gal 1 :1, Παΰλος άπόστολος ούκ άπ' άνθρώπων ούδέ δι άνθρώπου άλλά διά Ίησοΰ Χρίστου και θεού πατρός τοΰ έγείραντος αύτόν έκ νεκρών, 11-12, "γνωρίζω γαρ ύμΐν, άδελφοί, τό εύαγγέλιον τό εύαγγελισθέν ύπ' έμοΰ ο τ ι ούκ εστίν κατά άνθρωπον· 1 2 ούδέ γάρ έγώ παρά ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ παρέλαβον αύτό, οϋτε έδιδάχθην, άλλά δι' άποκαλύψεως Ί η σ ο ΰ Χρίστου, and 15-16, 15

οτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοΰ Ι6 άποκαλύψαι τόν υίόν αύτοϋ έν έμοί ϊνα ευαγγελίζομαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν, εύθέως ού προσανεθέμην σαρκί και αϊματι, Paul based his claim to apostolic authority on Christ's appearance to him, in 15-16 God's revelation of Christ to him, as a means of defending the gospel he proclaimed to the Galatians, by providing it with a foundation in Christ. In 1 Cor 9:1, ούκ ειμί έλεύθερος; ούκ ειμί άπόστολος; ούχί Ίησοΰν τόν κύριον ημών έόρακα; he gave the same defense of his proclamation in a more straightforward way. In 1 Cor 15 :3c-8, 31>

παρέδωκα γάρ ύ μ ΐ ν έν πρώτοις, ο καί παρέλαβον, οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών κατά τάς γραφάς, 4 και οτι έτάφη, καί οτι έγήγερται τη ή μέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς, 5 καί οτι ώφθη Κηφά, είτα τοις δώδεκα· 6 έπειτα ώφθη έπάνω πεντακοσίοις άδελφοΐς έφάπαξ, έξ ων οί πλείονες μένουσιν εως άρτι, τινές δέ έκοιμήθησαν· 7 έπειτα ώφθη Ίακώβφ, είτα τοις άποστόλοις πάσιν· 8 εσχατον δέ πάντων ώαπερεϊ τφ έκτρώματι ώφθη καμοί, he quoted the tradition of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, culminating in the tradition of Christ's appearances, to which he added Christ's appearance to him, as a fundamental argument in his reasoning in favor of a general resurrection of the dead. He does not quote the tradition as the basis for an exposition of the meaning of Christ.

The Meaning for Paul Personally

101

Similar to his reasoning in Phil 3:7-11, Paul appeals to Christ's appearance to him as the reason for his abandonment of his submission to the Law in Gal 2:19-20, 19

έγώ γάρ δια νόμου νόμω άπέθανον, ϊνα θεφ ζήσω. Χριστώ συνεσταύρωμαν 20 ζώ δέ ούκέτι έγώ, ζη δέ έν έμοΐ Χριστός· δ δέ νΰν ζώ έν σαρκί, έν πίστει ζώ τη τοΰ υίοΰ τοϋ θεοΰ τοΰ άγαπήσαντός με και παραδόντος έαυτόν ύπέρ έμοΰ, He does not interpret a dogma — also not recall a dogma — but allows the reality of Christ's death to be the final word for him. In all of these texts, thus, Paul appeals to Christ as his fundamental defense when he found himself challenged about his call or his proclamation of the gospel to the gentiles. He does not appeal to a doctrine or teaching about Christ, but to the concrete reality of Christ as he experienced him. In Gal 3:1-5, he urges his readers to do the same, 'ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οίς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοϋς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; 2 τοΰτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών, έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; 3 οϋτως άνόητοι έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νΰν σαρκί έπιτελεΐσθε; 4 τοσαϋτα έπάθετε είκη; εϊ γε και είκη. 5 ό οΰν έπιχορηγών ύμΐν τό πνεΰμα και ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμΐν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; The three events that were crucial for Paul were Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and expected parousia. He does not necessarily have in mind the e n t i r e s e r i e s of e v e n t s at a n y m o m e n t b u t , as w i t h C h r i s t ' s a p pearance/revelation to him, he allows the meaning of the events of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and parousia to emerge as they become relevant in various situations to such an extent that in some cases one could interpret him as making a single event in the series the only decisive one. A case in point is the well-known 1 Cor 2:2, ού γάρ έκρινά τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τούτον έσταυρωμένον, which is contradicted by 1 Cor 15:14-15, 14 εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [καί] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή π ί σ τ ι ς ύ μ ώ ν - 1 5 ε ύ ρ ι σ κ ό μ ε θ α δέ και ψ ε υ δ ο μ ά ρ τ υ ρ ε ς τ ο ΰ θ ε ο ΰ , ο τ ι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεοΰ οτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν. This reveals that in each case the event to which Paul refers and the way he interprets it is determined by his reasoning, in 1 Cor 2:2 as part of his defense of the unimpressiveness of his ministry and in 1 Cor 15:14-15 as part of his reasoning in favor of a general resurrection of the dead. The conflict between these two passage can leave no doubt that Paul did not have a coherent system of thought about Christ. He drew on the events individually, in each case as it suited his reasoning.

102

Christ in the Letters of Paul

In Phil 3:12-14, after he defended himself against the charge of failure to live in accordance with the Law by claiming that what he found in Christ was incomparably more valuable, Paul explains how completely Christ had become the controlling power in his entire life, 12

ούχ οτι ήδη έλαβον ή ήδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δέ εί και καταλάβω, έφ' ω και κατελήμφθην ύπό Χρίστου [Ίησοΰ]. 13άδελφοί, έγώ έμαυτόν ού λογίζομαι κατειληφέναν έν δέ, τά μέν όπίσω έπιλανθανόμενος τοις δέ εμπροσθεν έπεκτεινόμενος, 14κατά σκοπόν διώκω εις τό βραβεΐον της άνω κλήσεως τοΰ θεοΰ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. He brings to expression a similar tension between still being subject to what he refers to as "this body of sin" and being relieved of it in Christ in Rom 7:24-25, 24

ταλαίπωρος έγώ άνθρωπος· τίς με ρύσεται έκ τοΰ σώματος τοΰ θανάτου τούτου; 25χάρις δέ τω θεώ διά Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ τοΰ κυρίου ήμών. άρα οΰν αυτός έγώ τω μέν νο'ϊ" δουλεύω νόμφ θεοΰ τή δέ σαρκά νόμω άμαρτίας.

Paul does not find consolation through Christ only in the direct confrontation with death, as in Phil 1:21-26, but also as a way of coping with the harsh realities of his existence in this life, including dangers of death. Three texts reveal this aspect of Christ's meaning for him, all three of them from 2 Corinthians: 13:3-5; 1:8-11 and 4:7-14. As culmination of his defense against the challenge to his apostleship in chapters 10-12, he coordinates Christ's death in weakness and life in the power of God with his unfavorable appearance and the power of his proclamation in 2 Cor 13:3—4, 3 έπεΐ δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοΰντος Χριστοΰ- δς εις ύμάς ούκ άσθενεϊ άλλά δυνατεΐ έν ύμΐν. 4και γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ άσθενείας, άλλά ζή έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ. και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτφ, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτφ έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ εις ύμάς. He focuses on Christ's crucifixion as having been from weakness specifically to coordinate with the challenge that he is weak in physical appearance and contemptible of speech in contrast with the weightiness and heavy-handedness of his letters (2 Cor 10:10). Paul does not contest the charges against him, but draws strength from the contrast between Christ's weakness in death and his power in life with God to challenge his opponents. Whereas Christ's death and resurrection function as Paul's means of justifying the forcefulness of his approach to the Corinthians in 13:3-5 to which he refers in verse 3, έπεί δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοΰντος Χριστοΰ- δς εις ύμάς ούκ άσθενεϊ άλλά δυνατεΐ έν ύμΐν, in 4:7-14 he places the paradox

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

103

of not being in despair in the face of his sufferings within the perspective of Christ's death and resurrection, 7

έχομεν δέ τόν θησαυρόν τούτον έν όστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν, ϊ ν α ή υπερβολή της δυνάμεως fj τοϋ θεοΰ και μή έξ ήμών· . . . '"πάντοτε την νέκρωσιν τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι περιφέροντες, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι ήμών φανερωθή. " ά ε ϊ γάρ ήμεΐς οί ζώντες εις θάνατον παραδιδόμεθα διά Ίησοϋν, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοϋ Ίησοΰ φανερωθή έν τή θνητή σαρκι ήμών (νν. 7, 10-11). In contrast to the previous two passages where he relied on Christ, Paul expresses his trust in God who sustains him in a desperate situation in 2 Cor

1:8-11, 8

ού γάρ θέλομεν ύμάς άγνοεϊν, άδελφοί, ύπέρ της θλίψεως ήμών της γενομένης έν τή 'Ασία, ότι καθ' ύπερβολήν ύπέρ δύναμιν έβαρήθημεν, ώστε έξαπορηθήναι η μ ά ς και τοΰ ζην· 9 άλλά αύτοι έν έαυτοΐς τό άπόκριμα τοΰ θανάτου έσχήκαμεν, ϊνα μή πεποιθότες ώμεν έφ' έαυτοΐς άλλ έπϊ τω θεώ τω έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς· (νν. 8-9). This passage does not express the meaning of Christ to him directly, but sheds light on that meaning indirectly by placing it in the larger context of reliance on God. From these passage, it appears that in threats to his wellbeing personally he relied on God directly, but with regard to his proclamation of the gospel, he relied on God through Christ. Paul's apostleship was central to the meaning of Christ to him in the sense that he understood his proclamation of the gospel to have been grounded in God's revelation of Christ to him, as he states in Gal 1:15—16b, οτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά τ η ς χ ά ρ ι τ ο ς α ύ τ ο ΰ 1 6 ά π ο κ α λ ύ ψ α ι τ ό ν υ ί ό ν α ύ τ ο ΰ έν έ μ ο ΐ ϊ ν α εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις εθνεσιν. He had evidently been very sensitive about his relationship to the other apostles, and in that context his experience of Christ was fundamental. He considered Christ's appearance to him as equivalent to the appearance to the others, except that it came last, and illtimed, έσχατον δέ πάντων ώσπερεί τω έκτρώματι ώφθη καμοί (1 Cor 15:8). He nevertheless claims that he worked harder than any of the others, περισσότερον αύτών πάντων έκοπίασα (1 Cor 15:10c). His sensitivity about his relationship to the other apostles reveals itself in his insistence that after Christ appeared to him he did not go down to Jerusalem to the other apostles to be instructed by them, but went to Arabia and f r o m there returned to Damascus (Gal 1:17). This sensitivity becomes manifest again when he finds it necessary to introduce a disparaging parenthesis about recognition of the so-called pillars in the report of his second visit to

104

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Jerusalem, άπό δέ των δοκούντων εΐναί τι - όποΐοί ποτε ήσαν ούδέν μοι διαφέρει- πρόσωπον [ό] θεός άνθρώπου ού λαμβάνει - έμοΐ γάρ οί δοκοΰντες ούδέν προσανέθεντο (Gal 2:6). For good measure he then also reports that he had been able to confront Peter when it became obvious to him that Peter failed to act in accordance with the gospel, δτε δέ ήλθεν Κηφας είς Άντιόχειαν, κατά πρόσωπον αύτφ άντέστην, οτι κατεγνωσμένος ήν (Gal 2:11), and more specifically, οτε εΐδον οτι ούκ όρθοποδοΰσιν προς την άλήθειαν τοΰ εύαγγελίου, ειπον τω Κηφά έμπροσθεν πάντων· εί σύ 'Ιουδαίος ύπάρχων έθνικώς και ούχϊ Ίουδαϊκώς ζης, πώς τά έθνη άναγκάζεις ίουδα'ΐζειν; (Gal 2:14). This last statement makes clear that as much as it had been a question of Paul's ego, more had been involved: It was a question of the gospel itself, or, to put it differently, Paul's ego had become inseparable from the gospel as he proclaimed it to the gentiles. The same is true when he insists that he does not have his gospel from human beings, but from Jesus Christ, in statements, such as, Παΰλος άπόστολος ούκ άπ' άνθρώπων ούδέ δι άνθρώπου άλλά διά Ίησοΰ Χριστού και θεού πατρός τοΰ έγείραντος αύτόν έκ νεκρών (Gal 1:1) and άρτι γάρ άνθρώπους πείθω ή τον θεόν; ή ζητώ άνθρώποις άρέσκειν; εί έτι άνθρώποις ήρεσκον, Χριστού δούλος ούκ αν ήμην (Gal 1:10). He understood himself to have been called by God in Christ and the gospel he proclaimed to have come through the revelation of Christ to him, not on the authority of those who had been called to be apostles before him. The freedom with which he allowed the meaning of Christ to emerge under a variety of circumstances agrees with an understanding according to which he did not receive instruction about Christ from the other apostles, which he then in turn passed on to his hearers/readers, but that he allowed the truth of the gospel to emerge to meet the demands of different occasions. His claim that his apostleship is ούκ άπ' άνθρώπων ούδέ δι' άνθρώπου άλλά διά Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ και θεοΰ πατρός τοΰ έγείραντος αύτόν έκ νεκρών (Gal 1:1) is not as a rhetorical argument, but the expression of a conviction that was determinative for who he was and for everything he did. On that basis all his other statements concerning his call to proclaim the gospel have to be interpreted. He makes the same claim in Rom 1:1, Παΰλος δοΰλος Χριστού Ίησοΰ, κλητός άπόστολος άφωρισμένος είς εύαγγέλιον θεοΰ, here as a clarification of his being a slave of Christ, explicitly stating proclamation of the gospel as the purpose of his call. Paul refers to his calling as that of an administrator, a servant of Christ responsible for the administration of, as he writes, the mysteries of God, ήμάς λογιζέσθω άνθρωπος ώς ύπηρέτας Χριστού και οικονόμους μυστηρίων θεοΰ (1 Cor 4:1). Having been entrusted with this weighty responsibility did not

The M e a n i n g for Paul Personally

105

make him independent, which he expresses, on the one hand, by interpreting himself as an ambassador of Christ, ύπέρ Χρίστου ούν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ήμών (2 Cor 5:20ab), that is, as someone who can act only on the instructions of those who sent him, and, on the other hand, more importantly, by recognizing that with regard to his own ability he remained unfit for the task. He nevertheless accomplished his task because he acted not in accordance with his own ability but with the power afforded him by those who sent him, God through Christ. He expresses this explicitly in 2 Cor 3:4-6, 4

πεποίθησιν δέ τοιαύτην [διακονίαν] εχομεν διά τοΰ Χρίστου πρός τον θεόν. 5 ούχ οτι άφ' έαυτών ικανοί έσμεν λογίσασθαί τι ώς έξ έαυτών, άλλ' ή ικανότης ήμών έκ τοΰ θεοΰ, 6 δς καί ίκάνωσεν ημάς διακόνους καινής διαθήκης, ού γράμματος άλλά πνεύματος· τό γάρ γράμμα άποκτέννει, τό δέ πνεΰμα ζφοποιεΐ.

When he prayed to Christ to relieve him of the thorn he had in his flesh — 1 . . . έδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τή σαρκί, άγγελος σατανά, ϊνα με κολαφίζη, ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι. 8 ύπέρ τούτου τρις τόν κύριον παρεκάλεσα ϊνα άποστή άπ' έμοΰ (2 Cor 12:7-8) —, Christ refused. It was precisely Paul's weakness in which Christ's power was realized, ε'ίρηκέν μοι, άρκεΐ σοι ή χάρις μου- ή γάρ δύναμις έν άσθενεία τελείται (12:9bc). In 2 Cor 12: 1-10, he contrasts the vision(s) which transported him into the third heaven and into paradise, 'καυχάσθαι δει, ού συμφέρον μεν, έλεύσομαι δέ είς οπτασίας και άποκαλύψεις κυρίου. 2 οιδα άνθρωπον έν Χριστώ πρό έτών δεκατεσσάρων, εϊτε έν σώματι ούκ οίδα, εϊτε έκτός τοΰ σώματος ούκ οίδα, ό θεός οίδεν, άρπαγέντα τόν τοιούτον έως τρίτου ούρανοΰ. 3 καί οίδα τόν τοιοΰτον άνθρωπον, εϊτε έν σώματι εϊτε χωρίς τοΰ σώματος ούκ οίδα, ό θεός οίδεν, 4 οτι ήρπάγη είς τόν παράδεισον καί ήκουσεν άρρητα ρήματα ά ούκ έξόν άνθρώπω λαλήσαι. 5 ύπέρ τοΰ τοιούτου καυχήσομαι, ύπέρ δέ έμαυτοΰ ού καυχήσομαι εί μή έν ταϊς άσθενείαις (2 Cor 12:1-5), with his humiliation and Christ's refusal to remove the thorn from his flesh, the transition marked by 12:6-7, 6

έάν γάρ θελήσω καυχήσασθαι, ούκ έσομαι άφρων, άλήθειαν γάρ έρώ· φείδομαι δέ, μή τις είς έμέ λογίσηται ύπέρ ο βλέπει με ή άκούει [τι] έξ έμοΰ 7 καί τή ύπερβολή των άποκαλύψεων. διό, ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι, έδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τή σαρκί, άγγελος σατανά, ϊνα με κολαφίζη, ϊνα μή ύπεραίρωμαι.

106

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Thus he concludes, 9ύ

ήδιστα ο ύ ν μάλλον καυχήσομαν έν ταΐς άσθενείαις μου, ϊ ν α έπισκηνώση έπ' έμέ ή δύναμις τοΰ Χρίστου. 10διό εύδοκώ έν άσθενείαις, έν ϋβρεσιν, έν άνάγκαις, έν διωγμοΐς και στενοχωρίαις, ύπέρ Χρίστου· δταν γαρ άσθενώ, τότε δυνατός είμι (2 Cor 12:9d—10). What Paul made clear in the passage was that his apostleship was not grounded in a vision of the third heaven or paradise — there is no encounter with Christ in the vision —, but by what Christ clarified to him as the nature of his apostleship in 12:9a-c, και ε'ίρηκέν μοι, άρκεΐ σοι ή χάρις μου· ή γαρ δύναμις έν άσθενεία τελείται. Our next step now, in Part Two of this study, is to investigate the even larger number of texts which give expression to Paul's understanding of the role which Christ plays in the lives of his readers. Our task will be to determine how Paul translates his own experience of Christ into the lives of his readers. As I indicated above, I will limit myself to texts expressing the meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia for the believer.

Part Two The Meaning of Christ for the Believer 1. Paul's earlier preaching as foundation of his reasoning With regard to Paul himself it was possible to establish that fundamental to the meaning of Christ for him was the fact that Christ appeared to him, an event which transformed his life. In translating that meaning into the lives of believers, Paul could not rely on such an event. Nowhere does he assume that Christ appeared to any of his readers. What we may ask with regard to them is whether in Paul's understanding there was something similarly basic which functioned as the foundation of the meaning of Christ for them. We may have been able to find an underlying factor in Paul's thinking about the meaning of Christ for the believer if we knew what he preached to convert his hearers from what he understood to have been their sinful gentile existence to a new life in Christ. Unfortunately, we have no clear information concerning that preaching. In none of his extant letters does he attempt to convert his readers. What we have are attempts to keep them true to the new life which they found in Christ. In a variety of contexts he reminds them of their conversion from a sinful past to a new life in Christ and of the responsibility that places on them; nowhere does he address them as in need of conversion. At a number of points in his letters, however, Paul refers to his earlier preaching as support for his reasoning with his readers: ού γάρ έκρινά τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον (1 Cor 2:2), 'γνωρίζω δέ ύμΐν, άδελφοί, τό εύαγγέλιον ö εύηγγελισάμην ύμΐν, δ και παρελάβετε, έν ω και έστήκατε, 2 δι' οΰ και σ φ ζ ε σ θ ε , τίνι λ ό γ ψ ε ύ η γ γ ε λ ι σ ά μ η ν ύ μ ΐ ν εί κατέχετε, έ κ τ ο ς εί μή είκή έ π ι σ τ ε ύ σ α τ ε . 3 παρέδωκα γάρ ύμΐν έν πρώτοις, δ και παρέλαβον, δτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών κατά τάς γραφάς 4 καί δτι έτάφη καί δτι έγήγερται τη ημέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς και δτι ώφθη Κηφά είτα τοις δώδεκα (1 Cor 15:1-4), [εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται] εύρισκόμεθα . . . ψευδομάρτυρες τοΰ θεού, δτι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεοΰ δτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, δν ούκ ήγειρεν εϊπερ αρα νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται (1 Cor 15:15),

108

Christ in the Letters of Pauli

and, ω άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς υμάς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (Gal 3:1).' In all of these texts Christ plays a central role, even if not always the same. The earlier preaching to which Paul refers in these passages may not function as the basis for all of his discussions with his readers, but they can be taken as a starting point since in them he does use features of that preaching as the basis for his reasoning. A second step might then be to look at texts that are thematically related to those features to which he refers in these passages. Methodologically our task here is not to derive the underlying, abstract meaning of Christ in these passages, but to establish what Paul means by them concretely, that is, what it is he wants to say to his readers by means of them. The question for us is not so much what Paul says, including the meanings of the materials by means of which he says it, but what he means by what he says. a. In 1 Cor 2:2 Paul refers to Christ crucified as the fundamental feature of his earlier preaching, ού γάρ έκρινα τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριςτόν καϊ τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον. In the immediate context of this reference he clarifies the nature of that earlier preaching, καγώ έλθών πρός ύμάς, άδελφοί, ήλθον ού καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας καταγγέλλων ύμΐν τό μυστήριον τοϋ θεοϋ (2:1), and, 3

καγώ έν άσθενεία καϊ έν φόβω καϊ έν τρόμω πολλω έγενόμην πρός ύμάς, 4 καΐ ό λόγος μου καϊ τό κήρυγμά μου ούκ έν πειθοΐ[ς] σοφίας [λόγοις] άλλ' έν άποδείξει πνεύματος καί δυνάμεως, 5 ϊνα ή πίστις ύμών μή ή έν σοφία ανθρώπων άλλ' έν δυνάμει θεοΰ (2:3-5). He presents his earlier preaching as not having been with the splendor of speech and wisdom, but in weakness, and with fear and trembling; not with the persuasion of wisdom, but with the demonstration of the spirit and power. The reference to Christ crucified in 2:2 functions as an argument in support of the nature of his preaching. It has no direct meaning for his readers, but attains meaning for them only indirectly, through the statement of the purpose of his preaching in 2:5, ϊνα ή πίστις ύμων μή ή έν σοφία άνθρώπων άλλ' έν δυνάμει θεοΰ. They should not put their trust in human wisdom, but in the power of God. In this reasoning, it is not the content of Paul's preaching,

1

I have already discussed s o m e of these texts exegetically above, b u t will discuss all of t h e m again below.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

109

Jesus Christ crucified (2:2), which achieves the purpose of the hearers' faith not being έν σοφία ανθρώπων άλλ' έν δυνάμει θεοΰ (2:5b—c), but the way in which he presented that preaching, έν άσθενεία καϊ έν φόβφ και έν τρόμφ πολλώ . . , και ό λόγος μου και τό κήρυγμά μου ούκ έν πειθοϊ[ς] σοφίας [λόγοις] άλλ' έν αποδείξει πνεύματος καί δυνάμεως (2:3-4). In the reasoning which follows in 2:5-16 Paul does not interpret the meaning of Christ for the faith of his readers. The meaning of Christ crucified is present in that reasoning only in so far as it can be taken as an assumed factor in the issue of wisdom in relationship to P a u l ' s preaching. Christ reemerges explicitly for the first time again in 4:10. Thus, even though Paul presents Christ crucified as the foundation of his earlier preaching in 1 Cor 2:2, he does not make it the foundation of his reasoning in the passage. With regard to our topic, he does not relate the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified directly to his readers, but in 2:5 he does so indirectly through his preaching, formulated in terms of the issue of wisdom. The following three texts — for which 1 Cor 2:1-2 functions as a culminating summary — reveal more of the meaning which Paul attributes to Christ crucified in this section of the letter. ,7

ού γάρ άπέστειλέν με Χριστός βαπτίζειν άλλά εύαγγελίζεσθαι, ούκ έν σοφία λόγου, ϊνα μή κενωθή ό σταυρός τοϋ Χρίστου. 18ό λόγος γάρ ό τοΰ σταυρού τοις μέν άπολλυμένοις μωρία έστίν, τοις δε σφζομένοις ήμΐν δύναμις θεοΰ έστιν (1:17-18), 21

έπειδή γάρ έν τη σοφία τοΰ θεοΰ ούκ εγνω ό κόσμος διά της σοφίας τόν θεόν, εύδόκησεν ό θεός διά της μωρίας τοΰ κηρύγματος σώσαι τούς πιστεύοντας- 22 έπειδή καί 'Ιουδαίοι σημεία αίτοΰσιν καί "Ελληνες σοφίαν ζητοΰσιν, 23 ήμεΐς δέ κηρύσσομεν Χριστόν έσταυρωμένον, Ίουδαίοις μέν σκάνδαλον, εθνεσιν δέ μωρίαν, 24 αύτοΐς δέ τοις κλητοΐς, Ίουδαίοις τε καί Έλλησιν, Χριστόν θεοΰ δύναμιν καί θεοΰ σοφίαν- 25 οτι τό μωρόν τοΰ θεοΰ σοφώτερον των άνθρώπων έστίν καί τό άσθενές τοΰ θεού ίσχυρότερον των άνθρώπων. (1:21-25). and, 30

έξ αύτοΰ δέ ύμεΐς έστε έν Χριστώ 'Ιησού, δς έγενήθη σοφία ήμΐν άπό θεοΰ, δικαιοσύνη τε καί άγιασμός καί άπολύτρωσις, 3 1 ϊ ν α καθώς γέγραπται- ό καυχώμενος έν κυρίφ καυχάσθω. (1:30-31). In 1 Cor 1:18 Paul reveals awareness of an ambiguity in the meaning of Christ's crucifixion, ό λόγος γάρ ό τοΰ σταυρού τοις μέν άπολλυμένοις μωρία έστίν, τοις δέ σωζομένοις ήμΐν δύναμις θεοΰ έστιν. The meaning of Christ's death on the cross is not inherent in the event itself, but has to be derived from it. Different meanings can be derived: For those who perish the cross is

110

Christ in the Letters of Paul

foolishness. To be sure, for Paul that meaning is erroneous, but it is nevertheless real. Here in verse 18, he mentions only μωρία as the perception of the cross of Christ by those who perish, and does not relate it to any particular group, but in verse 22, έπειδή καί 'Ιουδαίοι σημεία αίτοΰσιν και "Ελληνες σοφίαν ζητοϋσιν, he differentiates between 'Ιουδαίοι and "Ελληνες/έθνη, and expands the single misunderstanding, μωρία, by differentiating between it as what characterizes the perception of Hellenes/gentiles from a σκάνδαλον which characterizes the perception of the Jews. He also establishes the reasons for the misperceptions: for the Jews it is because they seek a sign and for the Hellenes/gentiles, because they seek wisdom. The Jews seeking a sign and considering the teaching of the cross a scandal is not integral to the discussion, but is brought in momentarily and not pursued further. Paul's real concern is with wisdom which stands opposed to his preaching of Christ crucified, a topic which concerns him throughout 1:10-4:21. He addresses the reason for specifically the Jews' inability to understand the gospel in his discussion of the veil which Moses put over his face at the giving of the Law in 2 Cor 3:7^1:4. We will return to that later. His final interpretation of the failure to understand the true meaning of the cross is that that meaning cannot be perceived by means of the human spirit: τίς γάρ οιδεν άνθρώπων τά τοΰ ανθρώπου εί μή το πνεϋμα τοϋ άνθρώπου τό έν αύτφ; οϋτως και τά τοΰ θεοΰ ουδείς εγνωκεν εί μή τό πνεΰμα τοΰ θεοΰ (1 Cor 2:11). Paul refers to the mistaken perception of the meaning of Christ's crucifixion in cognitive terms, μωρία and a σκάνδαλον, even though in 1:18 μωρία does have a certain e f f e c t in the sense of being c o n n e c t e d with τ ο ι ς άπολλυμένοις. In the case of "we who are saved" (1:18), "the elect" (1:24), however, the perception is not purely cognitive, but the experiencing of power. To begin with, the correct perception of the meaning of Christ's crucifixion looks beyond the crucifixion itself to God's power manifest in it, τοις δέ σωζομένοις ήμΐν δύναμις θεοΰ έστιν (1:18b), and, αύτοίς δέ τοις κλητοΐς, Ίουδαίοις τε καί "Ελλησιν, Χριστόν θεοΰ δύναμιν καί θεοΰ σοφίαν (ν. 24). In 1:30-31, Paul makes the meaning of Christ's crucifixion for his readers explicit, έξ [θεοΰ] δέ ύμεΐς έστε έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ, δς έγενήθη σοφία ήμΐν άπό θεοΰ, δικαιοσύνη τε καί άγιασμός καί άπολύτρωσις (1:30). Notably, δικαιοσύνη τε καί άγιασμός καί άπολύτρωσις here do not elucidate the power, but the wisdom of God, which Christ became for the elect. Paul uses σωφία multivalently to refer to worldly wisdom as well as to the wisdom of God. Here too, the meaning of Christ's crucifixion is not presented as something purely cognitive, an idea, but as the effective means of the justification, sanctification and redemption of the believer.

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

111

With that we have moved an important step forward in our attempt to understand what Christ means for the believer in Paul's thought, in particular, through the three statements which link Christ to Paul's readers, two directly, that the word of the cross τοις σωζομένοις ήμΐν δύναμις θεοΰ έστιν (1:18), and that they are έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ, ος έγενήθη σοφία ήμΐν άπό θεοΰ, δικαιοσύνη τε και άγιασμός και άπολύτρωσις (1:30) and the third indirectly as the purpose of his proclamation ϊνα ή πίστις ύμών μή f| έν σοφία άνθρώπων άλλ' έν δυνάμει θεοΰ (2:5). However, in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 as we discussed it so far Paul does not explicate the meaning which Christ has for his readers. His references to Christ function as arguments in support of his reasoning concerning wisdom, giving the impression that those references have only supportive significance. That may not reflect the true state of affairs. What Christ means in Paul's reasoning may come to expression in a different way in this passage. In order to understand that meaning it will be necessary to subject Paul's reasoning to a thorough investigation. 2 Such an investigation would expand the scope of the present study beyond the question concerning the meaning of Christ in Paul's thought, covering a number of other themes that play important roles in the passage. It nevertheless cannot be avoided if we want to understand the meaning of Christ. Under the circumstances I propose investigating Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 1:10-2:16 in an excursus, expanding the scope of the investigation to cover all of 1 Cor 1:4-4:21, the larger context of which this passage is an integral part, giving specific attention to the role played by Christ in that reasoning. On the basis of the results of that investigation I will draw conclusions about the meaning of Christ for the believer in our passage.

2

In his San Francisco Theological S e m i n a r y dissertation, R a y m o n d A l e x a n d e r H u m p h r i e s subjected 1 Corinthians to a thorough rhetorical investigation, " P a u l ' s Rhetoric of Argumentation in 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 1 - 4 " (Berkeley: San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1979). A c c o r d i n g to Humphries'. " W h a t distinguishes the rhetorical a p p r o a c h to the interpretation of these chapters is its p r i m a r y f o c u s on the a r g u m e n t a t i v e situation, and n o t on questions of history, theology, or literary genres. Its concern is to construe f r o m the letter itself Paul's a s s e s s m e n t of the status of the dialogue between himself and the Corinthians as he c o m posed the letter" (op. cit., 106). C o n s t r u i n g "the status of the dialogue b e t w e e n himself and the C o r i n t h i a n s " from the letter itself is certainly not w h a t H u m p h r i e s does in his study. He states as his thesis that "the structure of 1 Corinthians 1 - 4 derives f r o m the strategy that Paul adopts to p e r s u a d e the Corinthians that the solution to the p r o b l e m of disunity within the congregation (1:10) was to accept h i m as a p a r a d i g m a t i c figure ( 4 : 1 6 ) " (op. cit., 13). Also: " A basic a s s u m p t i o n of structural analysis is that the author begins with his conclusion and proceeds to construct the discourse in such a w a y as to lead the audience to accept his p o i n t of v i e w " (op. cit., 105). On that basis he asserts: "In the ' p a r a k a l o ' clause in the exordium, Paul calls for the restoration of unity in the c o n g r e g a t i o n : Ί a p p e a l to you brethren, b y the n a m e of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be n o d i s s e n s i o n s a m o n g y o u , b u t t h a t y o u b e u n i t e d in t h e s a m e m i n d a n d in t h e s a m e j u d g e m e n t ' (1:10). In the peroration, this appeal is m a t c h e d b y another ' p a r a k a l o ' period: Ί

112

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Excursus: Meaning of Christ in 1 Cor 1:4—4:21 Paul's powerful statement in 1 Cor 2:2 that he decided to know nothing among his readers εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τούτον έσταυρωμένον gives the

urge you, then, b e imitators of m e ' ( 4 : 1 6 ) " (op. cit., 107). O n e should bear in m i n d that in the j u s t p r e c e d i n g 4:15 Paul wrote: έάν γ ά ρ μυρίους π α ι δ α γ ω γ ο ύ ς ε χ η τ ε έν Χ ρ ι σ τ φ , άλλ' ού π ο λ λ ο ύ ς π α τ έ ρ α ς , έν γ ά ρ Χ ρ ι σ τ ώ Ί η σ ο ΰ δια τοΰ ε υ α γ γ ε λ ί ο υ έ γ ώ ύ μ ά ς έ γ έ ν ν η σ α . He is clearly reasserting the authority of his apostleship in these verses, b u t his focus is not solely on the resolution of the issue of the factions. Other issues that p r e o c c u p y h i m include his assertion that the C o r i n t h i a n s rely on h u m a n w i s d o m , and not the w i s d o m of G o d , and the p r o b l e m of his relationship with his readers. The nature and authority of his apostleship is indeed an important issue in these chapters, but a clarification of the nature of his authority as an apostle and r e a f f i r m a t i o n of it is not a mere function of his attempt to resolve the p r o b l e m of the factions by asserting his authority over against the others, b u t an issue in its own right, c o - c o n s t i t u t i n g a c o m p l e x of inter-related issues addressed b y h i m in these chapters. H u m p h r i e s writes: "If Paul were to present himself at the outset as a p a r a d i g m a t i c figure he could b e accused of perpetuating a practice that he c o n d e m n e d in others" (op. cit., 115). A c c o r d i n g to H u m p h r i e s , thus, we h a v e to a s s u m e that a m a j o r f u n c t i o n of P a u l ' s r e a s o n i n g was to achieve exactly what he could n o t h a v e attempted at the outset. " T h u s Paul urges the Corinthians to accept h i m as a p a r a d i g m a t i c figure as a solution to the p r o b l e m of disunity in the congregation. Unity will b e found in imitating Paul. N o t Paul as an o u t s t a n d i n g leader or eloquent speaker, b u t Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ w h o is faithful to his apostolic c o m m i s s i o n and w h o illustrates in his teaching and ministry the foolishness, weakness, and i n c o n s e q u e n c e of the ' w o r d of, the cross,' w h i c h is the p o w e r and w i s d o m of G o d " (op cit., 1 2 7 - 2 8 ) . P a u l ' s clarification and d e f e n s e of his ministry, H u m p h r i e s concludes, is as a function of his resolution of the disunity in Corinth: " T h e p r o b l e m of disunity that manifested itself in professions of loyalty to particular Christian leaders would be resolved b y imitating Paul; that is by a r e c o m m i t m e n t to the gospel Paul had preached and exemplified in his ministry in C o r i n t h " (op. cit., 128). T h e issue of wisd o m , in turn, is a mere f u n c t i o n of P a u l ' s defense of his ministry: " H e p r o c e e d s by accumulation to assert that b o t h his b e a r i n g 'in w e a k n e s s and in m u c h fear and t r e m b l i n g ' (v. 3), and his m a n n e r of p r e a c h i n g , 'not in lofty w o r d s of w i s d o m ' (v. 1), ' n o t in plausible w o r d s of w i s d o m ' (v. 4), were evidence of his anxiety that the faith of the congregation should be f o u n d e d on the divine p o w e r and not on h u m a n w i s d o m (v. 5 ) " (op. cit., 69). That P a u l ' s p u r p o s e in reasserting his authority as an apostle was to present himself as a p a r a d i g m a t i c figure as the m e a n s of resolving the issue in his favor over against the others, is a c o n c l u s i o n at w h i c h o n e can a r r i v e o n l y if o n e p r o c e e d s on t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f H u m p h r i e s ' thesis of a coordination of a restoration of unity in the congregation as P a u l ' s main p u r p o s e and P a u l ' s appeal that the Corinthians b e c o m e imitators of h i m as the resolution of the disunity a m o n g them. In that w a y all other issues discussed in these chapters b e c o m e f u n c t i o n s of this single d o m i n a t i n g concern. H u m p h r i e s ' study is a fine example of an investigation of the rhetorical structure of a passage. At the s a m e time, it reveals the dangers of a study which m a k e s use of a previously established structure in the investigation of the m e a n i n g of a p a s s a g e . The structure of m e a n i n g it provides as the basis of the investigation obscures other possible m e a n i n g s , in the case of H u m p h r i e s ' study important issues that, each in its o w n right, is not addressed, but f u n c t i o n s as an expression of the predetermined structural m e a n i n g on which the investigation is b a s e d . F o c u s s i n g almost exclusively on the factions as the p r i m e issue obscures the i m p o r t a n c e of o t h e r t h e m e s as issues in their o w n right, s u c h as, w i s d o m , P a u l ' s d e f e n s e of his apostleship and P a u l ' s relationship to his readers.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

113

impression that Christ crucified is of fundamental importance for the reasoning in which it occurs. This impression finds support in the appearance of Christ crucified earlier in 1:17-18 and 22-25. What casts doubt on the importance of Christ crucified in Paul's reasoning in these passages, however, is that in none of them does he refer to Christ crucified as a fundamental statement on which he builds his reasoning; in each case he uses Christ crucified as an argument in support of other themes, the nature of his preaching in 1:17-18 and 2:2, and the issue of wisdom in all three passages. 3 1 will discuss the function of Christ crucified in these three passages in more detail below. A comparison with Gal 3:1-5, another text in which Paul refers to his earlier preaching, ώ ανόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (ν. 1), reveals how a reference to Christ crucified can function as the foundation for his reasoning with his readers, 2

τοΰτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' υμών- έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεϋμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; 3 οΰτως άνόητοί έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νΰν σαρκί έπιτελεΐσθε; 4 τοσαϋτα έπάθετε είκη; εϊ γε και είκη. 5 ό οΰν έπιχορηγών ύμϊν τό πνεΰμα και ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμΐν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (νν. 2-5). Doubt about Christ crucified as the basis for Paul's reasoning in the three 1 Corinthians passages is strengthened by the infrequency with which Christ ap-

3

Interpreters generally d o not take 2 C o r 2:2, ού γ ά ρ έ κ ρ ι ν α τι είδέναι έν ύ μ ϊ ν εί μή Ί η σ ο ΰ ν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έ σ τ α υ ρ ω μ έ ν ο ν , as a christological p a s s a g e in need of interpretation. The verse is typically taken as part of P a u l ' s d e f e n s e of his (missionary) p r e a c h i n g , frequently n o t i n g its p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p to P a u l ' s p r e s u m e d failed p r e a c h i n g in A t h e n s (Acts 1 7 : 2 2 - 3 4 ) . For e x a m p l e , K r e m e r : " D a ß P a u l u s a u f ü b e r m ä ß i g e R e d e k u n s t verzichtete, h ä n g t f ü r ihn n i c h t etwa mit m a n g e l n d e r B e g a b u n g z u s a m m e n , sondern geht auf einen b e w u ß t e n E n t s c h l u ß zurück: » D e n n ich beschloßt (ekrina\ vgl. 5,3; 2 Kor 2,1; 5,14), »nichts bei euch zu wissen. . .«. G e m e i n t ist nicht etwa das allgemeine p h i l o s o p h i s c h e Prinzip: »Ich weiß, d a ß ich nichts weiß« (Sokrates), als Eingeständnis eigenen N i c h t - W i s s e n s , sondern der hyperbolisch a u s g e s p r o c h e n e Verzicht auf eine B e g r ü n d u n g oder Erläuterung seiner Predigt durch die faszinierende A u s b r e i t u n g m a n n i g f a c h e r Kenntnisse, wie sie bei d a m a l i g e n W a n d e r p h i l o s o p h e n und vielleicht auch bei Apollos oder anderen Vertretern einer V o r f o r m späterer Gnosis b e w u n d e r t wurde. Eine solche Lehrweise stand nach M e i n u n g des Paulus in G e f a h r , das Wort v o m Kreuz auszuhöhlen (1,17). D a r u m , und nicht etwa wegen e n t t ä u s c h e n d e r E r f a h r u n g e n in Athen (wie mitunter aus A p g 17,32 fälschlich in den Text h i n e i n g e l e s e n wird), wollte er n i c h t s p r e d i g e n » a u ß e r Jesus Christus und diesen als kreuzigten." (Erste Korinther, 5 0 - 1 ) . So also B a c h m a n n , Erste Korinther, 1112; B o u s s e t , Erste Korinther, 8 3 ; S i c k e n b e r g e r , Korinther und Römer, 11; W e n d l a n d , Korinther, 21; Barrett, First Corinthians, 6 3 - 4 ; W o l f f , Erste Korinther, 48. S o m e t h i n g similar applies to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of other verses with references to Christ w h i c h concern P a u l ' s p r e a c h i n g as well, ( 1 : 1 7 - 1 8 and 4:15 and 17), w i s d o m ( 2 2 - 2 5 ) , or his readers ( 3 0 31; 3:11; 4:10 and 15).

114

Christ in the Letters of Paul

pears in Paul's reasoning in the larger context of 1 Cor 1:10-4:21, the passage in which these references occur. After appearing briefly in 1:17-18, 22 25, 30 and in 2:2, it does not appear again before 3:11, and then intermittently in 4:10, 15 and 17, in all of these cases without reference to the crucifixion. This state of affairs may not reflect the real significance of Christ for Paul's reasoning in these chapters; in order to determine that significance it will be necessary to establish as clearly as possible what it is Paul is arguing in the passage, and what role his past preaching of Jesus Christ crucified plays in the argument. That will not be a simple task, due to the number of themes that are interwoven in the passage, making it an example of some of Paul's most complex reasoning. The factions constitute an obvious theme, but with a remarkably intermittent presence. After its brief appearance in 1:10-13 it does not come up again before 3:4-15 and 4:6-13, but then dominant in these final phases of Paul's reasoning. Notwithstanding the absence of the factions for such a long stretch in Paul's reasoning between 1:13 and 3:4, they appear to have been on his mind all along. Probably the most dominant theme in 1 Cor 1:10-4:21 is wisdom, not only because of its prominence, especially in the earlier part of the discussion, 1:17-2:16; 3:10, 16-23, but also because of its being interwoven at so many points with other themes, especially the nature of Paul's preaching/apostleship and his relationship to his readers. In contrast to its prominence as a theme in the first three chapters, wisdom disappears in the final chapter, except for the one reference in the critical 4:10, the only statement in which all five themes are represented. With regard to meaning: In addition to the multivalence of wisdom as human as well as divine, the extent of its meaning is codetermined by its counterparts: μωρία (1:23, cf. 25 and 27, μωρόν and άσθενές), and πνέυμα και δύναμις (2:4). I will use the phrase "the issue (or 'theme') of wisdom" below as an abbreviation for this entire complex. The issue of the Paul's apostleship and preaching is another prevalent theme, 1:14-17, 22-25; 2:1-7, 10, 12-13a, 16; 3:5-15; 4:1-21, and similarly, but more intermittently, his relationship to his readers, 1:4-13, 26-31; 2:4-5; 3:1-4; 3:16-4:21. Both of these themes are prominent in the final parts of Paul's reasoning, his apostleship in 3:5-15 and all of chapter 4, and his relationship to his readers, all the way from 3:16 through the end of chapter 4. Relevant for an understanding of the dynamics of Paul's relationship to his readers is also the thanksgiving section (1:4-9) because of the high praise which he expresses for their exemplary behavior. We should extend the passage under consideration to include the thanksgiving section as well. 4 4

In his 1990 dissertation (Paulus als Weiheitslehrer. Der Gekreuzigte und die Weisheit Gottes in I Kor 1-4 [Biblishe Untersuchungen; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet,

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

115

Remarkably, as already mentioned above, Christ appears relatively infrequently, 1:17-18, 22-25; 2:2, and then not again before 3:11, and intermittently in 4:10, 15 and 17. If we include the thanksgiving section in our deliberations because of its significance for Paul's relationship to his readers, we should also consider as part of the theme of Christ the reference to communion with him in 1:9. With that we have been able to identify the following five themes that are interwoven in the passage: Wisdom, The factions, Paul's apostleship, Paul's relationship to his readers, Christ crucified. 5 1991]), J o a c h i m Theis did a c o m p r e h e n s i v e study of the p a s s a g e with a f o c u s on Paul as a teacher of w i s d o m . The m a i n theme in the passage, accordingly, is w i s d o m , b u t Theis does recognize another theme, the situation in Corinth within the context of apostolic authority, " D e r T e x t 1 K o r 1 - 4 m a r k i e r t z w e i t h e m a t i s c h e S c h w e r p u n k t e . " ( P a u l u s als Weiheitslehrer, 116). The first is the situation in Corinth: " D i e A b s c h n i t t e 1 , 1 0 - 1 7 und 3 , 5 - 4 , 1 6 besprechen die konkreten G e m e i n d e p r o b l e m e und die damit im Z u s a m m e n h a n g stehende Funktion der A p o s t e l " (loc. cit.), the second, w i s d o m , ". . . der Absnitt 1 , 1 8 - 3 , 4 g r e i f t in z w e i R e d e g ä n g e n ( 1 , 1 8 - 2 , 5 u n d 2 , 6 - 3 , 4 ) d i e W e i s h e t s t h e m a t i k u n t e r verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten a u f . " (op. cit., 117). Theis also recognizes the centrality of Christ in his discussion of w s d o m as the theme of the passage, as in on of his s u b h e a d i n g s : " D i e These: das ' W o r t v o m K r e u z ' als Mitte aller Weisheit (1 Kor 1 , 1 9 - 2 5 ) . " (op. cit., 151). 5

Four of these themes — the factions, w i s d o m , P a u l ' s apostleship and his relationship to his readers — are recognized as such by m o s t interpreters. So, Bousset: The factions, w h i c h he c o n s i d e r s the m a i n t h e m e of the e n t i r e p a s s a g e , t h e first m a i n p a r t of the letter. "I. Hauptteil 1 , 1 0 - 4 , 2 1 : Die Partei-Streitigkeiten in d e r G e m e i n d e , " and then identifies individual parts as h a v i n g specifically the factions as their theme: "a) Der Tatbestand 1 , 1 0 12" and "b) V o r l ä u f i g e W i d e r l e g u n g des Parteiwesens 1 , 1 3 - 1 7 " (Erste Korinther, 78-9). A c c o r d i n g to B o u s s e t , Paul r e t u r n s to the m a i n t h e m e of t h e f a c t i o n s in 3 : 1 - 2 3 : " 3 . E r n e u t e B e h a n d l u n g d e r Partei-Streitigkeiten 3 , 1 - 2 3 " {op. cit., 87 — for 1 and 2 see b e l o w ) ' b u t t h e n h e i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y 3 : 1 - 3 as t h e r e t u r n to t h e f a c t i o n s : " a ) R ü c k k k e h r z u m H a u p t t h e m a 3 , 1 - 3 " (loc.cit.) and identifies other parts as expressions of other themes, indicating that the themes can b e overlappping. I will return to the latter t w o themes below. Bousset identifies the second t h e m e as the proclamation of C h r i s t ' s crucifixion, again an o v e r a r c h i n g theme: "1. Die T o r h e i t d e r K r e u z e s - P r e d i g t 1 , 1 8 - 2 , 5 " (op. cit., 80). T h e first s u b - t h e m e in this section is w i s d o m , even though the h e a d i n g does not spell that out: "a) A l g e m e i n e B e t r a c h t u n g 1 , 1 8 - 2 5 " (loc. cit.) The next concerns P a u l ' s readers: "b) Beweis aus d e m Tatbestand der christlichen G e m e i n d e 1 , 2 6 - 3 1 " (op. cit., 82), and then P a u l ' s apostleship: "c) Der Beweis aus Paulus e i g e n e m Verhalten 2 , 1 - 5 " (op. cit., 83). Thus, strictly speaking, Christ is not a theme. The theme is, as Bousset himself formulates, P a u l ' s preaching of the crucified Christ, that is, his aposlteship. T h e next t h e m e is w i s d o m , B o u s s e t f o c u s s i n g on the higher w i s d o m : "2. D a n e b e n ist d e r A p o s t l e im Besitze e i n e r h ö h e r e n W e i s h e i t 2 , 6 - 1 6 " (op. cit., 84). In this case we h a v e s u b - t h e m e s , and not n e w themes: "a) die höhere Weisheit 2 , 6 - 9 " (loc. cit.) and " b ) Die Quelle dieser Weisheit, die Art ihrer Mitteilng und ihre A u f n a h m e 2 , 1 0 - 1 6 " (op. cit.. 84). In the latter case, the t h e m e includes again P a u l ' s Apostleship and his relationship to his readers. U n d e r the overarch-

116

Christ in the Letters of Paul

It is not possible, nor is it necessary for our purposes here, to try and unravel the extraordinarily complex passage in every detail. 6 What concerns us basically is the role which Christ plays in Paul's reasoning. In order to be able to do that, however, we have to take account of what it is Paul is driving at in the passage. Taking up each of the above themes and the way it is related to the others will take us a good way in our effort to determine what bears the weight of Paul's reasoning. In order to achieve an overview of the complex interweaving of the themes in the passage I have placed them in parallel columns, which not only helps identify the themes themselves, but also displays where they overlap. Making use of this display, I will try to draw out what is relevant for our interest in the place of Christ crucified in Paul's reasoning. Because of the interweaving of the themes, there will inevitably be repetition, which I do not try to avoid because it is more important that each theme be discussed with its own integrity. I do not discuss the themes in the sequence in which I listed them above and in the columns.

ing theme of the factions in 3:1-23. Bousset identifies the following as sub-themes, which are really different themes: Paul's apostelship: "b) Die richtige Einschätzung der Führer 3,4-9," and "c) Unterschied zwischen den grundlegenden und den weiterbauenden Führern 3 , 1 0 - 1 5 " (op. cit., 88), his relationship to his readers "d) Die Gemeinde ein Tempel Gottes, der durch weltliche Weisheit nicht entweiht werden soll 3 , 1 6 - 2 0 " (op. cit., 89), and then both of these last two themes in "e) Abschluß der grundsätzlichen Ermahnungen 3,21-23" (loc. cit.). The final section concerns specifically Paul's apostleship in relationship to his readers: "4. Persönliche Schlußbemerkungen 4,1,1-21" (op. cit., 90), with the following sub-themes: Paul's apostleship: "a) Der von den Korinthern angesetzten Gerichtstag 4 , 1 - 5 " (loc. cit.) and "b) Abweisung eines Mißverständnisses 4 , 6 - 7 " (op. cit., 91), again his relationship to his readers: "c) Die Selbstüberhebung der Korinther 4 , 8 - 1 3 " (loc. cit.), and, finally, Paul's apostleship in relationship to his readers: "d) Paulus erinnert die Korinther an ihr Verhältnis zu ihm 4 , 1 4 - 1 7 " (op. cit., 92), and "e) Paulus kündet den Korinthern seinen Besuch an 4 , 1 8 - 2 1 " (op. cit., 93).

6

A similar, but not necessarily identical, identification of the four themes — the factions, wisdom, Paul's apostleship and his relationship to his readers — , can be found, among others, in Sickenberger (Korinther und Römer, 9-24), Wendland (Korinther, 13-38), Barrett (First Corinthians, cf. 49-54), Wolff (Erste Korinther, 2 4 - 9 7 ) and Kremer (Erste Korinther, 29-98). They all agree in not identifying Christ crucified as a distinct theme. Because of the complexity of the passage, I will also not discuss the details of its various interpretations in the commentaries..

117

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

Themes in 1 Corinthians 1 - 4

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

Readers

Chr.

1:4-9, ευχαριστώ τώ θεώ μου π ά ν τ ο τ ε περί ύμών έπϊ τη χάριτι τοϋ θεοϋ τη δοθείσ η ύ μΐ ν έ ν Χ ρ ι σ τ ώ Ίησοΰ, 5 οτι έν παντϊ έπλουτί σ θ η τ ε έ ν αύτφ, έν παντϊ λόγψ και πάση γνώσει,

6

κα-

θώς το μαρτύρων τοϋ Χριςτοϋ έβεβαιώθη έν ύμΐν, 7 ώστε ύμάς μή ύστερεΐσθαι έν μηδενί χαρίσματι άπεκδεχοέ νους τήν άποκάλυψιν του κυρίου ή μ ώ ν Ίησοϋ τοϋ.

8

Χριςö ς και

βεβαιώ σει ύ μ ά ς έ ω ς τέλους

άνεγκ-

λ ή τ ο υ ς έ ν xfi ή μέ ρα

τοΰ

κυρίου ή μ ώ ν Ί η σ ο ΰ [Χριςτοΰ], 'πιστός ό θ ε ό ς , δι' ού έκλήθητε εις

Crucified

118 Wisdom

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Factions

Aposlleship

Readers

Chr.

κοινωνίαν τοϋ υίοϋ Ίησοΰ

αύτοϋ Χρις-

τοϋ τοϋ κυρίου ήμών.

1 : 1 0 - 1 3 , πα-

1:10-13, πα-

ρακαλώ

ρακαλώ

δέ

δέ

ύμάς, αδελφοί,

ύμάς, αδελφοί,

διά τοϋ ονόμα-

διά τοΰ ονόμα-

τος τοΰ κυρίου

τος τοΰ κυρίου

ήμών

Ίησοϋ

ήμών Ίησοΰ

Χριστοί), ϊ ν α

Χριστού, ϊνα

τό αύτό λέγη-

τό α ύ τ ό λ έ γ η

τε πάντες και

τε πάντες και

μή f| έν ύ μ ΐ ν

μή ή έν ύ μ ΐ ν

σχίσματα, ήτε

σχίσματα, ήτε

δέ κατηρτισμέ-

δέ κατηρτισμέ-

νοι έν τφ αύτώ

νοι έν τφ αύτφ

νοί καϊ έν xfi

νοί και έν τη

αύτη γνώμη,

αύτη γνώμη,

"έδηλώθη γάρ

"έδηλώθη γάρ

μοι περί ύμών,

μοι περί ύμών,

α δ ε λ φ ο ί μου,

α δ ε λ φ ο ί μου,

ύπό των Χλό-

ύπό των Χλό-

ης ο τ ι έ ρ ι δ ε ς

ης ο τ ι έ ρ ι δ ε ς

έν ύ μ ΐ ν είσιν.

έν ύ μ ΐ ν είσιν.

12

λ έ γω δέ

τοΰτο οτι έκα-

12

λ έ γω δέ

τούτο οτι έκα-

στος ύμών λέ-

στος ύ μώ ν

γει- έ γ ώ μ έ ν

λέγει- έγώ μέν

είμι Π α ύ λ ο υ ,

είμι Π α ύ λ ο υ ,

έγώ δέ Ά π ο λ -

έγώ δέ Ά π ο λ -

λώ, έγώ

λώ , έ γ ώ

δέ

Κηφά, έγώ δέ Χριστού.

13

με-

δέ

Κηφά, έγώ δέ Χριστοΰ.

,3

με-

μέ ρ ι σ τ α ι ό

μέ ρ ι σ τ α ι ό

Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς ; μή

Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς ; μή

Παΰ λος

Παΰ λος έ -

έ-

στ αυ ρώ θη

σταυρώ

θη

Crucified

119

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

Factions

Wisdom

Chr.

Readers

Apostleship

υπερ υμων, ή

υπέρ ύμων, ή

εις τό ό ν ο μ α

εις τό ό ν ο μ α

Παύλου έβα-

Παύ λου έ β-

πτίαθητε;

απτίσθητε;

Crucified

1:14-16, ευχαριστώ

[τφ

θεφ] ότι ούδέ ν α

ύμων

έβάπτισα εί μή Κρίσπον και 15

Γάϊον,

ϊνα

μή τις εϊππ οτι ε ι ς τό έ μό ν ö ν ο μ α έ βαπτίσθητε. ^ έ βάπτισα δέ και τόν Στέφανα οίκον, λοιπόν ούκ οΐδα εϊ τίνα α λλον έ βάπτισα.

1 : 1 7 - 2 1 , ού

1:17, ού

1 : 1 7 - 1 8 , ού

γάρ άπέστει-

γάρ άπέστει-

γάρ άπέστει-

λέν με Χριστός

λέν με Χριστός

λέν με Χριστός

βαπτίζειν άλ-

βαπτίζειν άλ-

βαπτίζειν αλ-

λα εύαγγελίζ-

λα εύαγγελίζ-

λά εύαγγελίζ-

εσθαι, ούκ έν

εσθαι, ούκ έν

εσθαι, ούκ έν

σοφία λόγου,

σ ο φ ί α λόγου,

σοφία λόγου,

ϊνα μή κενωθή

ϊνα μή κενωθή

ϊνα μή κενωθή

ό σταυρός τοϋ

ό σταυρός τού

Χριστού.

|8

ό

Χριστού.

ό σταυρός τοϋ 1:18,

ό

Χριστού.

18

ό

λόγος γάρ ό

λόγος γάρ ό

λόγος γάρ ό

τοϋ σ τ α υ ρ ο ύ

τοΰ σταυρού

τοΰ σ τ α υ ρ ο ύ

τοις μέν άπο-

τοις μέν άπο-

τοις μέν άπο-

λλυμένοις μω-

λλυμένοις μω-

λλυμένοις μω-

ρία έστίν, τοις

ρία έστίν, τοις

ρία έστίν, τοις

δέ σφζομένοις

δέ σψζομένοις

δέ σωζομένοις

ή μ ΐ ν δύναμις

ήμΐν δύναμις

ήμΐν δύναμις

120

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Wisdom

Factions

θεοϋ ι9

Apostleship

εστίν.

Readers

Chr.

Crucified

θεού έστιν.

θεοΰ έστιν.

γέγραπται

γάρ·

άπολώ

τ η ν σ ο φ ί αν των

σοφών

και τ η ν σ ύ ν εσιν των συνετών αθετήσω. 20

ποΰ σ ο φ ό ς ;

ποϋ γραμματεύς; ποϋ συζ η τ η τ ή ς του αιώνος του;

τού-

ού χ ί

έ μώ ρ α ν ε ν ό θεός τήν σοφίαν τοϋ μου;

21

κόςέπειδή

γά ρ έ ν τή σοφία τοϋ θεοϋ ούκ έγνω ό κό σ μ ο ς

διά

τής σοφίας τον θεόν, εύδόκησεν ό θεός διά τής

μωρίας

τοϋ κηρύγματοΰ σ σώ σαι τοΰσ πιστεύοντας·

1:22-25,

έ-

1 :22-25,

έ-

1 :22-25,

ε-

πειδή και 'Ιου-

πειδή και 'Ιου-

πειδή και 'Ιου-

δαίοι σημεία

δαίοι σημεία

δαίοι σημεία

α ί τ ο ϋ σ ι ν και

α ί τ ο ϋ σ ι ν και

α ί τ ο ϋ σ ι ν και

" Ε λ λ η ν ε ς σο-

"Ελληνες σο-

" Ε λ λ η ν ε ς σο-

φίαν ζητοϋσιν,

φίαν ζητοϋσιν,

φίαν ζητοϋσιν,

23

23

23

ήμεΐς δέ κη-

ρύ σ σ ο μ ε ν

ήμεΐς δέ κη-

ρύ

σσομεν

ήμείς δέ κη-

ρύ

σσομεν

121

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

Readers

Chr.

Crucified

Χριστό ν έ -

Χ ρ ι στ ό ν έ -

Χριστό ν έ -

σταυρωμένον,

σταυρωμένον,

σταυρωμένον,

Ίουδαίοις μεν

Ίουδαίοις μέν

Ίουδαίοις μέν

σκάνδαλον, έ-

σκάνδαλον, έ-

σκάνδαλον, έ-

θνεσιν δέ μω-

θνεσιν δέ μω-

θνεσιν δέ μω-

ρίαν,

24

αύτοίς

ρίαν,

24

αύτοΐς

ρίαν,

24

αύτοίς

δέ τ ο ι ς κ λ η -

δέ τ ο ι ς κ λ η -

δέ τ ο ι ς κ λ η -

τοΐς, Ίουδαίοις

τοϊς, Ίουδαίοις

τοΐς, Ίουδαίοις

τε και Έ λ λ η -

τε και "Ελλη-

τε και "Ελλη-

σιν, Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ν

σιν, Χριστόν

σιν, Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ν

θεοϋ δ ύ ν α μ ι ν

θεοϋ δ ύ ν α μ ι ν

θεοϋ δ ύ ν α μ ι ν

και θεοϋ σοφί-

και θεού σοφί-

και θεοϋ σοφί-

αν·

25

ö τι τό

μωρόν θεοϋ

τοϋ

σοφώ-

αν·

25

6 τι τ ό

αν·

25

ö τι τ ό

μωρό ν τοϋ

μωρόν

θεοϋ

θεοϋ

σοφώ-

τοϋ

σοφώ-

τερον των αν-

τερον των αν-

τερον των άν-

θρώπων έστϊν

θρώπων έστίν

θρώπων έστίν

και τό ασθενές

και τό άσθενές

και τό άσθενές

τοϋ θεοϋ ϊσχυ-

τοϋ θεοϋ ίσχυ-

τοϋ θεοϋ ίσχυ-

ρότερον των

ρότερον των

ρότερον των

ανθρώπων.

ανθρώπων.

άνθρώπων.

1:26-31, βλέ-

1:26-31, βλέ-

πετε γάρ τήν

πετε γ ά ρ τ ή ν

κλήσιν ύ μ ώ ν ,

κλήσιν ύ μ ώ ν ,

αδελφοί, οτι

άδελφοί, οτι

ού πολλοί σο-

ού πολλοί σο-

φοί κατά σάρ-

φοί κατά σάρ-

κα, ού πολλοί

κα, ού πολλοί

δ υ ν α τ ο ί , ού

δ υ ν α τ ο ί , ού

πολλοί

εύ-

πολλοί

αλλά

γενείς-

γενείς·

21

27

εύάλλά

τά μ ω ρ ά τ ο ϋ

τά μ ω ρ ά τοϋ

κόσμου έξελέ-

κόσμου έξελέ-

ξατο ό θεός,

ξατο ό θεός,

ί ν α καταισχύ-

ϊ ν α καταισχύ-

νη τού ς σο-

νη τούς

φ ο ύ ς , και τά

φ ο ύ ς , και τ ά

άσθενή

τοϋ

κόσμου έξελέ-

άσθενή

σο-

τοϋ

κόσμου έξελέ-

122

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

Chr.

Readers

ξατο ό θεός,

ξατο ό θεός,

ϊνα καταισχύ-

ϊνα καταισχύ-

νη τα ισχυρά,

νη τά ισχυρά,

28

28

καϊ τά άγενή

τοΰ

καϊ τά άγενή

τοΰ

κόσμου

κόσμου

καϊ τά έξουθ-

και τά έξουθενημένα έξε-

ενημένα έξε-

λέξατο ό θεός,

λέξατο ό θεός,

τά μή

τά μή

όντα,

όντα,

ϊ ν α τά Öντα

ϊ ν α τά Öντα

καταργή ση,

καταργή ση,

"Öπως

29

μή

ö πως

μή

καυχή σηται

καυχή σηται

πάσα

πάσα

σά ρξ

σά ρξ

έ ν ώ π ι ο ν τοΰ

έ ν ώ π ι ο ν τοΰ 30

Crucified

έξ αύ-

1:30-31, έξ

τοΰ δέ ύ μ ε ΐ ς

αϋτοΰ δέ ύμεΐς

έστε έν Χρις-

έστε έν Χρις-

έστε έν Χρις-

τφ Ίησοϋ, δς

τω Ί η σ ο ΰ , ος

τω Ί η σ ο ΰ , ός

έγενήθη σοφία

έγενήθη σοφία

έγενήθη σοφία

ήμΐν άπό θεοϋ,

ήμΐν άπό θεοΰ,

ήμΐν άπό θεοΰ,

δικαιοσύνη τε

δικαιοσύνη τε

δικαιοσύνη τε

και ά γ ι α σ μ ό ς

και ά γ ι α σ μ ό ς

καϊ ά γ ι α σ μ ό ς

και άπολύτρω-

και άπολύτρω-

και άπολύτρω-

θεοϋ.

σις,

31

θεοΰ.

30

τοΰ δέ ύ μ ε ΐ ς

έξ αύ-

σις,

ϊνα κα-

31

ϊ ν α κα-

σις, 3 ' ϊ ν α κα-

θώς γέγραπ-

θώς γέγραπ-

θώς γέγραπ-

ται· ό καυχώ-

ται· ό καυχώ-

ται· ό καυχώ-

μ ε ν ο ς έ ν κυ-

μενος έν κυ-

μενος έν κυ-

ρίω καυχάσθω.

ρίφ καυχάσθω.

ρίφ καυχάσθω.

2:1-5,

καγώ

2:1-5, καγώ

έ λ θ ώ ν πρό ς

έλθών

ύμάς, άδελφοί,

ύμάς, άδελφοί,

πρός

ήλθον ού καθ'

ήλθον ού καθ'

ύ π ε ρ ο χ ή ν λό-

ύ π ε ρ ο χ ή ν λό-

γου ή σοφίας

γου ή σοφίας

καταγγέλλων

καταγγέλλων

ύμΐν τό μυστή-

ύμΐν τό μυστή-

ριον τοΰ θεοΰ.

ριον τοΰ θεοΰ.

2

2

ού γάρ έκρινά

ού γάρ έκρινά

2:2, ού γά ρ

123

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

Readers

Chr.

Crucified

τι ε ί δ έ ν α ι έ ν

τι ε ί δ έ ν α ι έ ν

έκρινά τι είδέ-

ύμΐν εί μή Ίη-

ύμΐν εί μή Ίη-

ναι έν ύ μ ΐ ν εί

σοΰν Χριστόν

σοϋν Χρισιόν

μή ' Ι η σ ο ύ ν

καϊ τοΰτον έ-

και τοΰτον έ-

Χριστόν και

σταυρωμένον.

σταυρωμένον

τούτον έστα-

3

3

υρωμένον.

καγώ έν άς-

θενεία καϊ έν

καγώ έν άς-

θενείςι και έν

φ ό β ω καϊ έν

φ ό β ω και έ ν

τρόμφ πολλφ

τρόμω πολλώ

έγενόμην πρός

έγενόμην πρός

ύ μ ά ς , "και ό

ύμας,

λόγος μου και

λόγος μου και

λόγος μου και

τό

τό

τό

κήρυγμα

4

καί ό

κήρυγμα

2:4-5,

και ό

κήρυγμά

μου ού κ έ ν

μου ού κ έ ν

μου ού κ έ ν

π ε ι θ ο ΐ [ ς ] σο-

π ε ι θ ο ΐ [ ς ] σο-

π ε ι θ ο ΐ [ ς ] σο-

φ ί α ς [λόγοις]

φίας [λόγοις]

φίας [λόγοις]

άλλ' έν απο-

άλλ' έν απο-

άλλ' έν άπο-

δείξει πνεύμα-

δείξει πνεύμα-

δείξει πνεύμα-

τος και δυνά-

τος και δυνά-

τος και δυνά-

5

μεως,

ϊνα ή

πίστις ύ μών

μεως,

5

ϊνα ή

πίστις ύ μών

μεως,

5

ϊνα ή

πίστις ύ μών

μή ή έν σοφίςι

μή ή έν σοφία

μή ή έν σοφίςι

ά νθρώπων

ά νθρώ πων

ά νθρώ πων

άλλ' έν δυν-

άλλ' έν δυν-

άλλ' έν δυν-

άμει θεοϋ.

άμει θεοϋ.

άμει θεού.

2:6-12,

σο-

2:6-7, σοφίαν

φ ί α ν δέ λ α λ -

δέ λ α λ ο ΰ μ ε ν

ούμεν έν τοις

έν τοις τελεί-

τελείοις, σο-

οις, σοφίαν δέ

φίαν δέ ού τού

ού τού αιώνος

αιώνος τούτου

τούτου ούδέ

ούδέ τ ώ ν άρ-

τών αρχόντων

χόντων

τοΰ

τού

αιώνος τούτου τών καταργουμένωνλαλοΰ θεοϋ

7

αιώνος

τού του τώ ν καταργουμέ-

άλλά

ν ω ν 7 άλλά λα-

μεν

λ ο ΰ μεν θ ε ο ύ

σοφίαν

έν μυστηρίω

σοφίαν έν μυςτηρί φ

τή ν

124

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

την άποκεκρυ-

άποκεκρυμμέν

μμένην, ή ν

ην, ην π ρ ο ώ -

προώρισεν ό

ρισεν ό θ ε ό ς

θεός πρό των

πρό τ ώ ν αι-

αιώνων εις δό-

ώ ν ω ν εις δό-

ξαν ήμών, 8 ήν

ξαν ήμών.

ουδείς των αρχόντων τοϋ αιώνος τούτου έ γ ν ω κ ε ν - εί γάρ έγνωσαν, ούκ αν τόν κΰριον της δόξης έσταύρωσαν. 9

άλλά καθώς

γέγραπται- α οφθαλμός ούκ ειδεν και ους ούκ ή κ ο υ σ ε ν καϊ έ π ϊ κ α ρ δίαν ανθρώπου ούκ άνέβη, α ήτοίμασεν ό θεός τοις άγαπώσιν αύτόν.

ιο

ήμΐν

2:10, ήμΐν

δέ ά π ε κ ά λ υ -

δέ ά π ε κ ά λ υ -

ψεν ό θεός δια

ψεν ό θεός διά

τοΰ πνεύ μ-

τοΰ π ν ε ύ μ α -

ατος- τό γ ά ρ

τος- τό γά ρ

πνεϋμα πάντα

πνεΰμα πάντα

έραυνά, και τά

έραυνά, και τά

βάθη

τοΰ

θεοϋ. "τίς γάρ οΐδεν άνθρώπων τά τοΰ άνθρωπου εί μη τό πνεΰμα τοΰ ά ν θ ρ ω π ο υ τό έν α ύ τ ώ ; ο ϋ -

βάθη θεοΰ.

τοΰ

Readers

Chr. Crucified

125

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

τως και τα τοΰ θεοϋ

ουδείς

εγνωκεν εί μή τό πνεΰμα τοϋ 12

ήμεΐς

2:12, ήμεΐς

δέ ού τό πνεύ-

δέ ού τό πνεΰ-

θεοϋ.

μα τοΰ κόσμου

μα τοϋ κόομου

έ λ ά β ο μ ε ν αλ-

έ λ ά β ο μ ε ν άλ-

λά τό π ν ε ΰ μ α

λά τό π ν ε ΰ μ α

τό έκ τοΰ θε-

τό έκ τοΰ θε-

οϋ, ϊ ν α ε ί δ ω -

οϋ, ϊ ν α ε ί δ ώ -

μεν τά ύπό τοΰ

μεν τά ύπό τοΰ

θεοϋ χαρισθέ-

θεοϋ χαρισθέ-

ντα ή μ ΐ ν

ντα ήμΐν·

2:13-16, α και λαλοΰμεν ούκ έν διδακτοΐς ανθρωπινής σοφίας λόγοις άλλ' έν διδακτοΐς πνεύματος, πνευματικούς π ν ε υ μ α τικά συγκρίνοντες.

"ψυ-

χ ι κ ό ς δέ ά ν θρωπος

ού

δέχεται τά τοΰ πνεύματος τοΰ θεοϋ-

μωρία

γά ρ αύ τω έ σ τ ι ν και ού δύναται γνώναι, οτι πνευματικώς ανακρίνεται.

15

ό

δέ π ν ε υ μ α τ ι κός άνακρίνει [τά]

πάντα,

Readers

Chr.

Crucified

126

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

Readers

Chr.

α ύ τ ό ς δέ ύ π ' ούδενός άνακρίνεται.

,6

τίς

2:16, τις

γαρ έγνω νοΰν

γάρ έγνω νοΰν

κυρί ου, ö ς

κυρί ου, ö ς

συμβιβάσει

σ υ μ β ι β ά σει

αυτόν; ήμεΐς

αυτόν; ήμεΐς

δέ νοΰν Χρις-

δέ νοΰν Χρις-

τοΰ έχομεν.

τοϋ έχομεν.

3:1-4, καγώ, αδελφοί, ούκ ή δ υ ν ή θ η ν λαλήσαι ύμϊν ώς πνευματικοίς άλλ' ώς σαρκίνοις, ώ ς ν η π ίοις έ ν Χ ρ ι ς τω .

2

γά λα

ύμάς έπότισα, ού

βρω μα·

οϋ πω

γάρ

έδύνασθε. άλλ' ούδέ έτι νϋν δύνασθε,

3

έτι

γάρ σαρκικοί έστε. οπου γάρ έν ύ μ ϊ ν ζήλος και έρις, ούχϊ σαρκικοί έστε και κ α τ ά α ν θρωπον περι3:4, οταν

πατείτε;

4

6ταν

γ ά ρ λ έ γ η τις·

γ ά ρ λ έ γ η τις·

έγώ μέν είμι

έγώ μέν είμι

Παύλου, έτε-

Παύλου, έτε-

ρ ο ς δέ · έ γ ώ

ρος δ έ ·

Ά π ο λ λ ώ , ούκ

Ά π ο λ λ ώ , ούκ

έγώ

ά νθρωποί

α νθρωποί

έστε;

έστε;

Crucified

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

Wisdom

Factions

Apostleship

3:5-15, τί ουν

3:5-15, τί οΰν

έστιν Ά π ο λ -

έστιν Ά π ο λ -

λώς; τί δέ έστ-

λώς; τί δέ ές-

ιν Π α ϋ λ ο ς ;

τιν Παϋ λος;

διάκονοι

διάκονοι

δι'

δι'

ώ ν έπιστεύ -

ώ ν έπιστεύ -

σατε, και έκά-

σατε, και έκά-

στω ώς ό κύ-

στω ώς ό κύ-

ριος έ δ ω κ ε ν .

ριος έ δ ω κ ε ν .

6

6

έγώ έφύτευ-

έγώ έφύτευ-

σα, Ά π ο λ λ ώ ς

σα, Ά π ο λ λ ώ ς

έ π ό τ ι σ ε ν , αλ-

έ π ό τ ι σ ε ν , άλ-

λά ό θεός ηϋ-

λα ό θεός ηύ-

ξανεν

3:10, κατά τήν

Readers

7

ώστε

ξανεν

7

ώστε

οϋτε ό φυτεύ-

οϋτε ό φυτεύ-

ων έ στί ν τι

ων έ στί ν τι

οϋ τε ό π ο τ ί -

οϋτε ό ποτί-

ζων άλλ' ό αύ-

ζων άλλ' ό αύ-

ξάνων θεός. δ ό

ξάνων θεός. 8 ό

φ υ τ ε ύ ω ν δέ

φ υ τ ε ύ ω ν δέ

και ό ποτίζων

και ό ποτίζων

έν είσιν, έκας-

έν είσιν, έκας-

τος δέ τόν ίδι-

τος δέ τόν 'ίδι-

ον μισθόν λήμ-

ον μισθόν λήμ-

ψεται

ψεται

κατά

κατά

τόν ϊδιον κόπ-

τόν ϊδιον κόπ-

ον· ' θ ε ο ΰ γάρ

ον·

έσμεν σ υ ν ε ρ -

έσμεν συνερ-

γ ο ί , θ ε ο ΰ γε-

γοί, θεοΰ γε-

ώ ρ γ ι ο ν , θεοΰ

ώ ρ γ ι ο ν , θεοΰ

οικοδομή έστε.

οικοδομή έστε.

10

κατά τήν χά-

10

9

θεοΰ γάρ

κατά τήν χά-

χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ

ριν τοΰ θ ε ο ΰ

ριν τοΰ θ ε ο ΰ

τήν δοθεΐσάν

τήν δοθεΐσάν

τήν δ ο θ ε ΐ σ ά ν

μοι ώς σοφός

μοι ώς σοφός

μοι ώς σοφός

ά ρχιτέ κτων

ά ρχιτέ κτων

ά ρχιτέ κτων

θεμέλιον εθη-

θεμέλιον έθη-

θεμέλιον έθη-

κα, ά λ λ ο ς δέ

κα, ά λ λ ο ς δέ

κα, ά λ λ ο ς δέ

έποικοδομεΐ.

έποικοδομεΐ.

έποικοδομεΐ.

127

Chr.

Crucified

128

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Wisdom έ καστος

Apostleship

Factions δέ

ε καστος

δέ

έ καστος

Readers

βλεπέτω πώς

βλεπέτω πώς

έποικοδομεΐ.

έποικοδομεΐ.

έποικοδομεΐ. 11

Crucified

δέ

βλεπέτω πώς

11

Chr.

θεμέ λιον

3:11, θεμέλιον

γάρ άλλον ου-

γάρ άλλον ού-

γάρ άλλον ου-

δείς δύναται

δεϊς δύναται

δείς δύναται

θεΐναι παρά

θεΐναι παρά

θεΐναι παρά

τον κείμενον,

τόν κείμενον,

τόν κείμενον,

ος έστιν Ίη-

ο ς έ σ τ ι ν 'Ιη-

ο ς έ σ τ ι ν 'Ιη-

σοϋς Χριστός.

σούς Χριστός.

σούς Χριστός.

12

12

θεμέ λιον

εί δέ τις έπ-

εί δέ τις έπ-

οικοδομεΐ έπί

οικοδομεΐ έπί

τόν θεμέλιον

τόν θεμέλιον

χ ρ υ σ ό ν , α ρ-

χ ρ υ σ ό ν , α ρ-

γυρον, λίθους

γυρον, λίθους

τίμιους, ξύλα,

τιμίους, ξύλα,

χόρτον, καλά-

χόρτον, καλά-

μην,

Ι3

έκά

πάντα γαρ ύμών έστιν, 22 εϊτε Παϋλος εϊτε Άπολλώς ε'ίτε Κηφάς εϊτε κόσμος εϊτε ζωή εϊτε θάνατος εϊτε ένεστώτα εϊτε μέλλοντα, πάντα ύμών, 23 ύμεΐς δέ Χρίστου, Χριστός δέ θεοϋ. In that way Paul also plays down the factional differences that have been established between them in Corinth. The statement comes at the end of polemics against wisdom in 3:16—21a. In that way the unity between Paul himself, Apollo and Peter stands over against the claim to wisdom. Finally, in 4:6-13 Paul calls attention to the contrast between himself and Apollo, on the one hand, and his readers, on the other. In that way he once more places himself and Apollo in opposition to the factions in Corinth. At the same time he brings together in himself and Apollo the humility which stands in opposition to the excellence of his readers. He contrasts himself and Apollo as μωροί through Christ and the readers as φρόνιμοι in Christ (v. 10ab). He evidently avoids σοφοί for the readers, although the qualities he attributes to them are similar. This distinction will receive our attention below in the discussion of the theme of wisdom. (iii) Paul's apostleship Coming now to the theme of Paul's apostleship: Up to a certain point he writes about his own activity as an apostle without relating it to the factions, but then, from 3:5 on, the two themes become increasingly intertwined. Paul introduces the opposition between wisdom and the cross, not with regard to the factions or his relationship to his readers, but to his own activity and preaching, ού γάρ άπέστειλέν με Χριστός βαπτίζειν άλλά εύαγγελίζεσθαι, ούκ έν σοφία λόγου, ϊνα μή κενωθή ό σταυρός τοΰ Χρίστου (1:17). After insisting that he baptized only a few persons in Corinth, he contends that he was not sent to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel, and then the word about wisdom falls for the first time, ούκ έν σοφία λόγου (1:17c). In this first reference he does not refer to wisdom as such, but to his lack of wisdom of the word, the ability of refined speech. He immediately connects this lack of σοφία λόγου with the cross of Christ, ϊνα μή κενωθη ό σταυρός τοΰ Χρίστου (v. 17d). With that the important theme of wisdom is announced. It will dominate the discussion through 2:16 and continue beyond that point. In due course Paul will argue for the equivalence in this regard between the nature of his own activity and the cross of Christ, to which he will add at one point also the lack of wisdom and power of his readers (1:26). Twice more Paul brings to expression the close connection between the unimpressiveness of his own activity and the cross of Christ,

144

Christ in the Letters of Paul 22

έπειδή και'Ιουδαίοι σημεία αίτοΰσιν και "Ελληνες σοφίαν ζητοϋσιν, ή μ ε ΐ ς δέ κ η ρ ύ σ σ ο μ ε ν Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ν έ σ τ α υ ρ ω μ έ ν ο ν , Ί ο υ δ α ί ο ι ς μέν σκάνδαλον έθνεσιν δέ μωρίαν (1:22-23), 23

and, 'κάγώ έλθών προς ύμάς, άδελφοί, ήλθον ού καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας καταγγέλλων ύμΐν τό μυστήριον τοΰ θεοϋ. 2 ού γαρ έκρινά τν είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μη Ίησοϋν Χριστόν και τοϋτον έσταυρωμένον. 3 κάγώ έν άσθενεία και έν φόβω καί έν τρόμω πολλώ έγενόμην πρός ύμάς, 4 καί ό λόγος μου και τό κήρυγμά μου ούκ έν πειθοΐ[ς] σοφίας [λόγοις] άλλ' έν άποδείξει πνεύματος και δυνάμεως, 5 ϊνα ή πίστις ύμών μή ή έν σοφία άνθρώπων άλλ έν δυνάμει θεοΰ (2:1-5). He associates his lack of persuasive wisdom of words and the demonstration of the spirit and power with the purpose of assuring that his readers' faith would not be the result of human wisdom, but the power of God (2:4-5). In 2:4 he makes the distinction which may be the most fundamental throughout these chapters when he states that his speech and proclamation is not έν πειθοΐς σοφίας λόγοις but έν αποδείξει πνεύματος και δυνάμεως. That the issue is not wisdom as such, but a certain kind of wisdom becomes clear in the next two verses where he makes it clear that the wisdom with which he proclaimed was not of this age or its leaders, but the wisdom of God, 6

σοφίαν δέ λαλοϋμεν έν τοις τελείοις, σοφίαν δέ ού τοΰ αιώνος τούτου ούδέ των άρχόντων τοΰ αιώνος τούτου τών καταργουμένων- 7 άλλά λ α λ ο ϋ μ ε ν θεοΰ σ ο φ ί α ν έν μ υ σ τ η ρ ί ω , τ ή ν ά π ο κ ε κ ρ υ μ μ έ ν η ν , ή ν προώρισεν ό θεός πρό τών αιώνων είς δόξαν ήμών (2:6-7). So his preaching was not without a wisdom of its own. He makes the same distinction in 2:13a with other words, σοφία and πνεύμα, between speech έν διδακτοΐς άνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγοις and έν διδακτοΐς πνεύματος. From 2:1 through 2:16 the discussion is dominated by the theme of wisdom, but more than once Paul relates that discussion to his own proclamation which stands in opposition to wisdom in a worldly sense, 2:10, 12-13a,and 16. In 3:5-15 he presents his and Apollo's activity in the proclamation of the gospel, and the relationship between them, to demonstrate the degree to which their activity contradicts the factions. The discussion is intended to dispel any idea that the tensions manifest in the factions have a basis in the relationship between them, but it soon becomes clear that it is not past Paul to make claims that go beyond the equivalence he asserts in the beginning of the discussion. Even though he begins as if there is complete equivalence between himself and Apollo, except in terms of tasks,

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

145

5

τί οΰν έστιν Άπολλώς; τί δέ εστίν Παΰλος; διάκονοι δι ών έπιστεύσατε, και έκάστω ώς ό κύριος έδωκεν. 6 έγώ έφύτευσα, Άπολλώς έπότισεν, άλλά ό θεός ηύξανεν- 7 ώστε ούτε ό φυτεύων έστίν τι ούτε ό ποτίζων, άλλ' ό αύξάνων θεός. 8 ό φυτεύων δέ και ό ποτίζων εν είσιν, έκαστος δέ τόν 'ίδιον μισθόν λήμψεται κατά τόν ϊδιον κόπον. 9 θεοΰ γάρ έσμεν συνεργοί· θεού γεώργιον, θεοΰ οικοδομή έστε (νν. 5-9), he cannot help himself but claim more than equivalence for himself, κατά την χάριν τοϋ θεοΰ την δοθεΐσάν μοι ώς σοφός άρχιτέκτων θεμέλιον έθηκα, άλλος δέ έποικοδομεΐ (ν. 10), concluding with a warning to whoever follows, έκαστος δέ βλεπέτω πώς έποικοδομεΐ (ν. 10). He defers only to Christ as the foundation of the proclamation, θεμέλιον γάρ άλλον ούδεϊς δύναται θεϊναι παρά τόν κείμενον, ος έστιν Ίησοΰς Χριστός (ν. 11). This results in the following hierarchy: Christ, Paul, and then whoever else follows. Even though Paul rejects factions in an exclusive sense — he does insist on the inclusion of Apollo in the ministry in Corinth — his claim is to more than mere temporal priority, which can serve not only to foster a type of personal cult, but also gives the impression that what is at stake is not a mere question of factions. The multivalence of σοφία/σοφός becomes clear when he refers to himself as having laid the foundation as a σοφός άρχιτέκτων (v. 10). One might ask whether the choice of the term σοφός is not intended to make up for the lack of σοφία λογοΰ (1:17c), of an ύπεροχή λόγου ή σοφίας (2:1b) in his proclamation. He appealed to Christ's crucifixion as coordinate with his own lack of σοφία in 1:17-18a, Π

. . . άπέστειλέν με Χριστός . . . εύαγγελίζεσθαι, ούκ έν σοφία λόγου, ϊνα μη κενωθή ό σταυρός τοΰ Χριστού. 18 ό λόγος γάρ ό τού σταυρού τοις μέν άπολλυμένοις μωρία έστίν, and in 2:1-5, 'κάγώ έλθών πρός ύμάς, αδελφοί, ήλθον ού καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας καταγγέλλων ύμΐν τό μυστήριον τοΰ θεοΰ. 2 ού γάρ έκρινα τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μη Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τούτον έσταυρωμένον. 3 κάγώ έν άσθενεία και έν φόβω καί έν τρόμφ πολλώ έγενόμην πρός ύμάς, 4 καί ό λόγος μου και τό κήρυγμά μου ούκ έν πειθοΐ[ς] σοφίας [λόγοις] άλλ έν άποδείξει πνεύματος καί δυνάμεως, 5 ϊνα ή πίστις ύμών μη ή έν σοφία άνθρώπων άλλ' έν δυνάμει θεοΰ,

146

Christ in the Letters of Paul

In contrast, when he claims to be a σοφός άρχιτέκτων he appeals simply to Christ as the foundation. It is precisely the cross which was considered μωρία, the opposite of σοφία in 1:18 and 22-23. That does not mean that in 3:11 the fact of the crucifixion is abandoned, but it is no longer the focus as in the earlier references to Christ. The entire discussion from 4:1 onwards is dominated by Paul's activity in the proclamation of the gospel and its relationship to his readers. In verses 1 - 5 he rejects being judged by the Corinthians, a hint that more than merely factions were involved, that he understood the factions to include criticism of him. Rejection of the factions comes to expression in 4:6-13 with the presentation of his and Apollo's adversities standing together against the splendor of his readers. But then, in 4:14-21, he claims for himself the priority of a father who brought them forth through the gospel, similar to his claim in 3:11 that it is he who laid the foundation. Notwithstanding the equivalence of him and Apollo as co-workers of God, θεοϋ γάρ έσμεν συνεργοί, θεοΰ γεώργιον, θεοΰ οικοδομή έστε (3:9), Paul evidently needs special recognition. Only once does the theme of wisdom enter into the picture again, and then only implicitly, not with σοφία/σοφός, but with φρόνιμος, which nevertheless also stands in opposition to μωρός: ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ (4:10a-b). The expression once more links Paul's activity to Christ, however, again without mention of Christ's crucifixion. Similarly, he links his activity directly with Christ in 4:15 with the claim to being his readers' father in Christ. Even though wisdom plays a dominant role — not exclusively — in the early part of the discussion, 1:17-2:16, it is clear that it is Paul's activity and his relationship to his readers which ends up as the dominant issue. Paul concludes the discussion in 4 : 1 7 - 2 1 by claiming that Timothy would be a witness to his activity, and placing himself directly in opposition to those who are puffed up, evidently against him. (iv) Wisdom As stated earlier, the theme of wisdom plays a dominant, although not exclusive, role in the first part of these four chapters, in 1:17-2:16, and coming to the fore again in 3:16-24. It is introduced with Paul's testimony that his proclamation had not been έν σοφία λόγου, ϊνα μή κενωθη ό σταυρός τοΰ Χρίστου (l:17c-d), but then becomes an important theme in its own right to such a degree that the cross of Christ disappears from the discussion after 1:25, returning again only once in 2:2, in support of Paul's defense of his proclamation having not been καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας (2:1b).

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

147

Paul introduces the theme of wisdom, as well as of Christ crucified, to defend the fact that his preaching was ούκ έν σοφία λόγου (1:17c), which, he says, was ϊνα μή κενωθη ό σταυρός τοΰ Χρίστου (17d). As we proceed further, thus, we need to consider whether and to what degree the function of both of these themes is to clarify his apostleship. In 1:18-25, following immediately on this introduction, Paul discusses these two themes as aspects of a single theme. Christ crucified never becomes a separate theme, but continues to be discussed in conjunction with the theme of wisdom, which is actually only once more, in 2:2. That does not mean that Christ crucified is a sub-theme of wisdom. To the contrary, it is rather wisdom which begins as a sub-theme of the proclamation of Christ crucified, but then develops as an independent theme in 1:26-2:16 and in 3:16-23. In addition to the integrated discussion of the themes of Christ crucified and wisdom, Paul refers to Christ as the foundation of his apostleship briefly four more times, without mentioning the cross, in 3:11, 4:10, 15, and 4:17c-d. In contrast, as already mentioned, wisdom becomes an independent theme in extensive discussions in 1:26-2:16 and in 3:16-23, as well as tangentially, briefly in 3:10 and 4:10. In 1:18-21, the theme of wisdom functions as a justification for Paul's proclamation, ούκ έν σοφία λόγου (1:17c), via the theme of Christ's crucifixion. The main function of wisdom at this stage is to clarify the meaning of Christ's crucifixion in terms of the way it is received, as μωρία for those who perish, and as the power of God for "us" who are saved (v. 18). Paul then proceeds to discuss wisdom in general terms, without specific reference to Christ's crucifixion (vv. 19-21). In these verses, after he associated recognition of the cross of Christ as the power of God with himself and his readers, οί δέ σωζομένοι ήμεΐς (v. 18b), he contrasts human wisdom, wisdom of this world, and the μωρία of the cross as general principles, opening the way for the independent discussion of the theme of wisdom. In 1:22-25 Paul returns to wisdom — to which he adds the Jews seeking signs — as an aspect of the meaning of the proclamation of Christ's crucifixion. He does not use the first person to refer to those for whom the cross of Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, but there is no reason to doubt that he still has in mind himself and his readers. The reference to Jews and Hellenes/gentiles serves to place those for whom the cross is μωρία and a σκάνδαλον in general terms in opposition to Paul and his readers. As already pointed out, the Jews seeking a sign and for whom the cross is a scandal does not become part of the discussion beyond this point. These verses stand out so independently as an expanded parallel to verse 18 that they could be considered parenthetic, and might well be a later addition. Worth noting, however, is a close parallel between τό μωρόν τοϋ θεοΰ and τό άσθενές τοΰ θεοΰ in verse 25 and τά μωρά τοΰ κόσμου and τά άσθενή τοΰ κόσμου in verse 27.

148

Christ in the Letters of Paul

In the next two paragraphs, Paul associates, respectively, his readers in 1:26-31 and his own proclamation in 2:1-5 with τό μωρόν τοΰ θεοϋ and τό άσθενές τοϋ θεοΰ (1:25). In writing about his proclamation, Paul refers one last time to the fact that what he proclaimed, ού καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας (2:1b), was Christ crucified as the mystery of God (v. lc). In 2:4 he may then come to the real point of his use of the theme of wisdom in the contrast between his proclamation being ούκ έν πειθοΐς σοφίας λόγοις, but έν άποδείξει πνεύματος και δυνάμεως. In verse 5 he coordinates this kind of preaching directly with his readers, ϊ ν α ή πίστις ύ μ ώ ν μή ή έν σοφία ανθρώπων άλλ' έν δυνάμει θεοϋ. In a long discussion in 2:6-16, Paul again addresses the theme of wisdom in general terms, but again and again relates it to his proclamation in verses 6-7, 10, 12, 13a and 16. This suggests that the real function of the theme of wisdom concerns Paul's proclamation, as was already suggested by the introduction of the theme, ού γαρ άπέστειλέν με Χριστός βαπτίζειν άλλά εύαγγελίζεσθαι, ούκ έν σοφία λόγου (l:17a-b). In order to fulfill this function Paul appeals to the fact that the cross of Christ itself represented a lack of wisdom similar to what characterized his proclamation. Important a function as Christ crucified fulfills in Paul's reasoning, unlike the themes of wisdom and of his apostleship, it never becomes an independent theme. After a remark in 3:10 in which he claims to have laid the foundation as a σοφός άρχιτέκτων, which touches only tangentially on the theme of wisdom, Paul returns to the theme in 3:16-23 which manifests itself as an attack on whoever δοκεΐ σοφός είναι έν ύμΐν έν τω αίώνι τούτφ (v. 18b). In this passage, he reasons in a way which suggests a distinction between his readers in general, ούκ οϊδατε οτι ναός θεοΰ έστε και τό πνεΰμα τοΰ θεοΰ οίκεΐ έν ύμΐν; (ν. 16), and those who are out to defile God's temple, ε'ί τις τόν ναόν τοΰ θεοΰ φθείρει, φθερεΐ τοΰτον ό θεός· ό γάρ ναός τοϋ θεοϋ αγιός έστιν, οϊτινές έστε ύμεϊς (ν. 17), whom he evidently identifies as whoever δοκεΐ σοφός είναι έν ύμΐν (v. 18b). After quoting Job 5:12-13 and Ps 93:11 as condemnation of worldly wisdom (vv. 19b-20), he concludes with a warning, μηδεϊς καυχάσθω έν άνθρώποις (v. 21a). There is only one more statement which can be considered as belonging to the theme of wisdom, ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ· ήμεΐς ασθενείς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι (4:10). Even though the term σοφία does not occur, a term related in meaning, φρόνιμοι, and the opposed term, μωροί, as well as the pair άσθενεΐς and ισχυροί, make the presence of the theme of wisdom clear. To this verse one might add 4 : 8 a - c , which brings to e x p r e s s i o n the same theme, ή δ η κεκορεσμένοι έστέ, ήδη έπλουτήσατε, χωρίς ημών έβασιλεύσατε.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

149

Through these verses the entire paragraph 4:6-13 comes into view as an expression of the theme of wisdom, in that way linking the four themes of wisdom, the factions, Paul's apostleship and his relationship to his readers. He dissolves the issue of the factions by presenting himself and Apollo together as examples of μωροί, ασθενείς and άτιμοι, and opposing them to the readers as φρόνιμοι, ισχυροί, and ένδοξοι (v. 10, cf., v. 6). In that way the factions and his proclamation come into focus as what is at issue in his relationship to his readers. The theme of wisdom functions as his means of resolving the issue of his apostleship being perceived by the Corinthians as not being έν σοφία λόγου (1:17c), with the factions perceived by Paul as criticism of his ability. (v) Christ crucified With Christ crucified we come to the theme that is of central significance for us in this study. It was possible above in the beginning of this section to establish as the meaning of Christ crucified at a more abstract level for Paul in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 that it was the demonstration of God's spirit and power among believers, the effective means of their justification. The question for us here is what Paul means with his reference to Christ and his crucifixion in this passage, including what it is he wants to say when he presents Christ's crucifixion as the manifestation of the spirit and power of God. In order to answer the question we have to investigate how the statements about Christ, and particularly his crucifixion, function not only in 1:18-2:16 where they occur, but in Paul's reasoning in the entire section 1:4-4:21 of which 1:18-2:16 is an integral part. Our previous discussion of the other four themes provides us with the necessary basis for such an investigation. Christ is mentioned already in 1:7-8 in the thanksgiving section in a general way, concerning his parousia. Christ's parousia has no significance for Paul's reasoning in 1:10—4:21, but his mentioning of it could prepare for the discussion of the resurrection in chapter 15. The mention of Christ in 1:9, however, πιστός ό θεός, δι' ου έκλήθητε είς κοινωνίαν τοϋ υίοΰ αύτοΰ Ίησοϋ Χρίστου τοϋ κυρίου ήμών, sets the kind of framework within which all of Paul's thinking takes place, including the reasoning that is to follow in 1:104:21. The statement is still very general, but sets the stage for the more specific aspects of the meaning of Christ for the believer in Paul's reasoning which is to follow. Paul's first appeal to Christ as the foundation of his proclamation comes in 1:17a, ού γάρ άπέστειλέν με Χριστός βαπτίζειν άλλά εύαγγελίζεσθαι, with his challenge that he had not been charged to baptize but to preach the gospel. It functions as part of his defense against the fictional charge that he baptized

150

Christ in the Letters of Paul

in his own name (v. 15). The explicit issue at this stage of the discourse is the factions, but in verse 17b his reasoning takes a new turn with the explanation that his preaching was ούκ έν σοφία λόγου, ϊνα μή κενωθη ό σταυρός τοΰ Χρίστου (v. 17c). This is followed in verse 18 by the presentation of the cross of Christ as the dividing line between the wisdom of the world and of God, concretely between those who perish, for whom the cross is foolishness, and those who live, for whom it is the power of God, ό λόγος γάρ ό τοΰ σταυροΰ τοις μέν άπολλυμένοις μωρία έστίν, τοις δέ σψζομένοις ήμίν δύναμις θεοΰ έστιν (ν. 18). Even though Paul relates the meaning of Christ, specifically Christ's crucifixion, to the believer in 1:18, what he has in mind with his reasoning at this point is obviously not an interpretation of the meaning of Christ's crucifixion for the believer; his reasoning turns into an abstract discourse concerning wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, without further reference to either Christ or his crucifixion, 19

γέγραπται γάρ· άπολώ την σοφίαν των σοφών και την σύνεσιν των συνετών άθετήσω. 20 ποΰ σοφός; ποΰ γραμματεύς; ποΰ συζητητής τοΰ αιώνος τούτου; ούχί έμώρανεν ό θεός τήν σοφίαν τοΰ κόσμου; 21 έπειδή γάρ έν τή σοφία τοΰ θεοΰ ούκ έγνω ό κόσμος διά της σοφίας τόν θεόν, εύδόκησεν ό θεός διά της μωρίας τοΰ κηρύγματος σώσαι τούς πιςτεύοντας(νν. 19-21). What concerns him much more at this point is the issue of wisdom which dominates as a theme all the way to the end of chapter 2, with other themes entering in at various points. In 1:22-25, 22

έπειδή καί Ιουδαίοι σημεία αίτοΰσιν και "Ελληνες σοφίαν ζητοΰσιν, ήμεΐς δέ κηρύσσομεν Χριστόν έσταυρωμένον, Ίουδαίοις μέν σκάνδαλον, έθνεσιν δέ μωρίαν, 24 αύτοίς δέ τοις κλητοίς, Ίουδαίοις τε καί "Ελλησιν, Χριστόν θεοΰ δύναμιν καί θεοΰ σοφίαν- 25 οτι τό μωρόν τοΰ θεοΰ σοφώτερον τών άνθρώπων έστίν καί τό άσθενές τοΰ θεοΰ ίσχυρότερον τών άνθρώπων. 23

Paul reintroduces Christ crucified, not in relationship to his readers, but as a continuation of his reasoning concerning wisdom in relationship to the nature of his preaching. His reference of Christ's crucifixion here is as a function of his defense of his preaching via his discussion of the theme of wisdom. Even though wisdom is dominant in his reasoning throughout 1:17-2:21, the main topic of his discourse is not wisdom, but the nature of his preaching and his relationship to his readers. As are the references to Christ, the discussion of wisdom is as a function of his reasoning concerning his preaching and his relationship to his readers, which becomes clear in his statement in 1:23, ήμεΐς

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

151

. . . κηρύσσομεν Χριστόν έσταυρωμένον, Ίουδαίοις μεν σκάνδαλον, έθνεσιν δέ μωρίαν. The meaning of Christ for the believer comes to expression only indirectly: On the one hand, through the role Paul lets it play in clarifying the nature of his preaching, and, on the other, through his readers' involvement in the issue of wisdom as the dominant function in his defense of his preaching. The next time Paul refers to Christ and his crucifixion, ού γάρ έκρινά τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν καϊ τοϋτον έσταυρωμένον (2:2), it is purely to defend the nature of his preaching against the claims of (worldly) wisdom. At this point we can draw the preliminary conclusion that Paul's references to Christ crucified are as functions in his discussion of the issue of wisdom, which in turn functions as a defense of his preaching. Christ appears four more times in Paul's reasoning in these chapters, 3:11, 4:10, 15, and 4:17. None of these include references his crucifixion, which almost certainly means that when he says in 2:2 that he decided to k n o w nothing among his readers εί μή Ί η σ ο ΰ ν Χριστόν καί τ ο ΰ τ ο ν έσταυρωμένον, the reference to Christ's crucifixion should not be taken exclusively. Other features could be included as well, for example, his resurrection, as in 1 Cor 15:14-15, to which we will return below. Three of the final references to Christ in our passage function directly in support of the nature o f : θεμέλιον γάρ άλλον ουδείς δύναται θεΐναι παρά τον κείμενον, δς έστιν Ίησοΰς Χριστός (3:11); έάν γάρ μυρίους παιδαγωγούς έχητε έν Χριστώ άλλ' ού π ο λ λ ο ύ ς πατέρας- έν γάρ Χριστώ 'Ιησού διά τοϋ εύαγγελίου έγώ ύμάς έγέννησα (4:15); and, . . . [Τιμόθεος], δ ς ύ μ ά ς άναμνήσει τάς όδούς μου τάς έν Χριστώ [Ιησού], καθώς πανταχού έν πάση έκκλησία διδάσκω (4:17c-d). In none of these does the reference to Christ function as an argument concerning the issue of wisdom, except indirectly 3:11, where Christ as the only valid foundation concerns Paul's having laid it as a σοφός άρχιτέκτων (v. 10). The other reference to Christ in these last two chapters is again as a function of Paul's reasoning concerning the issue of wisdom: ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμείς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστφ· ήμεϊς άσθενεΐς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί· ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι (4:10). Even though the term σοφία/σοφός is not used, the concept is clearly represented by φρόνιμοι, representing Paul's readers, in opposition to μωροί, representing Paul and Apollo. It is the single case, as already mentioned more than once, in which all five the themes are involved: Wisdom, the factions in

152

Christ in the Letters of Paul

as much as the placement of Paul and Apollo together functions to dispel the idea of their representing opposed factions, the nature of Paul's apostleship, and clearly Paul's relationship to his readers. At this point all the lines of Paul's reasoning come together, suggesting that he may have arrived here at the point he had been aiming at in his reasoning. At this possibly most critical point in these chapters the meaning of Christ functions to engage the readers directly. To put it differently: At this point Paul challenges his readers to ask what Christ means for them. The meaning of Christ and of his crucifixion which functioned as arguments in Paul's reasoning concerning wisdom as the means of defending his preaching in 1:10-2:5, now, in 4:10, becomes a direct function in the believers' selfunderstanding in Christ, φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ, ισχυροί and ένδοξοι are not viable options in relationship to Christ. By posing them against μωροί διά Χριστόν, άσθενεΐς and άτιμοι, Paul challenges his readers to determine where they stand, so to speak, not only to judge for themselves, but to judge themselves. In this way Christ and his crucifixion, who remained remotely in the background as ultimate resort in Paul's reasoning up to this point, are brought into the very center. Whereas previously other themes dominated his reasoning, at this point Christ is revealed as the most decisive factor. The fact that Paul does not mention Christ again before 4:15 is of no significance. He has made his point. In 4:15, έάν γάρ μυρίους παιδαγωγούς έχητε έν Χριστώ άλλ' ού πολλούς πατέρας- έν γάρ Χριστφ Ίησοϋ διά τοΰ εύαγγελίου έγώ ύμάς έγέννησα, having left behind the themes of wisdom and the factions, Paul places the relationship between his apostleship and his readers within the framework of Christ, in that way concluding the entire reasoning by subordinating everything to Christ. All suspense has been left behind when he assures his readers in 4:17 that Timothy, when he arrives, will recall for them the nature his apostleship in Christ, καθώς πανταχού έν πάση έκκλησία διδάσκω (v. 17d). Unlike in Gal 3:1-5, in 1 Cor 1:4-4:21 Paul does not use Christ (crucified) as the foundation of his reasoning. Rather, he allows Christ to come to the surface of his thinking at various stages of his discourse, only to let him recede into the background again, arguing his case abstractly in terms of the distinction between wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. Wisdom as such, however, is not Paul's real topic. It functions as the means of arguing issues that are more fundamental: His preaching and his relationship to his readers, indirectly also the factions when he sets himself and Apollo up critically as μωροί in Christ over against his readers as φρόνιμοι through Christ (4:10).

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

153

Neither wisdom as such nor the factions as such are Paul's primary concern. Both are aspects of the more fundamental issue of his preaching and apostleship in relationship to his readers. Even though Apollo is still involved in the first person plural in 4:10, there should be little doubt that Paul's primary concern is with the relationship between himself and his readers. Here Christ finally becomes the fundamental criterion for resolving what is at issue between him and his readers. The question is how Christ is understood. If, as it turns out, Christ is the fundamental criterion in terms of which Paul solves the issue between himself and his readers, one might ask why he did not come to the point already when he first mentioned Christ in 1:17-18, 22-25 and 2:2. Why did he engage in such long abstract discussions about wisdom when the issue in 4:10 turns out to be as simple as how wisdom functions as a factor in how Christ is understood in his preaching and by his readers? The answer may be simple. If Paul tried to make his point already in chapter 1 and the beginning of 2, he would not have had the same effect as he could achieve in 4:10. That may also explain the inconsistency in the presentation of his relationship to his readers which could have had the effect of throwing them off balance. Similarly, his long, abstract discussions concerning wisdom could have taken them off guard concerning the real issue of their relationship to him. The same applies to the issue of the factions, which in itself in the end turns out not to be an issue at all, but a function of his relationship to his readers. It turns out that Christ, and him crucified, remaining in the background throughout Paul's reasoning, comes to the center in 4:10 as his most fundamental argument. The roles are reversed: Not Christ crucified turns out to be the framework for Paul's reasoning, but the factions, wisdom and the readers which prepare the setting in which Paul allows Christ to determine the relationship between him and his readers. Here his own activity ranks second in significance, as was already the case in 1:17-18 and 2:2, where Christ determined that he should preach and how he should preach. But whereas his readers could have perceived themselves as not challenged by those earlier statements, here in 4:10 there is no escape. In 1 Cor 1:10-4:21 Paul does not explicate the meaning of Christ crucified as the foundation of his reasoning, but shifts the focus of that reasoning to other factors: wisdom, the factions, praise and reproach of his readers. That does not diminish the decisiveness of Christ for his reasoning. By means of this shift of focus Paul effectively prepares for Christ to become evident as the decisive factor in the reasoning in these chapters. Paul does not resolve the issue for his readers. They themselves have to make the decision, but the framework which he provides up to that point

154

Christ in the Letters of Paul

leaves no doubt what the decision ought to be. Now it is no longer a question of judging for themselves concerning issues raised by Paul, but of judging themselves, by judging whether Christ represents Paul and Apollo as μωροί in Christ, as ασθενείς and άτιμοι, which they scorn, or themselves as φρόνιμοι in Christ, as ισχυροί and ένδοχει. Paul does not interpret the meaning of Christ for his readers, but provides them with the relevant materials on the basis of which they can determine that meaning. The meaning of Christ for the believer in these chapters is not presented in positive language, and cannot be abstracted from Paul's reasoning. Paul does not engage in an attempt to clarify that meaning, but allows it to be present throughout the reasoning, repeatedly reminding them of Christ as the framework of his reasoning, but then bringing Christ into the center o f t h a t reasoning in 4:10 in his challenge to his readers to allow Christ to determine where they stand in relationship to his preaching and apostleship. Conclusion Returning to the main topic of our investigation. The meaning which Christ has for Paul's readers in 1 Cor 1:4-4:21 is not a recalling and explication of the meaning Christ had for them in Paul's past preaching, but a meaning which he allows Christ to have for them with regard to the present issue between himself and them. What we have found is more akin to Paul's repeated encounters with Christ in changing situations in which Christ achieved new meaning for him, in that way deepening his understanding of Christ's original meaning, rather than a fundamental experience, such as his conversion. In that regard Gal 3:1-5 in which Paul appeals to a fundamental experience of Christ by his readers, ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οις κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (Gal 3:1), is more akin to his experience of Christ at his conversion. — We will turn to Gal 3:1-5 below. — An important difference is that, whereas Paul discovered new meanings of Christ for himself in response to challenges to his understanding of the gospel, in 1 Cor 1:4-4:21 the challenge comes from his readers, whom Paul in turn challenges to experience a new dimension of the meaning of Christ for them. Unlike Paul, they do not learn this new meaning by themselves but are prompted to do so by Paul, who also provides them with the information on the basis of which they are intended to be enabled to arrive at that new meaning. It is Paul, through his reasoning in 1 Cor 1:4-4:21, who allows Christ to achieve new meaning for his readers. Through his well-organized reasoning, whether by design or by refined communications intuition, he confronts his readers inescapably with the question what Christ means for them in relationship to the kind of wisdom which

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

155

they apparently missed in his preaching. He does not spell out that meaning, but allows it to emerge from his extensive discussions of wisdom, the factions, the issues of his preaching and of their relationship to him. He challenges them to experience that meaning for themselves. The meaning of Christ is not defined, but there can be no question what Christ should mean for them. They may have thought that they knew who Christ was and what he meant, but they are now confronted with him as Paul presents him to them in these chapters. b. In addition to 1 Cor 2:1-2, Paul provides information about his earlier proclamation in 1 Cor 15:1-7, 12-15 and Gal 3:1. We turn first to 1 Cor 15:12-15, Ι2

εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ εστίν; 13 εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται· 14εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών· 15 εύρισκόμεθα δέ και ψευδομάρτυρες τοϋ θεού, οτι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεού οτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, δν ούκ ήγειρεν εϊπερ αρα νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται. Here, as we already noted above in connection with the meaning of Christ for Paul himself, Paul does not refer to Christ's crucifixion, but to his resurrection as an essential feature of his previous proclamation. We may thus presume that essential features of his earlier proclamation included not only Christ's crucifixion, but his resurrection as well. That Christ's resurrection was included in his earlier preaching is also revealed in the tradition 7 of which he reminds his readers in verses 1-7, 'γνωρίζω δέ ύμΐν, αδελφοί, τό εύαγγέλιον ö εύηγγελισάμην ύμΐν, ö και παρελάβετε, έν φ και έστήκατε, 2 δι' οΰ και σφζεσθε, τίνι λόγφ εύηγγελισάμην ύμΐν εί κατέχετε, έκτός ει μή εική έπιστεύσατε. 3 παρέδωκα γάρ ύμΐν έν πρώτοις, ö και παρέλαβον, οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών κατά τάς γραφάς 4 καΐ οτι έτάφη καί οτι έγήγερται τη ημέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς 5 καί οτι ώφθη Κηφά είτα τοις δώδεκακ.τ.λ. There are clear indications that Paul quotes this tradition as the basis for his reasoning which follows in verses 12-19, that is, after mentioning Christ's appearance to himself and deviating to the nature of his apostleship compared with that of the others in verses 8-11. When he writes in verse 12a in the pas-

7

I refer to verses 3 - 7 as the tradition quoted b y Paul w i t h o u t any j u d g e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g the question of its integrity. In verse 8 Paul obviously is n o longer q u o t i n g tradition, b u t reporting C h r i s t ' s a p p e a r a n c e to himself.

156

Christ in the Letters of Paul

sive, εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται δτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, he does not refer specifically to his own proclamation, but to the proclamation of Christ's resurrection in the tradition he quoted in verses 3c-7. 8 It is worth noting, 8

M a n y interpreters a s s u m e that the tradition which Paul quoted in verses 3 - 7 represented the earliest p r e a c h i n g , i n c l u d i n g P a u l ' s own. So, B a c h m a n n , w h o rejects the idea that Paul q u o t e d a f o r m u l a : " N i c h t e i n e F o r m e l h a t a l s o PI w i e d e r h o l t (. . .), w o h l a b e r d e n g e m e i n s a m e n u n d n o t w e n d i g e n H a u p t i n h a l t seiner und aller christlichen V e r k ü n d i g u n g n a c h s e i n e n g e r a d e f ü r den v o r l i e g e n d e n Z u s a m m e n h a n g w i c h t i g e n H a u p t m o m e n t e n rekapituliert" ( o p . eil., 428). Also Robertson and P l u m m e r : ". . . γ ν ω ρ ί ζ ω is simply Ί m a k e k n o w n , ' notum facio (Vulg.), and is often used in the N.T. of p r e a c h i n g the G o s p e l " (op. cit., 3 3 1 ) ; G r o s h e i d e : " P a u l u s n o e m t n i e t alles o p , w a t h i j g e p r e d i k t h e e f t " (Eerste Korinthe, 186); Sickenberger: " E r legt sich den G r u n d f ü r seine A u s f ü h r u n g e n , i n d e m er an seine frühere m ü n d l i c h e Predigt in Korinth a n k n ü p f t und den Lesern z u m Bewußtsein bringt, u m welch wichtige A n g e l e g e n h e i t es sich dabei für sie h a n d e l t " ( K o r i n t h e r und Römer, 72); Barrett: "In d o i n g so he f i n d s it necessary to begin s o m e way b a c k ; h e n c e the present p a r a g r a p h , w h i c h is intended to call to mind that the resurrection of Christ played an essential part in P a u l ' s preaching, and indeed in all Christian p r e a c h i n g " (First Corinthians, 335); Wolff: "Die G e m e i n d e wird an die apostolische E v a n g e l i u m s v e r k ü n d i g u n g , wie sie bei der G r ü n d u n g der korinthischen G e m e i n d e u m 50 n. Chr. g e s c h a h , v e r w i e s e n " (.Erste Korinther, 354). Interpreters are generally inclined not to consider the tradition to have c o m e f r o m Jesus, b u t f r o m the early church. So, Lietzmann: ". . . hier fehlt b e z e i c h n e n d e r w e i s e άπό τοΰ κυρίου, denn Pis gibt das Wissen der U r g e m e i n d e und f ü g t sein eigenes h i n z u " ( K o r i n t h e r , 77); B a c h m a n n : "In d e m Satze, mit d e m der N a c h w e i s der Eigenart j e n e s λ ό γ ο ς eingeleitet ist, wird durch die E n t g e g e n s e t z u n g von π α ρ έ δ ω κ α und π α ρ έ λ α β ο ν , da die Verschiedenheit der Personen des Gebers und der E m p f ä n g e r gar nicht betont wird, vielmehr der U m s t a n d herv o r g e h o b e n , d a ß j e n e π α ρ ά δ ο σ ι ς (cf zu 11, 2 u. 23) n i c h t etwa erst bei PI b e g o n n e n h a b e und also auch keine bloß individuelle, sondern die g e m e i n s a m e christliche π α ρ ά δ ο σ ι ς ist" (Erste Korinther, 4 2 6 ) ; Robertson and P l u m m e r : "It is possible that he received it f r o m Christ b y special revelation; but this is even less p r o b a b l e than in xi. 23 . . . Here there is neither έ γ ώ n o r ά π ό τοΰ Κ υ ρ ί ο υ to e m p h a s i z e the authority either of the person w h o m a d e the c o m m u n i c a t i o n or of the Source f r o m w h i c h he derived it. Neither of these is the question here. T h e p o i n t is that St Paul did n o t invent w h a t he c o m m u n i c a t e d to t h e m ; h e received j u s t w h a t they received. . . . St Paul n o doubt received this testimony f r o m St Peter himself, when s o m e eight years after the Resurrection he ' w e n t up to Jerusalem to m a k e the a c q u a i n t a n c e of K e p h a s ' (ίστορήσαι Κ η φ ά ν , Gal. i. 18), and spent a fortnight with him. H e n c e f o r w a r d , ' H e appeared to K e p h a s ' was part of St P a u l ' s own testimony respecting the Resurrection. It was d u r i n g the s a m e fortnight that St Paul had also seen ' J a m e s , the L o r d ' s b r o t h e r , ' and therefore w a s able to give the testimony w h i c h he had received at first hand f r o m h i m also (v. 7 ) " (First Corinthians, 333 and 336). Robertson and P l u m m e r also quote an interpretation with a different u n d e r s t a n d i n g about the source of the tradition: "'In any case w e have here irresistible evidence that this difficult clause, 'raised on the third day in a c c o r d a n c e with the Scriptures' f o r m e d part of the earliest Christian creed; and its difficulty, and its antiquity, j u s t i f y the conviction that the w o r d s p r o c e e d e d f r o m Christ H i m s e l f (Abbott, The Son of Man, p. 188; see also pp. 186, 2 0 0 ) " (op.eit., 3 3 4 - 3 5 ) . See also, Bousset, "In dieser A u f z ä h l u n g erklärt Paulus weiterzugeben, was er von der U r g e m e i n d e ü b e r k o m m e n hat; wir stehen hier auf sicheren B o d e n " (Erste Korinther, 151), and Barth " D a s E v a n g e l i u m d e r U r g e m e i n d e h a t k e i n e n a n d e r e n S i n n , als m e i n E v a n g e l i u m " (Auferstehung, 76). Interpreters take w h a t they consider to h a v e been a formula to h a v e extended only as far as verse 5. So K ü m m e l in t h e " A n h a n g " to L i e t z m a n n ' s c o m m e n t a r y : " D i e von P a u l u s ü b e r n o m m e n e Formel der U r g e m e i n d e reicht bis v. 5 ( δ ώ δ ε κ α ) . . ." (Lietzmann, op. cit.,

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

157

however, that when he then asks, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμίν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; (v. 12b), he no longer relies on the tradition itself, but on his particular Pharisaic understanding of it. In the same sense, when he writes concerning that tradition, emphasizing its literal form, [γνωρίζω ύμΐν] τίνι λόγω εύηγγελισάμην ύμΐν ει κατέχετε, έκτος εί μή είκη έπιστεύσατε (v. 2cd), he already has in mind the specific meaning which he makes explicit in verses 13-14, εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται· 14 εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών, namely, that the resurrection of Christ is incompatible with a denial of the resurrection of the dead. 9 The tradition of verses 3c-7, thus, is not quoted by Paul for its own sake, or as something that provides a basis for his reasoning which follows, 10 but as & function of his reasoning in support of the general resurrection of the dead in verses 12-17." 191); C o n z e l m a n n : "Strittig ist der U m f a n g des zitierten Textes. Der sprachliche B e f u n d w e i s t d a r a u f , d a ß er b i s V . 5 r e i c h t . D e n n in V. 6 setzt d i e K o n s t r u k t i o n n e u e i n " (Korinther, 296). He quotes the m o r e differentiated u n d e r s t a n d i n g of A d o l p h von H a r n a c k : "Es seien zwei k o n k u r r i e r e n d e Aussagen kombiniert: eine über die E r s c h e i n u n g v o r P e t r u s u n d d e n Z w ö l f e n u n d e i n e ü b e r d i e E r s c h e i n u n g v o r J a k o b u s u n d allen A p o s t e l n . Es seien D o k u m e n t e von r i v a l i s i e r e n d e n G r u p p e n . J e d e b e h a u p t e die E r s c h e i n u n g vor i h r e m M e i s t e r als die e r s t e " (op. cit, 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) . S e e a l s o W i l l i a m A. Beardslee: "Paul received the list of appearances that follows (verses 6 - 8 ) f r o m various traditions (except, of course, the a p p e a r a n c e to himself), b u t it is likely that the original statem e n t ended with the a p p e a r a n c e s to Peter and the t w e l v e " (First Corinthians. A Commentary for Roday [St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 1994] 144). 9

This is, a c c o r d i n g to m o s t interpreters, a central point in P a u l ' s reasoning. So, for example, G r o s h e i d e : " M e t vs. 13 b e g i n t een r e d e n e e r i n g , die d o o r den A p o s t e l van s c h a k e l tot schakel wordt voortgezet, en die allereerst bewijst, dat het o n m o g e l i j k is te gelooven, dat Christus is opgestaan, als de dooden niet opstaan. Christus is waarlijk gestorven. Hij is dood geweest en Hij l e e f t " (Eerste Korinthe, 189). Also Lietzmann (Korinther, 79), B o u s set (Erste Korinther, 155), and B a r t h (Auferstehung, Π). See a l s o H e r i n g (Premiere Corinthiens, 137), Barrett (First Corinthians, 3 4 8 ) and C o n z e l m a n n {Korinther, 313-14).

10

C o n z e l m a n n , however, u n d e r s t a n d s P a u l ' s quotation of the tradition precisely as the basis for his r e a s o n i n g w h i c h follows, in the sense of theological r e a s o n i n g as the interpretation of tradition. So, m o s t explicitly:"Für die A u s l e g u n g des Kapitels m u ß k o n s e q u e n t im A u g e b e h a l t e n w e r d e n , d a ß P a u l u s hier T h e o l o g i e als A u s l e g u n g des C r e d o t r e i b t " Korinther, 294). Also: " D i e s e Art d e r A r g u m e n t a t i o n ist n i c h t b e l i e b i g . Sie e n t s p r i c h t s e i n e m V e r s t ä n d n i s von Theologie: Diese ist A u s l e g u n g des G l a u b e n s , der in Sätze gefaßt ist. W i e d e r u m sind diese Sätze ' o f f e n ' : Sie sind ihrerseits auf s t ä n d i g e A k t u a l i s i e r u n g angelegt und b e d ü r f e n der A u s l e g u n g " (op. cit., 293).

11

As B a c h m a n n states: "Erst jetzt, [V. 12] n a c h d e m der e n t s c h e i d e n d e B e w e i s g r u n d objektiv festgestellt und zugleich mit der Person der Leser selbst in engste B e z i e h u n g gesetzt ist, wird die Ursache der ganzen Erörterung enthüllt [15, 12]" (Erste Korinther, 431). Similarly, C o n z e l m a n n , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g his statements quoted in the previous footnote: " D a s Kap. 15 ist eine in sich geschlossene A b h a n d l u n g über die A u f e r s t e h u n g der Toten. D a s T h e m a wird d e m Leser allerdings erst von V. 12 ab sichtbar. Im R ü c k b l i c k sieht man d a n n , wie V. 12ff. durch V . 1-11 vorbereitet w u r d e n : G r u n d l a g e ist das überlieferte, von Paulus wie der korinthischen G e m e i n d e unbezweifelt a n e r k a n n t e G l a u b e n s b e k e n n t n i s , das V. 3-5 zitiert w i r d " (Korinther, 293). In the s a m e sense, Hering: "Pourquoi la formule insiste-t-elle sur l ' e n s e v e l i s s e m e n t du Christ ? Sans doute p o u r lutter contre des conceptions gnostiques et

158

Christ in the Letters of Paul

The tradition to which Paul refers in verses 3c-7 provides him with a broader base than he needs for his reasoning in verses 12-17: It includes not only Christ's resurrection, but also that he died ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ημών κατά τάς γραφάς 4 καϊ οτι έτάφη . . . (v. 3c-4a). Christ's death and burial is not part of the basis on which Paul will argue in the chapter, but is included because it is part of the tradition he quotes. 12 He will allude to ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών in a different sense in verse 17c, in relationship to Christ's resurrection, not his death. Even though Christ's resurrection is the crucial element from the tradition which Paul uses in his reasoning in verses 12-19, he makes use of more than Christ's resurrection from that tradition. He does not refer to Christ having died ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών (v. 3c) in verses 12-19, but he does make use of the redemption from sin as an important argument in verse 17, however, not redemption through the death of Christ, but redemption as something that would not be in effect if Christ were not to have been raised, εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται. . , έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών (v. 17a and c). In this way he reinterprets the redemption from sin as related to Christ's resurrection, which he uses as a link between denial of the resurrection (v. 16a) and redemption from sin (v. 17c). Furthermore, as mentioned above, what Paul asserts about the tradition as a whole in verse 2cd, εί κατέχετε, έκτος εί μή είκη έπιστεύσατε, he asserts about faith in equivalent, if not identical terms, in verses 14c and 17b, respectively, κενή, and ματαία ή πίστις ύμών. In this way Paul anticipates in his citation of the tradition some of his reasoning in verses 12-19, but what he states in verse 2 applies to the tradition itself, whereas his statements in verses 14 and 17 function as arguments in support of his reasoning to affirm the general resurrection of the dead. Paul's reasoning in verses 12-17 has a dual structure, making the same point twice with very little movement forward. In verses 18-19 he then states the real purpose of his reasoning. These verses have the following structure: 12

εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν

τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; 13

12

εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ εστίν, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται·

docetistes qui contestaient la realite de la mort du Seigneur" {Premiere Corinthiens, 135). So Bachmann: ". . . durch den Zweck der ganzen Erörterung (15, 12) wäre aber unmittelbar nur die Hervorhebung des έγήγερται und des ώφθη gefordert: folglich bleibt immer zu fragen, warum PI über den Umkreis des unmittelbar wichtigen hinausgegriffen hat, ohne doch die etwa citierte Formel ganz anzuführen. M. a. W.: die Aufnahme der Aussagen in 3 u. 4a läßt sich aus einem bloß formelhaften Charakter derselben nicht erklären . . ." (Erste Korinther, 424-25).

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer ,4

159

εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών,

κενή και ή πίστις ύμών, 15

εύρισκόμεθα δέ και ψευδομάρτυρες τοϋ θεοΰ, ότι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ

θεοΰ ότι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, ον ούκ ήγειρεν εϊπερ άρα νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται. 16

εί γάρ νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται-

17

εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς

άμαρτίαις ύμών. 18

άρα καϊ οί κοιμηθέντες έν Χριστώ άπώλοντο.

19

εί έν τη ζωή ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν. Verses 12 and 15 are different ways of saying the same thing. There is

also very little difference in meaning between verses 13 and 16. In verses 14 and 17, however, there is a development from the emptiness of the proclamation and of faith (v. 14) to a new formulation of the foolishness of faith, without reference to the proclamation, but adding the reference to the redemption from sin (v. 17). In verses 18 and 19 he moves on to the real point of his reasoning. The meaningfulness of the proclamation and of faith and the redemption from sin in Paul's reasoning in verses 12-17 are not meanings of Christ which he brings to expression on the basis of the tradition of verses 3c-7, but meanings which he presupposes are recognized by his readers. He negates these meanings for those who deny the resurrection of the dead by linking Christ's resurrection to a general resurrection of the dead. He does not suggest that Christ's resurrection was denied by some in Corinth, but argues that denial of the general resurrection of the dead effectively negates Christ's resurrection (vv. 13 and 16).13 A meaning which Paul does intend to make

13

Interpreters in general agree with this, but not on w h a t some in Corinth believed. Lietzmann p o i n t s out that t h e y did n o t d e n y C h r i s t ' s r e s u r r e c t i o n : "Jetzt erst wird die T h e s e d e r b e k ä m p f t e n G e g n e r g e n a n n t : sie b e z w e i f e l t e n n i c h t speziell die A u f e r s t e h u n g C h r i s t i , sondern waren ganz allgemein der A n s i c h t 'es gibt keine A u f e r s t e h u n g der T o t e n ' (so a u c h v. 16. 2 9 . 3 2 ) " (Korinther, 7 9 ) , a d d i n g : " V e r m u t l i c h w e r d e n j e n e G e g n e r an d e r ' j ü d i s c h e n ' A u f e r s t e h u n g s l e h r e A n s t o ß g e n o m m e n (vgl. Act 17,32) u n d ihr g e g e n ü b e r die griechische Lehre von der Unsterblichkeit nur der Seele betont h a b e n " (loc. cit.). Similarly,

160

Christ in the Letters of Paul

clear on the basis of the tradition is the resurrection of the dead (vv. 13a and 16a), but he does so only indirectly by stating in verses 14bc and 17bc what he believes are the implications of its denial, respectively, κενόν τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών (v. 14bc) and ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών (v. 17bc). In verse 18, άρα καϊ οϊ κοιμηθέντες έν Χριστώ άπώλοντο, Paul introduces a meaning for which there is no basis in the tradition of verses 3c-7. It is a conclusion he could draw directly from a denial of the resurrection of the dead without the linking provided by the negation of Christ's resurrection. In contrast with verses 14bc and 17bc which draw implications for the present, verse 18 concerns a future expectation. With the reference to those who have died in Christ Paul moves interpretively beyond the tradition, which says nothing about the dead, but he probably understood that as a meaning that was included in the tradition. The statement in verse 18 also moves beyond what Paul stated in verses 14 and 17, signaled by the change from the repeated εί in verses 13, 14, 16

Bousset: "In Korinth waren Zweifel an der A u f e r s t e h u n g i m allgemeinen laut geworden. Sie richtete sich n i c h t gegen die A n n a h m e einer persönliche Fortdauer, aber sicher gegen die H o f f n u n g einer leiblichen A u f e r s t e h u n g . " (Erste Korinther, 149). Also: "Ihr Widerspruch richtete sich, wie wir sehen werden, wenigstens h a u p t s ä c h l i c h , gegen die A u f e r s t e h u n g im engeren Sinn, d. h. die W i e d e r b e l e b u n g des Leibes. O b sie a u c h die Fortdauer der Persönlichkeit ü b e r h a u p t geleugnet h a b e n , ist nicht b e s t i m m t zu sagen. Aber gegen die Idee der W i e d e r b e l e b u n g des Leibes empörte sich ihre hellenistische W e l t a n s c h a u u n g " (op. cit., 155). A c c o r d i n g to Barth, Paul did not refer to the resurrection a p p e a r a n c e s of Christ in verses 5 - 8 to p r o v e the resurrection of Christ b e c a u s e there had been n o d o u b t a b o u t that a m o n g the Corinthians: "v 5 - 7 hat mit e i n e m historischen Beweis und also mit e i n e m Z e u g e n v e r h ö r gar nichts zu tun, schon d a r u m nicht, weil n a c h e i n e m historischen Beweis für die A u f e r s t e h u n g Jesu in Korinth kein M e n s c h das B e d ü r f n i s hatte und dies wieder schon d a r u m nicht, weil sie dort (v 1 2 - 1 8 ist der Beweis d a f ü r ) gar n i c h t bestritten war. Bestritten war die prinzipielle radikale A n w e n d u n g der ά ν ά σ τ α σ ι ς τ ω ν ν ε κ ρ ώ ν , die A u f e r s t e h u n g der T o t e n , das έν π ρ ώ τ ο ι ς , das als , H a u p t s a c h e ' B e h a n d e l n dieses G e s i c h t s p u n k t e s , wie Paulus es ü b t e " (Auferstehung, 83). Similarly, C o n z e l m a n n : "Andererseits fragt m a n sich, wozu dieser A u f w a n d dienen soll, w e n n in Korinth die A u f e r s t e h u n g Jesu gar nicht angezweifelt w i r d " (Korinther, 304). A c c o r d i n g to h i m , B u l t m a n n tried to cope with the impossibility of f i n d i n g a clear answer to the question what s o m e in Corinth believed about the resurrection, " d u r c h die A n n a h m e . . , die Korinther hätten in der Tat eine gnostisierende A n s c h a u u n g vertreten; aber Paulus h a b e sie dahin m i ß v e r s t a n d e n , sie lehrten, mit d e m Tod sei alles a u s " (Korinther, 309-10). C o n z e l m a n n agrees: " O h n e die A n n a h m e eines gewissen M i ß v e r s t ä n d n i s s e s seitens des P a u l u s k o m m t m a n k a u m aus. Dann hat aber die A n n a h m e viel für sich, d a ß er sich gegen Leute w e n d e t , die — n a c h seiner Ansicht — n u r an eine V e r w a n d l u n g der Lebenden bei der Parusie g l a u b e n , n i c h t aber an eine A u f e r w e c k u n g der Toten. D a h i n zielten bereits B e m e r k u n g e n in V. 3 - 1 1 ; dahin auch der folgende G e d a n k e n g a n g " (op. c/7.,310-1 1).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

161

and 17 to άρα καί in verse 18.14 In verse 19 εί returns, but then in a different sense. In that verse Paul draws a conclusion from what he stated in verse 18, εί έν τη ζωη ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν. Hope for more than what is given in this life is not something Paul claims to have preached to his readers before, but, interpreting the statement in verse 18, he expresses it as a new meaning, for which there is however no basis in his previous reasoning. Paul himself probably understood verses 18-19 as the appropriate conclusion of his reasoning in verses 12-17. In Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 15:1-19 we can distinguish three levels of meaning. The most fundamental level is the tradition he quotes in verses 3 c 7. That focusing tradition is multivalent, providing Paul with a far broader base of meaning than he needs for his reasoning. The meaning of which he makes use in his reasoning in verses 12-19 is Christ's resurrection to such a degree that in verse 17c he relates the forgiveness of sins to Christ's resurrection whereas in the tradition of verses 3c-7 it is the result of Christ's death. At the second level Paul brings to expression those meanings which he argues are negated by the denial of the resurrection of the dead. In dual sets of reasoning (vv. 12-14 and 15-17) he lets the negation of the resurrection of Christ as an implication of the denial of the resurrection of Christ (vv. 13 and 16) function as a link which makes it possible to present the proclamation and faith as empty (v. 14) and faith foolish and the readers still in their sins (v. 17) as implications of the denial of the resurrection of the dead. 15 The negation of these meanings as implications of the denial of the resurrection of the dead is not what Paul intends to say to his readers, but means of doing so. At the third level of meaning Paul concludes from his reasoning that therefore, if there is no resurrection of the dead, those who have died in Christ would be lost (v. 18). It is a conclusion that is neither warranted by the tradition on which Paul based his reasoning nor by his reasoning in verses 12-17, but nevertheless reveals what the meaning is he wants to bring to expression in opposition to those who deny the resurrection of the dead. In verse 19 he interprets the significance of the statement in verse 18 by clarifying the implications of denial of the resurrection of the dead for believers, that they would be the most pitiful human beings. Strictly speaking, thus, Paul

14 15

See the diagram of the structure of the passage, above p. 158. See again the diagram of the structure of the text, above p. 158.

162

Christ in the Letters of Paul

does not say what the meaning of Christ is for the believer in 1 Cor 15:1-19, but what loss of meaning would result from a denial of the resurrection of the dead. Paul appears to have been aware that his reasoning up to that point focused exclusively on the negative effects of the denial of the resurrection of the dead. For that reason he poses over against the implication of the denial of the resurrection of the dead the assurance that Christ was indeed raised from the dead, at the same time linking Christ's resurrection with the resurrection of the d e a d , ν υ ν ΐ δέ Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς έ γ ή γ ε ρ τ α ι έ κ ν ε κ ρ ώ ν , α π α ρ χ ή τ ω ν κεκοιμημένων (ν. 20). In what he states in verses 20-28, έγήγερται έκ νεκρών, άπαρχή τών κεκοιμημένων.

21

20

νυνϊ δέ Χριστός

έπειδή γαρ δι' ανθρώπου

θάνατος, και δι άνθρώπου άνάστασις νεκρών- κ.τ.λ., he abandons the reasoning for which he used the tradition of verses 3c—7, introducing instead a metaphor in which the meaning of Christ's resurrection for the believer is not argued, but presented as something within which the believer can understand her- or himself. To this second phase in Paul's presentation of the meaning of Christ's resurrection for the believer we will turn our attention later. c. Gal 3:1-5 may be the most explicit reference in Paul's letters to his earlier preaching; it certainly is the most graphic, as he begins: ω άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύ μ ά ς έ β ά σ κ α ν ε ν , ο ΐ ς κατ' ο φ θ α λ μ ο ύ ς Ί η σ ο ΰ ς Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (v. I). 16 Exegetically insoluble is what precisely

16

Burton interprets Paul's use of βασκαίνειν figuratively: "It is more probable that the word, while carrying a reference to magical arts, was used by him tropically, as we ourselves use the word 'bewitch,' meaning 'to pervert,' 'to confuse the m i n d ' " (Galatians, 144). See also Betz, not quite in the same sense: "The term βασκαίνω is used figuratively ('bewitch someone'), a usage common at least since Plato" (Galatians, 131), and, with a further slightly different sense of the term, Dunn: ". . . the verb (only here in the NT) also has the sense 'begrudge' (LSJ, baskainö\ so in its four occurrences in LXX — Deut. xxviii.54, 56; Sir. xiv.6, 8); and envy has commonly been understood to be the cause of the 'evil eye' (the power to harm someone by a glance). The implication is that the other missionaries in Galatia must begrudge the Galatians' experience of the Spirit, received without any commitment on their part to observe the works of the law" (Galatians, 152). Widely recognized is that what is involved is the evil "eye." So Schlatter: "Er denkt an den 'bösen Blick', von dem man damals mancherlei erzählte, daß Menschen auch ohne äußere Mittel, nicht mit Gewalt oder Gift, sondern bloß durch einen giftigen Blick plötzlich und unvermerkt das Leben der anderen treffen könnten, so daß sie dahinwelken. An den Gemeinden ist solche Rede wirklich wahr geworden" (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon, 67-8), Bonnard: "Dans le grec classique et hellenistique, le verbe βασκαίνω (seulement ici dans le Nouveau Testament) fait toujours allusion ä un enchantement, ä une action magique, surnaturelle, demoniaque, incontrölable, meme dans les textes oil la critique

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

163

Paul means by προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος, 17 but that does not need to concern us here. His question makes clear that a fundamental element of his original preaching had been the crucifixion of Christ, not as an abstract idea, but as an event which his readers had experienced as if it had taken place among them (κατ' οφθαλμούς). That much we can know, but Paul's question does not pro-

p h i l o s o p h i q u e (Aristote, Plutarque, etc.) reagit contre les croyances populaires; c ' e s t ainsi q u e ce verbe decrit souvent Taction m a l e f i q u e du « m a u v a i s oeil» ou du « m a u v a i s r e g a r d » " ('Galates, 61), Schlier: " Β α σ κ α ί ν ω ist T e r m i n u s für eine B e z a u b e r u n g , die o h n e b e s o n d e r e M a n i p u l a t i o n e n m i t W o r t o d e r B l i c k g e s c h i e h t . Im Z u s a m m e n h a n g ist w o h l an d i e B e z a u b e r u n g d u r c h den Blick g e d a c h t , da P a u l u s voraussetzt, d a ß e b e n der B l i c k der Galater durch den gekreuzigten Christus g e b a n n t sein sollte" (Galater, 119), and Dunn: "It certainly c a n n o t be a s s u m e d that the other missionaries in Galatia were actually resorting to m a g i c (as Schlier 119 seems to believe), though Paul m a y indeed be suggesting that the Galatian about-face could only b e p u t down to ' d e m o n i c p o w e r ' . . ; only that would have been sufficient to explain h o w those whose experience of the Spirit had b e e n so rich ( i i i . 2 5) could have left it behind (cf. 2 Cor. i v . 3 - 4 ) . The force of the question is partly to reinforce P a u l ' s b e w i l d e r m e n t at the Galatian a b o u t - f a c e (i.6): can such an apostasy be explained without inferring that s o m e o n e has p u t the evil eye on t h e m ? " (op. cit., 1 5 1 - 5 2 ) . D u n n ' s suggestion that Schlier 119 seems to believe that the other missionaries in Galatia were actually resorting to magic, followed by Longenecker ( G a l a t i a n s , 100), does not find support in Schlier, as the quotation f r o m h i m above shows. He too a p p e a r s to have had only the evil eye in mind. 17

Interpreters distinguish as m a n y as three different m e a n i n g s for π ρ ο γ ρ ά φ ε ι ν . So Burton: " Π ρ ο γ ρ ά φ ω occurs in Greek writers in three senses: (i) 'to write b e f o r e h a n d , ' the π ρ ο b e i n g temporal (Rom. 15,4 Eph. 3,3); (2) 'to write publicly,' 'to register' (Jude 4, b u t by s o m e a s s i g n e d to t h e p r e v i o u s s e n s e ) ; ( 3 ) ' t o w r i t e at t h e h e a d of t h e l i s t . ' " ΟGalatians, 144). He decides in favor of the second m e a n i n g : ". . . taking π ρ ο ε γ ρ - in the m e a n i n g 'to write p u b l i c l y , ' 'to p l a c a r d , ' yields a m e a n i n g m o r e suitable to έ σ τ α υ ρ ω μ έ ν ο ς . . , it is best to accept this latter m e a n i n g for this passage, and to understand the apostle as d e s c r i b i n g his p r e a c h i n g to the G a l a t i a n s u n d e r the f i g u r e of p u b l i c a n n o u n c e m e n t or p l a c a r d i n g of Jesus b e f o r e t h e m " (op. cit., 1 4 4 - 4 5 ) . M o s t others distinguish only the first t w o m e a n i n g s , for example, Lightfoot (Galatians, 134), Schlier (Galater, 1 1 9 - 2 0 ) , B o n n a r d (Galates, 6 2 ) , R i d d e r b o s (Galatians, 112), L o n g e n e c k e r (Galatians, 100). L i k e B u r t o n , all of the a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d interpreters also decide in favor of the second m e a n n i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , B o n n a r d : " Ε σ τ α υ ρ ω μ έ ν ο ς = crucifie n'evoque done pas l'image e m o u v a n t e du supplice du calvaire, mais toute la signification p a u l i n i e n n e de la croix c o m m e fin de Γ ere de la l o i " (loc. cit.), R i d d e r b o s : " T r u e , the p h r a s e b e f o r e w h o s e eyes [ π ρ ο ε γ ρ ά φ η έ σ τ α υ ρ ω μ έ ν ο ς ] tells of the graphic quality, the visibility of the content in the p r e a c h i n g , b u t this, p r e s u m a b l y , points less to the portraiture of Christ's s u f f e r i n g than to the lucidity and unmistakability of the p r e a c h i n g " (loc. cit.). C o n t r a r y to B o n n a r d ' s interpretation are those of Betz, " O n e of the goals of the ancient orator was to deliver his speech so vividly and impressively that his listeners imagined the m a t t e r to h a v e h a p p e n e d right b e f o r e their eyes. All k i n d s of t e c h n i q u e s w e r e r e c o m m e n d e d to achieve the effect, including i m p e r s o n a t i o n s and even h o l d i n g up painted pictures. Paul, in a case of self-ironic exaggeration, m a k e s use of this topos, r e m i n d i n g the G a l a t i a n s of his initial e f f o r t s to p r o c l a i m the gospel of ' J e s u s C h r i s t [the] c r u c i f i e d ' ( Ί η σ ο ϋ ς Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς π ρ ο ε γ ρ ά φ η έ σ τ α υ ρ ω μ έ ν ο ς ) to t h e m " (Galatians, 1 3 1 - 3 2 ) and of D u n n , " T h e i m a g e r y is very p o w e r f u l — of the crucified Christ so vividly represented to the Galatians that they could see him on the cross with their own eyes ( B A G D , prographö 2; the point is well m a d e b y Betz . . .)" (Galatians, 152).

164

Christ in the Letters of Paul

vide anything more than the crucifixion of Christ as a fundamental feature of his original preaching. It does not say what the crucifixion of Christ meant in that preaching. That meaning is made clear by the questions in verses 2 - 5 which make clear what Paul's purpose was in posing the question in verse 1: τοΰτο μόνον θέλω μαθείν άφ' ύμών· έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; 3 οϋτως άνόητοί έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νΰν σαρκί έπιτελεΐσθε; 4 τοσαϋτα έπάθετε είκη; ε'ί γε καϊ είκη. 5 ό οΰν έπιχορηγών ύμΐν τό πνεΰμα και ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμΐν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (Gal 3:2-5). Gal 3:1-5 as a step in Paul's reasoning in Galatians is complete with verse 5. In verse 6 he changes the basis on which he argues from Christ crucified to Abraham, which continues through verse 18, from where the discussion moves in other directions. Paul's purpose in Galatians was to persuade his readers not to have themselves circumcised as a requirement for justification. In these verses he argues his point by posing against each other the alternatives έργα νόμου and άκοή πίστεως as the source of their having received the Spirit and of the working of powers among them. 18 The connection of Jesus Christ προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος before their eyes with the questions in verses 2 - 5 is not obvious, but Jesus Christ crucified, the critical information in the question in verse 1, functions as foundation for the others. An explicit connection between Jesus Christ crucified in verse 1 and the questions in verses 2 - 5 may be established by έξ άκοής πίςτεως in verses 2 and 5. 19 In this twice repeated phrase it is not possible to 18

Interpreters e m p h a s i z e P a u l ' s dissociation of έγα ν ό μ ο υ f r o m reception of the spirit. So, cautiously, Burton: ". . . the fact that the precise aim of the j u d a i s e r s was to i n d u c e the Galatians to b e circumcised, a reference to the flesh would b e naturally taken b y t h e m as referring to this, and n o other m e a n i n g would b e likely to o c c u r to them. That σαρκί has a relation to έ ρ γ α ν ό μ ο υ in that circumcision falls in the category of ' w o r k s of l a w ' is, of course, obvious, b u t σαρκί is not, therefore, to be taken as equivalent to that p h r a s e or as denoting the natural p o w e r s of m e n apart f r o m the divine Spirit, (1) b e c a u s e έ ρ γ α ν ό μ ο υ does n o t in the p r e c e d i n g sentence stand in antithesis with π ν ε ΰ μ α , and (2) b e c a u s e there is n o t h i n g in t h e c o n t e x t t o s u g g e s t t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s m e a n i n g o f σ ά ρ ξ " {Galatians, 148). Also Schlier: " D e r Christ lebt sein s p e z i f i s c h e s Leben, sein Leben i m Geiste oder a u c h sein ' ü b e r n a t ü r l i c h e s ' Leben nicht aus d e m Prinzip (νόμος) und der Kraft ( έ ρ γ α ) d e r e i g e n m ä c h t i g e n E x i s t e n z , s o n d e r n a u s d e m G r u n d ( ά κ ο ή ) und d e r M a c h t (πίστις) Göttlicher Tat. Paulus beantwortet n u n seine an die Galater gerichtete Frage n i c h t ausdrücklich. Er m a c h t sie vielmehr durch ihre weitere Entfaltung n o c h eindringlicher. V.

19

3. Dabei ist das ο ϋ τ ω ς άνόητοί έστε i m Z u g e der gesamten Diktion und i m Blick auf das ο ϋ τ ω ς (= d e r m a ß e n ) besser als Frage zu v e r s t e h e n " (Galater, 122). For the relationhip between verses 2 and 5, see Burton: "[Verse 5] in effect repeats the question of v. 2, and, like that, is doubtless to be understood as referring to the experiences of the G a l a t i a n s in c o n n e c t i o n with and shortly a f t e r their c o n v e r s i o n " ( G a l a t i a n s , 151), O e p k e : " M i t steigender Eindringlichkeit wird die Frage ν 2 wiederholt. Der Geist w u r d e

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

165

determine conclusively whether άκοή means the act of hearing, with the Galatians as subject, or what is heard, referring to Jesus Christ crucified in verse l. 2 0 Rom 10:14-17 illustrates the almost imperceptible transition in meaning of άκοή between act of hearing and what is heard. πώς ούν έπικαλέσωνται εις δν ούκ έπίστευσαν; πώς δέ πιστεύσωσιν ού ούκ ή κ ο υ σ α ν ; π ώ ς δέ ά κ ο ύ σ ω σ ι ν χ ω ρ ί ς κ η ρ ύ σ σ ο ν τ ο ς ; 1 5 πώς δέ κηρύξωσιν έάν μή άποσταλώσιν; καθώς γέγραπται· ώς ώραΐοι οί πόδες τών εύαγγελιζομένων [τά] άγαθά. 16 άλλ' ού πάντες ύπήκουσαν τω εύαγγελίφ. Ήσάί'αςγάρ λέγει· κύριε, τίς έπίστευσεν τη άκοή ήμών; 17 άρα ή πίστις έξ άκοής, ή δέ άκοή διά ρήματος Χριστού. In this passage Paul plays on the multivalence in the meaning of άκοή. 21

20

verliehen! Krafttaten wurden getan . . ." (Galater, 68), Betz: "More than merely repeating the question of ν 2 he gives it another twist by further interpreting some of its elements and by including the substance of ν 3" (Galatians, 135). Also Ridderbos (Galatians, 116) and Longenecker (Galatians, 105). Interpreters of the passage distinguish, in various ways, between άκοή as 1. the organ or capacity of hearing, 2. the act of hearing, and 3. what is heard. So Ridderbos: ". . . άκοή can in the active sense designate either the organ of hearing, the capacity of hearing . . . In the passive sense, άκοή means tidings or news . . , and so it becomes the technical designation for the preaching" (Galatians, 113. fn. 3); Longenecker: ". . . what does the noun άκοή mean here? It could mean 'the faculty or organ of hearing,' or 'the act of hearing,' or 'the content of what is heard' (so LSJ, BAG, et al.), though obviously Paul does not have the first meaning in mind and so only the latter two are relevant here" (Galatians, 102-3) See also Lightfoot (Galatians, 135), Oepke (Galater, 6 8 - 9 ) and Dunn (Galatians, 154). For a comprehensive discussion of the possible meanings of άκοή, see Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:14:11 (SBLDS; Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983) 146-48. Oepke speaks for most of these interpreters when he writes: "άκοή wird daher tt für die prophetische Verkündigung . . . und bei Pls für die apostolische Predigt, etwa gleichbedeutend mit κήρυγμα . . ." (loc. cit.) Schlier makes a further distinction between two meanings of άκοή as technical term for the proclamation: " M i t άκοή wird also die Verkündigung nach zwei Seiten hin charakterisiert: sie ist Weitergabe dessen, was gehört ist, sie ist das Gehörte, das zu hören ist, sie ist ferner das, was auf Grund von Offenbarung als das Wort, das aus der Offenbarung laut wird, gesagt wird. 'Ακοή ist sachlich mit dem Evangelium und mit dem Worte Gottes identisch nur daß der Begriff selbst mehr auf die Entstehung der Verkündigung blickt als auf die Tatsache und Art ihrer Weitergabe reflektiert" (Galater, 121-22).

21

It is worth noting that Lightfoot points to another meaning as obedient listening in the phrase άκοή πίστεως: "A true parallel is the phrase ύπακοή πίστεως, Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26" (loc. cit.). See especially, Dunn: "άκοή can have the sense both of "(act of) hearing" and of "that which is heard (LSJ, BGD). But whereas in ν 16 άκοή is best taken in the latter sense, as almost all agree, in ν 17 the former sense seems to be required . . . What seems unnatural to us because we have to use two different words ('report' and 'hearing') would not seem so to the Greek hearer; the range of meaning of one and the same word is simply being exploited" (Romans 9-16, 623). Also Sandy and Headlam: "άκοή: means (1) 'hearing,' 'the faculty by which a thing is heard'; (2) 'the substance of what is heard,' 'a report, message.' In this verse it is used in the second meaning, 'who hath believed our report?' In ver. 17, it shades off into the first, 'faith comes by hearing.' It is quite possible of course to translate

Christ in the Letters of Paul

166

In πώς δέ πιστεύσωσιν οΰ ούκ ήκουσαν; 22 the verb ήκουσαν refers to the act of hearing. Similarly, άκούσωσιν in the next question, πώς δέ άκούσωσιν χωρίς κηρύσσοντος; still means the act of hearing, although the use of κηρύσσοντος brings about a slight shift of focus in the direction of what is heard. With the act of hearing still in mind, Paul then uses ύπήκουσαν to move beyond the mere act of hearing to obedient listening in the complaint, ού πάντες ύπήκουσαν τω εύαγγελίω. In τίς έπίστευσεν τη άκοη ήμών, quoted from Is 53:1, άκοή refers to what is heard, that is, the άκοή ofthose who proclaim the message that is not believed. In the final two phrases, ή πίστις έξ

22

'report' or 'message' there also, but then the connexion of idea with μή ούκ ήκουσαν is obscured" (Romans, 297-8) and Barrett: "Paul here [in verse 17] uses the word 'hearing' (άκοή) in the sense it commonly has in his writings, that is, of the process or faculty of hearing. The same word is differenly employed (as 'report', that is, 'what is heard') in the previous verse, where Paul has taken both the word and the meaning it bears from the Old Testament" (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [HNTC; New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, 1957] 190). The main issue in the interpretation of the verse is the function of οΰ in the second question, πώς δέ πιστεύσωσιν οΰ ούκ ήκουσαν; The understanding of the phrase οΰ (ούκ) ήκουσαν as "to hear of (or about) someone" is generally rejected. So already Sandy and Headlam: "οΰ is for εις τούτον οΰ: and as άκούειν τίνος means not 'to hear of some one,' but 'to hear some one preaching or s p e a k i n g ' " (Romans, 296), and Lietzmann, quoting Lagrange: "Lagrange betont mit Recht daß άκούειν τινός nicht gleich άκούειν περί τίνος ist" (Römer, 101). So also, for example, Zahn (Römer, 484), Cranfield (Romans, 532), de Kruif (Romeinen, 208), and Dunn (Romans 9-16, 620). Dodd, to the contrary, translates: "you cannot believe unless you have heard of him" (Romans, 169). Interpreters nevertheless recognized that such an understanding is not without a problem. As Zahn writes: "Nun erhebt sich aber in Anbetracht der offenkundigen Tatsache, daß nur verhältnismäßig wenige Menschen und fast nur Juden Jesu eigene Selbstbezeugung gehört haben, die Frage, wie denn die Regel, . . .daß gläubige Anrufung Jesu die Bedingung der endgiltigen Rettung sein soll . . , aufrechterhalten werden kann, wenn das Hören der Rede Christi eine unerläßliche Voraussetzung der gläubigen Anrufung Jesu sein soll" (op. cit., 485). The most widespread solution is that it is Christ's message which is heard in the proclamation. So, Sandy and Headlam: ". . . what follows must be interpreted by assuming that the preaching of Christ's messengers is identical with the preaching of Christ H i m s e l f ' (loc. cit.), Zahn: ". . . so ist zu bedenken, daß ein Herold nicht ein bloßer Berichterstatter ist, d e m man Glauben schenken oder verweigern mag, sondern ein Sprachrohr des Höheren, dessen Gedanken und Willen er laut verkündigt. Durch seine Herolde ruft Christus, was er seiner Zeit seinem Volk gepredigt hat, aller Welt zu, damit alle seine Stimme und seine Rede hören" (op. cit., 485-86), and Cranfield: "The use of οΰ indicates that in the second and third questions the thought is of their hearing Christ speaking in the message of the preachers" (loc. cit.). Schlatter came up with a different solution: ήκουσαν in the second question, πώς δέ πιστεύσωσιν οΰ ούκ ήκουσαν; has to be understood in the sense of ύπήκουσαν: "οΰ ούκ ήκουσασαν heißt nicht, daß sie keine Nachricht über ihn erhielten, sondern daß sie nicht auf ihn hörten. . . . Das άκούειν, das sie verlangt und bewirkt, ist ein ύπακούειν, ein Hören, mit dem sich der Hörende ihr ergibt. Das Bekenntnis zum Namen des Herrn ist nicht möglich, wenn nicht der ihm dargebrachte Glaube ein Gehorchen ist" (Römerbrief, 3 1 5 16).

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

167

άκοής and ή δέ άκοή διά ρήματος Χρίστου, it is not possible to determine conclusively whether άκοή refers to what is heard or to the act of hearing, although the preceding Isaiah quotation and the reference to τό ρήμα Χρίστου as the source of the άκοή suggests what is heard as the meaning. A close conceptual parallel in Rom 10:14-17 to the άκοή πίστεως of Gal 3:2 and 5 may be the question τίς έπίστευσεν τή άκοή ήμών, quoted from Is 53:1a, ΙΓΐϊΏφ1? """N" 'D in which άκοή clearly refers to the message that was proclaimed. In Gal 3:2 and 5, thus, the meaning of άκοή in the phrase έξ άκοής πίστεως can be understood to include what was heard, the άκοή that was heard and believed by the Galatians, 23 recalling Jesus Christ crucified in 23

T h e syntactic structure of the phrase έξ ά κ ο ή ς πίστως is a m b i g u o u s . There is n o w a y of d e t e r m i n i n g syntactically whether έξ goes with άκοής or with π ί σ τ ε ω ς . A d d e d to that, there is the inherent multivalence in the m e a n i n g of ά κ ο ή — for a discussion of the m e a n i n g of ά κ ο ή , see a b o v e , f o o t n o t e 2 0 — and the t w o p o s s i b l e m e a n i n g s of π ί σ τ ι ς , fides qua creditur or fides quae creditur. I have f o u n d it necessary to distinguish six possible m e a n i n g s of the p h r a s e in order to take into a c c o u n t the variety of m e a n i n g s that have been proposed b y interpreters. T h e s e possible m e a n i n g s are arranged into two groups based on taking έξ with, alternatively, πίστις a n d ά κ ο ή , r e s u l t i n g in the f o l l o w i n g t w o b a s i c s y n t a c t i c p o s s i b i l i t i e s : π ί σ τ ι ς ά κ ο ή ς , "through the faith of the ' t i d i n g s ' , " and άκοή π ί σ τ ε ω ς , "through the ' t i d i n g s ' of faith." I place " t i d i n g s " in quotation m a r k s to signify that it is not equivalent in m e a n i n g to άκοή, lacking, like every other English translation of the word, the multivalence in m e a n i n g of the Greek. On the whole, interpreters are reserved a b o u t p r o p o s i n g a definite m e a n i n g . Interpreters w h o suggest, or are inclined towards, a specific m e a n i n g are indicated b y underling their n a m e s . πίστις ά κ ο ή ς πίστις = fides qua creditur 1. believing listening, h e a r i n g — " G l ä u b i g e s H ö r e n " O e p k e (Galater, 68), "the h e a r i n g of f a i t h " R i d d e r b o s ( G a l a t i a n s , 113, fn 3), "a f a i t h f u l h e a r i n g " L o n g e n e c k e r {Galatians, 103]). πίστις = fides quae creditur 2. believing the άκοή — "la foi en l ' e v a n g i l e " B o n n a r d (Galates, 60), "believing the gospel m e s s a g e " D u n n ( G a l a t i a n s , 154), "believing w h a t you h e a r d " L o n g e n e c k e r (loc. cit.). άκοή πίστεως ά κ ο ή = the act of hearing 1. h e a r i n g the faith fides quae creditur — rejected by O e p k e (loc. cit.), "la foi, au sens de la docrine e v a n g e l i q u e " B o n n a r d # 2 ° (op. cit., 63), " h e a r i n g a b o u t f a i t h " L o n g e n e c k e r (loc. cit.). 2. h e a r i n g of faith fides qua creditur — "a h e a r i n g w h i c h c o m e s f r o m f a i t h " Lightfoot (Galatians, 135), " g r a m a t i s c h b e s c h r e i b t der Gen. [ π ί σ τ ε ω ς ] wohl e i n f a c h die Zugehörigkeit von πίστις zu ά κ ο ή " [faith qualifies the message as in έ ρ γ α ν ό μ ο υ ] Schlier (Galater, 122), "Par suite de votre audition (ou obeissance) de f o i " B o n n a r d # 1 ° (op. cit., 62), "the hearing of f a i t h " Ridderbos (loc. cit.), "that ' h e a r i n g ' w h i c h Christians call f a i t h " S a m K. Williams ("The H e a r i n g of Faith: Α Κ Ο Η Π Ι Σ Τ Ε Ω Σ In Galatians 3 , " NTS 3 5 [January 1989] 90), D u n n (op. cit., 1 5 4 - 5 5 ) , citing Williams. ά κ ο ή = w h a t has been heard, the proclamation 3. p r e a c h i n g which p r o d u c e s faith (fides qua creditur)

— "infolge einer Predigt, die (nur)

168

Christ in the Letters of Paul

verse 1. In that way the grounding of the questions in verses 2-5 would be clearly established by the repeated έξ άκοής πίστεως of verses 2 and 5. There are three levels in the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified in Gal 3:1-5: The most fundamental level is Paul's recalling the presentation of Christ crucified before the eyes of the Galatians in verse 1. He does not present them with a meaning drawn from an inventory of existing meanings of Christ, but draws on their own experience of Christ, the proclamation of the crucified Christ. 24 He reinforces this appeal at the next level, in verses 2 and 5, again drawing on what they experienced in Christ, the meaning which the άκοή πίστεως of Christ Jesus crucified had in bestowing the spirit upon them and working of powers among them. 25 The final meaning, in verses 3 and 4,

G l a u b e n fordert" B a u e r (s. v.), " V e r k ü n d i g u n g , mit der der G l a u b e heraustritt" Schlier (loc. cit.), B o n n a r d # 3 ° (op. cit., 63), "the proclaimed message w h i c h calls forth f a i t h " Hays (The Faith of Jesus, 149). 4. p r e a c h i n g the faith (fides quae credilur) faith." Betz (Galatians. 128, 132).

— Ridderbos (loc. cit.), "proclamation of [the]

B o n n a r d distiguishes three possible m e a n i n g s (op. cit., 6 2 - 3 ) , b u t translates the phrase in a different way in the b e g i n n i n g of his discussion, "la foi en l ' e v a n g i l e " (op. cit., 60), and does not address his translation in his discussion on pages 6 2 - 6 3 . Hays (op. cit., 1 4 3 - 4 9 ) distinguishes the f o u r m e n i n g s under άκοή π ί σ τ ε ω ς , b u t does n o t c o n s i d e r the possible m e a n i g s if one takes έξ with πίστις. Williams provides a thorough investigation of the possible m e a n i n g s of the p h r a s e and a careful consideration of the most p r o b a b l e m e a n i n g (op. cit., 8 2 - 9 3 ) . 24

Interpreters generally recognize this e m p h a s i s of Paul on the G a l a t i a n s ' experience, focusing particularly on verses 1 or 2. So, for example, Betz: " T h e second rhetorical question introduces the m a i n point of P a u l ' s defense. Rather than presenting it himself, Paul w a n t s to hear it f r o m the Galatians . . ." (Galatians, 132), Schlatter: "Weil ihr Blick trübe geworden ist, d a r u m f ä n g t er seinen U n t e r r i c h t bei d e m an, w a s i h n e n z u n ä c h s t liegt, bei ihrer eigenen E r f a h r u n g " (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon, 68), A l t h a u s : " V o r der Apostel darangeht, die W a h r h e i t von n e u e m vor den Galatern zu enthüllen, ruft er ihre eigene E r f a h r u n g an, die S t u n d e der B e k e h r u n g " (Römer, 23), and B o n n a r d : "Paul ne fait pas p a s s e r a u x G a l a t e s un e x a m e n de b o n n e c o n d u i t e ; il les r e n v o i e ä leur e x p e r i e n c e p a s s e e et t o u j o u r s a c t u e l l e . . ." (Galates, 6 2 ) . A l s o B u r t o n (Galatians, 147), S c h l i e r (Galater, 123, 125), D u n n (Galatians, 152, 153, 156), L o n g e n e c k e r (Galatians, 99, 101, 103).

25

Even t h o u g h Paul is arguing that the Galatians' receiving of the spirit was mediated έξ ά κ ο ή ς π ί σ τ ε ω ς , that is, b y Christ, interpreters agree that it is God w h o is the source of the spirit. So Schlier: " G o t t selbst wird n i c h t g e n a n n t , aber d a s ό ο ΰ ν . . . weist auf i h n " (Galater, 125), Betz: "Instead of merely n a m i n g the experience as he had d o n e in ν 2, Paul n o w goes on to identify its source: ' h e w h o grants you the Spirit' (ό . . . έ π ι χ ο ρ η γ ώ ν ύ μ ΐ ν τό π ν ε ϋ μ α ) is of course n o one else but G o d , as the Spirit is his gift. Also, this experience is n o t limited to the initial period, b u t there are even at present m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of the Spirit a m o n g t h e m " (Galatians, 135), D u n n : " T h e reference is to G o d : Paul n e v e r ascribes the giving of the Spirit to Christ, only to G o d (1 C o r ii.12; 2 Cor. i. 2 1 - 2 ; v. 5; Gal. iv. 6; 1 Thess. iv. 8; also Eph. i. 17); this is part of the careful b a l a n c e he m a i n t a i n s between the exalted Christ, G o d and the Spirit of God . . ." (Galatians, 157), and in his translation of the phrase, Longenecker: " T h e p h r a s e ό οΰν έ π ι χ ο ρ η γ ώ ν ύ μ ΐ ν τό π ν ε ϋ μ α ( ' d i d G o d . . , give you his S p i r i t ' ) u n d o u b t e d l y refers to the G a l a t i a n s ' initial reception of the Spirit at the time of their conversion (see Comment at vv 2 - 3 ) . Probably [ό] έ ν ε ρ γ ώ ν δυνάμεις έν ύ μ ΐ ν

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

169

is what Paul is saying to his readers, namely, that they began with the spirit and ended up in the flesh. 26

26

('work miracles among you') has in mind and expands on the allusion in ν 4 to the Galatian C h r i s t i a n s ' o n g o i n g spiritual experiences beyond the time of their c o n v e r s i o n " (Galatians, 105). Like Betz, he considers the gift of the spirit as something ongoing. Many interpreters find in Paul's use of έναρξάμενοι and έπιτελεΐσθε a cultic allusion. So, in the sense of a sacrificial practice, already Lightfoot: "These words occur together 2 Cor. viii. 6, Phil. i. 6. Both of them, the f o r m e r especially, are e m p l o y e d of religious ceremonials, and it is possible that the idea of a sacrifice may underlie their use here" ('Galatians, 135). Also Schlier, with refernce to Lightfoot: "Nicht ganz abzuweisen ist, daß, wie Lightfoot, Lagrange u. a. meinen, ein Anklang an einen terminus technicus der Sakralsprache vorliegt der mit ένάρχεσθαι — έπιτελεϊσθαι die Eröffnung und die Beendigung (bzw. den Vollzug) einer Opferhandlung oder, allgemeiner, einer kultischen Handlung bezeichnet. Dann stünde hier der Gedanke an das priesterliche Leben des Christen im Hintergrund, das sich als Opferhandlung vollzieht" (Galater, 124). The idea is rejected by Oepke: "Anklang an die Opfersprache (Sehl) liegt fern" (Galater, 68). He nevertheless points out that more than a mere chronological sequence is involved: "Um als bloßer zeitlicher Gegensatz zu έναρξάμενοι zu gelten, ist έπιτελεΐσθε ein zu volltönendes Wort. Die Irrlehrer mochten den Galatern gesagt haben, ihr Christentum bedürfe der Ergänzung, der V o l l e n d u n g — d u r c h d a s G e s e t z . Pls n i m m t d a s S c h l a g w o r t i r o n i s c h auf: e i n e 'Vollendung' eigner Art!" (loc. cit.). Others have specifically the mysteries in mind, for example, Bonnard: "Le verbe ένάρχομαι (seulement ici et Phil. 1. 6 dans le Nouveau Testament) designe le commencement de la vie c h r e t i e n n e en le c o m p a r a n t p e u t - e t r e aux rites p r e l i m i n a i r e s des mysteres g r e c s " (Galates, 63), and, presumably, Betz: "3:2-4 uses terminology familiar from other cults: έ ν ά ρ χ ε σ θ α ι [ ' b e g i n ' ] and έ π ι τ ε λ ε ΐ ν [ ' f i n i s h ' ] and also the word pair μ α θ ε ΐ ν / π α θ ε ΐ ν ('learn/experience')" (Galatians, 133). Dunn argues in detail against the idea. "The fact that both verbs were used in cultic contexts (beginning of a sacrifice, performing a religious act — see LSJ and BAGD, enarchomai, epiteleö\ Lagrange 59-60) is probably a sidetrack. . . . (1) the words have a much more general use in the senses 'begin' and 'end, complete' (LSJ; Γ Ο Λ Τ ν ϋ ί . ό Ι ) — so also in the only other occurrences of the antithesis in the NT (2 Cor. viii. 6; Phil. i. 6); (2) the thought of 'performing a religious act' is hard to fit into the second half of the antithesis (most naturally taken as personal subject of a passive verb); and (3) the introduction of a ritual reference in the first half would seem to run counter to the contrast between Spirit and flesh" (Galatians, 155). With regard to πάσχειν: Most interpreters take the term in a neutral sense. So Burton: "The word έπάθετε is, so far as our evidence enables us to decide, a neutral term, not defining whether the experiences referred to were painful or otherwise" (Galatians, 149), but then he gives it more thought: "The verb πάσχω is in itself of neutral significance, 'to experience,' εΰ πάσχειν meaning 'to be well off,' 'to receive benefits,' κακώς and κακά πάσχειν, 'to suffer ills'; yet πάσχω has in usage so far a predilection for use in reference to ills that πάσχειν alone signifies 'to suffer' (ills), and to express the idea 'to experience' (good) requires as a rule the addition of ευ or an equivalent indication in the context" (loc. cit.). In his translation, as Longenecker points out (Galatians, 104), Burton translates the term in the sense of suffering: "Did ye suffer so many things in vain?" (op. cit. 142). Schlier is also inclined to a neutral meaning, but is open to a postive understanding: "Πάσχειν hat hier einen 'neutralen' Sinn, ja vielleicht sogar die Bedeutung von εΰ πάσχειν, die sich auch Jos. ant. III, 312 findet" (loc.cit.). Similarly Bonnard: ". . . tel est du moins le sens qu'il faut donner ä ce mot si πάσχω = souffrir, eprouver ne comporte pas ici l'idee de souffrance qu'il comporte dans tous les autres textes pauliniens oü il est atteste (1 Cor. 12. 26; 2 Cor. 1. 6; Phil. 1. 29; 1 Th. 2. 14); cette valeur neutre du verbe «souffrir» au sens

170

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Paul does not clarify the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified in verse 1. It remains multivalent. He could have drawn a number of other meanings from it as well, for example, that it was the power of God and the wisdom of God, as he did in 1 Cor 1:24. He chooses a different meaning in our passage, which brings us to the second level of the meaning. Unlike in 1 Cor 2:2, where Paul appeals to Christ crucified to define the nature of his preaching via the topic of wisdom, the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified in Gal 3:1 is not a function in the meaning of another topic. In Gal 3:1-5 Jesus Christ crucified is also the fundamental fact, but its meaning is not given. Paul draws that meaning out in the reasoning which follows in verses 2-5, recalling the event of Christ's crucifixion (the fundamental fact) explicitly with έξ άκοής πίστεως as the source of the readers having received the spirit and powers working among them (vv. 2 and 5). The meaning of Jesus Christ crucified is to be understood in direct opposition to what might be achieved through έργα νόμου. The opposition between the άκοή πίστεως of Jesus Christ crucified and έργα νόμου is a meaning which Paul could not recall from the Galatians' experience of Christ in the past when they first came to believe. As gentiles, έργα νόμου could hardly have had meaning for them at the time of their conversion, before the issue of circumcision arose among them. The rhetorically posed alternatives έξ έργων νόμου and έξ άκοής πίστεως as ways in which the Galatians could have received the spirit and powers could have worked among them brings to expression a meaning of Jesus Christ crucified which is directly related to the situation addressed by Paul in the letter. And yet that is still not what Paul wants to say to his readers, but part of his means of saying

d'eprouver (de

b o n n e s ou de m a u v a i s e s choses) est largement attestee p a r ailleurs en grec. II s'agirait d o n e bien de l ' e x p e r i e n c e de l'Esprit et non des s o u f f r a n c e s de la persecution (ainsi Calvin, Lightfoot, Zahn), ni des tracasseries legalistes infligees a u x Galates p a r leurs n o u v e a u x maitres judai'sants (ainsi Meyer, etc.)" (op. cit., 6 3 - 6 4 ) . A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g vario u s possibilities: u n f a v o r a b l e , favorable or neutral, Longenecker favors a positive m e a n i n g : ". . . in the wider context of the letter there is no suggestion that the Galatian Christians had ever actually suffered any f o r m of external persecution, though 6:12 intimates that the errorists themselves were fearful of such . . . M o r e pertinently, ν 4 is set in the i m m e d i a t e context of vv 3 and 5, where G o d ' s giving of his Spirit and God's w o r k i n g of miracles in the m i d s t of the Galatians are highlighted. So τ ο σ α ΰ τ α έ π ά θ ε τ ε ( ' h a v e you experienced so m u c h ' ) should p r o b a b l y b e taken as recollection of the Galatian believers' past, positive spiritual experiences p e r h a p s even should be translated ' h a v e you had such r e m a r k a b l e exp e r i e n c e s ' . . ." (loc. cit.). Betz takes a c c o u n t a neutral as well as a negative m e a n i n g , and takes into consideration an allusion to mystery religious usage: " T h e term π ά σ χ ω can b e taken in a m o r e neutral sense ( ' e x p e r i e n c e ' ) or negatively, as often in the N e w T e s t a m e n t ( ' s u f f e r ' ) . Again, the possibility exists that Paul plays with terminology k n o w n to us especially f r o m the context of the mystery religions. This b e c o m e s possible n o t only b e c a u s e of the experiences of ecstasy and miracles, but also b e c a u s e of the association of π α θ ε ΐ ν ( ' e x p e r i e n c e ' ) with μ α θ ε ΐ ν ( ' l e a r n , ' 3 : 2 ) " (op. cit., 134).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

171

it, even though the alternatives he poses between the άκοή πίστεως and έργα νόμου already point to what it is he wants to say. Generally valid as those rhetorically posed alternatives may be, Paul uses them to point to a meaning that is specific to the situation of his readers, which brings us to the level of the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified. What Paul wants to say to his readers comes to expression in verses 3-4, οϋτως άνόητοί έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νϋν σαρκϊ έπιτελεΐσθε; τοσαΰτα έπάθετε είκη; ε'ί γε και είκη.

4

The Galatians' desire to become circumcised, seeking, according to Paul, to find salvation έξ έργων νόμου, means to end up with the flesh, as opposed to the spirit with which they began when they accepted Christ, so to speak, crucified before their eyes. Thus, as had been the case with Paul himself, and with the Corinthians in 1 Cor 1:4—4:21, the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified attains an expanded meaning in Gal 3:1-5, having been transposed into the situation in which the Galatians found themselves. Paul translates the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified as if before the eyes of the Galatians (v. 1), via its meaning as the source of their having received the spirit and of powers working among them (vv. 2 and 5), as a challenge to what Paul understands to be happening with them (vv. 3-4). It is through Jesus Christ crucified that they received the spirit; now they want to return to the flesh. Paul's challenge to them is to return to Jesus Christ through whom they received the spirit. As in 1 Cor 1:10—4:21, Paul does not define the new meaning of Jesus Christ crucified for his readers, but challenges them to recognize it themselves. Conclusion In none of the three texts in which he refers to his earlier proclamation does Paul provide his readers with information about the meaning of Christ. Rather, he calls upon them to discover that meaning for themselves in terms of the situations they face. This is true in particular in the case of 1 Cor 2:2 where Paul's reference to Christ functions to draw attention to the validity of his preaching in terms of Christ's crucifixion. The meaning of this reference to Christ for his readers emerges only in 4:10 when Paul challenges his readers sarcastically to discover where they stand in relationship to Christ, ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ· ήμείς άσθενείς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι. In Gal 3:1 the reference to the Galatians' earlier experience of Christ's crucifixion, as if among them, is the basis for Paul's reasoning which follows in verses 2-5. The meaning which Paul has in mind is not given with the reference to Christ's crucifixion itself, but emerges from his reasoning in

172

Christ in the Letters of Paul

verses 2-5 in which he allows Christ's crucifixion as it had been proclaimed to them in the past to become meaningful in the present, as an answer to the question whether they received the spirit through "works of the Law" or through the "obedience of faith" in the proclamation of Christ's crucifixion, as Paul asks, τούτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' υμών- έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (ν. 2). As in the case of 1 Cor 1-4, the Galatians too have to discover for themselves what Christ means for them in the situation in which they find themselves. Whereas the focus in 1 Cor 1-4 and in Gal 3:1-5 is on Christ's crucifixion, it is on his resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12-19. In this case too, Paul relies on a teaching from the past with which he assumes his readers to be familiar, the tradition quoted in verses 3c-7, to express a meaning that has immediate relevance for them: The tradition which he quotes here too is not itself the meaning he has in mind. As such it has no meaning for the readers. Only one part of that tradition, Christ's resurrection, becomes meaningful for them in Paul's reasoning in verses 12-19, where it functions as an argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead: Christ's resurrection entails the general resurrection of the dead, which is the meaning Paul has in mind. 2. The Meaning of Christ's Death, Resurrection and Parousia Our investigation of Paul's earlier preaching has shown that only in Gal 3:1-5 does he make use of that preaching as the basis of his reasoning. Christ crucified is the sole basis upon which the Galatians received the spirit, which excludes the Law as such a basis. In the case of 1 Cor 1 - 4 Christ crucified is not the basis of Paul's reasoning, but the background framework of it, until in 4:10 he introduces Christ as the fundamental criterion on the basis of which everything between him and his readers can be decided. Christ's crucifixion, it appears, signifies humility on the basis of which he can justify his proclamation as opposed to the pride of wisdom which he perceives among the Corinthians. In 1 Cor 15:12-15, Paul's appeal to Christ's resurrection is a link in his reasoning in favor of the general resurrection of the dead, for which the resurrection of Christ functions as a guarantee. We can thus establish that Christ's death and resurrection were important components in Paul's earlier preaching and that he was able to allow them to function in the expression of meaning in more than one way in the three passages. Our next task will be to investigate all the other passages in which Paul allows Christ's crucifixion and resurrection to have meaning for his readers. As a first step in this new phase of our investigation we will ask what specific meanings Paul brings to expression in his references to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, and, closely related to these, in references to his expected parousia, that is, how they function in his reasoning.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

173

By this time it should have become methodologically clear that we have to distinguish between the material Paul uses to express what he means and the meanings he expresses by means of that material, which does not make things easy. It is relatively easy to distinguish between the multiple potential meanings of words and the specific meanings an author expresses by combining them syntactically in sentences. Such distinctions are much more difficult when the materials an author uses have meanings of their own that are not readily distinguishable from what the author intends when using that material. Rudolf Bultmann, even though he was not a linguist or semiotician in the more specific sense of the term, understood this distinction clearly when he distinguished between the existential meaning which, according to Karl Barth, had been what Paul intended in writings such as Romans and 1 Corinthians, and the apocalyptic language by means of which he expressed that meaning. In the meantime, we have of course learnt from Ernst Käsemann that the apocalyptic language which Paul used was the means of expressing more than an existential truth, that it was also a part of Paul's engagement in historical reality. With that insight Käsemann did not want to return to Paul's apocalyptic thought-world as itself the meaning Paul wanted to express, but argued that Paul's apocalyptic language needed to be demythologized also in terms of an engagement in history, as when Käsemann proclaimed against the Nazis that the world belonged to Christ, which meant that the Nazis were not free to manipulate it as they pleased. What makes the distinction between Paul's apocalyptic language as a means of expression and the meanings he expressed by means of it relatively straightforward is that that language belongs to a bygone age, making it readily distinguishable from other forms of expression, such as our own. That this is only relatively true is shown by the difference in Bultmann's and Käsemann's understandings of Paul's meaning, with Käsemann interpreting as part of Paul's meaning what Bultmann understood to have belonged to Paul's apocalyptic language as the mere means of his expression. What makes our attempts to distinguish between Paul's expressions of the meaning of Christ and his means of expressing those meanings so difficult is that Paul's means of expression themselves frequently already include meanings of Christ. The problem with which I find myself faced is the one with which Barth confronted Bultmann: How can one distinguish in Paul himself between what he wanted to say and his means of saying it? Let us nevertheless see if we can identify the death, resurrection and parousia of Christ as the material by means of which Paul expresses meaning in the texts in which these conceptions occur, that is, in addition to the ones already discussed above. In a second step we will then try to see what Paul means by these conceptions in the

174

Christ in the Letters of Paul

various places where he makes use of them, and try to determine whether he expresses the same meanings or a variety of meanings by means of them. That Paul makes use of these conceptions is not what counts in our study of the meaning of Christ in his thought, but what he means by them. a. Distinguishing between what Paul says and what he means (i) 1 Thess 5:1-11 There are a number of issues in connection with the interpretation of 1 Thess 5:1-11. They have no effect on our investigation of the passage. I will discuss them in an excursus.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

175

Excursus: Issues in the Interpretion of 1 Thess 5:1-11 a. The structure of the passage Wolfgang Harnisch argues for a break in Paul's reasoning between verses 3 and 4. 27 He rejects the view that verse 1 introduces a topic on which verses 2 and 3 then elaborates. 28 Reaffirming the break between verses 3 and 4, he nevertheless points to a connection between verses 4 and 2: Verse 4 refers materially back not only to verse 3, but to verse 2 as well. 29 Furthermore, the main focus of Paul's reasoning is in verse 4-10; 3 0 what the Apostle wants to say positively comes to expression in what Harnisch refers to as Paul's credo in which the Apostle's gospel is manifested; it is the purpose at which his statements in verses 4 - 1 0 were aiming. 31 27

Discussing the structure of 4:15-5:11 he remarks: "Der Aufbau des zweiten Teils (5,1-11) scheint weniger klar ersichtlich. Auf den ersten Blick ist zunächst die Zäsur erkennbar, die zwischen V. 3 und V. 4 besteht. Durch das ύμεΐς δέ werden die Ausführungen der V. 4ff. von dem in V. 1 - 3 Gesagten deutlich abgesetzt" (Eschatologische Existenz. Ein exegetische Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1 Thesslonicher 4,15-5,11 [Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1975] 17). So also Traugott Holtz: "Die neuerliche Anrede »Brüder« sowie der Übertritt der Rede von der Zukunft in die Gegenwart zeigen, daß mit V 4 ein anderer G e d a n k e h e r v o r t r i t t . Er reicht b i s V 5 a " ( D e r erste Brief an die Thessalonicher [Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament; Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger Verlag - Neukirchener Verlag, 1986] 209). So also, less explicitly, Paul-Gerhard Müller: "Mit der erneuten Anrede »Bruder« (adelphoi, vgl. die Auslegung zu 1,4: »von Gott geliebte Brüder«) wendet sich der Vf. mit einer Zusage an die Gemeinde" (Der Erste und Zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher [Regensburger Neues Testament; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2001] 193).

28

"Wie eingangs beiläufig dargelegt, könnte V. 1 im Sinne einer Exposition gemeint sein, auf die in V. 2f. die eigentliche B e h a n d l u n g des Themas folgt. Doch zwingt eine die Stileigentümlichkeiten der Aussagen beachtende Textanalyse zu einer Revision dieser vorläufigen Bestimmung der Relation von V. 1 zu V. 2f. Genau genommen enthält V. 1 nämlich nicht die Ankündigung des Themas, sondern vielmehr die der Übergehung des durch περί . . . των χρόνων και των καιρών angezeigten Sachverhaltes" (Eschatologische Existenz, 52-3).

29

"Wie bereits angedeutet, ist die Gedankenfolge von 1 Thess 5,1-11 durch die markante Zäsur zwischen V. 3 und V. 4 unterbrochen. An dem betont herausgestellten ύμεΐς δέ, άδελφοί zeigt sich, daß Paulus in V. 4 neu ansetzt. Die adversative Partikel δέ scheint zunächst lediglich einen Gegensatz zu V. 3 zu signalisieren; vgl. die Gegenüberstellung von 'sie' und 'ihr': λέγωσιν . . . αύτοϊς . . . έκφύγωσιν V. 3 — ύμεΐς . . . (ούκ) έστε V. 4. Doch gilt zu beachten, daß sich V. 4 inhaltlich (vgl. den ϊνα-Satz) auf V. 2 zurückbezieht. Sachlich impliziert die Aussage V. 4 einen Gegensatz nicht nur zu V. 3, sondern ebenfalls zu V. 2. Sie ist somit nicht allein gegenüber V. 3, sondern gegenüber dem in sich einheitlichen Zusammenhang von V. 2f. abgesetzt" (Eschatologische Existenz, 77-8).

30

"Das Schwergewicht der paulinischen Ausführungen liegt eindeutig auf dem in V. 4 - 1 0 Gesagten. Die einleitenden Sätze der V. (1) 2f. sind den Aussagen der V. 4 - 1 0 sachlich subordiniert. Sie werden durch das Folgende . . . faktisch überboten (vgl. nur V. 2f. mit V. 5). Dieser Sachverhalt wird verkannt, wenn man die zwischen V. 3 und V. 4 deutlich wahrnehmbare, alles entscheidende Zäsur übersieht. . ." (Eschatologische Existenz, 166). "Was der Apostel positiv zu sagen hat, findet sich erst in den auf das Credo (vgl. V. 9f.)

31

176

Christ in the Letters of Paul

β. Verse 1 in the form of a rhetorical praeteritio Paul's statement in verse 1 is widely taken to be in the form of the rhetorical figure of a praeteritio, παράλειψις, 3 2 defined by Liddell and Scott as "a rhetorical figure, in which a fact is designedly passed over, so that attention may be specially called to it." 33 Aristotle defines παράλειψις as a form of irony: ίρωνεία δ' έστί λέγειν τι προσποιούμενον μή λέγειν ή τοις έναντίοις όνόμασι τά πράγματα προσαγορεύειν. εϊη δ' αν αύτής το σχήμα τοιούτον abzielenden Aussagen der V. 4 - 1 0 , die das paulinische Evangelium geltend machen und in denen Paulus mit Hilfe indikativisch und Imperativisch geprägter Formulierungen entfaltet, wie sich die christliche Existenz, die durch das Kerygma von Jesu Tod und Auferweckung begründet ist und begründet bleibt, angesichts der zukünftigen ήμέρα des als Kyrios verstandenen Gekreuzigten vollzieht" (Eschatologische Existenz, 166-67). Similarly, Günter Haufe, who sees a stronger degree of coherence in the passage: "Eine durchschaubare gedankliche Gliederung ist dennoch erkennbar. 5,1-3 beantwortet die Frage nach dem Wann der Parusie mit dem Insistieren auf der Frage nach ihrem Wie: der Tag des Herrn wird plötzlich, unvorhersehbar und unentrinnbar hereinbrechen. Die erneute Bruder-Anrede V. 4 kündigt einen neuen Gedanken an. V. 4 f. begründen, warum der »Tag« die Leser dennoch nicht überraschen kann: sie gehören dem Heilsbereich von »Licht« und »Tag« an. Die so v o r b e r e i t e t e P a r ä n e s e b r i n g e n die V. 6-8: aus der Z u g e h ö r i g k e i t zu d e m Heilsbereich folgt der Ruf zu Wachsamkeit und Nüchternheit, die nicht ohne Glaube, Liebe und Hoffnung denkbar sind. Die V. 9 f. konkretisieren die Begründung für die V. 4 8 mit der theologischen Spitzenaussage von der Erwählung zum Heil, die im Sterben des Herrn Jesus Christus »für uns« manifest geworden ist. Der Abschnitt schließt, ähnlich wie der vorangegangene 4,18, mit der Aufforderung, sich gegenseitig zu trösten und aufzurichten" (Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher [Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament; Leipzig: Evangelishe Verlagsanstalt, 1990] 90). 32

So. von Dobschütz: "Es ist eine Form der Präteritio, die nicht die Frage als unnötig abweisen soll (Chrys.), etwa so, daß P. eine von den Thess. mündlich oder schriftlich ihm gestellte Frage an sie selbst zurückverweise: ihr müßt es selbst wissen; aber auch nicht als unberechtigt, weil keine bestimmte Antwort möglich sei (Theodor, Zwingli u. v. a.): P. will diese Frage behandeln, knüpft aber an das christliche Wissen der Leser an; die Christen kennen die Zeit Rom 13,," (Die Thessalonicher-Briefe [Kritisch-exegetisher Kommentar über das eue Testament; Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1909] 203), and especially Harnisch: "Vers 2 begründet (γάρ) die Absicht der Auslassung durch den Rekurs auf ein Wissen der Adressaten, aber so, daß der Gegenstand dieses Wissens in dem folgenden οτιSatz entfaltet und in V. 3 präzisiert wird. Die auf den ersten Blick konsequent erscheinende Folge der Aussagen von V. 1 und V. 2 (f.) ist in Wahrheit durch eine Spannung gekennzeichnet, die darauf beruht, daß die Begründung der Ankündigung der Auslassung in V. 2(f.) de facto eine Explikation des Sachverhalts enthält, welcher nach der in V. 1 kundgegebenen Absicht gerade übergangen werden sollte" (Eschatologische Existenz, 53); also: " P a u l u s hat zwar die Situation der Thessalonicher im Auge, f o r m u l i e r t aber selbständig. Er bedient sich der Figur der 'praeteritio', um ein neues Thema einzuführen, . . ." (op. cit., 54). Similarly, Holtz: "Wie schon 4,9 behandelt er das Thema in der Stilform der Paraleipsis (praeteritio); er beantwortet dabei die Frage nach der Zeit des Kommens mit der Erinnerung an das Wie dieses Kommens" (Erste Thessalonicher, 209).

33

A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), s. v. See also Alexander Souter: "präteritio (t. t. rhet. = παράλειψις act of designedly passing over" (A. Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A. D. [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949],s. v.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

177

έν τφ περί των είρημένων συντόμως άναμιμνήσκειν· "ούδέν δ' οιμαι δεΐν λέγειν οτι ούτοι μεν οί φάσκοντες πολλά άγαθά πεποιηκέναι πλείστον φαίνονται την πόλιν κεκακουργηκότες, ή μ ε ΐ ς δ' ους οΰτοί φασιν άχαρίστους είναι, τούτοις τε πολλάκις βοηθήσαντες καί τούς άλλους ούδέν άδικοΰντες." τό μέν οΰν έν προσποιήσει παραλείψεως λέγοντα συντόμως άναμιμνήσκειν τοιούτον έστι,. . , 34 and a little later as: "οσα δ' άν λίαν άπιστα συμβαίνοι, δει παραλείπειν- έάν δε άναγκαΐον ή λέγειν, είδότα δει φαίνεσθαι, και έπιπλέξαντα αύτά τω της παραλείψεως σήματι ύπερβάλλεσθαι, καί προϊόντος τοΰ λόγου έπιδείξειν άληθή ύπισχνεΐσθαι, προφασισάμενον οτι τά προειρημένα πρώτον βούλει άποδεΐξαι άληθή δντα ή δίκαια ή τι των τοιούτων.. 35 What Paul wrote in 1 Thess 5:1 does not represent a figure of παράλειψις as Aristotle defines it. Paul was not trying to avoid speaking about the eschatological events, περί . . . των χρόνων και των καιρών (5:1a), as some of the scholars who consider the verse a form of praeteritio well recognize. 36 It may be more correct to accept the surface meaning that Paul did not find it necessary to explain something he assumed the Thessalonians already knew. 37

34 35 36

ρ η τ ο ρ ι κ ή π ρ ο ς Ά λ έ ξ α ν δ ρ ο ν 1434 a l 7—26. ρ η τ ο ρ ι κ ή π ρ ό ς Ά λ έ ξ α ν δ ρ ο ν 1438 b 4—9. So already von D o b s c h ü t z : P a u l ' s Statement does not reject the supposed question of the Thessalonians as unnecessary: ". . . etwa so, d a ß P. eine von den Thess. m ü n d l i c h oder schriftlich i h m gestellte Frage an sie selbst zurückverweise: ihr m ü ß t es selbst wissen; aber a u c h nicht als unberechtigt, weil keine b e s t i m m t e Antwort m ö g l i c h sei . . : P. will diese Frage b e h a n d e l n , k n ü p f t aber an das christliche Wissen der Leser an; die Christen kennen die Zeit R o m 1 3 n " ( T h e s s a l o n i c h e r - B r i e f e , 203); also Holtz: " [ P a u l u s ] b e a n t w o r t e t . . . die Frage n a c h der Zeit des K o m m e n s mit der E r i n n e r u n g an das W i e dieses K o m m e n s " (Erste Thessalonicher, 209), and even Harnisch: " [ P a u l u s ] b e d i e n t sich der Figur der 'praeteritio', u m ein n e u e s T h e m a e i n z u f ü h r e n , das freilich mit d e m z u v o r Erörterten s a c h l i c h e n g z u s a m m e n h ä n g t " (Eschalologische Existenz, 54).

37

So. J a m e s Everett Frame: "The reason w h y . . . it is unnecessary to write is not that he is u n a b l e to teach t h e m a n y t h i n g n e w (Th. Mops.), b u t that, in view of the p u r p o s e of enc o u r a g e m e n t , it is inexpedient and superfluous (cf. Chrys.) to do any m o r e than call attention to the facts w h i c h they already k n o w accurately . . ." (The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians [The International Critical C o m m e n t a r y ; E d i n b u r g h : Τ. & T. Clark, 1912, second impression 1946] 180), and Charles M a s s o n : ". . . Paul r e p o n d e ä une question p o s e e par la lettre des Thessaloniciens. L'entree en matiere incline ä le croire, car on dit: «vous n ' a v e z p a s besoin q u ' o n vous [en] ecrive», ä des gens qui ont exprime le desir de recevoir des eclaircissements sur un sujet particulier. La parousie, il est vrai, o c c u p a i t une telle place dans le m o r c e a u qui precede, q u ' i l est fort naturel aussi d ' e n t e n d r e Paul declarer que les Thessaloniciens, instruits par lui lorsqu'il etait au milieu d ' e u x , n ' a v a i e n t pas besoin q u ' i l leur ecrivit au sujet du m o m e n t de l ' e v e n e m e n t , objet de leur ardente attente" (Les deux epitres de saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens [ C o m m e n t a i r e du n o u v o u x t e s t a m e n t ; Neuchatel, Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1957] 66)

178

Christ in the Letters of Paul

γ. Apocalypticism The passage obviously concerns expectations of the last days. Harnisch recognizes that one could readily consider that the passage is anti-apocalyptic, 38 but rejects such a view as based on a mistaken view which contrasts late Jewish apocalypticism and primitive Christian theology. Apocalyptic writings, such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, reveal that renunciation of speculation about eschatological dates also characterized Jewish apocalyptic thought. 39 δ. The addressees, gnosticism and the concept of time Harnisch considers the possibility of Paul replying to a question from the Thessalonians, but then rules that out. 40 He considers the passage as a challenge to gnostic agitators, 41 with Paul himself in some ways having thoughts similar to the gnostics. According to him, 1 Thess 5:5, taken as such, could be interpreted as an expression of gnostic security of salvation. 42 Paul shared

38 39

40

41

42

". . . [es ist] naheliegend, hinter den A u s f ü h r n n g e n von 1. Thess 5 , 1 - 3 eine antiapokalyptische T e n d e n z zu v e r m u t e n " (Eschatologische Existenz, 59). " D i e übliche K o n t r a s t i e r n n g von s p ä t j ü d i s c h e r A p o k a l y p t i k und urchristliche Theologie basiert insofern auf einer falschen Prämisse, als der Verzicht auf j e d e Terminspekulation n i c h t eine urchristlichem Denken vorbehaltene Eigentümlichkeit darstellt, sondern ebenfalls einer theologischen T e n d e n z der A p o k a l y p t i k selbst entspricht, wie 4 E s r u n d s B a r z e i g e n " (Eschatologische Existenz, 7 5 ) , a n d "Das in 1 Thess 5,2f. Gesagte ist somit keineswegs antiapokalyptisch orientiert, sondern nimmt vielmehr selbst ein apokalyptisches Interesse wahr" (op. cit., 76). So, also in his conclusion: " D i e A u s s a g e n von V . 2f. sind n i c h t a n t i a p o k a l y p t i s c h orientiert. Sie entsprechen vielmehr — wie vor allem eine m o t i v g e s c h i c h t l i c h e U n t e r s u c h u n g des Bildes von der in W e h e n liegenden S c h w a n g e r e n zeigt — e i n e r in d e r s p ä t j ü d i s c h e n A p o k a l y p t i k selbst w a h r n e h m b a r e n T e n d e n z u n d b e r ü h r e n sich sehr e n g mit b e s t i m m t e n apokalyptischen Ä u ß e r u n g e n , die das Eschaton als u n b e r e c h e n b a r e s , zur b e s t i m m t e n Stunde u n a u f h a l t s a m und z w a n g s l ä u f i g hereinb r e c h e n d e s Ereignis a u s g e b e n " (op. eil., 161). " E s hat z u n ä c h s t den A n s c h e i n , als sei das in V. 1 - 3 Gesagte dureh eine (schriftliche?) A n f r a g e d e r G e m e i n d e m o t i v i e r t . A l l e i n , e i n e g e n a u e r e A n a l y s e d e r S t r u k t u r des A u s s a g e z u s a m m e n h a n g s erweist die Fragwürdigkeit dieser V e r m u t u n g . " (Eschatologische Existenz, 52); also "Es erscheint d a r u m als f r a g w ü r d i g , das in V. 1 ff. Gesagte als Reflex auf eine G e m e i n d e a n f r a g e zu d e n k e n " (op. cit., 54). H a u f e holds the opposite view: " M i t der Mehrzahl der Ausleger ist d a v o n a u s z u g e h e n , d a ß es sich wieder u m eine in der G e m e i n d e aktuelle Fragestellung handelt, von der T i m o t h e u s berichtet h a t " (Erste Thessalonicher, 89). "Ihre eigentlichen Adressaten sind nicht die in V . 1 g e n a n n t e n Brüder, sondern die Vertreter eben j e n e r gnostischen Agitation, welche die G e m e i n d e b e u n r u h i g t . " (Eschatologische Existenz, 83); also: "Dieser auffällige Sachverhalt [statements related materially to 1 Thess 5:2 c o n c e r n i n g G o d ' s eschatological delay, representing r e a s o n i n g that is anti-enthusiastic] bestätigt indirekt die A n n a h m e einer gnostichen Front in 1 Thess 5 : I f f . oder läßt doch w e n i g s t e n s s d i e M ö g l i c h k e i t als d u r c h a u s d i s k u t a b e l e r s c h e i n e n , d a ß es sich bei den eigentlichen A d r e s s a t e n der V. 1 - 3 n i c h t u m G e m e i n d e g l i e d e r handelt, die sich in der vermeintlichen »Sicherheit eines ' N o c h lange n i c h t ' « wiegen, sondern u m P n e u m a t i k e r , die v o r g e b e n , das Heil bereits erlangt zu h a b e n " (op. cit., 1 6 1 - 6 2 ) . "[Es] ist d a r a u f h i n z u w e i s e n , daß V. 5 — für sich g e n o m m e n — "als präzise Darstellung der gnostischen Heilsgewißheit interpretiert w e r d e n " könnte. Es läßt sich nicht bestreiten,

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

179

with gnostics a concept of time that was not a chronological sequence, but existentially immediate, καίρος, not χρόνος. 43 Harnisch considers it as also possible that Paul's polemics could have been aimed at Jewish and Jewish-Christian charismatics who believed that salvation had already been achieved, leading to a discrediting of the church in Thessalonica's expectation of a future parousia of Christ, 44 but generally he favors the conclusion that Paul's reasoning is anti-gnostic. 45 ε. Relationship to a baptismal formula, or other traditions The question whether there is a baptismal formula behind Paul's reasoning became a topic especially in more recent discussion. Harnisch quotes Ernst Fuchs, who raised the question for him, by drawing attention to echoes of traditional baptismal language in 5:4-10. 4 6 In the course of his investigation, this possibility became more certain for Harnisch. 47 Haufe shares this view; 48

43

44

45

46

47

daß Paulus einem Anliegen spezifisch gnostischer Denkweise entspricht, wenn er mit Hilfe der ihm vorgegebenen Tradition den Situationswechsel der Getauften als schon vollzogen pointiert und auf die Gegenwart des Heils abhebt" (Eschatologische Existenz, 130). "Die Wiederknnft ist ζ. B. nicht auf das Jahrtausend der Chiliasten festzulegen; Paulus s p r i c h t n u r v o n i h r e r ' P l ö t z l i c h k e i t ' . Er gibt n i c h t ' c h r o n o l o g i s c h e ' , s o n d e r n ' k a i r o l o g i s c h e ' C h a r a k t e r e . Der K a i r o s stellt auf des M e s s e r s S c h n e i d e , in die Entscheidung" (Eschatologische Existenz, 57). "[Das in 1 Thess 5,2f. Gesagte könnte] durchaus im Blick auf Pneumatiker jüdischer oder judenchristlicher Herkunft entworfen sein, die das Heil als bereits erlangten, unverlierbaren Besitz 'begehen' und im Überschwang der schon erreichten Seligkeit die Parusieerwartung der Gemeinde mißachten und in Mißkredit bringen" (Eschatologische Existenz, 80). Also: "Den V. 9f. liegt eine ältere christliche Bekenntnistradition zugrunde, die vermutlich einer ausschließlich präsentischen Eschatologie Ausdruck gab und das Ereignis der Verherrlichung der Glaubenden bereits im Akt der Taufe als erfüllt ansah" (op. cit., 164-65). "Er teilt zwar, wie der Indikativ 1 Thess 5,4f. zeigt, das gnostische Interesse an der Gegenwart des Heils. Doch korrigiert und präzisiert er die Aussage von der Präsenz des Heils (V. 4f.) sogleich dadurch, daß er dieses Heil — antignostisch — als ein (Wort-)Geschehen interpretiert, welches in der geschichtlichen Existenz auf dem Spiel steht und mit dieser Existenz beantwortet sein will (V. 6 - 8 ) " (Eschatologische Existenz, 140). "E. FUCHS hat wiederholt darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß in dem Text I Thess 5,4-10 traditionelle Taufsprache anklingt: 'Terminologie (vgl. z.B. Gal 3,26f.) und Bekenntnisformel (vgl. Rom 6, 3ff.) weisen von V. 4 an auf die Taufe hin, wie schon die Formel 'in Christus' 4,16 eine Anspielung auf das Getauftsein dieser Gestorbenen und die Formel in 4, 14 eine Vorwegnahme der in 5,10 gewesen war.' Diese Feststellung gibt Anlaß zu der Frage, welche Wendungen, Termini oder Wortkombinationen des Abschnitts 1 Thess 5 , 4 10 sich im einzelnen möglicherweise als Bestandteile einer vorpaulinischen Tauftradition erweisen lassen" (Eschatologische Existenz, 117). ". . . dem Text 1 Thess 5,9f. [liegt] vermutlich ein älteres Taufbekenntnis zugrunde, das Paulus allem Anschein nach durch die Einführung der Antithese in V. 9 theologisch präzisiert und mit Hilfe des Zusatzes είτε γρηγορώμεν είτε καθεύδωμεν (einschließlich des folgenden αμα vor συν) in V. 10b aktualisiert, nämlich auf das Anliegen von 1 Thess 4,13 ff. bezogen hat. Es wird Aufgabe der Interpretation sein, das hinter der paulinischen R e d a k t i o n s t e h e n d e t h e o l o g i s c h e Interesse a u f z u s p ü r e n und g e n a u zu e r f a s s e n " (Eschatologische Existenz, 142. See also op. cit., 130, 161, 162).

180

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Holtz expresses his doubts, arguing that "children of light" is traditional. 49 He considers a complex variety of tradition to have influenced Paul's formulations. 50 The symbol of the thief is probably derived from the Son of Man tradition of Q. 51 Holtz considers the metaphor of weaponry to have its roots in 48

49

"Ob auch die voranstehende Wendung »Söhne des Lichtes« erst ad hoc gebildet ist, muß dagegen als fraglich gelten. Es liegt durchaus nahe, daß der durch Bekehrung und Taufe vollzogene Wechsel schon sehr früh als Schritt aus der Finsternis (der Gottesferne) in das Licht (der Gottesnähe) beschrieben worden ist" (Erste Thessalonicher, 94). "Die erste Fügung (υίοϊ φωτός) ist traditionell; sie ist in der Qumran-Literatur breiter belegt und auch im Neuen Testament sonst bezeugt. Indessen spricht der neutestamentliche Befund nicht dafür, daß »Kinder/Söhne des Lichts« eine verbreitete Bezeichnung für die Glieder der christlichen Gemeinde gewesen ist. Vollends wird kein spezieller Bezug zur Taufe sichtbar. Eher könnte die parakletische Verwendung der Motivgruppierung »Licht — Finsternis« den katechetisehen Einflug von Jesus-Logien wie Mt 5,14.16; Lk 8,16 reflektieren" (Erste Thessalonicher, 220-21); also, after conceding the general importance of baptism in the early church: "Solcher Beurteilung des Verhältnisses von Tradition [the presence of various traditions, see the next footnote] und daraus gebildeter Aussage steht eine andere, neuerdings mit Nachdruck vertretene entgegen, die meint, in 5,4-10 ein von Paulus interpretiertes Fragment sogenannter »vorpaulinischer« Tauftradition nachweisen zu können. Nun ist es natürlich unbestreitbar, daß die Taufe schon für die frühe Gemeinde fundamentale Bedeutung hatte . . . Aber das alles bedeutet noch lange nicht, daß wir es mit der Aufnahme und Bearbeitung einer vorformulierten »Tauftradition« zu tun haben. Davon ist tatsächlich nichts sichtbar" (op. cit., 237).

50

"Der Text erweist sich als ein komplexes Gebilde, das sehr verschiedene Traditionen in sich aufgenommen, miteinander verbunden und in den Dienst der eigenen Aussage gestellt hat.. . . Dieser Gedankenzug, der wesentliche und charakteristische Elemente der paulinischen Theologie zur Grundlage hat, ist weitgehend gestaltet unter Aufnahme traditioneller Elemente" (Erste Thessalonicher, 209-10). He distiguishes Paul's use of tradition in 5 : 4 10 from his usage in 4:13-18: "Waren in 4,13-18 drei Traditionsstücke gleichsam blockweise ü b e r n o m m e n und a u f e i n a n d e r b e z o g e n , dabei aber in K o n t u r und Substanz erkennbar erhalten, so nimmt Paulus hier weit vielfältigere Überlieferung auf und schmilzt sie starker in die eigene Aussage ein" (op. cit., 210). So also Haufe: "In die Gestaltung des Textes sind sehr unterschiedliche Oberlieferungselemente eingeflossen. Uberwiegend stammen sie aus der Welt der Apokalyptik. Anders als 4,13-18 handelt es sich um Motive und Wendungen, die weniger klar abgrenzbar, weil direkter in den Gedankengang eingearbeitet sind. Schon die durch den Artikel definierte Wendung ot χρόνοι και οί καιροί (V. 1) macht den Eindruck einer festen Formulierung" (Erste Thessalonicher, 90), with qualified recognition of baptismal tradition: "Das dualistische Begriffspaar »Licht/Finsternis« (V. 4 f.) hat in der jüdischen und hellenistischen Welt weite Verbreitung gefunden. In seiner personhaften Zuspitzung (»Söhne des Lichtes! der Finsternis«) besitzt es seine nächsten Parallelen in einigen Qumran-Schriften. Die Vermutung liegt nahe, daß es zunächst in die Taufparänese A u f n a h m e fand, an die Paulus hier anknüpft, ohne eine feste Tradition zu zitieren. Ob den V. 9 f. ein vorpaulinisches Taufbekenntnis zugrundeliegt, bleibt unsicher. Das Bild von der geistlichen Waffenrüstung (V. 8) knüpft an Jes 59,17 an, modifiziert aber den Text ganz erheblich, wie denn bei allen Überlieferungselementen zu fragen ist, in welcher Weise sie Paulus selbständig aufgreift und einer eigenen Intention dienstbar macht" (loc. cit.).

51

So Holtz: "Der Überblick über den Gebrauch des Dieb-Bildes im Neuen Testament zeigt die dominante Ausrichtung auf den Gedanken der Unvorhersehbarkeit, so daß es wie ein Kürzel gebraucht werden kann." (Erste Thessalonicher, 212); "Dem Text liegt eine traditionelle Anschauung zugrunde. Sie tritt eindringlich in der (zu »Q« gehörenden) JesusÜberlieferung Mt 24,37-39/Lk 17,26-30 entgegen, (op. cit., 215). Also Haufe "Das Bild,

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

181

Scripture, but wonders whether verses 9-10a have a connection to primitive Christian thought with a Sitz im Leben in baptismal instruction. 52 The call that there is ειρήνη και άσφάλεια reminds of the false prophets in Jer 6:14, cf. 8:11 (not in the LXX) and elsewhere in Scripture. 53 Harnisch and Haufe express awareness that ασφάλεια does not occur in Scripture, 54 which leads Haufe to question whether the expression is based on the biblical text, suggesting an allusion to the Roman formula pax et securitas instead. 55 Harnisch and Holtz express similar reservations: The formulation may be coined with views in Thessalonica in mind. 56 d a ß der T a g des Herrn » w i e ein D i e b « k o m m t (V. 2.4), f i n d e t sich a u c h in der M e n schensohn-Tradition von Q (Lk 12,39 par.) und kehrt später A p k 3,3; 16,15; und 2Petr 3 , 1 0 wieder. Da j ü d i s c h e B e l e g e f e h l e n , d ü r f t e es sich u m ein aus d e r ältesten J e s u s U b e r l i e f e r u n g s t a m m e n d e s Parusie-Motiv handeln. Der Vergleich mit der W e h e der S c h w a n g e r e n (V. 3) ist aus der alttestamentüchen Prophetie in die a p o k a l y p t i s c h e Tradition (Hen 62,1-6; 4 E s r 4 , 4 0 - 4 2 ) übergegangen und wahrscheinlich von d a h e r der urchristlichen E n d z e i t v e r k ü n d i g u n g vertraut" (Erste Thessalonicher, 90). 52

"Das Bild der »geistlichen W a f f e n r u s t u n g « hat seine Wurzel im Alten Testament. Schließlich kann m a n fragen, ob der Satz V V 9.10a zu geprägter urchristlicher Tradition in B e z i e h u n g steht, die ihren Sitz im Leben in der T a u f u n t e r w e i s u n g gehabt h a t " (Erste Thessalonicher, 210).

53

So Harnisch: "In d e m A u s d r u c k ειρήνη και α σ φ ά λ ε ι α scheint p r o p h e t i s c h e Tradition n a c h z u k l i n g e n . Zu v e r w e i s e n ist i n s b e s o n d e r e auf den die P r a x i s der H e i l s p r o p h e t e n kritisierenden Satz Jer 6,14: ' U n d sie heilen den S c h a d e n meines Volkes leichthin, i n d e m sie sagen: Friede, Friede! — Doch w o ist Friede?' (. . . λ έ γ ο ν τ ε ς Ε ι ρ ή ν η και π ο ΰ έ σ τ ι ν ειρήνη; vgl. Jer 8, 11; Εζ 13,10; ferner Mi 3,5; Jer 14,13; 2 8 , 9 ) " (Eschatologische Existenz, 79). Also Holtz: " D i e Parole (ειρήνη και α σ φ ά λ ε ι α ) erinnert an den Ruf der falschen Propheten »Friede, Friede«, obwohl doch kein Friede ist, Jer 6,14; 8,11 (nicht L X X ) , auch E z 1 3 , 1 0 " ( E r s t e Thessalonicher, 2 1 5 ) ; H a u f e : " D i e sie i n s g e s a m t c h a r a k t e r i s i e r e n d e P a r o l e » F r i e d e u n d S i c h e r h e i t « e r i n n e r t an die L o s u n g d e r F a l s c h p r o p h e t e n » F r i e d e , F r i e d e « , o b w o h l d o c h k e i n F r i e d e i s t ( J e r 6 , 1 4 ; 8 , 1 1 ; E z 1 3 , 1 0 ) " (Erste Thessalonicher, 9 3 ) ; and M ü l l e r : " D a s f a l s c h e , i l l u s i o n ä r e S i c h e r h e i t s d e n k e n wird m i t d e r F o r m e l » F r i e d e n und S i c h e r h e i t « (eirene kai a s p h a l e i a ) a u s g e d r ü c k t , die d e m P r o p a g a n d a r u f der Falschpropheten in Jer 6,14; 8,11; 14,13; Ez 13,10; Mi 3,5 e n t s p r i c h t " (Erste und Zweite Thessalonicher, 193).

54

Harnisch: " P a u l u s verstärkt die Pointe dieser (in der prophetischen Tradition bereits kritisch zitierten) Losung, i n d e m er das zweite ειρήνη von Jer 6, 14 (vgl. 8, 11) durch ά σ φ ά λ ε ι α ers e t z t " (Eschatologische Existenz, 79); Haufe: "Allerdings fehlt dort das Stichwort » S i c h e r h e i t « " Erste Thessalonicher, 93).

55

" D a ά σ φ ε ά λ ε ι α in der L X X nie f ü r Q^ltf steht, ist es ganz u n w a h r s c h e i n l i c h , d a ß das W o r t eine Variation f ü r das zweite »Friede« darstellt. Bleibt d a h e r die b e w u ß t e A n l e h n u n g an die Parole der F a l s c h p r o p h e t e n f r a g l i c h , so d r ä n g t sich u m s o m e h r der E i n d r u c k a u f , d a ß Paulus entweder auf ein verbreitetes Schlagwort oder gar a u f die f ü r das P r o g r a m m der frühprinzipalen Zeit typische r ö m i s c h e Formel pax et securitas anspielt" (Erste Thessalonicher, 93).

56

Harnisch: "Ist das traditionelle Schlagwort im vorliegenden Z u s a m m e n h a n g (1 Thess 5,3) a u f s o l c h e K r e i s e g e m ü n z t , w e l c h e d i e N ä h e d e r P a r u s i e b e z w e i f e l n u n d sich in der trügerischen Sicherheit eines ' N o c h lange n i c h t ' wiegen? Oder k e n n z e i c h n e t die Parole an dieser Stelle die Einstellung gnostisch orientierter Enthusiasten, welche das Telos mit d e m A u f s t i e g des P n e u m a - S e l b s t in die h i m m l i s c h e Heimat bereits erreicht zu haben meinen (vgl. 1 Kor 4,8; ferner Phil 3 , 1 2 - 1 5 . 1912) und deren V o l l e n d u n g s b e w u l ß t s e i n (securitas)

182

Christ in the Letters of Paul

ζ. Theology and Christology A number of interpreters consider the passage to be grounded in Pauline theology, 57 the gospel, 58 or Pauline christology. 59 Harnisch is explicit that 1 Thess 5:4-10 is an exposition of the gospel: "[The passage], clearly set apart from what precedes, is an explication of Paul's gospel," 60 the statement in 5:9-10 "brings to expression christian assurance of salvation," 61 and the text of 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 "deserves to be called a doctrine ("Lehrstück") of Pauline theology." 62 Holtz merely states that the passage was grounded in "essential and characteristic elements of Pauline theology," but that in formulating his thoughts Paul made use of "traditional elements." 63 Marxsen 64 ,

57

58

59

60 61 62 63 64

durch den Fortgang der geschichtlichen Zeit ebensowenig tangiert wird wie durch die Erwartung einer angeblich noch ansstehenden Zukunft?" (Eschatologische Existenz, 79-80); Holtz: " Ist die Anlehnung an die Parole der Falschpropheten bewußt, dann tritt die Kritik an der angeführten Losung scharf hervor. Zugleich wird wahrscheinlich, daß sie sich gegen . eine Haltung der Gemeinde selbst richtet" (Erste Thessalonicher, 215). So Harnisch, extending his understanding to include 4:13-18: "Daß der Text 1 Thess 4, 13-5, 11 ein Lehrstück der paulinischen Theologie schlechthin genannt zu werden verdient, das in vielleicht einzigartiger Weise fast alle zentralen Themen der theologischen Reflexion des Apostels anklingen läßt, soll der folgende Interpretationsversuch zeigen" (Eschatologische Existenz, 15). Also Holtz: "Dieser Gedankenzug, der wesentliche und charakteristische Elemente der paulinischen Theologie zur Grundlage hat, ist weitgehend gestaltet unter Aufnahme traditioneller Elemente" (Erste Thessalonicher, 209-10). So Harnisch: "Die Ausführungen des Abschnitts 1 Thess 5,4-10, der durch den Neueinsatz in V. 4 von den vorausliegenden Aussagen deutlich abgesetzt ist, gelten einer Explikation des paulinischen Evangeliums" (Eschatologische Existenz, 162). Again Harnisch, assuming that it is based on a confession: "Das Schwergewicht der folgenden Ausführungen liegt auf dem die paulinische Christologie entfaltenden Satz V. 14. Paulus bindet die Gemeinde an das gemeinsame Glaubensbekenntnis und zeigt durch seine Auslegung des Credo, daß sich der dem Kerygma von Jesu Tod und Auferstehung entsprechende Glaube als Hoffnung für die Toten versteht" (Eschatologische Existenz, 15960); "Im Blick auf das zuvor Gesagte kommt dem christologischen Satz V. 9f. eine doppelte Funktion zu. Wie dargelegt, gilt einerseits, daß Paulus mit der Aussage von V. 9f., die der christlichen Heilsgewißheit Ausdruck verleiht, die vorausgehende Mahnung zur έλπίς σωτηρίας begründet: . . ." (op. cit., 165), and Holtz: "Eine ausgeführte Begründung für den Zusammenhang zwischen dem Sterben Jesu für uns und unserem zukünftigen Leben enthält der Satz nicht. Sie ist in dem »für uns« (ύπέρ ήμών) impliziert. Geht diese Wendung, wie wahrscheinlich, auf die Abendmahlstradition zurück, hinter der schließlich Opfervorstellungen stehen, dann bedarf es zunächst nicht der Auferstehungsaussage, um den Satz evident zu machen" (Erste Thessalonicher, 231); "Der Satz »Jesus ist gestorben und auferstanden« enthält explizit keinerlei soteriologische Aussage, während in den Worten 5,10 »gestorben für uns« der soteriologische Aspekt der bestimmende ist. Die soteriologische Bedeutung des Todes ist allerdings durch die Auferstehung gestiftet, aber es ist eben dieser Tod, der das Heil begründet" (op. cit., 232). See above, footnote 58. See above, footnote 59. See above, footnote 57. See above, footnote 57. "Das drückt Paulus wieder durch zwei Glaubensformeln aus, die er kombiniert: «um unseres Herrn Jesu Christi willen», und: «der für uns gestorben ist» . . ." (Der erste Brief an die Thessaloniker [Zürcher Bibelkommentare; Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 1979] 70).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

183

Haufe 6 5 and Müller 66 understand Paul to have made use of existing confessional statement(s) to express his thoughts in 5:10. η. Faith, hope and love Dibelius assumes that Paul combined the primitive Christian triad, faith, hope and love (cf. 1:3), with the metaphor of weaponry in 5:8 (cf. the fuller use of weaponry in Eph 6:11-17). He points to the combination of faith and love with a single weapon, θώραξ. Paul might have added a third weapon — second in the series — if faith and hope had not already become intimately associated in his thought. According to Dibelius, when one considers the combination of περικεφάλειον with σωτηρία in Is 59:17 and Eph 6:17, Paul probably added έλπίς only for the sake of the triad. 67 A similar understanding is expressed by Oepke, also drawing attention to 1:3.68

65

66

67

68

"Mit der für Paulus geläufigen Formel »durch unseren Herrn Jesus Christus« schließt der Apostel an die Erwählungsaussage eine alte Glaubensformel von dessen Heilstod an. Inwiefern das Sterben Jesu Christi ein Sterben »für uns« ist, wird nicht ausgeführt. Der knappe Hinweis genügt, um deutlich zu machen, warum das verheißene Heil überhaupt mit Jesus Christus zu tun hat" (Erste Thessalonicher, 97). "Hier wird eine urchristliche soteriologisehe Formel übernommen, die in den Paulusbriefen häufig zitiert wird (1 Kor 8,11; 15,3ff; Rom 4,25; 5,6.8; 14,15; 2 Kor 5,14.25)" (Erste und Zweite Thessalonicher, 196). "Zum Bild von der Waffenrüstung vgl. zu Eph 6 l l f r An unserer Stelle ist das wahrscheinlich alte Bild mit der urchristlichen Trias künstlich verbunden s. zu 1 3 ; man merkt das besonders an dem doppelten Genetiv bei θώραξ; Paulus hätte, wenn Glaube und Liebe ihm nicht schon formelhaft zusammengewachsen wären, gewiß ein zweites Waffenstück bei der Liebe genannt (anders Reitzenstein Gött. Nachr. 1917, 141 f.), und auch bei περικεφαλαία scheint, wenn man Is 59 17 Eph 6 Π περικ. (τοϋ) σωτηρίου vergleicht, έλπίς nur der Trias zulieb eingefügt zu sein" (An die Thessalonicher 111, An die Philipper [Handbuch zum Neuen Testament; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1937] 29-30). "Die etwas künstliche Verbindung der beiden Rüstungsstücke "Panzer"und "Helm" mit der Dreiheit "Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung" zeigt, daß diese Trias bereits formelhaft ist (s. zu 1,3)" Die Briefe an die Thessaloniker [NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963] 171).

184

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Harnisch emphasizes Paul's use of the triad to combat enthusiasm, 69 admonishing his readers to an existence in faith, hope and love. 70 Holtz 71 and Haufe 72 also point to Paul's use of the triad as a function of his paraenesis. Θ. The paraenesis of verse 11 An issue in connection with the paraenesis in verse 11 for Harnisch is how παρακαλείς is to be understood, "to console" or "to admonish." He decides in favor of "to admonish." 73 This agrees with the view expressed earlier by von Dobschütz. 74 Harnisch' interpretation was influenced by his understanding that 4:1317 was an argument against agitation of a gnostic type which disturbed the church in Thessalonica, 75 notwithstanding Paul's statement that his readers 69

". . . den ihre Tendenz nach nicht polemisch gefärbten positiven Ausführungen von V. 4 - 8 ist insofern ein Moment der Kritik inhärent, als dort der Indikativ durch den Imperativ antignostisch präzisiert und gegenüber dem Enthusiasmus die Trias von Glaube, Liebe und Hoffnung gelten gemacht wird . . ." (Eschatologische Existenz, 153). 70 Quoting L. Mattern (Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus, Zürich/Stuttgart, 1966, 82), "Paulus mahnt zwar in V. 8 zum christlichen Existieren in Glaube, Liebe und Hoffnung, aber er macht den E m p f a n g des Heils gerade nicht von der Erfüllung der M a h n u n g a b h ä n g i g , s o n d e r n er b e g r ü n d e t d i e M a h n u n g in der B e s t i m m u n g z u m H e i l ! " (Eschatologische Existenz, 165). 71 "Aus der Spannung zwischen der unberechenbaren Zukünftigkeit des Herrentages und dem Sein der Glaubenden schon im Licht des Tages erwächst der Ruf zur Wachsamkeit und Nüchternheit, die sich in Glaube, Liebe und Hoffnung realisieren, VV 5 b - 8 " (Erste Thessalonicher, 209). 72 " D i e so v o r b e r e i t e t e P a r ä n e s e b r i n g e n die V. 6-8: aus der Z u g e h ö r i g k e i t zu d e m Heilsbereich folgt der Ruf zu Wachsamkeit und Nüchternheit, die nicht ohne Glaube, Liebe und Hoffnung denkbar sind" (Erste Thessalonicher, 90). 73 "Wir fragen zunächst nach der Bedeutung von παρακαλεΐν im vorliegenden Zusammenhang. Man schwankt, ob das Verb an dieser Stelle im Sinn von 'trösten' oder eher in dem von 'ermahnen' gebraucht ist. Für die zuerst genannte Bedentung wird auf 4, 13ff. verwiesen. Doch ist dieser Hinweis irreführend, wenn unsere Analyse des Textes zutrifft. Wie gezeigt, gelten die Ausführungen des Abschnitts 4,13-17 nämlich keineswegs dem Trost betrübter Gemeindeglieder, sondern der Auseinandersetzung mit einer die Gemeinde beunruhigenden Agitation gnostischer Provenienz (vgl. insonderheit die polemisch akzentuiert Partie 4 , 1 5 - 1 7 , ferner den ϊνα-Satz 4, 13b, der nach der hier vertretenen Auffassung warnend auf die fatalen Konsequenzen aufmerksan machen will, die das von gnostischer Seite propagierte Denken in paulinischer Sicht mit Notwendigkeit nach sich zieht). Auch im Blick auf die 5,11 unmittelbar vorausliegenden Aussagen von 5,1-10 erscheint es als verfehlt, den Imperativ π α ρ α κ α λ ε ί τ ε α λ λ ή λ ο υ ς im Sinne einer A u f f o r d e r u n g z u m gegenseitigen Gewähren von Trost zu verstehen. . . . Auf Grund dieser Erwägungen scheint es geraten, den Imperativ παρακαλείτε αλλήλους mit der Mehrzahl der Exegeten auf den Akt gegenseitiger m a h n e n d e r Zurechtweisung zu b e z i e h e n " (Eschatologische Existenz, 152-53). 74

"διό ist hier (anders 3,) wie ώστε paränetischen Abschluß einer theoretischen Darlegung vgl II Kor 6 ] 7 Hbr 3 7 u. ö.; παρακαλείτε αλλήλους (= 4 1 8 ) hat hier im Zusammenhang wohl weniger die Bedeutung tröstet, als ermahnet einander (Hbr 3 n : . . .)" (ThessalonicherBriefe, 214). 75 See above, footnote 73.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

185

should not grieve in 4:13, ού θέλομεν δέ ύμάς άγνοεΐν, άδελφοί, περί των κοιμωμένων, ϊνα μή λυπήσθε καθώς και οί λοιποί οί μή έχοντες έλπίδα.. Holtz agrees that the meaning of παρακαλείς in 5:11 is not "console" ("trösten"), but that "admonish" ("ermahnen"), especially Harnisch's "mutual admonishing reprimand," 76 is too strong. 77 He suggests that the readers are encouraged to take up the task which Paul perceived for them with his letter, and to carry it forward among each other. 78 Even though Paul does not bind his readers' mutual encouragement to his words, it is clearly presupposed that the members of the congregation should reassure each other of what he recommended to them. 79 Holtz emphasizes that with δίο in 5:11 the connection with what precedes in verses 1 - 9 is not as firm as the connection established by ώστε in 4:18 with what precedes in 4:13-17. 8 0 He also argues that the reference in 5:10 to what Paul wrote in 4:13-17, suggests that what is written in those verses is also relevant for his call to mutual encouragement in 5:11, but that what is written in 5:1-10 nevertheless remains the main focus. 81 Haufe understands the passage to conclude, similar to 4:18, with the charge "to console" and "to support" each other. 82 He considers this warranted by the fact that the subject matter of 4:13-17 is recalled in 5:1-10. Thus one is justified to translate παρακαλεΐν with "to console," although he does not consider that to exclude a tone of admonition. 83 In our current inquiry we may now begin with 1 Thess 5:9-10 as a test case: οτι ούκ εθετο ή μας ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διά τοΰ κυρίου ή μ ώ ν Ί η σ ο ΰ Χρίστου τοΰ ά π ο θ α ν ό ν τ ο ς ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν , ϊ ν α εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν αμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν. 76 77

See above, footnote 73. " M a n bleibt a m besten bei der Ü b e r s e t z u n g » z u s p r e c h e n « ; j e d e n f a l l s ist hier n i c h t die B e d e u t u n g »trösten« vorherrschend (so Siber, Mit Christus leben 60 A n m . 167) aber a u c h » e r m a h n e n « (so O. S c h m i t z , T h W N T V 7 9 3 A n m . 169; n o c h schärfer H a r n i s c h , Existenz 153; m a h n e n d e r Z u r e c h t w e i s u n g ) ist zu einseitig" (Erste Thessalonicher, 2 3 3 , fn. 495).

78

" D i e A u f g a b e , die er mit s e i n e m Brief an ihnen w a h r n i m m t , soll von ihnen a u f g e n o m m e n und weitergeführt w e r d e n " (Erste Thessalonicher, 233).

79

" A u c h wenn Paulus den gegenseitigen Z u s p r u c h nicht auf seine W o r t e festlegt, ist doch gewiß vorausgesetzt, d a ß die Glieder der G e m e i n d e das einander vergewissern, was ihnen der Apostel zugesagt h a t " (Erste Thessalonicher, 233). " D e r A n s c h l u ß an das V o r a n g e h e n d e (δίο) ist nicht ganz so fest wie der in 4 , 1 8 ( ώ σ τ ε ) " (Erste Thessalonicher, 233).

80 81

" D e r B e z u g in V 10 auf die Aussage von 4 , 1 3 - 1 7 läßt v e r m u t e n , d a ß a u c h diese n o c h wieder in die A u f f o r d e r u n g zur gegenseitigen Paraklese eingeschlossen ist. Es bleibt aber wohl der Inhalt des Abschnitts 5 , 1 - 1 0 im V o r d e r g r u n d " (Erste Thessalonicher, 233).

82

" D e r Abschnitt schließt, ähnlich wie der v o r a n g e g a n g e n e 4,18, m i t der A u f f o r d e r u n g , sich gegenseitig zu trösten und a u f z u r i c h t e n " (Erste Thessalonicher, 90).

83

" D a eben n o c h einmal die T h e m a t i k von 4,13-17 anklang, wird m a n auch hier π α ρ α κ α λ ε ΐ ν mit »trösten« ü b e r s e t z e n d ü r f e n , wobei der e r m a h n e n d e Ton n i c h t a u s g e s c h l o s s e n i s t " (Erste Thessalonicher, 98).

186

Christ in the Letters of Paul

There are a number of levels of meaning in this statement. The meaning Paul conveys to his readers in these two verses is that they should know öxi ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (v. 9ab), and as a result of that, εϊτε γρηγορώμεν είτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν (v. 10b—d). In support of those meanings, Paul argues that the benefits to which they refer were made possible διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ άποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών (νν. 9c-10a), that is, he appeals to a more basic and therefore more general or universal meaning to express his intended meaning. The statement in verse 10a, [διά τοϋ κυρίου ήμών] Ίησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ άποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών, too has at least two levels of meaning. At the deepest level is the bare fact that Christ died, 84 which, as we have seen, could have more than one meaning, for example, according to 1 Cor 1:18 it is foolishness for those who perish, but the power of God for those who are saved, or, according to Gal 3:13 it means that Christ was under a curse because of what is written in Deut 21:23, έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπϊ ξύλου (ν. 13c). In the latter case Paul succeeds in showing that the curse on Christ in itself was multivalent, turning what he himself as a Jew had previously experienced as a scandal into an event through which Jews like him were freed from the curse of the Law by Christ who became cursed under the Law because of his crucifixion, Χριστός ή μ ά ς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ ν ό μ ο υ γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα (v. 13a). In our text, Paul defines the meaning of Christ's death by interpreting it as having taken place ύπέρ ήμών, 85 thus 84

In a different sense, see von Dopschütz: "Christi Heilsmittlerrolle besteht nicht in seinem Tod, aber hängt aufs engste damit zusammen, άποθανόντος stellt den Kreuzesstod ohne weitere Nebengedanken (wie παρεδόθη Rom 4 2 5 Heilstat seitens Gottes, [παρα]δόντος έαυτόν Gal 25 210 Liebestat Christi selbst) einfach dar in seinem Gegensatz zu ζήσωμεν, . . ." (Thessalonicher-Briefe, 2 1 2 - 1 3 ) . He draws attention to the absence of a direct reference to C h r i s t ' s resurrection, but considers it to be implied: ". . . das 2. hinzugehörende Moment, die Auferstehung (vgl. 4 1 4 Rom 4 25 . 8) liegt sowohl in dem Titel κύριος ausgesprochen als in dem folgenden Absichtssatz" (op. cit., 213). So also Harnisch: "Auffällig ist freilich, daß von der Auferweckung Jesu in 1 Thess 5,10 expressis verbis nicht die Rede ist. Man hat diesen Sachverhalt damit erklären wollen, für Paulus sei "sie (sc. die Auferweckung Jesu) offenbar in dem formelhaft abkürzenden τοϋ άποθανόντος ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν mit a n g e z e i g t " und solle "ganz selbstverständlich m i t g e h ö r t w e r d e n " . (Eschatologische Existenz, 151). He refers to von D o b s c h ü t z a p p r o v i n g l y : " D o c h näherliegend dürfte wohl die u. a. durch E. v. DOBSCHÜTZ vorgebrachte Erwägung sein, daß der Gesichtspunkt der Auferweckung Jesu 'sowohl in dem Titel κύριος ausgesprochen als in dem folgenden Absichtssatz' mitgedacht ist" {op. eil., 151-52).

85

See von Dobschütz: "πέρι [he takes this reading] stellt die Nebenbedeutung des Vorteils (ύπέρ) oder der Stellvertretung (άντί) einfach die Beziehung des Todes auf die Christen (d. h. die Gläubigen) fest: der Nutzen folgt erst in Form des ϊνα-Satzes: Chr. ist gestorben, damit sie mit ihm . . . leben" (Thessalonicher-Briefe, 213), and points out that the passage provides no information on the way in which Christ's death provides salvation: "Wieso Christi Tod uns Leben schafft, darüber spricht P. sich hier nicht aus, und wir haben kein Recht in den Satz, der durch seine scharfe Antithese wirken soll, allerlei Mittelglieder einzuschieben: . . ." (loc. cit.)

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

187

providing it with a more specific meaning, avoiding the multivalence of the bare fact of Christ's death. The theological explication of the meaning of Christ's death successively in the two statements in verses 9ab, ότι ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά εις περνποίησιν σωτηρίας, and 1 Ob—d, ϊνα ε'ίτε γρηγορώμεν ε'ίτε καθεύδωμεν αμα σύν αύτω ζήσωμεν, does not exhaust the meaning Paul had in mind with the passage. These two statements appear equally general in meaning, but αμα σύν αύτω ζήσωμεν actually does interpret ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας at a further level of meaning. There is a structural parallel in Rom 5:10 which can help clarify the relationship between these two statements, εί γάρ εχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεφ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωή αύτοΰ. The first part of the verse interprets the meaning of Christ's death as reconciliation with God: εί γάρ έχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεω διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ. In the second part of the verse Paul makes explicit that it is the meaning of that first part, being reconciled with God, which he interprets further with πολλφ μάλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα έν τή ζωή αύτοΰ (v. lOef). Individually, the parallel parts of 1 Thess 5:9-10 and Rom 5:10 are also close in meaning. The question which remains in both cases is what specifically it means to live with Christ, to be saved in his life? In the paraenesis of 1 Thess 5:1-8 and 11, Paul interprets what it means to live with Christ at another more concrete level of meaning. Rom 5:1-11 remains at the level of being saved in the life of Christ. We will consider Rom 5:1-11 in further detail below. For an understanding of what οτι ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (1 Thess 5:9ab), and ϊνα . . . άμα σύν [Χριστώ Ίσοΰ] ζήσωμεν (v. 10b) means, it is not insignificant that these two interconnected benefits of Christ's death come at the end of the paraenesis of 5:111. Paul's admonitions in this section span a wide arch from the coming day of the Lord (vv. 1-2) all the way to the present circumstances of his readers (vv. 3-8). By making use of the image of a thief in the night in verses 1-2, he is able in verses 3 - 8 to turn the expectation of the Lord's coming which lies on a temporal plane in the future into an existential challenge to his readers in the present. Up to that point in 1 Thess 5:1-11 Paul's paraenesis stands on its own. But then, with the reference to Christ's death and the clarification of its meaning as having been ύπέρ ήμών and successively by means of the two clauses in verses 9ab and lOb-d, he places his reasoning in verses 1 - 8 within the framework of Christ's death. In that way the meaning of the statements in verses 9 - 1 0 becomes clear in retrospect. Their meaning lies in their function

188

Christ in the Letters of Paul

as an argument by means of which Paul places his admonitions in verses 1 - 8 within the perspective of Christ's death. He reinforces that function by concluding, διό παρακαλείτε άλλήλους και οικοδομείτε εις τον ένα, καθώς και ποιείτε (ν. 11). The admonitions in verses 1 - 8 and the concluding verse 11 is what Christ's death means for Paul's readers. The wide arch of his admonitions from the day of the Lord in verses 1-2 to the present circumstances of the readers in verses 3 - 8 is mirrored in the move in verses 9-10 from the future oriented first statement of the meaning of Christ's death, οτι ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (v. 9ab), to the present of the believers in the second statement in which Christ's resurrection is not explicitly stated, but presupposed, ϊνα . . . άμα σύν [Χριστώ Ίσοΰ] ζήσωμεν (v. 10b). In that way the related meanings of the two statements reflect the similarly related meanings of life in Christ in verses 1-8. Thus it becomes clear that Paul's purpose in 1 Thess 5:1-11 is not achieved with the exposition of the meaning of Christ's death as having been ύπέρ ήμών, also not by the interpretation of the meaning of that event as assurance of salvation when the day of the Lord comes and of living with him in the present, but at yet another level, retrospectively, when Paul provides his readers with meanings they can understand — the apocalyptic expectation of the coming day of the Lord and admonitions to live a life in preparedness for that day - and then makes it clear to them that those meanings can be understood only within the framework of what it means that Christ died ύπέρ ήμών (v. 10a), mediated by the statements that ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (v. 9ab) and αμα σύν [Χριστώ Ίσοΰ] ζήσωμεν (v. 10b) as clarification of the meaning of Christ's death ύπέρ ήμών, and of his resurrection. At the same time, verses 1 - 8 and 11 also make clear what it means in the lives of P a u l ' s readers that Christ died ϊ ν α είτε γρηγορώμεν είτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτω ζήσωμεν. To summarize, we have established five levels of the meaning of Christ's death in 1 Thess 5:1-11, each with increasing specificity: (i) At the most fundamental level there is the bare fact of Christ's death, Χριστός ό άποθανών (v. 10a). (ii) At a second level Paul interprets the meaning of Christ's death as having been ύπέρ ήμών (still v. 10a), restricting its meaning to beneficence for his readers. (iii) At a further level of meaning, he specifies what that beneficence is: ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (v. 9ab). (iv) At the next level he engages his readers more fully in the meaning of Christ's death: Christ died ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτω ζήσωμεν (ν. 1 Ob—d).

189

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

(v) Finally, the paraenetic context in which he expresses how he expected his readers to live their lives in Christ in the face of the coming end (vv. 1 - 8 and 11) makes clear what the function was for which he intended the christological statements in verses 9-10. It is what he meant when he made those statements. These levels of meaning are presented in the diagram which follows. The highest, most concrete levels are at the left margin; lower, more general levels progressively to the right. Consecutively from the left, levels of meaning are expressed by drawing from those at the right by clarifying their meanings with increased concreteness. 5'περί δέ των χρόνων καί των καιρών, άδελφοί, ού χρείαν έχετε ύ μ ΐ ν γράφεσθαι, 2 αύτοί γάρ άκριβώς οϊδατε οτι ήμέρα κυρίου ώς κλέπτης έν νυκτϊ ούτως έρχεται. 3 οταν λέγωσιν, ειρήνη και ασφάλεια, τότε αιφνίδιος αύτοϊς έφίσταται ολεθρος ώσπερ ή ώδίν τη έν γαστρΐ έχούση, και ού μή έκφύγωσιν. 4 ύμεις δέ, άδελφοί, ούκ έστέ έν σκότει, ϊνα ή ήμέρα ύμάς ώς κλέπτης καταλάβη, 5 πάντες γάρ ύμείς υίοί φωτός έστε καί υιοί ήμέρας. ούκ έσμέν ν υ κ τ ό ς ούδέ σκότους· 6 α ρ α ο ΰ ν μή κ α θ ε ύ δ ω μ ε ν ώ ς οί λοιποί, άλλά γρηγορώμεν καί νήφωμεν. 7 οί γάρ καθεύδοντες νυκτός καθεύδουσιν, καί οί μ ε θ υ σ κ ό μ ε ν ο ι ν υ κ τ ό ς μ ε θ ύ ο υ σ ι ν · 8 ή μ ε ΐ ς δέ ή μ έ ρ α ς ο ν τ ε ς ν ή φ ω μ ε ν , έ ν δ υ σ ά μ ε ν ο ι θ ώ ρ α κ α π ί σ τ ε ω ς καί α γ ά π η ς καί π ε ρ ι κ ε φ α λ α ί α ν έ λ π ί δ α σωτηρίας· 9

οτι ούκ έθετο ή μας ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διά τοΰ κυρίου ή μ ώ ν Ί η σ ο ϋ Χριστού, αποθανόντος

10

τοΰ

ύπέρ ήμών ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν αμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν. "διό παρακαλείτε άλλήλους καί οικοδομείτε είς τόν ένα, καθώς καί ποιείτε. Paul's reasoning in 1 Thess 5:1-11 is not as complex and powerful as what we encountered in 1 Cor 1:10-4:21, but there is an important structural similarity between the two passages in so far as in both of them Paul does not provide his readers with abstract truths about Christ which he then explicates,

190

Christ in the Letters of Paul

but addresses them concretely in their present circumstances, leading them to the point where they are able to recognize the grounding of his reasoning in the Christ event. The emphasis is on Christ's crucifixion in 1 Corinthians, but includes death and (implied) resurrection in 1 Thessalonians, in each case in accordance with what Paul needed to achieve his purpose. Before proceeding further with our investigation, it is worth noting that with Christ's crucifixion we have now established a meaning that is equally fundamental for the believer as what Christ's appearance to Paul had been for him. Christ's appearance to Paul, however, was never expressed as a bare fact, but was loaded with meaning to begin with, and, as we have seen above, continued to generate new meanings. Christ's death as such, on the other hand, was a bare fact which allowed for a wide range of potential meanings. In appealing to that fact for his reasoning at different points in his letters, Paul made clear which meanings he had in mind. Our discussion of 1 Thess 5:1-11 has shown that in this passage Paul's qualifications took place at four levels. At the first of these — (ii) above — he defined the meaning of Christ's death as having been ύπέρ ήμών, which still allowed for a variety of meanings. At the next two levels — (iii) and (iv) above — he defined that meaning more precisely by means of the two statements, respectively, in verses 9ab and 10b. The paraenesis in verses 1 - 8 and 11 — (v) above — for which verses 9-10 function as a christological foundation, express what the christological statements mean in the passage. (ii) Rom 14:1-13 It would be useful to consider another passage to see how the various levels of meaning compare to those in 1 Thess 5:1-11. Rom 14:1-13, which has only four levels of meaning, could serve that purpose because of similarities as well as differences compared with 1 Thess 5:1-11. The most fundamental level of meaning in Rom 14:1-13 is that Christ died and was resurrected, Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν (v. 9a). At a second level, the first level of interpreted meaning, Paul states that the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection was 'ίνα και νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύση (v. 9b). With εις τοϋτο γάρ (ν. 9a), however, he already presented as the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection his statements in verses 7-8, ούδείς . . . ήμών έαυτώ ζη, και ουδείς έ α υ τ ω ά π ο θ ν ή σ κ ε ι · έ ά ν τε γ ά ρ ζ ώ μ ε ν , τ ω κ υ ρ ί ω ζ ώ μ ε ν , έ ά ν τε ά π ο θ ν ή σ κ ω μ ε ν , τ φ κ υ ρ ί ω ά π ο θ ν ή σ κ ο μ ε ν . έ ά ν τε ο ΰ ν ζ ώ μ ε ν έ ά ν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τοΰ κυρίου έσμέν (νν. 7-8).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

191

The phrase εις τοΰτο γάρ in verse 9a establishes a noteworthy relationship between verses 7 - 8 and verse 9b. 86 On the one hand, the phrase refers back to what Paul had just stated in verses 7 - 8 as the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. Verses 7 - 9 a can be taken as syntactically complete. On the other hand, verses 7 - 8 by themselves can also be taken as syntactically complete. In that case είς τοϋτο γάρ (v. 9c) looks forward to ϊνα και νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύση (v. 9b) as the purpose to which it refers. 87 What this reveals is that verse 9c, via verse 9a, is related to verses 7-9, together expressing the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. For an understanding of the grammar of Paul's thought it is important to distinguish between these two expressions of the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. That Christ reigns over the dead and the living (v. 9b) does not automatically mean what Paul wrote in verses 7-8. Paul's intended meaning in verses 7 - 8 is understandable without verse 9b. Christ's reign over the dead and the living expresses a more general truth than what is stated in verses 7-8. Those verses express at a third level of meaning one of the possible results of Christ's reigns over the dead and the living. Paul's intention with the entire verse 9 is

86

87

The function of the phrase in the passage has not received a great deal of attention in the commentaries. Michel and Dunn both take note of the repetition of purpose expressed by εις τοϋτο and ϊνα. According to Michel, "Im Leben und Sterben ist der Glaubende seinem Herrn verantwortlich; er lebt und stirbt im Blick auf Christus. Diese Herrschaft des Christus über Tote und Lebende ist die Folge von Karfreitag und Ostern (V 9). Die Form des Verses betont stark den objectiven Zweck des Heilsgeschehens (είς τοΰτο, ϊνα). Der Herr der Toten und der Lebenden vermag auch Herr über die verschiedenen Gruppen in der römischen Gemeinde zu sein" (Römerbrief 340). Dunn urges: "The doubly emphasized purpose (είς τοΰτο, ϊνα) ought not to be ignored. It is characteristic of Paul's Christology and soteriology that he sees the primary thrust of Christ's death and resurrection as directed toward his becoming lord of all things, including dead as well as living . . ." (Romans 9-16 808). According to Barrett: "It might have been supposed that in vv. 7 f. Paul was speaking of a relation with God enjoyed by all men in virtue of their creation. That this is not so is shown by v. 9: For Christ died and came to life for this very purpose, namely, that he might reign as Lord over both the dead and the living. The slave-lord relationship between the Christian and Christ rests entirely upon the death and resurrection of Jesus, which led to his exaltation and heavenly reign" (The Epistle to the Romans 239^40). The supposition about verses 7 - 8 which Barrett rules out may be what Käsemann had in mind when he wrote: "Die Einleitung είς τοΰτο γάρ schließt in apodiktischer Schärfe jede Ausnahme aus" (An die Römer 356). For all of these scholars Christ's death and resurrection are fundamental, but none of them are concerned about the text-syntactic relationship signified by εις τοΰτο γάρ between verses 7 - 8 and verse 9b. So, for example, in Barrett's translation: "For Christ died and came to life for this very purpose, namely, that he might reign as Lord over both the dead and the living" (The Epistle to the Romans 238). Barrett does not consider Christ's reign over the dead and the living as the sole purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. According to him, Paul refers to Christ's death and resurrection to show that what he wrote in verses 7 - 8 is not "a relation with God enjoyed by all men in virtue of their creation" (loc. cit.).

192

Christ in the Letters of Paul

to provide a foundation for what he wrote in verses 7-9. With that three levels of meaning have been revealed: At the most fundamental level, Christ died and was resurrected (v. 9a), at a second level, he reigns over the dead and the living (v. 9b), and at a third level, accordingly, Paul admonishes his readers not to live for themselves but for Christ (vv. 7-8). What Paul wrote in verses 7-8, however, is still not the final level of what he means with the passage. Verses 7-9 in its entirety function as support for Paul's admonitions in verses 1 - 6 to which he returns in verses 10-13. At a fourth level of meaning these verses express concretely what it means that Christ died and was resurrected (fundamental level), which resulted in his reign over the dead and the living (second level), which in turn has as its result that Paul's readers do not live for themselves but for Christ (third level of meaning). To summarize again, we have established four levels of the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection in Rom 14:1-13: (i) At the fundamental level is the implied bare facts of Christ's death and resurrection, Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν (v. 9b). (ii) At a second level Paul states that the purpose of those facts were ϊνα και νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύση (v. 9c). (iii) In verses 7-8, he states at a third level of meaning what Christ's death and resurrection and his reign over the dead and the living means for his readers. (iv) At a fourth level of meaning, the paraenetic context of verses Ι ό and 10-13 clarify what Christ's death and resurrection means concretely for Paul and his readers. It is the meaning he intended when he made the christological statements as the foundation of his admonitions. These levels of meaning can be presented diagrammatically as follows: 14'τόν δέ άσθενοΰντα τη πίστει προσλαμβάνεσθε, μή είς διακρίσεις διαλογισμών. 2 ος μέν πιστεύει φαγεΐν πάντα, ό δέ άσθενών λάχανα έσθίει. 3 ό έσθίων τον μή έσθίοντα μή έξουθενείτω, ό δέ μή έσθίων τόν έσθίοντα μή κρινέτω, ό θεός γάρ αύτόν προσελάβετο. 4 σύ τίς εί ό κρίνων άλλότριον οίκέτην; τω ίδίφ κυρίω στήκει ή πίπτει- σταθήσεται δέ, δυνατεΐ γάρ ό κύριος στήσαι αύτόν. 5 δς μέν [γάρ] κρίνει ήμέραν παρ' ήμέραν, δς δέ κρίνει πάσαν ήμέραν· έκαστος έν τω ίδίφ νοϊ πληροφορείσθω. 6 ό φρονών τήν ήμέραν κυρίω φρονεί· και ό έσθίων κυρίφ έσθίει, εύχαριστεΐ γάρ τω θεώ· καί ό μή έσθίων κυρίω ούκ έσθίει, και εύχαριστεΐ τω θεώ.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

193

7

ούδεϊς γάρ ήμών έαυτώ ζή, καί ούδείς έαυτώ αποθνήσκει· 8 έάν τε γάρ ζώμεν, τω κυρίω ζώμεν, έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τω κυρίω άποθνήςκομεν. έάν τε ούν ζώμεν έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τοΰ κυρίου έσμέν. 9 είς τοΰτο γάρ Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν ϊνα και νεκρών καϊ ζώντων κυρίευση. 10

σύ δέ τί κρίνεις τόν άδελφόν σου; ή και σύ τί έξουθενεΐς τόν άδελφόν σου; πάντες γάρ παραστησόμεθα τω βήματι τοΰ θεοΰ· "γέγραπται γάρ, ζω έγώ, λέγει κύριος, ότι έμοϊ κάμψει πάν γόνυ και πασα γλώσσα έξομολογήσεται τω θεώ. |2 αρα [ούν] έκαστος ήμών περί έαυτοΰ λόγον δώσει [τω θεώ], 13 μηκέτι οΰν άλλήλους κρίνωμεν· άλλά τοΰτο κρίνατε μάλλον, τό μή τιθέναι πρόςκομμα τω άδελφφ ή σκάνδαλον. b. A model of possible levels of meaning If one compares the levels of meaning in 1 Thess 5:1-11 and Rom 14:1-13 it is easy to recognize that the first level of potential meaning in the 1 Thessalonians passage is equivalent to the first level in the Romans passage: διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ, τοΰ άποθανόντος (1 Thess 5:9c-10a) and Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν (Rom 14:9b). The final levels of meaning are obviously also equivalent. In both passages the meaning Paul conveys with his christological statements is that his readers should behave in the way he admonishes them in 1 Thess 5:1-8 and 11 and Rom 14:1-6 and 10-13, for which the christological statements function as foundations. The situation with regard to the intermediary levels is more complicated. There is no equivalent in the Romans passage for the second level of meaning in 1 Thess 5:10a that Christ died ύπέρ ήμών. The fourth level of meaning in 1 Thess 5:10b-e is easily recognizable as equivalent to the more extensive third level of Rom 14:7-8, especially since these statements are also synonymous in meaning, life in Christ. What identifies them as fourth and third levels, respectively, is that they express more specific meanings of Christ's death — and resurrection in the Romans passage — than the still more general ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας of 1 Thess 5:9ab and ϊνα [Χριστός] . . . νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύση of Rom 14:9c, but less specific than what Paul expresses in his admonitions which clarify what

194

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Christ's death means concretely-paraenetically in the lives of his readers. The fact that this fourth-third level of meaning comes before the statement of Christ's death in the Thessalonians passage and after the statement of Christ's death and resurrection in the Romans passage is of no significance for the way in which they function in the structures of the passages. What I have identified as the third level of meaning in 1 Thess 5:3ab and the second level in Rom 14:9c express rather different meanings. The most significant difference as far as the levels of meaning are concerned is that 1 Thess 5:3ab mentions the situation in which Paul and his readers find themselves, whereas Rom 14:9c concerns Christ's reign. Nevertheless, the relationship between the third and fourth levels of meaning in the Thessalonians passage is the same as that between the second and third in Romans: In the Thessalonians passage, the fact that ούκ εθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας means, via the statement of Christ's death, that εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αϋτώ ζήσωμεν. In the case of the Romans passage, the fact that έάν . . . ζώμεν έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τοϋ κυρίου έσμέν (to summarize the third level of meaning in verses 7 - 8 ) is what it means for Paul's readers, via the statement of Christ death and resurrection, that Χριστός νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύει. The question is whether that justifies considering the levels of meaning in 1 Thess 5:3ab and Rom 14:9c as equivalent. The fact that Paul and his readers are specifically mentioned in 1 Thess 5:3ab seems to suggest that its level of meaning is more specific than Rom 14:9c where only Christ's reign is mentioned. The fact that Christ died and was raised ϊνα και νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύση in Rom 14:9c, however, clearly expresses as much a condition in which Paul and his readers find themselves as does the fact that ούκ εθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας in 1 Thess 5:9ab. The meanings of the two passages are not the same, but they fill the same slots in the text-syntactical structure of the two passages, similar to the verbs "to sprint" and "to perspire" in the sentences, "The athlete sprints" and, "The athlete perspires," mentioned earlier. As a next step we can use the five levels of meaning in 1 Thess 5:1-11 as a model for reading the various expressions of the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection, by adapting the levels of meaning of the individual texts to this model. In the case of Rom 14:1-13, for example, it would mean moving only, είς τοϋτο γάρ Χριστός άπέθανεν καί έζησεν (v. 9a), one step to the right to the same location as the fundamental level in 1 Thess 5:1-11, leaving the second level — Christ's death as beneficent — without an entry in the Ro-

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

195

mans passage. B e f o r e applying this model to other texts it would be worthwhile to consider the level of meaning represented by the phrase ύπέρ ήμών in an excursus.

196

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Excursus: Christ's death υπέρ ημών There are two distinguishable groups of texts in which Paul restricts the meaning Christ's death by means of ύπέρ ήμών and similar phrases: The first is where ύπέρ ήμών and similar phrases occur without further qualification, which allows for a range of meanings. In the second group, ύπέρ ήμών and similar phrases themselves provide for a more specific meaning, for example, in the qualified phrase ύπέρ τών αμαρτιών ήμών, as in the tradition Paul quotes in 1 Cor 15:3c-7. (i) In addition to 1 Thess 5:9-10, ύπέρ ήμών and similar phrases without qualification occur in the following two texts: εις ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν, άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον· και ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν, ϊνα οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοΐς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι και έγερθέντι (2 Cor 5:14c—15). ος γε τοΰ ιδίου υιού ούκ έφείσατο άλλά ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν, πώς ούχί και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; (Rom 8:32) In 2 Cor 5:14c—15 Paul interprets the meaning of Christ's death ύπέρ πάντων in successive statements in verses 14d and 15bc, άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον and ϊνα οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοϊς ζώσιν άλλά τώ ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι και έγερθέντι. In Rom 8:32 the meaning remains vague, general. Even though verse 32c engages the readers, it does so in a general way, σύν αύτφ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται, without any indication of what it is with which they will be favored, unlike in 2 Cor 5:14c and 15bc where it is made clear to Paul's Corinthian readers that the purpose of Christ's having died ύπέρ πάντων is that οί πάντες άπέθανον as a result of which οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοΐς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι και έγερθέντι. Rom 8:32 remains vague, general, even with the variety of further meanings with which Paul prepared for it in the preceding verse 31, and in verses 33-39 which follow it. (ii) A transition from the unqualified to the qualified meaning of the ύπέρ phrases is represented by Rom 5:6-8: έτιγάρ Χριστός όντων ήμών άσθενών έτι κατά καιρόν ύπέρ άσεβών άπέθανεν. . . . συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην εις ημάς ό θεός, δτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν. 88 88

"Paulus hat allerdings seine Gedanken nicht präzis formuliert. 6 ist ihm aus den Fugen geraten" Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2., druchgesehene Auflage, 1974) 127. "In den genitivus absolutus έτι γαρ Χριστός όντων ήμών άσθενών ist das Subjekt des Hauptsatzes: Χριστός, vorgreifend eingeschoben. So ergibt sich bereits innerhalb des genitivus absolutus die Spannung, die der ganze Satz ausdrückt: »Noch als wir schwach

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

197

In verse 8 ύπέρ ήμών is unqualified, but the immediate textual context clarifies its meaning as Christ having died for the readers έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών. It is the same meaning as the qualified ύπέρ άσεβων in verse 6, where the meaning is that Christ died for sinners which the believers were at the time. The meaning of Christ's death in both cases is that he died for the sins of believers. In verse 6, the qualified ύπέρ phrase, ύπέρ άσεβων, itself already provides that meaning, similar to the meaning expressed with the qualification of the believers as έτι άμαρτωλών όντων in verse 8. (iii) The ύπέρ phrase with the same qualified meaning as in Rom 5:6 occurs in four further texts: First the already mentioned 1 Cor 15:3c: [παρέδωκα γάρ ύ μ ί ν έν πρώτοις, ο και παρέλαβον, οτι] Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς άπέθανεν ύπέρ τών αμαρτιών ήμών . . . Here the meaning is explicit: Christ died ύπέρ τών αμαρτιών ήμών. It is not possible to establish with certainty whether the phrase was part of the confession which Paul quotes, or whether he added it himself. 89 Whatever the case may be, Rom 5:6-8, quoted above, reveals that he appropriated that meaning in his own thinking. In the next text Christ's death is not explicitly mentioned: τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτώ (2 Cor 5:21). Even though Christ's death is not explicitly mentioned, that he was "made sin" could only refer to his death on the cross.

89

waren, ist Christ für (uns) gestorben.«" Ulrich Wilkens, Der Brief and die Römer (Rom 15) (EKK VI/1; Köln: Benzier / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2., verbesserte Auflage, 1987) 295. If it was part of the confession, it could be from such a confessional formula that Paul obtained the meaning. On the other hand, even though he does not refer to Christ's crucifixion ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών in his reasoning in 1 Cor 15:12-19, the critical idea in verse 17 is the forgiveness of sins, suggesting that he could have introduced the phrase in connection with Christ's death in the confession in order to appeal to it in connection with Christ's resurrection in verse 17, because that is the argument he needed for his reasoning. The meaning he has in mind with the quotation of the tradition in verses 3 c - 5 is not Christ's death ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών, but that he was resurrected. Thus, in verse 17 he makes use of ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών, which is related to Christ's death in the confession as he quotes it, but relates it to Christ's resurrection as part of his reasoning to prove the reality of a general resurrection of the dead. It is of course possible to argue that in Paul's mind, Christ's death ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών could not have been effective without God having raised him from the dead, which is undoubtedly true in the overall structure of his thinking. That, however, is not what is involved in his reasoning in 1 Cor 15 where he does not rely on general truths about Christ's death and resurrection, but on a confession which he assumes is accepted by his readers, and for that reason can provide him with a convincing basis for his reasoning.

198

Christ in the Letters of Paul

One is reminded of Gal 3:13, the third text, where Christ's death on the cross is explicitly mentioned, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας του νόμου γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα, οτι γέγραπται, έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπϊ ξύλου. The final text in which the qualified ύπέρ phrase occurs is also in a confession: [τοις πιστεύουσιν έπί τον έγείραντα Ί η σ ο ΰ ν τόν κύριον ή μ ώ ν έκ νεκρών,] ος παρεδόθη διά τά παραπτώματα ήμών καν ήγέρθη διά τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών (Rom 4:25). In this case the preposition is διά, but the meaning is the same: Christ died for the believers' sins. There can be little doubt here that the phrase is part of the confession, revealing that the meaning that Christ died for the believers' sins was a part of a church tradition which Paul quoted and from which he could have drawn this meaning in his own thinking. In the confession the qualifying phrase is repeated, interpreting Christ's resurrection as having been διά τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών, which we will discuss further below. Summary In addition to the way Paul confronted his readers with the meaning of Christ's death in his reasoning in 1 Cor 1 - 4 and Gal 3:1-5, and Christ's resurrection in 1 Cor 15:12-18, we have now come across the following meanings in texts in which Paul uses ύπέρ ήμών and related phrases: Apart from the general meaning of ύπέρ ήμών πάντων in Rom 8:32, interpreted vaguely as σύν αύτω τά πάντα ή μ ΐ ν χαρίσεται, we have found two distinguishable meanings that are more precise: (i) The meaning of Christ's death is that believers died through him (2 Cor 5:14d); they no longer live their own lives, but participate in the life of Christ (1 Thess 5:9-10 and 2 Cor 5:15). The level of meaning of the second of these expressions is more precise than the first. Dying with Christ does not necessarily mean to participate in his life. The fact that Paul has to argue in 1 Corinthians 15 that that is indeed the case makes it clear that other views, even if mistaken, are also possible. (ii) Christ's death was for the redemption of the sins of the believers (1 Cor 15:3c; Rom 4:25c and 5:6-8). This includes the related meaning of his having been resurrected for their justification (Rom 4:25b).

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

199

c. The meaning of Christ's Death, Resurrection and Parousia (i) Dying with Christ and living in him A large number of texts express the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection in terms of believers dying with Christ and/or having a new life in him. I do not include 2 Cor 4:10 and 13:4, which also refer to life in Christ, because they concern specifically Paul himself. They were discussed above in Part One on "The meaning of Christ for Paul personally." The following additional texts express the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection in terms of the gift of life. νυνί δέ Χριστός έγήγερται έκ νεκρών άπαρχή των κεκοιμημένων. έπειδή γάρ δι' άνθρωπου θάνατος, και δι' άνθρώπου άνάστασις νεκρών, ώσπερ γάρ έν τω 'Αδάμ πάντες άποθνήσκουσιν, οΰτως και έν τω Χριστώ πάντες ζωοποιηθήσονται (1 Cor 15:20-22), which is part of the textual unit 1 Cor 15:12-23. ώστε εϊ τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις· τά άρχαΐα παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά (2 Cor 5:17), which is part of the textual unit 2 Cor 5:11-6:10). (This text should be considered here even though it has no explicit reference to life in Christ.) εί γάρ έχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοϋ θανάτου τοϋ υίοϋ αύτοΰ, πολλώ μάλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωή αύτοΰ (Rom 5:10), which is part of the textual unit Rom 4:23-5:11. ή άγνοεΐτε οτι, δσοι έβαπτίσθημεν εις Χριστόν Ίησοΰν, εις τόν θάνατον αύτοϋ έβαπτίσθημεν; συνετάφημεν ούν αύτώ διά του βαπτίσματος είς τον θάνατον, ϊνα ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοΰ πατρός, οϋτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν. εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοΰ, άλλά και της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα- τοΰτο γινώσκοντες οτι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ϊ ν α καταργηθή τό σώμα της άμαρτίας, τοΰ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τή άμαρτία· ό γάρ άποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό τής άμαρτίας. εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, πιστεύομεν οτι και συζήσομεν αύτώ, είδότες οτι Χριστός εγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει, δ γάρ άπέθανεν, τή άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζή, ζή τφ θεώ. οϋτως και ύμείς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τή άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεφ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (Rom 6:311), which is part of the textual unit Rom 6:1-14.

200

Christ in the Letters of Paul

είς τοϋτο γάρ Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν, ϊνα και νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύση (Rom 14:9), which is part of the textual unit Rom 14:1-13. In order to have before us the complete list of texts that express the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection as dying with him and having a new life in him, I repeat the earlier two texts as well: οτι ούκ έθετο ή μας ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίηση/ σωτηρίας διά τοΰ κυρίου ημών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ άποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών, ϊνα ε'ΐτε γρηγορώμεν ε'ίτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν (1 Thess 5:9-10), which is part of the textual unit 5:1-11. εις ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν, άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον· καί ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν, ϊνα οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοΐς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι καί έγερθέντι (2 Cor 5:14c—15), which is part of the textual unit 2 Cor 5:11-6:10. Two of the texts from the list above reveal an almost imperceptible transition in Paul's mind from the life believers will receive in the future at Christ's parousia to life with him in the present. In the highly apocalyptic textual context of 1 Thess 5:1-11, Paul moves from a reference to God's final judgment, οτι ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστού τοΰ άποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών (νν. 9-10a), to the present of the Thessalonians' life in Christ, ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν αμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν (v. 10b-d). Similarly, in a reverse order, in Rom 6:4b-5, ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών . . . οϋτως καί ήμεϊς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4b and d) — which obviously refers to what Paul expects of his readers in the present — is followed by an expression which evidently refers to the future resurrection of believers, εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοΰ, άλλά καί της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα (Rom 6:5). We may thus conclude that life in Christ existentially in the present and apocalyptically in the future were not always distinguished in Paul's thinking. Rom 5:10 too clearly refers to the future, σωθησόμεθα έν τή ζωή αύτοΰ, which is reaffirmed by the parallel σωθησόμεθα δι' αύτοΰ άπό τής όργής in the preceding verse 9. These verses are part of a complex passage from the point of view of this investigation, including verses 6-8, quoted above in connection with ύπέρ ήμών and similar phrases. As will become clear below, the passage extends from4:23 to 5:11.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

201

(ii) Christ's death and resurrection as liberation from sin In the second part of Rom 6:3-11, in addition to expressing the meaning of life in Christ (v. 8), Paul also expresses the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection as liberation from sin (v. 11): τοΰτο γινώσκοντες οτι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ϊνα καταργηθή τό σώμα της άμαρτίας, τοϋ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμας τη άμαρτία· ö γάρ άπέθανεν, τή άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ- ö δέ ζη, ζή τω θεώ. οϋτως καϊ ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεώ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (Rom 6:6-11), which is part of the textual unit Rom 6:1-14. This passage reveals how Paul was able to coordinate the meanings of dying with Christ and having a new life in him with the liberation from sin. This coordination may not have taken place beforehand at an abstract level in his mind, but as a function of his reasoning in Rom 6 in which both Christ dying for the sins of believers and the new life in Christ are central to his admonitions. The following two texts also express the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection as the liberation from sin: εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών (1 Cor 15:17, which is part of the textual unit 1 Cor 15:12-23). τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοϋ έν αύτφ (2 Cor 5:21), which is part of the textual unit 2 Cor 5:11-6:10. To these we can again add the three earlier ύπέρ/δία ήμών texts which also express the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection as the liberation from sin: παρέδωκα γάρ ύμΐν έν πρώτοις, ö και παρέλαβον, οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύ π έ ρ τών άμαρτιών ή μ ώ ν κατά τάς γραφάς και οτι έτάφη και οτι έγήγερται τή ήμέρα τή τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς (1 Cor 1 5 : 3 ^ ) , which is part of the textual unit 1 Cor 15:3-8. [Ίησοΰς ό κύριος ήμών], ος παρεδόθη δια τά παραπτώματα ήμών και ήγέρθη δια τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών (Rom 4:25), which is part of the textual unit Rom 4:23-5:11. έτι γάρ Χριστός όντων ήμών άσθενών έτι κατά καιρόν ύπέρ άσεβων άπέθανεν. . . . συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην εις ήμας ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών δντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν (Rom 5:6-8), which is also part of the textual unit Rom 4:23-5:11.

202

Christ in the Letters of Paul

(iii) Other benefits from Christ's death, resurrection and parousia For the sake of having a complete list of the relevant texts concerning Christ's death, resurrection and parousia we should add the following four: άναμένειν τόν υίόν αύτοϋ έκ των ουρανών, δν ήγειρεν έκ [των] νεκρών, Ίησοΰν τόν ρυόμενον ήμάς έκ της όργής της έρχομένης (1 Thess 1:10), which is part of the textual unit 1 Thess 1:6-10 ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (Gal 3:1), which is part of the textual unit Gal 3:1-5, to which we have already given attention above in a different context, Paul's earlier preaching as foundation for his reasoning. Χριστός ήμας έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοϋ νόμου γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα, οτι γέγραπται· έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπϊ ξύλου (Gal 3:13), which is part of the textual unit Gal 3:6-14 ος γε τοΰ ιδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο άλλά ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν, πώς ούχϊ και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμίν χαρίσεται; (Rom 8:32), which is part of the textual unit Rom 8:31-39 To summarize, the following texts bring to expression the meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia for the believer: 1 Thess 1:6-10; 1 Thess 5:1-11; 1 Cor 1:4-4:21; 1 Cor 15:3c-8; 1 Cor 15:12-23; 2 Cor 5:1 Ι ό: 10; Gal 3:1-5; Gal 3:6-14; Rom 4:23-5:11; Rom 6:1-14; Rom 8:31-39; and Rom 14:1-13. For an overview, the "Appendix" at the end of this study provides a complete list of the texts in which Paul refers to Christ's death, resurrection and parousia in the order in which they appear in the Pauline corpus. Reading those texts together one can get a good impression of the christological basis on which Paul based his reasoning. However, as the investigation of these texts below will make clear, it would be a mistake to think that one can learn what Christ's death, resurrection and parousia means for Paul by such a reading. In each case Paul brings out a different meaning of Christ, depending on the issue he addresses. Christ's death, resurrection and parousia do not have single meanings, but are multivalent, as we know well, for example, from Paul's own statements about Christ's death in 1 Cor 1:23-24. Those meanings do not have to be as contradictory as Paul presents it in 1 Cor 1:23-24, but Paul himself draws on a wide range of possible meanings in the use he makes of these fundamental facts in his reasoning. I do not believe that it is possible to draw out a system of meanings from Paul's expressions based on Christ's death, resurrection and parousia. The

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

203

only clear relationship between the variety of his expressions are their common grounding in the fundamental facts. That is what constitutes the richness of Paul's understanding of Christ, a richness that would become confined by any attempt to draw out a common structure of meaning from the individual expressions. Such a structure of meaning would inevitably restrain the breadth and power of the individual meanings. Paul continually discovers new meanings of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and parousia as he relates these fundamental facts to issues with which he finds himself confronted in relationship to his readers. Our task as we continue this investigation will be to try and discern the variety and vitality of meanings Paul expresses in this way. 3. Levels of the meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia in Paul Our task now is to investigate the remaining texts that refer to Christ's death, resurrection and parousia making use of the model of five levels of meaning we established in 1 Thess 5:1-11 and tested on Rom 14:1-13. a. 1 Thess 1:6-10 6

και ύμεϊς μιμηταί ημών έγενήθητε και τοϋ κυρίου, δεξάμενοι τον λόγον έν θλίψει πολλή μετά χαράς πνεύματος άγίου, 7 ώστε γενέσθαι ύμάς τύπον πάσιν τοις πιστεύουσιν έν τη Μακεδονία καί έν τη Άχα'ία. 8 άφ' ύμών γάρ έξήχηται ό λόγος τοϋ κυρίου ού μόνον έν τη Μακεδονία καί [έν τη] Άχα'ία, άλλ' έν παντί τόπω ή πίστις ύμών ή πρός τόν θεόν έξελήλυθεν, ώστε μή χρείαν έχειν ήμάς λαλεϊν τι. 9 α ύ τ ο ϊ γάρ περί ή μ ώ ν άπαγγέλλουσιν οποίαν ε'ίσοδον έσχομεν πρός ύμάς, καί πώς έπεστρέψατε πρός τόν θεόν άπό τών ειδώλων δουλεύειν θεώ ζώντι καί άληθινω (1 Thess 1:6-9) 10

καί άναμένειν τόν υίόν αύτοϋ έκ τών ούρανών, (1 Thess 1:10a) öv ήγειρεν έκ [τών] νεκρών, Ίησοϋν (1 Thess 1:10b) τόν ρυόμενον ήμάς έκ της όργής της έρχομένης (1 Thess 1:10c).

The function of Paul's christological statements in 1 Thess 1:10 is to lend support for his praise of the Thessalonians in verses 6-9. 9 0 He places his expression of support within their expectation of Christ's parousia (v. 10a),

204

Christ in the Letters of Paul

whom God raised from the dead (v. 10b), and who wrested them from the coming wrath (v. 10c). In this text there is not a second level of meaning; nei-

90

Willi Marxsen recognizes that Paul grounds his reasoning christologically: "Dieser Wandel der Christen hat seinen Grund in der Christologie, die man in einer Kurzformel so ausdrücken kann: Der Erhöhte bleibt der Gekreuzigte. Von diesem «Bild» des Kyrios sind die Christen geprägt" (Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher [Zürcher Bibelkommentare; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979] 39), but he points out: "Expressis verbis begegnet der in dieser Richtung entfaltete christologische Aspekt im 1. Thess. nur ganz selten (5,10; ähnlich 4,14). Das hängt damit zusammen, daß Paulus nicht bei Aussagen über die Lehre einsetzt, sondern beim Wandel. Er fragt, von woher dieser Wandel geprägt ist. Das führt ihn dann (gelegentlich) zu so etwas wie Lehraussagen, die sich an unserer Stelle freilich auf einen einzigen Begriff beschranken: Kyrios, der dann l , 9 b - 1 0 ein wenig weitergeführt wird" (loc. cit.). When he gets to verse 9b—10, however, he introduces the following insightful reservation: "Zum erstenmal kommt der Apostel auf so etwas wie «Lehre» zu sprechen. Man könnte den Eindruck gewinnen, daß er hier Inhalte seiner Missionsverkündigung wiederholt. Daß das (zumindest unmittelbar) nicht der Fall ist, wurde bereits früher begründet (vgl. S. 17ff.). Zwei weitere Argumente sprechen dagegen. Einmal ist auf das Gefalle der bisherigen Gedankenführung zu verweisen. Hätte Paulus V. 6 den Weg der Thessalonicher als einen vom Kyrios geprägten Weg interpretiert, dann wird genau das hier weiter entfaltet. Der Apostel will mit diesen Versen also nicht eigentlich einen Ausgangsp u n k t b e s c h r e i b e n , der dann K o n s e q u e n z e n hatte, sondern P a u t u s hat j a bei den «Konsequenzen» eingesetzt und führt die nun auf ihr Woher zurück" (op. cit., 40). These observations agree to a remarkable degree with the findings of the present study. Traugott Holtz, on the other hand, does not move beyond a discussion of what is considered a traditional christological fomulation: "Dabei wird sie häufig aus dem vorliegenden Zusammenhang gelöst und als ein Zitat angesehen, das Paulus hier eingefügt habe. Und zwar soll sie eine summarisch-kurze Zusammenfassung der ersten Missionsverkündigung (sein), wie sie neu entstandenen Gemeinden bzw. gerade >bekehrten< Christen als erste Uberlieferung übergeben zu werden pflegte», und zwar »nach ihrem Inhalt und der Reihenfolge ihrer Topoi«" (Erste Thessalonicher, 54, cf. 55-7). He concludes: "Gelingt es . . . nicht, die Satze V 9b. 10 als im ganzen übernommene und zitierte Tradition zu erweisen und damit in einen bestimmten Deutungshorizont einzustellen, so artikuliert sich in solchen Versuchen doch das zutreffende Empfinden, daß Formulierungen vorliegen, die sich n u r s c h w e r in die g e w o h n t e Redeweise des Paulus e i n o r d n e n lassen. T a t s a c h l i c h beansprucht der Apostel, die Kundgabe anderer zu reproduzieren. Natürlich zitiert er nicht direkt. Es ist die Wiedergabe eines allgemeinen Wissens, aber die paulinische Zusammenfassung dessen will doch nur das aufnehmen, was andere sagen. Von der Art der Aussage her ist also damit zu rechnen, daß Sprach- und Vorstellungsmaterial in ihr aufgenommen ist, das nicht auf den spezifischen Sprachgebrauch des Paulus zurückgeht, sondern das weiterer, gleichsam ökumenischer Herkunft ist" (op. cit., 57). He concludes: "Die Einzelformulierungen unseres Satzes berechtigen trotz ihrer deutlichen Traditionalität mithin nicht, ihn einer Paulus vorgeformt zugekommenen Tradition zuzusprechen. Denn es wird kein Traditionsort sichtbar, an dem sich die Aussagen einigermaßen geschlossen ansiedeln ließen" (op. cit., 60). Günter Haufe essentially confirms Holtz reservations, but does not move beyond them: "Das alles ist offensichtlich weitgehend gemeinchristlich formuliert und enthält jedenfalls noch keine Spezifika paulinischer Theologie. Geht man davon aus, daß mit alledem die tatsächliche Missionspredigt thematisch keinesfalls vollständig angesprochen ist, darf man umgekehrt die getroffene Auswahl als für den brieflichen Zweck bedeutsam ansehen. Der dankbare Rückblick kehrt an seinem ersten Höhepunkt mit Bedacht zum Ausgangspunkt des v o r b i l d l i c h e n Christenstandes der Thessalonicher zurück" (Erste Thessalonicher, 30).

The Meaning o f Christ for the Believer

205

ther could there be since Paul does not refer to Christ's death, the meaning of which he could have restricted to its beneficence by means of ύπέρ ήμών, but to his resurrection. Christ having wrenched Paul and his readers from the coming wrath is more specific than mere beneficence as expressed by means of an unqualified ύπέρ ήμών, which places verse 10c, τόν ρυόμενον ήμάς έκ της όργής της έρχομένης, on the third level of the meaning of, in this case, Christ's resurrection, öv ήγειρεν έκ των νεκρών (v. 10b), the first level of meaning. Being wrenched from the coming wrath is on the same level as the third level of meaning of 1 Thess 5:9ab, ούκ εθετο ήμάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας. Apart from representing the same level of meaning, the two expressions are also synonymous. That the Thessalonians awaited the parousia of God's son from heaven, άναμένειν τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έκ των ουρανών (v. 10a), is more specific with regard to Paul's praise of his readers than Christ's wrenching them from the coming wrath. It is Christ who wrenched them from the coming wrath, τόν ρυόμενον ήμάς έκ της όργής τής έρχομένης (v. 10c), — third level — whom they await from heaven, άναμένειν τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έκ των ούρανών (v. 10a), — fourth level. Unlike the paraenesis of 1 Thess 5 : 1 - 8 and 11 and Rom 14:1-6, lOab and 12-13, the christological statements in 1 Thess 1:10 serve as a foundation for Paul's praise o f the Thessalonians at a fifth level of meaning. In that regard a different meaning fills the fifth level slot in 1 Thess 1:6-9, compared with 1 Thess 5 : 1 - 1 1 and Rom 1 4 : 1 - 1 3 . The christological grounding o f Paul' s praise, however, has the effect of giving it too a paraenetic flavor, preventing the Thessalonians from becoming boastful. It reminds of Paul's restraint of his own boasting in 1 Cor 15:10c, περισσότερον αύτών πάντων έκοπίασα, by qualifying it as a product of God's kindness, ούκ έγώ δέ άλλά ή χάρις τοΰ θεοϋ [ή] σύν έμοί. The next text expressing the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection is 1 Thess 5 : 1 - 1 1 which we already discussed above and from which we derived our model of five levels of meaning. 1 Cor 1:4-4:21, discussed extensively above, is too complex to fit into the model of levels of meaning. Thus we can now move on to the next two texts, 1 Cor 15:3c-8 and 12-23, which I already discussed partially above in connection with Paul's earlier preaching,91 but will now reconsider in the context of the schema of the levels of meaning:

91

Above, pp. 1 5 5 - 1 6 2 .

206

Christ in the Letters of Paul

b. 1 Cor 15:3c-8 3

οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν . . . κατά τάς γραφάς (1 Cor 15:3c) ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών (1 Cor 15:3c) 4

καί οτι έτάφη καί οτι έγήγερται τη ή μέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς 5 καί οτι ώφθη Κηφά είτα τοις δώδεκα· 6 έπειτα ώφθη έπάνω πεντακοσίοις άδελφοΐς έφάπαξ, έξ ών οί πλείονες μένουσα έως άρτι, τινές δέ έκοιμήθησαν· 'έπειτα ώφθη Ίακώβω εϊτα τοις άποστόλοις πάσιν· 8 έσχατον δέ πάντων ώσπερεΐ τω έκτρώματι ώφθη καμοί (1 Cor 15:4-8). The entire expanded tradition which Paul quotes here, concluding with the statement about himself, έσχατον δέ πάντων ώσπερεΐ τω έκτρώματι ώφθη καμοί (ν. 8), is at a fundamental level of meaning, except for the phrase, ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών (part of verse 3c), which is an example of the qualified ύπέρ ήμών phrase discussed in the previous excursus, which places it at the third level of meaning since it is more specific than a mere ύπέρ ήμών. The immediate context does not reveal what Paul means by quoting the tradition. That does not become clear before verses 12-23 where his appeal is not to Christ's death, as in the tradition, but to his resurrection, which is emphasized by the lists of Christ's appearances in verses 5 - 8 of the tradition. 92 92

A number of interpreters understand Paul's listing of the resurrection appearances as proof of Christ's resurrection. So, already Lietzmann: "Zu der grundlegenden Unterweisung, die Pis den Korinthern einst gegeben hat, gehörte also außer dem Schriftbeweis auch ein historischer Z e u g e n b e w e i s für die A u f e r s t e h u n g , der hier u m seiner f u n d a m e n t a l e n Bedeutung willen ausführlich wiederholt wird" (Korinther, 77). Bachmann is less affirmative: "παρέλαβον bezieht sich demnach auf die geschichtlichen und lehrhaften Mitteilungen, durch welche PI über den Hergang und die schriftgemäße Beziehung des Todes und der Auferstehung Jesu sich hat unterrichten lassen" (Erste Korinther, 426). Strongly affirmative are Sickenberger: "Um die Realität dieser Auferstehung von den Toten, d. h. die Identität zwischen dem begrabenen und erweckten Christus zu erweisen, zählt Paulus eine Reihe von Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen a u f ' (Korinther und Römer, 73), Kuß: "Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung beweist der Apostel ausführlich, indem er in historisher Reihenfolge die Zeugen nennt, die den Auferstandenen mit ihren Augen gesehen haben" (Römerbrief, 185) and Hering: "A partir du vers. 5 l'apötre donne des preuves de l'historicite de la resurrection, non pas par le tombeau vide, dont il ne parle jamais, mais par les apparitions" (Premiere Corinthiens, 135). Barrett is more cautious: "It is evident that these appearances, vitally important as they were in the origins of primitive Chris-

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

207

Paul's appeal to the tradition in verses 12-23 includes an indirect reference to the qualification Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών (v. 3c), which concerns Christ's death in the tradition, but, his resurrection in verse 17, εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έ γ ή γ ε ρ τ α ι , . . . έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών. 1 Cor 15:3c—8 expresses only two levels of meaning. Other levels come to expression in verses 12-23, where the function of Paul's quotation of the

tianity, cannot prove more than that, after the crucifixion, certain persons believed that they had seen Jesus again; they cannot prove the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, since this involves a statement about the action of God incapable alike of observation and demonstration" First Corinthians, 341). Barth strongly rejects the view that the purpose of the list of appearances was to provide historical proof of Christ's resurrection: ". . . [festzustellen ist vor allem], daß es sich weder für Paulus noch für die Überlieferung, die παράδοσις, auf die wir ihn hier zurückgreifen sehen, darum handelt, einen sogenannten 'Auferstehungbericht', eine Relation über das historische Faktum 'Auferstehung Jesu' oder gar (Lietzmann) einen 'historischen Beweis für die Auferstehung' zu geben" (Auferstehung, 75). Also: ". . . wenn man beharrlich an dem Zweck dieser Verse in dem Zusammenhang, in dem sie stehen, vorbeisehen, die Frage sich nicht einmal stellen, geschweige denn beantworten will, ob nicht alles, was Paulus hier sagen will, darauf hinauslaufen könnte, die historische Fragestellung als solche, wenn nicht auszuschalten, so doch zu relativieren" (op. eil., 76). The purpose of the reference to Christ's burial had been to signify the end of history; his resurrection God's action at the other side of the end of history. "Als wirklich chronikartige Mitteilung bleibt uns in ν 3 - 7 nur ein Sätzchen übrig, und das ist das οτι έτάφη, 'und wurde begraben' in v. 4; aber läßt etwa von diesem Sätzchen aus die ganze Umgebung, die von hinten und vorn drohende Grenze der Geschichte historisch zu verstehen, oder wäre das nicht die schlimmste Umdeutung des Tatbestandes: daß hier vielmehr die Geschichte, die in diesem οτι έτάφη zweifellos zu Worte kommt, in den grelsten Weise beleuchtet wird, von der Grenze der Geschichte her, die mit dem άπέθανεν, dem starb, auf der einen, mit dem έγήγερται, auferweckt, nach der anderen Seite bezeichnet ist, das ώφθη (er erschien) aber die Wiedergabe ist des vielstimmigen Zeugnisses, des μαρτύριον (ν 15), daß diese Grenze gesehen worden ist? In der Geschichte j a wohl! Aber in der Geschichte die Grenze der Geschichte und zwar, und das ist das Entscheidende, nicht nur von der einen Seite, nicht nur das άπέθανεν, das "er starb" — der Tod Christi allein wäre ja gar nicht das Sichtbarwerden der Grenze der Geschichte, dieses Faktum allein würde zusammenfassen mit dem zweiten οτι έτάφη, dem 'er ist begraben' — sondern auch von der andern Seite οτι ό θεός ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, daß Gott Christus auferweckt hat (ν 15)" (op. cit., 77-78). Accordingly: "Nicht von Kephas, den Zwölfen, den Fünfhundert und ihrem Sehen redet er, sondern von Christus, der ihnen erschien, und das muß uns als zweierlei verständlich sein, wenn wir für die Kategorie des Offenbarung auch nur eines kleinstes Sensorium haben" (op. cit., 79). The ressurection of Christ must thus be understood "als der Tat Gottes, die kein Auge gesehen, kein Ohre gehört, die in keines Menschen Herzen gekommen ist, nicht äußerlich und nicht innerlich, nicht subjektiv und nicht objektiv, nicht mystisch, nicht spiritistisch und nicht platt-historisch, sondern geschichtliche Gottestatsache, die als solche nur in der Kategorie der Offenbarung zu fassen ist und in keiner andern" (op. cit., 80). Grosheide expresses a similar view: "Nu volgen de verschijningen. Paulus spreekt daarvan niet om aan de Korinthiers de waarheid van Jezus' verrijzenis te bewijzen. Aan de waarheid van de opstanding van Christus werd te Korinthe niet getwijfeld en de Apostel kan haar daarom straks maken tot uitgangspunt van zijn betoog inzake de opstanding des vleesches" (Eerste Korinthe, 73).

208

Christ in the Letters of Paul

tradition becomes clear. We turn to that passage now where the tradition provides a foundation for Paul's reasoning. c. 1 Cor 15:12-23 12

εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμίν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; (1 Cor 15:12) 13

εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ εστίν, (1 Cor 15:13a) ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται- 14 εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, (1 Cor 15:13b- 14a)

κενόν αρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών15 ε ύ ρ ι σ κ ό μ ε θ α δέ και ψ ε υ δ ο μ ά ρ τ υ ρ ε ς τ ο ΰ θ ε ο ΰ , ο τ ι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεοΰ οτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, (1 Cor 15:14b—15c) öv ούκ ήγειρεν (1 Cor 15:15d) εϊπερ αρα νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται. έγείρονται, (1 Cor 15:15e—16a)

16

εί γάρ νεκροί ούκ

ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται· 17 εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, (1 Cor 15:16b—17a) ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών, (1 Cor 15:17bc) 18

άρα και οί κοιμηθέντες έν Χριστώ άπώλοντο (1 Cor 15:18).

19

εί έν τή ζωή ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν (1 Cor 15:19) . 20

νυνί δέ Χριστός έγήγερται έκ νεκρών (1 Cor 15:20a)

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

209

άπαρχή των κεκοιμημένων. 21 έπειδή γαρ δι' άνθρώπου θάνατος, και δι άνθρώπου άνάστασις νεκρών. 22 ώσπερ γαρ έν τω 'Αδάμ πάντες άποθνήσκουσιν, ούτως καϊ έν τω Χριστώ πάντες ζωοποιηθήσονται 23 έκαστος δέ έν τω ίδίω τάγματι- άπαρχή Χριστός, επειτα οί τοϋ Χρίστου έν τη παρουσία αύτοϋ (1 Cor 15:20b—23) In reality 1 Cor 15:1-8 and 12-23 belong together. The two parts are seperated by the parenthesis concerning Paul himself in verses 9-11. Paul's purpose in quoting the tradition in verses 3c-7 is to provide a basis for his reasoning in verses 12-23. Nowhere does the freedom with which he adapts material he quotes for the purpose of his reasoning become clearer than in the way he makes use of the tradition here only in so far as it serves the purpose for which he quotes it. All he needs from the tradition is the fact that Christ was raised from the dead, which the list of resurrection appearances are intended to establish unequivocally. He also makes use of the single third level phrase in the tradition [οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν] ύπέρ τών άμαρτιών ήμών in verse 3c as a fourth level argument in verse 17c, [εί δέ Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς ούκ έγήγερται] . . . έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών, not, however, in connection with Christ's death, as in the tradition, but with Christ's resurrection. If he used it in connection with Christ's death, it would have been counter-productive. In that case his readers would not have been left in their sins even if Christ had not been raised from the dead because forgiveness of their sins would have been guaranteed by Christ's death, as in the tradition, not by his resurrection, as Paul argues here. I already discussed 1 Cor 15:12-19 above as one of the passages in which Paul refers to his earlier preaching. 93 We can now differentiate the levels of meaning identified in that discussion further, making use of the schema of the levels of the meaning of Christ in Paul, as presented diagrammatically above. The focus of Paul's discussion in 1 Cor 15:12-23 is not on Christ, but on the problem of a denial of the resurrection of the dead, as verse 12, which is effectively the announcement of his theme, makes clear. In verse 12a, εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, he sums up what he has shown in his preceding reasoning, followed, in verse 12b, by a question, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμϊν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; which sets the theme for the discussion which follows in verses 13-23, the resurrection of the dead. Verses 13-19 involves the controversy which appears to have

93

Above, pp. 155-162.

210

Christ in the Letters of Paul

prompted the chapter, and then, in verses 20-23, Paul moves beyond the controversy about the resurrection of the dead to an expression of certainty that Christ was resurrected in verse 20a, from which follows assurance of his parousia and what it means, in verse 20-23. In verses 13-19, Paul's thought moves from the third level of a denial of the resurrection of the dead, in verses 13a and 15e-16a, to the christological implication of such a denial at the first, fundamental, level, in verses 13b— 14a, 15d and 16b-17a. From there he moves to what would result from the denial of the resurrection of the dead for believers, first, generally, at the fourth level, in verses 20-23, 17bc and 18, and then, more specifically, at the fifth level, in verse 19. By contrast, in verses 20-23 Paul's reasoning has its starting point at the first, fundamental, level in verse 20a, in which he expresses certainty that Christ was resurrected, not as a doctrine, but as an historical fact, attested to by the tradition he quotes in verses 3c-7 and by the appearance of Christ to him personally in verse 8, which he sums up in verse 12a, εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται. He interprets the meaning of verse 20a in verses 20b 23, similar to the exposition of the meaning of Christ's death in Gal 3:2-5, as experienced by the Galatians through the proclamation (Gal 3:1). 94 What the analysis of 1 Cor 15:12-23 shows about the schema of the levels of the meaning of Christ in Paul is that the schema can be considered as a grammar which does not determine the meaning of a text, but functions to make an aspect of its meaning clear, in the case of the present text, by revealing how Paul can in a single longer reasoning change his starting point from a third level in verse 13-19 to a fundamental first level in verses 20-23. In 1 Cor 15:12-23 Paul does not interpret what Christ's resurrection means concretely in the lives of his readers, as he had done in his interpretation of Christ's death in Gal 3:2-5. Only once does he reach that level, in verse 19, εί έν τή ζωη ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν. However, that is not the purpose of his reasoning. The reference to this implication of a denial of the resurrection of the dead is as a function of his reasoning in favor of a general resurrection of the dead, which is his point. Christ's resurrection, firmly established by the tradition — but probably also not denied by those whose views Paul opposes here — functions as an argument in support of the general resurrection of the dead. Paul's reasoning in the passage remains at the theoretical level of a general resurrection of the

94

See below, pp. 2 3 4 - 2 3 7 .

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

211

dead, which, to be sure, must have had meaning concretely in the lives of his readers, but that does not enter into his reasoning in the passage. His purpose is to address the general issue of the resurrection of the dead, and the way it involves Christ's resurrection, at the theoretical level at which the resurrection of the dead had been denied by some in Corinth, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ εστίν; (v. 12b). Verse 23 initiates a move ahead at other, even more theoretical issues, such as, the question of resurrection bodies in verses 35-49 and how one should conceive of the parousia in verses 50-57. Only in verse 58 does the discussion reach the level of the lives of Paul's readers, in the uncharacteristically general admonition, ώστε, άδελφοί μου άγαπητοί, έδραίοι γίνεσθε, άμετακίνητοι, περισσεύοντες έν τω έργω τοΰ κυρίου πάντοτε, είδότες οτι ό κόπος ύμών ούκ εστίν κενός έν κυρίω. The generality of this admonition re-affirms that, unlike, for example, 1 Thess 5:1-11, admonition was not Paul's purpose in 1 Corinthians 15. In 1 Cor 15:12-23, except for the move to the level of the readers in verse 19, εί έν τη ζωη ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν, Paul's reasoning moves between four levels of meaning — the second level is not included — beginning in verse 12 at the fourth level, the challenge to the proclamation which he infers from the denial of the resurrection of the dead by some in Corinth, εί δε Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύ μ ΐ ν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; and ending in verse 23c with what at a more fundamental third level of meaning is at stake, the general resurrection of the dead, oi τοΰ Χριστού έν τή παρουσία αύτοϋ [ζωοποιηθήσονται]. The foundation of Paul's reasoning is that Christ was indeed raised from the dead, and that a denial of the resurrection of the dead flies in the face of this undeniable, fundamental fact. Paul himself was not clear about details of the believers' involvement in Christ's resurrection and his parousia. In 1 Thess 4:15-17 he had a vision of being united with Christ on the day of the parousia, τ ο ύ τ ο γάρ ύ μ ΐ ν λ έ γ ο μ ε ν έν λ ό γ ψ κυρίου, ο τ ι ή μ ε ΐ ς οί ζώντες οί περιλειπόμενοι είς τήν παρουσίαν τοΰ κυρίου ού μή φθάσωμεν τούς κοιμηθέντας· οτι αύτός ό κύριος έν κελεύσματι, έν φωνή αρχαγγέλου καί έν σάλπιγγι θεού, καταβήσεται άπ' ουρανού, και οί νεκροί έν Χριστώ άναστήσονται πρώτον, έπειτα ήμεΐς οί ζώντες οί περιλειπόμενοι αμα σύν αύτοΐς άρπαγησόμεθα έν νεφέλαις είς άπάντησιν τοΰ κυρίου είς άέρακαί οϋτως πάντοτε σύν κυρίω έσόμεθα.

212

Christ in the Letters of Paul

But in Phil 1:23-24 he assumed that if he died he would already then be united with Christ, συνέχομαι δέ έκ των δύο, τήν έπιθυμίαν έχων εις τό άναλΰσαι και σύν Χριστώ είναι, πολλω [γάρ] μάλλον κρεΐσσον· τό δέ έπιμένειν [έν] τη σαρκί άναγκαιότερον δι' ύμάς. Here in 1 Cor 15:50-55, τοΰτο δέ φημι, άδελφοί, οτι σάρξ και αίμα βασιλείαν θεοΰ κληρονομήσαι ού δύναται, ούδέ ή φθορά τήν άφθαρσίαν κληρονομεί, ιδού μυστήριον ύ μ ΐ ν λέγω· πάντες ού κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δέ άλλαγησόμεθα, έν άτόμω, έν ριπή όφθαλμοΰ, έν τη έσχάτη σάλπιγγι- σαλπίσει γάρ, και οί νεκροί έγερθήσονται άφθαρτοι, και ήμεΐς άλλαγησόμεθα. δει γάρ τό φθαρτόν τοΰτο ένδύσασθαι άφθαρσίαν και τό θνητόν τοΰτο ένδύσασθαι άθανασίαν. οταν δέ τό φθαρτόν τοΰτο ένδύσηται άφθαρσίαν και τό θνητόν τοΰτο ένδύσηται άθανασίαν, τότε γενήσεται ό λόγος ό γεγραμμένος, κατεπόθη ό θάνατος είς νΐκος. ποΰ σου, θάνατε, τό νΐκος; ποΰ σου, θάνατε, τό κέντρον; he reverts back to the apocalyptic understanding of 1 Thess 4:15-17, but with a concession to the view that the bodies of flesh and blood could not be part of the resurrection of the dead. In 2 Cor 5:1-10 Paul tries to bring all of this together with the conception of pre-existent bodies in heaven, οϊδαμεν γάρ οτι έάν ή έπίγειος ημών οίκία τοΰ σκήνους καταλυθη, οίκοδομήν έκ θεοΰ έχομεν οίκίαν άχειροποίητον αίώνιον έν τοις ούρανοΐς. και γάρ έν τούτφ στενάζομεν, τό οίκητήριον ήμών τό έξ ούρανοΰ έπενδύσασθαι έπιποθοΰντες, εϊ γε και ένδυσάμενοι ού γυμνοί εύρεθησόμεθα. και γάρ οί οντες έν τω σκήνει στενάζομεν βαρούμενοι, έφ' ω ού θέλομεν έκδύσασθαι άλλ' έπενδύσασθαι, ϊνα καταποθή τό θνητόν ύπό της ζωής. ό δέ κατεργασάμενος ήμάς είς αύτό τοΰτο θεός, ό δούς ήμΐν τόν άρραβώνα τοΰ πνεύματος (2 Cor 5:1-5). But he also tries to incorporate the understanding of Phil 1:23-24 that at death one is immediately united with Christ, θαρροΰντες οΰν πάντοτε και είδότες οτι ένδημοΰντες έν τω σώματι έκδημοΰμεν άπό τοΰ κυρίου, διά πίστεως γάρ περιπατοΰμεν ού διά είδους - θαρροΰμεν δέ και εύδοκοΰμεν μάλλον έκδημήσαι έκ τοΰ σώματος και ένδημήσαι πρός τόν κύριον (2 Cor 5:6-8), all of it finally within the apocalyptic framework of a last judgement, τους γάρ πάντας ήμας φανερωθήναι δει έμπροσθεν τοΰ βήματος τοΰ Χριστού, ϊνα κομίσηται έκαστος τά διά τοΰ σώματος πρός α έπραξεν, είτε άγαθόν εϊτε φαΰλον (2 Cor 5:10). It would be useless to press Paul on the issue. I am reminded of a response of Friedrich Gogarten when someone pressed him about what he had

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

213

written in an earlier work. Gogarten replied, "But you see, I don't read my own books." The situation is similar in Paul. He was trying to address issues as they came along and did not have a refined system of ideas from which he could draw his arguments. One could hold that against him, but one should respect the fact that he did not pretend to have had such a system of ideas, and that he tried to respond to issues as they arose as best he could, with Christ the sole basis of his reasoning. One might however consider 2 Cor 5:110 as an attempt to pull together the diverse views that played a part in his thinking. With that said, it should not be denied that in 1 Corinthians he makes use of the accepted fact of Christ's resurrection as his decisive argument in favor of a Pharisaic affirmation of the resurrection of the dead, without trying to interpret the meaning of that resurrection. It has been argued that his reasoning was against (gnostic) enthusiasts who considered the resurrection of the dead to have already taken place. Verses 35-49 should leave no doubt that what Paul had in mind were persons who denied a future resurrection of the dead. We will never know what the view was against which Paul argued, but if we want to understand his reasoning in the passage we should be clear that he took the denial of the resurrection of the dead to have included an argument which questioned the feasibility of a resurrection body. How remote must that have been from the comprehension of most of his Corinthian readers? d. 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 11

ε ί δ ό τ ε ς ο ΰ ν τ ό ν φ ό β ο ν τοΰ κ υ ρ ί ο υ ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ς π ε ί θ ο μ ε ν , θεω δέ πεφανερώμεθα· έλπίζω δέ και έν ταΐς συνειδήσεσιν ύμών πεφανερώσθαι. 12 ού πάλιν έαυτούς συνιστάνομεν ύ μ ΐ ν άλλά ά φ ο ρ μ ή ν δίδοντες ύ μ ϊ ν καυχήματος ύπέρ ήμών, ϊνα έχητε πρός τούς έν προσώπω καυχωμένους και μή έν καρδία. 13 ε'ίτε γάρ έξέστημεν, θεω- εϊτε σωφρονοΰμεν, ύμΐν. 14

ή γάρ αγάπη τοϋ Χρίστου συνέχει ήμάς, κρίναντας τοΰτο, (2 Cor 5:14ab) οτι εις . . . άπέθανεν, 95 (2 Cor 5:14c) ύπέρ πάντων, (2 Cor 5:14c) άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον· (2 Cor 5:14d)

95

Word order rearranged.

214

Christ in the Letters of Paul |5

κ α ί ύ π έ ρ πάντων (2 Cor 5:15a) άπέθανεν, (2 Cor 5:15a)

ίνα οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοΐς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αυτών άποθανόντι και έγερθέντι. (2 Cor 5:15bc) 16

ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοϋ νΰν ούδένα οϊδαμεν κατά σάρκα· εί και έγνώκαμεν κατά σάρκα Χριστόν, άλλά νϋν ούκέτι γινώσκομεν. (2 Cor 5:16) 17

ώστε εϊ τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις· (2 Cor 5:17a) τά άρχαΐα παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά- (2 Cor 5:17bc) 18

τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ (2 Cor 5:18a)

τοΰ καταλλάξαντος ήμάς έαυτώ διά Χρίστου (2 Cor 5:18b) και δόντος ήμΐν την διακονίαν της καταλλαγής, (2 Cor 5:18c) 19

ώς ότι θεός ήν έν Χριστώ κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαυτώ, μη λογιζόμενος αϋτοίς τά παραπτώματα αύτών (2 Cor 5:19ab) και θέμενος έν ήμΐν τόν λόγον της καταλλαγής. (2 Cor 5:19c) 20

ύπέρ Χρίστου οΰν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοϋ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ημώνδεόμεθα ύπέρ Χρίστου, καταλλάγητε τω θεώ. (2 Cor 5:20) 21

τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν (2 Cor 5:2lab)

ύπέρ ήμών (2 Cor 5:21b) άμαρτίαν έποίησεν, (2 Cor 5:21b) ίνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτω. (2 Cor 5:21c) 6'συνεργοΰντες δέ και παρακαλοΰμεν μή εις κενόν τήν χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ δέξασθαι ύμάς· (2 Cor 6:1) 2

λέγει γάρ· καιρώ δεκτώ έπήκουσά σου και έν ήμέρα σωτηρίας έ β ο ή θ η σ ά σοι. ίδού νΰν καιρός εύπρόσδεκτος, ίδού νΰν ή μ έ ρ α σωτηρίας. (2 Cor 6:2)

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

215

3

μηδεμίαν έν μηδενί δίδοντες προσκοπήν, ϊνα μή μωμηθή ή διακονία, 4 άλλ' έν παντϊ συνίσταντες έαυτούς ώς θεοΰ διάκονοι, έν υπομονή πολλή, έν θλίψεσιν, έν άνάγκαις, έν στενοχωρίαις, 5 έν πληγαΐς, έν φυλακαΐς, έν άκαταστασίαις, έν κόποις, έν άγρυπνίαις, έν νηστείαις, κ.τ.λ.. (2 Cor 6:3-10).

Introduction The interpretation of 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 is more dependent on the clarification of its grammatical structure, syntactic as well as semantic, which has led to complex discussions. The way in which the structure of the passage is perceived has decisive influence on how it is interpreted. One should also assume that attempts to grasp Paul's meaning reciprocally influence the way the structure of the passage is perceived. The relationship between perceived structure and meaning, of course, applies to all texts. What is distinctive of this passage is that its structure is so elusive. It is embedded between two sections in which Paul defends his ministry, 5:11-13 and 6:3-10, but appears very loosely constructed in relationship to what precedes and what follows. There is no explicit defense of Paul's ministry within 5:14-6:2, but embedded as the passage is between 5:11-13 and 6:3-10, the question inevitably arises whether 5:14-6:2 does not contain at least an implicit defense. The question has to be asked, but at the risk of reading into 5:14-6:2 meanings that are not present in it. The focus of the passage is on the two christological statements in 5:14-17 and 5:21-6:2 and the theological statement between them in 5:18-20, each followed by an interpretation of its meaning. The internal structure of the passage appears similarly loosely constructed, syntactically as well as semantically. Hans Windisch suggests that the three parts of 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 have been misarranged: The paraenesis with which 5:14-6:2 ends in 6:1-2 was probably originally continued in 6:14-7:1, 96 and — what is more important for us here — 5:12-13 continues very well in 6:3-10. One seeks in vain in 5:14-6:2 for the άφορμάς καυχήματος which Paul promises in 5:12, but can find it in 6:3-10. 9 7 If 5:11-13 was originally continued in 6:3-10, 2 Cor

96

97

"Wir stellen . . . die Frage zur Diskussion: ist etwa 6,4-7, die ursprungliche Fortsetzung zu 6 , r indem ( 6 l f ) + (6, 4 —7,) eine Paränese darstellt" (Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief [Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924], 212. See also the discussions on pages 202, 203, and 220). "Man erwartet [nach 5 13 ] eine ausführliche άφορμή καυχήματος; sie folgt in [Brief] Α erst in 6 3 - 1 0 , einem Abschn., der an seiner Stelle einen sehr schlechten Anschluß hat; über die Möglichkeit von Blatt Vertauschungen s. u. zu 6 3 f f (Korintherbrief, 178, cf. 180). With regard to the misplacement of 6:3-10 he writes: "Sonst könnte auch Abschn. 6 3 _, 0 selbst an falsche Stelle geraten sein: hinter 5, 3 würde er gar nicht übel passen, da er das enthält, was wir nach 5 13 vermißten, klare und wirksame άφορμαϊ καυχήματος" (Korintherbrief, 202). Rudolf Bultmann rejects Windisch's view. "Dafür dass sich die Gemeinde gegen die in

216

Christ in the Letters of Paul

5:14-6:10 has no immediate connection to what precedes in 5:11-13 and follows in 6:3-10. Windisch points out that the connection by means of γάρ between 5:14-6:2 and what precedes in 5:11-13 is very loose. 98 The topics of 5:11-13 — personal apologetics, justification of Paul's behavior and proclamation, and polemics — can be found only in 5:16-17." Bultmann, on the other hand, considers the entire passage a unity concerning the apostolic office.' 00 He does accept that there is a change in the way Paul raises the issue of his apostleship in 5:18-6:2 compared with 5:1113 and 6:3-10. In 5:18-6:2 Paul does not speak about himself, but clarifies how the apostolic office is grounded in the events of salvation. 101 In 6:3 he

Korinth gegen Paulus arbeitenden Pseudo-Autoritäten entscheidet, gibt Paulus ihr eine αφορμή, eine Handhabe, — und zwar mit allem, was er ihr in diesem Briefe schreibt. Man darf daher nicht erwarten, es müsse jetzt sofort eine αφορμή καυχήσεως folge" ("Zum Gedankengang von 2. Kor 5, 11-6, 10," Exegetische Probleme des Zweiten Korintherbriefes [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963 {Fotomechanischer Nachdruck aus Symbolae Biblicae Upsaliensis 9. 1947]}], 14). He refers specifically to Windisch, of whom he is generally very, sometimes harshly, critical, in a footnote, "So Windisch, der die erwarteten Ausführungen in 6, 3 - 1 0 findet und deshalb vermutet, 6, ΒΙΟ stehe an falschem Platze." Bultmann concedes: "Richtig ist nur, dass 6, 3 - 1 0 in der Tat ganz besonders eine solche αφορμή bietet" (loc. cit. footnote 17). Bultmann's essay provided the foundation for his commentary on the passage in the same series as Windisch's commentary: Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament; Erich Dinkier [ed.], Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), much of which is quoted verbatum. 98 "Der Anschluß (γάρ) an das vorhergehende, nach Bchm. durchaus organisch, scheint doch sehr lose" (Korintherbrief, 180). 99 loc. cit. 100 "In 5 n bis 6 1 0 bleibt Paulus konsequent beim Thema des apostolischen Amtes mit Ausnahme von 5 I 4 _ 1 7 " (Korinther, 147). Even though 5:14-17 does not concern specifically the apostolic office, it does not disturb the unity of the passage. According to Bultmann, "5, 11-19 führt aus, dass sich in der Verkündigung des Apostels der Anbruch der neuen Schöpfung ereignet, und 5, 11-15 gibt für solches Verständnis des apostolichen Wirkens den rechten Maasstab des Urteils" ("Gedankengang," 13). Bultmann's interpretation is not without difficulties. So, for example, in connection with 5:16a and 17a, ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοϋ νϋν ούδένα οϊδαμεν κατά σάρκα and ώστε εϊ τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις, he cannot claim an explicit reference to Paul's apostolic office in the text itself, but reads it from the context of 5:11 and 12. "Es würde nun im Rückblick auf V. n folgen: also dürft ihr euch nicht an diejenigen halten, die έν προσώπω καυχώνται (V. I2 ), sondern ihr müßt das rechte Urteil über mich gewinnen, indem ihr nicht κατά σάρκα über mich urteilt, sondern als καινή κτίσις müßt ihr mich selbst auch als καινή κτίσις verstehen" (Korinther, 159). Recognizing that this understanding is not present in the text, he suggests: "Diese Folgerung überläßt Paulus den Lesern" (loc. cit.). 101 In 5:14-15 Paul returns to the theme of the apostolic existence. ". . . für ihn ist das neue eschatologische Sein als ein Leben ύπέρ Χρίστου sein apostolischer Dienst. Damit kommt er also wieder auf das Thema der apostolischen Existenz; freilich nicht so, dass er von sich selber redete, sondern so, dass er diesen apostolischen Dienst als einen im Heilsgeschehen begründeten charakterisiert (V. 18 f.) und ihn dann in dem Appell 5, 20-6, 2 faktisch ausübt" ("Gedankengang, 18, cf. Korinther, 159).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

217

returns to the apologetic-polemical defense of his apostleship. 102 A serious problem for Bultmann's understanding of 5:18-6:2 is that he has to rely on its context in 5:11-13 and 6:3-10 to discern a defense of Paul's apostolic office in any sense in the passage. The views of Windisch and Bultmann represent the widest possible spectrum of the ways in which 5:14-6:2 with its christological-theological focus could be related structurally to Paul's defense of his ministry in 5:11-13 and 6:3-10. Whether one accepts Windisch's view of the passage as misplaced or Bultmann's that the entire 5:11-6:10 is a unity, but with a particular emphasis in 5:14-6:2, 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 evidently has a distinct meaning which, in Windisch's sense, is unrelated to its present framework even though he does accept that it contains a defense of Paul's apostleship, or, in Bultmann's sense, is a variant but continuation of Paul's defense of his ministry in 5:1 Ι Ο and 6:3-10. The relationship of 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 to its framework in 5:1 Ι Ο and 6:3-10 is not the only structural issue in the passage: Internally there are also many structural uncertainties. Thus, a first task in the interpretation of the passage is to clarify the issues concerning its structure, internally and in relationship to what precedes and what follows, syntactically as well as semantically. (i) The syntactic and semantic structure of the passage A first question with regard to the relationship between 5:11-13 and 14-17 is to whom Paul refers with ήμάς in verse 14a, ή γάρ άγάπη τοΰ Χρίστου συνέχει ήμάς. If he refers specifically to himself, 103 the conjunction γάρ in verse 14 could function as a link between verses 14-17 and what precedes in 11-13, continuing Paul's defense of his ministry by clarifying the foundations on which Christ's love binds him in that ministry. Even if that were the case, Paul would obviously have changed the way in which he defends his ministry from the direct defense of it in 5:11-13 to an indirect defense by asserting his apostolic authority in 5:14-6:2, specifically in the admonitions of 5:20 and 6:1. It should be borne in mind that although a syntactic relationship between 5 : 1 1 - 1 3 and 14-17 appears dependent on Paul having used ή μ α ς as a

102 "Im Anschluß [an 5:20-6:2] stellt er wieder apologetisch-polemisch dar, 63_10, wie er sich dadurch empfiehlt, daß in seiner Ausübung der Verkündigung die Kraft der ζωή des eschatologischen Geschehens sich erweist" (Korinther, 164, cf. "Gedankengang," 20). 103 So, for example, Wendland: "Die Begründung dafür, daß der Apostel nicht für sich selber leben kann, liegt in der Liebe Christi, die ihn ergriffen hat und beherrscht" (Korinther, 177). Margaret Thrall too (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Vol. I, 1994]), takes ήμάς as a reference to Paul himself: ". . . ήμας which is the implicit subject of κρίναντας refers simply to Paul himself: it is in line with the first plurals of w . 11-13, which clearly have this reference" (409).

218

Christ in the Letters of Paul

reference to himself, he could have used the pronoun in that way even if such a relationship does not exist. However, ήμάς in verse 14a could include Paul as well as his readers, in which case γάρ would signal a new theme — or, at best, sub-theme — in which Paul presents the foundations of Christ's love which binds him and his readers, either in their obedience to Christ or in relationship to each other, 104 thus shifting the focus from the defense of his ministry to his relationship with his readers. In that case too the christological statement in verses 14c—15 would function as support for Paul's statement that Christ's love συνέχει ήμάς, but as a new theme which concerns the relationship between him and his readers. Thematically there is nothing which relates Paul's defense of his ministry to the discussion in 5:14-6:2, except possibly the two statements in verses 18c and 19c, if they refer to his ministry, δόντος ήμίν την διακονίαν της καταλλαγής, and θέμενος έν ήμΐν τόν λόγον της καταλλαγής. 105 Here too, however, the repeated ήμάς, ήμΐν, ήμεΐς in the passage could refer to Paul as well as to his readers, which would mean that τήν διακονίαν της καταλλαγής and τόν λόγον τής καταλλαγής were not entrusted exclusively to Paul in his ministry, but was something he shared with his readers, and, not expressions of his authority. The syntactic link δέ from verses 14-17 to verses 18-20 appears even looser than the possible link established by γάρ between verses 11-13 and 14-17 if ήμάς in verse 14a were to refer to Paul. In verse 18a Paul introduces

104 συνέχειν is typically interpreted to mean "control." So, for example, C.K. Barrett, "The thought here is certainly of control" (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Black's New Testament Commentary, Revised Edition; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1973] 168); Windisch, ". . . συνέχειν von geistigen Zuständen gebraucht, meist passivisch (s. Pape), heißt 'zusammenhalten' im Sinn von 'ergreifen, bestimmen, erfassen, beherrschen, bedrängen, einen Drang oder Druck ausüben' . . ." (Korintherbrief, 181); Bultmann, "1. z u s a m m e n h a l t e n , w a s s o w o h l b e d e u t e n k a n n : in O r d n u n g h a l t e n , w i e : b i n d e n , verschließen; 2. festhalten, gefangenhalten, beherrschen (auch bedrängen, befallen usw.), . . . Hier: 'beherrschen' vgl. Phil 1 2 3 " (Korinther, 152). Walter Bauer gives as the first meaning of the term "zusammenhalten, aufrechterhalten, in Ordnung halten τι etw." For our passage he assigns the meaning "antreiben τινά jmdn. ή άγάπη συνέχει ήμάς 2 Kor 5,14" (Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 4 1952) i.V.). The primary meaning in Liddell and Scott is "hold or keep together, confine, secure." The second meaning is " k e e p together, keep from dispersing," and under that, "b. of social and political order, σ. πόλεις keep states together, keep them from falling to pieces, maintain them," and especially, "c. keep together in friendship." 105 It should be noted that in considering the entire 5:11-6:10 a unity with Paul's ministry as its theme, Bultmann does not rely on the statements in verses 18c and 19c for his reasoning, but on Paul actually exerting his apostolic authority in his paraenesis in 5:20 and 6:1. According to Bultmann, Paul does not write about himself, but he grounds the apostolic service in the event of salvation in 5:18-19, and then carries out that service factually in his appeal in 5:20-6:2 (Korinther, 159).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

219

a new theme, God as the source of all things, from which flows forth what then becomes a new dominant theme in verses 18b—20: God's reconciliation with Paul and his readers (v. 18b) and with the world (v. 19a) through Christ. The final christological statement in verse 21 is syntactically unconnected to what precedes and thematically it does not continue the theme of God's reconciliation of verses 18-20, but refers to Christ in completely unrelated terms as having been "made sin" so that believers would become "God's justice in him." The statement is christological, having its focus on Christ, even though it is grounded in G o d ' s action, [τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν] άμαρτίαν έποίησεν (v. 21b). It is however possible to recognize a semantic link between 5:20 and 6:1 with their similar paraenetic appeals: 106 ύπέρ Χριστού ούν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι ημώνδεόμεθα ύπέρ Χρίστου, καταλλάγητε τφ θεω (5:20), and συνεργοϋντες δε καί παρακαλοΰμεν μή εις κενόν την χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ δέξασθαι ύμάς (6:1). Paul may have intended 6:1 as a concluding admonition of the christological section, based, either specifically on the christological statement in 5:21, or on the christological section as a whole. In that regard there appears to be a closer link, semantically as well as syntactically (by means of δέ καί), between 5:21 and 6:1-2 than between the various other parts within 5:14-6:2. In Paul's thoughts the various themes in the three parts of the section — Christ having died ύπέρ πάντων (vv. 14c-16), God's reconciliation with the world and with Paul and his readers through Christ (vv. 18-20), and Christ having been made sin ύπέρ ήμών, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτω (ν. 21) — were probably not unrelated, but there are no obvious clues to the relationships between these three parts of the passage. They appear to be individual christological and theological statements, each with its own interpretation. One may ask whether the judgment which had to be made, κρίνοντας τοΰτο (v. 14b), concerns only the reasoning which follows in the first christological statement and the interpretation of its meaning in verses 14c—17, or includes the entire section, 5:14-6:2, with its two christological and one theological statement and their interpretations.

106 As might be expected, Bultmann sees a close link between especially 5:18-20 and 6:1. "συνεργοϋντες δέ και παρακαλοΰμεν: das παρακαλοΰμεν nimmt das πρεσβεύομεν, bzw. das δεόμεθα von 5 2 0 wieder auf, und durch das συνεργοϋντες wird der Gedanke des ύπέρ Χριστοΰ bzw. des ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντες von 5 20 wieder aufgenommen" (Korinther, 168). Similarly, Wendland: "Aus dieser Botschaft [der Versöhnung] ergibt sich für Paulus die Ermahnung an die Korinther, in dem Bewußtsein, daß er als Apostel zur Mitarbeit an dem Werke der Versöhnung berufen ist. Er setzt damit den Gedanken von 5,20 fort" CKorinther, 183).

220

Christ in the Letters of Paul

It is possible to note a certain thematic coherence in the universal understanding of what is achieved in Christ ύπέρ πάντων and that ol πάντες άπέθανον in verses 14c, 14d and 15a and the statement that τά πάντα έκ τοϋ θεού in verse 18a, and so between the first christological statement in verses 14-17 and the theological statement in verses 18-20. But note that in verse 18b Paul restricts G o d ' s reconciliation to ήμάς έαυτω, returning again semantically to the more universal understanding in verse 19a, θεός ήν έν Χριστώ κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαυτω. We also noted a thematic relationship between the paraenesis in 5:20 and 6:1. (ii) What Paul means in the passage A first question regarding the passage as a whole — if the christological section is in its original place — is what Paul meant by placing it within the framework of the defense of his ministry in 5:11-13 and 6:3-10. If 5:14-6:2 is a continuation of his defense of his ministry as Bultmann maintains, the question is what he meant by changing from a direct defense in 5:11-13 to an indirect defense by asserting his apostolic authority, specifically in 5:18-6:2, returning to his direct defense in 6:3-10. 1 0 7 If the passage is misplaced as Windisch suggests, with 5:11-13 continuing in 6:3-11, the question of the placement of the christological section does not arise, and one's interpretation has to depend entirely on the passage itself. In that case, the larger question of what Paul meant with it within the framework of the letter cannot be answered because the passage would not have a recognizable larger context. On the assumption of an integral text, the following questions arise: If we take ήμάς in verse 14a as a reference to Paul himself, ή γάρ άγάπη τοΰ Χρίστου συνέχει ήμάς appears as a preliminarily concluding statement concerning his defense of his ministry, with κρίναντας τοΰτο (v. 14b) 108 leading over to the series of christological and theological statements which function

107

"Die Anwendung aus dem 5 1 M 9 Gesagten erfolgt nicht so, daß Paulus nun daraufhin zum rechten Verständnis seiner Person und rechten Urteil über sich auffordert, sondern so, daß er zunächst 5 2 0 - 6 2 als Verkündiger zu den Korinthern redet und auf diese Weise sich als διάκονος της καταλλαγής, bzw. τοΰ πνεύματος und τής δικαιοσύνης (3 sf .) erweist, also als den, der die γνώσις της δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ Gottes verbreitet (2 14 ), der die γνώσις της δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ so erstrahlen läßt (4 6 ), in dem also die ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ wirksam ist (4 1 0 f .)" CKorinther, 164)

108 Bultmann: "Genaugenommen wird also das (σωφρονεΐν) ύμΐν von V. 13 in V. 14t erläutert, und zwar in V. 14 nach der negativen, in V. 15 nach der positiven Seite. Das Negative wird dann in V. 16 genauer erläutert, das Positive in V. l g r " (Korinther, 153). Similarly, Jan Lambrecht, "Verse 14ab provides the motivation or explanation for Paul's openness to God and the Corinthians (cf. vv. 11-13)" (Second Corinthians [Sacra Pagina Series 8; Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998], 94). Also Thrall: "That Paul is now controlled or constrained by the love of Christ is the result of a decision taken in the past (κρίναντας) concerning the significance of Christ's death" (Corinthians, 409).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

221

as the foundations for the statement in verse 14a, and so, indirectly, as the foundations of his ministry. If that is the case, one should bear in mind that Paul nevertheless does not merely appeal to the christological and theological events in support of the defense of his ministry, but interprets each of them in its own right at third, fourth and fifth levels of meaning, and finally engaging his readers at a fifth level in the paraeneses of 5:16, 20 and 6:1. 109 Even if these christological and theological statements function as foundations in support of Paul's ministry, they gain meaning in their own right in Paul's interpretation of their meanings in the passage. However, if we take ημάς as a reference to Paul as well as his readers, 110 the passage takes on a different meaning as clarifications of the meanings of the christological and theological statements which function as foundations for his statement that "the love of Christ binds us," that is, Paul and his readers, either to Christ or to each other. In that case, Paul's christological and theological statements appear as powerful ways of moving the defense of his ministry to his relationship with his readers as its foundation, first, as expressed in verse 14a, ή άγάπη τοϋ Χρίστου συνέχει ή μας, and then, by clarifying the foundations of that love by referring to the events of Christ's death ύπέρ πάντων (vv. 14-17), God reconciling ήμάς and [τόν] κόσμον

109 We have to allow for the reference to God from whom all things have their origin as a sixth, more fundamental level of meaning to the right of the fundamental level of Christ, which gives six levels of meaning for this text. 1 will designate the level of God as level la, and keep level 1 as the fundamental level of Christ. 110 Bultmann considers it possible that ήμάς could apply to all believers: "Das ήμεΐς [sic] V. 14 ist natürlich primär von Paulus ausgesagt; aber man kann fragen, ob es zugleich von allen Aposteln, j a vielleicht sogar von allen Gläubigen gelten soll" ("Gedankengang," 16). Similarly in his commentary: "Es ist kaum zu entscheiden, ob ήμάς, das sich natürlich nach V. I3 primär auf Paulus bezieht, schon einen erweiterten Sinn hat und (auf alle Apostel oder) auf alle Christen geht. Jedenfalls gleitet Paulus wieder wie 3 l 2 f f ; 4 1 6 f r ; 5 6 f r von der Charakteristik des apostolischen in die des christlichen Seins über" (Korinther, 152). He continues: "Denn das ήμεΐς V. 16 entspricht dem εϊ τις V. I7 , und das ήμάς V. 18 umfaßt alle Christen, während das ή μ ΐ ν V. 19 vielleicht auf Paulus (und die Apostel) speziell geht" (loc. cit.). In his earlier study, Bultmann understood ύ μ ΐ ν in verses 18 and 19 as more probably references to the Christian community and even humanity as a whole: "V. 18 [geht] vielleicht wieder auf Paulus und etwa die Apostel überhaupt. . , aber doch wohl besser auf die christliche Gemeinde . . ., von der man doch auch das έν ήμΐν V. 19 verstehen muss, wenn dieses nicht gar die Menschheit überhaupt meint ("Zum Gedankengang," 16). Such an understanding contradicts Bultmann's understanding of the meaning of these verses when he writes: "[In 5:18-19] kommt er also wieder auf das Thema der apostolischen Existenz; freilich nicht so, dass er von sich selber redete, sondern so, dass er diesen apostolischen Dienst als einen im Heilsgeschehen begründeten charakterisiert (V. 18 f.) und ihn dann in dem Appell 5, 20-6, 2 faktisch ausübt. Als Verkündiger redet er also 5, 20-6, 2 zu den Korinthern und erweist sich dadurch als διάκονος της καταλλαγής (V. 18) . . ." ("Zum Gedankengang," 18).

222

Christ in the Letters of Paul

έαυτφ through Christ (vv. 18-20), and Christ having been made sin ύπέρ ήμών (v. 21). By reminding his readers of these fundamental facts about Christ upon which the relationship between him and his readers rests, Paul provides an even stronger defense of his ministry than in his explicit defense of it in 5:1113 and 6:3-10. He does not defend his ministry by preaching to his readers, but by reminding them of the fundamental christological and theological events that have been the foundations of his preaching, and then interpreting what those events mean. He does not attempt a coherent christological stateent, but presents to his readers various aspects of how Christ and God in Christ have been the foundations of his ministry and of the Corinthians' acceptance of it: ή γάρ άγάπη τοΰ Χρίστου συνέχει ημάς, κρίναντας τοΰτο. 111 With regard to the section itself the question is what Paul meant by it internally. Even if he quoted tradition, as Ernst Käsemann claims 112 , he must have meant something by what he quoted. It is not well enough to interpret the individual parts of the section; the question is what Paul meant by them. In the texts we discussed previously, Paul rarely provided an interpretation of the meanings of his statements about Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and parousia, 1 Cor 15:20 excepted, 113 and, as will become clear, Gal 3:1-5 as well 114 . More typically, he engaged, for example, in paraenesis and then made a christological statement with the specific purpose of providing a foundation for his paraenesis, as in 1 Thess 5:1-11 115 . He did not need to provide an exposition of the meanings of his christological statements because in the context in which he made them their meanings were evident as conclusive arguments. The strength of those statements were precisely that they did not need interpretations of their meanings, but had immediate effect as founda-

111 Jean Hering (La Seconde epitre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens [Commentaire du Nouveau Testament; Neuchatel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1958]) takes the genetive as objective: "Dans l'expression άγάπη τοΰ Χρίστου = I'amour du Christ, le genetif pourrait etre un genetif du sujet. Mais avec le P. Spicq ['L'etreinte de la charite', Studia Theologica, VIII 2, Lund 1954, p. 123-132] nous pensons qu'ici il designe l'objet. L'amour pour le Christ est incoercible, parce qu'il est fonde sur cette conviction lucide que christ est mort pour nous" (Corinthiens, 51-2). 112 "Erwägungen zum Stichwort 'Versöhnungslehre im Neuen Testament,'" Erich Dinkier (ed.), Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bullmann zum 80. Geburtstag (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964), 45-59. He lists four reasons for considering 5:18-20 as the quotation of tradition, for example, "Die vielen Partizipialprädikationen atmen zweifellos liturgischen Geist," and "Daß Gott die Übertretungen nicht anrechnet, läßt . . . einem judenchristlichen hymnischen Fragment . . . erblicken" (49). For 5:21 he lists only one reason: "Wieder ist άμαρτία nicht Macht, sondern Schuld der Sünde. Über die Sündlosigkeit Jesu hat Paulus nirgendwo sonst reflektiert" (50). 113 114 115

See above, p. 210. See below, pp. 234-236. See above, pp. 185-190.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

223

tions for the meanings for which Paul introduced them. It is almost as if in some cases at a critical point in his reasoning Paul sprang a christological statement on his readers. Contrary to those texts, the christological and theological statements in 2 Cor 5:14-21 do not merely function as fundamental arguments in support of his reasoning, but are interpreted in their own right, culminating in the admonitions in 5:16, 20, and 6:1. The admonitions could be what Paul had been driving at, but, unlike in, for example, 1 Thess 5:1-11, his reasoning within 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 is not paraenetic with a christological grounding, but christological. The admonitions are conclusions f r o m the christological and theological statements, bringing to expression their meanings, mediated by the intermediate reasoning through the second, third and fourth levels of meaning. We may now consider each of the christological and theological statements separately, at the same time considering how they may be related to each other. (iii) The meanings of the individual christological and theological statements and their internal relationships First, with regard to verses 14-17: By means of κρίναντας τοΰτο (v. 14b) Paul introduces the first christological statement, οτι εις ύ π έ ρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 14c), in support of his assertion in verse 14a that ή γάρ αγάπη του Χρίστου συνέχει ήμας. He does not refer to Christ's death as a mere fact, but at the second level of meaning Paul interprets the meaning of Christ's death as ύπέρ πάντων. According to Hans Lietzmann κρίναντας τοΰτο leads over to a theological discussion. He refers to 1 Cor 10:15 as a parallel. 116 116 ' ' κ ρ ί ν α ν τ α ς TODTO wie I 1 0 ^ vor einer theologische Erörterung; ότι leitet das ganze ein öxi εις ύ π έ ρ π ά ν τ ω ν ά π έ θ α ν ε ν usw, . . ." (An die Korinther I II [ H a n d b u c h z u m N e u e n Testam e n t 9; T ü b i n g e n : Verlag J.C.B. M o h r {Paul Siebeck}, 1949], 124). Similarly, W i n d i s c h , w h o writes: " S e h r b e z e i c h n e n d is nun κρίναντας. κρίνειν ist hier 'ein Urteil fällen, eine Reflexion anstellen', vgl. 2, 1 1 0 l 5 A p g 15 1 9 ; wenn wir uns also jetzt ganz und gar von der Liebe Christi drängen und führen lassen, so geht das z u r ü c k auf eine von uns bei oder n a c h der B e k e h r u n g angestellte Reflexion, die uns nötigte, uns ganz der Liebe Christi h i n z u g e b e n " (Korinther, 181). Even t h o u g h he takes "ein Urteil f ä l l e n " and "eine R e f l e x i o n a n s t e l l e n " as e q u i v a l e n t , he u n d e r s t a n d s w h a t Paul refers to as a p a s t reflexion. B u l t m a n n objects: " κ ρ ί ν α ν τ α ς τοΰτο: das κρίνειν bedeutet n i c h t ' e i n e Reflexion anstellen' ( W i n d i s c h , 181), sondern 'ein Urteil f ä l l e n ' (was W i n d i s c h f ü r gleichbedeutend hält), d.h. auf G r u n d wissender E n t s c h e i d u n g einen Entschluß fassen 2,; I K o r 22; A p g 1 5 l 9 " (Korinther, 152). B u t even B u l t m a n n , a l t h o u g h he rejects W i n d i s c h ' s "eine R e f l e x i o n anstellen" in his s o m e w h a t r e d u n d e n t "auf Grund wissender E n t s c h e i d u n g einen Entschluß f a s s e n , " still focuses on w h a t Paul thought, irrespective of w h e t h e r it is a j u d g m e n t or a reflexion. In his translation, Barrett m a i n t a i n s the sense of a j u d g m e n t that was b e i n g m a d e , not a j u d g m e n t on a past reflection: ". . . it is C h r i s t ' s love that sets in motion such behaviour as

224

Christ in the Letters of Paul

There is, however, a critical difference which is revealing: In 1 Cor 10:15, Paul asks his readers to judge (the truth of) what he says, κρίνατε ύμεϊς ö φημι: In our passage the judgement itself is given in what follows, κρίναντας τοΰτο, that is, ότι εις ύπέρ πάντο)ν άπέθανεν, άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον κ.τ.λ. (νν. 14b—17). Similar to what we found in the passages we discussed previously, Christ's death functions as the foundation for Paul's statement in verse 14a, but then he interprets the meaning of that death in its own right by clarifying how it is that it functions in that way. He invites his readers to take note of the judgment by means of which Christ's death functioned as the basis for his statement in verse 14a. From the christological fact οτι εις ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 14c) he draws the conclusion, at a third level of meaning, άρα oi πάντες άπέθανον (v. 14d). But that conclusion is not the only one he wants he wants to draw. Thus he repeats the fact that Christ died. By means of the καί with which he introduces the second reference to Christ's death he makes it clear that he has something to add: καί ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 15a), and then concludes with a second meaning, at a fourth level, ϊνα οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοΐς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι και έγερθέντι (v. 15bc). 117 The ϊνα indicates that this is a conclusion from what he said about Christ's death and the meaning ofthat death in verse 15a. From there Paul draws a further conclusion of what Christ having died for all means, concretely for himself and his readers, at a fifth level of the meaning of Christ's death: ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοΰ νυν ούδένα οϊδαμεν κατά σάρκα (v. 16a),118 and then formulates that conclusion in an extreme form, εί καί έγνώκαμεν κατά σάρκα Χριστόν, άλλά νΰν ούκέτι γινώσκομεν (ν. 16bc)." 9 In these statements Paul has moved from the universal, three times Paul's. Behind the behaviour lies a perception of the meaning of the death of Jesus. We have made up our minds on this, that one — Christ — died on behalf of all. . . . Starting from the bare proposition that Christ died on behalf of all Paul continues: That means that (an expanded translation of άρα, therefore) all died (Corinthians, 168) One can translate more literally in Barrett's sense: ". . . having judged this, that one died on behalf of all; therefore all died etc." 117 Bultmann: "[Das] ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν von V. 14 wird [in V. 15] wieder aufgenommen, um die positive Folge anzuschließen" (Korinther, 153). 118 Bultmann: "Das ήμεΐς kann nicht Paulus (und die Apostel) speziell meinen, sondern umfaßt alle Gläubigen, die die Möglichkeit von V. 14 ergreifen. Ihm entspricht das εϊ τις von V. 17 " (Korinther, 155). 119 Wendland understands verse 16 as a "Zwischengedanke" (Korinther, 177). In verse 17 Paul reaches back to verses 14-15 (Korinther, 181, cf. 177). Contrary is Bultmann's understanding: "V. 16 ist keineswegs 'einer der charakteristischen paulinischen Zwischensätze' (Lietzmann, 125) oder ein 'Zwischengedanke' (Wendland, 133), sondern zieht wie das (ihm parallele) όιστε V. ] 7 die Konsequenz aus V. 1 4 f " (Korinther, 155). "V. 16 zieht also die Konsequenz aus V. 14 " (Korinther, 156). According to Bultmann: "Wäre V. 16b an V. , 6a durch γάρ angeschlossen, so müßte man V. 17 als Folgerung aus V. 16b auffassen. Aber V. 16b ist nicht Begründung von V. 16a [dieser ist

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

225

repeated, πάντων/πάντες to the first person plural with ήμεΐς and the first person plural verbs, οϊδαμεν, έγνώκαμεν and γινώσκομεν. Here for the first time in the texts we investigated — excluding 1 Cor 15:20-23 120 — Paul does not merely refer to Christ's death as the fundamental argument in his reasoning, as the foundation for his assertion in verse 14a, but as an event which requires its own interpretation. With κρίναντας τοΰτο (14b) he leads into a christological reasoning, a rare fragment of Pauline christology. It is not clear whether ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοΰ νΰν ούδένα οϊδαμεν κατά σάρκα (v. 16a) is what it means that ή άγάπη τοϋ Χρίστου συνέχει ήμας (ν. 14a), but that is evidently not yet all Paul wants to say. He returns to a more general fourth level conclusion, ώστε ε'ί τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις (v. 17a), and then moves to an even more general third level with τά αρχαία παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά (17bc). 121 The conclusion in verse 17 is not a summary of what precedes in verse 16, but introduces new concepts, καινή κτίσις (v. 17a), which still concerns specifically whoever is in Christ, and then at a more gen-

bereits durch V. 14 begründet], sondern V. I6b nennt nur den extremen Fall des Satzes V. 16a , an dem der Sinn von V. 16a ganz deutlich wird" (Koriniher, 155). He adds in a footnote: "Immerhin ist möglich, daß das ώστε V. 17 doch aus V. 16b folgern soll" (loc. eil.). Barrett argues: "It is wrong to describe verse 16 as a parenthesis (as does Lietzmann; Kümmel disagrees, as does Bultmann, Probleme, pp. 16f.); the two consequences (in verses 16, 17) are coordinated, and both depend on what is said in verses 14, 15" (•Corinthians, 170). According to Thrall it "is preferable . . . to see the two ώστε-sentences ( w . 16, 17) as parallel with each other, both drawing out the consequences of w . 14-15" (Corinthians, 424). Windisch understands verse 17 as follows: "Das zweite Gedankenpaar V. 17 ist durch ώστε als Folgerung aus dem ersten oder aus V. 14f. (parallel mit V. 16) hervorgehoben; die Folgerung bedeutet eine Steigerung und Verallgemeinerung: in V. 17 steht das Gewaltigste, was P. über das Werk Christi sagen kann" (Korintherbrief, 184). The problem of what Paul meant with this extreme formulation remains unsolved. 120 See above, p. 210. 121 Bultmann: "V. 17 entfaltet den Gedanken des αρα oi πάντες άπέθανον von V. 14, bzw. den Gedanken von V. 16. Der speziellen Wendung von V. 16 gegenüber, daß das alte είδέναι aufgehört hat, wird radikal gesagt: alles Alte hat aufgehört: ώστε ε'ί τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις· τά άρχαΐα παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά" (Korinther, 158). He continues: "Dabei ist gleichgültig, ob man das ώστε als parallel zu dem ώστε V. 16 auffaßt (S. 155), oder ob man V. 17 als neue Folgerung aus V. 16 versteht. Das εϊ τις entspricht dem ήμεΐς von V. 16 und zeigt erneut, daß Paulus nicht speziell von der apostolischen, sondern von der christlichen Existenz redet" {loc. cit.). According to Barrett "it is better to link this [verse 17] with verses 14f. than to try to derive verse 17 as a consequence from verse 16; Alio rightly sees that verses 16 and 17 are parallel, and regards them as positive and negative statements of the same truth." (Corinthians, 173). Note Hering's interpretion of the verse: "Avec Vulgate et Bachmann, nous pensons qu'il faut placer la virgule non pas apres Χρίστφ, mais apres κτίσις: si quelqu'un est nouvelle creature en Christ, alors — pour lui — le monde ancien est passe, et un monde nouvelle a surgi (ψέγονεν)" (Corinihiens, 53).

226

Christ in the Letters of Paul

eral third level, τά άρχαΐα and καινά (ν 17bc). Paul evidently wants to move elsewhere, which he does in his next statement in verse 18a, τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ, at the fundamental theological level, which I identify as level la, as I stated above, keeping level 1 as the fundamental christological level. There had been at least a hint at τά πάντα in verses 14-15, Christ having died ύπέρ πάντα (vv. 14c and 15a) and oi πάντες άπέθανον (v. 14d). Verse 18a places the entire section within the framework of God the creator. In verse 17 Paul was evidently beginning his move to the fundamental theological statement in verse 18a. Thus, what at first appeared as a loose syntactic and semantic connection between verses 17 and 18 is now revealed as a tight semantic relationship. This relationship is reinforced syntactically by δέ. Verse 18 qualifies the two statements in verse 17bc: τά άρχαΐα παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά. What tends to conceal the relationship between verses 14-17 and 18-20 is Paul's rapid move from τά πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ in verse 18a to τοΰ καταλλάξαντος ήμάς έαυτω διά Χριστοΰ in verse 18b, which leaves the impression of verse 18a as a mere qualification of God the reconciler, in that way obscuring the specific meaning of verse 18a, which is central to maintaining its relationship to the preceding verse 17. The relationship between verses 17, εϊ τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις- τά άρχαΐα παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά, and 18a, τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ, reveals that Paul is not merely adding another, in this case theological, statement in verses 18-20, but moves his reasoning intentionally to the more fundamental level of God as the source of everything, God the creator. With verses 18-20 Paul places the meaning of Christ within the framework of God's activity. Paul does not state in what way Christ mediated God's reconciliation. From the statement that τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ (v. 18a) he moves immediately to a third level of meaning in verse 18b, to God's act of reconciliation. There is no christological statement in verses 18-20, except that Paul states that God acts through Christ, but all the action in these verses is God's. The focus is entirely on God's activity. Paul's purpose is to place what Christ did within the framework of God's act of reconciliation. That does not diminish the meaning of Christ, but, by placing Christ's actions on the foundation of God as the source of everything, Paul establishes God as the ultimate source of the meaning of Christ. Salvation has its origin in God, but it is in Christ that God reconciles ήμάς (v. 18b) and [τον] κόσμον . . . έαυτω (v. 19a). Paul reinforces this in his admonition in verse 20, ύ π έ ρ Χριστοΰ οΰν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ήμών· δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χριστοΰ, καταλλάγητε τω θεώ, in which God remains the source of salvation, πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

227

παρακαλοΰντος δι' ήμών, but it is for the sake of Christ that he makes his appeal to his readers with his repeated ύπέρ Χρίστου. Discerning the meaning of verses 18-20 in detail is fraught with difficulties, for example, to whom does ήμΐν in verses 18c and 19c refer, δόντος ήμΐν τήν διακονίαν της καταλλαγής, and θέμενος έν ήμΐν τόν λόγον της καταλλαγής. specifically to Paul 122 — possibly including other proclaimers of the word — or to Paul as well as his readers? If one takes ήμΐν in verses 18c and 19c as references specifically to Paul himself, one might ask whether he did not refer to God's reconciliation in Christ in verses 18b and 19a to function as foundations for his real concern, the d e f e n s e of his ministry, w h i c h is s a n c t i o n e d by ή δ ι α κ ο ν ί α τ ή ς κ α τ α λ λ α γ ή ς which had b e e n given to h i m (v. 18c) and ό λ ό γ ο ς τ ή ς καταλλαγής with which he had been entrusted (v. 19c). That would place Paul's reasoning in verse 18-20 in an entirely different light. In that case, τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοϋ τοΰ καταλλάξαντος ήμάς έαυτω διά Χρίστου (v. 18ab) and θεός ήν έν Χριστώ κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαυτω, μη λογιζόμενος αύτοΐς τά παραπτώματα αύτών (v. 19ab) would not be statements which Paul interprets in verses 18c and 19c-20, but statements that have been made specifically to function as foundations to support his ministry ή διακονία τής καταλλαγής and ό λόγος τής καταλλαγής with which he had been entrusted. What counts against, but not necessarily contradicts, taking ήμΐν in verse 18c as a reference to Paul himself is that ήμας in verse 18b refers to him as well as his readers. In Paul's general usage, διακονία does not have to refer to his ministry. The meaning of the term is not restricted to the ministry of proclamation (cf. 1 Cor 12:5; 2 Cor 3:7-9; Rom 11:12), even if Paul does also use it in that way (2 Cor 4:1; 6:3; Rom 11:13; 15:31). However, it is not im-

122 Windisch assumes verse 18c to be a refence to the apostolic office: "Damit lenkt P. wieder zu dem 2 14 einsetzenden Hauptthema, der Kennzeichnung des ap. Amtes, zurück. Er beschreibt die Stiftung dieses Amtes und zeichnet sich selbst in der Ausführung seines Amtsauftrags (über den Gedankengang s. Rück.)" (Korintherbrief.\ 191). Similarly, unambigiously, Wendland: "Dieser 'Dienst der 'Versöhnung' ist das Apostelamt" (Korinther, 182). So, explicitly, also Hans-Josef Klauck (2. Korintherbrief [Die Neue Echter Bibel 8; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1988]) "Den Traditionssatz legt Paulus auf sich selbst hin aus. Mit 'uns' in 18 meint er, auch wenn es Überrascht, in erster Linie sich selbst" (56). With some hesitation, also Lambrecht: "In light of the epistolary plural in w . 14 and 16 and, more specifically, in v. 18c, with 'us' in v. 18b Paul points to himself (and fellow workers); yet it could also include all Christians (and humankind?)" (Corinthians, 98). So also Barrett, "gave us (that is, presumably, Paul and his colleagues, though the change f r o m us Christians is abrupt and difficult) the ministry of reconciliation" ('Corinthians, 176).

228

Christ in the Letters of Paul

possible for Paul to have switched from ήμας as a reference to himself and his readers in verse 18b to ήμΐν as a reference to him personally, to whom ή διακονία της καταλλαγής had been given. Using the first person plural pronoun in that way is typical of his usage. A similar ambiguity applies to ήμΐν in the parallel verse 19c, θέμενος έν ήμΐν τον λόγον της καταλλαγής, which follows from God reconciling [τόν] κόσμον έαυτω, μή λογιζόμενος αύτοΐς τά παραπτώματα αύτών (v. 19ab). ό λόγος της καταλλαγής could refer to what Paul had been entrusted with in his ministry. However, the fact that ήμΐν stands over against τόν κόσμον in verse 19ab favors taking ήμΐν in verse 19c to Paul as well as his readers. Thus, θέμενος έν ήμΐν τόν λόγον τής καταλλαγής could mean "placing the word of reconciliation among us" in the sense of a reality that had been established among Paul and his readers, not of entrusting it as the message of reconciliation to those who proclaim the word, or here, entrusting it specifically to Paul. 123 There is a difference between what Paul writes in verses 18 and 19 which may be significant. In verse 18b the reconciliation is with us; in verse 19ab it is with the world. In verse 19ab Paul once more expands his vision beyond himself and his readers to the world, not quite the τά πάντα of verse 18 a, but God's reconciliation clearly reaches beyond Paul and his readers. 124 The effect is that Paul's readers are now addressed as standing over against the larger entity of the world, even though the reconciliation which applies to the world must apply to them as part of the reconciled world as well. Even though part of the world, Paul and his readers stand over against the world as a particular part of it. Paul's readers have a particular stake in God's reconciliation compared with the world. By mentioning God's reconciliation with the world, after mentioning it with regard to himself and his readers in verse 18b, Paul inevitably draws his readers closer to himself.

123 Bultmann: "Das ήμΐν kann auf Paulus, bzw. die Apostel überhaupt gehen, aber doch wohl besser auf die christliche Gemeinde; denn das έν ήμΐν V. 19 bedeutet offenbar: unter den Menschen, bzw. unter den Gläubigen, in der Gemeinde" (Korinther, 162). Thrall assumes that it applies specifically to Paul; interpreting verse 20, she writes, "Entrusted with the message of reconciliation (v. 19c), Paul acts in consequence as an ambassador for Christ" (Corinthians, 436). 124 This distinction is not recognized by Bultmann, correct as his understanding of the close relationship between verses 18 and 19 may be. Verse 19ab, ώς öxt θεός ήν έν Χριστώ κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαυτω, μή λογιζόμενος αύτοίς τά παραπτώματα αύτών, is an explication of verse 18c: "Offenbar soll der Begriff der διακονία τής καταλλαγής expliziert werden; ώς ö n steht also wie 11 21 ; 2Thess 2 9 nach einem verbum dicendi: 'des Inhaltes, daß Gott durch Christus die Welt mit sich versöhnt hat"' (Korinther, 163). Similarly, Thrall: Verse 19 "is a repetition and amplification of what Paul has said already in v. 18." However, "Its precise logical connection with v. 18 is less clear because of the uncertainty attaching to the initial ώς ότι" (Corinthians, 431).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

229

In that way Paul places his admonition in verse 20 in an intimate context. In whatever way one interprets ήμάς and ήμΐν in verses 18c and 19c, Paul addresses his readers in verse 20, not as outsiders, but as part of those who are closely associated with God's reconciliation. In that way he achieves a tone of intimacy with his admonition: ύπέρ Χρίστου οΰν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοϋ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δν' ημών- δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χρίστου, καταλλάγητε τω θεώ. When we come to Paul's admonition in verse 20 all our deliberations concerning the meaning of ήμΐν in verses 18c and 19c become moot. Not only is the ministry of God's reconciliation entrusted specifically to Paul, ύπέρ Χριστού ούν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τού θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ημών, but Paul's readers appear to be excluded from having been reconciled with God, δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χριστοΰ, καταλλάγητε τω θεώ. If Paul as an ambassador of God in Christ has to admonish his readers, καταλλάγητε τώ θεώ, they could hardly have been those to whom ή διακονία της καταλλαγής had been entrusted (v. 18c), and probably also not those amongst whom ό λόγος της καταλλαγής had been established (v. 19c). But it is difficult to understand how Paul's Corinthian readers about whom he wrote, ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοΰ νΰν ούδένα οϊδαμεν κατά σάρκα (ν. 16a), could still have been in need of reconciling themselves with God. Rather than an appeal to his Corinthian readers, what Paul wrote in verses 18-20 gives the impression of the foundation of conversion preaching to the unreconciled. 125 The question is what Paul could have meant by including it 125 Windisch interprets the issue as follows: "Καταλλ. τ. θ. ist der Ruf des Ap. an die noch unbekehrte Welt: die πρεσβεία ist in Missionsstil abgefaßt, und der Umstand, daß P. in einem Brief an die längst gegründete kor. Gemeinde jetzt den Ruf zur Versöhnung erschallen läßt, darf nicht zu der Meinung verführen, als betrachte er die Gemeinde um ihrer Verfehlungen willen aufs neue als büß- und versöhnungsbedürftig und biete er ihr erneute Vergebung an oder weise sie gar auf den Quell einer täglichen Vergebung" (Korintherbrief, 196). He proposes the following solution: "Hier is vielmehr de Chor der Ap. am Wort, der die Botschaft Christi in die Welt hineinruft" (loc. cit., 196). Bultmann sharply rejects Windisch's distinction between "die noch unbekehrte Welt" and "die längst gegründete kor. Gemeinde." He writes: "Unsinn! Für Paulus besteht diese Alternative gar nicht. Natürlich redet er im 'Missionsstil'. Aber dieser ist immer der angemessene Stil für die eschatologische Predigt" (Koriniher, 165). Thrall brings to expression the complexity of the situation: "This call for response is most naturally seen as a quotation of the apostolic message to the unconverted rather than as addressed to the Corinthian readers of the letter. The tense is aorist, suggesting the once-forall moment of conversion which the readers had already experienced. The second person plural does, of course, give the impression of a direct address to the readers . . ." (Corinthians, 438). Some scholars find another problem with the plain meaning of Paul's appeal, δέομεθα κατταλάγητε τφ θεω. Human beings cannot be called upon to reconcile themselves with God. So, K ä s e m a n n denies a reconciliation in that sense: "Konstitutiv ist . . . die Beobachtung, daß nirgendwo wir Gott mit uns versöhnen, wie es einer Opferanschauung entsprechen würde. Stets ist Gott das alleinige Subjekt des versöhnenden Handelns. Das gilt selbst dann, wenn nach 2Kor 5, 20 wir zu Boten und Mittlern des Versöhnungswortes

230

Christ in the Letters of Paul

here. He may have been quoting tradition, 1 2 6 but then the question still remains what he meant by using that tradition in addressing his Corinthian readers. When we consider Paul's final admonition in 6:1c, μή εις κενόν την χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ δέξασθαι ΰμάς, it becomes clear that he may not have been convinced that his Corinthian readers had been fully reconciled with God. 127 If there is danger of the Corinthians having received God's kindness in vain, Paul may well have considered them in need of reconciling themselves with God. In that sense, thus, there may be coherence between Paul's paraenesis in 5:20 and 6:1. What is clear within the framework of 5:18-20 is that Paul proclaims God's reconciliation ήμάς έαυτω διά Χριστού (v. 18b) and έν Χριστώ κόσμον . . . έαυτω (v. 19a), and that on the basis of that event he appeals to his readers in the name of Christ, καταλλάγητε τω θεω (v. 20d). The theological statements are not formulated to function as a foundation for Paul's paraenesis in verse 20. To the contrary, the paraenesis in verse 20 is the final meaning which Paul's draws from his theological statements, which may nevertheless be what he had been aiming at all along. The question is how he gets there, beginning with his theological statements as the foundation of his reasoning. In verse 21, Paul returns to his focus on Christ. This final christological statement is syntactically and in its formulation unconnected to what precedes, τον μή γ ν ό ν τ α άμαρτίαν ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν άμαρτίαν έποίησεν (ν.

b e r u f e n s i n d . W i r b l e i b e n d a n n I n s t r u m e n t e des d u r c h uns w i r k e n d e n L o g o s " ("Versöhnungslehre," 49). Similarly, Bultmann: "Klar ist, daß die καταλλαγή nicht ein zwischen zwei Personen (Gott und dem Menschen) sich vollziehender Vorgang ist, in dem beide ihre gegenseitige Feindseligkeit aufgeben. Sie ist vielmehr eine Tat Gottes allein, die er vollzieht ήμών έτι έχθρων όντων, vgl. Rom 5 10 : εί γάρ καταλλάγημεν τ φ θ ε φ " (Korinther, 160). Hering sees no problem with believers reconciling themselves with God. It is clear: "C'est . . . Dieu le Pere qui prend l'initiative de la reconciliation" (53), but that does not exclude the human being in turn from becoming reconciled with God: ". . . c'est l'homme [and not the world] qui doit reconcilier avec Dieu (δέομεθα, καταλλάγητε), maintenant que cela a ete rendu possible par la justification (δικαιοσύνη v. 21b)" {Corinlhiens, 54). To sum up this issue, the difficulty does not arise exegetically from the text, but as a result of dogmatic preconceptions. Hering's understanding remains unaffectedly refreshing. 126 As Käsemann contends ("Versöhnungslehre," 49-50). 127 Lambrecht attributes the need for Paul's call of his Corinthian readers to reconcile themselves with God to tensions that have arisen among them and towards him: "Of course the Corinthians are already converted; they are already reconciled to God, yet there is the opponents' influence in Corinth, the distrust toward Paul; in the community there are inner tensions and moral imperfections, past and present. Paul points to the root of all this and requires a renewed reconciliation with God. Verse 20 can rightly be called the center, the focus of w . 14-21. The whole reflection leads up to this appeal" (Corinthians, 100).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

231

21ab). 128 As in the case of verses 14c and 15a, Paul interprets the meaning of Christ having been made sin at a second level of meaning with ύπέρ ημών, and then interprets what the entire statement means for his readers at a fourth level of meaning, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτω (v. 21c). As in the case of the previous two christological and theological statements, here too the meaning is a conclusion which Paul draws from the christological statement in verse 2lab. In this second reference to the Christ-event in 5:21, Paul appears to conclude his reasoning at a still abstract fourth level of meaning, ϊνα ήμεϊς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτω (v. 21c), but then, in 6:1, he moves to the concrete level of what it means for his readers with a final admonition, συνεργοϋντες δέ και παρακαλοΰμεν μή είς κενόν τήν χάριν τοϋ θεοΰ δέξασθαι ύμάς. The admonition is very general, and does not necessarily follow specifically from 5:21, but could follow equally well from the entire series of christological and theological statments. 129 6:2 provides a foundation from scripture for the admonition in 6:1. In 6:3 Paul returns abruptly, without a transition, to the defense of his ministry. 130

128 Not so according to Bultmann, "V. 21: das καταλλάγητε von V. 20 wird expliziert, weil Paulus (obwohl die Explikation ja in V. 18r. gegeben war) jetzt direkt als Apostel redet und deshalb das Versöhnungswerk in neuer Formulierung beschreibt: τον μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν. τον μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν = Christus" (Korinther, 166). According to Lambrecht: "Together with w . 14-15, v. 21 constitutes an inclusion of the passage" (Corinthians, 100). 129 Here too Bultmann has a sense of organic unity: "[Das] π α ρ α κ α λ ο ΰ μ ε ν n i m m t das πρεσβεύομεν, bzw. das δεόμεθα von 5 20 wieder auf, und durch das συνεργοϋντες wird der Gedanke des ύπέρ Χρίστου bzw. des ώς τοϋ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντες von 5 2 0 wieder aufgenommen" (Korinther, 168). 130 In Bultmann's understanding, Paul never ceased to defend his ministry in the passage: "Die Anwendung aus dem 5,,. 1 9 Gesagten erfolgt nicht so, daß Paulus nun daraufhin zum rechten Verständnis seiner Person und rechten Urteil über sich auffordert, sondern so, daß er zunächst 5 2 0 - 6 2 als Verkündiger zu den Korinthern redet und auf diese Weise sich als διάκονος τής καταλλαγής, bzw. τοΰ πνεύματος und τής δικαιοσύνης (3 gr .) erweist, also als den, der die γνώσις τής δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ Gottes verbreitet (2 14 ), der die γνώσις τής δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ so erstrahlen läßt (4 6 ), in dem also die ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ wirksam ist (4 l o r .). Im Anschluß daran stellt er wieder apologetisch-polemisch dar, 63_10, wie er sich dadurch empfiehlt, daß in seiner Ausübung der Verkündigung die Kraft der ζωή des eschatologischen Geschehens sich erweist" (Korinther, 164). Also: "Also nicht 'völlig abrupt' (Lietzmann, 127, Wendland, 138: "Paulus geht mit V. 3 plötzlich wieder zu seiner Selbstverteidigung ü b e r " ) , s o n d e r n ganz o r g a n i s c h mit d e m G r u n d g e d a n k e n v e r b u n d e n : die Art des Evangeliums und das Auftreten des Paulus entsprechen einander" (Korinther, 169). And: "6 3 _ 10 ist syntaktisch abhängig von παρακαλοΰμεν V. ,, dem die beiden Partizipien δίδοντες und συνιστάνοντες V. 3 subordiniert sind" (loc. cit.).

232

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Conclusion The interpretation of 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 in detail remains inconclusive. The problem of the relationship of the passage to its current context in 5:11-13 and 6:3-10 is insoluble. Bultmann's interpretation of 5:11-6:10 as an integrity has no support from within 5:14-6:2. His investigation of the structure o f P a u l ' s thought in 5:11-6:10 is a valuable first facing up to the issue of the structure of the passage, including issues concerning the internal structure of the christological section, but his interpretation remains unconvincing. It depends on the unproven integrity of 5:11-6:10. Nothing in the passage itself supports Bultmann's understanding of a defense of Paul's apostleship in 5:14-6:2. Windisch's reconstruction of the original sequences of the passage remains speculative. Nevertheless, there appears no other solution than to interpret the meaning of the passage without recourse to co-textual 131 relationships to other parts of 2 Corinthians. The lack of a clear co-textual setting of our passage makes it impossible to understand in what connection Paul made the statement with which the passage begins, ή γάρ άγάπη τοΰ Χρίστου συνέχει ήμάς (v. 14a). Apart from the problem of the sense in which he uses ήμάς — to refer specifically to himself or to him as well as his readers — we have no clue what he means with the statement. It is clear what he says, but we do not know what he means by saying it, unless it continues the defense of his ministry, in that way providing verses 11-13 as a co-text. Even if verse 14a does continue the defense of Paul's ministry, what he means with the statement remains obscure. The passage itself has interpretive problems of its own, but in the course of our investigation it appeared that as far as its meaning as a whole is concerned the most important of them were not insoluble, even if details remain unclear. (iv) The meaning of Christ in the passage Paul invites his readers to consider, κρίναντας τοΰτο (v. 14b), the reasoning which follows in verses 14c-16 as the foundation for his statement in verse 14a. It is not clear whether the reasoning includes the rest of the passage as well, or whether 5:18-6:2 are thoughts that follow from his initial christological statement and its interpretation in verses 14c-16. This applies to verse 17 as well, which could be part o f P a u l ' s intended reasoning, but may already be part of the moving further along of his thoughts. Verse 17a, ώστε εϊ τις έν

131 In text-linguistics it has become necessary to distinguish between the context in which a text originated and the co-textual relationships a particular text may have to other texts in a document.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

233

Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις, is clearly a conclusion which follows from the reasoning in verses 14c 16, with verse 17bc, τα άρχαΐα παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά, adding to that conclusion. These statements prompt Paul's next statement: τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ (v. 18a). With the statement in verse 18a, τά δέ πάντα έκ τοϋ θεοϋ, Paul moves to a level that is more fundamental than Christ's death, resurrection, and parousia, the level of God as the author of all things, including what happens in Christ, level la on the schema of the levels of meaning of Christ. It concerns God's reconciliation ήμας and [τον] κόσμον έαυτω, at the third level of the meaning of Christ, which Paul establishes as the foundation of what God did in Christ. On that basis he admonishes his readers, ύ π έ ρ Χρίστου οΰν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοϋ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ημών- δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χρίστου, καταλλάγητε τω θεφ (ν. 20), at the fifth level. Without a syntactic connection he returns to his christological foundation, τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν (v. 21ab), levels 1 and 2. It is from this foundation that he draws his final conclusion. Whether only from verse 21 or from the section as a whole does not matter. With his final admonition Paul brings the entire section to a conclusion. We do not know what Paul intended with 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 because of its lack of a clear textual setting, but we have a reasonably good impression of what he says within the passage. In it we have what can be identified as a rare fragment of Pauline christology in the making, a passage in which Paul does not merely appeal to facts about Christ as support for his reasoning, but in which he interprets the meaning of Christ's death itself. From the statement that Christ died ύπέρ πάντων he argues about that fact as the foundation of the binding of Christ's love, as he announces to his readers, κρίναντας τούτο (v. 14b). Revealing about this fragment is that Paul finds it necessary to ground Christ's activity in God in verses 18-20 at the center of his reasoning, but maintains the reality of Christ at the center of God's activity: God reconciles ήμάς έαυτω διά Χριστού (v. 18b) and έν Χριστώ κόσμον έαυτω (ν. 19a). Paul reinforces Christ as integral to God's activity when, in admonishing his readers as an ambassador ώς τοΰ θεοΰ, he repeats twice that he does so ύπέρ Χριστού (v. 20). As if that is not enough, before he moves to a final admonition, he returns to another christological statement, τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεού έν αύτώ. This is only a fragment of a christology. Similar to the other christological texts to which I referred above, it begins with a christological statement which functions as the foundation for his assertion: ή γάρ άγάπη τοΰ Χριστού συνέχει ήμας (v. 14a), leading over to it with κρίναντας τούτο (v. 14b). What

234

Christ in the Letters of Paul

distinguishes this christological passage from the others is that, having grounded his assertion in verse 14a in the twice repeated statement that Christ died ύπέρ πάντων (vv. 14c-15a), he allows this repeated christological statement to have a meaning of its own in addition to its function as the foundation for his assertion in verse 14a. Distinctive of the passage is also that Paul grounds the meaning of Christ's death in God's reconciliation ημάς έαυτω διά Χριστού (v. 18b) and έν Χριστώ κόσμον έαυτω (v. 19a) at a level more fundamental than Christ's death, which was the most fundamental level of meaning in the other texts, thus requiring the addition of a further level, la, of meaning as the foundation of Christ's activity. In that way the meaning of Christ's death is interpreted in two directions, on the one hand, all the way down to the admonitions in 5:16, 20, and 6:1, and, and on the other, to its grounding in God's activity in 5:18-19. The only statements at this most fundamental level is that τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοϋ (ν. 18a), and then significantly in verse 21b that God made the sinless Christ sin for our sakes, ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν. God's activity is not presented at that most fundamental level, but at the fourth level of what it means for believers (v. 18b) and for the world (v. 19ab) in Christ. Paul does not bring to expression God's activity in isolation from Christ. God acts in Christ. Paul interprets the meaning of all three of his christological and theological statements at the sixth (fifth) level of what they mean concretely to his readers in his admonitions in 5:16 and 20, and 6:1. In this passage, as in most of those I investigated previously. Paul does not leave the meaning of Christ's death at an abstract theoretical level, but interprets it at the concrete level of what it means for his readers, in 5:16, 20 and 6:1. e. Gal 3:1-5 1

ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς (Gal 3 : l a - c ) Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (Gal 3: Id)

2

τούτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών· (Gal 3:2a) έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεύμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (Gal 3:2bc)

3 4

ο ϋ τ ω ς ά ν ό η τ ο ί έστε, έ ν α ρ ξ ά μ ε ν ο ι πνεύματι νύν σαρκϊ έπιτελεΐσθε; τοσαύτα έπάθετε είκη; ε'ί γε και είκη. (Gal 3:3-4).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

235

5

ό ούν έπιχορηγών ύμΐν τό πνεΰμα καί ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμϊν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως;(Οα1 3:5). I already discussed Gal 3:1-5 above in connection with "Paul's earlier preaching as foundation of his reasoning." 132 1 limit myself here to analyzing the passage in terms of the schema of the five levels of the meaning of Christ. In the previous discussion it had already been possible to establish three levels of the meaning of Christ in the passage. The most fundamental level was Paul's recalling the presentation of Christ crucified before the eyes of the Galatians in verse 1. Next came the meaning which άκοή πίστεως in relationship to Christ Jesus crucified had in bestowing the spirit upon the Galatians and working of powers among them (vv. 2 and 5). The final meaning was what that meant to Paul's readers, namely, his challenge that they began with the spirit and ended up in the flesh (vv. 3-4). We can now modify those three levels slightly, based on our model of the five levels of the meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia, confirming the essence of those three levels. As the diagram reveals, Paul's reasoning on the basis of Christ's crucifixion moves between the fourth and fifth levels of meaning, that is, at the levels that concern what Christ's crucifixion means to Paul's readers. He begins at the fifth level, ω άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οίς κατ' οφθαλμούς . . . (v. lab), challenging his readers at the fundamental level of Christ with the fact of Christ's crucifixion, Ί η σ ο ΰ ς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος (v. led). He then returns to the concrete level of his readers, τοΰτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών (v. 2a), challenging them, not concretely concerning circumcision, which is what is issue in the letter, but at a relatively more theoretical fourth level concerning the origin of their justification, whether justification is through works of the Law or through the obedience of faith, έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ ακοής πίστεως; (v. 2bc). Next, in verses 3-4, Paul returns to the concrete level of his readers, chiding them about the ill-favored situation into which they have moved, οϋτως άνόητοί έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νΰν σαρκί έπιτελεΐσθε; τοσαϋτα έπάθετε εική; εϊ γε και εική, and then, in verse 5, he returns to a more theoretical fourth level, asking them again about the source of their reception of the spirit, including the working of powers among them, ό ούν

132 See above pp. 162-171

236

Christ in the Letters of Paul

έπιχορηγών ύμίν τό πνεΰμα και ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμίν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; The literal meaning of άκοή πίστεως in verses 3 and 5 is unclear. However, a precise lexical definition of the phrase is not necessary for an understanding of Paul's intended meaning in 3:1-5. The phrase clearly refers to that to which Paul draws his r e a d e r s ' attention in verse 1, τίς ύ μ ά ς έβάσκανεν, οίς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; about which the formulation in verse 2 — which continues the thoughts of verse 1 — leaves no doubt, τοΰτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών· έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ ακοής πίστεως; The multivalence of άκοή πίστεως, however, makes it possible to include in its meaning not only Christ's death, but also the Galatians's acceptance of the proclamation of that event, with which Paul challenges them in verses 1 and 2. Even though Paul returns repeatedly to the concrete level of his readers in verses 2a and 3-4, the meaning on which he focuses lies at the slightly more theoretical fourth level of the opposition between works of the Law and the obedience of faith, chiastically in verses 2bc and 5. Indeed, all of Paul's reasoning in the rest of chapters 3 and 4 takes place at a theoretical level, for which 3:1-5 prepares the way. As in 1 Cor 4:10, ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεϊς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ· ήμεΐς ασθενείς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι, Paul challenges his readers with a christological statement in Gal 3:1, but, unlike in 1 Cor 4:10 where he depended on the immediate impact of his statement, here in Galatians he does not leave it to his readers to draw their own conclusions. In verses 2 - 5 he himself guides them into recognizing what Christ's death means in the situation in which they find themselves. In that regard, Gal 3:1-5 resembles Paul's christological reasoning in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2, where he also interprets what his christological and theological statements mean. Gal 3:1-5 too is a rare fragment of Pauline christological reasoning, but, unlike 2 Cor 5:14-6:2, it cannot be called a fragment of Pauline christology. Paul's reasoning in this passage is functional: It serves as the basis for the challenge to his readers to decide, at a theoretical level, between works of the Law and the obedience of faith as the source of their reception of the spirit, chiastically in verses 2bc and 5, and concretely at the center of the chiasm in his admonitions in verses 3—4. Gal 3:1-5 ends in verse 5 at the relatively theoretical fourth level of the opposition between works of the Law and the obedience of faith, which prepares for Paul's further discussion at that level in chapters 3 and 4. His

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

237

ultimate purpose in the letter, however, is not achieved at that level, but at the concrete level of the issue of circumcision, which is what prompted the letter. Having confronted his readers with the opposition between works of the Law and faith as a theoretical issue in chapters 3 and 4, Paul makes use of that reasoning to confront his readers repeatedly in chapters 5 and 6 with the concrete issue of circumcision. f. Gal 3:6-14 6

καθώς 'Αβραάμ έπίστευσεν τω θεώ, καν έλογίσθη

αύτφ εις δικαιοσύνην (Gal 3:6) 7

γινώσκετε αρα οτι οί έκ πίστεως, ούτοι υιοί είσιν Αβραάμ. (Gal 3:7) 8

προιδοΰσα δέ ή γραφή οτι έκ πίστεως δίκαιοι τά έθνη

ό θεός, προευηγγελίσατο τω 'Αβραάμ οτι ένευλογηθήσονται έν σοι πάντα τά έθνη· (Gal 3:8) 9

ώστε οί έκ πίστεως εύλογοΰνται σύν τφ πιστφ 'Αβραάμ (Gal 3:9).

10

όσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν· (Gal 3:10ab)

γέγραπται γάρ οτι έπικατάρατος πάς ος ούκ εμμένει πάσιν τοις γεγραμμένοις έν τω βιβλίω τοΰ νόμου τοϋ ποιήσαι αύτά (Gal 3:10c-e). 11

ότι δέ έν νόμοι ουδείς δικαιούται παρά τφ θεω δήλον, οτι ό δίκαιος

έκ πίστεως ζήσεται-

|2

ό δέ νόμος ούκ έστιν έκ πίστεως, (Gal 3:11-

12a) άλλ' ό ποιήσας αύτά ζήσεται έν αύτοΐς (Gal 3:12b). 13

Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ τής κατάρας τοΰ νόμου (Gal 3:13a) γενόμενος κατάρα, (Gal 3:13b) ύπέρ ήμών, (Gal 3:13b) οτι γέγραπται- έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπϊ ξύλου, (Gal 3:13cd) 14

ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοϋ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ

Ίησοϋ, (Gal 3:14ab) ϊνα τήν έπαγγελίαν τοϋ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διά τής πίστεως. (Gal 3:14cd)

The variety of interpretations of Gal 3:6-14 exposes complex and critical issues for the interpretation of Paul, well beyond the question of the meaning of Christ in his thought. For that reason I propose discussing those issues in an excursus.

238

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Excursus: Issues in the Interpretation of Gal 3:6-14 (i) General issues A number of interpreters, going back at least as far as Bousset, consider the introduction of Abraham into the discussion to have been prompted by Paul's opponents, but with the understanding that the inheritance of Abraham was through the Law and circumcision. 133 There is good reason to surmise that an appeal to Abraham had been made in Galatia, but it is questionable to infer from what Paul wrote that the arguments that had been brought forward in Galatia, beyond the possibility, probability even, that an appeal to Abraham had been made. 134 Lietzmann draws attention to the transition from the personal experience of Paul's readers as the basis of his reasoning to his new reasoning on the basis of Scripture. 135 Betz recognizes the same, but then also points out that in 133 So Bousset: "Wir werden annehmen dürfen, daß die Gegner des Paulus ganz besonders auf die Person des A b r a h a m hingewiesen haben, namentlich darauf, daß nach den Verheißungen des A. T,'s das messianische Erbe an den Zusammenhang mit Abrahams Volk und Same gebunden sei, daß man aber die Zugehörigkeit zu Abraham und seinem Erbteil nur durch die Übernahme der Beschneidung herstellen könne" (Galater, 52). Also, Burton: "This is doubtless Paul's answer to an argument put forth by the judaisers to the effect that inasmuch as it is in Abraham that all the nations are to be blessed, the Gentiles to be blessed must be in Abraham, i. e., incorporated in his descendants by circumcision" ('Galatians, 159); Ridderbos: "From the fact that Paul in the next following verses gives a definition of 'children of Abraham,' we may, perhaps, infer that the opponents had tried to show on the basis of Scripture that it was necessary to be a child of Abraham in order to share in the salvation of the Lord. And, as they construed it, that meant circumcision, and the observation of the law" (Galatians, 117): Longenecker: "Although addressing Gentile Christians, much of what appears in this section was undoubtedly influenced by Paul's desire to meet the arguments of the Judaizers and outclass them on their own grounds. . . . evidently the Judaizers had told the Gentiles of Galatia that in order to be true children of Abraham they had to be circumcised, as Abraham himself was and as he was commanded in the covenant given him by God (cf. Gen 17:9-14)" (Galatians, 109), also: "No doubt the Judaizers were citing Abraham as the great example of faith plus circumcision (even keeping the Mosaic law before it was actually given), probably using Gen 17:4-14 in support" (op. cit., 112-13, see also 110, 114, 115, 118). 134 Accordingly, Liihrmann is cautious: "Vielleicht ist Paulus also sogar durch die gegnerische Verkündigung in Galatien gezwungen worden, sich diesem Thema zu stellen und nun eine eigene Auslegung von 1. Mose 15,6 vorzulegen" (Galater, 50), and so is Dunn: "It is very arguable that Paul was responding to arguments he knew had been put by the other missionaries, or were likely to be put by them, and that it was they who introduced the theme of sonship of Abraham . . ." (Galatians, 159). Schlier is outright skeptical: "Ob ihn die Gegner des Paulus in ihrem Sinn zuvor zitiert haben, ist nicht zu sagen. Eine Anspielung darauf findet sich jedenfalls in den Ausführungen des Apostels nicht. Aber als Abrahams Söhne verstehen gerade sie sich" (Galater, 127). 135 "Der Übergang von dem Appell an die persönliche Erfahrung zur biblischen Beweisführung ist durch nichts vermittelt als durch das verlegene Flickwort καθώς" (Galater, 18). So also Bonnard: "II est remarquable qu'apres avoir invoque les experiences toutes fraiches des Galates, Paul les confronte maintenant ä l'Ecriture; c'est que, pour lui, l'Esprit et l'Ecriture

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

239

what follows in verses 15ff., Paul returns to experience as the basis of his reasoning. 136 According to Dunn, Paul's experience nevertheless continues as the basis of his thoughts in the passage. 137 Considerable attention is given to Paul's interpretation of the passages which he quotes. 138 se confirment reciproquement; Paul η'est ni un spiritualiste ni un bibliciste" (Galates, 65). Also: "C'est Jesus-Christ (Χριστός) qui a accompli cette delivrance; Paul se refere done d'abord ä l'oeuvre objective et historique du Christ, et non point ä une experience spirituelle de ses correspondants, ni d'ailleurs a un processus historique impersonnel" (op. cit., 68). Oepke provides the following explantion why Paul makes this move, providing a common basis for his reasoning: "So sehr Pis den Wunsch hat, seinen Lesern zu Herzen zu reden, so sehr bewegt ihn doch auch das Anliegen, alles, was er zu sagen hat, auf Schriftgrund zu stellen. Beides bedeutet keinen Gegensatz. Die Schrift, dh das AT, ist die beiderseits anerkannte Autorität. Die Gegner hatten vermutlich stark mit Bibelstellen gearbeitet" (Galater, 69). For a fuller dicussion of issues concerning the possible meaning of Paul's use of καθώς in verse 6, see the discussion by Longenecker: "The adverb καθώς is often used in Greek writings and the NT to set off a comparison ('just as,' 'as . . . so'). Also, it frequently appears with γέγραπται as part of an introductory formula introducing a citation from Scripture ('as it is written'; so, e.g., Matt 26:24; Mark 1:2; 14:21; Luke 2:23; Acts 15:15; Rom 1:17; 2:24; 3:10; 4:17; 8:36; passim). Its absolute use, however, is rare, appearing only here in Paul. Almost all commentators have taken καθώς here as an abbreviated introductory formula introducing the quotation of Gen 15:6 (so explicitly Gvg c l Ambst, who add γέγραπται). A number of translators, however, have begun to treat καθώς here as an exemplum reference more than a quotation formula, and so translate καθώς 'Αβραάμ as 'take Abraham for example' (JB), 'look at Abraham' (NEB), or 'consider Abraham' (NIV)" (Galatians, 112). He decides in favor of this last understanding: ". . . that is, in our opinion, how it ought to be seen, translating it something along the lines of 'take Abraham as the example'" (loc. cit.), but then writes in favor of a compromise: "The fact that καθώς has such a broad semantic range as to include use as a comparative, use with γέγραπται as an introductory formula, and use as an exemplum reference allows Paul to use it in a bridging fashion, signaling directly an exemplum argument but also setting up arguments from Scripture" (loc. cit.). 136 "From the doctrinal discussion concluded in ν 14a Paul can now return to the argument f r o m e x p e r i e n t i a l e v i d e n c e ( c f . 3 : 2, 5); he c h a n g e s to the f i r s t p e r s o n p l u r a l " (Galatians, 152). 137 "Once again Paul allows his experience to inform his theology: he could not deny that the Gentiles who had responded to his preaching of the gospel were being as richly blessed as any devout Jew; the manifest testimony of his missionary success confirmed what now appeared to him the obvious exegesis of these passages" (Galatians, 167). 138 Most extensively, Betz: "The section 3:8-13 mixes in a peculiar way quotations and exegetical conclusions, leaving unexplained most of the methods by which Paul arrives at his conclusions. Usually the exegetical conclusions precede the Scripture quotations; only in the first proof (3:8-9) does a dogmatic presupposition precede (3:8a) and a conclusion follow (3:9) the actual quotation (3: 8b). The first and the last of the five proofs are positive (3:8-9, 13), focusing upon 'Scripture' and 'Christ' as God's agents — the last proof (3: 13) being formulated as a christological dogma" (Galatians, 138. See also his discussion in detail all the way to page 151). Also Longenecker: "The second section of Paul's Galatians probatio is 3:6-14. It consists of arguments from Scripture and is in two parts: the first highlights significant features of God's covenant with Abraham, citing in particular Gen 15:6 and the 'Blessing of Abraham' section of that covenant ( w 6-9); the second deals with three pivotal passages and then a fourth of great significance, setting out the argument

240

Christ in the Letters of Paul

There is no agreement on whether γινώσκετε in verse 7 should be taken as an indicative or an imperative. Bonnard and Betz prefer an imperative;' 39 Lightfoot and Longenecker an indicative. 140 With regard to verse 13: According to Longenecker, Paul made use of an existing confessional formulation in verse 13. Betz is more cautious, considering Paul merely to have based his statement on a pre-Pauline interpretation of Christ's death. 141 Dunn questions both. 142

in terms of the polarities between law and curse, on the one h a n d , and faith, righteousness, and blessing, on the o t h e r " ( G a l a t i a n s , 108), and D u n n : " T h i s is the p a c k a g e which Paul proceeds to u n p a c k in the following verses, in what can be regarded as a midrash on the t w o texts cited: i i i . 1 0 - 1 4 — a blessing to Gentiles which the curse of the law could n o longer prevent; i i i . 1 5 - 1 8 — a promised seed whose extent could not be determined b y the law; iii. 1 9 - 2 9 — a faith restricted for a time by the law, b u t n o w with the c o m i n g of Christ, the m e a n s b y which all w h o believe m a y be counted seed, in Christ, heirs of the p r o m i s e d b l e s s i n g " (Galatians, 159). 139

B o n n a r d : ". . . p r o b a b l e m e n t ä l ' i m p e r a t i f = connaissez i. e. s a c h e z ! ; ce v e r b e decrit t o u j o u r s chez Paul une c o n n a i s s a n c e de foi, non point une c o n n a i s s a n c e sensible ou logique; Paul ne d e m o n t r e pas, il apelle les Galates ä discerner et ä recevoir l ' a f f i r m a t i o n biblique (v. 2. 9; 4. 9; 2 C o r 2.4; 1 Cor. 13.9, etc." (Galates, 65); Betz: " T h e quotation of Gen 15:6 is followed b y P a u l ' s exegetical ' t h e s i s ' : 'recognize, therefore, that the m e n of faith, these are sons of A b r a h a m ' ( γ ι ν ώ σ κ ε τ ε α ρ α οτι oi έκ π ί σ τ ε ω ς , οΰτοι υιοί είσιν Α β ρ α ά μ ) . The introdutory γ ι ν ώ σ κ ε τ ε can b e taken as an indicative ('you k n o w ' ) or as an imperative ( ' r e c o g n i z e ' ) ; the latter is preferable b e c a u s e it c o n f o r m s to the parallels in didactic literature" (Galatians, 141).

140 Lightfoot: " γ ι ν ώ σ κ ε τ ε ] ' y e perceive,' the indicative rather than the imperative. T h e former m o o d is p e r h a p s m o r e suited to the a r g u m e n t a t i v e character of the sentence generally, as well as to the special a r g u m e n t a t i v e particle αρα, and possibly also to the m e a n i n g of the verb γ ι ν ώ σ κ ε ι ν ('to p e r c e i v e ' rather than 'to k n o w ' . . ." (Galatians, 137); Longenecker: " T h e verb γ ι ν ώ σ κ ε τ ε is either indicative ('you k n o w ' ) or imperative ( ' r e c o g n i z e , ' ' c o n s i d e r ' ) . M o s t have taken it as an imperative since it is in a teaching section and ' c o n f o r m s to the parallels in didactic literature' (so Betz, Galatians, 141, et al.). Yet γ ι ν ώ σ κ ε τ ε α ρ α οτι is a typical disclosure f o r m u l a in ancient Hellenistic letters that serves m o r e to r e m i n d readers of w h a t is k n o w n than to exhort. So it should be read in the indicative m o o d , 'you k n o w , then, t h a t . ' " Galatians, 114). 141 " M o s t likely the statement is based upon a pre-Pauline interpretation of J e s u s ' death as a self-sacrifice and a t o n e m e n t (see also Gal 1:4; 2 : 2 0 ) " (Galatians, 151). 142 "Paul m a y b e m o d e l l i n g his l a n g u a g e here on the conciseness of other already traditional f o r m u l a e (as in i.4 and ii.20); but it is less likely that he is d r a w i n g on a pre-Pauline form u l a as such (as suggested b y Betz 150 and Longenecker 12 1 - 2 ) , since the terminology is so tightly tied into the context and integral to P a u l ' s distinctive a r g u m e n t at this point, with p r o o f text following in characteristic Pauline style" (Galatians, 177).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

241

Most interpreters consider the two ϊνα clauses in verse 14 as coordinate; 143 Lightfoot and Betz consider the second clause dependent on the first. 144

(ii) The promise to Abraham — Gal 3:6-9 a. Inheritance through circumcision and obedience to the Law A number of interpreters assume that the position Paul opposed, understood participation in the promise to Abraham as possible only through circumcision. 145 Ridderbos, however, draws attention to the fact that, even though presupposed, inheritance through circumcision is not mentioned here by Paul. 146 Indeed, most of the discussion about Abraham concerns the question how he was justified: according to Genesis and how Paul interpreted it.

143 So Burton: "This second ϊνα-clause is probably to be taken, not as dependent on the first, but as co-ordinate with it, and the implied subject as referring to Christians as such, rather than to believing Jews, as is probably the case in v. 13; for it is difficult to see how the reception of the Spirit by the Jews could be conditioned upon the Gentiles obtaining the blessing of Abraham; and if the two clauses referred to Gentiles and Jews repectively this antithesis would probably have been indicated by an expressed ήμεϊς in the second clause. Obviously the latter can not refer to the Gentiles only" (Galatians, 176); Lietzmann: "Die beiden ϊνα sind gleichmäßig vom Hauptsatz Xp. έξηγόρασεν abhängig" (Galater, 19); Schlier: "Diesen Sachverhalt e r w ä h n t Paulus V. 14 in zwei 'ίνα-Sätzen, die beide 'gleichmäßig vom Hauptsatz Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν abhängig' (Lietzmann) bzw. darauf und auf das γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα bezogen sind. Untereinander ergänzen sie sich insofern, als der zweite Finalsatz den ersten der das Ziel des ganzen Zusammenhanges vor Augen behält erklärt" (Galater, 140); Ridderbos: "The second 'that' is to be regarded as coordinate with the first. The second clause in another way says the same thing as the first clause" (Galatians, 128); Longenecker: "Structurally, the two clauses are coordinate, and the second is not subsidiary to the first (contra G. S. Duncan, Galatians, 103; et al.). Grammatically, the two clauses are pure purpose clauses" (Galatians, 123); and Dunn: "Another way of stating the same objective is in order that we might receive the promise of the S p i r i t t h r o u g h faith (cf. the d o u b l e 'in order t h a t ' f o r m u l a t i o n of i v . 4 - 5 ) " (Galatians, 179). 144 Lightfoot cautiously: "As regards the construction, either (1) The two clauses introduced by ϊνα are coordinate, as in 2 Cor. ix. 3, expressing the coincidence in time of the extension of the blessing to the Gentiles and the introduction of the dispensation of the Spirit; or (2) The second clause with ϊνα is attached to the first, expressing the moral dependence of the one on the other. The passage from the Ephesians already referred to favours the latter" (Galatians, 240); Betz more firmly: "Two clauses, both beginning with ϊνα ('in order that') conclude the section 3:6-14 and state the results. The first clause states a general benefit: ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή ευλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Ίησοϋ Χριστώ ('in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ'). . . .The second conclusion presupposes the first and is not simply parallel to it: ϊνα την έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν δια της πίστεως ('in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through [the] faith')" (Galatians, 152). 145 See the references above on page 238, footnote 133. 146 "The fact that natural descent and being incorporated into Abraham's seed by circumcision also has its significance does not come into consideration; elsewhere it is expressly acknowledged, also by Paul (Rom. 9:4; cf. Acts 2:39)" (Galatians, 120).

242

Christ in the Letters of Paul

X. Paul's understanding of Abraham's justification Interpreters agree that in Paul's interpretation Abraham was justified, not for anything he did, but through his faith in God, specifically in Paul's sense of justification by faith. 147 God's pronouncement of Abraham as just was not a recognition by God of a condition which already existed, but an act of God through which Abraham was justified. 148 There are many questions about the validity of Paul's reasoning, 149 but a number of interpreters take it as if there

147 So, for example, Althaus: " V o n echter A b s t a m m u n g , von L e b e n s z u s a m m e n h a n g k a n n nur da die R e d e sein, w o die H a l t u n g vor Gott die gleiche ist wie bei d e m S t a m m v a t e r . Also sind S ö h n e A b r a h a m s alle die und allein die, welche gleich ihm vor Gott allein aus d e m G l a u b e n l e b e n " (Römer, 25); Ridderbos: "In Gen. 15 this faith is described as A b r a h a m ' s readiness to surrender unreservedly to the word of the Lord, regardless of h o w incredible it seemed. Paul interprets it in opposition to works, that is to say, as an unreserved, exclusive trust in the grace of G o d , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e n o u n c e m e n t of all pretensions b o r r o w e d f r o m the w o r k s of the l a w " (Galatians, 118); and Longenecker: " P a u l ' s use of the ' f a i t h of A b r a h a m ' t h e m e , t h e r e f o r e , stresses entirely the p a t r i a r c h ' s trust and c o m m i t m e n t in r e s p o n s e to G o d , and n o t A b r a h a m ' s f a i t h f u l n e s s under trial as a precondition to b e i n g considered righteous b y God — or even his f a i t h f u l n e s s to the M o s a i c law as an expression of his f a i t h " ( G a l a t i a n s , 112), also: ". . . his e m p h a s i s in treating A b r a h a m in Galatians (as well as in R o m a n s ) is entirely on the a c c e p t a n c e of A b r a h a m as righteous b e f o r e God on the basis of faith, apart f r o m any works of the l a w " (loc. cit.). L o n g e n e c k e r also recognizes: "Later in Galatians, of course, Paul insists that true faith will express itself in loving service to others ( 5 : 6 , 1 3 - 1 5 ) , and he exhorts his converts to ' d o good to all people, especially to those w h o b e l o n g to the family of believers' (6:10). So we c a n n o t say that the apostle was not interested in a faithful expression of a living faith that results in the good of others" (loc. cit.). 148 So, explicitly, Schlier: "Dabei versteht [Paulus] das δικαιοϋν nicht als eine V o r a u s s e t z u n g , sondern als den Akt des έ λ ο γ ε ΐ ν " (Galater, 131). 149 S o a l r e a d y , B o u s s e t : " D a s Α. T., die A b r a h a m s - G e s c h i c h t e b e z e u g t e n i h m s e i n e Rechtfertigungslehre W o r t für Wort. W i r würden e i n w e n d e n , d a ß der G l a u b e A b r a h a m s i m Α. T. sich auf die Z u s i c h e r u n g leiblicher N a c h k o m m e n s c h a f t beziehe, also nicht mit d e m paulinischen Heilsglauben zu tun h a b e , d a ß die W o r t e 'es w u r d e ihm zur Gerechtigkeit g e r e c h n e t ' n i c h t s a n d e r e s b e d e u t e t , als e t w a ' d a ß A b r a h a m in d i e s e m P u n k t G o t t w o h l g e f i e l ' , und d a ß sie die Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus n i c h t d e c k e n " (Galater, 52). Also L ü h r m a n n : " D i e g a n z e A u s l e g u n g s t r a d i t i o n der G r u n d s t e l l e j e d o c h steht, wie w i r sehen w e r d e n , gegen die Interpretation, die Paulus ihr gibt, und diese Tradition scheint n i c h t bloße Fehlinterpretation zu sein, sondern einen Anhalt an der Stelle selber zu h a b e n . Jener i m N a m e n des J a k o b u s schreibende Autor wird denn a u c h diese Auslegungstradition gegen Paulus auszuspielen versuchen (Jak. 2 , 2 1 - 2 4 ) " (Galater, 50), also, especially clearly: " D e r A r g u m e n t a t i o n s g a n g in V. 6 - 1 4 mutet sehr kompliziert an, vor allem d a d u r c h , d a ß Paulus wahllos Texte des Alten T e s t a m e n t s aus ihrem Kontext zu n e h m e n u n d sie so zu verwenden scheint, wie es ihm gerade paßt. Das hat i h m den Zorn m a n c h e r Alttestamentler zugezogen, die in seiner B e w e i s f ü h r u n g lediglich Willkür erkennen zu können g l a u b e n " (op. cit., 5 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e : " W i r s a h e n , w i e er z w a r e i n i g e Z i t a t e d u r c h a u s i m u r sprünglichen Sinn verwendet, andere aber m i n d e s t e n s f r a g w ü r d i g interpretiert und 3. M o s e 18,5 in V. 12 gar gegen seinen eigentlichen Sinn zitiert. B e r u h t e seine Logik allein auf solc h e m s c h l e c h t e m U m g a n g mit d e m Alten Testament, wäre sie auch n i c h t d a m i t zu entschuldigen, d a ß es d a m a l s wie heute andere gibt, die es noch schlechter m a c h e n . Seine Arg u m e n t a t i o n wäre schnell zu widerlegen gewesen, schon damals in Galatien und n i c h t erst

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

243

is no real difference. 150 Betz, after listing the objections especially of scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures to Paul's interpretation of Deut 27:26 — which he recognizes as contrary to the meaning of the passage 151 — argues that Paul's reasoning is perfectly clear, 152 without explaining what he perceives as the

von den Voraussetzungen einer heutigen Exegese a u s " (op. cit., 56). He concedes: " D i e Schärfe der Diskussion u m Paulus d a m a l s wie heute erklärt sich j e d o c h daraus, dass Paulus b e h a u p t e t , es gebe n a c h Christus ein neues und s a c h g e m ä ß e r e s Verstehen des Alten Testaments, und dieser seiner B e h a u p t u n g hatten sich die Galater und ihre neuen Lehrer zu stell e n " (loc.cit.). For the general issue, see also, Longenecker: " B e f o r e we c o m m e n t directly on w 6 - 1 4 , however, the o b v i o u s m u s t be said: P a u l ' s exegesis of Scripture in these verses (and t h r o u g h o u t the rest of chaps. 3 and 4 ) goes far beyond the rules of historico-grammatical e x e g e s i s as f o l l o w e d b y b i b l i c a l s c h o l a r s t o d a y " ( G a l a t i a n s , 110). As e s p e c i a l l y L ü h r m a n n p o i n t s o u t a b o v e , h o w e v e r , this does n o t a p p l y o n l y to the c r i t i q u e of cont e m p o r a r y historical criticism. See also, in connection with Gen 15:6, L ü h r m a n n : "Will Paulus also seine Antithese von G l a u b e und Gesetz b e h a u p t e n , m u ß er sie rechtfertigen in einer neuen A u s l e g u n g von 1. M o s e 15,6, weil d i e s e Stelle j a g e r a d e n i c h t die A n t i t h e s e , s o n d e r n e h e r eine Z u s a m m e n g e h ö r i g k e i t von G l a u b e und Gesetz nahezulegen schien, u n d das sogar schon angelegt ist in i h r e m U r s p r u n g " ( o p . cit., 53); and Betz: ". . . his contention that Gen 15:6 proves his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of 'justification by f a i t h ' as opposed to ' b y w o r k s of the T o r a h ' can convince only those w h o share his theological and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s " 0Galatians, 141). 150 So B o n n a r d , after a d m i t t i n g the difference: "Paul cite G e n . 1 5 . 6 , m o t p o u r m o t ; donne-t-il ä ces m o t s le sens de leur contexte veterotestamentaire ? On l ' a souvent conteste (v. surtout Bousset); d a n s l ' A n c i e n Testament, la «foi» d ' A b r a h a m serait une simple c o n f i a n c e , et non l'acceptation p a u l i n i e n n e de la justification gratuite; selon l ' A n c i e n T e s t a m e n t cette conf i a n c e aurait s i m p l e m e n t «plu» ä Dieu, tandis que chez Paul eile lui f u t « c o m p t e e » c o m m e f o n d e m e n t de la j u s t i f i c a t i o n " (Galates, 65), B o n n a r d continues: "lis est certain que les termes de la G e n e s e trouvent chez Paul une precision et un accent tout n o u v e a x . Mais, q u a n t au f o n d , l'idee est bien la m e m e . La foi d ' A b r a h a m fut soumission et acceptation de la p r o m e s s e αηίέεέάεηίε de Dieu (Gen. 15. 5 b ) " (loc. cit.). See also R i d d e r b o s , " U n questionably, the c o n c e p t of faith is m o r e specialized in this connection than it is in Gen. 15, where the opposition, faith versus works, does not c o m e into view. All the same, the center of gravity in b o t h places is the trust in G o d ' s work, w i t h o u t consideration of w h a t is attainable by h u m a n strength, and possible to it" ( G a l a t i a n s , 118); Longenecker, quoting Betz a p p r o v i n g l y : " S o m e h a v e d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n A b r a h a m ' s faith as ' f a i t h in the p r o m i s e ' and C h r i s t i a n faith as ' f a i t h in f u l f i l l m e n t of that p r o m i s e ' (e.g., H. Schlier, Galater, 141; H. Boers, Theology Out of the Ghetto: A New Testament Exegetical Study concerning Exciusiveness [Leiden: Brill, 1971] 80). But such a distinction has m o r e app e a r a n c e than reality. For as H. D. Betz notes, 'the faith of the Christians also r e m a i n s faith in a p r o m i s e (Gal 5:5)' and ' b o t h A b r a h a m and the Christians believe in God w h o m a k e s the dead alive' (Galatians, 153 n. 141)" ( G a l a t i a n s , 113). Betz, however, merely states this as P a u l ' s view: "Paul, however, does not m a k e such a distinction: the faith of the Christians also r e m a i n s faith in a p r o m i s e (Gal 5:5). See also R o m 4:17, 24: b o t h A b r a h a m and the Christians believe in G o d w h o m a k e s the dead alive" (Galatians, 153, fn. 141). 151 " O n the surface, D e u t 2 7 : 2 6 says the opposite of w h a t he claims it s a y s " ( G a l a t i a n s , 145). 152 " S i n c e n o n e of the p r e c e d i n g solutions is satisfactory, it can be said, h o w e v e r , that Galatians itself sufficiently presents P a u l ' s view of the matter. For Paul salvation in Christ and the f u l f i l l i n g of the T o r a h u n d o u b t e d l y go t o g e t h e r (cf. 5 : 1 4 , 1 9 - 2 3 ; 6 : 2 ) " (Galatians, 146).

244

Christ in the Letters of Paul

clarity in question. One would probably have to understand it as clarity in Paul's terms, which still leaves his reasoning defective. He appeals to the passages in support of his reasoning, which makes him dependent on their meanings. It does not help, if, as Betz himself points out in connection with Gen 15:6, Paul's reasoning can be convincing only to those who already share his views. 153 3. Traditional Jewish understanding of Abraham's justification In Jewish interpretation Abraham's relationship to God was characterized by trust 1 5 4 and trustworthiness, 1 5 5 which came to expression through his obedience to the Law, 156 which was not considered contrary to faith. 157 153 See above page 242, footnote 149. 154 So Bonnard: ". . . dans l'Ancien Testament, la «foi» d'Abraham serait une simple confiance, et non l'acceptation paulinienne de la justification gratuite; selon l'Ancien Testament cette confiance aurait simplement «plu» ä Dieu . . ." (Galates, 65), and Longenecker: "Abraham's faith was not specifically faith in Jesus Christ, but faith in God and his promise" (Galatians, 113). 155 So Lührmann: "Abraham aber war für die jüdische Heidenmission gerade das Vorbild des sich vom Heidentum zum wahren Gott und zum Gesetz Bekehrenden. Insofern kann er auch für die galatischen Gegner ein attraktives Thema ihrer Verkündigung gewesen sein, eine ehrfurchterregende Gestalt der fernen Vergangenheit, von der man ja auch im Gesetz nachlesen konnte, welchen Sinn es hatte, sich an diesen Gott zu halten" (Galater, 50), also: "[Abrahams] Glauben, dem die Verheißung gilt (1. Mose 15,6), hat Abraham also in der Versuchung erwiesen; gemeint ist die Geschichte von Isaaks Opferung 1. Mose 22,1-19, die ja auch mit der erneuten Verheißung endet . . ." (op. cit., 52), and Dunn: "Abraham at this time was regularly understood within Jewish circles as the model of the devout Jew: 'Abraham was perfect in all of his actions with the Lord' (Jub. xxiii.10); he 'was accounted a friend of God because he kept the commandments of God' (C[airo] D[damascus] iii.2)" (Galatians, 160), also: ". . . it was customary to interpret 'Abraham believed God' in the light of Abraham's subsequent faithfulness under trial, so that it was by virtue of Abraham's faith, that is faithfulness, that 'he was reckoned righteous' and given the promise (Sir. xliv.19-21; 1 Macc. ii.52 Jub. xvii. 15-18; m. Abotv.3) . . ." (op. cit., 161). 156 So, Lührmann: "An erster Stelle und als Zusammenfassung des ganzen aber steht nun, daß Abraham das Gesetz des Höchsten beachtet hat. Halten des Gesetzes, Bundesvertrag mit Gott, der in der Beschneidung besiegelt wird und Bewährung in der Versuchung als Beweis seines Glaubens, das macht ihn zum Vorbild, und darin ist die Segensverheißung begründet" (Galater, 52); Betz: ". . . in Jewish tradition there is an uneasy union between Abraham's 'faith' and his 'works'" (Galatians, 141), also: "In Jewish theology the έν σοι [in the promise to Abraham] attracts most of the attention and is interpreted to mean 'because of the works of Torah obedience'" (op. cit., 142); Longenecker: "Jews of Paul's day also, of course, used Gen 15:6 when speaking about Abraham. In many Jewish references, however, Abraham's faith is set in the context of his righteous deeds, with the result that the faith of Abraham in Gen 15:6 becomes the faith of one already righteous before God because of his previous works of righteousness. The Aramaic Targums, for example, which represent interpretive readings of Scripture that were prevalent in the synagogues of Palestine during (roughly) Paul's day, speak of Gen 15:6 in the context of Abraham's merits before God in rescuing Lot and his family from the four northern kings in Gen 14 (see Tg Ps.-j, Tg Neof, Tg Onq.)" (Galatians, 113), also: "So the paraphrase of Gen 15:6 in

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

245

With ώστε oi έκ πίστεως ευλογούνται σύν τφ πιστφ 'Αβραάμ in Gal 3:9, Paul concludes his discussion of Abraham's justification and leads over to his discussion concerning the Law in 3:10-13 with οσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (Gal 3:10ab), recalling his Abraham discussion in the first part of his conclusion in 3:14ab, ϊνα εις τά εθνη ή ευλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ, coordinating it with the final purpose of his discussion in 3:14cd, ϊ ν α τήν έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λ ά β ω μ ε ν διά της πίστεως. 158 These two final clauses highlight that the entire discussion was not intended merely to provide information, but to address the issues at hand between Paul and his readers, 159 that the purpose of the Abraham discussion

Tg Ps.-J.: 'He [Abraham] believed in the Lord and had faith in the Word of the Lord, and He credited it to him for righteousness, because he parlayed not before him with words [but with deeds]' (italics and brackets mine). And this same understanding is carried on by Philo (cf. Abr. 262-74, which stresses that Abraham's faith 'is a little thing if measured by words, but every great thing if made good by actions'; Praem. 27: 'He [Abraham] received for his reward belief in God') and the rabbinic Midrashim (e.g., Exod. Rab. 3.12; 23.5; Cant. Rab. 4.8)" (op. cit., 114) 157 So, Burton: "No doubt there were those who sought to combine them, admitting that justification was by faith, but claiming that obedience to law was nevertheless requisite to salvation; as a modern Christian will affirm that religion is wholly a spiritual matter, yet feel that he is surer of salvation if he has been baptised" (Galatians, 167); Liihrmann: "Das Ziel dieses Abschnitts ist die Beantwortung der Frage von V. 5: Der Geist kommt in der Tat aus dem Glauben, nicht aus dem Gesetz (V. 14b). Paulus weist das nach in einer Auslegung von l.Mose 15,6. Das Thema Abraham ist dabei nicht beliebig gewählt, denn wer immer im Judentum und im frühen Christentum vom Glauben sprach, mußte von Abraham reden, von dem ja das Gesetz in l.Mose 15,6 sagte, daß «Gott ihm seinen Glauben als Gerechtigkeit angerechnet» hatte. Die ganze Auslegungstradition der Grundstelle jedoch steht, wie wir sehen werden, gegen die Interpretation, die Paulus ihr gibt, und diese Tradition scheint nicht bloße Fehlinterpretation zu sein, sondern einen Anhalt an der Stelle selber zu haben" 0Galater, 50). 158 Schlier: "Die Befreiung aus dem Fluch des Gestzes geschah dadurch, daß Christus ihn ausschöpfte, indem er die Gerechtigkeit des Gesetzes erfüllte. Damit war aber die Voraussetzung dafür geschaffen, daß der an Abraham sich knüpfende Segen über die Völker kommt. Denn damit war die Möglichkeit für das Wirken des Geistes und für den Glauben gegeben" (Galater, 140). 159 So, Dunn, who understands the second final clause connecting back to the beginning of the chapter: "Another way of stating the same objective is in order that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (cf. the double 'in order that' formulation of iv.4-5). This second formulation has several added advantages. (1) 'The promised Spirit' (cf. Acts ii.33) ties the thought back to the beginning of the chapter, reinforcing the complementary nature of the Galatians' own experience and the argument from scripture. In so doing Paul confirms that the reception of the Spirit (see on iii.2) was equivalent in his thought to being reckoned righteous — two ways of describing the same positive relationship with God through which his blessing flows . . . (4) Not least, the reformulation of 'the blessing of Abraham' in terms of 'the promise (of the Spirit)' provides the transition into the next section (see further on iii.18). Here it is important that he can portray the coming of the Spirit as eschatological fulfilment of long-established Jewish hopes for the age to come (Isa. xxxii.15; xliv.3; lix.21; Ezek. xi.19; xxxvi.26-7 xxxvii.1-14; xxxix.29)" (Galatians, 179— 80).

246

Christ in the Letters of Paul

was to make clear that the promise to Abraham, as Paul interpreted it, was intended for the gentiles as gentiles, that is, uncircumcised, which is what Paul argues in 3:10-13, to which we now turn our attention. (iii) The issue of the Law — Gal 3:10-13 a. Justification through the Law and by faith There is general agreement among interpreters that Paul presents justification through the Law and by faith in opposition to each other, 160 but there are important differences among interpreters on what that means, particularly on how Paul understands justification through the Law. Some argue that at issue was the curse that rested on those who depended on fulfilling the requirements of the Law, but on whom a curse rested because of failure to do so. 161 Schlier argues that the issue had not been failure to fulfill the requirements of the Law, but reliance on the Law as the means of securing one's own justifi-

160 In its simplist f o r m , Lightfoot p a r a p h r a s e s Gal 3:12, ό δέ ν ό μ ο ς οϋκ Κστιν έκ π ί σ τ ε ω ς , άλλ' ό π ο ι ή σ α ς αύτά ζ ή σ ε τ α ι έν αϋτοΐς, as follows: "Faith is not the starting-point of the law. The law does n o t take faith as its f u n d a m e n t a l principle. On the other h a n d , it rigidly enforces the p e r f o r m a n c e of all its e n a c t m e n t s " ( G a l a t i a n s , 139). Althaus represents the traditional v i e w that faith m e a n s the surrender of the attempt to find justification b e f o r e God through o n e ' s o w n acheivements: ". . . der G l a u b e aber ist gerade der Verzicht darauf, eine eigene Leistung vor Gott zu bringen. Hier gilt es n u r ein Entweder-Oder. Die beiden W e g e z u m Leben schließen sich a u s " {Römer, 26). 161 So Burton: " T h o s e that are of works of law are under the curse of the law, w h i c h falls on all w h o d o n o t fully satisfy its r e q u i r e m e n t s " (Galatians, 165); Lietzmann: ". . . da j a . . . kein M e n s c h das Gesetz halten kann [dieser n o t w e n d i g e G e d a n k e ist hier als selbstverständlich nicht a u s g e s p r o c h e n ] , so gilt ihnen der Fluch Dt 2 7 , 2 6 έ π ι κ α τ ά ρ α τ ο ς π ά ς ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς ος ούκ εμμένει εν π ά σ ι ν τοις λόγοις τοϋ ν ό μ ο υ . . ." (Galater, 10); O e p k e , b u t recognizing that this is contrary to the original intention of Deut 27:26 on which Paul relies: " D a s Gesetz — weit entfernt, der rechte Heilsweg zu sein, wie die Judaisten b e h a u p t e n — bringt denen, die durch p ü n k t l i c h e E r f ü l l u n g seiner rituellen und sittlichen B e s t i m m u n g e n sich A n e r k e n n u n g bei Gott und T e i l n a h m e a m messianischen Erbe sichern zu k ö n n e n und zu müssen g l a u b e n , v i e l m e h r Fluch. Pls folgert dies aus Dt 2 7 , 2 6 ( f o r m a l , n i c h t inhaltlich, leicht geändert). Diese D r o h u n g will allerdings ihrem Originalsinn n a c h gerade die sorgfältige B e o b a c h t u n g des Gesetzes einschärfen, setzt also dessen Erfüllbarkeit voraus. Der D r o h u n g gegenüber steht die V e r h e i ß u n g (28,1). Pls legt aber den absoluten Maßstab an und k o m m t so zu e i n e m e n t g e g e n g e s e t z t e n E r g e b n i s . D a ß kein M e n s c h d e m G e s e t z v o l l k o m m e n gerecht wird, setzt er stillschweigend v o r a u s " (Galater, 72); Althaus: "Alle M e n s c h e n , f ü r die das Gesetz der innere und äußere Halt ihres Lebens ist, stehen unter e i n e m Fluch, so heißt es V. 10. B e g r ü n d e t w u r d e dies durch das W o r t aus d e m 5. B u c h Mose, durch das j e d e r v e r d a m m t w i r d , d e r a u c h n u r die g e r i n g s t e B e s t i m m u n g des G e s e t z e s ü b e r t r i t t " (Römer, 26); Longenecker: "Israel had willingly placed herself under the stipulations of the c o v e n a n t (cf. Exod 24:3, 7), and in so d o i n g had accepted the threat of b e i n g cursed for n o n f u l f i l l m e n t (cf. J o s e p h u s , Ant. 4 . 3 0 2 , 3 0 7 ) . C o m i n g u n d e r a c u r s e w a s t h e r e f o r e inextricably b o u n d up with receiving the law, and Paul seeks to m a k e that point explicit in his treatment of Deut 2 7 : 2 6 " ( G a l a t i a n s , 117).

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

247

cation. 162 Works as such were not objectionable; only works as a means of self-justification. 163 Dunn takes an important further step by pointing out that for Paul — one should add, particularly here in Galatians — the Law established salvation as an exclusive privilege — for Jews only, excluding gentiles —, which, according to Dunn, was contrary to the ultimate purpose of the Law. 164 He concedes that Paul recognized an important role for the Law in the earlier period when it applied exclusively to Israel. 165 Longenecker points

162 " D e n n die Weise des V o r g a n g e s ist dieselbe wie bei der Gesetzesübertretung: das Begehren des M e n s c h e n n a c h sich selbst, der Trieb, sich selbst in die Hand zu b e k o m m e n und über sich selbst zu v e r f ü g e n , wird in d e m Kraft der S ü n d e an sich selbst g e b u n d e n e n Dasein mittels des Gesetzes erregt und — w o nichts als der M e n s c h und das Gesetz sind — in den T a t e n , die sich auf das G e s e t z einlassen u n d also als G e s e t z e s e r f ü l l u n g e n e r s c h e i n e n , w ä h r e n d sie doch Selbterfüllungen sind, b e f r i e d i g t " (Schlier, Galater, 135). 163 " M a n darf den R a d i k a l i s m u s der paulinischen A u s s a g e v o m verfluchten Leben aus den W e r k e n n i c h t a b s c h w ä c h e n , so wenig d a m i t Werke an sich verwerflich sind, wie sich an der den gebotenen W e r k e der Liebe in Gal 5,13ff. zeigen w i r d " Schlier, Galater, 135). 164 " B y the phrase ' t h o s e w h o rely on the w o r k s of the l a w ' , therefore, Paul m e a n t those w h o , in his j u d g e m e n t , w e r e p u t t i n g too m u c h w e i g h t on the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of J e w s f r o m Gentiles, and on the special laws w h i c h f o r m e d the b o u n d a r y markers between them, those w h o rested their c o n f i d e n c e in Israel's ' f a v o u r e d n a t i o n ' status, those w h o invested their identity too far in the p r e s u m p t i o n that Israel was set apart f r o m 'the nations' — including, of course, the Jewish Christians in view in i.6—8 and ii.4, 12.2. "It is this attitude which Paul n o w m a k e s bold to claim as a failure to do all that the law requires, and thus as falling under G o d ' s curse. The reason, which could be deduced f r o m the contrast with ' t h o s e of f a i t h ' , is c o n f i r m e d in the following t w o verses (iii. 1 1 - 1 2 ) . To f o c u s the l a w ' s requirem e n t s in this way, that is, on the restrictiveness of c o v e n a n t grace, on the exclusion of the Gentiles, is itself an a b u s e of w h a t God d e m a n d s of those in relationship with h i m , since that relationship is always constituted b y and d e p e n d e n t on faith. W h a t the c o v e n a n t law d e m a n d e d , in P a u l ' s view, is the o b e d i e n c e which expresses such faith ( R o m . i.5), the love w h i c h is the o u t w o r k i n g of such faith (Gal. v.6), not requirements of the law understood and practised in such a w a y as to d e n y the s u f f i c i e n c y of the very faith on w h i c h the c o v e n a n t was based. W h e r e his o p p o n e n t s argued f r o m the w o r k i n g out of the covenant: c o v e n a n t — > w o r k s of l a w — > exclusion of Gentiles Paul argued f r o m the foundational character of the covenant. c o v e n a n t — > f a i t h — > blessing open to all n a t i o n s " ( D u n n , Galatians, 172-73). D u n n adds: "It needs to be stressed that this is essentially a positive view of the role of the law; the idea that the Torah was given to b e broken and in order to generate sin (Betz 145) is not f o u n d in Galatians (see on iii. 19); and B e k e r ' s 54 talk of a " g n o s t i c i z i n g ' opposition of gospel and l a w ' here (similarly Drane) is at best unwise and m i s l e a d i n g (not least in v i e w of v. 14)" (op. cit., 175). For a similar view, not in all the details, see B o n n a r d : "Le dessein de Dieu s ' e t e n d a i t ä toutes les families de la terre (v. 8); c e p e n d a n t , la loi avait provisoirement limite l'histoire du salut au p e u p l e j u i f qui en avait fait sa loi; e n c h a i n e ä cette loi son ambition religieuse, d o m i n e p a r elle, le p e u p l e de Dieu e t o u f f a i t dans son particularisme legaliste; p o u r q u e (ϊνα v. 14) le p e u p l e de Dieu retrouve sa vocation universelle, il fallait d ' a b o r d qu'il f ü t delivre de la malediction de la loi et rendu c a p a b l e d'accueillir les nations en son sein sans les s o u m e t t r e a u x observances legale" (Galates, 68). 165 "Paul recognized the important role the law had in the period w h e n the c o v e n a n t was e f f e c tive for only Israel, as a m e a n s of directing life within the c o v e n a n t people; the m i s t a k e was to c o n f u s e that role with the m o r e basic role of f a i t h " (Dunn, Galatians, 175-76).

248

Christ in the Letters of Paul

to cases in Jewish thought where the Law had been considered as not applying exclusively to the Jews. 166 β. The curse of the Law In traditional Protestant interpretation the curse of the Law came on those who failed in a complete fulfillment of its requirements. 167 Schlier contradicts this interpretation: According to Paul, the curse applies to all those who are under the Law irrespective of its fulfillment, 168 which agrees with other interpreters. 169 166 "Paul's quotation of Lev 18:5 in Gal 3:12 leaves out the word άνθρωπος ( ' m a n ' ) that is included in all extant LXX versions, translating αΐΝη (? ha 'adam) of the MT. One tradition of talmudic lore that goes well back into the Tannaitic period lays stress on the fact that the general term 'man' appears in Lev 18:5 and draws from that the conclusion that even a Gentile may be regarded in God's sight as a high priest if he observes the law. So, for example, Rabbi Meir (second generation Tannaim) is cited in b. Sank. 59a as saying: "Whence do we know that even a Gentile who studies the Torah is as a High Priest? From the verse "[Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments,] which if a man do, he shall live in them (Lev 18:5). Priests, Levites, Israelites are not mentioned, but ' m e n ' ; hence thou mayest learn that even a Gentile who studies the Torah is as a High Priest" (cf.ö. B. Qam. 38a; Midr.Ps. 1.18; Num. Rab. 13.15-1 6, where the same tradition appears). ""In omitting άνθρωπος from the quotation, therefore, Paul may even have been implying that Lev 18:5 should be withdrawn from the category of passages having relevance to pious Gentiles. The Judaizers may have been so using the passage, and he wanted to undercut that specific usage; or Paul may have known generally of such a usage and therefore could not bring himself to include άνθρωπος in the text (contra all the textual traditions of the MT, LXX, and Targums). Be that as it may, however, in Gal 3:12 Paul sees Lev 18:5 as devoid of the principle of faith and so lines it up with Deut 27:26 in the category of law and curse" (Longenecker, Galatians, 120-21). 167 For references, see above, page 246, footnote 161. 168 With regard to 3:10c, ος ούκ εμμένει πάσιν τοις γεγραμμένοις έν τω βιβλίω τοΰ νόμου τοϋ ποιήσαι αύτά, Schlier concludes: "Fast ist εμμένει πάσιν τοις γεγραμμένοις . . . τοΰ ποιήσαι αύτά ein Begriff, dessen Schwergewicht auf dem ποιήσαι ruht" (Galater, 132), and as a result: "Das macht darauf aufmerksam, daß die Schriftstelle im Sinn des Paulus nicht die Ursache angeben soll, um deretwillen über denen, die aus den Gesetzeswerken leben, der Fluch liegt, wobei als der entscheidende Gedanke ergänzt werden müßte: es erfüllt niemand das Gesetz bzw. es kann n i e m a n d es e r f ü l l e n . Die S c h r i f t s t e l l e soll v i e l m e h r n u r bekräftigen daß die Gesetzesleute unter dem Fluch stehen. Das Zitat selbst setzt ja auch durchaus voraus, daß das Gesetz erfüllt werden kann und daß es erfüllt wird" (op. cit., 132-33), also: "Der Fluch haftet also offenbar für Paulus an dem ποιείν selbst, sofern es sich auf die έργα νόμου bezieht. Er ist nicht erst damit gegeben, daß das Gesetz quantitativ nicht ganz erfüllt wird, sondern schon damit, daß es überhaupt 'getan' werden muß, daß es sich bei ihm um ein Tun handelt, das auf eine Forderung des Gesetzes hin geschieht, also um έργα νόμου" (op. cit., 135). 169 So, with consideration of the alternative, Bonnard: ". . . on peut comprendre le texte de deux manieres. Pour les uns (Oepke, Beyer, etc.) l'accent porte sur le πάσιν: sont maudits ceux qui n'accomplissent pas tous les commandements (sous-entendu: personne ne les accomplit tous). Pour les autres l'accent porte sur l'idee seule de malediction (έπικατάρατος πάς ος): sont maudits tous ceux qui sont sous les commandements, qui y cherchent leur salut. Le premier sens est probablement celui du texte veterotestamentaire; mais le second convient beaucoup mieux au contexte paulinien" (Galates, 67). Note that Bonnard does

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

249

Liihrmann also belongs to this last group of interpreters, but he then proceeds to a discussion of the differences between Paul's understanding of the curse and blessings and the understanding of them in Scripture. Whereas in Scripture the Law is the foundation of blessings and of life for those who remain within the covenant, and a curse and death follows for those who violate it, Paul understands the curse and death to result from the very fact of being under the Law. According to Scripture, a person cannot earn blessings and life through works, but receives them from God. 170 A curse is upon Israel not take the original sense of the text and Paul's interpretation of it in the same way as Oepke does, see above, page 246, footnote 161. Lührmann formulates this view negatively only (see my italics below): "Es geht hier natürlich um die Verfluchung dessen, der nicht in diesen Geboten bleibt; dementsprechend würde ein Segen dem versprochen, der sich an die Gebote hält. Paulus jedoch interpretiert den Vers, wie beim griechischen Text sprachlich gerade noch möglich, wenn auch logisch schwierig, umgekehrt: das Tun der Gebote, die in diesem Buch geschrieben sind, steht selber unter dem Fluch, und unter diesen Fluch wird der getrieben, der sich nicht an diese Gebote hält. "Der Text findet sich gegen Ende der «fünf Bücher Moses», so daß mit dem «Buch des Gesetzes » eben das ganze Gesetz gemeint ist: «Jeder, der nicht bleibt in allem, was geschrieben ist in dem Buch des Gesetzes, ist verflucht, es zu tun», oder im Sinne des Paulus: «Niemand, der bei allem bleibt, was geschrieben ist im Buch des Gesetzes, steht unter dem Segen». Einen solchen Satz kann Paulus natürlich im Gesetz nicht finden, und deshalb muß er so gewaltsam 5. Mose 27,26 gegen seinen ursprünglichen Sinn interpretieren" (Galater, 55 — my italics). Also Betz: "Paul introduces his second proof from Scripture. Again, he states his conclusion first: 'those who are of [the] works of [the] Torah are under a curse' (οσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν). Paul arrives at his conclusion by way of a negative inference: if — as stated in ν 9 — the 'men of faith' are blessed together with Abrahan, those who are not 'men of faith' must be 'men of [the] Torah' (οί έκ νόμον), and they must 'under a curse.' Not being blessed is the same as being cursed. Not belonging to the 'men of faith' is the same as belonging to the 'men of the Torah' — these two types of people were mentioned in the previous discussion. Furthermore, the 'men of the Torah' are those who for their salvation rely on the works of the Torah (oi έξ έγων νόμου). Consequently all who are of this type are 'under a curse.' This includes the Jews and also those Jewish Christians who, as Paul's opponents do, regard the observation of the Torah as a condition for salvation" (Galatians, 144). 170 "Greift man noch einmal auf das Gegensatz von Segen und Fluch zurück, so stammt dieses aus dem Alten Testament selber, ist dort aber dem Gesetz anders zugeordnet als bei Paulus. Paulus vorher Gesetz Fluch Tod

jetzt Christus —> Glaube Christus —> Segen Christus —> Leben

Altes Testament Bund außerhalb des Bundes und des Gesetzes Gesetz Segen Fluch Leben Tod

"Was bei Paulus durch Christus zu einem zeitlichen Nacheinander wird, wirkt im Alten Testament wie zwei gleichzeitige Möglichkeiten, deren jeweilige Realisierung sich am Verhalten gegenüber dem Gesetz entscheidet: Wer das im Gesetz angebotene Leben, die Verheißung des Bundes annimmt, steht unter dem Segen, wer sich dem Gesetz verweigert, steht im Fluch, im Tod. Paulus reißt also auseinander, was im Alten Testament zusam-

250

Christ in the Letters of Paul

if it does not keep the Law because it means to violate the covenant, a curse which Israel did indeed call upon herself. But that did not have to mean the end of it.The possibility of a new beginning is provided by God, of which Israel could make use by conversion and a return to the Law. 171 Israel did indeed pay heed to a return to the Law, for which Paul is an example with his exemplary behavior as a Pharisee to which he himself witnesses in Phil 3:4— 6.172

Liihrmann's is a remarkable achievement. His commentary appeared in 1977, a year after the appearance of E. P. Sanders' pioneering Paul and Palestinian Judaism,173 with which Liihrmann's interpretation agrees although there are no signs of dependence. Dunn is widely known for views similar to these. 174

m e n g e h ö r t , wobei a u c h G l a u b e b z w . U n g e h o r s a m sich n o c h in das S c h e m a einzeichnen ließen als das d e m Gesetz e n t s p r e c h e n d e bzw. n i c h t e n t s p r e c h e n d e Leben, d e m die Segensv e r h e i ß u n g b z w . die F l u c h a n d r o h u n g gilt. " V o r a u s s e t z u n g des ganzen aber ist i m Alten T e s t a m e n t der « B u n d » als Gottes G n a d e n h a n d e l n , seine L e b e n s v e r h e i ß u n g , so d a ß Segen oder Fluch, Leben oder Tod eigentlich nicht davon a b h ä n g e n , d a ß der M e n s c h sie durch seine W e r k e erwirbt, sondern d a v o n , d a ß Gott selber Segen u n d Leben schenkt. Das Gesetz ist das D o k u m e n t dieser V e r h e i ß u n g und d a m i t die Möglichkeit, diese V e r h e i ß u n g d u r c h z u h a l t e n " (Galater, 5 6 - 7 ) . 171 " E i n e ungleich längere Reihe in 3 M o s e 1 4 - 3 9 j e d o c h k ü n d i g t den Fluch an f ü r den Fall, d a ß Israel sich n i c h t an das Gesetz hält u n d d a m i t den B u n d bricht: K r a n k h e i t e n , U n f r u c h t b a r k e i t , Krieg, N i e d e r l a g e n , Gottes A b w e s e n h e i t , in allem das Gegenteil j e n e s erh o f f t e n Z u s t a n d e s der Gerechtigkeit, die totale Katastrophe. In dieser Fluchreihe ist n u n aber, wie schon e r w ä h n t , die Realität der Exilszeit a n g e s p r o c h e n u n d n i c h t eine b l o ß e Möglichkeit, die lediglich aus p ä d a g o g i s c h e n G r ü n d e n auch n o c h aufgezeigt würde. Diese Flüche haben sich realisiert: Die Städte Israels sind S c h u t t h a u f e n , das Land ist verwüstet, Israel ist unter die Heiden zerstreut ([Vv, J 3 1 - 3 3 ) . " D a m i t b r a u c h t die G e s c h i c h t e Gottes mit s e i n e m V o l k Israel aber n i c h t a m E n d e zu sein. Die Verse 4 0 - 4 5 zeigen die Möglichkeit eines N e u b e g i n n s von Gottes Seite, der seines B u n d e s mit den Vätern, die j a den Segen erlebt h a b e n , g e d e n k e n will. V o r a u s s e t z u n g d a f ü r ist die B e k e h r u n g Israels und seine erneute H i n w e n d u n g z u m Gesetz. . . . Kriterium f ü r S e g e n u n d F l u c h e i n s c h l i e ß l i c h e i n e r n e u e n S e g e n s z e i t ist u n d b l e i b t d a s G e s e t z " ( L ü h r m a n n , Galater, 57). 172 "Israel hat j a in der Tat d e m A u f r u f zur erneuten H i n w e n d u n g z u m Gesetz Folge geleistet. Es hat Ernst g e m a c h t m i t d e m Gesetz bis in den Alltag hinein, wie Paulus selber das vorbildlich in seiner pharisäischen Vergangenheit t a t " ( L ü h r m a n n , Galater, 58). 173

Ε. P. S a n d e r s , Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). 174 See above, page 2 4 7 , footnote 164, where Dunn interprets the c o v e n a n t in the sense of the Jews e x c l u d i n g the gentiles through the Law, whereas they are included by faith. The interpretations agree that in Jewish understanding the Law excludes gentiles f r o m the blessings of the c o v e n a n t — places t h e m u n d e r a curse in L ü h r m a n n ' s interpretation — , w h i c h is o v e r c o m e b y faith — b r i n g i n g blessings and life in L ü h r m a n n ' s interpretation. In neither case is one justified b y works of the Law. Justification is through reliance on the blessings provided either exclusively for the Jews b y the Law, or for Jews as well as gentiles b y faith.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

251

γ. The curse on Christ An important issue in connection with the curse on Christ is whether the curse is of God. Some interpreters are disinclined to consider the curse to have been from God, for which support is found in the fact that Paul avoids mentioning God in his quotation of Deut 21:23 in 3:13d. 1 7 5 There is a widespread tendency to understand the curse to have been pronounced by the Law, 176 But, as Bonnard and others point out, to be cursed by the Law, is equivalent to being cursed by God. 177 175 So already Lightfoot: "Our Lord had died the death of the worst malefactors: He had undergone that punishment, which under the law betokened the curse of God. So far He had become κατάρα. But He was in no literal sense κατάρατος ύπό θεοΰ, and St Paul instinctively omits those words [from Deut 21.23, κεκατηραμένος ύπό θεοΰ] which do not strictly apply, and which, if added, would have required some qualification" (Galatians, 140), and Oepke: "Auch das Kreuz Christi! Allerdings, ein Verfluchter oder Fluch Gottes — so LXX und hbr wesentlich übereinstimmend — das schreibt Pls nicht. Dadurch würde die falsche Vorstellung erweckt werden, als habe der Gekreuzigte persönlich unter dem Fluch Gottes gestanden" (Galater, 74). Longenecker introduces other considerations for Paul's avoidance of the reference to God as well: "Also he omits ύπό θεοΰ ('by God') after έπικατάρατος, either to avoid saying directly that Christ was cursed by God — though, of course, 'the curse of the law' is another way of saying 'cursed by God' — or to highlight the absolute nature of the curse itself. It may be, in fact, as Max Wilcox proposes, that the underlying textform used here by Paul was not that of any of the LXX versions as we know them, but a Hebrew version akin to the tradition of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o u n d in the Temple Scroll f r o m Q u m r a n . . ." (Galatians, 122). 176 So Oepke: "Der Fluch, der Christus traf, sei nicht irgendwie der Fluch Gottes, sondern der Fluch des — vereinseitigten — Gesetzes . . ." (Galater, 75); Schlatter: "Jesus hat an sich selbst gekostet, wie das Gesetz den Sünder von Gott wegtreibt und vom Genuß der göttlichen Hilfe und Herrlichkeit abtrennt" (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon, 80), who adds: "Er tat das für uns. Denn wir, nicht er, sind die Übertreter des Gesetzes fluchbeladen vor Gott" (loc. cit.); Schlier, by implication: "Die Befreiung aus dem Fluch des Gesetzes geschah dadurch, daß Christus ihn ausschöpfte, indem er die Gerechtigkeit des Gesetzes erfüllte" (Galater, 140): Althaus: "5. Mose 21,23 heißt es sogar: verflucht von Gott. Denn Christus ist nicht in Person, in eigener Sache Gegenstand des Fluches Gottes. Aber der Gekreuzigte ist vom Gesetze verflucht" (Römer, 26), also: "Nach den Maßstäben der gesetzlichen Welt war auch er ein Verfluchter und muß das Verhängnis dieser Welt auf sich nehmen, daß ihr Tun und Wollen in einer Katastrophe endet" (loc. cit.)·, Lührmann: "Der Fluch, der dem Gesetz zugeordnet ist, hat hier sein Ende gefunden, indem das Gesetz selber Christus verflucht hat (vgl. 2,19)" Galater, 56); Ridderbos: "At issue here is satisfaction of violated justice, as is evident from the phrase: from the curse of the law" (Galatians, 126-27); Betz: "The liberation from the 'curse of the Torah' is taken to be a benefit of Christ's death on the cross. Paul affirms this by a reference to a christologicalsoteriological dogma: Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου ('Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law')" (Galatians, 149); and Dunn: "[A] conclusion Paul draws from his understanding of Christ's death as bearing the curse of the law . . ." (Galatians, 179). 177 Bonnard, with regard to the curse which Paul claims to rest on those who are unde the Law: "La puissance dominatrice dont Jesus-Christ nous a rachetes est la loi; mais cette loi n'est pas comprise comme une figure mythique ou angelique; elle exprime la malediction de Dieu sur l'homme qui cherche en elle son salut (Rom. 2. 5 - 1 0 ) " (Galates, 69); Longeneck-

252

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Paul states that Christ became a curse, γενόμενος κατάρα (3:13b). Undoubtedly this has to be taken as metynomy, of which Paul makes use frequently elsewhere as well: περιτομή for the circumcised and άκροβυστία for Gentiles in 2:7,9 and Rom. 3:30. Also, σοφία and δικαιοσύνη τε και άγιασμός και άπολύτρωσις in 1 Cor 1:30, and άμαρτία and δικαιοσύνη in 2 Cor 5:21, τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτφ. 178 The way Paul explains the curse on Christ is by appealing to Scripture, 179 that is, by quoting Deut 21:23c, κεκατηραμένος ύπό θεοΰ πάς κρεμάμενος έπί

er: "[Paul] omits ύπό θεοΰ ('by God') after έπικατάρατος, . . . to avoid saying directly that Christ was cursed by God — though, of course, 'the curse of the law' is another way of saying 'cursed by G o d ' " (Galatians, 122). The same probably applies to Dunn, who refers to the curse of the Law and being cursed by God in the same context: "To affirm that the crucified Jesus was cursed by God, therefore, was tantamount to saying that he had been put outside the covenant, outside the people of God" (Galatians, 178) and: "This is the conclusion Paul draws from his understanding of Christ's death as bearing the curse of the law . . ." (op. cit., 179). Ridderbos, as already mentioned, above footnote 176, on the one hand, refers to the curse as coming from the Law, "At issue here is satisfaction of violated justice, as is evident from the phrase: from the curse of the law" (Galatians, 126-27), but also refers to it as coming from God: "The curse, to which Christ yielded Himself victim, is not an independently operative principle, but the personal judgment of God, in which He had Christ undergo the sentence instead of the condemned ones (cf. Rom. 8:3 and 2 Cor. 5:21)" (op. cit., 127). 178 See Burton: "κατάρα, literally 'a curse,' 'an execration,' 'an expression or sentence of reprohation' (as in the preceding clause and V. 10), is evidently here used by metonymy, since a person can not become a curse in a literal sense. Such metonymy is common in Paul. Cf. the use of περιτομή for the circumcised, and άκροβυστία for Gentiles in 2, 7 [and] 9 and Rom. 3,30. Cf. also 1 Cor. 1,29, 'who became wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption'; but esp. 2 Cor. 5,21: 'Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf (ύπέρ ήμών), that we might become righteousness of God in h i m . ' " (Galatians, 171); Oepke: "Die Befreiung geschah so, daß Christus ein Fluch (metonymisch für "ein Verfluchter" wie άκροβστία und περιτομή 2,7; Rm 2,26) wurde zu unserem Besten" (Galater, 74); and Althaus, with reference to 2 Cor 5:21: "Wie Paulus dort sagt: Gott hat den, der die Sünde nicht kennenlernte, zur Sünde (nicht: zum Sünder) gemacht, so hier: er ward Fluch (nicht Verfluchter)" (Römer, 2 7 ) . 179 So Bousset: "Daß Christus aber am Kreuz tatsächlich ein Fluch für uns ward, beweißt Paulus durch das Zitat 5. Mose 21,23 . . ." (Galater, 53); Burton: "Precisely in what sense and how Christ came under the curse of the law, and how this availed to deliver us from that curse, must appear from a consideration of the quotation by which Paul supports his affirmation" (Galatians, 172); Schlatter: "Warum verflucht? Eben weil er aufgehängt am Kreuzholz endete" (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon, 80); Lührmann. "Schon im Judentum war diese Stelle auf Gekreuzigte bezogen worden, die ja erst am Kreuz starben und nicht schon vorher umgebracht worden waren. Der Fluch, der dem Gesetz zugeordnet ist, hat hier sein E n d e g e f u n d e n , i n d e m das Gesetz selber Christus v e r f l u c h t h a t " (Galater, 55-6); Ridderbos: "The reference to Deut. 21 is intended precisely to point out the reality of the curse and, in connection with it, to set forth Christ's redemption as a satisfaction of the justice of God" (Galatians, 128); and Longenecker, pointing out that Paul omitted the reference to God: "Also he omits ύπό θεοΰ ('by God') after έπικατάρατος, either to avoid saying directly that Christ was cursed by God . . ." (Galatians, 122).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

253

ξύλου. Bousset points out that Paul does not have the original intention of the text in mind, 180 but Schlatter and Lührmann refer to the fact that Jews already referred to the text in connection with a crucifixion. 181 The reference to Deut 21:23 may lend support to the idea of the curse on Christ; it does not explain what the curse means. To explain that an appeal is made to 2 Cor 5:21. 182 Betz considers the possibility that the conception may have been derived "from Judaism from the pre-Pauline tradition in Gal 4:45." 183 Some thought has b e e n given to the question of the m e a n i n g of έξηγόρασεν, 184 and, finally, there is the issue to whom ήμάς (Χριστός ήμάς

180 "Das Zitat ist gänzlich aus dem Z u s a m m e n h a n g gerissen. . . . Paulus beweist einmal wieder nur aus dem Wortlaut der Schrift, wie wir das bei ihm gewohnt sind" (Galater, 5 3 - 4 ) . 181 Schlatter: "Der Jude berief sich mit Grund auf die göttliche Wort, wenn er Jesus einen Fluch n a n n t e " (Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon, 80); L ü h r m a n n : "Schon im J u d e n t u m war diese Stelle auf Gekreuzigte bezogen worden . . ." (Galater, 55). 182 So Lietzmann: "Der ganze zu II Cor 5,21 entwickelte Ideenkomplex wird dabei als den Z u h ö r e r n b e k a n n t v o r a u s g e s e t z t : o h n e i h n ist u n s e r e S t e l l e n i c h t zu v e r s t e h e n " (Galater, 19); Oepke: "Den besten authentischen Kommentar zu unserer Stelle bildet 2 Kr 5 , 1 8 - 2 1 . Dort wird auch ein Doppeltes noch deutlicher, daß Gott sich nicht ' b e k a u f e n ' läßt, s o n d e r n d i e S ü h n e , d i e s e i n e H e i l i g k e i t e r f o r d e r t , s e l b s t l e i s t e t , u n d d a ß d i e Stellvertretung nicht dinglich im Sinne eines 'erledigten' Rechtshandels verstanden werden d a r f ' (Galater, 76); Schlier: "Das γενόμενος ύ π έ ρ ήμών κατάρα ist im engen Z u s a m m e n hang mit 2Kor 5,21 zu sehen: . . . Denn in 2Kor 5,21 meint Paulus, daß Gott den, der ohne Erfahrung der Sünde war, nun nicht für seine Person zum Sünder machte, sondern zu dem, der in d e m M a ß e Träger der Sünde wurde, daß er nur noch Darsteller der S ü n d e der anderen war" (Galater, 138); Longenecker: ". . . the curse of the cross was "an exchange curse" wherein Christ became a curse for us (cf. esp. 2 Cor 5:21)" (Galatians, 122). See also Althaus: "Wie Paulus [in II Cor 5,21] sagt: Gott hat den, der die Sünde nicht kennenlernte, zur Sünde (nicht: z u m Sünder) g e m a c h t . . ." (Römer, 27) 183 "This Statement [γενόμενος κατάρα ύπέρ ήμών] presupposes sacrificial ideas which are, however, not spelled out. Does Paul mean that Christ became the object of the curse in place of us, or a 'curse offering' as a means of propitiation 'for u s ' ? Is the notion derived f r o m Judaism f r o m the pre-Pauline tradition in Gal 4 : 4 - 5 , or is it a formulation ad hoc? A definitive answer cannot be given. Most likely the statement is based upon a pre-Pauline interpretation of Jesus' death as a self-sacrifice and atonement (see also Gal 1:4; 2:20)" (Galatians, 15-51). See also Ridderbos: "Behind the imagery employed, there very probably lies the old practice, circumscribed by the Jewish legal code, a c c o r d i n g to which ransom money could be paid for a forfeited life (cf. Ex. 21:30)" (Galatians, 127). 184 Ligtfoot: "έξηγόρασεν] This verb has two meanings, (i) ' T o redeem, ransom,' especially from slavery: this is its general signification: see the references in D i n d o r f s Steph. Thes. (2) ' T o buy u p , ' as Polyb. iii. 42. 2, a somewhat exceptional sense. The former meaning is r e q u i r e d h e r e a n d iv. 5: t h e l a t t e r s e e m s b e s t s u i t e d to E p h e s . v. 16, C o l . iv. 5 έξαγοραζόμενος" (Galatians, 139); Oepke: " O b Pis an sakralen Sklavenfreikauf (Dm: L0 271 ff) gedacht hat, kann dahingestellt bleiben. Auch w e m der Preis bezahlt ist, bleibt in der Schwebe. An unserer Stelle k o m m t man allenfalls mit der A b f i n d u n g des Gesetzes aus" (Galater, 75); Bonnard: " L ' i d e e du rachat (v. 4. 5; cf. 5. 1), dans l'epitre aux Galates, est au service de celle de liberation (5. 1), plus generale et plus fondamentale. La puissance dominatrice dont Jesus-Christ nous a rachetes est la loi; mais cette loi n'est pas comprise c o m m e u n e f i g u r e m y t h i q u e ou a n g e l i q u e ; eile e x p r i m e la m a l e d i c t i o n de Dieu sur

254

Christ in the Letters of Paul

έξηγόρασεν) refers. Bonnard considers various possible meanings, but excludes limiting them to Jewish Christians. 185 Various possible meanings are considered: specifically Jews, 186 everyone, 187 and all believers. 188

r h o m m e qui cherche en eile son salut (Rom. 2. 5-10). C'est done de la colere divine que Jesus-Christ «nous» a delivres (av. Büchsei, cf. Sieffert, Meyer, etc., cf. 2 Cor. 5. 21). Sur le moyen de ce rachat, Paul ne dit ici qu'une chose, c'est que l'homme n ' y est pour rien; il est l'oeuvre du Christ ou, dans le contexte paulinien, l'oeuvre de Dieu en Jesus-Christ. C'est sans doute en accomplissant integralement, par substitution, (pour nous ύπέρ ήμών = en notre faveur et ä notre place), les exigences de la loi et en supportant cette malediction a la croix que Jesus nous a delivres" (Galates, 69); Ridderbos: "A more particular thought is attached to this redeeming than simply that of the emancipation of a prisoner. At issue here is satisfaction of violated justice, as is evident from the phrase: from the curse of the law. Behind the imagery employed, there very probably lies the old practice, circumscribed by the Jewish legal code, according to which ransom money could be paid for a forfeited life (cf. Ex. 21:30)" (Galatians, 126-27); Betz: "The liberation from the 'curse of the Torah' is taken to be a benefit of Christ's death on the cross. Paul affirms this by a reference to a christological-soteriological dogma: Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου ('Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law')" (Galatians, 149), also ". . . Christ accomplished that redemption by 'becoming a curse for u s ' (γενόμενος κατάρα ύ π έ ρ ήμών). This statement presupposes sacrificial ideas which are, however, not spelled out. Does Paul mean that Christ became the object of the curse in place of us, or a 'curse offering' as a means of propitiation 'for us'? Is the notion derived from Judaism from the pre-Pauline tradition in Gal 4:4-5, or is it a formulation ad hod A definitive answer cannot be given. Most likely the statement is based upon a pre-Pauline interpretation of Jesus' death as a self-sacrifice and atonement (see also Gal 1:4; 2:20)" (op. cit., 150-51). 185 ". . . ce nous peut designer tous les hommes (tendance orthodoxe, insistant sur le caractere objectif et universel de l'oeuvre du Christ) ou les Juifs, en tant que peuple de la loi (Hofman, Sieffert, etc.) ou les judeo-chretiens en tant qu'ils ont dejä passe de l'institution legale dans Talliance de grace. Ecrivant aux Galates, Paul ne pense certainement pas seulement aux judeo-chretiens" (Galates, 68-9). 186 Lightfoot: "The Apostle is here thinking of the deliverance of himself and the Jewish race: see τά έθνη, ver. 14" (Galatians, 139), and Lietzzmann: "Das ήμάς geht auf 'uns Juden, die wir unter dem Gesetz standen', wie der Gegensatz εις τά έθνη v. 14 zeigt (Kühl). Die Argumentation erfolgt wieder auf Grund des biblischen Wortlautes: eine κατάρα liegt auf allen, die das Gesetz nicht halten" (Galater, 19). 187 Bousset: "Wenn Paulus . . . sagt: Christus hat ' u n s ' losgekauft, so will vielmehr alle Christen darin sein" (Galater, 53); Schlier, objecting specifically to the refemce to εις τά έθνη as contrast (Lightfoot and Lietzmann, above, footnote 186): "Das ήμάς hat also schon von solchen a l l g e m e i n e n E r w ä g u n g e n aus n i c h t einen g e g e n s ä t z l i c h e n und ausschließenden, sondern einen umfassenden Charakter. Dasselbe läßt sich auch aus dem engeren Zusammenhang unserer Stelle erweisen. Denn einmal ist das ήμάς in V. 13 wiederholt in dem ύπέρ ήμών, das aber sicherlich nicht auf die Juden einzuschränken sondern, wie etwa das IKor 5,7 M. pl syr zu τό πάσχα ήμών hinzugefügte ύπέρ ήμών nach Rom 8,32 ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αυτόν zu verstehen ist, zweitens kann aber das ήμάς in V. 13 nicht dem εις τά έθνη von V. 14 entgegengesetzt sein, da im zweiten parallelen ϊνα-Satz das 'wir' wieder im Verbum λάβωμεν auftaucht und dort umfassend Juden und Heiden meint" (Galater, 137); Ridderbos: "In this name lies the secret of the whole redemption, that of the Jews as well as that of the Gentiles, both of whom the apostle comprises in his us (cf. ve rse 14)" (Galatians, 125-26) and Dunn: "Hence Paul can say 'us', meaning both Jew and Gentile, not just Jewish Christians or Jews . . . It was precisely this 'us' and 'them' dichotomy of grace which Paul sought to combat: Christ died to benefit all

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

255

Returning to the interpretation of the meaning of Christ in the passage: Prompted by the alternatives, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως in Gal 3:2 and 5, Paul moves the basis of his reasoning from Christ's crucifixion in 3:1 to the even more fundamental level of Abraham's justification by faith in 3:6, 'Αβραάμ έπίστευσεν τω θεω, και έλογίσθη αύτω εις δικαιοσύνην. The multivalence of πίστνς in Gal 3:3 and 5, as we have seen in the discussion of 3:1-5, enables Paul in verse 6 to introduce Abraham's justification by faith into his reasoning by quoting Gen 15:6, which refers univocally to Abraham's act of trusting God. Paul's introduction of Abraham into his reasoning has an important effect on the levels of meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia. Abraham's justification (v. 6) and the inheritance promised to him by scripture (v. 8) function at a level more fundamental than Christ's death. Thus it becomes necessary to introduce again in this passage, as in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2, another, sixth, level of meaning to the right of the level of Christ in our schema of the levels of meaning of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and parousia, in this case the level of Abraham's justification. As in the case of the more fundamental level of God in 2 Cor 5:11-6:10,1 will refer to the level of Abraham as level la. 189 Actually, in this passage there is an even more fundamental level than Abraham's justification: God, in whom Abraham believed and who justified him. Furthermore, scripture's promise to Abraham was based on it having foreseen that God would justify the gentiles by faith (v. 8ab). The promise to Abraham is based on foreseeing its fulfillment. However, Paul does not appeal to God's activity as a basis for his reasoning, which could have made it necessary to introduce yet another, seventh, level of meaning in the interpretation of the passage. In view of Paul's reasoning, that is not necessary. We will return to this issue below in the discussion of Rom 8:31-39. Paul's purpose in 3:6-14, as it is in the rest of the chapter, is not an interpretation of the Abraham story. Rather, as has been typical in the previous christological passages, he appeals to the Abraham story as the fundamental argument in his discourse against those who favor circumcision. Significant about the present passage is that the first part of Paul's reasoning (vv. 6-12)

whose m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g or ignorance of the grace of God through faith p u t t h e m effectively outside its full s w e e p (see also J P L 2 3 7 ) " (Galatians, 1 7 6 - 7 7 ) , w h o then qualifies t h e m as "all w h o h a v e actually received the Spirit" (see the next footnote). 188 L ü h r m a n n : " D i e S e g e n s v e r h e i ß u n g gilt den Heiden, also allen (Juden- wie Heidenchristen), die aus G l a u b e n sind. Exegetisch bewiesen hat Paulus also bisher die B i n d u n g des Segens an den G l a u b e n " ( G a l a t e r , 55) and D u n n : " T h e first -person plural ( ' w e ' ) c o n f i r m s that Paul takes the 'all the n a t i o n s ' of verse 8 seriously — not j u s t Jews, n o t j u s t Gentiles, b u t all w h o have actually received the Spirit, Jews and Gentiles" ( G a l a t i a n s , 179). 189

See above, footnote 109.

256

Christ in the Letters of Paul

is entirely Jewish. That must have been intentional. It establishes the situation in which Jews who are under the Law, outside of Christ, find themselves: According to Paul, they are under a curse, οσοι γαρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (v. 10ab), from which they cannot escape, ό ποιήσας αύτά ζήσεται έν αύτοΐς (v. 12b). In that setting Paul announces dramatically, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου (v. 13a). The second part of the passage is then purely christological (vv. 13-14). The opposition between έργα νόμου and άκοή πίστεως in verses 2bc and 5 c in the previous passage prepared for πίστις as the theme for the Abraham story in verses 6-9. Paul does not use άκοή in the present passage, but it is safe to assume that he has that meaning in mind, especially in the reference to Abraham trusting God, 'Αβραάμ έπίστευσεν τω θεω, καί έλογίσθη αύτω εις δικαιοσύνην (ν. 6). πίστις/πιστεύειν is the theme which binds Paul's reasoning together in the passage. It occurs five times in the section on Abraham where it dominates, twice in the intermediate section, verses 11-12, and once in the concluding statement of the christological section, ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή ευλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ, ϊνα τήν έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διά της πίστεως (ν. 14), in which Abraham also reappears, after verse 9. Paul introduced the essentially Jewish reasoning about Abraham in verses 6-9, not for its own sake, but as a foundation for the concluding christological statement in verses 13-14. It grounds Christ in Jewish ancestral history. Verses 10-12 function as a transition from the reasoning about Abraham to the christological statement, the curse under the Law in verse 10 preparing for liberation from the curse through Christ in verse 13, with verse 14ab, ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ, taking up again the blessing of the gentiles announced to Abraham by scripture according to verse 8, προιδοΰσα δέ ή γραφή δτι έκ πίστεως δίκαιοι τά έθνη ό θεός, προευηγγελίσατο τω 'Αβραάμ δτι ένευλογηθήσονται έν σοι πάντα τά έθνη. Paul announces the theme of the intermediate section in verse lOab, δσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν, in which κατάρα now dominates, but it occurs only in verses 10 and 13. Verses 11-12 constitute the center of what now appears to be a chiasm. In this center Paul focuses on the central issue, the opposition between the Law and faith. We have here another example of Paul's chiastic thinking. In A, verses 6-9, he introduces Abraham's justification as a fundamental argument in favor of the twice repeated άκοή πίστεως in its opposition to έργα νόμου in verses 2bc and 5c in the previous passage. However, he does not immediately say what that means, but introduces an intermediate argument in B, verse 10, that those who are under the Law are under a curse. Again he does not im-

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

257

mediately disclose what that means as part of his reasoning. In C, verses 1112, he first makes clear how all of that relates to his fundamental point in verses 1 - 5 in the previous passage, but actually the letter as a whole, the opposition between justification through the Law and by faith. Now Paul is ready to move back up the chiastic ladder to his conclusion. First, in B', verse 13, he announces dramatically that Christ bought free those who had been under the curse of the Law. An then, in A', verse 14, he draws his final conclusion, in which he brings together Abraham's justification and the fulfillment of the promise that the gentiles would be blessed in him. It is not clear how Christ having freed those who had been under the curse of the Law in B' results logically in the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham in A', but Paul draws it as such a conclusion, introducing it with ϊνα. What makes that conclusion possible is that it conforms with Paul's chiastic pattern of thought. As Β follows from A, so, chiastically, A' must follow from B'. In the context in which he is writing, gentiles tempted by circumcision, which he interprets as submission to the Law, Paul moves his reasoning in the passage into the area of Jewish thought, to which he thinks his readers are drawn, to make his case there. He will continue making use of the Abraham story in what follows in verses 15-29, at the end of which he draws a conclusion which rounds off his reasoning, εί δέ ύμεΐς Χρίστου, άρα τοΰ Αβραάμ σπέρμα έστέ, κατ' έπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι. He returns to Abraham in a different reasoning in 4:21-31, introducing it with a statement that fits the present discussion very well, reasoning based on the Jewish scriptures, λέγετέ μοι, oi ύπό νόμον θέλοντες είναι, τόν νόμον ούκ άκούετε; At the conclusion of his reasoning in 3:29, εί δέ ύμεΐς Χρίστου, άρα τοΰ 'Αβραάμ σπέρμα έστέ, κατ' έπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι, it almost seems as if belonging to Christ is a function of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. It is that too, of course, but in Paul's reasoning the story of Abraham is an inner-Jewish argument which functions to prove that justification of the gentiles does not take place through subjection to the Law but through Christ, as Paul concluded in A' in our passage, εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοΰ Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ, ϊνα την έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν δια της πίστεως (verse 14). Paul does not introduce Abraham in verse 6 in our passage in as challenging a way as when he introduces him for the second time in 4:21, λέγετέ μοι, oi ύπό νόμον θέλοντες είναι, τόν νόμον ούκ άκούετε; but gently, 'Αβραάμ έπίστευσεν τω θεφ, και έλογίσθη αύτω εις δικαιοσύνην. His intention is the same. He directs his readers to the Jewish scriptures as the appropriate place to discuss what is at issue. The thread of Paul's discourse runs through third level meanings, continuing the theme of the alternatives έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως in verse 2 and 5 of the previous passage:

258

Christ in the Letters of Paul

γινώσκετε άρα οτι οί έκ πίστεως, οΰτοι υιοί είσιν 'Αβραάμ (3:7), ώστε οί έκ πίστεως εύλογοΰνται σύν τω πιστω 'Αβραάμ (3:9), οσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (3:10ab), οτι δέ έν ν ό μ φ ουδείς δικαιούται παρά τω θεώ . . , οτι ό δίκαιος έκ πίστεως ζήσεται· ό δέ νόμος ούκ εστίν έκ πίστεως (3:11—12a), and ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή ευλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (Gal 3:14ab). The first two do not express the meaning of Christ, but the meaning of Abraham's justification and of the promise to him that all the gentiles will be blessed in him. In the third of these statements in which he moves to the second step of his chiastic structure, almost underhandedly, Paul contrasts the blessing of the gentiles with the curse which hangs over those who are under the Law. One almost does not notice it, but it is as if Paul writes: "So, that is the situation with the gentiles; let us see what it is with those who are under the Law?" It now becomes clear that there is a break in logic between steps A and Β in Paul's reasoning as well, similar to the break we observed between B ' and A'. It does not follow from οί έκ πίστεως εύλογοΰνται σύν τω πιστω 'Αβραάμ (ν. 9) that οσοι έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (v. 10ab), but Paul establishes a causal link between the two statements by means of γάρ. As a result, steps Β and B' in the chiastic structure of the passage become recognizable as a parenthesis between verse 9, οί έκ πίστεως εύλογοΰνται σύν τω πιστω 'Αβραάμ, and verse 14ab, εις τά έθνη ή ευλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. The break between A and Β is not syntactic, but semantic. Did Paul intuitively recognize that he could not move immediately from the promise to Abraham that ένευλογηθήσονται έν σοι πάντα τά έθνη in verse 8c to his intended conclusion that οί έκ πίστεως εύλογοΰνται σύν τω πιστφ 'Αβραάμ in verse 9? Abraham's justification by faith and the promise to him that all the gentiles will be blessed in him, as such, do not point to Christ. Paul needs an intermediate step which provides for Christ to be the one in whom that promise goes into fulfillment. That step is provided by Β and B', with C a reminder of what it is all about, the opposition between justification through works of the Law and by faith. In that way the break between B ' and A ' is resolved. Paul's conclusion in verse 14ab: εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ is not drawn from verse 13 alone, but from verses 8 - 9 as well, with verses 10-13 providing the basis for Paul's reasoning that Christ is the one in whom the promise is fulfilled.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

259

Before Paul moves from those who are under the Law being under a curse to Christ liberating them from the curse, he finds it necessary to introduce another decisive argument, that those who are under the Law are not included among those who are justified by faith. His reasoning is clearly not yet christological. He is still preparing to make his christological point. In Β and C he establishes at third level meanings that, οσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (v. 10ab) and οτι δέ έν νόμφ ούδεϊς δικαιούται παρά τω θεφ δήλον, οτι ό δίκαιος έκ πίστεως ζήσεται· ό δέ νόμος ούκ έστιν έκ πίστεως (ν. 1 1 2 a ) . He appeals to fifth level truths to underscore his points, respectively, γέγραπται γάρ οτι έπικατάρατος πάς ος ούκ έμμένει πάσιν τοις γεγραμμένοις έν τω βιβλίω τοϋ νόμου τοΰ ποιήσαι αύτά (ν. 10c-e) and ό ποιήσας αύτά ζήσεται έν αύτοΐς (v. 12b). C at the center of the chiasm serves to reinforce B. On that basis Paul springs his christological pronouncement, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου (v. 13a), again at a third level of meaning. The passage is not an interpretation of the meaning of the fundamental christological statement, Χριστός . . . γενόμενος ύπέρ ημών κατάρα (v. 13b), which merely functions as a foundation for his statement in verse 13a, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου, reinforced by the quotation from Deut 21:23, οτι γέγραπται· έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπΐ ξύλου (v. 13cd). It is a decisive argument for his reasoning in B', but Christ having become a curse is not Paul's point; it is part of his preparation for his real point. The purpose of his entire reasoning is, at a general third level meaning, ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (ν. 14ab), and then more concretely, at a fourth level of meaning, drawing in himself and his readers, ϊνα την έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διά της πίστεως (v. 14cd.) In our passage Paul's primary concern is not with the meaning of Christ's death as a curse, but that in Christ the promise to Abraham goes into fulfillment. It functions as a means of arguing on the basis of the Jewish scriptures that justification is not through works of the Law but by faith. The meaning of Christ in the passage is that in him the promise to Abraham went into fulfillment. The fact that Paul moves to a level that is more fundamental than that of Christ's death in our passage does not diminish the significance of that event. Christ's death on the cross as a curse determines the way in which God's promise to Abraham is fulfilled.

260

Christ in the Letters of Paul

g. Rom 4:23-5:11 (i) The structure of the passage The structure of Rom 4:23-5:11 has been a topic of considerable discussion in scholarship on the passage, not so much of the passage itself as of its place in the structure of the first eight chapters of Romans. Some scholars consider a break to occur between Rom 4:25 and 5:1. So, for example, Adolf Jülicher 190 and Paul Althaus 191 in almost identical formulations, both taking chapters 5 - 8 as an exposition of "the second half of the theme of 1:16-17" ( J ü l i c h e r ) . Similarly, C.H. D o d d , 1 9 2 Otto M i c h e l , 1 9 3 H a n s W i l h e l m Schmidt, 194 Ernst Käsemann, 195 C.E.B. Cranfield 196 and Th.C. de Kruijf. 197 Others consider 5:1-11 as a continuation of what precedes, for example, Ulrich Wilckens. 198 Similarly, Franz-J. Leenhardt 199 and James D.G. Dunn 200

190 "Die Zusammenfassung von 3,21-4,25 in den ersten Worten 5,1 zeigt, daß hier ein neuer Abschnitt beginnt und zwar die Durchführung der zweiten Hälfte des Themas 1,16f." (Der Brief an die Römer [Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917, Zweiter Band, 223-335], 256). 191 "Mit 5,1 beginnt ein neuer Abschnitt . . . Jetzt gilt es, auch den zweiten Gedanken des Themas auszuführen: daß diese Gerechtigkeit Heil (Rettung) und Leben bedeutet, daß das Evangelium also wirklich 'Kraft zur Rettung' (1,16) ist." (Der Brief an die Römer [NTD 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963, 1-139], 43). In the very next sentence, however, he affirms a close connection between 4:25 and 5:1. "V. 1 schließt unmittelbar an 4,25 an." (loc. cit.). 192 "This opening paragraph, v. 1-11, contains in brief the theme of the whole argument down to viii. 39." (The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [The Moffet New Testament Commentary; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932], 71). 193 Der Brief and die Römer (KeKNT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963, 129. 194 Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament VI; Berlin: Evengelische Verlagsanstalt, 1972), 89. 195 "Unser Verständnis von c. 4 als Schriftbeweis erlaubt nicht, 5,1—11 noch zum vorigen Teil zu ziehen (gegen Leenhardt)." (An die Römer [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr {Paul Siebeck}, 2., druchgesehene Auflage, 1974], 122). He nevertheless interprets 5:1 as a transition: "Der Vers zieht die Summe aus dem vorangegangenen Briefteil und markiert so deutlich den neuen." (op. cit., 123). 196 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epitle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & Τ Clark, 1975), 253-54. But he also interprets 5:1 as a transition from what precedes to what follows: "δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως gathers up the thought of 1.18-4.25, and so connects what follows with the preceding main division of the epistle." (op. cit., 257). 197 De Brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen (Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1986), 102, 105. 198 "Die Rechfertigungstat Christi als Ereignis der Gnade erscheint als Aufhebung der universalen Wirkung der Sünde Adams. Darin werden die beiden Teile 1,18-3,20 (Adam) und 3,21-5,11 (Christus) in einem geschlossenen Gedankengang unmittelbar auf einander bezogen." (Der Brief an die Römer (Rom 1-5) [EKK VI/1; Köln: Benziger-NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, 2 1987] 181-82). 199 L 'Epitre de saint Paul aux Romains (Commentaire du Nouveau Testement VI; NeuchatelParis: Delachaux & Niestie, 1957), 77. 200 Romans 1-8 (Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 38A; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 242.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

261

who identify a large number of lexical links between 5:1-11 and the preceding chapters. Their lists agree only partially. Leander Keck also considers 5:1-11 as a unity, but verses 6 - 7 as an addition which disturbs the flow of the 201

passage. Links have also been recognized between 5:1-11 and what follows, specifically chapter 8, by N.A. Dahl, on the basis of which he established a close conceptual link between 5:1-11 and 8:1-39. 202 Subsequently, he modified his view about a break between 5:1-11 and what precedes, without denying the link he establised with chapter 8. 203 Such lexical-conceptual links do not necessarily establish syntactic continuity. 204 The remarkable conceptual links that exist between Galatians and Romans 205 , for example, do not establish syntactic links between the two letters. It is also significant that Leenhardt and Dunn, on the one hand, and Dahl, on the other, establish relationships between Rom 5:1-11 and different parts of the letter, Leenhardt and Dunn to what precedes and Dahl to chapter 8. A third alternative is proposed by Paul J. Achtemeier who considers a break to occur between 4:22 and 23, with 4:23-5:11 forming a unity. His concern is that a break at 5:1 leaves one with 5:1-11 as a "random collection of pious thoughts." 206 201 " T h e Post-Pauline Interpretation of J e s u s ' Death in R o m a n s 5 : 6 - 7 " Theologia Crucis — Signum Crucis, Festschrift E. Dinkier (C. Andresen and G. Klein, [eds.]; T ü b i n g e n : J.C.B. M o h r [Paul Siebeck], 1979), 2 3 8 - 3 9 . 2 0 2 " T w o notes on R o m a n s 5 , " Studio Theologica 5 ( 1 9 5 2 ) 3 7 - 4 2 . Wilckens has a contrary view: ". . . die B e z i e h u n g e n z u m Folgenden, b e s o n d e r s zu Kapitel 8, so zahlreich sie sind, [fallen] deswegen n i c h t ins Gewicht, weil sie allesamt in die den A b s c h n i t t b e h e r r s c h e n d e R e c h t f e r t i g u n g s t h e m a t i k integriert s i n d . " (op. cit., 2 8 6 - 8 7 ) . 2 0 3 " A t o n e m e n t — A d e q u a t e Reward for A k e d a h ? ( R o m 8:32)," Neotestamentica et semitica. Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (E. Earle Ellis, M a x W i l c o x [eds.]; E d i n b u r g h : T. & T. C l a r k , 1969), 1 5 - 2 9 . He writes: " T o d a y 1 w o u l d n o t argue so strongly that Ro 1 - 8 should b e divided in 1 - 4 + 5 - 8 rather than into 1-5+6-8. The sections 5 : 1 - 1 1 and 5 : 1 2 - 2 1 function b o t h as conclusions of w h a t precedes and as introductions to w h a t follows." {op. cit., 17, footnote 15). 2 0 4 So, C . E . B . Cranfield, w h o recognizes links similar to those established b y Leenhardt and D u n n , b u t does n o t consider t h e m as " p r o o f that the whole, or part, of c h a p t e r 5 m u s t b e included in the s a m e m a i n division with w h a t precedes it. It is j u s t as easily explicable on the a s s u m p t i o n that the n e w m a i n division consists of 5 . 1 - 8 . 3 9 . " (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epitle to the Romans [ICC; E d i n b u r g h : Τ. & Τ Clark, 1975], 253). Similarly skeptical is Wolter. " D i e einzige Parallele zwischen 5 , 1 - 1 1 und K a p 8 besteht lediglich in der A r g u m e n t a t i o n s s t r u k t u r von 5 , 5 - 1 0 und 8 , 3 1 - 3 9 , w a s j e d o c h keineswegs z w i n g e n d auf eine Parallelität beider Kapitel hinweist." (Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Untersuchingen zu Rom 5:1-11 [ B Z N W ; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978]), 210). 205

See m y Justification of the Gentiles (Peabody, M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H e n d r i c k s o n Publishers, 1994) A p p e n d i x II, " S e m a n t i c Parallels to Galatians in R o m a n s " ( 2 4 1 - 2 5 6 ) , and A p p e n d i x III, Galatians Parallels Recalled in R o m a n s ( 2 5 7 - 2 8 0 ) .

2 0 6 Romans (A Bible C o m m e n t a r y for T e a c h i n g and P r e a c h i n g ; Atlanta: John K n o x Press, 1985), 89.

262

Christ in the Letters of Paul

All of these suggestions, including those that establish lexical links, depend on semantic insights; it is the meanings of the links that count. 207 The problem with solving the meaning and structure of a passage by means of semantic insights is that they presuppose to a greater or lesser degree an answer to the question of the meaning of the passage on the way to establishing that meaning. Ideally the procedure is to take the initial semantic insight as a theory, a means of looking at the passage, as a starting point which is deepened by further reflection on the passage, preferably in the context of other scholarly investigations. Such a procedure does not escape from the circle of semantic insights, making is impossible to make an independent assessment of the variety of proposed solutions. The only independent way of controlling a semantic insight is if it can be sustained by the textual syntax of the passage, similar to the control of the meaning of a sentence by an analysis of its syntax. Our task in the interpretation of the meaning of Rom 5:1-11 inevitably requires a consideration of its textual syntax, including its relationship to what precedes and what follows text-syntactically. Thus, we would do well to begin our investigation by considering the textual syntax of the passage. Such an investigation cannot avoid questions of meaning, but the focus has to remain on the syntactic relationships between those meanings. (ii) The textual syntax of the passage A break between 4:24 and 5:1 appears improbable since in 5:1a, δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως, Paul obviously looks back to 4:23-24, ούκ έγράφη δέ δι' αύτόν μόνον οτι έλογίσθη αύτω άλλά και δι' ήμας, οίς 207 A semantic approach is particularly clear in the reasons Wilckens gives in favor of linking 5 : 1 - 1 1 to w h a t p r e c e d e s in c h a p t e r s 1 - 4 . " W i r h a b e n uns oben b e r e i t s f ü r d i e Zugehörigkeit von 5,1-11 zum Voranstehenden entschieden. Dies ist hier nun im einzelnen zu begründen. Erstens: V 1 knüpft Paulus mit δικαιωθέντες an 4,25 τήν δικαίωσιν an. Zugleich jedoch faßt Paulus mit δικαιωθέντες έκ πίστεως alles Voranstehende von 3,21 an zusammen und nimmt so die These 1,17 auf. Zweitens: Wenn auch mit dem »Zutritt« V 2 ein neues Motiv auftaucht, so knüpft doch εις τήν χάριν ταύτην an das Vorhergesagte 4,4.16 und darüber hinaus an 3,24 an, obgleich die Gnade als Fundament, zu der die G e r e c h t f e r t i g t e n Z u t r i t t u n d S t a n d g e w o n n e n h a b e n , 5 , 2 in e i n e r s e h r v i e l grundsätzlicheren Funktion erscheint, die dann in VV 12ff expliziert wird. Drittens: Das den Abschnitt einrahmende Stichwort καυχάσθαι VV 2.3.11 ist eine deutliche Antithese zum »Rühmen« des Juden 2,17; 3,27. Viertens: Ebenso gewichtig ist die Erkenntnis, daß VV 6 - 8 die grundlegende Aussage von 3,23-26 wiederholt und im Blick auf die Liebe Gottes vertieft wird, wozu V 5 uberleitet. Fünftens: VV 9f greifen dann das Stichwort »Rettung« aus der These 1,16f auf, indem die dort ausgesprochene Heilswirkung der Gerechtigkeit Gottes έκ πίστεως jetzt zweimal als eschatologische Konsequenz der Rechtfertigung des Gottlosen herausgestellt wird. Sechstens: V 11 erweist sich durch Wiederholung des Stichwortes καυχάσθαι, das nun mit Achtergewicht in der geschenkten Versöhnung begründet wird, sowie durch die solenne Formel διά τοϋ κυρίου ημών Ίσοϋ

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

263

μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοις πιστεύουσιν έπί τον έγείραντα Ί η σ ο ΰ ν τόν ,

f

^

ι

~

70S

κυριον ημων εκ νεκρών, and from there to Abraham's justification by faith, specifically 4:17, καθώς γέγραπται ότι πατέρα πολλών έθνών τέθεικά σε, κατέναντι οΰ έπίστευσεν θεοΰ τοΰ ζωοποιοΰντος τούς νεκρούς καί καλούντος τά μή όντα ώς όντα, which functions as the basis for his reasoning in 4:23-25. Rom 5:1b—5 continues Paul's reasoning of 4:23-25 by clarifying the implications of verse la, the meaning of justification by faith. It seems more probable that there is a break between 5:5 and 6, where Paul introduces out of the blue a christological statement, έτι γαρ Χριστός όντων ημών ασθενών έτι κατά καιρόν ύπέρ ασεβών άπέθανεν. 2 0 9 On the other hand, it seems as if in the reasoning which follows in verse 9b, δικαιωθέντες νϋν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ, he recalls verse la, δικαιωθέντες ούν έκ πίστεως, 210 but not quite. Verse la refers to justification by faith: Verse 9b to justification through the blood of Christ, πολλώ οΰν μάλλον which introduces the statement in verse 9b, reinforced by the added νΰν, also seems to signal that a new step has been taken in Paul's reasoning. The two christological statements in verses 6-8, έτι γάρ Χριστός όντων ήμών άσθενών έτι κατά καιρόν ύπέρ άσεβων άπέθανεν. μόλις γάρ ύπέρ δικαίου τις άποθανεΐται· ύπέρ γάρ τοΰ άγαθοΰ τάχα τις καί τολμά άποθανεΐν· συνίστησιν δέ την έαυτοΰ άγάπην εις ημάς ό θεός, οτι έτι αμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν, provide a new basis for justification, not negating faith, but providing something more fundamental, the blood of Christ. In that sense these verses are parenthetic. Χρίστου als Abschluß, der in 4,24 f noch nicht erreicht war." (op. eil., 286-87). 208 Not so Adolf Schlatter, who understands 5:1 as a continuation of 4:25. Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief [Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 3 1939], 175). He also considers οΰν in 5:1 to reach beyond 4:25 to Abraham's justification: ". . . οΰν greift aber über diese Aussage hinüber und beruft sich auch auf den Nachweis, daß Abraham aus Glauben gerechtfertigt worden sei . . ." (loc. cit.), but then reasserts the connection to 4:25, as if for the first time, ". . . und auf die Deutung des Todes Jesu, daß durch ihn Gottes Gerechtigkeit erschienen sei. Daß Paulus hier nicht wieder, wie eben noch 4, 24, das Futurum setzt, kommt daher, daß er in Vers 25 das Volendete Werk Jesu betrachtet hat." (loc. cit.). 209 Käsemann sees a close connection between verse 5 and 6 - 8 : "Wie kann man jedoch der Liebe Gottes durch den Geist gewiß werden [V. 5]? Es gibt doch auch, was an dieser Stelle selten reflektiert wird, den trügerischen Geist, und zwar nach nt.lichem Zeugnis mitten in der Kirche. Auf diese Frage anworten 6—8 mit dem Verweis auf Jesu Tod." (op. cit., 127). 210 So Jülicher, (op. cit., 257). Also Dunn: "The passage is well structured, vv 9 - 1 1 obviously answering to vv 1 - 3 through the repetition of δικαιωθέντες ( w 1, 9), καυχάσθαι ( w 2,3,11), the strong δία formula ( w 1 - 2 , 9 - 1 1 ) and the ού μόνον δέ, άλλά καί w 3,11)." (op. cit., 245-46).

264

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Paul appears to have had good reason to introduce the christological statements in verses 6-8. When he recalled being justified by faith in 5:1a he passed over the christological statement in 4:25, δς παρεδόθη διά τά παραπτώματα ήμών και ήγέρθη διά την δικαίωσιν ήμών, reaching back instead to his statement in 4:23-24, ούκ έγράφη δέ δι' αύτόν μόνον δτι έλογίσθη αύτώ, άλλά και δι' ή μας οις μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοις πιστεύουσιν έπϊ τόν έγείραντα Ί η σ ο ΰ ν τόν κύριον ήμών έκ νεκρών. Paul nowhere interprets the meaning of the confession in 4:25; in 5:1-5 he returns to 4:23-24, to the justification of those who believe in God. Scholars nevertheless give considerable attention to the interpretation of the meaning of verse 25. 211 A main issue in these interpretation is whether the same or different meanings should be attributed to the two occurrences of δία in the verse. 212 Paul's focus in 5:1-5 is on God who justifies those who believe, not on Christ who was handed over for the transgressions of those who believe, and who was raised for their justification, not even in the references to Christ's mediation in verses lc -2a, διά τοΰ κυρίου ή μ ώ ν Ί η σ ο ϋ Χρίστου δι' ου και την προσαγωγήν έσχήκαμεν [τή πίστει] είς τήν χάριν ταύτην έν ή έστήκαμεν. Nevertheless, quoting the confession, reinforced by this reference to Christ's mediation, may signal that Paul had in mind moving to Christ as the foundation of his reasoning, similar to his returning to a christological statement in 2 Cor 5:21 after his theological statement in 5:18-19. He does not do so in 5:15, but in verses 6 - 8 he focuses unequivocally on Christ's death, which

211 For example, Wilckens, who provides a detailed interpretation of the verse, (op. cit, 2 7 8 9). Also Dunn, (op. cit., 241). 212 Schlatter argues that, since διά τά παραπτώματα ήμών and διά τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών are precise parallels, it is not advisable to attribute a different meaning to the second διά than to the first, (op.cit., 173). In his further interpretation, however, contrary to this advice, he attributes the meaning "for the sake o f ' to the second usage, in contrast to "because o f ' of the first: "διά τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών heiße also: um uns die Rechtfertigung zu verschaffen, sei Jesus auferweckt worden, weil er uns damit als der geoffenbart sei, dem wir uns im Glauben ergeben können und sollen" (op. cit., 174). Barrett translates δία in a way that allows for both meanings: "who was delivered up because of the sins we committed, and raised up because of the justification to be granted us." (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [ B l a c k ' s N e w Testament Commentaries; New York, Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, 1957]. Revised Edition, The Epistle to the Romans [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991], 88). Michel attributes different meanings to δία in the two parts of the confession (op. cit., 127-8).

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

265

prepares for his move from justification by faith in 5:1 to justification through the blood of Christ in verse 9b. 213 The confession in 4:25 has no other meaning than to give a christological context for believing in God, parallel to Abraham's trust in God. It has no meaning of its own in Paul's reasoning. 214 He pays no further attention to it, possibly because it does not fit into his reasoning, due to the fact that he introduced it with a focus on Christ's resurrection, called forth by his reference to those who πιστεύουσιν έπΐ τον έγείραντα Ίησοΰν τον κύριον ήμών έκ νεκρών (4:24c). 215 The confession served that purpose well, but for the reasoning which now follows in 5:6-11, Paul needs a christological statement concerning Christ's death as foundation for his statement in verse 9ab, πολλω ούν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νϋν έν τω αϊματι αύτοϋ. The return of the participle δικαιωθέντες of 5:1a in 9b, is followed by other parallel features in the passage as well. The beginning of the statement in 9ab, πολλω ούν μάλλον (followed by the parallel δικαιωθέντες of verse la) finds a further parallel in verse lOd, πολλω μάλλον, also followed by a participle, in this case καταλλαγέντες, for which lOa-c provides the basis. This in turn reveals another parallel within verses 6-10: Two christological statements in verses 6 - 8 (a double statement),

2 1 3 Barrett recognizes a d i f f e r e n c e only in what results temporarily f r o m justification: "As in v. 1, j u s t i f i c a t i o n is p r e s u p p o s e d as an event f r o m which conclusions m a y be d r a w n . In v. 1, the conclusion concerns the present — we have p e a c e ; here, the conclusion concerns the f u t u r e — we shall be s a v e d " (op. cit., 99). He does recognize the f a c t that " ^ j u s t i f i c a t i o n has been effected (to translate literally) 'in his b l o o d ' (cf. iii. 2 5 ) " (loc. cit.). 2 1 4 Leenhardt objects: " O n a b e a u c o u p ecrit sur le v. 25, trop souvent en le d e t a c h a n t de son contexte c o m m e un lieu theologique en soi. II est possible q u e Paul utilise une f o r m u l e traditionnelle, u n e Sorte de c o n f e s s i o n de foi de la p r e m i e r e Eglise, c o m m e l ' a d m e t d e j ä Lietzmann. Cette r e m a r q u e ne doit point dispenser de c o m p r e n d r e p o u r q u o i Paul l ' a citee, quelle relation la rattache ä ce qui p r e c e d e . " (op. cit., 75). 2 1 5 For a contrary view, see C.H. Dodd w h o considers the story a b o u t A b r a h a m a digression: " T h e c o n c l u d i n g verse of the chapter [4:25] is rhetorical rather than logical in f o r m . . . The verse serves to b r i n g the a r g u m e n t back, after the digression a b o u t A b r a h a m , to the point reached in the previous chapter. " T h e discussion of the case of A b r a h a m was, no d o u b t , important in P a u l ' s apologetic against Jewish o p p o n e n t s within and without the C h u r c h ; b u t for us it throws little light, except incidentally, on his main theme. It served to rebut objections w h i c h were serious to h i m , b u t h a v e little interest and n o weight for us, while the artificial m e t h o d of a r g u m e n t f r o m Scripture m a k e s the whole exposition seem r e m o t e and u n e n l i g h t e n i n g " (op. cit., 7 0 71). B u t then, even though he still considers the A b r a h a m story an excursus, " T h e excursus of chap, iv is n o w ended, and Paul returns in 5:1] to the point in the a r g u m e n t attained at iii. 2 6 , " he establishes a connection between being justified by faith in 5:1 to A b r a h a m ' s trust in God when he continues, "yet with the added content gained in the discussion w h i c h has immediately preceded. W e are justified by faith, by faith which is a simple trust in the p o w e r and g o o d n e s s of G o d , like that of A b r a h a m " (op. cit., 72).

266

Christ in the Letters of Paul

έτι γάρ Χριστός όντων ημών άσθενών έτι κατά καιρόν ύπέρ άσεβων άπέθανεν. . . . συνίστησιν δέ την έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν. and a recalling of the double statement with [κατηλλάγημεν τω θεω] διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοϋ in verse 10c, each followed by the statements which interpret their meanings, introduced with the identical πολλω (ούν) μάλλον: πολλω ούν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ σωθησόμεθα δι' αύτοΰ άπό της όργής (ν. 9) and πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωη αύτοΰ (v. 10de). There is a difference between the two interpretive statements to which I will give attention below: έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ and νΰν in verse 9 have no parallels inverse lOde. There is clearly a development in Paul's thought from verse 9 to lOde. Being justified through the blood of Christ saves believers from the wrath of God's judgment: Being reconciled with God through the death of Christ provides them with salvation in Christ's life. 216

216 A similar progression is recognized by W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam: "No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres of justification and sanctification than this verse [9] and the next — the one an objective fact accomplished without us, the other a change operated within us. Both, though in different ways, proceed from Christ." (The Epistle to the Romans [ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 5 1899], 129). Barrett does not recognize such a development: "It is important here to notice the introduction of a new term — reconciliation, and the close parallel between this and justification. . . . Justification and reconciliation are different metaphors describing the same fact" (op. cit., 100). Similarly, Käsemann, op. cit. 129. So also Dunn: "The temptation to press for a clear distinction between 'justification' and 'reconciliation' should be avoided. . . . Here in particular the close parallel between ν 9 and ν 10b shows that Paul regards the one as equivalent to the other, the καταλλαγέντες of ν 10b answering to the δικαιωθέντες of ν 9 (Barrett); cf. also 1:16-17 with 2 Cor 5:19 (Althaus; Goppelt, 'Versöhnung,' 153-54)." (op. cit., 259). Cranfield has a different view: "The reconciliation Paul is speaking of is not to be understood as simply identical with justification (the two terms being understood as different metaphors denoting the same thing), nor yet as a consequence of justification, a result following afterwards. The thought is rather that — in the case of the divine justification of sinners —justification necessarily involves reconciliation." (op. cit., 256). A slightly different understanding in Wilckens: "In der Wiederholung des gleichen Schlusses V 10 steht an der Stelle der Rechtfertigung durch das Blut Christi (V 9) die Versöhnung der Feinde Gottes mit Gott durch den Tod seines Sohnes. Daraus geht hervor daß Paulus die Versöhnung von der Rechtfertigung her denkt, wie auch die (außer 11,15) einzige andere Stelle zeigt, an der sich das Wort καταλλάσειν/καταλλαγή in soteriologischer Bedeutung bei Paulus findet, 2Kor 5,18f. Denn dort wird in V 21 ausgeführt, worin die Versöhnung begründet ist: im Sühnetod Christi mit seiner Rechtfertigungswirkung." (op. cit., 298).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

267

Verse 10a c, εί γάρ έχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τώ θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοϋ, prepares for this development. 217 Justification saves from God's wrath: Reconciliation leads to life in Christ. 218 One has to ask whether reconciliation is not what is the ultimate reality in Paul's mind, beyond justification, even though justification is a step towards reconciliation with God and life in Christ. It may be that something of the same was involved when, in 2 Cor 5:14-21, Paul moved, between the two christological statements in verses 14-15 and 21, to the ultimate reality of God in verses 18-19, which also concerned being reconciled with God through Christ. The progression from justification to reconciliation in verses 6 - 1 0 is also reflected in Paul's move from δντων ήμών άσθενών and άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών in, respectively, verses 6a and 8b, to εχθροί δντες in verse 10a. 219 We can now establish further parallel features. The conclusion of Paul's reasoning in 4:23-5:2 begins with, ού μόνον δέ, άλλά και καυχώμεθα in verse 3ab, and so does the conclusion of verses 6-10 with the identical, ού μόνον

217 Here too Barrett sees no development. His concern is limited to the relationship between lOa-c and lOde: ". . . it is not probable that Paul means to suggest that Christ's death effects one thing, his (resurrection) life another; that is, the contrast is rhetorical' rather than substantial. Paul begins by asserting that reconciliation depends upon the crucifixion; but as he argues from reconciliation to salvation he recalls the corresponding truth that the crucifixion was followed by the resurrection" (op. cit., 100-101). But then he does recognize a development: "Christians, then, stand between two decisive moments in God's work of redemption. Because God has manifested his righteousness, to faith, in Christ crucified, they have been justified and reconciled; because they have been justified and reconciled, they will finally be saved when God brings history to a close. To this end they look forward in hope" (op. cit., 101). 218 So K ä s e m a n n : "Eine überraschende W e n d u n g des G e d a n k e n s steigert den negativ formulierten Schluß 9b ins Positive mit 10b" (op. cit., 129), but not in the sense of a develo p m e n t f r o m j u s t i f i c a t i o n to r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , c o n c l u d i n g that " ' r e c h t f e r t i g e n ' und 'versöhnen' inhaltlich dasselbe bedeuten" (loc.cit.). 219 Note, however, Barrett: "'Powerless' may seem rather weak as a synonym of 'ungodly' and 'sinners' (v. 8). The point probably is that Christ died for us when we were powerless to help ourselves; we were ungodly and sinful and could do nothing to improve our state." (op. cit., 98). Similarly, Michel does not see a development in Paul's usage of the expressions: "Die Bestimmung: όντων ήμών άσθενών (V 6) wird erläutert und verstärkt durch die spätere Wiederholung: έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών (V 8). Es geht nicht darum Schwachen, die Unfrommen und die Sünder von einander zu unterscheiden; gemeint ist, daß wir vor Christus schwach, unfromm und Sünder sind." (op. cit., 134). Cranfield too sees no development in Paul's usage of these expressions: "The άσεβεΐς (see on 1.18) referred to here are not to be distinguished from the 'we' who have just been described as ασθενείς and will be described as άμαρτωλοί (v. 8) and έχθροί (v. 10)." (op. cit., 264). Also Dunn: "άμαρτωλοί here stands in place of άσεβεΐς confirming their near synonymy . . ." (op. cit., 256).

268

Christ in the Letters of Paul

δέ, άλλά και καυχώμενοι in verse l l a b . We can thus establish as parallels 4:23-5:5, concluding with verses 3-5, introduced with ού μόνον δέ, άλλά και καυχώμεθα, and verses 6-11, concluding with verse 11, the conclusions introduced identically with ού μόνον δέ, άλλά και καυχώμεθα. The difference between the two parallels is that the second has an internal parallel, a double christological statement in verses 6 - 8 and a recalling of it in verse lOac, each followed by an interpretation of their meanings, respectively, in verses 9 and lOde. There is also a semantic difference between the main parallels: In the first, Paul's interpretation in 5:1-2 is not of the christological confession in 4:25, but of the justification by a faith like that of Abraham (4:23-24), whereas in the second, the two interpretations in verses 9 and lOde are of the christological statements which preceed them. 5 : 6 - 1 1 is not a parallel reformulation of Paul's reasoning in 4:23-5:5, but a change of the focus to Christ's death as the means of justification. Paul prepares for this change from δικαιωθέντες έκ πίστεως in 5:la to δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ in verse 9b by means of his christological statements in verses 6-8. His purpose is to connect justification by a faith such as Abraham's to the deeper level of meaning of Christ's death. In Galatians he made this connection rather crudely by interpreting the promise to Abraham and to his seed in 3:16 as a reference to Christ τω δέ 'Αβραάμ έρρέθησαν αί έπαγγελίαι και τω σπέρματι αύτοΰ. ού λέγει, και τοις σπέρμασιν, ώς έπϊ πολλών, άλλ' ώς έφ' ένός, και τω σπέρματί σου, ος έστιν Χριστός. The reasoning in Romans is more sophisticated and more convincing. The seed of Abraham is obviously Isaac, the son to whom Sarah gave birth, δς παρ έλπίδα έπ' έλπίδι έπίστευσεν είς τό γενέσθαι αύτόν πατέρα πολλών έθνών κατά τό είρημένον, ούτως έσται τό σπέρμα σου, και μή άσθενήσας τη πίστει κατενόησεν τό έαυτοΰ σώμα [ήδη] νενεκρωμένον, έκατονταετής που ύπαρχων, και την νέκρωσιν της μήτρας Σάρρας (4:1819). In 5:1-5 Paul left the connection with Christ hanging, notwithstanding the quotation of the confession in 4:25. But then, in 5:6-11 he establishes the connection between justification and Christ in a separate step by interpreting justification as having taken place through the blood of Christ. There is a clear progression in Paul's thought from justification by faith in 4:23-5:2, to justification through the blood of Christ in 5:6-9, to reconciliation with God through Christ in 5:10. 220 This progression is marked by 2 2 0 Similar, Dodd: "In iii. 21—iv. 23 we have learnt that the

righteousness

of G o d is revealed in

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

269

the repeated πολλώ (οΰν) μάλλον in verses 9 and 10: πολλω οΰν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τφ αϊματι αύτοϋ (v. 9ab) and πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες (v. 10d). The phrase has been recognized as a rabinnic ΊΤρίΠ] an argument a minori ad maius. The question is which the minor premises are. In the case of verse 10 it is clearly έχθροϊ οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεω διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοϋ αύτοΰ (v. 10a-c), from which Paul concludes as his major premise, σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωη αύτοΰ (v. 10e). One has to reach further back for the minor premise for verse 9, all the way to verse 1: δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως (v. lb). There is no statement which δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοϋ recalls. Verses 6 - 8 provides Paul with what he recalls in έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ, but there is no statement that justification is through Christ's blood, δικαιωθέντες in verse 9 recalls the same term in verse 1 for which the foundation is given in 4:23-24. In verse 9, Paul is thus still concerned with justification in continuation of his reasoning in 4:23-5:5, but now, on the basis of the christological statements in 5:6-8 his understanding is that justification is έν τω αϊματι [Χριστού], With the new foundation in Christ's death established in verses 6 - 8 , Paul recalls his minor premise with π ο λ λ ω ο ΰ ν μ ά λ λ ο ν δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ, from which he concludes as his major premise, σωθησόμεθα δι' αύτοΰ άπό της όργής (v. 9c). Paul introduces a new premise in verse lOa-c, έχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, and thus a complete new reasoning in verse 10, but, coming as this new reasoning does in parallel to his reasoning in verses 6-9, and then further back to 4:23-5:2, it cannot be taken as just another in a series of three. It is the concluding step in three stages of reasoning, marked by the facts of salvation that have been established:

the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of m e n , b y w h i c h they are given a n e w status b e f o r e God. But justification is only the initial stage of G o d ' s dealings with men for their salvation. It is that w h i c h m a k e s possible their entrance into the experience of salvation in the full sense. T h e transition f r o m justification to salvation (or to ' s a n c t i f i c a t i o n , ' as the Reformation theologians said) is m a d e in v. 1-11 the kernel of which is the statement, ' m u c h m o r e , n o w that we are j u s t i f i e d , shall w e b e saved b y H i m . ' " (op. cit., 71). A m o r e c o m p l e x i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in W i l c k e n s : " V 10 steht parallel zu V 9; d a r u m die W i e d e r h o l u n g κ α τ α λ λ α γ έ ν τ ε ς von V 10a, entsprechend δ ι κ α ι ω θ έ ν τ ε ς in V 9a. έν τη ζ ω ί | αύτοΰ steht parallel zu δι' αύτοϋ V 9, ist also als kausal a u f z u f a s s e n (έν = n). Inhaltlich unterscheiden sich b e i d e A u s s a g e n : Ist in V 9 der f ü r uns Gekreuzigte gemeint, so in V 10 der f ü r uns A u f e r s t a n d e n e , in dessen Leben unser z u k ü n f t i g e s Heil als Teilhabe a m endzeitlichen Leben b e g r ü n d e t ist (vgl. I K o r 15,17f; vorher I T h e s s 4 , 1 4 ; 5,9f; änlich dann R o m 8,17b) 989. D a r u m k a n n Paulus p a r a d o x formulieren: τη έπίδι έ σ ώ θ η μ ε ν (8,24a). Im Verhältnis von V 9 zu V 10 wird also die doppelgliedrige A u s s a g e 4 , 2 5 a u f g e n o m m e n , j e d o c h so, d a ß die A u f e r s t e h u n g Christi dort die geschehene R e c h t f e r t i g u n g , hier das endzeitliche Heil b e g r ü n d e t . " ( o p . cit., 299).

270

Christ in the Letters of Paul

δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως (ν. 1), πολλω οΰν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ (v. 9ab), and πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες (v. 10d). All three are important, but there is a progression from justification by faith to justification through the blood of Christ to reconciliation with God as Paul's final goal. So much for justification by faith as the central theme of Romans. It may be central through 5:5. However, even there it is not a fundamental doctrine to be interpreted, but, as Wrede pointed out, it functioned as a Kampfeslehre, as a polemical teaching against an understanding that justification was through the Law, that is, an exclusively Jewish privilege. 221 In 5:6-11, Paul himself corrects an understanding which takes justification by faith as the central theme in his discourse about salvation: First, by stating in verse 9b that justification is through the blood of Christ, which saves believers from the wrath of God's judgment, and then in verse lOd, by moving beyond justification to reconciliation with God, which provides believers with salvation in Christ's life. Significant about the parallel structures in Rom 4:23-5:11 as a feature of Paul reasoning is that he does not allow his thoughts to be taken captive by a demand for formal equivalence. The formulation of his thoughts is not the product of a concern for formal parallels, which also applies to chiasms that occur in his letters: To the contrary, parallels and chiasms are the products of the way he thought. This becomes especially clear in the difference between the sub-parallels in verses 6-10. Unlike in verses 6-8, in verse lOa-c, Paul does not make a new christological statement, the meaning of which he then interprets in lOde, but presupposes his statements about Christ's death in verses 6 and 8. Presupposing those statements, he states what they mean in verse lOb-c, κατηλλάγημεν τω θεω διά τοϋ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ. Accordingly, in the parallel to verse 9ab, πολλω οΰν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ, in verse 10d, he does not need to state by which means the reconciliation had been achieved, πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες, because he already stated that it happened διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ in verse 10c. It appears, thus, that contrary to "a random collection of pious thoughts" (Achtemeier's criticism of not recognizing 4:23-5:11 as a unity), Paul's thoughts move forward in the passage to a goal which he has clearly in mind.

221 Paulus (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher I 5 - 6 ; Gebauer-Schwetschke: Halle, 1904) 72. Repr. in Karl Heinrich Rengstorf (ed.), Das Paulusbild in der neueren deutschen Forschung (Wege der Forschung 24; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 1-97, see page 67. ET Paul (London: Philip Green, 1907) 123.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

271

The following diagram reflects the steps in Paul's reasoning in Rom 4:23-5:11. 4 23 ούκ έγράφη δέ δι αύτόν μόνον οτι έλογίσθη αύτώ 24 άλλά και δι' ήμάς, οΐς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοις πιστεύουσιν έπί τον έγείραντα Ίησοΰν τον κύριον ήμών έκ νεκρών, 25 δς παρεδόθη διά τά παραπτώματα ήμών και ήγέρθη διά την δικαίωσιν ήμών. 5 1 δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως είρήνην έχομεν πρός τόν θεόν διά τοϋ κυρίου ήμών Ιησού Χρίστου 2 δι' οΰ και τήν προσαγωγήν έσχήκαμεν [τη πίστει] είς τήν χάριν ταύτην έν ή έστήκαμεν καϊ καυχώμεθα έπ' έλπίδι τής δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ. 3 ού μόνον δέ, άλλά και καυχώμεθα έν ταΐς θλίψεσιν, είδότες οτι ή θλΐψις ύπομονήν κατεργάζεται, 4 ή δέ υπομονή δοκιμήν, ή δέ δοκιμή έλπίδα. 5 ή δέ έλπϊς ού καταισχύνει, οτι ή άγάπη τοϋ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταϊς καρδίαις ήμών διά πνεύματος άγίου τοΰ δοθέντος ήμΐν. 6 έτι γάρ Χριστός όντων ήμών άσθενών έτι κατά καιρόν ύπέρ άσεβών άπέθανεν. 7 μόλις γάρ ύπέρ δικαίου τις άποθανεΐται· ύπέρ γάρ τοΰ άγαθοΰ τάχα τις και τολμά άποθανεϊν· 8 συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών δντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν. 9

πολλώ οΰν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ σωθησόμεθα δι' αύτοΰ άπό τής όργής. 10 εί γάρ έχθροί δντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, πολλώ μάλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα έν τή ζωή αύτοΰ11 ού μόνον δέ, άλλά καί καυχώμενοι έν τω θεω διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστού δι' οΰ νΰν τήν καταλλαγήν έλάβομεν. (iii) Levels of the meaning of Christ in the passage Paul's introduction of Christ into his discussion of justification by faith in 5:6-8, as he had done earlier in Gal 3:16, reveals the fundamental importance of Christ for his thought. He leaves no doubt that God is the ultimate source of the meaning of Christ, but having made that clear in 5:8a, συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοϋ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, he moves the focus to Christ in verse 8c, Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν, similar to his return to Christ in 2 Cor 5:21 after he had focussed on God in verses 18-19. We would thus do well to analyze Rom 4:23-5:11 by making use of our model of the levels of meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia in our attempt to follow the flow of Paul's thought in the passage. Such an analysis will allow a new perspective on the structure of the passage to emerge. This new perspective does not con-

272

Christ in the Letters of Paul

tradict, nor does it duplicate, the previous one, but it allows more detailed features to emerge. 23

ούκ έγράφη δέ δι αύτόν μόνον οτι έλογίσθη αύτώ 24 άλλά και δι' ή μας, οις μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοις πιστεύουσιν έπϊ τόν έγείραντα Ίησοΰν τόν κύριον ήμών έκ νεκρών, (Rom 4:23-24) 25 ος παρεδόθη (Rom 4:25a) διά τά παραπτώματα ήμών (Rom 4:25b) καί ήγέρθη (Rom 4:25c) διά τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών. (Rom4:25d) 51 δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως (Rom 5:1a) είρήνην έχομεν προς τόν θεόν διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου 2 δι οΰ καί τήν προσαγωγήν έσχήκαμεν [τη πίστει] εις τήν χάριν ταύτην έν ή έστήκαμεν και καυχώμεθα έπ' έλπίδι της δόξης τοϋ θεοΰ. (Rom 5: lb—2) 3 ού μόνον δέ, άλλά καί καυχώμεθα έν ταΐς θλίψεσιν, είδότες οτι ή θλΐψις ύπομονήν κατεργάζεται, 4 ή δέ ύπομονή δοκιμήν, ή δέ δοκιμή έλπίδα. 5 ή δέ έλπίς ού καταισχύνει, (Rom 5:3-5a) οτι ή άγάπη τοΰ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταΐς καρδίαις ήμών διά πνεύματος άγίου τοΰ δοθέντος ήμΐν. (Rom 5:5bc) 6 έτι γάρ Χριστός όντων ήμών άσθενών έτι κατά καιρόν (Rom 5:6ab) ύπέρ άσεβών (Rom 5:6c) άπέθανεν. (Rom 5:6d) 7 μόλις γάρ ύπέρ δικαίου τις άποθανεΐται· ύπέρ γάρ τοΰ άγαθοΰ τάχα τις καί τολμά άποθανείν· (Rom 5:7) 8 συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην εις ήμάς ό θεός, (Rom 5:8a) οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών (Rom 5:8b) Χριστός . . . άπέθανεν 222 (Rom 5:8c) ύπέρ ήμών. (Rom 5:8c) 9 πολλώ οΰν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοϋ (Rom 5:9ab)' σωθησόμεθα δι αύτοΰ άπό της όργής. (Rom 5:9c) 10 εί γάρ εχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, (Rom 5:10a-c) πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες (Rom 5:1 Od) σωθησόμεθα έν τή ζωή αύτοΰ- (Rom 5:10e) 11 ού μόνον δέ, άλλά καί καυχώμενοι έν τω θεώ (Rom 5:11 ab) διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ (Rom 5:11c) δι' ού νΰν τήν καταλλαγήν έλάβομεν. (Rom 5:1 Id)

222

Word order rearranged.

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

273

As in the case of 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 and of Gal 3:6-14, it is necessary here too to add a level of the meaning of Christ that is more fundamental than Christ's death, resurrection and parousia, the level of God's love as the foundation of the meaning of Christ, συνίστησιν δέ την έαυτοϋ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, δτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανε (5:8). As in the discussion of 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 — and of Gal 3:6-14, with Abraham at the fundamental level, as well —, I will refer to this more fundamental level as la. The passage is nevertheless christological. According to verse 8a, God established God's love είς ήμάς in Christ's death ύπέρ ήμών (v. 8c). The function of this fundamental theological statement is to ground Christ's death and resurrection in God's action. God is present throughout the passage: είρήνην έχομεν προς τον θεόν (5:1) καυχώμεθα έπ' έλπίδι της δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ (5:2) ή άγάπη τοΰ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταΐς καρδίαις ήμών (5:5) έχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ (5:10) καυχώμενοι έν τφ θεώ (5:11) and, of course, the fundamental, συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός (5:8), but as a repeated refrain, God's actions are performed through Christ: είρήνην έχομεν πρός τόν θεόν διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστού (5:1) συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανε (5:8) κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ (5:10) καυχώμενοι έν τω θεώ διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ (5:11). Paul's emphasis on the Holy Spirit, ή άγάπη τοΰ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταϊς καρδίαις ήμών διά πνεύματος άγίου τοΰ δοθέντος ήμΐν (5:5), does not distract from the centrality of God's actions in Christ In this passage the meaning Christ concerns specifically his death. According to verse 8a, συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, God established G o d ' s love είς ήμάς in Christ's death, Χριστός ύπέρ ή μ ώ ν άπέθανεν (v. 8c). I will return to this below. As I already indicated above, Paul does not interpret the meaning of the confession of 4:25 in the passage. The confession has no other meaning than to give a christological context for believing in God, parallel to Abraham's trust in God. Merely believing in God as Abraham did does not include everything Paul understands by justification by faith. It misses the dimension of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia. Paul also brings to expression his

274

Christ in the Letters of Paul

concern to link justification by faith to Christ when he interprets its meaning as είρήνην έχομεν πρός τόν θεόν διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοϋ Χρίστου in verse lbc. It is significant, however, that when he returns to Christ in verses 6 - 8 and 10 he refers only to Christ's death, leaving out of consideration the reference to Christ's resurrection, as in the confession. In 5:1-5 Paul reaches back to 4:23-24, the justification of those who believe in God, interpreting for his readers what it means to have a faith in God similar to Abraham's. His focus in 5:1-5 remains theologically on God who raised Christ from the dead, not christologically on Christ who, according to the confession in 4:25, was handed over for the transgressions of those who believe, and who was raised for their justification. However, the fact that he turns, somewhat abruptly, to Christ's death in 5:6 reveals that he had been left with unfinished business after 5:1-5. Before turning our attention to Paul's interpretation of the meaning of Christ's death in 5:6-11, it would be worthwhile to consider what is widely considered a problematic statement in verse 7, μόλις γάρ ύπέρ δικαίου τις άποθανεΐται- ύπέρ γάρ τοΰ άγαθοΰ τάχα τις και τολμά άποθανεΐν. In reality this statement has great significance for Paul's reasoning in verses 6-10, focussing on the condition in which believers found themselves when Christ died for them: έτι. . . όντων ήμών άσθενών (v. 6a), έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών (v. 8b), and εί γάρ εχθροί όντες (v. 10a). The problem of the meaning of verse 7 is comparable to finding an unfamiliar word is a document, especially in a foreign language. Dictionaries may not provide a meaning which fits precisely, but the way the word is used may leave no doubt about what is meant. There is a reciprocal relationship between such a word and its textual environment. Understanding the meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the meaning of the word, but the sentence at the same time places constraints on what meanings are possible. The scholarly discussions of the problems of the meaning of verse 7 are similar to the information provided by a dictionary in the case of a word. In the end, the attempts to identify the possible meaning Paul intended in verse 7 result in a variety of possible meanings, similar to the possible meanings of a word provided in a dictionary. Only in verse 8 does it become clear what Paul had been driving at. 223 2 2 3 Hans Lietzmann: "v. 7 bringt zwei parallele G e d a n k e n , die durch den Gegensatz die in v. 6

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

275

Verse 7 focuses on a feature of great significance for Paul's reasoning concerning the meaning of Christ's death in the passage, the fact that Christ died for sinners. It is a typical Pauline parenthesis, leading him to repeat in verse 8 in a slightly different form his christological statement of verse 6. In this case the parenthesis is taken up in the second christological statement in the contrasting ύπέρ τοΰ άγαθοΰ (v. 7b) and έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών (v. 8b). Now, turning our attention to the interpretation of the meaning of Christ's death in verses 6-11, it is important to note that although Paul interprets that meaning twice, in verses 9 and lOde — in each case moving from a third to a more specific fourth level, respectively, from πολλφ οΰν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ (Rom 5:9ab) to σωθησόμεθα δι αύτοΰ άπό της όργης. (Rom 5:9c) and from πολλφ μάλλον καταλλαγέντες (Rom 5:1 Od) to σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωή αύτοΰ (Rom 5:10e) —, he does not repeat the s t a t e m e n t a b o u t C h r i s t ' s d e a t h w h e n he s t a t e s in v e r s e lObc, κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, but presupposes the two christological statements in verses 6 and 8, Χριστός . . . ύπέρ άσεβων άπέθανεν (v. 6cd), and Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν (v. 8c), in both of which he interprets Christ's death at a second level of meaning as ύπέρ άσεβων and ύπέρ ήμών. The reconciliation with God in verse lObc reminds of 2 Cor dargestellte Tat Christi ins rechte Licht stellen sollen. 1. Christus ist für und Sünder gestorben, während doch sonst kaum jemand für einen Gerechten sterben will. 2. Christus is für uns Sünder gestorben, während sonst höchstens jemand für den Guten (oder 'das Gute') zu sterben gewillt ist. Das ist eine völlige Gedankendublette, die um so stärker empfunden wird, als ihre Absicht und ihr allgemeiner Inhalt durch den Gegensatz zu v. 6 (und v. 8) klar bestimmt ist, aber die Ausdrucksweise 2 im Kontrast zu 1 stellt: die beiden Aussagen schließen sich streng genommen aus. Doch wird schwerlich eine Interpolation anzunehmen sein. Pls kann ganz wohl so — sich selbst korrigierend — doppelt diktiert haben und hat es unterlassen, nachher zu glätten bzw. zu streichen." (Einführung in die Textgeschicht der Paulusbriefe. An die Römer [HNT 8; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr {Paul Siebeck}, 1971], 59). See also Jülicher, who considers 7b a gloss: "V. 7b sagt fast dasselbe wie V. 7a mit etwas anderen Worten, der eine Satz steht dem andern so peinlich im Wege, daß sie nicht beide von Paulus herrühren können; V. 7b ist vielleicht die Randbemerkung eines alten Lesers, der die Opferfreudigkeit menschlicher Liebe höher einschätzte, und an den Eifer der christlichen Mätyrer, für ihren Herrn Christus 'den Guten' zu sterben, erinnern wollte." {op. cit., 257). Barrett: "It is not impossible that Paul dictated v. 7a, thought he could express himself better, and dictated v. 7b. But Tertius (xvi. 22) had now put v. 7a on his paper, and by an oversight it was never removed." {op. cit., 98). A clear formulation by Käsemann: "Pis hat allerdings seine Gadanken nicht präzis formuliert. 6 ist ihm aus den Fugen geraten. 7a bringt eine unglückliche Analogie, die in 7b nicht sehr geschickt korrigiert wird, und erst 8 findet mit der Aufnahme von 6 und dem Anschluß an 5b zum Ziel. . . . Weder 6 - 7 (Fuchs, Freiheit 16) noch 7b (Jülicher) oder 7 überhaupt (Sahlin, Emendationen 97) lassen sich triftig als Glossen erklären. Auch die These eines Abschreibversehens, das später schlecht korrigiert wurde (Sahlin 96 f.), ist wenig plausibel" {Römer, 127).

276

Christ in the Letters of Paul

5:18-20, where Paul also moved to the level of God as the foundation of the meaning of Christ, τά δέ πάντα έκ του θεοΰ τοϋ καταλλάξαντος ήμάς έαυτω δια Χρίστου (2 Cor 5:18). Paul interprets the purpose of the statements about Christ's death ύπέρ άσεβών/ήμών as the foundation on which he can now state at a general third level of meaning, δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ (5:9b), modifying his earlier statement in 5:1, δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως, as his thinking moves forward. With the πολλφ οΰν μάλλον by means of which he introduces this new statement, Paul makes it clear that with his christological statements he has moved to a level of the meaning of justification that is more fundamental than justification by a faith such as Abraham's. He does not negate justification by faith, but with πολλφ ούν μάλλον he makes it clear that there is a deeper dimension of justification than by a faith such as Abraham's, justification through the blood of Christ. As I argued above, it is a more sophisticated and more convincing way of connecting Christ to Abraham's justification by faith than in Gal 3:16 where he interpreted the promise to Abraham as having been fulfilled in Christ. That Paul was moving to deeper levels of the meaning of Christ is also evident when he interprets what Christ's death means for his readers. In 5:1b he interpreted what results from justification by faith as είρήνην εχομεν πρός τόν θεόν. In verse 9c he interprets the result of justification through the blood of Christ (v. 9b) as σωθησόμεθα δι αύτοΰ άπό της όργής, and in verse 10e, the result of being reconciled with God (v. lOd) as σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωη αύτοΰ. In this passage, unlike in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 and Gal 3:1 e, Paul does not make christological statements and then interprets their meanings. His christological statements in verses 6 and 8 function as the means of moving from justification by faith in verse 1 to justification through the blood of Christ in verse 9. But with that Paul has not yet said all he has to say. There is yet another meaning of Christ's death to which he wants to give expression. So, without making a new christological statement, he recalls the dual statements of verses 6 and 8 at a third level in verse lOa-c, εί γάρ έχθροϊ οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεω δια τοϋ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, which prepares him for the next step in his reasoning in verse lOde, at a third, πολλφ μάλλον καταλλαγέντες, and a fourth level of meaning, σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωη αύτοΰ. In verse l i b , similar to what he did in verses 3-5, Paul interprets, at a fifth level of meaning, what being saved in the life of Christ means concretely for his readers, καυχώμενοι έν τω θεω. 224 And then, in verse 1 lc, he grounds

2 2 4 Wilckens is clear a b o u t the issue: " I n d e m Paulus so in V V 5 - 1 0 die Heilszuversicht christlichen » R ü h m e n s « b e g r ü n d e t hat, kehrt er in V 11 zu d i e s e m Stichwort von V 2b zurück.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

277

pride in God in Christ at a the fundamental, first christological level, διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου, reaffirming, at a third level, that it is Christ in whom the reconciliation with God has its foundation, δι' ού νΰν τήν την καταλλαγήν έλάβομεν (ν. 1 Id).

Alles Rühmen im Blick auf die Zukunft und angesichts der Bedrängnisse der Gegenwart (V 3) gründet in jener Einheit Gottes mit Christus in Tod und Auferstehung Christi und rühmt darum wesenhaft Gott durch unsern Herrn Jesus Christus, durch den wir jetzt die Versöhnung empfangen haben«." (op. cit., 300).

278

Christ in the Letters of Paul

h. Rom 6:1-14 1

τί οΰν έροϋμεν; έπιμένωμεν τη αμαρτία, (6:lab)

ϊνα ή χάρις πλεονάση; 2 μή γένοιτο. (6:lc-2a) οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν xfi άμαρτία, πως έτι ζήσομεν έν αύτη; (6:2bc) 3

ή άγνοεϊτε οτι, οσοι έβαπτίσθημεν εις Χριστόν Ίησοΰν, εις τόν θάνα-

τον αύτοΰ έβαπτίσθημεν;

4

συνετάφημεν οΰν αύτώ διό τοϋ βαπτίς-

ματος εις τον θάνατον, (6:3-4b) ϊνα ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοϋ πατρός, (6:4cd)

Β

οϋτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν. 6:4e) 5

εί γαρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοϋ θανάτου αύτοΰ, (6:5a)

C

άλλά και της αναστάσεως έσόμεθα· (6:5b) 6

τοϋτο γινώσκοντες 5τι ό παλαιός ημών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη,

D

(6:6ab) ϊνα καταργηθή τό σώμα της άμαρτίας, (6:6c)

Ε

τοϋ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμας τη άμαρτίφ (6:6d) 7

D'

ό γάρ άποθανών (6:7 a)

δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας. (6:7b) 8

] c

εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σϋν Χριστώ, (6:8a)

πιστεύομεν οτι και συζήσομεν αύτφ, (6:8b) 'είδότες οτι Χριστός εγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι αποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει.

10

Β'

ο γάρ άπέθανεν, τή αμαρτία

άπέθανεν έφάπαξ- ö δέ ζή, ζή τω θεώ. (6:9-10) " ο ϋ τ ω ς και ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τή άμαρτίςί ζώντας δέ τφ θεφ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. (6:11) 12

μή οΰν βασιλευέτω ή άμαρτία έν τφ θνητφ ύμών σώματι εις τό ύπακούειν

ταΐς έπιθυμίαις αύτοΰ,

13

μηδέ παριστάνετε τά μέλη ύμών οπλα άδικίας τή

Α'

άμαρτία, άλλά παραστήσατε έαυτούς τφ θεφ ώσεί έκ νεκρών ζώντας και τά μέλη ύμών οπλα δικαιοσύνης τφ θεφ. (6:12-13) 14

άμαρτία γάρ ύμών ού κυριεύσει· (6:14a) ού γάρ έστε ύπό νόμον άλλά ύπό χάριν. (6:14b)

The chiastic structure displayed at the right margin of the diagram emerged in the course of the investigation of this passage. I will clarify it in the discussion below. Rom 6:1-14 has a tight structure which should make Paul's meaning clear. He makes his theme unambiguous in verses 1-2, έπιμένωμεν τή άμαρτία, ϊνα ή χάρις πλεονάση; μή γένοιτο, οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τή άμαρτία, πώς έτι ζήσομεν έν αύτή;

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

279

elaborates on that theme in verses 3-10 from which he draws the relevant conclusion in verse 11, recalling the second rhetorical question of verse 2 and expanding on it, now formulating it positively, οϋτως και ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μεν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τφ θεώ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. He continues this recalling of his central theme with a paraenetic conclusion in verses 12-14. Paul's theme is the negation of the erroneous view that living under God's kindness encourages sin: To the contrary, according to him, having died to sin, how can we still live in it? The domination of death to sin and life in Christ ensures a unity which runs throughout the passage. (i) Baptism in the history of the interpretation of Romans 6:1-14 Paul's intended meaning appears to be clear. However, the history of the interpretation of the passage reveals highly complex interpretive issues. 225 In this history, a structure determined by the theme of death to sin and life in Christ became submerged, even if not drowned out, in a restructuring in which the focus shifted to baptism as the center of discussion, even though baptism is mentioned explicitly only in verses 3-4. Further complicating this interpretation is a parallel focus on the place of justification by faith in the passage, especially in its relationship to baptism, even though the passage contains no hint whatsoever at this doctrine. A noteworthy demonstration of this emphasis on the significance of baptism and its relationship to justification by faith in Romans 6 is the conference on the subject at the third Colloquio Ecumenico Paolino at the Abbazia di san Paolo fuori le mura in Rome from April 13 through 18, 1971, attended by some of the most prominent New Testament scholars of the time. 226 Justification is mentioned only once in Rom 6:1-14, but in agreement with the tenor of the entire passage it is justification of the one who dies, not the one who believes, ό γάρ άποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας (verse

2 2 5 A s Hartwig Thyen ( S t u d i e n zur Sündenvergebung [Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1970], 195) writes: " D i e Literatur zu R o m . 6 ist nahezu uferlos. W i r verzichten d e s h a l b auf eine detaillierte A u s e i n a n d e r s e t z u n g und auf eine u m f a n g r e i c h e eigene Interpretation . . ." 2 2 6 The p r o c e e d i n g s were published in Battesimo e giustizia in Rom 6 e 8 (ed. Lorenzo De Lorenzi; Serie m o n o g r a f i c a di " B e n e d i c t i n a , " sezione b i b l i c o - e c u m e n i c a 2; R o m a : A b b a z i a 5. Paolo fuori le m u r a , 1974). It culminated in presentations p u b l i s h e d as part of the proc e e d i n g b y R u d o l f S c h n a c k e n b u r g , " D i e A d a m - C h r i s t u s - T y p o l o g i e ( R o m 5 , 1 2 - 2 1 ) als V o r a u s s e t z u n g f ü r das T a u f v e r s t ä n d n i s in R o m 6 , 1 - 1 4 " (37-81) and Erich Dinkier, " R ö m e r 6, 1 - 1 4 und das Verhältnis von T a u f e und R e c h t f e r t i g u n g bei P a u l u s " (83-103). T h e role p l a y e d b y b a p t i s m a n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n b y f a i t h as the m a i n t o p i c s o f t h e c o n f e r e n c e is m a n i f e s t in the titles of the publication itself and of D i n k l e r ' s presentation. The t h e m e that had originally been given to Dinkier reflects the s a m e concern, formulated differently: "Die Gerechtigkeit des Christen als T a u f a n t e i l n a h m e an der Gerechtigkeit Christi."

280

Christ in the Letters of Paul

7). 227 There is a single references to πίστις, but then in the sense of a reasoned conviction, not of a justifying faith, εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, πιστεύομεν οτι και συζήσομεν αύτω (verse 8). (ii) Levels of the meaning of Christ in the passage The agenda for Paul's reasoning in the passage is set by the two rhetorical questions at the concrete fifth level of Paul's readers in verses 1-2. έπιμένωμεν τη άμαρτία, ϊνα ή χάρις πλεονάση; and οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τη άμαρτία, πώς ετι ζήσομεν έν αύτη; Even though the fundamental, first level christological statements in verses 4cd and 9b-10, ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοΰ πατρός, and Χριστός εγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει, δ γάρ άπέθανεν, τη άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζη, ζη τω θεώ, play a crucial role in Paul's reasoning, these statements have no. independent meanings. Their meanings are determined by the way they function in Paul's reasoning. The close correlation between the christological statements and what they mean to Paul and his readers is revealed by the way they are embedded in statements which express their meanings. The first statement, ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοΰ πατρός (v. 4cd), is embedded syntactically on the one side in the preceding third level reference to dying with Christ through baptism, on which it expands, οσοι έβαπτίσθημεν είς Χριστόν Ίησοΰν, είς τόν θάνατον αύτοΰ έβαπτίςθημεν; συνετάφημεν οΰν αύτω διά τοΰ βαπτίσματος είς τόν θάνατον, (ϊνα ώσπερ) (νν. 3b-4b). On the other side it is embedded in the fourth level conclusion towards which Paul is moving,

227 Note, however, Dinkier ("Römer 6, 1-14 und das Verhältnis," 96): "Und wenn Paulus in 6, 7 — wie wir bereits sahen — in der Terminologie der Rechtfertigungslehre ein Zitat bringt: ό γάρ αποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό της αμαρτίας — so zeigt sich auch darin die Tendenz, die Pointe seiner Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhang der Tauferwähnung zu bringen: Befreiung von der sündebeladenen Vergangenheit und Freiheit für die verheissungsvolle Zukunft sind eine Einheit im Geschenk der Gnade." Dinkier appears to assume a systematic use of key terms by Paul, as evidenced by his reference to the "Terminologie der Rechtfertigungslehre" through which it becomes possible for him to draw Paul's entire teaching on justification into the discussion.

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

281

(οϋτως καί) ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4e). The christological statement is embedded syntactically between verses 3b-4b and 4e by means of ϊνα ώσπερ . . . οϋτως καί. The conjunction ϊνα signals that what follows in verse 4c-e carries further the point Paul made with his reference to baptism in verses 3b-4b, that is, reinforcing the second rhetorical question, οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τη άμαρτία, πως έτι ζήσομεν έν αύτη; (2bc). The second christological statement, Χριστός έγερθεϊς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι αποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει, δ γάρ άπέθανεν, τη άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ- δ δέ ζή, ζή τω θεώ. (νν. 9b-10), is also embedded in statements concerning what it means for Paul and his readers, on the one side in the preceding third (v. 8a) and fourth (v. 8b) level statement concerning dying with Christ and living with him, for which it provides support: εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, πιστεύομεν δτι και συζήσομεν αύτώ, (είδότες δτι) (ν. 8), and on the other side what follows from the christological statement for Paul and his readers, at a fourth level: (οϋτως καί) ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μεν τή άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεώ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (ν. 11). As in the case of the syntactic links established by means of ώσπερ . . . οϋτως καί between the first christological statement (v. 4cd) and what it means for Paul's readers (vv. 3b-4b and 4e), so here too syntactic links are established by means of είδότες δ τ ι . . . οϋτως καί between the second christological statement (vv. 9-10) and what it means for Paul's readers (vv. 8 and 11). It is not Paul's purpose with the statement about baptism in verses 3-4b to provide his readers with information about baptism as such, but, drawing on baptism as an accepted practice, he brings to the fore features that support his second rhetorical question (v. 2bc). He expands on the baptism statement in the first christological statement, ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών δια της δόξης τοΰ πατρός (v. 4cd), connecting it to the baptism statement by means of ϊνα ώσπερ, and then clarifying what the christological statement means for his readers, οϋτως καί ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4e), the newness of the life in Christ to which they are called. There is no reference to Christ's death in the first christological statement, only to his resurrection. Christ's death is of course involved as part of

282

Christ in the Letters of Paul

the context provided by the preceding statement about baptism as participation in Christ's death in verses 3-4b, but Paul begins his reasoning, not by focussing on Christ's death as the liberation from sin, but on Christ's resurrection as the foundation of the new life into which he and his readers are called: οϋτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν. εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοϋ, άλλά και της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα (νν. 4e-5). Participation in Christ's death is the basis on which this new life is made possible, but Christ's resurrection, not his death, is in the forefront in this first part of Paul's reasoning in verses 4c-5. In the second part, already in verse 6, the focus shifts to Christ's death. Coordinate with the focus on Christ's resurrection in verses 4c-5 is the absence, after verses 1-2, of any reference to sin, before it appears again in verse 6, where it becomes dominant all the way to the end of his reasoning. In addition to the two references in verses 1-2, Paul refers to sin 8 more times between verses 6 and 14. What he is aiming at, also in the first part of his reasoning, is liberation from sin, the issue raised by the rhetorical questions in verses 1-2, but to which he does not refer again before verse 6. (iii) The emergence of a chiastic structure in the passage Looking more closely at these levels of the meaning of Christ in our passage, an unexpected chiastic structure appears. The structure does not appear to be the product of design, but one which resulted from the process of Paul's thought. Paul's main reasoning in the passage takes place between the two Christological statements, ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοΰ πατρός (ν. 4cd) and Χριστός έγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοϋ ούκέτι κυριεύει, δ γάρ άπέθανεν, τη αμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζη, ζη τω θεω (νν. 9b-10), Β and Β ' in the chiastic schema, each followed by a fourth level meaning, introduced with the identical οϋτως και: οϋτως καί ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4e), and οϋτως και ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τή άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τφ θεώ έν Χριστώ 'Ιησού (ν. 11). Significantly, Paul moves from ήμεΐς in verse 4e to ύμεΐς in verse 11, preparing for his paraenesis in verse 12-13. Paul's reasoning continues after the first christological statement with two sets of third, each followed by fourth level statements, C and D in the diagram of the text:

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

283

εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τώ όμοιώματι τοϋ θανάτου αύτοΰ, άλλά καϊ της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα (ν. 5), and τοΰτο γινώσκοντες οτι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ϊνα καταργηθη τ ° σώμα της άμαρτίας (6a-c), and concludes with a single fifth level statement, Ε in the diagram of the text: τοϋ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τη άμαρτία (v.6d). Even though this concluding statement coordinates well with the second clause of his negation of the first rhetorical question, πώς έτι ζήσομεν έν [τη άμαρτία]; (v. 2c), and could have concluded his reasoning as a whole, Paul was evidently not satisfied, but continues the discussion with two more sets of third, each again followed by fourth level statements, D ' and C' in the diagram of the text: ό γάρ άποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας (ν. 7), and εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, πιστεύομεν οτι και συζήσομεν αύτω (ν. 8), with which he leads up to the second christological statement (vv. 9-10) by means of είδότες οτι. At first sight, the statements in the two halves of Paul's reasoning in verses 5-6c and 7-8, C - D and D ' - C ' , respectively, appear repetitive with an abbreviated, semantically inverted sequence in the second, without significant development: εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοΰ, άλλά και της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα- τοΰτο γινώσκοντες οτι ό παλαιός ή μ ώ ν άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ϊνα καταργηθη τό σώμα της άμαρτίας (νν. 56c), and ό γάρ άποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας. εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστφ, πιστεύομεν οτι και συζήσομεν αύτω (νν. 7-8). In reality they are well structured in a chiasm which begins and ends with the semantically parallel statements in verses 5 and 8, εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοΰ, άλλά καϊ της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα and εί άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, πιστεύομεν οτι καί συζήσομεν αύτω, C and C' in the diagram of the text: With his reasoning in verses 4 c - l 1, (B-B'), initiated by the statement in 4cd, ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοΰ πατρός, as a transition from his baptism statement in verses 3 4b to his chiastic reasoning, Paul

284

Christ in the Letters of Paul

picks up the thoughts of the baptism statement, participation in Christ's death through baptism, but expanded to include participation in Christ's resurrection as well, as he does in the application of the first christological statement to himself and his readers in verse 4e, οϋτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν. We may thus be able to conclude that Paul's chiastic reasoning in verses 4c-1 1 is not an exposition of his statement on baptism in verses 3 4b. 22S His statement about baptism and his chiastic reasoning are parallel arguments in support of his second rhetorical question in verse 2bc, [μή γένοιτο.] οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τη άμαρτία, πώς ετι ζήσομεν έν αύτη; For that reason, I leave verses 3 - 4 b out of the suggested chiastic schema. Paul evidently found it necessary to supplement the point he made in those verses with the more extended reasoning in verses 4c-11. Death is a critical element in Paul's negation of the first rhetorical question, έπιμένωμεν τή άμαρτία, ϊνα ή χάρις πλεονάση; (v. lbc), in the second, οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τη άμαρτία, πώς ετι ζήσομεν έν αύτη; (v. 2bc), but it is death in a qualified sense, death to sin, άπεθάνομεν τή άμαρτία (v. 2b), the topic on which Paul focuses at the center of the chiasm. The two semantically parallel statements, D and D' in the diagram of the text, τοΰτο γινώσκοντες δτι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ϊνα καταργηθή τό σώμα της άμαρτίας (v. 6a-c), and ό γάρ άποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας (ν. 7), frame the chiastic center, Ε, with its focus on the liberation from sin. του μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τή άμαρτία (v. 6d). With the focus on dying to sin, Paul returns to the central issue which he raised in the rhetorical questions in verses 1-2, living in sin or dying to it. With the central statement in verse 6d he is back at the heart of the matter, negation of the erroneous suggestion in the first rhetorical question, έπιμένωμεν τή άμαρτία, ϊνα ή χάρις πλεονάση; (v. lbc) in the second, οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τή άμαρτία, πώς έτι ζήσομεν έν αύτή; (v. 2bc). Now, however, the negation is no longer in the form of a rhetorical question, but of a resolute affirmation. The chiastic structure in this passage reveals Paul's ability to focus his thoughts sharply. It is not necessary to assume that he consciously structured

228 For a more detailed discussion of baptism and related issues in the interpretation of Rom 6:1-14, see my article "The Structure and Meaning of Romans 6:1-14," CBQ 63 (October 2001)664-82.

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

285

his thoughts as a chiasm. The chiasm appears rather to be the result of the way his thoughts move forward towards his goal. His aim is to reinforce his negation of the mistaken view expressed in the first rhetorical question, a point he appears to have reached in verse 6d, τοΰ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τη άμαρτία, at the center of his chiasm, as already mentioned. But he is evidently not satisfied. His thoughts move on, resulting in the chiastic parallelism between verses 5-6c and 7-8, C - D and D ' - C ' in the diagram. Even with that he has not yet reached his goal; he moves on to a new christological statement, Χριστός έγερθεϊς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοϋ ούκέτι κυριεύει, ο γάρ άπέθανεν, τη άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ- ö δέ ζή, ζή τω θεώ (νν. 9b-10). Paul does not present Christ's death sacrificially for sin, but more powerfully for his reasoning in the passage, to sin, as a model for that to which he admonishes his readers, living for God. He formulates the second christological statement specifically with what it means for his readers in mind, as he makes explicit in verse 11 at a fourth level of meaning, that they too have died to sin and live for God, οϋτως και ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μεν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεώ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. The expression in verse 11 has features that are parallel to the earlier expression in verse 4e, both introduced with οϋτως καί, as we have already noted, οϋτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4e), and οϋτως καί ύμεϊς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τώ θεω έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (ν. 11), but with an important difference. The expression in verse 11 includes the crucial element of a death to sin. It now becomes clear that we may also consider verses 4c-e and 9b-11 as parallel parts of the chiasm, Β and B', ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοΰ πατρός, οϋτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4c-e), and Χριστός εγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει, ö γάρ άπέθανεν, τή άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζή, ζή τω θεώ. οϋτως καί ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τή άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεφ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (νν. 9b-11).

286

Christ in the Letters of Paul

The difference between these two statements, the presence of dying to sin in the second, absent from the first, reveals what Paul is driving at. The structure of his discourse has two steps, each with its own focus: First, the new life in Christ (vv. 3-5), and then, dying to sin (vv. 6-11). The latter conception was clearly Paul's goal when he formulated what had been at issue in the two rhetorical questions: Remaining in sin (v. lb), living in it (v. 2c), over against dying to sin (v. 2b). The function of the two christological statements in Rom 6:1-11 are not paraenetic, as, for example, in 1 Thess 5:1-11, but concern a more theoretical issue, stated in the beginning in the two rhetorical questions in verses 1 and 2, whether remaining in sin would allow God's graciousness to abound, even though Paul formulates the questions concretely at the fifth level of meaning as something his readers might consider doing. Notwithstanding the theoretical nature of the issue, Paul, as a pastor, could not refrain from bringing the discussion to a concrete paraenetic conclusion, at a fifth level, μή ο ύ ν βασιλευέτω ή άμαρτία έν τω θνητώ ύ μ ώ ν σ ώ μ α τ ι είς τό ύπακούειν ταΐς έπιθυμίαις αύτοϋ, μηδέ παριστάνετε τά μέλη ύμών οπλα άδικίας τη άμαρτία, άλλα παραστήσατε έαυτούς τω θεώ ώσεί έκ νεκρών ζώντας και τά μέλη ύμών οπλα δικαιοσύνης τω θεώ (νν. 12-13), rounding off his chiastic reasoning by recalling the two rhetorical questions of verses 1 - 2 in verses 12-13, as A and A', after preparing for this conclusion in the intervening verses 4c—11. That his primary concern in the passage as a whole is not paraenesic again becomes clear when he expands his paraenetic statement, rounding off A', at the theoretical level of the liberation from sin with a concluding statement, άμαρτία γαρ ύμών ού κυριεύσει (14a), but now with a different basis, ού γάρ έστε ύπό νόμον άλλά ύπό χάριν (v. 14b), which forms the basis for leading over with τί ούν; άμαρτήσωμεν, οτι ούκ έσμεν ύπό νόμον άλλά ύπό χάριν (ν. 15) to a new discussion in verses 15-22, in many ways parallel to what we have in the present passage. (iv) The progression of Paul's thought in Romans 6:1-14 The structure of the passage is complicated. Let us now see if we can follow Paul's reasoning. He begins by stating the issue by means of two rhetorical questions (vv. 1-2). Then, after establishing the believer's dying with Christ through baptism, he is moved by the second part of the second rhetorical question to the first christological statement affirming Christ's resurrection (v. 4cd), and the believers' participation in it (v. 4e). At this point his focus is on

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

287

Christ's resurrection and the believers' participation in it, surrendering for the time being Christ's death and what it means for the believer. In verse 5, he reaffirms the believer's participation in Christ's resurrection. The real issue, however, is not the new life in Christ as such, but that the new life in Christ is a death to sin. That is the issue to which Paul returns in verse 6, not to slave for sin (v. 6d), with which he ends the first part of his reasoning. But that does not leave Paul satisfied. He moves back up the chiastic ladder to the second christological statement with statements that are parallel to those that lead from the first christological statement to the central point of the chiasm in verse 6d, including the first half of the second christological statement. The second half of the christological statement provides the foundation for the point he wants to make, Christ's death to sin and his life for God (v. 10). On that basis Paul can now say, not only in parallel to verse 4e, ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν, that we now live for God in Christ, ζώντας δέ τω θεώ έν Χριστφ Ίησοΰ (ν. 1 lb), but also, ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς νεκρούς τη αμαρτία (v. 11a), as the basis on which believers can live for God. The meaning of Christ's resurrection for Paul in Rom 6:1-14 is that ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4e) and that his readers should consider themselves ζώντας τω θεώ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (v. l i b ) . At the same time, in contrast with what he wrote in 1 Cor 15:17, εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών, in our passage it is again through his death that Christ defeated the power of sin. Apart from expressing what Christ's resurrection meant, that through it έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (ν. 4e), Rom 6:1-14 makes it clear that it is through Christ's death that believers are liberated from sin. One can argue that if Christ had not been raised from the dead, his death would have been ineffective. There is reason to believe that Paul himself would have understood that to have been true. Christ's death and resurrection cannot be separated as unrelated events in his thought. Christ's resurrection established the effectiveness of his death as the event of salvation, certainly for Paul for whom the encounter with the resurrected Christ was what changed his life. The unity of Christ's death and resurrection as a single complex event of salvation was so complete in his thought that he was able to write in 1 Cor 2:2, ού γαρ έκρινά τι είδεναι έν ύμϊν εί μή Ίσοΰν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον, even though he was also able to write in 15:17, εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταϊς άμαρτίαις ύμών, without contradicting himself. In his mind the Christ who had been crucified was the resurrected Christ who had appeared to him, and inversely, the Christ who appeared to him was the Christ who liberated him from sin through his death on the cross.

288

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Paul's reasoning in Rom 6:1-14 may now have become a little more clear. In his rejection of the view suggested in his first rhetorical question two important components in his thinking emerge: dying to sin and the new life in Christ, brought to mind by the implied negation of living in sin. Chiastically, he first takes up the second component by drawing a christological conclusion from his appeal to baptism, not from Christ's death, but his resurrection, ίνα ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοΰ πατρός, οΰτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4b-e). However, he does not lose sight of his focus on the liberation from sin, that is, the death to sin, culminating in the statement in verse 6cd, ϊνα καταργηθη τό σώμα της άμαρτίας, τοΰ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τη άμαρτία. The liberation from sin remains grounded in Christ's death in his statement in verse 6ab, τοΰτο γινώσκοντες οτι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, but he appears to be aware that he has not grounded this statement explicitly in Christ's death. For that reason he retraces his previous reasoning back to a new christological statement which again reasserts Christ's resurrection, Χριστός έγερθεϊς έκ νεκρών οϋκέτι Αποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει (v. 9bc), but now with an added feature which clinches the entire issue, ö γάρ άπέθανεν, τη άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζή, ζη τω θεώ (ν. 10). Paul's reasoning in this passage is not basically christological, but concerns the concrete issue of the liberation from sin. It is nevertheless clear that he cannot find satisfaction in his reasoning until he grounds the liberation from sin solidly in Christ, that is, in Christ's death. i. Rom 8:31-39 (i) The Interpretation of Rom 8:31-39 Rom 8:31-39 is widely recognized as an extraordinary passage in Paul's letters. According to Luke Johnson: "Romans 8:31-39 is rightly regarded as one of the most stunning pieces of rhetorical art in the New Testament." 229 It has frequently been suggested that it was a hymn, 230 but attention has also been

229 L. T. Johnson, Reading Romans. A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997) 134. Similarly, de Kruijf: "het 'retorisch glanspunt' van de brief." (Romeinen, 177). Ernst Käsemann is skeptical: "Das moderne Urteil über 'dichterische Schönheit' (Kühl; Jülicher; Dodd; H. W. Schmidt) ist zwar verständlich, gleichwohl jedoch völlig unangebracht. . ." Römer, 235) 230 So, carefully, Otto Michel: "ein in sich kunstvoll gegliedertes hymnisches Ganzes." (Römer, 213). See especially Peter von der Osten-Sacken: "Immer wieder findet sich in der exegetischen Literatur die Bezeichnung von Rom. 8,31-39 als 'Hymnus', 'Lobgesang', 'Siegeslied', 'Triumphlied'" (Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie [FRLANT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975] 14), who, however, points out that this has not been shown to be the case: "Der Nachweis für die Sachgemäßheit dieser Bestimmung steht jedoch aus" (loc. eil.).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

289

drawn to the features of diatribe in its structure. 231 The passage does not have an argumentative structure, but by a structure determined by a series of questions, each introduced by τίς. 232 α. Scripture and Tradition in the Passage It is widely assumed that Paul made use of tradition in Rom 8:31-39, in addition to quotations from and allusions to Scripture, Gen 22:16 in verse 32a where God's sacrifice of God's son reminds of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac; Isa 50.8 in the reference to θεός ό δίκαιων in verse 33b; Ps 110:1 (109 LXX) in verse 34d with the reference to Christ's ascension to the right hand of God; and Ps 44:23 which Paul quotes explicitly in verse 36. The evidence for an allusion to Isa 50:8 is slight. 233 The only, not even exact, verbal connection is the reference to God as ό δίκαιων in Rom 8:33 and ό δικαιώσας με in Isa 50:8. There is also the semantic connection of a threat of judgment against which God's justification provides security, but the expressions are different, τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; in Rom 8:33a and absolutely τίς ό κατακρινών; in 8:34a, in contrast with twice τίς ό κρινόμενος μοι; in Isa 50:8 and τίς κακώσει με; in 50:9b. 234 Interpreters also suggest that Isa 53:6c, κύριος παρέδωκεν αύτόν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ήμών, is behind ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν in verse 32b, 235 some with hesitation. 236 There is a widespread consensus that Paul quoted from a confessional formula in verse 34b-e, Χριστός 'Ιησούς ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τού θεοΰ, δς και έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών. 2 3 7 There is a 231 So Käsemann: "Das Spiel von Frage und Antwort, Einwänden und deren Abweisung beweist, daß wieder christliche Diatribe mit einer Annäherung an antike Kunstprosa geboten wird" (Römer, 235). Also Wilckens (Rom 6-11, 172) and Johnson (Romans, 124). 232 So, Käsemann, who summarizes this structure as follows: "Nimmt man zumeist 4 kleinere Einheiten oder (Balz, Heilsvertrauen 117ff.) vom Stichwort "trennen" her zwei an, wird es der steigernden Gedankenführung am besten gerecht, wenn man auf die typische Einleitungsfrage 31a einen ersten Gesprächsgang in 31-32, einen zweiten in 33-34, einen dritten in 3 5 - 3 9 findet (Leenhardt; Schille, Liebe 232). 3 8 - 3 9 geben freilich nicht bloß Antwort auf 35, sondern bilden einen Abschluß des Ganzen" (Römer, 235-36). 233 The extreme case is Kazimierz Romaniuk who inteprets Rom 8:33-34 as virtually a quotation of Isa 50:7-9. "En Rm 8,31-38 le chant d'Isa'ie est presque cite 'ad litteram'." He places parts of Rom 8:31-39 and Isa 50:7-9 in parallel columns (L'amour du pere et du fils dans la soteriologie de saint Paul [Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1961] 229). 234 See especially the thorough investigation of Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 4 3 - 4 , also 45. 235 So, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 499, and Wilckens, Rom 6-11, 173. 236 So, Henning Paulsen: "Zwar ist eine solche Beziehung [zu Jes 53,6] häufig postuliert worden, sie dürfte aber keinesfalls so eng sein, wie immer wieder behauptet wird. Dennoch läßt sich n i c h t b e s t r e i t e n , daß V. 32 Jes 5 3 . 6 LXX als H i n t e r g r u n d v o r a u s s e t z t " (Uberlieferung und Auslegung in Römer 8 [WMANT; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974] 164). 237 So, for example, C. Κ. Barrett: "In his account of Christ in ν. 34 Paul may be dependent on a Christological formula; this is suggested by the parallel participles (died — was raised)

290

Christ in the Letters of Paul

tendency to take a relative clause which begins with 5ς as an indication of a confessional formula. 238 But if Paul wanted to add a relative clause, for example, to ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών in verse 31b, there is no way he could have avoided using the relative pronoun, ος γε τοΰ ιδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο in 32a, without necessarily quoting a confession. More convincing is Ernst Käsemann's observation that we may conclude that at the most Paul himself combined christological and liturgical statements. 239 The most extensive study on verse 34 as the quotation of tradition was made by Henning Paulsen. According to him, three originally independent traditions had been combined before Paul quoted them, δς έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ and δ ς και έ ν τ υ γ χ ά ν ε ι ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν , to which Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς Ί η σ ο ϋ ς ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς was subsequently added. 240 It remains difficult to see how such fine distinctions can be made purely on the basis of the Pauline text. An even more elaborate investigation of tradition which Paul may have used in the passage as a whole was made by Peter von der Osten-Sacken. I discuss it here s o m e w h a t more extensively b e c a u s e the t r a d i t i o n he reconstructs could be decisive for an understanding of what Paul intended to say in Rom 8:31-39. Osten-Sacken finds a first — the only really convincing! — clue to tradition edited by Paul in the tension which he perceives between the question in

and by the balanced relative clauses. Paul has already shown that the Spirit intercedes within us (v. 27); in heaven, Christ (who is also judge; see ii. 16) intercedes for the elect" (Romans, 2nd Ed., 1 6 2 ) . A l s o O t t o M i c h e l , Römer, 2 1 4 , 2 1 6 and R o m a n i u k , L'amour, 230-31. 238 So, explicitly, Henning Paulsen: "Der ος-Anschluß in den Versen 32 und 34 läßt sich ebenfalls als Kriterium fest formulierter Bekenntnisse bzw. hymnischen Gutes nachweisen" {Römer 8, 140). So also Michel: "Pls beruft sich in V 32 auf einen festen Stoff der Verkündigung, den er offenbar selbst übernommen hat. In den entscheidenden Relativsätzen (V 32. 34: ος . . .) haben wir geprägten Stoff vor uns, der die Objektivität der paul. Antworten sicherstellen soll" (Römer, 214); ". . . Pls will offenbar in V 33b und 34b zwei bekenntnismäßige Aussagen machen, die Gott und Christus formal auseinandertreten lassen. Der Aufbau der beiden Verse 33.34 ist also durch diesen Bekenntnisstil bedingt" (op. cit., 2 1 6 ) . 239 "Trotz einiger geprägter Formeln ist in 3lb—32 also nicht von einem vorpaulinischen oder vom Apostel stilisierten Bekenntnis zu sprechen . . . Erneut ist allerdings recht zweifelhaft, ob man von einem in sich geschlossenen Hymnenfragment sprechen darf. Das steigernde μάλλον δέ in 34c ist doch wohl paulinisch. Es bereitet die beiden Relativsätze vor, wobei der erste den entscheidenden zweiten begründet und aus Ps 110 ergänzt. Macht man sich dieses logische Gefüge deutlich, ergibt sich nicht mehr, als daß Pls hier christologische und liturgisch verwendete Grundaussagen verbindet" (Römer, 237). Similar De Kruijf: "Dat Paulus bij de formulering gebruik zou hebben gemaakt van met name liturgische traditie (vgl. Wilckens II 171) is zeer wel mogelijk, maar doet niets af aan het uiterst persoonlijke karakter van dit stuk tekst" Romeinen, 177). 240

Paulsen, Römer 8, 168-72.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

291

verse 35a, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό της άγάπης τοϋ Χρίστου; and its immediate answer in verses 35b-36. τίς requires a reply with animate, not inanimate threats, as in verse 35b, θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα, which presuppose an interrogative τί. This tension is resolved by the reply in verse 38- 39d, οΰτε θάνατος οΰτε ζωή οϋτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαί οϋτε ένεστώτα οΰτε μέλλοντα οϋτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ύψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα, which is also marked by a repetition of the χωρίζει of verse 35a with the χωρίσαι of verse 39d, δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό της άγάπης τοϋ θεοΰ. 241 Furthermore, according to Osten-Sacken, the list in verse 35b-g occurs frequently in Paul, representing the events that threaten the believer. Similarly, the quotation from scripture in verse 36 is a theological conception that is characteristic of Paul, and verse 37, άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν διά τοϋ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς, expresses a fundamental Pauline conviction, all of the list representing for the most part suffering he himself had experienced. 242 Thus, not only does verse 38 connect perfectly to the question in verse 35a, b u t w h a t c o m e s in b e t w e e n is r e a d i l y r e c o g n i z a b l e as a P a u l i n e interpolation. 243 Osten-Sacken also considers πέπεισμαι γάρ οτι (v. 38a) and δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό τής άγάπης τοϋ θεοΰ τής έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ τώ κυρίω ήμών (v. 39d) as a Pauline framing of the list of threatening powers in vv. 38b-39c. 244 With the understanding that Paul himself is responsible for verse 39d, Osten-Sacken's reference to the repetition of the χωρίσει of verse 35a in χωρίσαι of verse 39d becomes irrelevant for what he considers the underlying source. Osten-Sacken also rearranges the clauses in verses 31b-32 to what he considers as the probably more original sequence. 245 On the model of the answers in verses 33b and 34b, one should consider (εί) ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών in

241 Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 22. See also Michel: "Nicht als erneute Frage, sondern als Fortsetzung von V 35a tritt uns eine siebenfache Aufzählung entgegen. Allerdings sucht τίς nach einer Person oder Macht, während in dieser Aufzählung nur Ereignisse, Lebenslagen und Gefährdungen angeführt werden. Nimmt man das personhafte τίς, das in V 31.33.34.35 begegnet, ganz ernst, dann müßte man feststellen, daß die neue Aufzählung in V 38.39, die stark personhaft geformt ist, diesem τίς gerecht wird" (Römer, 217). 242 op. cit., 22-23. This has been recognized by many interpreters. So for example, Franz J-. Leenhardt: "Dans cette enumeration des epreuves menacant le croyant, ä l'exception de l'epee, on retrouve les epreuves que Paul a eu l'occasion de subir lui-meme" (L'Epitre de Saint Paul aux Romains, 136). S i m i l a r l y , Ernest Best, Romans, 103; K ä s e n a n n , Römer, 2 3 8 ; C r a n f i e l d , Romans, 4 4 0 ; W i l c k e n s , Rom 6-11, 1 7 5 ; De K r u i j f , Romeinen, 178; James R. Edwards, Romans (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992)225. 243 op. cit, 23. 244 loc. cit. 245 op. cit., 23-24.

292

Christ in the Letters of Paul

verse 31b as a reply to the question in verse 31c, τίς καθ' ήμών; He also removes ούκ έφείσατο and πάντων in verse 32a-b as probably Pauline additions to his source, resulting in the following formulation which takes εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, ος γε τόν 'ίδιον υίόν παρέδωκεν ύπέρ ήμών (νν. 31b,32ab, rearranged) as a response to the question τίς καθ ήμών; (v. 31c). On the basis of this investigation, Osten-Sacken concludes that underlying Rom 8:31-39 is a structure of four units marked by the four τίς questions followed by responses to them:

τίς καθ' ήμών;

εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, ος γε τόν 'ίδιον υίόν παρέδωκεν ύπέρ ήμών.

τίς έγκαλέσει κατά εκλεκτών θεοΰ;

θεός ό δικαιών

τίς ό κατακρινών;

Χριστός Ίησοΰς ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, ος καί έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών.

τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό τής αγάπης τοΰ Χριστού;

οΰτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαί οϋτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ύψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα.

Osten-Sacken quotes a number of question-and-answer series from the wisdom and rabbinic literature to which he considers the reconstructed series in Rom 8:31-39 related. 246 The wisdom and rabbinic question-and-answer series constitute a literary style with its "Sitz im Leben" in instruction as a catechetical form. He does not consider the series in Romans to be in a literary style, but as an example of the genre of the catechetical form in the oral tradition of the church. 247

2 4 6 op. cit., 5 0 - 5 4 . 2 4 7 " D i e rekonstruierte Frage-Antwort-Reihe in R o m . 8 , 3 1 - 3 9 steht in gewisser N ä h e zu den Beispielen, die als literarische P r o d u k t e einzuschätzen, in denen also Frage und A n t w o r t literarisches Stilmittel sind. . . . Trotzdem wird m a n die Reihe in R o m . 8 , 3 1 - 3 9 nicht als Beispiel für die V e r w e n d u n g von Frage und A n t w o r t als literarisches Stilmittel ansehen d ü r f e n , s o n d e r n als ein in d e r m ü n d l i c h e n Ü b e r l i e f e r u n g g e p r ä g t e s T r a d i t i o n s s t ü c k betrachten m ü s s e n , das entsprechend g a t t u n g s m ä ß i g als katechetisches Formular zu best i m m e n ist" ( o p . cit., 3 4 - 3 5 ) .

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

293

If this is indeed a source which Paul quoted, the question is what he might have meant by quoting and making changes to it. According to OstenSacken, Paul inverted the question and answer of the first unit of the catechetical form, and formulated the answer as a conditional clause in order to establish a connection to the introductory question in verse 31a, τί ούν έροΰμεν πρός ταϋτα; In that way verse 31bc became a summary of Paul's previous reasoning by means of which he interpreted that reasoning as proof of God's being for believers. 248 By adding ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά, and πάντων after ύπέρ ήμών, in the relative clause of verse 32, ος γε τόν 'ίδιον υίόν παρέδωκεν ύπέρ ήμών, which continues the answer to the first question, Paul underlined the greatness and the extent of God's activity, in that way providing a basis for the conclusion which he attached to the answer in verse 32c: Why would God who gave up God's own son for the believers not also give them τά πάντα? 249 An equally important interpretive action was Paul's separation of the fourth question in verse 39a from its answer in verses 38b-39c by adding, in the form of the complex answer in verse 35b—i, events which threaten believers in their daily lives. Paul does not deny the reality of these events, but interprets them in verse 36 by means of a quotation from Scripture as having been for the sake of Christ. 250 With the concluding statement in verse 39d-f that none of the threatening powers δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό της άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ της έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίφ ήμών, Paul returns to the beginning of the passage: The love of God in Christ describes God's turn towards humanity which comes to expression in God's giving over of God's son. 251 If the tradition reconstructed by Osten-Sacken is the basis on which Paul wrote the passage, the Jewish character of the passage, emphasized especially by James D. G. Dunn, 252 could be explained by the Jewish origins which have 248 " U m den Anschluß an die einleitende Frage herzustellen ( ' W a s sollen wir nun dazu sagen?'), stellt Paulus Frage und Antwort der ersten Einheit des Formulars um und formuliert die Antwort als Bedingungssatz (V. 31). Dadurch erhält der Satz V. 31b den Charakter eines Resümees aus den vorangehenden Ausführungen, die damit als Aufweis des Fürseins Gottes für die Glaubenden interpretiert werden" (op. cit. 51). 249 loc. eil. 250 op. cit., 51-52. 251 op. cit., 52. 252 ". . . the extent to which Paul sees his mission and its outcome as the fulfillment of Jewish hope is underlined. . . . The more the phrase 'God for us' is understood as a summary of Paul's gospel, the more important becomes the Jewish character and continuity implicit in it" (Romans 1-8, 500). Paul's use of the definite article with Χριστός in verse 35a, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό της άγάπης τοϋ Χρίστου; is a possible indication that Paul was thinking in Jewish terms. "Jesus as the Messiah who has fulfilled the Jewish expectation and hope, not least by expressing and embodying the (covenant) love of God for his people" (op. cit., 504). See Osten-Sacken: "Was die Frage der Herkunft betrifft, so möchte zweifelsfrei sein, daß angesichts der Rechtfertigungsthematik und der apokalyptischen Terminologie von

294

Christ in the Letters of Paul

been preserved in the tradition Paul quoted. If that is indeed the case it will be important to investigate what Paul made of the tradition. β. The Structure of the Passage There, is widespread agreement among interpreters that the passage is a summarizing conclusion of what precedes. The introductory question, τί οΰν έροΰμεν; (v. 31a), marks the beginning of a new thought, similar to the same expression in 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 9:14 and 9:30, but here it also functions to introduce a concluding summary of Paul's previous thoughts. 253 On the question how far back the summary reaches there is less agreement: All of chapters 5-8; 2 5 4 but also reaching back all the way to 1:17,255 or even 1:16b. 256 Paulsen considers Rom 8:28-39 a unity, in which, however, he thinks one should allow for a certain independence of verses 28-30 and 31-39. On the other hand, important motifs which Paul identifies in verse 28a also occur in verses 3 1 - 3 9 . 2 5 7 Within the framework of Rom 8 : 2 8 - 3 9 , verse 28a, οϊδαμεν δέ οτι τοις άγαπώσιν τόν θεόν πάντα συνεργεί εις άγαθόν, establishes a thesis. Accordingly, one should consider whether, from a structural point of view, the question in verse 31a, τί οΰν έροΰμεν πρός ταΰτα; does not relate formally to verse 28a. 258 A number of interpreters understand the passage to be in three sections, verses 32b-32; 33-34 and 35-39, 2 5 9 with some dividing the last section into two, verses 3 5 - 3 7 and 38-39. 2 6 0 Paulsen considers verses 31-34 as two strophes, the first, presumably verses 3 lb—33, concerning God's activity, and the second, verse 34, more christologically oriented. 261 On the whole there is not much discussion of the structure of Rom 8:3139. Käsemann points out that the passage is akin to a hymn, 262 even though he

253

254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262

vornherein an eine judenchristliche Gemeinde als Ursprungsort des Formulars zu denken ist. Falls die vierte Frage-Antwort-Einheit als ursprünglich dazugehörig gelten könnte, wäre sodann die Annahme gesichert, daß es sich um eine Gemeinde außerhalb Palästinas handelte. Aber auch der Charakter von Rom. 8,34b als eines christologischen Summars läßt eher an eine judenchristliche Gemeinde in der Diaspora denken" (Römer 8, 46-7). So, among others, Wilckens: "Mit der Frage »Was sagen wir nun dazu?« leitet Paulus wie in 4,1; 6,1; 9,30 einen neuen G e d a n k e n ein, der hier die F u n k t i o n gewinnt, alles Voranstehende von 5,1 an auf eine abschließende Summe zu bringen" (Rom 6-11, 172). So Käsemann, Römer, 235, and Wilckens, Rom 6-11, 172. Edwards, Romans, 222. Cranfield, Romans, 434. Römer 8, 35. op. cit, 135. So Käsemann, Römer, 235-36; Wilckens, Rom 6-11, 170-71. So Michel, Römer, 213; Cranfield, Romans, 434. Römer 8, 142. "[Es] entspräche . . . eher einem Hymnus als einer diatribischen Argumentation, ließe sich von Strophen reden" (Römer, 235).

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

295

expresses skepticism about the passage as the rounded off fragment of a hymn, 263 and recognizes the features of diatribe in its structure. Semantically, he considers the passage to be determined by the death and resurrection of Christ. "God for us" in not characterized by a conception of God, but by the act of salvation centered in the death of Jesus. 264 Dunn expresses a contrary view: ". . . what the language emphasizes here is less the idea of Jesus' death as sacrifice, and more the thought of God's commitment to his own in and through Christ (God for us). . . In a way which even the metaphor of sonship can only express imperfectly[,] Paul sees Christ as the commitment of God." 265 Ulrich Wilckens gives more specific attention to the structure of the passage. Marked by the question in verse 31a, Paul draws a conclusion from what precedes, summarized in a thesis in verse 31b, which he then develops in a number of steps: a) In verse 32 the protasis, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, and b) in verses 33-34 the apodosis, τίς καθ' ήμών; Finally, verses 35-39 are concerned with "who" it was who could separate those who are bound to Christ from Christ's love. 266 Taking into consideration the four τίς questions, Otto Michel suggests the following as the development of Paul's thought: An affirmation is made in verse 8:31b, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, followed by the first τίς question, τίς καθ' ήμών, which leads to a new affirmation in verse 33b, θεός ό δικαιών. From this affirmation a new question arises, τίς ό κατακρινών; (v. 34a). Accordingly, verse 34b-e too should be considered an affirmation, Χριστός Ίησοΰς ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, ος και έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών, to which is attached another question, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό της άγάπης τοΰ Χριστού; (v. 35a). 2 6 7

263 "[Es] ist allerdings recht zweifelhaft, ob man von einem in sich geschlossenen Hymnenfragment sprechen d a r f ' (op. cit., 237). 264 "Gerade unser Abschnitt beweist, daß das Heilsereignis des Todes und der Erhöhung Christi die Mitte bildet und von da aus Beginn und Ende der Geschichte in den Blick rücken. Nicht ein Gottesgedanke, sondern die in Jesu Tod zentrierende Heilstat charakterisiert den Gott für uns . . ." (op. cit., 236). 265 Romans 1-8, 509. 266 Rom 6-11, 170-71. 267 He asks: ". . . soll man einheitlich durchkonstruieren, so daß zuerst eine Beteuerung dasteht, auf die dann eine als unmöglich erwiesene Frage folgt?" On that basis he concludes: "Im Sinn dieser zuletzt genannten Möglichkeit würde man etwa V 31 übersetzen: 'Ist Gott für uns, wer ist dann wider uns'? Nach diesem Schema von V31 würde V 33b zur Beteuerung: 'Gott ist es, der da gerecht spricht!' Aus dieser Beteuerung heraus entspränge die Frage von V 34a: 'Wer will da noch verdammen?' In diesem Fall würde in V 34b wieder eine Beteuerung folgen: 'Christus Jesus ist hier, der gestorben ist, ja vielmehr, der auch auferweckt ist, der zur Rechten Gottes ist, der auch für uns eintritt'. Darauf würde in V 35a sich die Frage anschließen: 'Wer wird uns da noch trennen von der Liebe des Christus?'" (Römer, 215-16).

296

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Osten-Sacken, whom I discussed extensively above, 268 does not discuss the structure of Rom 8:31-39, but limits himself to the structure of the catechetic question-and-answer tradition which he reconstructed as the main source used by Paul in the passage. He interprets the structure of the tradition in terms of the series of τίς questions. The first question, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, τίς καθ' ήμών; (v. 31bc) inquires in a general way about a possible opponent. The reference to God's salvific act in Christ in the reply, δς γε τοΰ ίδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν, πώς ούχί και σύν αύτφ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; (ν. 32) shows the question to be groundless. The second question, τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (v. 33a), repeats the first question, making it more specific, presenting it as an accusation before an eschatological tribunal. The reply, θεός ό δικαιών (v. 33b), again proves the irrelevance of the question: God already now pronounces the believer justified. The third question strengthens the action of the challenged opponent by taking into account the judgment of the second question and focussing on the possibility of a condemnation, τίς ό κατακρινών (v. 34a). The christologically oriented reply, Χριστός Ίησοϋς ό αποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, δς καί έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών (v. 34b-e), shows why that possibility has been eliminated: The believer is under the protection of Christ who intervenes on behalf of the believer already in the present. Analogous to the third question, the fourth, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό της άγάπης τοΰ Χριστοΰ; (v. 35a), takes into account the previous answer in verse 34b -e, by inquiring who could possibly separate the believer from the love of Christ whose activity and status was presented in verse 34b-e. In this case, however, the answer does not reveal the inappropriateness of the question because of the activity of God or Christ, but presents the possible enemies, who remain ineffective. 269 This is an analysis of the structure of the reconstructed tradition quoted by Paul, according to Osten-Sacken, not of the structure of Rom 8:3139. As such it does not clarify the structure of Rom 8:31-39 since Paul, according to Osten-Sacken, modified the structure of the tradition. 270 Nevertheless, if Paul did indeed quote the tradition as Osten-Sacken claims, the structure he proposes for that tradition would have to be taken into consideration as a possible influence on the structure of the passage as formulated by Paul. Hans Lietzmann 271 and Theodore Zahn 272 also take verses 33b and 34b e — punctuated as positive statements in Nestle-Aland — as questions: θεός ό

268 269 270 271 272

Pp. 290-293. Römer 8, 26-7. See above, p. 292. Römer, 87, 88. Römer, 424-25.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

297

δίκαιων; and Χριστός [Ιησούς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοϋ, δς και έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών; Their understanding is explicitly rejected by Michel, 273 Käsemann 274 and Cranfield. 275 Summary Previous scholarship has drawn attention to Paul's quotations of and allusions to Scripture in the passage: Gen 22:16, Ps 110:1 (LXX 109:1), Ps 44:23, and, less convincingly, Isa 50:8 and 53:6. It is also clear that Paul made use of tradition in his formulation of the passage. What remains unclear is to what degree he used fragments of tradition which he himself combined in his formulations, as Käsemann 276 maintains, or made use of existing complex traditions, as reconstructed by Paulsen 277 and Osten-Sachen. 278 Most interpreters agree that Rom 8:31-39 is not a hymn, but also that it does not have an argumentative structure. In that regard, even if not a hymn, it is more akin to a hymn 279 than to an argumentative discourse. The passage is understood to be a summarizing conclusion to what precedes, marked by the introductory question, τί οΰν έροΰμεν πρός ταΰτα; (v. 31a), an expression which Paul uses frequently. 280 There is not agreement on how far back the summary reaches. 281 In different ways, the τίς questions are considered by interpreters as markers in the structure of the passage. 282 Wilckens interprets verse 31bc as a thesis which is developed in two steps in verses 32 (a development of ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών) and 33-24 (a development of τίς καθ' ήμών;), with verses 35-39 addressing the question who the opponents are. Michel interprets the structure as a series of affirmations from which consecutively a series of questions arise. Osten-Sachen does not addrees the question of the structure of Rom 8:31-39, but interprets the structure of the tradition quoted by Paul as a series of questions and answers, taking a reconstruction of verse 38b-39c, ούτε άγγελοι ούτε άρχαϊ ούτε δυνάμεις ούτε ύψωμα ούτε βάθος ούτε τις κτίσις έτερα, as a reply to the question in verse 35a, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό της άγάπης τοΰ Χριστού; He does not address the issue of a relationship between the series of questions and answers.

273 Römer, 215-16. 274 Römer, 237. 275 Romans, 437. 276 See above, p. 290. 277 See above, p. 290. 278 See above, pp. 290-293. 279 So, for example, Käsemann. See above, p. 294. 280 See above, p. 294. 281 See above, p. 294. 282 See above, pp. 295-296.

298

Christ in the Letters of Paul

The end result is that, notwithstanding all the useful information that can be derived from these investigations, we are left without an understanding of what Paul intended in the passage. One is almost left with the impression that he constructed a conclusion to his reasoning in the preceding chapters without having anything more to say. Keeping in mind these suggested structures, it would be useful to investigate what text-syntactic clues the passage may provide to its structure, bearing in mind that a text could reveal more than one set of structural features. (ii) A text-syntactic analysis of the structure of the passage Paul begins his presentation in the passage with the assurance which he states in his theme, ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών (v. 31b), and concludes with the assurance of ή άγαπή τοΰ θεοΰ (v. 39e), but now with the added christological dimension, της έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίω ήμών (v. 39f). But these theological and christological statements are not what carries the discourse. Paul needs material to move forward. In order to do so, he makes use of the other pole of his theme, τίς καθ' ήμών; (v. 31c), repeating it in new formulations in verses 33a and 34a, and expanding on it considerably in verses 35—36 until it culminates in verse 38-39d, no longer with a question, but assurance against the opposing forces. This agrees with the emphasis that has been placed by past scholarship on the importance of the τίς questions for the structure of the passage, but not in the sense of the passage as a series of questions and answers. Keeping in mind the structure of a series of four questions and answers in Osten-Sacken's reconstructed tradition can be revealing for an understanding of the structure of the passage. Osten-Sacken himself understood Paul to have inverted the question and answer of the first unit of his suggested catechetical form, and formulated the answer as a conditional clause in order to establish a connection to the introductory question in verse 31a. Something more important for the structure of the passage is involved. By beginning his reasoning with εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών in verse 31b — whether an inversion of a question and answer in his source as Osten-Sacken claims or Paul's own formulation makes not difference — Paul establishes God's favor as his theme, which he maintains throughout the passage. The question in verse 31c with which Paul completes his theme as the apodosis of his conditional sentence, τίς καθ' ήμών; has no other function than to enhance the meaning of God's favor by placing it within the perspective of whatever forces may stand in opposition to God's favor. Paul expands on the affirmative side of his theme in all of the statements in the second of the two columns below. Similar to the first challenging question in the first column, all the others in that column too function to provide a perspective for God's activity in Christ.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

299

The polarity between God's activity and the opposing forces to which Paul gives expression in his theme in verse 3 lbc governs what Paul has to say throughout the passage. He repeats the polarity again and again in different formulations. By placing these polarities in parallel columns it becomes possible to discern a pattern in the structure of the passage. In his repeated reformulations, Paul turns the original polarity of verse 3 lbc around, referring to the opposing forces first, and then responding to them by referring to God and to Christ. Thus, in presenting the series of polarities in parallel columns, I invert the polarity of the theme by placing the opposing forces in the first column and God's activity in Christ in the second:

God's activity in Christ

The opposing forces

Β τίς καθ' ήμών; (v. 31c)

Α εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, (v. 31b) Α' ος γε του ιδίου υίοϋ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν π ά ν τ ω ν παρέδωκεν αύτόν, πώς ούχί και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμίν χαρίσεται; (ν. 32) '

Β 2 τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (v. 33a)

Α2'

Β 3 τίς ό κατακρινών; (v. 34a)

Α 3 ' Χριστός [Ίησοΰς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, ος καί έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών. (v. 34b-e)

Β 4 τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό (v. 35aa)

Α 4 ' τής άγάπης τοΰ Χριστού; (ν. 3 5 aß)

Β 5 θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; καθώς γέγραπται οτι ένεκεν σοϋ θανατούμεθα ολην την ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής, (νν. 35b-36)

Α 5 ' άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν διά τού άγαπήσαντος ήμάς. πέπεισμαι γάρ οτι (νν. 37a-38a)

Β6

Α6'

[πέπεισμαι γάρ οτι] ούτε θά-

θεός ό δίκαιων· (v. 33b)

τής άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ τής έν

300

Christ in the Letters of Paul

νατος οΰτε ζωή οϋτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαί οϋτε ενεστώτα οΰτε μέλλοντα οΰτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ϋψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό (νν. 38b39d)

Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τώ κυρίφ ήμών (ν. 39ef)

What we have structurally in the passage is a kind of expanded chiasm: Beginning with his theme, Α, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, and the opposing question, Β, τίς καθ ήμών; (ν. 3 lbc) Paul returns to A, expanding on it in Α', ος γε τοϋ ιδίου υίοϋ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά ύπέρ ήμών πάντων. He repeats the polarity between Β and A' in different formulations until he achieves what is driving at in a final A 6 ' in verse 39ef, (οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό) της άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ της έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίφ ήμών. In the schematic presentation, A is in the second column and Β in the first, which results in the following structure: Beginning with Α, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών (v. 31b), Paul poses against it Β, τίς καθ ήμών; (v. 31c), and then back to A by expanding on it in Α', ος γε τοϋ ίδίου υίοϋ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν (Rom 8:32ab). With πώς ούχί και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμϊν χαρίσεται; (v. 32c) he could be at the conclusion, but it is only the conclusion of his first step. He has more to say. So he takes two more stabs at Β in Β 2 τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (v. 33a) and Β 3 τίς ό κατακρινών (v. 34a), to provide perspectives for two more A' responses, first theologically, Α 2 ' θεός ό δικαιών (v. 33b), and then christologically, Α 3 ' Χριστός [Ίησοΰς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς (ν. 34bc). This pair of polarities provides mere variants of the initial chiasm, with the important difference of the move to Christ in verse 34bc. However, Paul then moves back again to God in verse 34de in Α 3 ' (Χριστός [Ίησοΰς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς) δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, ος και έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών. This again could be the conclusion of what he has to say, but it is not yet all. In order to move forward he moves again to the opposite side. When Paul again moves to the Β side of the chiasm in verse 35a he maintains his christological dimension with Β 4 τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό Α 4 ' της άγάπης τοΰ Χριστοΰ; including in his question an identification of the possible opposing forces (vv. 35b-36). He continues in a christological dimension when, after the question in Β 5 θλϊψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; καθώς γέγραπται οτι ένεκεν σοΰ θανατού-

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

301

μεθα ολην την ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής, he returns to A 5 ' άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν διά τοϋ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς (v. 37ab) making the first part of his third step entirely christological. άγαπάν could be ambiguous; it could refer to the love of Christ but also of God, as in verse 39e, . . . Α 6 ' της αγάπης τοϋ θεοΰ (v. 39e). But here, in the context of verse 35a, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό τής άγάπης τοΰ Χρίστου; it almost certainly refers to Christ's love, but Paul may not distinguish strictly between the love of God and of Christ. However, arriving at this christological level is still not all Paul needs to say. So he moves again to side Β of the polarity, but with a difference: It is no longer a question, but assurance of victory, Β 6 πέπεισμαι γάρ οτι οΰτε θάνατος οϋτε ζωή οΰτε άγγελοι οϋτε άρχαί οϋτε ένεστώτα οΰτε μέλλοντα οΰτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ΰψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι. . . (νν. 38—39d). When he now returns to A' he achieves his purpose in the combination of theology and christology, . . . Α 6 ' τής άγάπης τοϋ θεοΰ τής έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίω ήμών (v. 39ef). Paul's presentation in the passage takes place in three clearly recognizable steps. The first (vv. 31-32) ends with a concluding statement of the meaning for Paul's readers of what he stated in verses 31b-32b, πώς ούχί καί σϋν αΰτω τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; (v. 32c). The second step (vv. 33-34) begins with a new rhetorical question, τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (ν. 33a), followed by a parallel, τίς ό κατακρινών; (v. 34a), each with a reaction in a contrary statement, the first with its foundation in God, θεός ό δίκαιων (v. 33b), and the second in Christ, Χριστός [Ίησοΰς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς (v. 34bc). But, in the second case, Paul then moves Christ to the fundamental level of God by placing him in the presence of God, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, ος και έντυγχάνει (v. 34de). The second step does not move what Paul has to say forward, but reformulates what he stated in the first in a different way. The third step (vv. 35-39) also begins with a rhetorical question, but here it is specific, placing it in a christological context, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό τής άγάπης τοΰ Χριστοΰ; (v. 35a). In this case the opposing forces are identified as earthly, θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; (v. 35b-h). The threat of the opposing forces is reinforced by spelling out its effect on P a u l ' s readers, καθώς γέγραπται οτι ε ν ε κ ε ν σοΰ θανατοΰμεθα ολην τήν ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής (ν. 36). The response here is not a theological or christological statement, but an expression of confidence in victory, έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν (v. 37a), but then Paul grounds it christologically in Christ, διά τοΰ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς (v. 37b).

302

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Similar to the parallel rhetorical questions and responses of the second step, the third step too has a parallel, but — not uncommon in Paul — it is not stated in the same form. To begin with, it does not begin with a rhetorical question, but as a rejoinder to all the opposing forces, πέπεισμαι γάρ οτι [ούδέν] δυνήσεται ημάς χωρίσαι . . . (Rom 8:38-39d). In contrast with the previous identification of the opposing forces as earthly in verse 35b-h, they are now identified as beyond the earth, ουτε θάνατος οΰτε ζωή οΰτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαϊ οΰτε ένεστώτα οϋτε μέλλοντα ουτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ϋψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα (νν. 38-39c). True to the previous argument, the failure of the opposing forces is attributed to God in Christ, now in a single formulation: They cannot separate Paul's readers άπό της άγάπης τοϋ θεοΰ της έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίω ήμών (v. 39ef). On the basis of this analysis of the textual structure of Rom 8:31-39 we may conclude that, even if the passage does not represent discursive reasoning, there is a clear move forward in Paul's thoughts. If Paul quoted the tradition as reconstructed by Osten-Sacken, he evidently adapted it to make his own point. The relationship between God and Christ is of fundamental significance in the passage. The model of the levels of the meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia should help us understand that relationship better. Such an analysis will allow a new perspective on the structure of the passage to emerge. This new perspective does not contradict, nor does it duplicate, the previous one, but it allows more detailed features to emerge.

31

(iii) The levels of meaning of God and of Christ in the passage τί ούν έροΰμεν πρός ταϋτα; (Rom 8:31a) εί ό θεός (Rom 8:31b) ύπέρ ήμών, (Rom 8:31b) [τίς (Rom 8:31c)] [καθ' ήμών; (Rom 8:31c)] 32 ος γε τοϋ ίδιου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά (Rom 8:32a) ύπέρ ήμών πάντων (Rom 8:32b) παρέδωκεν αύτόν, (Rom 8:32b) πώς ούχί και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμίν χαρίσεται; (Rom 8:32c) [ 33 τίς έγκαλέσει (Rom 8:33a)] [κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (Rom 8:33a)] θεός ό δικαιών· (Rom 8:33b) [ 34 τίς ό κατακρινών; (Rom 8:34a)]

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

303

Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς [ Ί η σ ο ϋ ς ] ό ά π ο θ α ν ώ ν , μ ά λ λ ο ν δέ έγερθείς, (Rom 8:34bc) δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοϋ θεοϋ, δς και έντυγχάνει (Rom 8:34de) ύπέρ ήμών. (Rom 8:34e) [ 3 5 τίς (Rom 8:35a)] [ήμάς χωρίσει άπό (Rom 8:35a)] της άγάπης τοΰ Χρίστου; (Rom 8:35b) [θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; (Rom 8:35c—i)] [ 36 καθώς γέγραπται οτι ένεκεν σου θανατούμεθα ολην την ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής. (Rom 8:36)] 37

άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν (Rom 8:37a) διά τοΰ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς. (Rom 8:37b) 38 πέπεισμαι γάρ οτι (Rom 8:38a) [οΰτε θάνατος οϋτε ζωή οΰτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαί οϋτε ενεστώτα οΰτε μέλλοντα οΰτε δυνάμεις 39 οϋτε ϋψωμα οΰτε βάθος οϋτε τις κτίσις έτέρα δυνήσεται (Rom 8:38b-39c)] [ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό (Rom 8:39d)] της άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ (Rom 8:39e) της έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ τω κυρίω ήμών. (Rom 8:39f) In the discussion of 2 Cor 5:5:14-6:2 and of R o m 4 : 2 3 - 5 : l l , where Paul interpreted the meaning of Christ at a deeper, theological level by grounding Christ's activity in God, and in Gal 3:6-14, where he interpreted the meaning of Christ within Jewish history by grounding his activity within the story of Abraham's justification, I referred to the more fundamental levels of God and of Abraham as level la, keeping level 1 for the fundamental level of Christ since in all these passages Paul's focus remained on Christ. Here in Rom 8:31-39, however, God's trustworthiness is Paul's topic and Christ functions as the means of realizing God's purpose. Already the theme, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, τίς καθ ήμών; establishes God as the foundation of Paul's presentation, even though it is through Christ that God executes God's actions. Rom 8:3139 is not a christological, but a theological passage in which Christ functions as the means through which God achieves God's purpose. Accordingly, I will

304

Christ in the Letters of Paul

refer to the level of God in the discussion of the passage as level 1, making the level of Christ level 2, and accordingly all the other levels one number higher down to level 5 which in this case becomes level 6. In the majority of texts where Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and/or parousia play a decisive role, the statements about Christ do not function as the foundation of the discussion but are introduced as arguments in support of Paul's reasoning on various other issues. So, for example, in 1 Thess 5:1-11, verses 1 - 8 constitute the main part of Paul's concluding paraenesis, interrupted by verses 9-10 and resumed in verse 11. The interruption in verses 9 10 provides Paul's paraenesis with a christological foundation. Introduced by ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (v. 9ab), the reference to Christ in verses 9c-10a, δια τοϋ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου, τοΰ άποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών, has no independent meaning, but functions as a foundation for Paul's paraenesis, to which he returns via a transition in verse lOb-d, ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν ε'ίτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτω ζήσωμεν. Similarly, the well-known reference to Christ in 1 Cor 2:2, ού γάρ έκρινά τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τοϋτον έσταυρωμένον, does not function as a foundation for Paul's extended reasoning in 1 Cor 1:4-4:21, but as a fundamental argument against the preeminence of wisdom and in defense of the unimpressive nature of his earlier preaching, two of the main themes in the passage. This important christological statement is framed by statements concerning the nature of Paul's preaching, in verses 1, κάγώ έλθών πρός ύμάς, αδελφοί, ήλθον ού καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας καταγγέλλων ύμΐν τό μυστήριον τοϋ θεοϋ, and 3-5, κάγώ έν άσθενεία και έν φόβω και έν τρόμω πολλώ έγενόμην πρός ύμάς, και ό λόγος μου και τό κήρυγμά μου ούκ έν πειθοΐς σοφίας [λόγοις] άλλ έν αποδείξει πνεύματος καί δυνάμεως, ϊνα ή πίστις ύμών μή ή έν σοφία άνθρώπων άλλ έν δυνάμει θεοϋ. In the discussion which follows, Paul does not recall his christological statement, but continues his discussion concerning wisdom and the nature of his preaching. The same applies to Paul's christological statements in 1 Thess 1:6-10 (to provide a christological framework for his praise of the Galatians); 1 Cor 15:3c-8 (a confession which he quotes in preparation for his reasoning in favor of the resurrection of the dead in the rest of the chapter); 1 Cor 15:12-23 (where Christ's resurrection functions as a decisive argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead); Gal 3:6-14 (a fundamental christological argument in Paul's discussion of the issue of justification, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως, as stated in verses 2bc and repeated in verse 5c); Rom 4:23-5:11 (where the statements about Christ function to show that justification by faith,

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

305

the main topic in the passage is grounded in Christ's death); Rom 6:1-14 (where Christ's death functions as the decisive argument in his reply to the question τί οΰν έροϋμεν; έπιμένωμεν τη άμαρτία, ϊνα ή χάρις πλεονάση;): Rom 14:1-12 (to provide a christological foundation for his final paraenesis). In none of these passages does Paul make a christological statement which he then interprets for his readers. In all of them he engages in reasoning about one or another issue for which he appeals to Christ in a christological statement as a fundamental argument. The distinctive way in which Paul's christological statements functions in these passages can be seen in perspective when one compares them with two texts in which Paul's statements about Christ (and God) function, not as arguments concerning other topics, but as themselves the fundamental topics in Paul's reasoning. In 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 Paul refers to Christ's death, in verses 14c and 2 lab and to God as the source of all things in verse 18a, the meaning of which he then interprets for his readers in the discussions which follow in each case. 283 And in Gal 3:1-5 Paul calls to mind a fundamental christological event for his readers, ώ ανόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οίς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; as a completely new step in his reasoning, which he then interprets for his readers in a way which draws his entire peceding reasoning to a preliminary, but decisive conclusion. Our passage reveals another unique feature with regard to the levels of the meaning of Christ in Paul compared with all the other christological(theological) texts to which I referred above, namely, the role which the opposing forces, potential and real, plays in the passage. The statements concerning those forces do not fit into the model of the levels of the meaning of Christ, but they contribute decisively to the expression of the meaning of God and of Christ in the passage. Those forces stand opposed to God and to Christ. For that reason I have placed them at the relevant levels of the meanings of God and of Christ, but in brackets to indicate their positions as contraries. The statements concerning these forces are the same as those listed in column Β of the parallel columns of the opposing forces and of God's activity in Christ above. 284 Paul concludes his reasoning of the preceding chapters in Rom 8:31-39. He begins at the concrete level of his readers in verse 31a, at the 6th level of the meaning of Christ, τί ούν έροΰμεν προς ταΰτα; From there he moves directly to what in this passage is the fundamental level, that is, of God, in the

283 284

See above, pages 213-234. See above, page 299.

306

Christ in the Letters of Paul

protasis of his thematic statement in verse 31b, εί ό θεός . . , qualifying it immediately in the same part of the verse at the third level with ύπέρ ήμών. Over against this, in verse 31c, he then poses as the apodosis of his thesis an unidentified τίς . . , which stands in opposition to the protasis at the same, but opposing level, qualifying it in the same part of the verse at the third, but now opposing, level with καθ ήμών. Notwithstanding this parallel structure, the two parts of Paul's thesis do not have equivalent value. Only the protasis has validity. The rhetorical question does not require a response; it is a challenge formulated in a way which leaves no doubt that the threat of a possible opposing power is of no consequence. Indeed, Paul's reference to the possibility of such an opposing power functions purely as a means of strengthening confidence in God. But that is not enough for Paul. He immediately moves chiastically back to the fundamental level of God in verse 32ab to a positive, christological reinforcement of God's trustworthiness, ος γε τοΰ ιδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά . . . παρέδωκεν αυτόν, qualifying his statement at the third level of meaning as part of the same verse again with ύπέρ ήμών πάντων, in that way giving specific meaning to the preceding very general ύπέρ ήμών of verse 31b. The chiasm is clearly marked by Paul's move at the third level from ύπέρ ήμών in verse 31b to καθ' ήμών in verse 31c and chiastically back to ύπέρ ήμών (πάντων) in verse 32b. Paul's use of ύπέρ ήμών in verses 31b and 32b marks a new devopment in his use of the phrase. Whereas he previously typically used it to qualify what Christ did, for example, in 1 Thess 5:9-10, that he died for us, διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοϋ Χρίστου τοΰ αποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών, or in Gal 3:13, that he became a curse for our sakes, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα, in our passage, it is said of God; in verse 32b the phrase also concerns Christ's death, but it qualifies, not what Christ did, but what God did, ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν. Unlike in the many christological texts in which Paul's statements about Christ function as foundations for his reasoning on a variety of issues, here his statement about Christ's death functions as an expression of God's trustworthiness. Paul ends the first step in his presentation in verse 32c with a concluding statement in which he interprets what these statements concerning God's trustworthiness means for him and his readers at the fourth level of the meaning, in this case not of Christ, but of God, πώς ούχϊ και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; But with that he has not yet said all he needs to say. In order

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

307

to move forward, he now begins with a τίς question. Even if, in the sense of Osten-Sacken's reconstructed source, Paul reverted back to the formulations of a source, it is clear that the τίς question functions very well to move his reasoning forward. Paul begins his second step with a repetition in a variant formulation of the challenge of verse 31c in verse 33 a, but now as an initiating question, τίς έγκαλέσει, qualifying the challenge in the same part of the verse at the third level with κατά έκλεκτών θεοϋ; He responds to the challenge in verse 33b at the fundamental level of God, θεός ό δίκαιων, by which the challenge is squelched. He reinforces the reasoning of verse 33 in a parallel formulation in verse 34, by repeating in a variant formulation the challenge of verse 33a in verse 34a, in this case at the second level of meaning opposed to Christ, τίς ό κατακρινών; In verse 34bc he again squelches the challenge, in this case at the level of Christ, Χριστός [Ίησοΰς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, but then, in verse 34de, he returns to the first level of meaning, with Christ intervening for the believers before God, ος καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, δς και έντυγχάνει. It is still Christ, and not God who acts, but the meaning of his action is grounded in the fact that is takes place before God which provides it with divine authority at the first level of God. In verse 34e, Paul qualifies Christ's act at the third level by means of ύπέρ ήμών, in contrast with the theological qualification of God's activity also by means of ύπέρ ήμών in verses 31b and 22b. In the parallel verses 33 and 34, thus, Paul moves from the fundamental theological level of God to the christological level of Christ, at the same time maintaining a complete unity between Christ and God by grounding Christ's activity in God before whom Christ intervenes ύπέρ ήμών. The unity between God and Christ is already expressed by God as the active subject in the passive έγερθείς in verse 34c. In that way Paul has taken a significant step forward in his reasoning in the passage by introducing Christ as the active subject in verse 34b-e, at the same time maintaining a complete unity between God and Christ. Paul is now ready to take the final step in his presentation, which he begins in verse 3 5 ab by repeating the challenge of the opposing forces in another τίς question. In this case the question is specific, with a christological focus, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό της άγάπης τοΰ Χρίστου; Accordingly, the opposing forces in verse 35a are located at the opposed second level of meaning, and their threat, ήμάς χωρίσει άπό . . . (still v. 35a) at the opposed fourth level.

308

Christ in the Letters of Paul

That from which the opposing forces threaten to sever Paul and his readers, της άγάπης τοΰ Χρίστου (v. 35b), is located at the second level of Christ. Paul does not identify the opponents in verses 35c-36, but replies with an identification of afflictions to which he himself and his readers were subject, θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; καθώς γέγραπται δτι ενεκεν σοΰ θανατούμεθα δλην την ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής, so to speak, the effects of the opposing forces, which places them on the fourth level of meaning. In verse 37a he interprets their threat as a victory for himself and his readers at the same fourth level of meaning, άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν υπερνικώ μεν, which they accomplished through Christ, διά τοΰ άγαπήσαντος ή μας (v. 37b), at the second level. In verses 38b-39c, Paul identifies the opposing powers, in this case personal, which coordinates better with the τίς question in verse 35a than with the effects of these powers in the impersonal afflictions to which Paul and his readers had been subject according to verses 35b-36. He introduces the identification of these opposing powers with a statement at the fourth level of himself and his readers in verse 38a, expressing their confidence that these powers would not prevail, πέπεισμαι γάρ ο τ ι . . . Since it is from God whom these powers — identified in terms of their inability to achieve their purpose, οΰτε θάνατος οΰτε ζωή οΰτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαϊ οΰτε ένεστώτα οΰτε μέλλοντα οϋτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ϋψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα — threaten to sever Paul and his readers, they belong at the first level in opposition to God. Their threat against Paul and his readers with, δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι. . . . (v. 39d) belongs at the fourth level of meaning in opposition to Paul and his readers. A connecting link exists between verse 35-37 and 38-39, the love from which the challenging forces cannot separate Paul and his readers: Christ's love in verses 35a, τής άγάπης τοΰ Χρίστου, and 37b, τοΰ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς, at the second level of meaning, and God's love in verse 39e at the first level, τής άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ. Paul then links God's love back again to Christ at the second level of meaning in verse 39f, τής έν Χριστφ Ίησοΰ τφ κυρίφ ήμών, once again expressing the unity of God and Christ in his thought. Conclusion The levels of the meaning of Christ, here in this passage strictly speaking the levels of the meaning of God, for Paul and his readers reveal the following: 1. Paul's reasoning in this passage had little, strictly speaking, nothing to do with the concrete situation of himself and of his readers. Except for the in-

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

309

troductory, τί οΰν έροϋμεν πρός ταΰτα; in verse 31a, there are no statements at the fifth and sixth levels of meaning, unlike in most of the texts which bring to expression the meaning of Christ, as in 1 Thess 5:1-11. At the third level of the meaning of Christ, equivalent to the fourth level in our text, Paul's statement in 1 Thess 5:9ab, οτι ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας, leads up to the fourth level meaning in verse 1 Ob d, ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν αμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν. That two levels are involved is clearly signalled by the ϊνα which establishes a development from the third level meaning in verse 9ab to the fourth level in verse 10d. From there Paul moves to the concrete fifth level of his readers with the admonition in verse 11, διό παρακαλείτε άλλήλους και οικοδομείτε είς τόν ενα, καθώς και ποιείτε, by means of which he links back to his paraenesis in verses 1-8. This final paraenetic statement is drawn from the christological reasoning in verses 9 and 10, grounded in the statement of Christ's vicarious death in verses 9 d - 1 0 a , διά τοϋ κ υ ρ ί ο υ ή μ ώ ν Ί η σ ο ϋ Χ ρ ί σ τ ο υ , τοΰ άποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών. In our text, Paul's concern is not with finding a grounding in God or in Christ for reasoning at the level of his readers, but with God's trustworthiness as his theme — to which one should add — which became manifest in Christ, not as something self-evident, but as a fundamental conviction. He also expresses confidence of victory against the afflictions of 35c-i in verse 37a, άλλ' έν τούτοις πασιν ύπερνικώμεν. But nowhere does he attempt to interpret for them what all of that means for them in their daily lives. This is not a text which deals with the problems of his readers at that level. 2. Closely related to the previous point, Paul does not appeal to God and to Christ at the fundamental levels of God and of Christ in support of his reasoning, paraenetically or to argue a specific point, for example, the resurrection of the dead. God, and God through Christ, is the point of his reasoning. This is a theological passage, an exposition of the meaning of God in Christ. 3. Equally important is that in this passage God does not function to provide a theological foundation for Christ, as in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 and Rom 4:235:1 1,285 Only in verse 34de, ος καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, ος και έντυγχάνει, does Paul claim God as the foundation which gives theological meaning to what Christ does, but with that he effectively refocuses on God. In this passage Christ functions as the one through whom God acts. Rom 8:31-38 is a theological, not a christological passage. Christ plays a crucial role in the passage as the one through whom God acts, but Paul's pur285

See above, pages 225, and 273.

310

Christ in the Letters of Paul

pose is to reassure his readers in their confidence in the trustworthiness of God. In the passage the grounding of Paul's thought in God becomes clear with Christ functioning as the one in whom God's purpose is accomplished, unlike in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 and Rom 4:23-5:11 where God functions to provide a theological foundation for what Christ does. In our passage Paul reveals himself as a Jew who believed in Christ. He was not a Christian. There is no evidence that he converted from one religion to another. 286 He did not leave his Jewish religion behind, but reinterpreted it within the framework of Christ. In Phil 3:7 he does say, referring to his Jewish past, οίτινα ήν μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα ήγημοα διά τόν Χριστόν ζημίαν, but one should note what it is he left behind, περιτομή οκταήμερος, έκ γένους 'Ισραήλ, φυλής Βενιαμίν, Εβραίος έξ 'Εβραίων, κατά νόμον Φαρισαΐος, κατά ζήλος διώκων την έκκλησίαν, κατά δικαιοσύνην τήν έν νόμω γενόμενος αμεμπτος (Phil 3:5-6), those things on which privilege as a preeminent Jew were based. Paul did not abandon justification through the Law in every sense, merely a justification through works of the Law which established Jewish religious privilege and exclusive access to God. His admonitions throughout his letters leave no doubt that he expected his gentile converts to abide by the religiousmoral codes of the Law in obedience to God to whom they now had access through Christ. It was thus not a contradiction of his teaching of justification by faith based on Christ's salvific death when he wrote in Rom 2:13, ού γάρ οί άκροαταί νόμου δίκαιοι παρά τω θεω, άλλ οί ποιηταί νόμου δικαιωθήσονται, and in verses 25-26, περιτομή μεν γάρ ώφελεΐ έάν νόμον πράσσηςέάν δέ παραβάτης νόμου ής ή περιτομή σου άκροβυστία γέγονεν. έάν οΰν ή άκροβυστία τά δικαιώματα τοΰ νόμου φυλάσση, ούχ ή άκροβυστία αύτοΰ είς περιτομήν λογισθήσεται; Obedience to the Law was demanded alike of Jews and now of gentiles as well. When I realized this in my study on Galatians and Romans during my stay in Marburg, 287 1 wondered what the mental state of a Jew like Paul would have been under the circumstances. I wished I had been back at Emory where I could have consulted with Jewish colleagues. Somehow, when I returned I never got to doing that. But now I have found perfect parallels in the novels of Chaim Potok to what Paul must have experienced. I have in mind especial-

2 8 6 The one piece of evidence that is m i s s i n g in Alan F. S e g a l ' s Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee ( N e w Haven and L o n d o n : Yale University Press, 1990) is that Paul had actually u n d e r g o n e a conversion f r o m J u d a i s m to Christianity, a Christianity w h i c h had n o t yet existed in his time. 287

See m y The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994).

to the Galatians

and

Romans

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

311

ly The Chosen,288 The Promise,289 My Name is Asher Lev,290 and The Gift of Asher Lev.291 Potok's main characters are not drawn to Christianity, but to secular interests which bring them into conflict with their chasidic identities. This is the critical situation faced by Danny Saunders, the elder son of the Ladover chasidic sect's Rebbe whom he was supposed to have succeeded, when he is drawn to the study of psychology, in The Chosen and The Promise. The issue is how he could become a psychiatrist — which he does become — without surrendering his identity as a chasidic Jew, which he had no intention of doing. The same applies to Asher Lev, a member of a chasidic sect of the same name, but now with a different Rebbe, referred to simply as "the Rebbe." Asher is drawn to painting and becomes a renowned painter. He is banished from New York after the exhibition of his two Brooklyn Crucifixions, not of Christ, but of his mother at the window where she had constantly been waiting for his father and for him to come home, torn between her commitment to both of them in their conflicting demands, her hands tied to the cords of the drawn-up blinds, with his father and himself on both sides below her. Potok states the issue in the mouth of Asher on the very first page of the book: "I am an observant Jew. Yes, of course, observant Jews do not paint crucifixions. As a matter of fact, observant Jews do not paint at all — in the way that I am painting." 292 He chose a crucifixion because his own Jewish tradition did not provide him with an image which depicted such great pain. Danny's Rebbe father and Asher's Rebbe, who have primary responsibility to preserve chasidic principles, both reveal compassionate understanding, although that does not appear to be the case in the beginning. The issue comes to clear focus in a letter written by his Rebbe to Asher while in Paris. I see before my eyes your pale and weary face and I know what an artist endures inside himself no matter how cheerful his demeanor and how loud his laughter. And you, dear Asher, endure not only the torments of your art but also the burden of your responsibility to the Ladover. We have hurt you, yet you love us. We have exiled you, yet you are tied to us. "Though He slay me, yet I have faith in Him." 293 What became a challenge to their Jewish identities were very different for Paul, Danny and Asher — Christ as the one in whom God was revealed

288 289 290 291 292 293

The Chosen (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1967, renewed 1995). The Promise (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1969, renewed 1997). My Name is Asher Lev (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1972). The Gift of Asher Lev (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1990). Name, 3. Gift, 241.

312

Christ in the Letters of Paul

for Paul, psychology for Danny and painting for Asher —, but each of them maintained his identity as a Jew, an orthodox chasidic Jew in the case of Danny and Asher. An interesting similarity is that for both Paul and Asher a crucifixion was the scandal. One could only speculate what would have happened in the development of the new Christian religion if there had been a Jewish leader of singular authority who reacted to Paul as Rebbe Saunders reacted to his son Danny and especially as the Rebbe reacted to Asher. But what one cannot speculate about is that the development to a new Christian religion was not yet a given in Paul's time. That is why it is critical not to use the concept "Christian" in the interpretation of him because it inevitably reads back into him the subsequent development, even if subtly and unconsciously. Paul uses "believer" for what his interpreters refer to as Christian.

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

313

Summary of Part Two In "Part One" it was possible to establish that fundamental to the meaning of Christ with regard to Paul himself was the fact that Christ appeared to him, an event which transformed his life. In this second part it became clear that in translating the meaning of Christ into the lives of believers, Paul could not rely on such an event. Nowhere does he assume that Christ appeared to any of his readers. In this summary, I will discuss the christological passages, neither chronologically nor in their order in the investigation, but as it appears to be called for in the discussion. Typically, Paul expresses the meaning of Christ to underscore Christ as the foundation of what he argues. A partial exception is Gal 3:1-5, in which he appeals to the Galatians' encounter of Christ through the proclamation — οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (ν. 1) — as the foundation of his reasoning which follows in verses 2-5. In this passage, as in the others in this second part, Paul does not draw and explicate the meaning of Christ crucified from a teaching, but enjoins his readers to draw conclusions for their understanding of themselves as believers from their experience of him through the proclamation, in that way clarifying the meaning of Christ for them in connection with the critical issue of circumcision and the Law. The meaning of Christ crucified is not given as a teaching, but is drawn from the Galatians' experience of his death through the proclamation. There are three levels in the meaning of Jesus Christ crucified in Gal 3:1-5, at this stage not yet considering the schema of the levels of meaning: The most fundamental level is Paul's recalling the presentation of Christ crucified before the eyes of the Galatians in verse 1, ω άνόητοι Γαλάται, τις ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οις κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοϋς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; He does not present them with a meaning drawn from an inventory of existing meanings of Christ, but draws on their own experience of him in the proclamation. He reinforces this appeal at the next level, in verse 2, τοΰτο μόνον θέλω μαθεϊν άφ' ύμών· έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; and in verse 5, ό οΰν έπιχορηγών ύμΐν τό πνεΰμα και ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμΐν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; again drawing on what they experienced in Christ, the meaning which the άκοή πίστεως of Christ Jesus crucified had in bestowing the spirit upon them and working powers among them. In verses 3 and 4, at a third level of meaning, Paul addresses his readers concretely, οϋτως άνόητοί έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νΰν σαρκϊ έπιτελεΐσθε; τοσαΰτα έπάθετε είκη; εϊ γε και εική. In 1 Cor 2:2a, one could get the impression that Paul refers to his earlier preaching, focussing exclusively on Christ's crucifixion as the foundation of his instruction of his readers, ού γάρ έκρινά τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εϊ μή Ίησοΰν

314

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Χριστόν καί τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον. The investigation of 1 Cor 1:4-4:21 revealed this not to be the case. Paul's formulation is determined by the function which the reference to Christ's crucifixion has in his reasoning, which, at that point, is to defend the unimpressiveness of his preaching, as the texts which frame the reference reveal, έλθών πρός ύμάς, άδελφοί, ήλθον ού καθ' ύπεροχήν λόγου ή σοφίας καταγγέλλων ύμίν το μυστήριον τοΰ θεοΰ (2:1), and έν άσθενεία και έν φόβω και έν τρόμφ πολλω έγενόμην πρός ύμάς (2:3). That the christological reference does not function as the foundation of Paul's instruction of his readers is confirmed by the relative rareness of similar statements after 2:2, only four times in 3:11, 4:10, 15, and 4:17. None of these four statements include references to Christ's crucifixion, revealing that when he says in 2:2 that he decided to know nothing among his readers εί μή Ίησοΰν Χρισυόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον, the reference to Christ's crucifixion should probably not be taken exclusively. In 15:12-19, after quoting the tradition of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection in 3c-5, his resurrection, not his crucifixion, is presented as crucial, quoted in full below. 294 Three of these final references to Christ in our passage also function, similar to 2:2, in support of the nature of Paul's preaching: θεμέλιον γαρ άλλον ουδείς δύναται θεΐναι παρά τον κείμενον, ος έστιν Ίησοΰς Χριστός (3:11), έάν γαρ μυρίους παιδαγωγούς έχητε έν Χριστώ άλλ' ού πολλούς πατέρας- έν γάρ Χριστώ 'Ιησού διά τοΰ εύαγγελίου έγώ ύμάς έγέννησα (4:15) and, . . . [Τιμόθεος], ος ύμάς άναμνήσει τάς όδούς μου τάς έν Χριστώ [Ίησοΰ], καθώς πανταχού έν πάση έκκλησία διδάσκω (4:17c-d). The other reference to Christ in 4:10 is also as a function of Paul's reasoning, in this case formulated in terms of wisdom, but incorporating the other themes in the passage as well, that is, in addition to wisdom and Christ, the factions, Paul's relationship to his readers and the nature of his preaching: ήμείς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ· ήμεΐς ασθενείς, ύμείς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι. 1 Cor 4:10 is the only point in the passage where all five themes occur in a single statement, revealing its critical function in Paul's reasoning. Paul chides his readers as representatives of the wisdom he derided earlier in the passage, represented here by φρόνιμοι. They are ισχυροί and ένδοξοι whereas he and Apollo are άσθενεΐς and άτιμοι, recalling the unimpressiveness of his preaching. The placement of Paul and Apollo together functions to dispel the idea of their representing opposed factions. With that Paul hopes, at the same time, to establish a new foundation for his relationship with his readers. In 1 Cor 15:1-19 Paul quotes the tradition of Christ' death and resurrection, 3c . . . οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών κατά τάς γραφάς 2 9 4 S e e p . 315.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

315

οτι έτάφη και οτι έγήγερται τη ήμέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς 5 καϊ οτι ώφθη Κηφά εϊτα τοις δώδεκα- κ.τ.λ. (verses 3c-5), as the foundation, not for an exposition of his earlier preaching, but for a discussion of the resurrection of the dead in verses 12-19,

4

Kcci

,2

εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; 13 εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται· 14εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [καϊ] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών· 15 εύρισκόμεθα δέ και ψευδομάρτυρες τοΰ θεού, οτι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεοΰ οτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, δν ούκ ήγειρεν εϊπερ άρα νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται. 16 εί γάρ νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται· 17εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών, |8 άρα καϊ οί κοιμηθέντες έν Χριστώ άπώλοντο 19εί έν τή ζωή ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν. In Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 15:1-19 we can again distinguish three levels of meaning: The most fundamental level is the tradition he quotes in verses 3c—7. The tradition is multivalent, providing Paul with a far broader base of meaning than he needs for his reasoning. He makes use of only Christ's resurrection in verses 12-19; Christ's crucifixion plays no role. Indeed, in verse 17 the forgiveness of sins is related to Christ's resurrection, whereas in verse 3c in the tradition it is the result of Christ's death, Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών. At the second level Paul brings to expression those meanings of Christ which he argues would be negated at a fundamental level by the denial of the resurrection of the dead, that is, Christ's resurrection. In dual sets of reasoning (vv. 12-14 and 15-17) he lets the negation of the resurrection of Christ as an implication of the denial of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 13 and 16) function as a link which makes it possible to argue that in such a case the apostles' proclamation and the readers' faith would be empty (v. 14), their faith would be foolish and they would still be in their sins (v. 17), because such a denial by implication also denies Christ's resurrection (vv. 13 and 16). At the third level of meaning, in verse 18, Paul concludes that, if there is no resurrection of the dead, those who have died in Christ would be lost, and, in verse 19, he interprets the significance of that statement by clarifying the implications of a denial of the resurrection of the dead for believers who are still alive, that they would be the most pitiful of human beings. Paul does not say what the meaning of Christ is for the believer in 1 Cor 15:1-19, but what loss of meaning would result from a denial of the resurrection of the dead, that Christ would then also not have been resurrected (vv. 13

316

Christ in the Letters of Paul

and 16), and what, in turn, would result for those who have died, in verse 18, and for those who are still alive, in verse 19. The investigation of Paul's earlier preaching so far has shown that he makes use ofthat preaching as the basis of his reasoning only in Gal 3:1-5. In the case of 1 Cor 1-4 Christ crucified is not the basis of his reasoning, but the background framework for it, until in 4:10 he introduces Christ as the fundamental criterion on the basis of which everything between him and his readers can be decided. In 1 Cor 15:12-15, he appeals to Christ's resurrection as a critical link in his defense of a general resurrection of the dead, for which the resurrection of Christ functions as a guarantee. In Gal 3:1-5 and 1 Cor 15:1-19 we established three levels of the meaning of Christ. In 1 Thess 5:1—11 there are five levels: At the most fundamental level there is the bare fact of Christ's death, [. . . Ίησοϋ Χρίστου,] τοΰ άποθανόντος (v. 10a). At a second level Paul interprets the meaning of Christ's death as having been ύπέρ ημών (still v. 10a), restricting its meaning to beneficence for his readers. At a further level of meaning, he specifies what that beneficence is: ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλα εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (v. 9ab). At the next level he engages his readers more fully in the meaning of Christ's death: Christ died ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν άμα συν αύτφ ζήσωμεν (v. 10c-e). Finally, the paraenetic context in which he expresses how he expected his readers to live their lives in Christ in the face of the coming end (vv. 1 - 8 and 11) makes clear that the function for which he intended the christological statements in verses 9 - 1 0 was to provide, retrospectively, a christological foundation for his paraenesis in these verses. The levels of the meaning of Christ were displayed as follows. 5'περί δέ των χρόνων και των καιρών, άδελφοί, ού χρείαν έχετε ύμίν γράφεσθαι, 2 αύτοί γάρ άκριβώς οϊδατε οτι ημέρα κυρίου ώς κλέπτης έν νυκτϊ οϋτως έρχεται. 3 οταν λέγωσιν, ειρήνη και άσφάλεια, τότε αιφνίδιος αύτοϊς έφίσταται όλεθρος ώσπερ ή ώδίν τη έν γαστρϊ έχούση, και ού μή έκφύγωσιν. 4 ύμεΐς δέ, άδελφοί, ούκ έστέ έν σκότει, ϊνα ή ήμέρα ύμάς ώς κλέπτης καταλάβη, 5 πάντες γάρ ύμεϊς υιοί φωτός έστε και υιοί ημέρας, ούκ έσμέν ν υ κ τ ό ς ούδέ σκότους- 6 ά ρ α ο ύ ν μή κ α θ ε ύ δ ω μ ε ν ώ ς οί λοιποί, άλλά γρηγορώμεν και νήφωμεν. 7 οί γάρ καθεύδοντες νυκτός καθεύδουσιν, καί οί μ ε θ υ σ κ ό μ ε ν ο ι ν υ κ τ ό ς μ ε θ ύ ο υ σ ι ν · 8 ή μ ε ΐ ς δέ ή μ έ ρ α ς ο ν τ ε ς ν ή φ ω μ ε ν , έ ν δ υ σ ά μ ε ν ο ι θ ώ ρ α κ α π ί σ τ ε ω ς καί ά γ ά π η ς καί περικεφαλαίαν έ λ π ί δ α σωτηρίας· 9

οτι ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν

σωτηρίας

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

317

10

τοΰ Αποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν. Π διό παρακαλείτε άλλήλους καϊ οικοδομείτε εις τόν ένα, καθώς και ποιείτε. In the schema, the most fundamental, first, level, δια τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου, τοΰ αποθανόντος, is at the right; the most specific, fifth, level, the paranaesis of verses 1-8 and 11, is at the left margin; with the three other levels in between.. These levels of meaning were confirmed by Rom 14:1-13 as a test, except that the second level of lThessl: 1-11, that Christ died ύπέρ ήμών, is absent. At the fundamental level are the implied bare facts of Christ's death and resurrection, Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν (v. 9a). At a second level Paul states that the purpose of those facts were ϊνα και νεκρών και ζώντων κυρίευση (v. 9b). In verses 7-8, he states at a third level of meaning what Christ's death and resurrection and his reign over the dead and the living means for himself and for his readers, ουδείς γαρ ήμών έαυτώ ζή, και ούδεϊς έαυτώ αποθνήσκει· 8 έάν τε γάρ ζώμεν, τω κυρίω ζώμεν, έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τω κυρίω άποθνήσκομεν. έάν τε ούν ζώμεν έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τοΰ κυρίου έσμέν. At a fourth level of meaning the paraenetic context of verses 1-6 and 10-13 clarify what specifically Christ's death and resurrection means for Paul and his readers. 14'τόν δέ άσθενοΰντα τ ή πίστει προσλαμβάνεσθε, μή είς διακρίσεις διαλογισμών. 2 δς μέν πιστεύει φαγεϊν πάντα, ό δέ άσθενών λάχανα έσθίει. 3 ό έσθίων τόν μή έσθίοντα μή έξουθενείτω, ό δέ μή έσθίων τόν έσθίοντα μή κρινέτω, ό θεός γάρ αυτόν προσελάβετο. 4 σύ τίς εΐ ό κρίνων άλλότριον οίκέτην; τω ίδίω κυρίω στήκει ή πίπτει· σταθήσεται δέ, δυνατεΐ γάρ ό κύριος στήσαι αύτόν. 5 ος μέν [γάρ] κρίνει ήμέραν παρ' ήμέραν, δς δέ κρίνει πασαν ήμέραν· έκαστος έν τω ίδίω νοΐπληροφορείσθω. 6 ό φρονών τήν ήμέραν κυρίω φρονεί- και ό έσθίων κυρίω έσθίει, εύχαριστεΐ γάρ τω θεώ· και ό μή έσθίων κυρίφ ούκ έσθίει, καϊ ευχαριστεί τω θεώ. 7

ούδείς γάρ ήμών έαυτώ ζή, και ουδείς έαυτώ άποθνήσκει· 8 έάν τε γάρ ζώμεν, τω κυρίφ ζώμεν, έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τω κυρίω άποθνήςκομεν. έάν τε ούν ζώμεν έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τοΰ κυρίου έσμέν. 9 είς τοΰτο γάρ Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν ϊνα καί νεκρών καϊ ζώντων κυριεύση.

318

Christ in the Letters of Paul

10

σύ δέ τί κρίνεις τόν άδελφόν σου; ή και σύ τί έξουθενεΐς τόν άδελφόν σου; πάντες γάρ παραστησόμεθα τω βήματι τοΰ θεοΰ- "γέγραπται γάρ, ζώ έγώ, λέγει κύριος, οτι έμοί κάμψει πάν γόνυ και πάσα γλώσσα έξομολογήσεται τω θεφ. n ä p a [ούν] έκαστος ήμών περί έαυτοϋ λόγον δώσει [τω θεφ]. 13 μηκέτι οΰν άλλήλους κρίνωμεν· άλλά τοΰτο κρίνατε μάλλον, τό μή τιθέναι πρόςκομμα τω άδελφώ ή σκάνδαλον. If one compares the levels of meaning in 1 Thess 5:1-11 and Rom 14:113 it is easy to recognize that the first level of potential meaning in the 1 Thessalonians passage is equivalent to the first level in the Romans passage: διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου, τοΰ άποθανόντος (1 Thess 5:9c-10a) and Χριστός άπέθανεν και έζησεν (Rom 14:9a). The final levels of meaning are obviously also equivalent. In both passages the meaning Paul conveys with his christological statements is that his readers should behave in the way he admonishes them, in 1 Thess 5:1-8 and 11, and in Rom 14:1-6 and 10-13, for which the christological statements function as foundations. The situation with regard to the intermediary levels is more complicated. There is no equivalent in the Romans passage for the second level of meaning in 1 Thess 5:10a, that Christ died ύπέρ ήμών. The fourth level of meaning in 1 Thess 5:10b-e, ϊνα ε'ίτε γρηγορώμεν ε'ίτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν, is easily recognizable as equivalent to the more extensive third level of Rom 14:7-8, ουδείς γάρ ήμών έαυτώ ζή, καϊ ουδείς έαυτώ αποθνήσκει- έάν τε γάρ ζώμεν, τώ κυρίφ ζώμεν, έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τω κυρίφ άποθνήςκομεν. έάν τε ούν ζώμεν έάν τε άποθνήσκωμεν, τοΰ κυρίου έσμέν, especially since these statements are also synonymous in meaning, life in Christ. What identifies them as fourth and third levels, respectively, is that they express more specific meanings of Christ's death — and his resurrection as well in the Romans passage — than the still more general ούκ έθετο ήμάς ό θεός είς όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας of 1 Thess 5:9ab and ϊνα [Χριστός] . . . νεκρών και ζώντων κυριεύση of Rom 14:9c, but less specific than what Paul expresses in his admonitions which clarify what Christ's death means concretely-paraenetically in the lives of his readers. The five levels of the meaning of Christ in 1 Thess 5:1-11, confirmed by the four levels in Rom 14:1-13, made it possible to propose the five levels of 1 Thess 5:1-11 as a model which could function as a grammar with which the levels of the meaning of Christ in other texts could be investigated. Moving on to the discussion of 1 Thess 1:6-10, there is not a second level, represented by ύπέρ ήμών in 1 Thess 5:10a. At the level of the meaning

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

319

of Christ, Paul states that God ήγειρεν έκ [των] νεκρών, Ίησοΰν (v. 10b), followed at the third level by Christ ρυόμενον ήμάς έκ της όργής της έρχομένης (v. 10c). At the fourth level, Paul reminds the Thessalonians that they awaited the parousia of God's son from heaven, άναμένειν τόν υίόν αύτοϋ έκ των ουρανών (10a). As in 5:1-11, the reference to Christ functions retrospectively as a foundation, in this case, for Paul's praise of the Thessalonians in verses 6-9. 1 6 καϊ ύμεΐς μιμηταϊ ήμών έγενήθητε και του κυρίου, δεξάμενοι τόν λόγον έν θλίψει πολλή μετά χαράς πνεύματος άγίου, 7 ώστε γενέσθαι ύμάς τύπον πάσιν τοις πιστεύουσιν έν τη Μακεδονία και έν τη 'Αχαία. 8 άφ' ύμών γάρ έξήχηται ό λόγος τοΰ κυρίου ού μόνον έν τη Μακεδονία και [έν τη] 'Αχαία, άλλ' έν παντϊ τόπω ή πίστις ύμών ή πρός τόν θεόν έξελήλυθεν, ώστε μη χρείαν έχειν ημάς λαλεΐν τι. 9 αύτοί γάρ περί ήμών άπαγγέλλουσιν οποίαν ε'ίσοδον εσχομεν πρός ύμάς, και πώς έπεστρέψατε πρός τόν θεόν άπό τών ειδώλων δουλεύειν θεώ ζώντι καί άληθινώ (1 Thess 1:6-9) 10

καϊ άναμένειν τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έκ τών ούρανών, (1 Thess 1:10a) öv ήγειρεν έκ [τών] νεκρών, Ίησοΰν (1 Thess 1:10b) τόν ρυόμενον ήμας έκ της όργής τής έρχομένης (1 Thess 1:10c). I previously established three levels of meaning in 1 Cor 15:1-19. 2 9 5 With the aid of the schema of the levels of meaning established in 1 Thess 5:1-11, it became possible to differentiate further levels, limiting myself to verses 12-19, but including verses 20-23 as well. In verses 3c- 8 Paul quotes tradition, and verses 9 - 1 1 concern himself as a continuation of that tradition. 1 Cor 15:12-23 reveals a complex levels of meaning: 12

εΐ δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται ότι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; (1 Cor 15:12) 13 εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν, (1 Cor 15:13a) ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται· 14 εΐ δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, (1 Cor 15:13b—14a) κενόν άρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών15 ε ύ ρ ι σ κ ό μ ε θ α δέ και ψ ε υ δ ο μ ά ρ τ υ ρ ε ς τ ο ΰ θ ε ο ΰ , ο τ ι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεοΰ οτι ήγειρεν τόν Χριστόν, (1 Cor 15:14b—15c) 295 See above, pages 314-316.

320

Christ in the Letters of Paul

öv ούκ ήγειρεν (1 Cor 15:15d) εϊπερ άρα νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται. 16 εί γάρ νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται, (1 Cor 15:15e—16a) ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται- 17 εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, (1 Cor 15:16b- 17a) ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταϊς άμαρτίαις ύμών, (1 Cor 15:17bc) 18 αρα και οί κοιμηθέντες έν Χριστώ άπώλοντο (1 Cor 15:18) . 19 εί έν τη ζωή ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν (1 Cor 15:19). 20 νυνί δέ Χριστός έγήγερται έκ νεκρών (1 Cor 15:20a) άπαρχή των κεκοιμημένων. 21 έπειδή γάρ δι' ανθρώπου θάνατος, και δι' άνθρώπου άνάστασις νεκρών. 22 ώσπερ γάρ έν τω 'Αδάμ πάντες άποθνήσκουσιν, οΰτως και έν τώ Χριστώ πάντες ζωοποιηθήσονται 23 έκαστος δέ έν τω ί δ ί φ τάγματι· ά π α ρ χ ή Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς , ε π ε ι τ α οί τοΰ Χριστού έν τη παρουσία αύτού (1 Cor 15:20b-23) The focus of Paul's discussion in 1 Cor 15:12-23 is not on Christ, but the problem of a denial of the resurrection of the dead, as he states in verse 12b, πώς λέγουσιν έν ύμΐν τίνες οτι άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν; which is effectively the announcement of his theme for this section. In verses 13-19, Paul's thought moves from the third level of a denial of the resurrection of the dead, in verses 13a and 15e-16a, to the christological implication of such a denial at the first level, in verses 13b-14a, 15d and 16b-17a. From there, he moves to what would result from the denial of the resurrection of the dead for believers, first, generally, at the fourth level, in verses 14b-15c, 17bc and 18, and then, more specifically, at the fifth level, in verse 19. By contrast, in verses 20-23, his reasoning has its starting point at the first level in verse 20a, in which he expresses certainty that Christ was resurrected, not as a doctrine, but as an historical fact, attested to by the tradition he quoted in verses 3c-7 and by the appearance of Christ to him personally in verse 8, which he sums up in verse 12a, εί δέ Χριστός κηρύσσεται οτι έκ νεκρών έγήγερται, the meaning of which he then interprets in verses 20b-23. Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor 15:20-23 reveals similarities to that in Gal 3:1-5. In both, he bases his reasoning on fundamental level christological

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

321

statements, the meaning of which he interprets in his reasoning which follows. In Galatians, however, the christological statement concerns Christ's crucifixion, whereas it concerns his resurrection in 1 Corinthians. More significant is that in Galatians he appeals to the Galatians own experience, whereas he bases his reasoning in 1 Corinthians on the evidence of tradition and his own experience, and in his reasoning in Galatians (vv. 2-5) he challenges his readers themselves, under his guidance, to discover the meaning of Christ's crucifixion, whereas in 1 Corinthians (vv. 20b-23) he himself clarifies the meaning of Christ's resurrection. 1 Cor 15:20-23 provides teaching concerning Christ's resurrection and believers participation in that event, not as part of the previous reasoning, but as a supplement to it. On the other hand, in verses 13-19, Christ's resurrection, or the denial of it, has no independent meaning. Christ not having been resurrected (vv. 13b-14a, 15d, 16b-17a) functions as an argument linking a denial of the resurrection of the dead (vv.. 13a and 16b-17a) and the implications of such a denial (vv. 14b-15c and 17bc, 18). In 2 cor 5:11-6:10 we have a piece of Pauline christology in the making. Paul does not quote from an existing teaching, but develops his christological thoughts as he moves along. 5 η ε ί δ ό τ ε ς ο ΰ ν τ ό ν φ ό β ο ν τοΰ κ υ ρ ί ο υ ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ ς π ε ί θ ο μ ε ν , θεω δέ πεφανερώμεθα· έλπίζω δέ και έν ταΐς συνειδήσεσιν ύμών πεφανερώσθαι. 12 ού πάλιν έαυτοϋς συνιστάνομεν ύ μ ΐ ν άλλά ά φ ο ρ μ ή ν δίδοντες ύ μ ϊ ν καυχήματος ύπέρ ήμών, ϊνα εχητε προς τούς έν προσώπω καυχωμένους και μή έν καρδία. 13ε'ίτε γάρ έξέστημεν, θεω- ε'ίτε σωφρονοΰμεν, ύμΐν. 14 ή γάρ αγάπη τοΰ Χρίστου συνέχει ήμάς, κρίναντας τοΰτο, (2 Cor 5:14ab) οτι εις . . . άπέθανεν, 296 (2 Cor 5:14c) ύπέρ πάντων, (2 Cor 5:14c) άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον· (2 Cor 5:14d) 15 καΐ ύπέρ πάντων (2 Cor 5:15a) άπέθανεν, (2 Cor 5:15a) ϊνα οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοΐς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι καί έγερθέντι. (2 Cor 5:15bc) 16 ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοΰ νΰν ούδένα οϊδαμεν κατά σάρκα· εί και έγνώκαμεν κατά σάρκα Χριστόν, άλλά νΰν ούκέτι γινώσκομεν. (2 Cor 5:16) 17 ώστε εϊ τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις· (2 Cor 5:17a) τά άρχαΐα παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά· (2 Cor 5:17bc)

296

Word order rearranged.

322

Christ in the Letters of Paul

18

τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ (2 Cor 5:18a) τοΰ καταλλάξαντος ήμάς έαυτω διά Χρίστου (2 Cor 5:18b) καί δόντος ήμΐν την διακονίαν της καταλλαγής, (2 Cor 5:18c) ,9 ώς οτι θεός ην έν Χριστώ κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαυτω, μη λογιζόμενος αύτοίς τά παραπτώματα αύτών (2 Cor 5:19ab) και θέμενος έν ήμΐν τόν λόγον της καταλλαγής. (2 Cor 5:19c) 20 ύπέρ Χρίστου ούν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ήμών· δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χριστοΰ, καταλλάγητε τω θεφ. (2 Cor 5:20) 21 τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν (2 Cor 5:21a) ύπέρ ήμών (2 Cor 5:21b) άμαρτίαν έποίησεν, (2 Cor 5:21b) ϊνα ήμεϊς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτώ. (2 Cor 5:21c) ό'συνεργοΰντες δέ και παρακαλοΰμεν μή είς κενόν τήν χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ δέξασθαι ύμάς· (2 Cor 6:1) 2 λέγει γάρ· καιρώ δεκτώ έπήκουσά σου καί έν ήμέρα σωτηρίας έβοήθησά σοι. ιδού νΰν καιρός εύπρόσδεκτος, ίδού νΰν ήμέρα σωτηρίας. (2 Cor 6:2) 3 μηδεμίαν έν μηδενΐ δίδοντες προσκοπήν, ϊνα μή μωμηθή ή διακονία, 4 άλλ' έν παντΐ συνίσταντες έαυτούς ώς θεοΰ διάκονοι, έν ύπομονή πολλή, έν θλίψεσιν, έν άνάγκαις, έν στενοχωρίαις, 5 έν πληγαΐς, έν φυλακαΐς, έν άκαταστασίαις, έν κόποις, έν άγρυπνίαις, έν νηστείαις, κ.τ.λ.. (2 Cor 6:3-10). Similar to what we found typical in most of the passages we discussed previously, Christ's death, είς ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν in verse 14c, functions as a foundation for Paul's statement in verse 14a, ή γάρ άγάπη τοΰ Χριστοΰ συνέχει ήμάς, but then, in verses 14d—17, he interprets the meaning of that death in its own right by clarifying how it functions. From the christological fact οτι είς ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 14c) he draws the conclusion, at a third level of meaning, άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον (v. 14d). That conclusion is not the only one he wants to draw. Thus he repeats the fact that Christ died, καί ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 15a), and concludes with a second meaning, now at a fourth level, ϊνα oi ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοίς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι καί έγερθέντι (v. 15bc). From there he draws a further conclusion of the meaning of Christ's death ύπέρ πάντων, concretely for himself and his readers, at a fifth level: ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοΰ νΰν ούδένα οϊδαμεν κατά σάρκα (v. 16a), and then he formulates that conclusion in an extreme form, εί καί έγνώκαμεν κατά σάρκα Χριστόν, άλλά νΰν ούκέτι γινώσκομεν (ν. 16bc), still at the same fifth level. In verses 18-20, Paul moves from the christological level of his reasoning in verses 14-17 to a more fundamental theological level. With verse 18a, τά . . . πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ, he places the entire section within the framework

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

323

of God the creator. With his reference to God as the source of everything Paul establishes a level of meaning more fundamental than Christ's death, resurrection and parousia, the level of God the creator, placing the meaning of Christ within the framework of God's activity. I identified the level of God as la, leaving level 1 as the level of Christ. According to verse 18, Christ mediated God's reconciliation, but Paul does not state in what way. From the statement that τά δέ πάντα έκ τοϋ θεοϋ (v. 18a) he moves immediately to a third level of meaning, to God's act of reconciliation, του καταλλάξαντος ήμάς έαυτω διά Χρίστου (v. 18b), which he then interprets more specifically at a fourth level in verse 18c, και δόντος ήμΐν τήν διακονίαν της καταλλαγής. The two steps are repeated in verse 19, first at a more general third level meaning, ώς οτι θεός ήν έν Χριστώ κόσμον καταλλάσσων έαυτω, μή λογιζόμενος αύτοΐς τά παραπτώματα αυτών (ν. 19ab), and then again more specifically at a fourth level, και θέμενος έν ήμΐν τόν λόγον της καταλλαγής. (v. 19c). Paul reinforces these statements concretely at a fifth level in his admonition in verse 20, ύπέρ Χρίστου οΰν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοϋντος δι ήμών· δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χρίστου, καταλλάγητε τω θεώ. There is no christological statement in verses 18-20, except that Paul states that God acts through Christ. God is the author of the action in all of these verses, as Paul concludes in verse 20b, πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ήμών. Even though it is for the sake of Christ that he makes his appeal to his readers with his twice repeated ύπέρ Χριστού in verse 20, the focus remains entirely on God's activity. That does not diminish the meaning of Christ. Salvation has its origin in God, but it is in Christ that God reconciles ήμάς (v. 18b) and [τόν] κόσμον . . . έαυτω (v. 19a). In verse 21, Paul returns his focus to Christ, even though it is still God who initiates the action, τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν (v. 21ab). As in verses 14c and 15a, Paul identifies the meaning of Christ having been made sin at a second level of meaning with ύπέρ ήμών, and then interprets what the entire statement means for his readers at a fourth level, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτώ (v. 21c), a conclusion which he draws from the christological statement in verse 2lab. In this second reference to the Christ event in 5:21, Paul appears to conclude his reasoning at a still abstract fourth level, but then, in 6:1, he moves to the concrete level of what it means for his readers with a final admonition, συνεργοΰντες δέ και παρακαλοΰμεν μή εις κενόν τήν χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ δέξασθαι ύμάς. The admonition is very general, and does not necessarily follow specifically from 5:21; it could equally well follow from the entire series of christological and theological statements. 6:2 provides a foundation from scripture for the admonition in 6:1. In 6:3 Paul returns abruptly, without a transition, to the defense of his ministry.

324

Christ in the Letters of Paul

In the earlier discussion of Gal 3:1-5 it was possible to establish three levels of the meaning of Christ. 297 On the basis of the schema of the levels of the meaning of Christ, it subsequently became possible to modify those three levels slightly: 'ώ άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς (Gal 3 : l a - c ) Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; (Gal 3: Id) 2 τοϋτο μόνον θέλω μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών· (Gal 3:2a) έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (Gal 3:2bc) 3 οϋτως άνόητοί έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νυν σαρκϊ έπιτελεΐσθε; 4 τοσαΰτα έπάθετε εική; εϊ γε και εική. (Gal 3:3-4). 5 ό οΰν έπιχορηγών ύμΐν τό πνεΰμα και ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμΐν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (Gal 3:5). As the diagram reveals, Paul's reasoning on the basis of Christ's crucifixion moves between the fourth and fifth levels of meaning, that is, at the levels that concern what Christ's crucifixion means to Paul's readers. He begins at the fifth level, challenging his readers, ω α ν ό η τ ο ι Γαλάται, τίς ύ μ ά ς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς . . . (v. la-c), with the fact of Christ's crucifixion, at a fundamental level, Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος (v. Id). He then returns to the concrete level of his readers, τοΰτο μόνον θέλο) μαθεΐν άφ' ύμών (v. 2a), challenging them, however not concretely concerning circumcision, which is what is at issue in the letter, but at a relatively more theoretical fourth level concerning the origin of their justification, whether it is through works of the Law or through the obedience of faith, έξ έργων νόμου τό πνεΰμα έλάβετε ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (v. 2bc). Next, Paul returns again to the concrete level of his readers, chiding them about the ill-favored situation into which they have moved, οΰτως άνόητοί έστε, έναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νΰν σαρκΐ έπιτελεΐσθε; τοσαΰτα έπάθετε εική; εϊ γε και είκή (νν. 3-4), and then returns to a more theoretical fourth level, asking them again about the source of their reception of the spirit, in this case including the working of powers among them, ό ούν έπιχορηγών ύμΐν τό πνεΰμα και ένεργών δυνάμεις έν ύμΐν, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως; (ν. 5). Even though Paul returns repeatedly to the concrete level of his readers in verses 2a and 3-4, the meaning on which he focuses lies at the slightly more theoretical fourth level of the opposition between works of the Law and the obedience of faith, chiastically in verses 2bc and 5. As in 1 Cor 4:10, ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ- ήμεΐς άσθενεΐς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι, 297 See above, ρ. 313.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

325

Paul challenges his readers with a christological statement in Gal 3:1, but, unlike in 1 Cor 4:10 where he depended on the immediate impact of his statement, here in Galatians he does not leave it to his readers to draw their own conclusions. In verses 2 - 5 he himself guides them into recognizing what Christ's death means in the situation in which they find themselves. In that regard, Gal 3:1-5 resembles Paul's christological reasoning in 2 Cor 5:146:2, where he also interprets what his christological and theological statements mean. Gal 3:1-5 too is a rare fragment of Pauline christological reasoning, but, unlike 2 Cor 5:14-6:2, it cannot be called a fragment of Pauline christology. Paul's reasoning in this passage is functional: It serves as the basis for the challenge to his readers to decide, chiastically in verses 2bc and 5, at a theoretical fourth level, between works of the Law and the obedience of faith as the source of their reception of the spirit, and concretely, at a fifth level at the center of the chiasm, in his admonitions in verses 3—4. Moving on to Gal 3:6-14: In 2 Cor 5:11-6:10, Paul placed Christ's activity within the framework of God the creator, τά . . . πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ (2 Cor 5:18a). In Gal 3:6-14, Christ functions within the framework of Abraham, 'Αβραάμ έπίστευσεν τω θεω, και έλογίσθη αύτω εις δικαιοσύνην (Gal 3:6). Prompted by the alternatives, έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως in Gal 3:2 and 5, Paul moved the basis of his reasoning from Christ's crucifixion in 3:1 to the even more fundamental level of Abraham's justification by faith. A chiastic structure characterizes his reasoning in the passage:

326

Christ in the Letters of Paul

6

καθώς 'Αβραάμ έπίστευσεν τφ θεώ, και έλογίσθη αύτώ

εις δικαιοσύνην- (Gal 3:6) 7

γινώσκετε άρα ότι οί έκ πίστεως, οΰτοιυίοί είσιν 'Αβραάμ. (Gal 3:7) 8

προιδοϋσα δέ ή γραφή ότι έκ πίστεως δίκαιοι τά έθνη ό

θεός, προευηγγελίσατο τω 'Αβραάμ ότι ένευλογηθήσονται έν σοι πάντα τά έθνη- (Gal 3:8) 9

ώ σ τ ε οί έκ πίστεως ευλογούνται σύν τω πιστφ 'Αβραάμ (Gal 3:9).

10

όσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (Gal 3:1 Oab)

γέγραπται γάρ ότι έπικατάρατος πάς ός ούκ εμμένει πάσιν τοις γεγραμμένοις έν

Β

τώ βιβλίφ τοϋ νόμου τοΰ ποιήσαι αύτά (Gal 3:10c-e). 11

ότι δέ έν νόμφ ουδείς δικαιούται παρά τώ θεφ δήλον, ότι ό δίκαιος

έκ πίστεως ζήσεται·

12

ό δέ νόμος ούκ έστιν έκ πίστεως, (Gal 3 : 1 1 -

12a)

C

άλλ' ό ποιήσας αύτά ζήσεται έν αύτοΐς (Gal 3:12b). '-'Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοϋ νόμου (Gal 3:13a) γενόμενος κατάρα, (Gal 3:13b) ύπέρ ήμών, (Gal 3:13b)

Β'

ότι γέγραπται· έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπΐ ξύλου, (Gal 3:13cd) 14

ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοϋ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστφ

Ίησοΰ, (Gal 3:14ab)

Α'

ϊνα τήν έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διά τής πίστεως. (Gal 3:14cd)

Paul's introduction of Abraham into his reasoning has an important effect on the levels of meaning of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia. Abraham's justification (v. 6) and the inheritance promised to him by scripture (v. 8) function at a level more fundamental than Christ's death. Thus it became necessary again in this passage, as in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2, to introduce another, sixth, level of meaning, to the right of the level of Christ, in the schema of the levels of meaning of Christ's crucifixion, resurrection and parousia. I identified this level again as la, keeping level 1 for Christ. Actually, in this passage there is an even more fundamental level than Abraham's justification: God, in whom Abraham believed and who justified him. However, Paul does not appeal to God's activity as a basis for his reasoning, which could have made it necessary to introduce yet another, seventh, level of meaning in the interpretation of the passage. In view of Paul's reasoning, that is not necessary. Paul's purpose in the passage, as in the rest of the chapter, is not an interpretation of the Abraham story. Rather — as has been typical in the previous christological passages —, he appeals to the Abraham story as the fundamental argument in his discourse against those who favor circumcision. Significant about the passage is that the first part of Paul's reasoning (vv. 6-12)

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

327

is entirely Jewish, establishing the situation in which Jews who are under the Law, outside of Christ, find themselves: According to Paul, they are under a curse, δσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (v. 10ab), from which they cannot escape, ό ποιήσας αύτά ζήσεται έν αύτοΐς (v. 12b). In that setting Paul announces dramatically, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου (v. 13a). The second part of the passage is then purely christological (vv. 13-14). Paul introduced the essentially Jewish reasoning about Abraham in verses 6-9, not for its own sake, but as a foundation for the concluding christological statement in verses 13-14. It grounds Christ in Jewish ancestral history. Paul announces the theme of the intermediate section in verse lOab, δσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν, in which κατάρα now dominates, but it occurs only in verses 10 and 13. Verses 11-12 constitute the center of what now appears to be a chiasm. In this center Paul focuses on the central issue, the opposition between the Law and faith. We have here another example of Paul's chiastic thinking. In A, verses 6-9, he introduces Abraham's justification as a fundamental argument in favor of the twice repeated άκοή πίστεως in its opposition to έργα νόμου in verses 2bc and 5c in the previous passage. However, he does not immediately say what that means, but introduces an intermediate argument in B, verse 10, that those who are under the Law are under a curse. Again he does not immediately disclose what that as part of his reasoning means. In C, verses 1112, he first makes clear how all of that relates to his fundamental point in verses 1-5 in the previous passage, but actually the letter as a whole, the opposition between justification through the Law and by faith. Now Paul is ready to move back up the chiastic ladder to his conclusion. First, in B', verse 13, he announces dramatically that Christ bought free those who had been under the curse of the Law. An then, in A', verse 14, he draws his final conclusion, in which he brings together Abraham's justification and the fulfillment of the promise that the gentiles would be blessed in him. The thread of Paul's discourse runs through third level meanings, continuing the theme of the alternatives έξ έργων νόμου ή έξ άκοής πίστεως of verse 2 and 5 in the previous passage: γινώσκετε άρα οτι οί έκ πίστεως, ούτοι υιοί είσιν 'Αβραάμ (3:7), ώστε οί έκ πίστεως εύλογοΰνται σύν τω πιστω 'Αβραάμ (3:9), οσοι γάρ έξ έργων νόμου είσίν, ύπό κατάραν είσίν (3:10ab), οτι δέ έν ν ό μ φ ούδεΐς δικαιούται παρά τω θεω . . , οτι ό δίκαιος έκ πίστεως ζήσεται· ό δέ νόμος ούκ έστιν έκ πίστεως (3:11-12a),

328

Christ in the Letters of Paul

ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή ευλογία τοΰ 'Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (Gal 3:14ab). The first two do not express the meaning of Christ, but of Abraham's justification and of the promise to him that all the gentiles will be blessed in him. Paul's conclusion in verse 14ab: εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοϋ Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ is not drawn from verse 13 alone, but from verses 8 - 9 as well, with verses 10-13 providing the basis for Paul's reasoning that Christ is the one in whom the promise is fulfilled. The passage is not an interpretation of the meaning of the fundamental christological statement, Χριστός . . . γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα (v. 13b), which functions as a foundation for his statement in verse 13a, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου, reinforced by the quotation from Deut 21:23, οτι γέγραπται· έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπϊ ξύλου (v. 13cd). It is a decisive argument for his reasoning in B', but Christ having become a curse is not Paul's point; it is part of his preparation for his real point. The purpose of his entire reasoning is, at a general third level meaning, ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοΰ Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (v. 14ab), and then more concretely, at a fourth level of meaning, drawing himself and his readers into the argument, ϊνα την έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διά της πίστεως (v. 14cd.) In our passage Paul's primary concern is not with the meaning of Christ's death as a curse, but that in Christ the promise to Abraham goes into fulfillment. It functions as a means of arguing on the basis of the Jewish scriptures that justification is not through works of the Law but by faith. The meaning of Christ in the passage is that in him the promise to Abraham went into fulfillment. The fact that in our passage Paul moves to a level that is more fundamental than that of Christ's death does not diminish the significance of that event. Christ's death as a curse on the cross determines the way in which God's promise to Abraham is fulfilled. Rom 4:23-5:11 is also set within the framework of Abraham's justification. However, Abraham no longer functions in the passage, except that Paul's statement in 4:23-24, ούκ έγράφη δέ δι' αύτόν μόνον οτι έλογίσθη αύτώ άλλά και δι' ήμάς, οΐς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοις πιστεύουσιν έπϊ τόν έγείραντα Ίησοΰν τόν κύριον ήμών έκ νεκρών, functions as a link to the preceding story of Abraham's justification in 4:1-22. Nevertheless, it is necessary here too to add a level of the meaning of Christ that is more fundamental than Christ's death, resurrection and parousia, the level of God's love as the foundation of the meaning of Christ, συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

329

είς ημάς ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανε (5:8). As in the discussion of 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 — and of Gal 3:6-14, with Abraham at the fundamental level —, I will refer to this more fundamental level as la. The passage is nevertheless christological. According to verse 8a, God established God's love είς ήμάς in Christ's death ύπέρ ήμών (v. 8c). The function of this fundamental theological statement is to ground Christ's death and resurrection in God's action. God is present throughout the passage: είρήνην έχομεν προς τόν θεόν (5:1b) καυχώμεθα έπ' έλπίδι της δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ (5:2c) ή άγάπη τοΰ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταΐς καρδίαις ήμών (5:5b) έχθροί δντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ (5:10a) καυχώμενοι έν τώ θεώ (5:1 lb) and, of course, the fundamental, συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός (5:8a), but as a repeated refrain, God's actions are performed through Christ: είρήνην έχομεν πρός τόν θεόν διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου (5:lbc) συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανε (5:8) κατηλλάγημεν τώ θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ (5:10bc) καυχώμενοι έν τώ θεώ διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ (5:11). Paul's emphasis on the Holy Spirit, ή άγάπη τοΰ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταΐς καρδίαις ήμών διά πνεύματος άγίου τοΰ δοθέντος ήμΐν (5:5b -d), does not distract from the centrality of God's actions through Christ. 4 23 ούκ έγράφη δέ δι' αυτόν μόνον οτι έλογίσθη αύτώ 24 άλλά και δι' ήμάς, οις μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοις πιστεύουσιν έπί τόν έγείραντα Ίησοΰν τόν κύριον ήμών έκ νεκρών, (Rom 4:23-24) 25 δς παρεδόθη (Rom 4:25a) διά τά παραπτώματα ήμών (Rom 4:25b) και ήγέρθη (Rom 4:25c) διά τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών. (Rom 4:25d) 5' δικαιωθέντες ούν έκ πίστεως (Rom 5:1a) είρήνην έχομεν πρός τόν θεόν διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ 2 δι' οΰ και τήν προσαγωγήν έσχήκαμεν [τή πίστει] είς τήν χάριν ταύτην έν ή έστήκαμεν και καυχώμεθα έπ' έλπίδι της δόξης τοΰ θεοΰ. (Rom 5: lb—2)

330

Christ in the Letters of Paul

3

ού μόνον δέ, άλλα και καυχώμεθα έν ταΐς θλίψεσιν, είδότες οτι ή θλΐψις ύπομονήν κατεργάζεται, 4 ή δέ ύπομονή δοκιμήν, ή δέ δοκιμή έλπίδα. 5 ή δέ έλπίς ού καταισχύνει, (Rom 5:3-5 a) οτι ή άγάπη τοΰ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταΐς καρδίαις ήμών δια πνεύματος άγίου τοΰ δοθέντος ήμΐν. (Rom 5:5bc) 6 έτι γάρ Χριστός όντων ήμών ασθενών έτι κατά καιρόν (Rom 5:6ab) ύπέρ άσεβών (Rom 5:6c) άπέθανεν. (Rom 5:6d) 7 μόλις γάρ ύπέρ δικαίου τις άποθανεΐται· ύπέρ γάρ τοΰ άγαθοΰ τάχα τις και τολμά άποθανεΐν· (Rom 5:7) 8 σ υ ν ί σ τ η σ ι ν δέ τήν έαυτοΰ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, (Rom 5:8a) οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών (Rom 5:8b) Χριστός . . . άπέθανεν 298 (Rom 5:8c) ύπέρ ήμών. (Rom 5:8c) 9 π ο λ λ ώ οΰν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ (Rom 5:9ab) σωθησόμεθα δι αύτοΰ άπό της όργης. (Rom 5:9c) 10 εί γάρ έχθροί οντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, (Rom 5:1 Oa-c) πολλώ μάλλον καταλλαγέντες (Rom 5:1 Od) σωθησόμεθα έν τή ζωή αύτοΰ· (Rom 5:10e) 11 ού μόνον δέ, άλλά και καυχώμενοι έν τω θεώ (Rom 5:11 ab) διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ (Rom 5:11c) δι' ου νΰν τήν καταλλαγήν έλάβομεν. (Rom 5:1 Id) Paul does not interpret the meaning of the confession in 4:25. The confession has no other meaning than to give a christological context for believing in God, parallel to Abraham's trust in God. Merely believing in God as Abraham did does not include everything Paul understands by justification by faith. It misses the dimension of Christ's death, resurrection and parousia. Paul also brings to expression his concern to link justification by faith to Christ when he interprets its meaning as είρήνην έχομεν πρός τόν θεόν διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστοΰ in 5:lbc. It is significant, however, that when he returns to Christ in verses 6 - 8 and 10 he refers only to Christ's death, leaving out of consideration the reference to Christ's resurrection, as in the confession. In 5:1-5 Paul reaches back to 4:23-24, the justification of those who believe in God, interpreting for his readers what it means to have a faith in God 298

Word order rearranged.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

331

similar to Abraham's. His focus in 5:1-5 remains theologically on God who raised Christ from the dead, not christologically on Christ who, according to the confession in 4:25, was handed over for the transgressions of those who believe, and who was raised for their justification. However, the fact that he turns, somewhat abruptly, to Christ's death in 5:6 reveals that he had been left with unfinished business after 5:1-5. Paul interprets the purpose of the statements about Christ's death, Χριστός . . . ύπέρ άσεβων άπέθανεν (v. 6cd), and Χριστός ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν άπέθανεν (v. 8c), as the foundation on which he can state at a general third level of meaning, δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ (v. 9b), modifying his earlier statement in verse 1, δικαιωθέντες ούν έκ πίστεως, as his thinking moves forward. With the πολλω ούν μάλλον by means of which he introduces this new statement, Paul makes it clear that with his christological statements he has moved to a level of the meaning of justification that is more fundamental than justification by a faith such as Abraham's. He does not negate justification by faith, but with πολλω οΰν μάλλον he makes it clear that there is a deeper dimension of justification than by a faith such as Abraham's, justification through the blood of Christ. That Paul was moving to deeper levels of the meaning of Christ is also evident when he interprets what Christ's death means for his readers. In 5:1b he interpreted what results from justification by faith as είρήνην έχομεν πρός τόν θεόν. In verse 9c he interprets the result of justification through the blood of Christ (v. 9b) as σωθησόμεθα δι' αύτοϋ άπό της όργής, and in verse 10e, the result of being reconciled with God (v. lOd) as σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωη αύτοΰ. In this passage, unlike in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 and Gal 3:l-5e, Paul does not make christological statements and then interprets their meanings. His christological statements in verses 6 and 8 function as the means of moving from justification by faith in 5:1 to justification through the blood of Christ in 5:9. But with that Paul has not yet said all he has to say. There is yet another meaning of Christ's death to which he wants to give expression. So, without making a new christological statement, he recalls the dual statements of verses 6 and 8 at a third level in verse l O a - c , εί γ ά ρ έ χ θ ρ ο ϊ ο ν τ ε ς κατηλλάγημεν τω θεω διά τοϋ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, which prepares him for the next step in his reasoning in verse lOde, at third, πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες, and fourth levels of meaning, σωθησόμεθα έν τη ζωη αύτοΰ. In verse l i b , similar to what he did in verses 3-5, Paul interprets, at a fifth level of meaning, what being saved in the life of Christ means concretely for his readers, καυχώμενοι έν τω θεω. And then, in verse 11c, he grounds pride in God, καυχώμενοι έν τφ θεω (1 lb), in Christ at a general third level,

332

Christ in the Letters of Paul

διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χρίστου, reaffirming, at a more specific fourth level, that it is Christ in whom the reconciliation with God has its foundation, δι' οΰ νΰν ιήν την καταλλαγήν έλάβομεν (v. l i d ) . The investigation of Rom 6:1-14 revealed the following chiastic structure:

1

τί οΰν έροΰμεν; έπιμένωμεν τη αμαρτία, (6:lab)

ϊνα ή χάρις πλεονάση; 2 μή γένοιτο. (6:lc-2a) οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τή άμαρτία, πώς έτι ζήσομεν έν αύτη; (6:2bc) 3

ή αγνοείτε 5τι, οσοι έβαπτίσθημεν εις Χριστόν Ίησοΰν, εις τόν θάνα-

τον αύτοΰ έβαπτίσθημεν; 4 συνετάφημεν οΰν αύτω διά τοϋ βαπτίςματος εις τόν θάνατον, (6:3-4b) ϊνα ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοϋ πατρός, (6:4cd)

Β

οϋτως και ήμεϊς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν. 6:4e) 5

εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοϋ θανάτου αύτοΰ, (6:5a)

άλλά καί της αναστάσεως έσόμεθα- (6:5b) 6

C

τ ο ΰ τ ο γινώσκοντες ότι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη,

D

(6:6ab) ϊνα καταργηθή τό σωμα της άμαρτίας, (6:6c)

Ε

τοϋ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τή άμαρτία- (6:6d) 7

ό γάρ άποθανών (6:7a)

D'

δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας. (6:7b) 8

εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, (6:8a)

πιστεύομεν οτι και συζήσομεν αύτφ, (6:8b)

C'

'είδότες οτι Χριστός εγερθείς έκ νεκρών οϋκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει.

10

ο γάρ άπέθανεν, τή άμαρτία

άπέθανεν έφάπαξ- ο δέ ζή, ζή τφ θεφ. (6:9-10) " ο ϋ τ ω ς και ύμείς λογίζεσθε εαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μεν τή άμαρτία

Β'

ζώντας δέ τφ θεφ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. (6:11) 12

μή οΰν βασιλευέτω ή άμαρτία έν τφ θνητώ ύμών σώματι εις τό ύπακούειν

ταΐς έπιθυμίαις αύτοΰ,

13

μηδέ παριστάνετε τά μέλη ύ μ ώ ν οπλα άδικίας τή

άμαρτία, άλλά παραστήσατε έαυτούς τω θεφ ώσεί έκ νεκρών ζώντας καί τά

Α'

μέλη ύμών οπλα δικαιοσύνης τφ θεω. (6:12-13) 14

άμαρτία γάρ ύμών ού κυριεύσει· (6:14a) ού γάρ έστε ύπό νόμον άλλά ύπό χάριν. (6:14b)

The agenda for Paul's reasoning in the passage is set by the two rhetorical questions at the concrete fifth level of his readers in verses lb, έπιμένω— μεν τη άμαρτία, and 2c, πώς ετι ζήσομεν έν [τη άμαρτία];

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

333

Even though the fundamental, first level christological statements in verses 4cd and 9b-10, ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών δια της δόξης τοϋ πατρός, and Χριστός έγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει, δ γάρ άπέθανεν, τη άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζή, ζή τω θεώ, play a crucial role in Paul's reasoning, these statements have no independent meanings. Their meanings are determined by the way they function in Paul's reasoning. There is no reference to Christ's death in the first christological statement, only to his resurrection. Christ's death is of course involved as part of the context provided by the preceding statement about baptism as participation in Christ's death in verses 3-4b. However, Paul begins his reasoning, not by focussing on Christ's death as the liberation from sin, but on his resurrection as the foundation of the new life into which he and his readers are called, expressed at a fourth level in verse 4e, οϋτως και ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν, grounded at a more general third level in verse 5a, εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τφ όμοιώματι τοϋ θανάτου αύτοΰ. Paul returns to a fourth level in verse 5b, άλλά και της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα. Coordinate with the focus on Christ's resurrection in verses 4c-5 is the absence, after verses 1-2, of any reference to sin, before it appears again in verse 6, where it becomes dominant all the way to the end of Paul's reasoning. What he is aiming at, also in the first part of his reasoning, is liberation from sin, the issue raised by the rhetorical questions in verses 1-2 but to which he does not refer again before verse 6. It became possible to discern a complex chiastic structure in Paul's reasoning in the passage. His main reasoning takes place between the two Christological statements, ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών δια της δόξης τοΰ πατρός (v. 4cd ), and Χριστός έγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει, δ γάρ άπέθανεν, τή άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ- δ δέ ζή, ζή τω θεώ (νν. 9b-10) each followed by a fourth level meaning, introduced with the identical οϋτως καί, οϋτως καί ήμεΐς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν (v. 4e), and

334

Christ in the Letters of Paul

οϋτως καί ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μεν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεφ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ (ν. 11), Β and Β' in the chiastic schema. Paul's reasoning continues after the first christological statement with two sets of third, each followed by fourth level statements, C and D in the diagram of the text: εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τώ όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοΰ, άλλα και της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα (ν. 5), and τούτο γινώσκοντες οτι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ϊνα καταργηθη τό σώμα της άμαρτίας (6a-c), and concludes with a single fifth level statement, Ε in the diagram of the text: τοΰ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τη άμαρτία (v.6d). Even though this concluding statement coordinates well with the second clause of his negation of the first rhetorical question, πώς έτι ζήσομεν έν [τη άμαρτία]; (v. 2c), and could have concluded his reasoning as a whole, Paul was evidently not satisfied, but continued the discussion with two more sets of third, each again followed by fourth level statements, ό γάρ άποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας (ν. 7), and εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, πιστεύομεν οτι καί συζήσομεν αύτώ (ν. 8), D ' and C' in the diagram of the text, with which he leads up to the second christological statement by means of είδότες οτι, Χριστός έγερθεϊς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει. 10ö γάρ άπέθανεν, τη άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζη, ζη τω θεώ. (6:9b-10). Paul does not present Christ's death sacrificially for sin, but more powerfully for his reasoning in the passage, to sin, as a model for that to which he admonishes his readers, living for God. He formulates the second christological statement specifically with what it means for his readers in mind, as he makes explicit in verse 11 at a fourth level of meaning, that they too have died to sin and live for God, ούτως καί ύμείς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεώ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. The function of the two christological statements in Rom 6:1-11 are not paraenetic, as, for example, in 1 Thess 5:1-11, but concern a more theoretical

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

335

issue, stated in the beginning in the two rhetorical questions in verses 1 and 2, whether remaining in sin would allow God's graciousness to abound, even though Paul formulates the questions concretely at the fifth level of meaning as something his readers might consider doing. Notwithstanding the theoretical nature of the issue, Paul, as a pastor, could not refrain from bringing the discussion to a concrete paraenetic conclusion, at a fifth level, μή ο ύ ν βασιλευέτω ή άμαρτία έν τω θνητώ ύ μ ώ ν σ ώ μ α τ ι είς τό ύπακούειν ταΐς έπιθυμίαις αύτοΰ, μηδέ παριστάνετε τά μέλη ύμών οπλα αδικίας τη άμαρτία, άλλά παραστήσατε έαυτούς τφ θεώ ώσεϊ έκ νεκρών ζώντας και τά μέλη ύμών οπλα δικαιοσύνης τώ θεώ (νν. 12-13), rounding off his chiastic reasoning in verse 14 by recalling the two rhetorical questions of verses 1 - 2 at more theoretical fourth and third levels, άμαρτία γάρ ύμών ού κυριεύσει· ού γάρ έστε ύπό νόμον άλλά ύπό χάριν, after preparing for this conclusion in the intervening verses 4c-11, A ' in the diagram of the text. Paul's reasoning in the main part of the passage, verses 4 c - l l , is not an exposition of his statement about baptism in verses 3-4b. His statement about baptism and his chiastic reasoning are parallel arguments in support of his second rhetorical question in verse 2bc, [μή γένοιτο.] οϊτινες άπεθάνομεν τη άμαρτία, πώς έτι ζήσομεν έν αύτη; For that reason, I left verses 3 - 4 b out of the suggested chiastic schema. Paul evidently found it necessary to supplement the point he made in his reference to baptism with the more extended reasoning of verses 4c-11. Rom 8:31-39 exhibits what may be called an expanded chiasm. It begins with the polarity between Paul's theme, A, in verse 31b, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, and the forces which oppose God and Christ, introduced by a repeated τίς, verses 31c, 33a, 34a and 35aa, beginning in verse 31c with τίς καθ' ήμών; which Paul poses as the first opposition, B, against the statement about God being ύπέρ ήμών in verse 31b. In verse 32ab, Paul returns to A, expanding on it in Α ' , ος γε τοΰ ιδίου υιού ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν. He repeats the polarity between Β and A ' in different formulations until he achieves what is driving at in verse 39ef, in a final A 6 ', (ούτε τις κτίσις έτέρα δυνήσεται ή μας χωρίσαι άπό) της άγάπης τοΰ θεού της έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ τω κυρίφ ήμών. The statement about God with which Paul's reasoning in Rom 8:31-39 begins, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών (v. 31b), is the protasis in a conditional sentence, with the hypothetical opposing power in the apodosis, τίς καθ' ήμών; (v. 31c). However, in his repeated reformulations, Paul turns the original polarity of

336

Christ in the Letters of Paul

verse 31 be around, referring to the opposing forces first, and then responding to them by referring to God and to Christ. Accordingly, in presenting the series of polarities in parallel columns, I inverted the polarity of the theme by placing the opposing forces in the first column and God's activity in Christ in the second:

God's activity in Christ

The opposing forces

Β τίς καθ' ήμών; (v. 31c)

Α εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, (v. 31b) Α ' δς γε τοϋ ιδίου υϊοΰ ούκ έφείσατο, ά λ λ ά ύ π έ ρ ή μ ώ ν π ά ν τ ω ν π α ρ έ δ ω κ ε ν αύτόν, π ώ ς ο ύ χ ϊ και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμίν χαρίσεται; (ν. 32) '

Β 2 τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (v. 33a)

Α2'

Β 3 τίς ό κατακρινών; (v. 34a)

Α 3 ' Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς [ Ί η σ ο ΰ ς ] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, δ ς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, δ ς καί έντυγχάνει ύπέρ ήμών. (v. 34b-e)

Β 4 τίς ημάς χωρίσει άπό (v. 35aa)

Α 4 ' της άγάπης τοΰ Χριστού; (ν. 35aß)

Β 5 θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; καθώς γέγραπται δτι ένεκεν σου θ α ν α τ ο ύ μ ε θ α δ λ η ν την ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής, (νν. 35b-36)

Α 5 ' άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν διά τοΰ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς. πέπεισμαι γάρ δτι (νν. 37a-38a)

Β 6 [πέπεισμαι γαρ οτι] οΰτε θάνατος οΰτε ζωή οΰτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαϊ οΰτε ενεστώτα οΰτε μέλλοντα οΰτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ϋψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό (νν. 3 8 b 39d)

Α 6 ' τής άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ της έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίφ ήμών (ν. 39ef)

θεός ό δικαιών- (v. 33b)

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

337

Paul's presentation in the passage takes place in three clearly recognizable steps. The first (vv. 31-32) ends with a concluding statement of the meaning for Paul's readers of what he stated in verses 31b-32b, πώς ούχί και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; (v. 32c). The second step (vv. 33-34) begins with a new rhetorical question, τίς έγκαλέσει κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (ν. 33a), followed by a parallel, τίς ό κατακρινών; (v. 34a), each with a reaction in a contrary statement, the first with its foundation in God, θεός ό δίκαιων (v. 33b), and the second in Christ, Χριστός [Ίησοΰς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ έγερθείς, (v. 34bc). But, in the second case, Paul then moves Christ to the fundamental level of God by placing him in the presence of God, δς καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, δς καί έντυγχάνει (v. 34de). The second step does not move what Paul has to say forward, but reformulates in different ways what he stated in the first. The third step (vv. 35-39) also begins with a rhetorical question, but here it is specific, placing it in a christological context, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει [άπό της άγάπης τοΰ Χρίστου;] (v. 35a). In this case the opposing forces are then identified as earthly, θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; (v. 35b-h). Similar to the parallel rhetorical questions and responses of the second step, the third step too has a parallel, but — not uncommon in Paul — it is not stated in the same form. It ends, not with a rhetorical question, but with a rejoinder to the opposing forces, πέπεισμαι γάρ δτι [ουδέν] δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι . . . (vv. 38-39d). In contrast with the previous identification of the opposing forces in verse 35b-h as earthly, they are now identified as beyond the earth, οϋτε θάνατος οϋτε ζωή οϋτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαί οϋτε ένεστώτα οϋτε μέλλοντα οΰτε δυνάμεις οϋτε ϋψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα (vv. 38-39c). True to the previous argument, the failure of the opposing forces is attributed to God in Christ, now in a single formulation: They cannot separate Paul's readers άπό της άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ της έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τω κυρίφ ήμών (v. 39ef). Unlike in 2 Cor 5:5:14-6:2 and in Rom 4:23-5:11, where Paul interpreted the meaning of Christ at a deeper, theological level by grounding Christ's activity in God, and in Gal 3:6-14, where he interpreted the meaning of Christ within Jewish history by grounding his activity within the story of Abraham's justification, in Rom 8:31-39, God's trustworthiness is Paul's topic and Christ functions as the means of realizing God's purpose. Already the theme, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, τίς καθ' ήμών; establishes God as the focus of Paul's presentation, even though it is through Christ that God executes God's actions. Rom 8:31-39 is not a christological, but a theological passage in which Christ functions as the means through which God achieves God's purpose. Accordingly, I referred to the level of God in the discussion of the

338

Christ in the Letters of Paul

passage as level 1, making the level of Christ level 2, and accordingly all the other levels one number higher down to level 5 which became level 6. Rom 8:31-39 revealed another unique feature with regard to the levels of the meaning of Christ in Paul compared with all the other christological(theological) texts, namely, the role which the opposing forces, potential and real, plays in the passage. The statements concerning those forces do not fit into the model of the levels of the meaning of Christ, but they contribute decisively to the expression of the meaning of God and of Christ in the passage. Those forces stand opposed to God and to Christ. For that reason I have placed them at the relevant levels of the meanings of God and of Christ, but in brackets to indicate their positions as contraries. The statements concerning these forces are the same as those listed in column Β of the parallel columns of the opposing forces and of God's activity in Christ. 8 31 τί οΰν έροΰμεν πρός ταϋτα; (Rom 8:31a) εί ό θεός (Rom 8:31b) ύπέρ ήμών, (Rom 8:31b) [τίς (Rom 8:31c)] [καθ' ήμών; (Rom 8:31c)] 32 ος γε τοΰ ίδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά (Rom 8:32a) ύπέρ ήμών πάντων (Rom 8:32b) παρέδωκεν αύτόν, (Rom 8:32b) πώς ούχί και σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; (Rom 8:32c) [ 33 τίς έγκαλέσει (Rom 8:33a)] [κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; (Rom 8:33a)] θεός ό δικαιών- (Rom 8:33b) [ 3 4 τίς ό κατακρινών; (Rom 8:34a)] Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς [ Ί η σ ο ΰ ς ] ό ά π ο θ α ν ώ ν , μ ά λ λ ο ν δέ έγερθείς, (Rom 8:34bc) ος καί έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, δς και έντυγχάνει (Rom 8:34de) ύπέρ ήμών. (Rom 8:34e) [ 3 5 τίς (Rom 8:35a)] [ήμάς χωρίσει άπό (Rom 8:35a)] της άγάπης τοΰ Χριστού; (Rom 8:35b) [θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; (Rom 8:35c—i)] [ 36 καθώς γέγραπται οτι ένεκεν σοΰ θανατούμεθα ολην την ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής. (Rom 8:36)] 37 άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν (Rom 8:37a)

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

339

διά τοΰ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς. (Rom 8:37b) πέπεισμαι γάρ δτι (Rom 8:38a) [οΰτε θάνατος οΰτε ζωή οΰτε άγγελοι οΰτε άρχαι οΰτε ενεστώτα οΰτε μέλλοντα οΰτε δυνάμεις 39 οΰτε ΰψωμα οΰτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα δυνήσεται (Rom 8:38b-39c)] [ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό (Rom 8:39d)] της άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ (Rom 8:39e) της έν Χριστώ Ίησοϋ τω κυρίφ ήμών. (Rom 8:39f)

38

Paul begins his reasoning at the concrete level of his readers in verse 31a, at the 6th level of the meaning of Christ, τί οΰν έροϋμεν προς ταϋτα; From there he moves directly to what is in this passage the fundamental level, that is, of God, in the protasis of his thematic statement in verse 31b, εί ό θεός . . , qualifying it immediately in the same part of the verse at the third level with ύπέρ ήμών. Over against this, in verse 31c, he then poses as the apodosis of his thesis an unidentified τίς . . , who stands in opposition to the protasis at the same, but opposing level, qualifying it in the same part of the verse at the third, but now opposing, level with καθ' ήμών. Notwithstanding this parallel structure, the two parts of Paul's thesis do not have equivalent value. Only the protasis has validity. The rhetorical question does not require a response; it is a challenge formulated in a way which leaves no doubt that the threat of a possible opposing power is of no consequence. Indeed, Paul's reference to the possibility of such an opposing power functions purely as a means of strengthening confidence in God. But that is not enough for Paul. He immediately moves chiastically back to the fundamental level of God in verse 32ab to a positive, christological reinforcement of God's trustworthiness, ος γε τοΰ ιδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά . . . παρέδωκεν αύτόν, qualifying his statement at the third level of meaning as part of the same verse again with ύπέρ ήμών πάντων, in that way giving specific meaning to the preceding very general ύπέρ ήμών of verse 31b. The chiasm is clearly marked by Paul's move at the third level from ύπέρ ήμών in verse 31b to καθ ήμών in verse 31c and chiastically back to ύπέρ ήμών (πάντων) in verse 32b. Paul's use of ύπέρ ήμών in verses 3 lb and 32b marks a new development in his use of the phrase. Whereas he previously typically used it to qualify what Christ did, for example, in 1 Thess 5:9-10, that he died for us, διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών Ίησοΰ Χριστού τοΰ άποθανόντος ύπέρ ήμών, or in Gal 3:13,

340

Christ in the Letters of Paul

that he became a curse for our sakes, Χριστός ήμάς έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοϋ νόμου γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα, in our passage, it is said of God; in verse 32b the phrase also concerns Christ's death, but it qualifies, not what Christ did, but what God did, ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν. Unlike in the many christological texts in which Paul's statements about Christ function as foundations for his reasoning on a variety of issues, here his statement about Christ's death functions as an expression of God's trustworthiness. Paul ends the first step in his presentation in verse 32c with a concluding statement in which he interprets what these statements concerning God's trustworthiness means for him and his readers at the fourth level of the meaning, in this case not of Christ, but of God, πώς ούχΐ καϊ σύν αύτώ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; But with that he has not yet said all he needs to say. In order to move forward, he now begins with a τίς question. Paul begins his second step in verse 33a with a repetition in a variant formulation of the challenge of verse 31c, τίς έγκαλέσει, qualifying the challenge in the same part of the verse at the third level with κατά έκλεκτών θεοΰ; He responds to the challenge in verse 33b at the fundamental level of God, θεός ό δίκαιων, by which the challenge is squelched. He reinforces the reasoning of verse 33 in a parallel formulation in verse 34, by repeating in a variant formulation the challenge of verse 33a in 34a, τίς ό κατακρινών; in this case at the second level of meaning opposed to Christ. In verse 34bc he again squelches the challenge, in this case at the level of Christ, Χριστός [Ίησοΰς] ό άποθανών, μάλλον δέ εγερθείς, but then, in verse 34de, he returns to the first level of meaning, with Christ intervening for believers before God, δς καί-*έστιν έν δεξιά τοΰ θεοΰ, δς και έντυγχάνει. It is still Christ, and not God who acts, but the meaning of his action is grounded in the fact that is takes place before God which provides it with divine authority at the first level of God. In verse 34e, Paul qualifies Christ's act at the third level by means of ύπέρ ήμών, in contrast with the theological qualification of God's activity by means of the same ύπέρ ήμών in verses 31b and 22b. In verse 34, thus, Paul moves from the fundamental theological level of God to the christological level of Christ, at the same time maintaining a complete unity between Christ and God by grounding Christ's activity in God before whom Christ intervenes ύπέρ ήμών (v. 34e). The unity between God and Christ is already expressed with God as the active subject in the passive έγερθείς in verse 34c. In that way Paul has taken a significant step forward in his reasoning in the passage by introducing Christ as the active subject in verse 34b-e, at the same time maintaining a complete unity between God and Christ.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

341

Paul takes the final step in his presentation in verse 35ab by repeating the challenge of the opposing forces in another τίς question. In this case the question is specific, with a christological focus, τίς ήμάς χωρίσει άπό της άγάπης τοΰ Χρίστου; Accordingly, the opposing forces in verse 35a are located at the opposed second level of meaning, and their threat, ήμάς χωρίσει άπό . . . (still v. 35a) at the opposed fourth level. That from which the opposing forces threaten to sever Paul and his readers, της άγάπης τοϋ Χρίστου (v. 35b), is located at the second level of Christ. Paul does not identify the opponents in verses 35c--36. but replies with an identification of afflictions to which he himself and his readers were subject, θλΐψις ή στενοχώρια ή διωγμός ή λιμός ή γυμνότης ή κίνδυνος ή μάχαιρα; καθώς γέγραπται οτι ένεκεν σοΰ θανατούμεθα ολην την ήμέραν, έλογίσθημεν ώς πρόβατα σφαγής, so to speak, the effects of the opposing forces, which places them on the fourth level of meaning. In verse 37a he interprets their threat as a victory for himself and his readers at the same fourth level of meaning, άλλ' έν τούτοις πάσιν ύπερνικώμεν, which they accomplished through Christ, at the second level, διά τοΰ άγαπήσαντος ήμάς (v. 37b). In verses 38b—39c, Paul identifies the opposing powers, in this case personal, which coordinates better with the τίς question in verse 35a than with the effects of these powers in the impersonal afflictions to which Paul and his readers had been subject according to verses 35b-36. He introduces the identification of these opposing powers with a statement at the fourth level of himself and his readers in verse 38a, expressing their confidence that these powers would not prevail, πέπεισμαι γάρ ο τ ι . . . Since it is from God whom these powers, οΰτε θάνατος οΰτε ζωή οϋτε άγγελοι οϋτε άρχαί οΰτε ένεστώτα οϋτε μέλλοντα οϋτε δυνάμεις οΰτε ϋψωμα οϋτε βάθος οΰτε τις κτίσις έτέρα, threaten to sever Paul and his readers, ήμάς χωρίσαι.άπό τής άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ (v. 39de), they belong at the first level in opposition to God. Their threat against Paul and his readers, formulated in terms of their inability, [οϋτε . . . οΰτε] δυνήσεται ήμάς χωρίσαι. . . . (v. 39d), belongs to the fourth level of meaning in opposition to Paul and his readers. He concludes by refocusing on God, at the first level, [ήμάς χωρίσαι άπό] τής άγάπης τοΰ θεοΰ (v. 39e), reaffirming the unity of God and Christ at the second level, τής έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ τφ κυρίω ήμών. (v. 39f).

342

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Assessment The most fundamental facts about Christ for Paul was that he died, was resurrected, and was expected to return in the final act of redemption. However, nowhere in his letters does he provide an interpretation of the meaning of these events. They nevertheless function critically as the determining argument in his reasoning at many points in his letters. The meaning of Christ for Paul at these points reveals Christ as the determining force in his life and in his understanding of himself as an apostle, beginning with the Lord's appearance to him, when he had still been persecuting the church, οτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καν καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοϋ άποκαλύψαι τόν υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοϊ ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν (Gal 1:15-16b). It was an event which transformed him from a zealous Jew into a believer in Christ. After that he repeatedly encountered Christ at crucial points in his life, notably when he asked Christ three times to remove the thorn from his flesh. Christ refused with the assurance that his (Christ's) kindness was sufficient, that in Paul's weakness his power would be fulfilled, ύπέρ τούτου τρις τόν κύριον παρεκάλεσα ϊνα άποστη άπ έμοΰ· και ε'ίρηκέν μοι, άρκεΐ σοι ή χάρις μου- ή γαρ δύναμις έν άσθενεία τελείται (2 Cor 12:8-9b). This assurance became characteristic of Paul's experience as an apostle. Paul did not present a teaching about Christ. The Christ who died, was resurrected, and appeared to him was so real that he had no need of a teaching. With regard to himself, he relied on repeated experiences of Christ; with regard to his readers, he drew their attention to the reality of Christ, typically as an argument in his reasoning. Nowhere did he draw on an existing teaching about Christ. What he presented was developed in the course of expressing his thoughts. Two incidents contributed to further growth of Paul's understanding of the meaning of Christ for his apostleship. In Phil 3:2-11 his credentials as a Jew had been challenged, prompting him to a new awareness of what Christ meant to him. He prided himself that he could have surpassed anyone who relied on being qualified as a good Jew under the Law, εϊ τις δοκεΐ άλλος πεποιθέναι έν σαρκί, έγώ μάλλον· περιτομη οκταήμερος, έκ γένους 'Ισραήλ, φυλής Βενιαμίν, 'Εβραίος έξ 'Εβραίων, κατά νόμον Φαρισαΐος, κατά ζήλος διώκων τήν έκκλησίαν, κατά δικαιοσύνην τήν έν νόμψ γενόμενος αμεμπτος (νν. 4b-6), but whatever advantage that provided him, he considered as a loss compared with what he had found in Christ, ατινα ην μοι κέρδη, ταΰτα ήγημαι διά τόν Χριστόν ζημίαν (ν. 7). In his defense, he did not draw on an idea of Christ, but on the reality of Christ as he experienced him.

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

343

In his report of the Antioch incident in Gal 2:11-14, Paul conflated the issue of that occasion with what he perceived to have been going on in Galatia, whether gentile believers should be circumcised. His challenge to Peter that he wanted to force the gentiles to become Judai'zed, εί σύ 'Ιουδαίος υπάρχων έθνικώς και ούχί' Ιουδαϊκώς ζής, πώς τά έθνη άναγκάζεις Ίουδαϊζειν (v. 14cd), has no relevance to what he himself reported about the incident in Antioch, which did not go beyond the question of Jews engaging in table fellowship with gentiles, but addresses directly what had been at issue in Galatia. Paul's response to the common issue in the two incidents was to bring to expression an understanding of Christ which did not allow a separation of Jewish and gentile believers. As he formulated it, recalling the Antioch incident, Jews too were justified through the faith of Christ, ήμεϊς φύσει'Ιουδαίοι και ούκ έξ έθνών άμαρτωλοί, είδότες [δέ] δτι ού δικαιούται άνθρωπος έξ έργων νόμου έάν μή διά πίστεως Ίησοϋ Χρίστου, καί ήμεΐς είς Χριστόν Ίησούν έπιστεύσαμεν (νν. 15-16d), which meant that in Christ there was no difference between Jewish and gentile believers. In both cases Paul felt himself personally challenged as an apostle. In Paul's reply he brought to expression the meaning of Christ for himself and for the believer. By responding biographically he revealed himself to have been involved as personally in the issue of circumcision in Galatia as he had been in the incident in Antioch. Paul does not find consolation through Christ only in the direct confrontation with death, as in Phil 1:21-26, έμοί γαρ τό ζην Χριστός και τό άποθανείν κέρδος. . . . συνέχομαι δέ έκ των δύο, την έπιθυμίαν έχων είς τό άναλΰσαι καί σύν Χριστώ είναι, πολλω [γάρ] μάλλον κ ρ ε ί σ σ ο ν τό δέ έπιμένειν [έν] τη σαρκί άναγκαιότερον δί ύμάς . . , but also to cope with the harsh realities of his existence in this life, including dangers of death. He expresses his reliance on Christ in such situations frequently throughout his letters. The setting for what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 13:3^4, έπεϊ δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοΰντος Χριστού- δς είς ύμάς ούκ ασθενεί άλλά δυνατεΐ έν ύμίν. καί γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ ασθενείας, άλλά ζη έκ δυνάμεως θεοϋ. καί γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοΰμεν έν αύτφ, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτω έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ είς ύμάς, was the challenge to which he had responded earlier in the letter, chapters 10-12, in particular the challenge to his apostleship, to which he responded in 10:7-8, and his impassioned defense, including the reference to heavenly visions as part of his calling in 12:1-5. Significant for an understanding of the present text, 13:3-4, is that Paul found himself in a situation of having to defend himself against challengers who questioned his credentials as an apostle.

344

Christ in the Letters of Paul

His final appeal in the face of the challenge was to appropriate the reality of Christ's death in weakness and life in the power of God as applicable to himself, και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοϋμεν έν αύτω, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτω έκ δυνάμεως θεοϋ εις ύμας (v. 4c-d). In this way he provided his response to the test whether Christ spoke in him, έπεί δοκιμήν ζητείτε τοΰ έν έμοί λαλοΰντος Χρίστου (v. 3a) because the power with which he appeared among them was coordinate with the power of Christ's resurrection from death, a death which signified Christ's weakness, καί γάρ έσταυρώθη έξ άσθενείας, άλλά ζή έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ (v. 4a-b). Paul formulates Christ's crucifixion as having been from weakness specifically to coordinate with the challenge that he is weak in physical appearance and contemptible of speech, in contrast with the weightiness and heavy-handedness of his letters (2 Cor 10:10). He drew strength from the contrast between Christ's weakness in death but power in life to challenge his opponents, confident that when he was to return there would be no reason for him to show restraint because in himself and in his ministry he represented the weakness which Christ's crucifixion signified, and the power of God manifested in his resurrection. 2 Cor 1:8-11 also expresses trust in the power of the resurrection, but Christ is not mentioned in this passage. Although Paul may not have conceived of trust έπί τω θεω τω έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς (v. 9c) without having Christ's resurrection in his mind, his focus here is theological. His Jewish heritage provided a sufficient basis for his confidence έπί τω θεω τω έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς. It recalls the second petition of the "Eighteen Petition Prayer." The passage makes it clear that Paul could refer to God's power to resurrect the dead without calling Christ's resurrection to mind. Whereas he relied on God's power in the resurrection of Christ as the basis for his confidence in a life with Christ in 13:4cd, και γάρ ήμεΐς άσθενοϋμεν έν αύτω, άλλά ζήσομεν σύν αύτω έκ δυνάμεως θεοΰ, here in 1:8-11 he relies on the power of God to raise the dead without a reference to Christ's resurrection to sustain him in the desperate situation in which he faces (a condemnation to) death, άλλά αύτοϊ έν έαυτοϊς τό άπόκριμα τού θανάτου έσχήκαμεν, ϊνα μή πεποιθότες ώμεν έφ' έαυτοϊς άλλ' έπί τώ θεώ τω έγείροντι τούς νεκρούς (ν. 9). Although 2 Cor 1:8-11 does not reveal what Christ meant for Paul directly, the significance of the passage is that it reveals a broader dimension for the meaning of Christ's resurrection for him by placing it within the framework of his Jewish understanding of God's power to resurrect the dead. There is no need to argue what is well-known, that in Paul's thinking everything in which Christ had been involved had its foundation in God, beginning for him with God's revelation of Christ to him, οτε δέ εύδόκησεν [ό θεός] ό

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

345

άφορίσας με έκ κοιλίας μητρός μου και καλέσας διά της χάριτος αύτοΰ άποκαλύψαι τον υίόν αύτοΰ έν έμοϊ ϊνα εύαγγελίζωμαι αύτόν έν τοις έθνεσιν . . . (Gal 1:15 16b). Christ's death and resurrection were the central events in God's plan of salvation, but, in Paul's understanding, God's activity was not confined to those events. He was able to rely directly on God for his personal well-being, which he distinguished from his activity in the gospel in 2 Cor 2:12-13 in the contrast between success in his proclamation of the gospel, έλθών δέ εις την Τρωάδα εις τό εύαγγέλιον τοΰ Χρίστου, και θύρας μοι άνεωγμένης έν κυρίφ (ν. 12), and his personal troubles, ούκ έσχηκα ανεσιν τω πνεύματί μου τω μη εύρεϊν με Τίτον τόν άδελφόν μου, άλλά άποταξάμενος αύτοΐς έξήλθον εις Μακεδονίαν (ν. 13). For certain more personal concerns Paul appears to have been able to rely on what he knew about God from his Jewish heritage. In contrast with 2 Cor 13:3-5 in which Christ's death and resurrection function as Paul's means of justifying the forcefulness of his approach to the Corinthians, in 4:7-14 Christ's death and resurrection function to justify the weakness of his approach to the Corinthians, to which he refers in verse 10, πάντοτε την νέκρωσιν τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι περιφέροντες, ϊνα και ή ζωή τοΰ Ίησοΰ έν τω σώματι ήμών φανερωθη. Paul does not refer to specific troubles. The afflictions to which he refers concern his apostleship in general, έν παντΐ θλιβόμενοι άλλ' ού στενοχωρούμενοι, άπορούμενοι άλλ' ούκ έξαπορούμενοι, διωκόμενοι άλλ' ούκ έγκαταλειπόμενοι, καταβαλλόμενοι άλλ' ούκ άπολλύμενοι (νν. 8-9). He interprets the antitheses of the tribulations and continued perseverance as coordinate with dying with Christ in order that the life of Christ becomes manifest in his body (v. 10), in his flesh (v. 11). The purpose of Paul's reasoning in all three of these passages was not to interpret the meaning of Christ's death and resurrection (13:3-5, 4:10-11), nor of the power of God to resurrect the dead (1:8-11). In 13:3-5 and 4: ΙΟΙ 1 he interpreted his experience in the proclamation of the gospel by placing it in the context of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, and in 1:8-11, he drew relief for his personal adversities from his trust in God who resurrects the dead. In these three passages, Christ's death and resurrection and God's power to resurrect the dead function as Paul's means of interpreting the meaning of tribulations in his proclamation of the gospel in 13:3-5 and 4:714, and of his encounter with what he understood to have been personal adversities in 1:8-11. In "Part One" of this study it was possible to establish that fundamental to the meaning of Christ with regard to Paul himself was the fact that Christ appeared to him, an event which transformed his life. In the second part it be-

346

Christ in the Letters of Paul

came clear that in translating the meaning of Christ into the lives of believers, Paul could not rely on similar events in the lives of his readers. Nowhere does he assume that Christ appeared to any of his readers. In 1 Cor 2:2, one could get the impression that Paul refers to his earlier preaching, focussing exclusively on Christ's crucifixion as the foundation of his instruction of his readers, ού γάρ έκρινά τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον. The investigation of 1 Cor 1:4-4:21 revealed this not to be the case. Paul's formulation is determined by the function which the reference to Christ's crucifixion has in his reasoning. That the christological reference does not function as the foundation for Paul's instruction of his readers is confirmed by the relative rareness of similar statements after 2:2. Three of these final references to Christ in the passage also function, similar to 2:2, in support of the nature of Paul's preaching, of his apostleship: θεμέλιον γάρ άλλον ουδείς δύναται θεΐναι παρά τόν κείμενον, ος έστιν Ίησοΰς Χριστός (3:11), έάν γάρ μυρίους παιδαγωγούς έχητε έν Χριστώ άλλ' ού πολλούς πατέρας· έν γάρ Χριστώ Ίησοΰ διά τοϋ εύαγγελίου έγώ ύμάς έγέννησα (4:15) and, . . . [Τιμόθεος], δς ύμάς άναμνήσει τάς όδούς μου τάς έν Χριστφ [Ίησοΰ], καθώς πανταχού έν πάση έκκλησία διδάσκω (4:17c-d). The other reference to Christ in 4:10 is also as a function of Paul's reasoning, in this case formulated in terms of wisdom, but incorporating, in addition to wisdom and Christ, the three other themes in the passage as well: The factions, his relationship to his readers, and the nature of his apostleship (his preaching): ήμεΐς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ· ήμεΐς άσθενεΐς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί· ύμεΐς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι. The placement of Paul and Apollo together in the verse functions to dispel the idea of their representing opposed factions. With that Paul hopes, at the same time, to establish a new foundation for his relationship with his readers. In 1 Cor 15:1-19 Paul quotes the tradition of Christ' death and resurrection, . . . οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ των άμαρτιών ήμών κατά τάς γραφάς και οτι έτάφη και οτι έγήγερται τη ήμέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς και οτι ώφθη Κηφά ειτα τοις δώδεκα· κ.τ.λ. (verses 3c-5), not as the foundation for an exposition of his earlier preaching, but for a discussion of the resurrection of the dead in verses 12-19. He does not say what the meaning of Christ is in the passage, but what loss of meaning would result from a denial of the resurrection of the dead, that Christ would then also not have been resurrected, εί δέ άνάστασις νεκρών ούκ έστιν, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται (ν. 13) and, εί γάρ νεκροί ούκ έγείρονται, ούδέ Χριστός έγήγερται (ν. 16), what, in turn, would then be the consequnence for believers, εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, κενόν άρα [και] τό κήρυγμα ήμών, κενή και ή πίστις ύμών- εύρισκόμεθα δέ και ψευδομάρτυρες τοΰ θεού, οτι έμαρτυρήσαμεν κατά τοΰ θεού οτι ήγειρεν τόν

The M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

347

Χριστόν (vv. 14-15 c) and, εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών (ν. 17), and what would result for those who have died, άρα καί oi κοιμηθέντες έν Χριστώ άπώλοντο (ν. 18), and for those who are still alive, εί έν τη ζωη ταύτη έν Χριστώ ήλπικότες έσμέν μόνον, έλεεινότεροι πάντων άνθρώπων έσμέν (ν. 19). 1 Thess 5:1—11 is an example of the way in which Christ functions in Paul's reasoning. It was possible to establish five levels of the meaning of Christ in the passage: At the most fundamental level there is the bare fact of Christ's death, [. . . Ίησοϋ Χρίστου,] τοϋ αποθανόντος (v. 10a). At a second level Paul interprets the meaning of Christ's death as having been ύπέρ ήμών (still v. 10a), restricting its meaning to beneficence for his readers. At a further level of meaning, he specifies prospectively what that beneficence is: ούκ έθετο ημάς ό θεός εις όργήν άλλά είς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας (ν. 9). At the next level he engages his readers more fully in the meaning of Christ's death: Christ died ϊνα ε'ίτε γρηγορώμεν είτε καθεύδωμεν αμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν (ν. 10c-e). Finally, the paraenetic context in which he expresses how he expected his readers to live their lives in Christ in the face of the coming end (vv. 1 - 8 and 11) makes clear that the function for which he intended the christological statements in verses 9 - 1 0 was to provide, retrospectively and prospectively, a christological foundation for his paraenesis in these verses. In 1 Thess 1:6-10, as in 5:1-11, the reference to Christ (v. 10) also functions retrospectively as a foundation, in this case, for Paul's praise of the Thessalonians in verses 6 - 9 . In 2 Cor 5:11-6:10 we have a piece of Pauline christology in the making. Paul does not quote from an existing teaching, but develops his christological thoughts as he moves along. Christ's death, εις ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 14c), functions as a foundation for his statement in verse 14a, ή γάρ άγάπη του Χριστού συνέχει ημάς, but then, in verses 14d-17, he interprets the meaning of that death in its own right by clarifying how it functions. From the christological fact οτι είς ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 14c) he draws the conclusion, άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον (v. 14d). That conclusion is not the only one he wants he wants to draw. Thus he repeats the fact that Christ died, καί ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν (v. 15a), and concludes with a second meaning, ϊ ν α oi ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοίς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι καί έγερθέντι (v. 15bc). From there Paul draws a further conclusion concerning the meaning of Christ's death ύπέρ πάντων, concretely for himself and his readers, ώστε ήμεΐς άπό τοΰ νΰν ούδένα ο'ίδαμεν κατά σάρκα (v. 16a), and then formulates that conclusion in an extreme form, εί καί έγνώκαμεν κατά σάρκα Χριστόν, άλλά νΰν ούκέτι γινώσκομεν (v. 16bc).

348

Christ in the Letters of Paul

In verses 18-20, Paul moves from the christological level of his reasoning in verses 14-17 to a more fundamental theological level. With verse 18a, τά . . . πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ, he places the entire section within the framework of God the Creator. According to verse 18, Christ mediated God's reconciliation, but Paul does not state in what way. From the statement that τά δέ πάντα έκ τοΰ θεοΰ (v. 18a) he moves immediately to God's act of reconciliation, τοΰ καταλλάξαντος ήμάς έαυτω διά Χριστού (v. 18b), which he then interprets more s p e c i f i c a l l y in verse 18c, και δ ό ν τ ο ς ή μ ί ν τ η ν δ ι α κ ο ν ί α ν τ η ς καταλλαγής. The two steps are repeated in verse 19, first at a more general level, ώ ς ο τ ι θ ε ό ς η ν έν Χ ρ ι σ τ ώ κ ό σ μ ο ν κ α τ α λ λ ά σ σ ω ν έ α υ τ ω , μή λογιζόμενος αύτοϊς τά παραπτώματα αύτών (v. 19ab), and then again more specifically, και θέμενος έν ήμΐν τον λόγον της καταλλαγής. (v. 19c). Paul reinforces these statements concretely in his admonition in verse 20, ύπέρ Χρίστου οΰν πρεσβεύομεν ώς τοΰ θεοΰ παρακαλοΰντος δι' ημών- δεόμεθα ύπέρ Χριστοΰ, καταλλάγητε τω θεώ. There is no christological statement in verses 18-20, except that Paul states that God acts through Christ. In verse 21, he returns his focus to Christ, even though it is still God who initiates the action, τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν (ν. 2lab). As in verses 14c and 15a, Paul identifies the meaning of Christ having been made sin with ύπέρ ήμών, and then interprets what the entire statement means for his readers, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεοΰ έν αύτώ (v. 21c), a conclusion which he draws from the christological statement in verse 2lab. In this second reference to the Christ event in 5:21, Paul appears to conclude his reasoning at a still abstract level, but then, in 6:1, he moves to the concrete level of what it means for his readers with a final admonition, συνεργοΰντες δέ και παρακαλοΰμεν μή εις κενόν τήν χάριν τοΰ θεοΰ δέξασθαι ύμάς. The admonition is very general, and does not necessarily follow specifically from 5:21; it could equally well follow from the entire series of christological and theological statements. Typically, Paul expresses the meaning of Christ to underscore Christ as the foundation for what he is already arguing. A partial exception is Gal 3:15, in which in verse 1, οις κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; he appeals to the Galatians' encounter with Christ through the proclamation as the foundation of his reasoning which follows in verses 2-5. In this passage, as in the others, Paul does not draw and explicate the meaning of Christ crucified from a teaching, but enjoins his readers to draw conclusions for their understanding of themselves as believers from their experience of him through the proclamation, in that way clarifying the meaning of Christ for them in connection with the critical issue of circumcision and the Law. As in 1 Cor 4:10, ήμείς μωροί διά Χριστόν, ύμεΐς δέ φρόνιμοι έν Χριστώ· ήμεΐς

T h e M e a n i n g of Christ for the Believer

349

άσθενεΐς, ύμεΐς δέ ισχυροί- ύμεϊς ένδοξοι, ήμεΐς δέ άτιμοι, he challenges his readers in Gal 3:1 with a christological statement, but, unlike in 1 Cor 4:10 where he depended on the immediate impact of his statement, here in Galatians he does not leave it to his readers to draw their own conclusions. In verses 2 - 5 he himself guides them into recognizing what Christ's death means in the situation in which they find themselves. Gal 3:1-5 too is a rare fragment of Pauline christological reasoning, but, unlike 2 Cor 5:14-6:2, it cannot be called a fragment of Pauline christology. Paul's reasoning in this passage is purely functional: It serves as the basis for challenging his readers to decide between works of the Law and the obedience of faith as the source of their reception of the spirit. In Gal 3 : 6 - 1 4 , Christ functions within the framework of Abraham, 'Αβραάμ έπίστευσεν τω θεώ, και έλογίσθη αύτώ εις δικαιοσύνην (Gal 3:6). Paul's purpose in the passage, as in the rest of the chapter, is not an interpretation of the Abraham story. Rather, as had been typical of his procedure in the previous passages, he appeals to the Abraham story as the fundamental argument in his discourse against those who favor circumcision. Significant about the passage is that the first part of Paul's reasoning (vv. 6-12) is entirely Jewish, establishing the situation in which Jews who are under the Law, outside of Christ, find themselves. The second part of the passage is then purely christological, Χριστός ή μας έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου γενόμενος κατάρα ύπέρ ήμών . . , ϊνα εις τά έθνη ή ευλογία τοϋ Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ, ϊνα τήν έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διά της πίστεως (νν. 13-14). Paul introduced the essentially Jewish reasoning about Abraham in verses 6-9, not for its own sake, but as a foundation for the concluding christological statement in verses 13-14. It grounds Christ in Jewish ancestral history. The passage is not an interpretation of the meaning of the fundamental christological statement, Χριστός . . . γενόμενος ύπέρ ήμών κατάρα (v. 13b). The statement functions as a foundation for what he writes in verse 13a, Χριστός ήμας έξηγόρασεν έκ της κατάρας τοΰ νόμου, reinforced by the quotation from Deut 21:23, δτι γέγραπται· έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπΐ ξύλου (v. 13cd). It is a decisive argument for his reasoning, but Christ having become a curse is not Paul's point; it is part of his preparation for his real point. The purpose of his entire reasoning is, ϊνα είς τά έθνη ή εύλογία τοΰ Αβραάμ γένηται έν Χριστφ Ίησοΰ (v. 14ab), and then more concretely, drawing himself and his readers into the argument, ϊνα τήν έπαγγελίαν τοΰ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διά της πίστεως (v. 14cd.) Rom 4:23-5:11 is also set within the framework of Abraham's justification. However, Abraham no longer functions in the passage, except that

350

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Paul's statement in 4:23-24, ούκ έγράφη δέ δι' αύτόν μόνον οτι έλογίσθη αύτώ άλλά και δι' ήμάς, οΐς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοις πιστεύουσιν έπί τον έγείραντα Ίησοΰν τόν κύριον ήμών έκ νεκρών, functions as a link to the preceding story of Abraham's justification in 4:1-22. Nevertheless, it is necessary here too to add a level of the meaning of Christ that is more fundamental than Christ's death, resurrection and parousia, the level of God's love as the foundation of the meaning of Christ, συνίστησιν δέ ιήν έαυτοϋ άγάπην είς ήμάς ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανε (5:8). The passage is christological. According to verse 8a, God established God's love είς ήμάς in Christ's death ύπέρ ήμών (v. 8c). The function of this fundamental theological statement is to ground Christ's death and resurrection in God's action. God is present throughout the passage, but as a repeated refrain, God's actions are performed through Christ. Paul's emphasis on the Holy Spirit in 5:3, ή άγάπη τοΰ θεοΰ έκκέχυται έν ταΐς καρδίαις ήμών διά πνεύματος άγιου τοΰ δοθέντος ήμΐν, does not distract from the centrality of God's actions through Christ. Paul does not interpret the meaning of the confession in 4:25. The confession has no other meaning than to give a christological context for believing in God parallel to Abraham's trust in God. It is significant that when Paul returns to Christ in verses 6 - 8 and 10 he refers only to Christ's death, leaving out of consideration the reference to Christ's resurrection, as in the confession. As his thinking moves forward, he interprets the purpose of the statements about Christ's death, Χριστός . . . ύπέρ άσεβών άπέθανεν (v. 6cd), and Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν (v. 8c), as the foundation on which he can state, δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτού (v. 9b), modifying his earlier statement in verse 1, δικαιωθέντες οΰν έκ πίστεως. In this passage, unlike in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 and Gal 3:l-5e, Paul does not make christological statements and then interprets their meanings. His christological statements in verses 6 and 8 function as the means of moving from justification by faith in 5:1 to justification through the blood of Christ in 5:9. In Rom 6:1-14. the agenda for Paul's reasoning is set by the two rhetorical questions in verses lb, έπιμένωμεν τή άμαρτία . . ; and 2c, πώς έτι ζήσομεν έν [τή άμαρτία]; Even though the christological statements in verses 4cd and 9b-10, play a crucial role in Paul's reasoning, these statements have no independent meanings. Their meanings are determined by the way they function in his reasoning. He begins his reasoning, not by focussing on Christ's death as the liberation from sin, but, in verse 4e, on his resurrection as the foundation of the new life into which he and his readers are called, ούτως και ήμεϊς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν, grounded at a more general level in verse 5a, εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τω όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοΰ,...

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

351

Coordinate with the focus on Christ's resurrection in verses 4c-5a is the absence, after verses 1-2, of any reference to sin, before it appears again in verse 6, where it becomes dominant all the way to the end of Paul's reasoning in the passage. What he is aiming at, also in the first part of his reasoning, is liberation from sin, the issue raised by the rhetorical questions in verses 1-2 but to which he does not refer again before verse 6. Paul does not present Christ's death sacrificially for sin, but more powerfully for his reasoning in the passage, to sin, as a model for that to which he admonishes his readers, that they too should live for God. He formulates the second christological statement specifically with what it means for his readers in mind, as he makes explicit in verse 11, they too have died to sin and live for God, οϋτως καϊ ύμεΐς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεώ έν Χριστώ Ίησοΰ. The function of the two christological statements in Rom 6:1-11 are not paraenetic, as, for example, in 1 Thess 5:1-11, but concern a more theoretical issue, stated in the beginning in the two rhetorical questions in verses 1 and 2, whether remaining in sin would allow God's graciousness to abound, even though Paul formulates the questions concretely as something his readers might consider doing. Unlike in 2 Cor 5:14-6:2 and Rom 4:23-5:11, where Paul interpreted the meaning of Christ at a deeper, theological level by grounding Christ's activity in God, and in Gal 3:6-14, where he interpreted the meaning of Christ within Jewish history by grounding his activity within the story of Abraham's justification, God's trustworthiness is Paul's topic in Rom 8:31-39, and Christ functions as the means of realizing God's purpose. Already the theme in verse 31, εί ό θεός ύπέρ ήμών, τίς καθ ήμών; establishes God as the focus of Paul's reasoning, even though it is through Christ that God executes God's actions. Rom 8:31-39 is not a christological, but a theological passage in which Christ functions as the means through which God achieves God's purpose. Paul begins his reasoning at the concrete level of his readers in verse 31a, τί οΰν έροΰμεν προς ταϋτα; From there he moves directly to what is in this passage the fundamental level of God, in the protasis of his thematic statement in verse 31b, εί ό θεός . . ; qualifying it immediately in the same part of the verse with ύπέρ ήμών, replying to it with another rhetorical question in the apodosis, τίς καθ ήμών; (v. 31c). He immediately moves chiastically back to the fundamental level of God in verse 32ab to a positive, christological reinforcement of God's trustworthiness, ος γε τοΰ ιδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο, άλλά . . . παρέδωκεν αύτόν, qualifying his statement as part of the same verse again with ύπέρ ήμών πάντων, in that way giving specific meaning to the preceding very general ύπέρ ήμών of verse 3 lb.

352

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Unlike in the many christological texts in which Paul's statements about Christ function as foundations for his reasoning on a variety of issues, his statement about Christ's death functions here as an expression of God's trustworthiness.

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

353

Appendix Texts on the Meaning of Christ's Crucifixion, Resurrection and Parousia 1 Thess 1:10, άναμένειν τόν υίόν αϋτοϋ έκ των ούρανών, öv ήγειρεν έκ [των] νεκρών, Ίησοΰν τόν ρυόμενον ημάς έκ της όργής της έρχομένης. 1 Thess 5 : 9 - 1 0 , ο τ ι ούκ έ θ ε τ ο ή μας ό θ ε ό ς εις ό ρ γ ή ν ά λ λ ά εις περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διά τοΰ κυρίου ήμών'Ιησοΰ Χρίστου τοΰ αποθανόντος ύπέρ ημών, ϊνα εϊτε γρηγορώμεν εϊτε καθεύδωμεν άμα σύν αύτώ ζήσωμεν. 1 Cor 2:2, ού γάρ έκρινα τι είδέναι έν ύμΐν εί μή Ίησοΰν Χριστόν και τοΰτον έσταυρωμένον. 1 Cor 15:3-4, παρέδωκα γάρ ύμΐν έν πρώτοις, δ και παρέλαβον, οτι Χριστός άπέθανεν ύπέρ τών αμαρτιών ήμών κατά τάς γραφάς και οτι έτάφη και οτι έγήγερται τη ήμέρα τη τρίτη κατά τάς γραφάς. 1 Cor 15:17, εί δέ Χριστός ούκ έγήγερται, ματαία ή πίστις ύμών, έτι έστέ έν ταΐς άμαρτίαις ύμών. 1 Cor 15:20-22, νυνϊ δέ Χριστός έγήγερται έκ νεκρών απαρχή τών κ ε κ ο ι μ η μ έ ν ω ν . έπειδή γάρ δι' ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ θάνατος, καί δι' ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο υ άνάστασις νεκρών, ώσπερ γάρ έν τω 'Αδάμ πάντες άποθνήσκουσιν, οϋτως και έν τω Χριστώ πάντες ζφοποιηθήσονται. 2 Cor 5:14c—15, εις ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν, άρα οί πάντες άπέθανον· και ύπέρ πάντων άπέθανεν, ϊνα οί ζώντες μηκέτι έαυτοΐς ζώσιν άλλά τω ύπέρ αύτών άποθανόντι καί έγερθέντι. 2 Cor 5:17, ώστε εϊ τις έν Χριστώ, καινή κτίσις- τά άρχαία παρήλθεν, ιδού γέγονεν καινά. 2 Cor 5:21, τόν μή γνόντα άμαρτίαν ύπέρ ήμών άμαρτίαν έποίησεν, ϊνα ήμεΐς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη θεού έν αύτώ. Gal 3:1, ω άνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ύμάς έβάσκανεν, οΐς κατ' οφθαλμούς Ίησοΰς Χριστός προεγράφη έσταυρωμένος; Gal 3:13, Χ ρ ι σ τ ό ς ή μας έ ξ η γ ό ρ α σ ε ν έκ της κ α τ ά ρ α ς τοΰ ν ό μ ο υ γενόμενος ύπέρ ή μ ώ ν κατάρα, οτι γέγραπται, έπικατάρατος πάς ό κρεμάμενος έπί ξύλου. Rom 4:25, [Ιησούς ό κύριος ήμών], δς παρεδόθη διά τά παραπτώματα ήμών καί ήγέρθη διά τήν δικαίωσιν ήμών. Rom 5:6-8, έτι γάρ Χριστός όντων ήμών άσθενών έτι κατά καιρόν ύπέρ άσεβών άπέθανεν. . . . συνίστησιν δέ τήν έαυτού άγάπην εις ημάς ό θεός, οτι έτι άμαρτωλών όντων ήμών Χριστός ύπέρ ήμών άπέθανεν. Rom 5:9-10, πολλω ούν μάλλον δικαιωθέντες νΰν έν τω αϊματι αύτοΰ σωθησόμεθα δι' αύτοΰ άπό της όργής. εί γάρ εχθροί δντες κατηλλάγημεν τω θεώ διά τοΰ θανάτου τοΰ υίοΰ αύτοΰ, πολλω μάλλον καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα έν τή ζωή αύτοΰ

354

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Rom 6:3-11, ή αγνοείτε οτι, οσοι έβαπτίσθημεν είς Χριστόν Ίησοΰν, εις τ ό ν θ ά ν α τ ο ν α ύ τ ο ΰ έ β α π τ ί σ θ η μ ε ν ; σ υ ν ε τ ά φ η μ ε ν ο ύ ν α ύ τ φ διά τοΰ βαπτίσματος είς τόν θάνατον, ϊνα ώσπερ ήγέρθη Χριστός έκ νεκρών διά της δόξης τοϋ πατρός, οϋτως και ήμεϊς έν καινότητι ζωής περιπατήσωμεν. εί γάρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τ φ όμοιώματι τοΰ θανάτου αύτοΰ, άλλά καί της άναστάσεως έσόμεθα· τοΰτο γινώσκοντες οτι ό παλαιός ήμών άνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ϊνα καταργηθη τό σώμα της άμαρτίας, τοΰ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ήμάς τη άμαρτία- ό γάρ άποθανών δεδικαίωται άπό της άμαρτίας. εί δέ άπεθάνομεν σύν Χριστώ, πιστεύομεν οτι καί συζήσομεν αύτφ, είδότες οτι Χριστός έγερθείς έκ νεκρών ούκέτι άποθνήσκει, θάνατος αύτοΰ ούκέτι κυριεύει, ö γάρ άπέθανεν, τή άμαρτία άπέθανεν έφάπαξ· ö δέ ζή, ζή τφ θεφ. οϋτως και ύμεϊς λογίζεσθε έαυτούς [είναι] νεκρούς μέν τη άμαρτία ζώντας δέ τω θεφ έν Χριστφ'Ιησοΰ. Rom 8:32, ος γε τοΰ ίδίου υίοΰ ούκ έφείσατο άλλά ύπέρ ήμών πάντων παρέδωκεν αύτόν, πώς ούχί καί σύν αύτφ τά πάντα ήμΐν χαρίσεται; Rom 14:9, είς τοΰτο γάρ Χριστός άπέθανεν καί έζησεν, ϊνα καί νεκρών καί ζώντων κυριεύση.

355

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

Works Cited D. Abernathy, "Paul's Thorn in the Flesh: A Messenger of Satan?" Neot 35(1-2) (2001) 69-79. P. J. Achtemeier, Romans (IBC; Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1985). P. Althaus, Der Brief an die Galater (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). P. Bachmann, Der erste Brief des Paulus

an die Korinther

(KNT; Leipzig: A.

Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Werner Scholl, 1910). P. Bachmann, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther

(KNT; Leipzig: A.

Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Werner Scholl, 1918). C. K. Barrett, A Commentary

on the Epistle to the Romans

(HNTC; New York,

Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, 1957). C. K. Barrett, A Commentary

on the Epistle

to the Romans

(BNTC; New York,

Evanston, and L o n d o n / P e a b o d y , M a s s P e a b o d y , Mass.: Harper & Row/Hendrickson, 1973, reprint 1991). C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians

(BNTC; Peabody, Massachusetts:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1968). C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians

(BNTC; Peabody, Massachu-

setts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1973). K. Barth, Die Auferstehung

der Toten. Eine akademische

Vorlesung über 1, Kor. 15

(Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1924, 4. Auflage 1953). K. Barth, Erklärung des Philipperbriefs K. Barth, Der Römerbrief

(Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1947).

(Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1918; 2nd ed.

1921; 8th repr. 1947). W. A. Beardslee, First Corinthians.

A Commentary for Roday (St. Louis, Missouri:

Chalice Press, 1994). E. Best, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (CBC; Cambridge: University Press, 1967). H. D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary

on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia

(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). H. W. Beyer, Neu bearbeitet von Paul Althaus, Der Brief an die Galater

(NTD;

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). H. Boers, "A Context for Interpreting Paul," Texts and Contexts: Biblical

Texts in

Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essay in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. Τ. Fornberg, Helholm; Oslo-Copenhagen-Stockholm-Boston: Scandinavian University Press, 1995)429-53. H. Boers, The Justification

of the Gentiles: Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Ro-

mans (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994). H. Boers, "Paul and Justification Through the Law."

356

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Η. Boers, "Αγάπη and Χάρις in Paul's Thought," CBQ 59 (1997) 693-713. P. Bonnard, L 'Epitre de saint Paul aux Galates (CNT; Neuchatel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1953). P. B o n n a r d , L 'Epitre

de Saint Paul aux Philippiens

(CNT; N e u c h a t e l - P a r i s :

Delachaux & Niestle, 1950). W. Bousset, Der Brief an die Galater (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt; Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1917). W. Bousset, Der erste Brief an die Korinther

(Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments

neu übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1917). W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens Christentums

von den Anfängen

des

bis Irenaeus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913; 5th ed.

1965). W. Bousset, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übersetzt und f ü r die Gegenwart erklärt; Göttingen: V a n d e n h o e c k & Ruprecht, 1917). R. Bultmann, "Glossen im Römerbrief," TLZ 72 (1947) 197-202. R. Bultmann, "Römer 7 und die Anthropologie des Paulus," Imago Dei. Beiträge theologischen

Anthropologie.

29. Juni 1932 dargebracht

Gustav Krüger zum ziebzigsten

Geburtstage

zur am

(Glessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1932) 52-62.

R. Bultmann, "Römer 7 und die Anthropologie des Paulus," Libelli CXVIII; Der alte und der neue Mensch in der Theologie des Paulus (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964) 28-40. R. Bultmann, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther

(KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1976). E. D. W. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920). R. F. Collins, First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999). H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969). C. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary

on the Epistle to the

Romans

(ICC; Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1975). J. Denney, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (The Expositer's Bible; New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1894). M. Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher

I II, An die Philipper

(Handbuch zum Neuen

Testament; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1937). C. H. Dodd, The Epistle

of Paul to the Romans

Stouphton, 1932, reprint 1947).

( M N T C ; London: Hodder &

357

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle

to the Galatians

(BNTC; Peabody, Massachusetts:

Hendrikson, 1995). J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988). J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988). J. R. Edwards, Romans (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992). J. E. Frame, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians

(The International Critical

Commentary; Edinburgh: Τ. & T. Clark, 1912, second impression 1946). G. Friedrich, Der Brief an die Philipper (NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). Ε. Fuchs, "Die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus," Zur Frage nach dem

historischen

Jesus (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1960) 143-67. E. Gaugier, Der Römerbrief

(Prophezei. Schweitzerisches B i b e l w e r k f ü r die

Gemeinde; Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1945-63). F. W. Grosheide, Paulus'

eerste Brief aan de Kerk te Korinthe

(Körte Verklaring;

Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1933). W. Harnisch, Eschatologische von 1 Thesslonicher

Existenz. Ein exegetische

4,15-5,11

Beitrag zum

Sachanliegen

(Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des

Alten und Neuen Testaments; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). G. Haufe, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher

(Theologischer Hand-

kommentar zum Neuen Testament; Leipzig: Evangelishe Verlagsanstalt, 1990). R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ. An Investigation of Galatians 3:1-4:11

of the Narrative

Substructure

(SBLDS; Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1983).

G. Heinzelmann, Das Neue Testament Deutsch (1935). J. Hering, La Premiere epitre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT; Neuchatel-Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1949). J. Hering, La Seconde epitre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens

(CNT; Neuchatel-Paris:

Delachaux & Niestle, 1958). T. Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher

(Evangelisch-Katholischer Kom-

mentar zum Neuen Testament; Zürich, Einsiedeln, Köln - Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger Verlag - Neukirchener Verlag, 1986). O. Holtzmann, Berakot

(Gebete) Text, Übersetzung

und Erklärung

(Die Mischna.

Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung; Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1912). R. A. Humphries, "Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in 1 Corinthians l-4"Berkeley: San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1979). L. T. Johnson, Reading Romans. A Literary and Theological the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1997).

Commentary

(Reading

358

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Α. Jülicher, Der Brief an die Römer (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments neu übetsetzt un für die Gegenwart erklärt; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917). E. Käsemann, An die Römer (HNT 8a; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1973; 2nd ed. 1974). E. Käsemann, Die Legitimität des Apostels. Eine Untersuchung zu II Korinther

10-13

(Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Reihe Libelli; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956). J. Kremer, Der erste Brief an die Korinther

(RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet,

1997). T. de Kruijf, De Brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen. (Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1986). O. Kuss, Der Römerbrief {RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1959). O. Kuß, Die Briefe an die Römer, Korinther und Galater (NT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1940). W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und das Bild des Menschen

im Neuen Testament

(TBü;

München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1974). W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus (Leipzig: J. G. Hinrichsche Buchhandlung, 1929). F.-J. Leenhardt, L'Epitre

de Saint Paul aux Romains

(CNT; Neuchatel-Paris:

Delachaux & Niestie, 1957). H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English

Lexicon

(Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1968). H. Lietzmann, An die Galater (HNT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1971). H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I - II (HNT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1907; 4th ed. 1949). H. Lietzmann, An die Römer (HNT; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1906; 2nd ed. 1913; 4th ed. 1933; 5th ed. 1971). J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (J. B. Lightfoot's Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publisheres, 1993). J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians

and Philemon (Peabody, Massa-

chusetts: Hendrickson, 1881). Ε. Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Philipper,

an die Kolloser und an Philemon

(KEK;

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917). R. N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1990). W. Luecken, "Der Brief an die Philipper," Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments

neu

übersetzt und für die Gegenwart erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1971) 383^402.

359

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

D. Liihrmann, Der Brief an die Galater

(Zürcher Bibelkommentare N T 7; Zürich:

Theologischer Verlag, 1978). G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography.

Toward a New Understanding

(SBLDS; Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1985). W. Marxsen, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher

(Zürcher Bibelkommentare;

Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979). W. M a r x s e n , Der erste Brief

an die Thessaloniker

(Zürcher B i b e l k o m m e n t a r e ;

Zürich: Theologische Verlag, 1979). C. Masson, Les deux epitres

de saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens

(Commentaire du

nouvoux testament; Neuchatel, Paris: Delachaux & Niestle, 1957). W. M i c h a e l i s , Der Brief

des Paulus

an die Philipper

( T H K N T ; L e i p z i g : A.

Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung D. Werner Scholl, 1935). Ο. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer

(KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1955, 3rd ed. 1963). F. M ü l l e r , " Z w e i M a r g i n a l i e n im B r i e f d e s P a u l u s an d i e R ö m e r , " ZNW

40

(1941)249-54. P.-G. Müller, Der Erste und Zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher

(Regensburger Neues

Testament; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2001). K.-Y. Na, "The Meaning of Christ in Paul. A Reading of Galatians 1.11-2.21 in the Light of W i l h e l m D i l t h e y ' s Lebensphilosophie"Atlanta:

E m o r y University,

2001). A. Nygren, Der Römerbrief

{Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951).

A. Oepke, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (THKNT; Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1937). A. O e p k e , Die Briefe

an die Thessaloniker

(NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1963). P. v. O s t e n - S a c k e n , Römer

8 als Beispiel

paulinischer

Soteriologie

(FRLANT;

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). H. P a u l s e n , Überlieferung

und Auslegung

in Römer

8 (WMANT; Neukirchen:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1974). A. Plummer, The Second

Epistle

of St. Paul to the Corinthians

(ICC; N e w York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915). C. Potok, The Chosen (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1967, renewed 1995). C. Potok, The Gift ofAsher

Lev (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1990).

C. Potok, My Name is Asher Lev (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1972). C. Potok, The Promise (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1969, renewed 1997).

360

Christ in the Letters of Paul

Η. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976). A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911). C. J. Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth (Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1998). K. Romaniuk, L 'amour du pere et du fils dans la soteriologie

de saint Paul (Rome:

Pontificio Institute Biblico, 1961). E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison

of Patterns of Religion

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977). W. Sandy and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1899). A. Schlatter, Der Brief an die Römer (Schlatters Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1908; 4th ed. 1928; reprint 1948). A. Schlatter, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Kolloser und Philemon

(Schlatter's

Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1908; 4th ed. 1928, reprint 1949). A. Schlatter, Die Briefe

and die Thessaloniker,

Philipper,

Timotheus

und

Titus

(Schlatters Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1908; 4th ed. 1928; 1949). A. Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit:

Ein Kommentar

zum Römerbrief

(Stuttgart: Cal-

wer Verlag, 1935; 2nd. ed 1952, 3rd ed. 1959; 4th ed 1965). A. Schlatter, Die Korintherbriefe

ausgelegt für Bibelleser

(Schlatters Erläuterungen

zum Neuen Testament; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 3. Auflage 1920, reprint 1950). A. Schlatter, Paulus der Bote Jesu. Eine Deutung

seiner Briefe (Stuttgart: Calwer

Verlag, 1934; 2nd ed. 1956; 1962). H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949, 4th Schlier edition, 1965). Η. W. Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1872). A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate

and Apostasy

of Saul the

Pharisee

(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990). J. Sickenberger, Die Briefe

des Heiligen

Paulus

an die Korinther

und

Römer

(HSchrNT; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1932). A. Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A. D. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949). E. Stauffer, "έγώ," TWNT II (G. Kittel; Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1935) 341-60. S. K. Stowers, A Rereading Press, 1994).

of Romans

(New Haven & London: Yale University

361

The Meaning of Christ for the Believer

S. K. Stowers, "Romans 7,7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποΰα)," Paul in His Hellenistic

Context

(T. Engberg-Pederson; Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

1995) 180-202. J. Theis, Paulus als Weiheitslehrer.

Der Gekreuzigte

und die Weisheit Gottes in 1 Kor

1-4 (Biblishe Untersuchungen; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1991). M. R. Vincent, The Epistles to the Philippians

and Philemon

(ICC; Edinburgh: T. &

T. Clark, 1950). E. von Dobschütz, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe

(Kritisch-exegetisher Kommentar über

das eue Testament; Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1909). H.-D. Wendland, Die Briefe

an die Korinther

(NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1963). U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer

(Rom 12-16)

(EKKNT; Neukirchen-Vlyn -

Zürich - Köln: N e u k i r c h e n e r Verlag, Einsiedeln, Benzinger, 1982, 2 n d ed. 1989). U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer

(Rom 6-11)

( E K K N T ; Neukirchen-Vlyn

-

Zürich - Köln: N e u k i r c h e n e r Verlag, Einsiedeln, Benzinger, 1980, 2 n d ed. 1987). S. K. Williams, "The Hearing of Faith: Α Κ Ο Η ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ In Galatians 3," NTS 35 (January 1989) 82-93. H. Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief

(KEK; Göttingen, 1924).

C. Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther

(ThHKNT; Leipzig: Evangelis-

che Verlagsanstalt, 1996). T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (KNT; Leibzig: A. Deichert'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910).