Let God Be True: Perspectives on Romans 3 9781463245009

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Contributors
Introduction
PART I: EXEGETICAL STUDIES
Chapter 1. The Central Role of Romans 3:4 in Romans 1:18–3:20
Chapter 2. God’s Faithfulness in an Unfaithful World: An Analysis of Romans 3:1-4
Chapter 3. Who is Talking in Romans 3:1-9? Some New and Old Perspectives
Chapter 4. Doubly True: The Two Sides of God’s Faithfulness in the Remnant Concept (Romans 3:9–11)
Chapter 5. The Song of Sins: The Chain of References to Human Body Parts in Romans 3:13–18 as a Possible Allusion to the Descriptive Songs of the Canticum canticorum
Chapter 6. The Translation of Romans 3:21 in the NBV21
Chapter 7. Shameful Mortality and the Problem of Death in Romans 3:23
Chapter 8. Jewish Roots of Paul’s and Matthew’s Teachings on the Law: A Close Reading of Romans 3:23 and Matthew 9:9–13
Chapter 9. Law and Faith as Two Eschatological Markers of Identity in Romans 3:19–31
Chapter 10. “God is Not Unjust”: A Synopsis of the Use of the Phrase in the LXX
Chapter 11. “God is Not Unjust”: An Intertextual Study of Deuteronomy 32:4, Romans 3:5 and 9:14, and Hebrews 6:10
PART II: THEMATIC, THEOLOGICAL, AND RECEPTIONHISTORICAL STUDIES
Chapter 12. The Words of God: Perspectives on Romans 3:2 in Light of the Old Testament
Chapter 13. A Synopsis of Galatians and Romans: Its Relevance for the Interpretation of the Synoptic Parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians and between Colossians and Ephesians
Chapter 14. “Or is God the God of Jews Only?” (Rom 3:29a): The Renewal of the Covenant at the Last Supper and the Inclusion of Gentiles
Chapter 15. Circumcision and Baptism? Aphrahat’s Demonstrations as a Window to Jewish Initiation in Persia
Chapter 16. Leading the Righteous: Leadership and Privilege in the Light of Romans 3
Chapter 17. “Let God Be True Though Every One Were a Liar” (Rom 3:4): Speech Ethics in Romans 3
Chapter 18. On Not Knowing the Truth and Being Committed to It
Indices

Citation preview

Let God Be True

Gorgias Biblical Studies

73

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs and edited volumes on the history, theology, redaction and literary criticism of the biblical texts. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the field of Biblical Studies. 

Let God Be True

Perspectives on Romans 3

Edited by

Jacobus Kok Jermo van Nes Jeremy D. Otten

gp 2023

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2023 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܚ‬

1

2023

ISBN 978-1-4632-4499-6

ISSN 1935-6870

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available at the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

Dedicated to Martin Webber on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday

Acknowledgments: This book is aimed at a specialized academic/research audience. Each chapter in the book underwent a double-blind peer review process before publication by subject experts in the field of expertise. Only chapters that a) disseminate original research; and b) make a contribution to the advancement of subject specific knowledge were accepted for publication; c) after having made the necessary changes to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers and editors. Each chapter was submitted unto Turnitin to assure that original research is produced, except where permission has been given to reuse material as clearly stated therein

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Contributors ................................................................ xiii Introduction...........................................................................xvii Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, Jermo van Nes, and Jeremy D. Otten

PART I: EXEGETICAL STUDIES .................................................. 1 Chapter 1. The Central Role of Romans 3:4 in Romans 1:18–3:20 .... 3 Thomas R. Schreiner Chapter 2. God’s Faithfulness in an Unfaithful World: An Analysis of Romans 3:1-4 .......................................................... 21 Jacobus Kok Chapter 3. Who is Talking in Romans 3:1-9? Some New and Old Perspectives ............................................................................ 59 Jermo van Nes Chapter 4. Doubly True: The Two Sides of God’s Faithfulness in the Remnant Concept (Romans 3:9–11)....................... 83 Jeremy D. Otten Chapter 5. The Song of Sins: The Chain of References to Human Body Parts in Romans 3:13–18 as a Possible Allusion to the Descriptive Songs of the Canticum canticorum ...................105 Boris Paschke

ix

x

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

Chapter 6. The Translation of Romans 3:21 in the NBV21..... 121 Mark Paridaens Chapter 7. Shameful Mortality and the Problem of Death in Romans 3:23 .......................................................................147 Myriam Klinker-De Klerck Chapter 8. Jewish Roots of Paul’s and Matthew’s Teachings on the Law: A Close Reading of Romans 3:23 and Matthew 9:9–13 ........................................................................... 165 Francois P. Viljoen Chapter 9. Law and Faith as Two Eschatological Markers of Identity in Romans 3:19–31........................................... 185 Philip La G. Du Toit Chapter 10. “God is Not Unjust”: A Synopsis of the Use of the Phrase in the LXX .......................................................... 207 Albert J. Coetsee Chapter 11. “God is Not Unjust”: An Intertextual Study of Deuteronomy 32:4, Romans 3:5 and 9:14, and Hebrews 6:10 .............................................................................. 231 Albert J. Coetsee

PART II: THEMATIC, THEOLOGICAL, AND RECEPTIONHISTORICAL STUDIES .................................................... 251 Chapter 12. The Words of God: Perspectives on Romans 3:2 in Light of the Old Testament ............................................ 253 Mart-Jan Paul Chapter 13. A Synopsis of Galatians and Romans: Its Relevance for the Interpretation of the Synoptic Parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians and between Colossians and Ephesians .............................................................................271 Armin D. Baum

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi

Chapter 14. “Or is God the God of Jews Only?” (Rom 3:29a): The Renewal of the Covenant at the Last Supper and the Inclusion of Gentiles ...................................................... 303 Rob van Houwelingen Chapter 15. Circumcision and Baptism? Aphrahat’s Demonstrations as a Window to Jewish Initiation in Persia ............ 323 Nathan Witkamp Chapter 16. Leading the Righteous: Leadership and Privilege in the Light of Romans 3 ............................................... 347 Jack Barentsen Chapter 17. “Let God Be True Though Every One Were a Liar” (Rom 3:4): Speech Ethics in Romans 3 .......................... 373 Christoph Stenschke Chapter 18. On Not Knowing the Truth and Being Committed to It ............................................................................... 389 Ronald T. Michener Indices .................................................................................. 407

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Prof. Dr. Jack Barentsen is Professor of Practical Theology at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. He is also a Research Associate at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Prof. Dr. Armin D. Baum is Professor of New Testament at the Freie Theologische Hochschule, Giessen, Germany. He is also Guest Professor of New Testament at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. Prof. Dr. Albert J. Coetsee is Associate Professor of Old Testament at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Prof. Dr. Philip La G. Du Toit is Associate Professor of New Testament at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Dr. Myriam Klinker-De Klerck is Associate Professor of New Testament at the Theologische Universiteit Kampen | Utrecht, The Netherlands. She is also an Extraordinary Researcher at NorthWest University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Prof. Dr. Dr. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok is Professor of New Testament at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. He is also a NRF B3 rated Professor Extraordinarius in the department of New Testament and Related Literature at the University of Pretoria, South Africa.

xiii

xiv

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

Prof. Dr. Ronald T. Michener is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. Dr. Jeremy D. Otten is Guest Assistant Professor of New Testament at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. He is also a Research Associate in the department of New Testament and Related Literature at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Dr. Mark Paridaens is External Lecturer of New Testament Greek at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. He is also a Research Associate in the department of New Testament and Related Literature at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Dr. Boris Paschke is Guest Associate Professor of New Testament at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. He is also a Research Associate in the department of New Testament and Related Literature at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Prof. Dr. Mart-Jan Paul is Emeritus Senior Teacher of Old Testament at the Christelijke Hogeschool Ede, The Netherlands. He is also Guest Professor of Old Testament at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. Prof. Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, USA. Prof. Dr. Christoph Stenschke teaches New Testament at the Biblisch-Theologische Akademie Forum Wiedenest, Germany. He is also Extraordinary Professor in the department of Biblical and Ancient Studies, College of Human Sciences, University of South Africa. Prof. Dr. Rob van Houwelingen is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at the Theologische Universiteit Kampen | Utrecht, The Netherlands.

CONTRIBUTORS

xv

Dr. Jermo van Nes is Assistant Professor of New Testament at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium. He is also a Research Associate in the department of New Testament and Related Literature at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. Prof. Dr. Dr. Francois P. Viljoen is Professor of New Testament at North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. Dr. Nathan Witkamp is Teacher of Systematic Theology and Early Christianity as well as Academic Dean at the Evangelisch College, Zwijndrecht, The Netherlands. He is also Affiliated Researcher in Historical Theology at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium.

INTRODUCTION JACOBUS (KOBUS) KOK, JERMO VAN NES, AND JEREMY D. OTTEN EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN In his discussion on Romans 3, the Swiss theologian Frédéric Godet famously observed that “La marche de ce morceau, l’un des plus difficiles peut-être de l’épître, est celle-ci…” (The structure of this piece, [is] perhaps one of the most difficult of the epistle…).1 American Pauline scholar Thomas Schreiner states even more explicitly that Romans 3:1–8 “is one of the most difficult texts in the whole letter.”2 This chapter has been described as a “bridge,” or “railway junction,” where major themes in the book intersect in a sort of theological traffic jam.3 Or to use a different metaphor, these verses are exegetically stormy waters, where even the most capable interpreters may feel

Frédéric Godet, Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Romains, 2nd ed. (Paris: Sandoz & Thuillier, 1883), 1:302. See also Romano Penna, La lettera di Paolo ai Romani: Guida alla lettura (Bologna: EDB, 2018), 36, who states that “Il testo è molto complesso e composito” (The text is very complex and composite). 2 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 155. 3 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 130. 1

xvii

xviii

JACOBUS KOK, JERMO VAN NES, AND JEREMY OTTEN

at sea.4 In this book, an international group of scholars put their own oars into these choppy waters, shedding new light on this wonderful, if complex, passage of Scripture. The focused approach to this one particular chapter in Romans allows for greater depth of research than is generally possible in commentaries, and the variety of methodological approaches employed shines light from different angles to bring out the numerous facets of these verses. Specialists who write commentaries or do research on Romans, and especially on Romans 3, will find in this book a wealth of information. Likewise, it will be of value to students in advanced exegetical classes and those doing postgraduate research on Romans 3 and related topics. This book is dedicated to our esteemed and beloved colleague Prof. Dr. Martin Webber, who turns 70 in September 2023, when he will also officially retire. In his own life and ministry, Romans 3 has played an important role. Colleagues from around the world have been invited to contribute to this book in his honor.

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

The book is divided into two parts. The first part is written primarily by biblical scholars and the chapters are exegetical in nature. The second part is more thematic in nature, with chapters contributing to our understanding of Romans 3 through methodological, reception-historical, and theological reflection.5 Part One

Part one of the book begins with a chapter by Thomas Schreiner, a leading Pauline scholar, known for his commentaries on Romans. He discusses the central role of Romans 3:4 in the larger context of Romans 1:18–3:20. He argues that the words “every person is a liar” in Romans 3:4 expresses the main problem which Paul wants to address, i.e., that there is in fact a fundamental See Douglas J. Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 187. 5 The overview below contains descriptions from the respective authors, with critical reflection and adaptation as appropriate by the editors. 4

INTRODUCTION

xix

unfaithfulness on the side of all humans, including God’s own people. This is the crisis in which humanity is caught up and stands in stark contrast to the faithfulness of God. Paul presents God as true, and a God who does not renege on his promises. Humans, on the other hand, tend to put their trust in whatever they think will lead to a flourishing life, and this often entails a form of idolatry, because it focusses not on God, but on that which people create to set their hopes on. For Paul, peace and flourishing comes from God, through a focus on the message of the gospel’s salvation in and through Christ (Rom 15:13). In the second chapter, Jacobus Kok conducts a detailed grammatical and syntactical analysis of Romans 3:1–4 within the larger context of Romans. He draws on syntax graphs and detailed grammatical and syntactical analyses of Romans 3:1–4 to critically evaluate one of the latest Dutch translations (NBV21), comparing that with other translations, like ones in Danish and Afrikaans. The contribution to scholarship lies especially in the detailed exegesis he conducts and the critical reading of recent Dutch, Danish, and Afrikaans translations. Next, Jermo van Nes (ch. 3) turns his attention to Romans 3:1–9. Of the numerous interpretative difficulties scholars face, one of the most complex is the question of whether, or two what extent, Paul’s words in this passage are dialogical. If they are a diatribe, which words belong to the apostle, and which to the (supposed) interlocutor, whether Jew or Gentile? Van Nes investigates Patristic commentators on this passage, noting that ancient and modern perspectives on this question are far apart. In chapter four, Jeremy Otten, who in his own research in the past specialized in the remnant concept in the NT, discusses this concept in the context of Romans 3. He argues that “the apostle’s appeal to remnant theology serves to create a salvationhistorical interdependence between Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus within which neither group can despise the other.” Among the many difficulties modern commentators face in interpreting Romans 3:1–8 is the almost paradoxical way in which Paul seems to speak of both the advantage of the Jews as well as the equal culpability of all people, and Otten notes that this complexity is further increased in that Paul here introduces,

xx

JACOBUS KOK, JERMO VAN NES, AND JEREMY OTTEN

but does not fully address, key theological concepts that he will develop later in his epistle. The word “some” (τίνες) in Romans 3:3, surprising in a passage otherwise dominated by broad generalities, is one of several subtle but vital nods towards chapters 9–11, where Paul will develop the remnant theology that is essential for the gospel as he articulates it. Through his remnant theology, Paul shows God to be doubly true: faithful to his character and words of judgment, and faithful to his covenant people and historic promises. In the following chapter (ch. 5), Boris Paschke observes that the chain of OT quotations in Romans 3:13–18 contains six negative references to parts of the human body (i.e., throat, tongue, lips, mouth, feet, eyes). Previous scholarship has understood this feature to be Paul’s way of arguing that the entire human being is affected by sin. Paschke confirms and further develops this interpretation by pointing to the so-called waṣf poems (Beschreibungslieder) of the Song of Songs (LXX Cant 4:1–7; 5:10–16; 6:4–7; and 7:2–10) as a possible and till-now overlooked literary background. With these laudatory waṣfs as its positive counterparts, the passage Romans 3:13–18 might be labelled an anti-waṣf. On the basis of both the similarities and differences between the Canticles’ waṣfs on the one hand and Romans 3:13– 18 on the other hand, various new exegetical insights are proposed with regard to the Pauline text. Turning to Greek linguistis, the classically trained Mark Paridaens (ch. 6) conducts a detailed study on challenges involved in the translation of Romans 3:21, focusing his attention on the most recent Dutch Bible translation, the Nederlandse Bijbelvertaling (NBV21). In this chapter the author looks at the translation of Romans 3:21 in the NBV21. Like its predecessor, the NBV (2004), the NBV21 (2021) aims to be a source-languagefaithful and target-language-oriented translation. Paridaens uses Romans 3:21 as a case study to investigate whether the NBV21 has fulfilled its objectives of providing a more consistent translation, examining the changes made to the translation of this verse. In doing so, much attention is given to the translation of the perfect πεφανέρωται. Though generally favorable to the NBV21’s decisions, he notes points for further improvement,

INTRODUCTION

xxi

particularly related to the rendering of that verb, including better fidelity to the passivum divinum and better lexical consistency with renderings of φανερόω elsewhere in the NT. In chapter 7, Myriam Klinker-De Klerck turns her attention to the interpretation of δόξα in Romans 3:23–24, drawing from an influential 2010 study by Ben Blackwell, in which he argues that “glory” (δόξα) in Romans 3:23 denotes not only elevated honor, but also incorruption. As a consequence, the phrase “lack of glory” refers simultaneously to both shame and mortality. KlinkerDe Klerck corroborates this interpretation by showing how, in Paul’s Umwelt and tradition as well as in his own beliefs, mortality was indeed connected to shame, and by comparing the different perspectives on this connection. She concludes with further reflections on the possible implications of her findings for Paul’s use of δικαιόω (“justify”) in Romans 3:24. Next, Francois Viljoen (ch. 8) applies his specialization on the Law in the NT to a comparative study of Romans 3:23 and Matthew 9:9–13. He argues that neither Paul’s nor Matthew’s teachings on the Law are detached from their Jewish roots. Studies in Jewish literature in their Umwelt show ample evidence that, even before Paul, discourses circulated that clearly acknowledged the fundamental depravity of all humans and their inability to fulfill the law such that they could stand justified before God. This was held to be true for Jews as well as for nonJews. Ultimately, they too believed that one could only appeal to God’s covenantal mercy. Both in Paul and a later NT document like Matthew, it is stated that it is only in Jesus that the mercy and justice of God converge, so that righteousness can only be achieved by putting one’s trust in God’s faithfulness and mercy and in his Son, Jesus. In chapter 9, Philip Du Toit interprets Paul’s references to νόµος (“law”) and πίστις (“faith”) in Romans. The terms are interpreted in light of the eschatological distinction in his letters between the old age under law, sin, and death, and the new age in Christ in which righteousness has been manifested through faith apart from the law. The turn of the ages is especially indicated by the eschatological νῦν (“now”) in 3:21, which not only indicates the new age in Christ, but also marks a definite

xxii

JACOBUS KOK, JERMO VAN NES, AND JEREMY OTTEN

turning point in the rhetorical buildup of Paul’s argument in the letter. The old and new ages are interpreted salvation-historically as well as representing two distinct modes of identity. In the eschatologically old age before Christ, identity was marked off by the works of the law, whereas in the new age in Christ, the criteria for covenant membership have been redrawn in that people now relate to God via faith and the indwelling Spirit. With respect to the New Perspective(s) on Paul, it is argued that the “works of the law” involve both the markers of identity and works to merit a right standing with God, constituting a human element. In contrast, the in-Christ identity is understood as solely being based on divine action in which there is no remaining distinction between different ethnic groups. An eschatological reading of the law and faith in Paul thus helps to better understand the relationship between the various identities that feature in Romans as well as the way in which law and faith are understood in the letter. Next, Albert Coetsee (ch. 10) investigates the occurrence and use of seven passages in the LXX in which a form of the phrase “God is not unjust” appears: Deuteronomy 32:4, 2 Chronicles 19:7, 1 Esdras 4:36, Psalm 91:16, Odes 2:4, Job 8:3, and Zephaniah 3:5. The article investigates the contexts in which this statement arises and asks whether there are any indications that one or more of these seven passages is based on or alludes to any of the other passages. The investigation finds that without exception, the double negative formulation is used to emphasize that God is completely just, with six of the seven passages drawing explicit or implicit contrasts between God and human beings (who are viewed as unjust). He also concludes that, that although indications are not conclusive, Deuteronomy 32:4 has the strongest possibility of having influenced (some of) the other passages. Chapter 11, also written by Albert Coetsee, endeavors to conduct an intertextual study of Deuteronomy 32:4, Romans 3:5 and 9:14, and Hebrews 6:10. He argues that only three passages in the NT explicitly refer to God as not being “unjust” (Rom 3:5; 9:14; and Heb 6:10). He investigates whether these three passages might allude to or echo one of the passages in the LXX that state

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

that “God is not unjust” (cf. Deut 32:4; 2 Chron 19:7; 1 Esdras 4:36; Ps 91:16; Odes 2:4; Job 8:3; and Zeph 3:5), looking particularly at Deuteronomy 32:4, as the OT passage most likely to have influenced the others. The investigation finds that of the seven passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust,” Deuteronomy 32:4 indeed forms the closest parallel with the occurrence and use of the similar phrase in all three NT passages. The echo between these passages and Deuteronomy 32:4, however, is very faint. In each instance, the argument of the NT passage seems to be based on other OT passages. Part Two

The second part of the book deals with broader thematic, theological, and reception-historical studies connected to Romans 3. In the first chapter of this section (ch. 12) Mart-Jan Paul, a specialist in OT studies, takes as a starting point Paul’s statement that the Jews were entrusted with “the very words [λόγια] of God” (Rom 3:2), turning his attention to the several ways God spoke in the OT. The plural λόγια is used four times in the NT (Acts 7:38; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12; and 1 Pet 4:11), and in classical Greek, only the gods can speak a λόγιον. This word is thus much more restricted than the more general word λόγος. After a survey of several methods of God’s revelation in the OT, the chapter examines from several different angles the question of the reliability and accuracy of this revelation. This background information illuminates that for Paul and his contemporaries, including, presumably, his Roman readers, the words of the OT were taken to be both reliable and very authoritative. In a poignant challenge to modern critical assumptions, Armin Baum (ch. 13) examines the effectiveness of methodology commonly used to evaluate Pauline authorship. “A Synopsis of Galatians and Romans” critically revisits the methodological reasons that William Wrede and Leslie Mitton and others have used to argue against the authenticity of certain Pauline letters. He makes a strong case that their criteria, if rigorously applied to Romans and Galatians, would challenge the authorship of even these authentic Pauline letters. Methodological consistency would demand abandoning such unreliable critical instruments.

xxiv

JACOBUS KOK, JERMO VAN NES, AND JEREMY OTTEN

In chapter 14, Rob van Houwelingen investigates the renewal of the covenant according to the Last Supper tradition in the Synoptics and Paul (1 Cor 11:20), arguing that at the Last Supper the renewal of God’s covenant with Israel was announced, with a surprising inclusion of Gentile Christ-believers. Indeed, Jesus constituted a new covenant community, rooted in God’s ancient promises, with the Messiah at the center. The new covenant and its corresponding meal are ultimately intended for all followers of the Lord, not exclusively for “the people of Israel and the people of Judah” (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8). By highlighting the inclusion of non-Jews in the new covenant, Van Houwelingen makes an important contribution to biblical theology. These insights regarding the new covenant are consistent with Paul’s argument in Romans 3:21–31: the righteousness of God is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. God is not only the God of Jews, but also of Gentiles. In chapter 15, Nathan Witkamp, who specializes in early Christian literature, focuses his attention on the validity of Jewish circumcision and how that relates to identity and boundaries. He notes that although the apostle Paul denied the validity of Jewish circumcision as an identity marker for Christians, subsequent history shows that circumcision remained something to reckon with in interreligious contacts between Jews and Christians. This is particularly true for Mesopotamia, where large numbers of Christians and Jews were living side by side. Witkamp investigates the remarkable case of Aphrahat’s (…345) portrayal of baptism as circumcision against the background of the BrockRouwhorst thesis. The latter says that the early Syrian initiation ritual of anointing-baptism was patterned after the Jewish proselyte initiation ritual of circumcision-baptism. This is reminiscent of the association of anointing with circumcision by several Syrian authors, but in Aphrahat’s case, he almost ignores the anointing and instead associates baptism firmly with circumcision. Witkamp argues that the reason for this may be that the Jewish community Aphrahat was engaged with practiced initiation by circumcision only. By adapting his portrayal of baptism to the practice of the religious competitor, he tried to present the Christian ritual as the better alternative to Jewish

INTRODUCTION

xxv

initiation in their mutual pursuance of converts. Overall, this study contributes to our understanding of Christian-Jewish interaction in Mesopotamia and the situation of Aphrahat in particular. In chapter 16, Jack Barentsen, specialist in both NT studies and practical theology, investigates the notion of privilege in Romans 3, a notion which is as highly controversial today as it was in Paul’s day. Following Peter Oakes, Barentsen reads Romans 2 and 3 in light of explicit Jewish and implicit Roman privilege. The contribution of this chapter is its identification of various forms of privilege in Paul’s argument, while simultaneously noting different perspectives on these privileges by readers of differing social status. Paul reshapes both Jewish and Roman privilege in a way that likely generated resistance from privileged readers in the Roman church, arguing that neither Jewish nor Roman privilege offers any advantage in religious or social status. By contrast, Paul’s downgrading of ethnic privilege would be perceived by many believers of lower social status as an invitation for equal participation. Nevertheless, privileges are valuable when seen as a gift to the community. Paul’s argument helps contemporary church leaders to recognize the challenge of privilege for their leadership. It requires careful exegesis of and thorough theological reflection on modern forms of privilege to craft an encompassing religious identity that avoids exceptionalism for those with privilege or leadership status, so that all contributions to the community are honored as divinely orchestrated gifts. Next, Christoph Stenschke (ch. 17) investigates the notable concentration of “sins of the tongue” in Romans 3. Paul in this chapter identifies humans as liars in contrast to the truthful words of God and quotes some drastic descriptions of human speech in the extensive mixed quotation from Scripture to prove that all people indeed are under the dominion of sin as a personified power and are in need of the justification offered in Christ Jesus. References to proper speech in Romans 3 are almost always divine and set in contrast with human speech. Drawing also from speech act theory, Stenschke analyzes Paul’s own speech in his rhetoric with his interlocutor. This chapter focuses on a hitherto

xxvi

JACOBUS KOK, JERMO VAN NES, AND JEREMY OTTEN

neglected aspect of Romans 3 and sets the references to human speech in Romans 3:13–14 in their larger literary and rhetorical context, while drawing some implications for speech in Church and wider society. The final chapter (ch. 18) of the book, appropriately, turns to reflections from the perspective of systematic theology. Ronald Michener, known for his studies on the importance of humility and Christian ethics, turns his attention to the interpretation of Romans 3:4 with that focus in mind, starting with the so-called Socratic paradox, “I know that I know nothing.” This ironic understanding applied to knowing God’s truth is also a sensibility observed in Karl Barth’s theological musings, observed in his reading of Romans 3:4, “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” Drawing from Barth’s landmark, The Epistle to the Romans, along with selections from Church Dogmatics I and II, Michener offers a “Barth-influenced” theological perspective that is pessimistic with respect to humanity’s faithfulness to seek, and ability to know, God’s truth (i.e., “everyone is a liar”). But, typical of Barth’s dialectical engagement, it submits that it is through one’s cognizance of one’s own unfaithfulness and commitment to the inability to know, that, ironically, God’s truth is manifest, most particularly in the person of Jesus Christ. There is no shortage of critical work on Paul, whether modern or ancient, and this is all the more true of the Letter to the Romans, regarded by many as the apostle’s magnum opus. Yet for all the wealth of exegetical and interpretative resources at our fingertips, few commentaries or monographs have the luxury of space to linger over a single chapter of the NT, especially one so meaty and complex as Romans 3, tracing out the various themes that find their juncture in this passage before trucking their theological freight through the rest of the letter and the rest of the NT. The present volume provides such a focused gaze, inviting scholars and students of Paul to explore the topography of this fascinatingly complex chapter alongside international scholars from various disciplines. Most of all, with each foray into the logic and reasoning of Paul’s weighty words, this volume provides further attestation and affirmation of the faithfulness of God and his Word, which is eternally true, be every human being a liar.

INTRODUCTION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

xxvii

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. Godet, F. Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Romains. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Paris: Sandoz & Thuillier, 1883. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Penna, Romano. La lettera di Paolo ai Romani: Guida alla lettura. Bologna: EDB, 2018. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018.

PART I: EXEGETICAL STUDIES

CHAPTER 1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROMANS 3:4 IN ROMANS 1:18–3:20 THOMAS R. SCHREINER SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY I NTRODUCTION

It is a particular delight to write an essay in honor of Martin Webber. We studied together in the PhD program nearly forty years ago now at Fuller Theological Seminary. Marty, of course, was an excellent student, and I cannot count the number of times that he challenged me in conversation with astute and insightful comments on the meaning of a biblical text. I have also always been struck by his integrity, which fits the topic of this essay. I always trusted the word and promise of Marty, knowing that he was a person of honor, a person whose character I could trust. At the same time, Marty was invariably kind and charitable, always manifesting the grace and loveliness of Christ. He was never sarcastic, hurtful, or cruel but always gracious and full of the gentleness of the Spirit. Finally, Marty (along with his delightful wife Marjorie) have a heart for the gospel and the church, and he has spent his life building up the church throughout the world, and in that he is an example to us all. My thesis in this essay is that Romans 3:4 plays a central role in the argument of 1:18–3:20. Let me clarify that I am not 3

4

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

suggesting that Romans 3:4 is the central verse in this segment of the letter. My point is that Romans 3:4 summarizes in a pithy and striking way the central thesis advanced in 1:18–3:20. The plan for this essay is simple. I will first defend my thesis by looking at the larger context of Romans 1:18–3:20, and after sketching in that larger context I will take a closer look at 3:4 itself.

1. THE CONTEXT OF ROMANS 1:18–3:20

The most common reading of Romans 1:18–3:20, one which I subscribe to, is that the thesis of this section of the letter is the universality of sin. The argument can be outlined as follows: God’s wrath against the unrighteous (1:18) The unrighteousness of the Gentiles (1:19–32) The unrighteousness of the Jews (2:1–29) The faithfulness of God and the unrighteousness of the Jews (3:1–8) Conclusion: universal unrighteousness (3:9–20) Obviously, there are many complicated interpretive questions in this segment of the letter that cannot be adjudicated in a brief essay. Still, the section begins with the header in Romans 1:18, declaring God’s wrath against all people (ἀνθρώπων), who suppress the truth.1 First, Paul turns to the Gentiles, declaring that they are without excuse because they have rejected the revelation of God’s lordship that is evident from the perception of the natural world (1:19–20). Their fundamental sin is idolatry (1:21–23), the worship of the creature rather than the creator, expressing itself in the failure to give thanks and praise to God. As a consequence, Douglas A. Campbell (The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009], 588–90) argues that much of 1:18–3:20 does not come from the apostle Paul but a Jewish opponent. This reading, however, has come in for severe criticism and has not persuaded many. See, e.g., Douglas J. Moo, “Review Article: The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, by Douglas A. Campbell,” JETS 53 (2010): 143–50; R. Barry Matlock “Zeal for Paul but Not according to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War on ‘Justification Theory’,” JSNT 34 (2011): 115–49; Kevin W. McFadden, Judgment according to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter, Emerging Scholars (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 37–42. 1

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

5

God hands people over (παρέδωκεν, 1:24, 26; and 28) to sexual sin and to the myriad of sins that characterize human life. Human beings do not only commit sins, but they cheer on others who are sinning, presumably to comfort their consciences for their own moral depravity (1:32). As we come to chapter 2, Paul addresses the Jews. We need to distinguish between the audience and the target; the audience are the believers in Rome, but the target is unbelieving Jews.2 Some interpreters think that the target here includes both Jews and Gentiles, but it seems more likely that we have here a typical synagogue sermon that Paul delivered as he evangelized his Jewish compatriots. Clearly, the sermon is stylized, capturing in compact form what Paul typically proclaimed to his Jewish kinsfolk. After so many years of mission work the sermon is honed, refined, and angled to produce the greatest effect. The Jews are not specifically mentioned in 2:1–16, but the argument is addressed to those who think that they would escape God’s judgment (2:3), presumably because of their covenant protection. Furthermore, the indictment is given to those who would naturally judge and condemn the sins described in 1:18–32 (see 2:1). We should note that idolatry (1:23) and same-sex relations (1:26–27) stand out in chapter one, and these vices were typical of Gentiles in the ancient world. This is not to say that Jews were altogether free from such, but such sins were not publicly embraced or socially acceptable. We have another hint that 2:1– 16 is addressed to Jews since Paul contrasts those who sinned without the law (clearly Gentiles) to those who sinned in the realm of the law (ἐν νόµῳ ἥµαρτον), and the latter describes the Jews (2:12). The argument in 2:1–5 echoes OT texts that were familiar to the Jews, and Paul uses a diatribal style to attack his opponents.3 Apparently, they took security in their covenant status and thus Rightly McFadden, Judgment according to Works in Romans, 57–58. See also Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer: Kapitel 1–5, Historisch-theologische Auslegung (Witten: Brockhaus; Giessen: Brunnen, 2015), 265–66. 3 Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 2

6

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

passed judgment on the Gentiles.4 The Jews are not censured for judging the Gentiles per se. If we read 2:1–3 closely it is evident that the Jews are not condemned for judging. Instead, they stand in the wrong because they practice and do the same things as the Gentiles, even while they condemn the latter. The disobedience of the Jews is enunciated three times in the space of three verses as the reason for their judgment: “for you the one who judges practice the same things” (τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων, v. 1); “those who practice such things” (τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας, v. 2); “the one who judges those who practice such things and yet does them” (ὁ κρίνων τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας καὶ ποιῶν αὐτά, v. 3). The Jews are not judged by God fundamentally for evaluating Gentiles, but for committing the same sins themselves and thinking they would be spared because of their covenant status.5 Paul astonishes and shocks his contemporaries, just as Nathan exposed David’s hypocrisy with the parable of the ewe lamb, declaring that David was the man under God’s condemnation (2 Sam 12:1–7). Similarly, Amos begins with oracles against the nations (Amos 1:3–2:3), and we can imagine Israel cheering him on, but he suddenly turns and indicts Judah (Amos 2:4–5) and Israel (Amos 2:6–16) for their sin. So too, Paul begins with the sin of Gentiles but then turns to the Jews. Israel’s sin in Paul’s day was a hard and resistant heart, a heart that refused to repent and turn in faith to Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins (Rom 2:4–5). Paul alludes to the OT which locates the problem in Israel’s uncircumcised heart since the latter indicates that one truly belongs to the Lord (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4). The standard of judgment is enunciated in Romans 2:6–11. God judges all people everywhere fairly and does not show partiality since he judges all people according to what they have done, and this principle accords with the OT witness (e.g., Prov 24:12; Ps 62:12). Those who do good works will be rewarded with eternal life, but those who practice evil will face God’s wrath and So, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 81– 83; Timo Laato, Paulus und das Judentum: Anthropologische Erwägungen (Åbo: Åbo Akademi Press, 1991), 106–19. 5 Rightly Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 61. 4

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

7

suffer eternal distress. God’s fairness and impartiality continues to be the theme in Romans 2:12–16. Gentiles who sin without the law will perish apart from the law. There is no need to explain why they perish since Paul has already explained in 1:19–32 why Gentiles will face judgment. Along the same lines, Jews who sin without the law will be judged by the law. Justification belongs to those who do what the law commands. The interpretation of Romans 2:14–15 is sharply controverted, and excellent arguments are advanced for seeing a reference to unbelieving Gentiles.6 Space is lacking here to delve into the details, but the argument for seeing a reference to believing Gentiles is more persuasive.7 The paragraph winds up with a reference to the final judgment when the secrets of all will be assessed. One puzzling feature of the text has emerged. It appeared initially that the universality of sin was the theme, but in both 2:6–10 and 2:14–15, some are introduced who are declared to be in the right according to what they have done, calling into question whether the universality of sin is actually the theme. I will return to this matter shortly and will argue that the universality of sin is the fundamental theme and that the declaration that some are righteous according to what they have done does not stand in the way of such a reading. Paul turns specifically to the Jews in Romans 2:17–29.8 In 2:17–20 the covenant advantages of the Jews are rehearsed. They are privileged because they know God’s will since they are E.g., Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 117–18. 7 See especially Ardel B. Caneday, “Judgment, Behavior, and Justification according to Paul’s Gospel in Romans 2,” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 1 (2011): 153–92; Simon Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited,” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49. 8 Against those who claim that the person who claims to be a Jew here is actually a Gentile. So, Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography, ConBNT 40 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 165–231; Rafael Rodríguez, If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 32–36; Matthew Thiessen, “Paul’s Argument against Gentile Circumcision in Romans 2:17–29,” NovT 56 (2014): 373–91, and his Paul and the Gentile Problem (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 54–70. 6

8

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

instructed by the law. The benefits of the Torah, however, are nullified if they violate the law that they treasure and teach (2:21–24). Some have complained that Paul’s indictment of the Jews here is terribly unfair, as if all Jews steal, commit adultery, and rob temples.9 But the indictment of Paul misses the mark since it is the principle of disobedience that constitutes the theme of these verses. Paul is not intending to communicate, when he refers to stealing, adultery, and robbing temples, that such actions characterize all Jews. Instead, he gives colorful examples of hypocrisy, like any good preacher, without suggesting that all are guilty of these particular infractions.10 In Romans 2:25–29 Paul again punctures the covenant confidence of the Jews, saying that the covenant sign of circumcision (cf. Gen 17:9–14; Lev 12:3) does not avail if one transgresses the law. Paul then turns around and pens one of the most astonishing things he ever wrote, saying that the uncircumcised person who keeps the law is counted as circumcised, counted as covenant member.11 It would make no sense to a Jew to say that an uncircumcised person keeps the law since circumcision is part of the law, and thus Paul is clearly operating with a redrawn concept of the law. In any case, the law keeper from the Gentiles will judge the Jews on the last day for their transgression of the law. We return to 2:4–5 where Jews are summoned to soften their hearts and to repent to avoid judgment. What do we make of Gentiles who keep the law and are counted as covenant members? We are brought back to Romans 2:6–10 where those who do what is good will be rewarded with eternal life and to 2:13–15 where those who keep the law will be justified. How does this square with the main theme of 1:18–3:20, See Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law, WUNT 29 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 100; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 125. 10 Rightly Schnabel, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, 322. 11 Some scholars argue that Paul contradicts himself here (Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 106–07; Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 124– 29), but see McFadden (Judgment according to Works in Romans) for a better solution with respect to the role of works in judgment and justification. 9

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

9

which teaches that all are sinners and justification is not by works of the law? This is a massive question, one that is not the main burden of this essay, but the key is found in 2:28–29. There we are told that Gentiles who keep the law are true Jews and circumcised in heart. The keeping of the law is not hypothetical, since the transformation of the Gentiles is attributed to the Spirit instead of the letter. The Spirit-letter contrast is found in two other places in Paul (Rom 7:5–6; 2 Cor 3:6) and has redemptive historical significance. A crucial conclusion can be drawn from what Paul writes about the Gentiles. Their obedience was not autonomous or selfgenerated; it was the work of the Spirit.12 The Spirit is given to those who are justified by faith (see Rom 5:1, 5; and 8:1–4), and thus the main thesis in this section is not contradicted. No one is able to keep the law on their own. Only those who have repented (Rom 2:5) and who have confessed Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9) are given the Spirit, and the Spirit then enables those united to Christ by faith to observe the law. Thus, all people without exception, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners and will face judgment apart from the saving grace of God, apart from the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. But why even mention in the midst of the argument about the sinfulness of the Jews the salvation and transformation of some Gentiles? Does not Paul stray completely from the purpose of the section, which underscores the sinfulness of all? It may seem at first glance as if Paul has lost his way in the argument, but in truth the reference to Gentiles transformed by the Spirit fits nicely. The inclusion of the Gentiles reminds the Jews of their need to repent. Gentile Christians are exhibit A of what all Jews should be and could be if they turned to Christ in faith. The inclusion of the Gentiles then fits with the Pauline hope that the Jews would be spurred to belief through jealousy as they witness Gentile inclusion (Rom 10:19; 11:11, 14). I will return to Romans 3:1–8 in due course since 3:4 is in this section, but in putting together the larger context we need to investigate Romans 3:9–20. Here the main theme of 1:18–3:20 comes to the forefront. Both Jews and Greeks stand equally 12

So also McFadden, Judgment according to Works in Romans, 144–48.

10

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

condemned before God (3:9); they are all under the power and authority of sin (ὑφ’ ἁµαρτίαν). Paul then launches into a catena of OT citations to underscore the universality of sin (3:9–18), emphasizing that all without exception are unrighteous, that none seek God, and that no one is good (3:10–12).13 The sin of human beings is not an abstraction; it manifests itself in speech that is harmful, destructive, poisonous, vicious, and hateful (3:13–14). But human sin does not stop with the mouth but expresses itself in actions (3:15–17) so that murder, mayhem, and misery are the result. The root cause of sin is then expressed. Human beings do not fear God (3:18). This is another way of saying that people do not give thanks or praise to God (1:21) and that God is dishonored by the evil of their lives (2:24). The law speaks to the Jews who are in the realm of the law, and if the covenant people cannot observe the law, then it follows that no one can defend themselves in God’s presence; all are guilty before God (3:19). Justification, being declared right before God, cannot be achieved by the works of the law since the law does not prevent human sin (see Rom 5:20) but uncovers it (3:20).14

2. THE CONTEXT OF ROMANS 3:4

Sketching in the context of Romans 1–3 is necessary for understanding 3:4, since this verse can only be understood in light of the larger context in which it appears. The context is even more significant given the difficulty of Romans 3:1–8, as Paul advances his argument using the convention of the diatribe.15 Dunn Glenn N. Davies (Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1– 4, JSNTSup 39 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 80–104) claims that sin is not universal since in the OT texts cited we have a distinction between the wicked and the righteous, and thus the indictment is confined to the wicked. But Dunn (Romans, 1–8, 147–48, 150–51) rightly responds that the OT texts are wielded in a surprising way. The distinction between the righteous and the wicked collapses, and Paul shows that all are wicked, both Jews and Gentiles. 14 The meaning of works of law in Paul is intensely controversial. For a fuller explanation of the reading defended here, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 177–83. 15 See Stanley K. Stowers, “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Romans 3:1–9,” CBQ 46 (1984): 707–22; Paul J. Achtemeier, “Romans 3:1–8: 13

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

11

explains well why these verses are particularly nettlesome, noting that this section “is something of a bridge between earlier and later parts of the letter, or like a railway junction through which many of the key ideas and themes of the epistle pass.”16 Recognizing the transitional nature of these verses helps us understand how this paragraph cannot be unraveled fully without investigating the rest of the letter so that we need to correlate what Paul says here with what he says elsewhere. At this point I will briefly sketch in my understanding of Romans 3:1–8 and then address 3:4, particularly the phrase that all people are liars. Paul concludes chapter 2 by saying that circumcision and Jewishness are inward rather than outward matters so that Gentile Christians are truly circumcised and true Jews. Chapter 3 opens with the question whether there is any advantage in being a Jew. We expect Paul to say none at all, given how he concluded chapter 2. But we have come to expect surprises from Paul, and thus he astonishes us by saying that the Jews have remarkable benefits. The advantage noted is that the Jews possess God’s oracles (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:2), and some understand this to mean that Israel’s privilege was that they possessed the scriptures. It is probable, however, that Paul means more than this, as he anticipates his further discussion of Israel in chapters 9–11. He likely has in mind the saving promises vouchsafed to Israel, the promise of final salvation.17 This reading seems confirmed by 3:3 where Jewish unfaithfulness does not cancel out God’s faithfulness to his saving promises for Israel. This brings us to Romans 3:4: God remains true to his promises, even if every person is a liar.

Structure and Argument,” in Christ and His Communities: Essays in Honor of Reginald H. Fuller, ed. Arland J. Hultgren and Barbara Hall, Anglican Theological Review Supplements 11 (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1990), 77–87. 16 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 130. 17 John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 105, 258; Michael F. Bird, Romans, Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 94.

12

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

Romans 3:5–8 is particularly difficult, and there is no space here to negotiate all the brambles and briars that make this a hard way to travel.18 We can sum up these verses as follows. Jewish opponents of Paul raised questions about his gospel, protesting that his theology of grace (cf. Rom 5:20–21) fostered the desire to sin among Jews. Paul countered that they misunderstood his gospel since it does not encourage sin, and in any case, grace does not preclude judgment since on the last day God will judge the world. Now we have come to the place where we can linger for a moment on Romans 3:4, the concern of this essay, “Let God be true, but every person is a liar.” The word γινέσθω could be translated as “become,” and this yields an interesting meaning. According to Käsemann, the imperative signifies that God will act in the future and realize his promises—his promises will be actualized in history.19 Theologically, this reading is on target since God will see to it in the future that his promises come to pass. Still, the verb γινέσθω here probably has a stative sense, a meaning that is attested elsewhere for this verb in Paul (e.g., Rom 11:6; 1 Cor 2:3; 10:32; 14:20, 40; 15:58; 16:14; Gal 5:26; Eph 4:32; 5:17). The stress here is not on God fulfilling his promises in the future but on the unchangeability and immutability of his character; he always and ever remains true. That means, of course, that he will fulfill in the future the promises he has made since he is unalterably and unwaveringly faithful, and in that sense the reading proposed here is not far from what Käsemann proposes. Of particular interest in this essay is Paul’s claim “but every person is a liar” (πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης). We find the same sentiment in the OT. Psalm 116:11 (Ps 115:2 LXX) declares that “every person is a liar” (Πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης), zeroing in on the character of human beings. In Romans 3:4 the sentence stands in contrast—we have an adversative δέ here—to the assertion that God is true and reliable, that his word will never be revoked. We

For more detail, see Schreiner, Romans, 161–67. Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 80. 18 19

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

13

have an anticipation of Romans 9:6 where Paul worries about the salvation of his kinsfolk, fellow Jews who have not put their faith in Christ. There Paul says that “the word of God has not failed” or “fallen.” The covenant promises made to the Jewish people will not run aground on the rocks. On the other hand, according to Romans 3:4, every person is a liar. It is striking that every person (πᾶς ἄνθρωπος) is mentioned. After all, the subject in this paragraph is God’s faithfulness to the Jews, whether he will fulfill his covenant promises to the people of Israel. The declaration that every person is a liar demonstrates that the faithlessness (ἀπιστία) of the Jews (Rom 3:3) is not merely a Jewish problem, showing that there is no anti-Semitism here. Instead, it is a human problem since every person (πᾶς ἄνθρωπος) is a liar. Paul weaves back in at this very point the theme that informs all of 1:18–3:20: the universality of human sin. Even though Paul particularly addresses Jewish concerns about election and covenant in Romans 3:1–8, the reference to every person being a liar folds in Paul’s larger concern in the wider context. The phrase “every person” (πᾶς ἄνθρωπος) is the first explicit indication of universality in Romans 1:18–3:20, but it anticipates the grand conclusion of this entire section where both Jews and Gentiles are said to “all be under sin” (πάντας ὑφ’ ἁµαρτίαν εἶναι, 3:10). Then follows the roll call (Rom 3:10–12) with the words “not” and “no” and “not one” hammering home the same truth. In verse 12 we read that “all (πάντες) have become depraved.” Similarly, in the conclusion for all of 1:18–3:20 in 3:19–20, Paul declares that “every (πᾶν) mouth is closed,” that “all” (πᾶς) the world is guilty, that “all flesh” (πᾶσα)—typically rendered in English “no flesh” or “no one”—will not be acquitted before God. All of this confirms that the insertion of the declaration that “every person is a liar”—in the midst of a discussion of the advantages of the Jewish people—captures the thesis and main point of Romans 1:18–3:20. One way an author imprints upon readers the main point or thesis is through repetition, and such repetition stands out in Romans 3. It also seems that Paul builds to this conclusion since the word “all” emerges with particular emphasis in Romans 3:19– 20, though it is interesting to observe in 1:18 that the wrath of

14

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

God is against “all ungodliness” (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν), and perhaps πᾶσαν is intentionally placed in the introductory verse (1:18) of the entire section to preview what is to come. Virtually all commentators agree that 3:21–26 turns the corner in the letter, introducing a new section that features the saving righteousness of God. Still, the saving righteousness of God only makes sense because human beings are faced with the judging righteousness of God, and thus we are not surprised to find in the midst of the proclamation of the salvation and righteousness that are in Christ Jesus that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). In one sense, Romans 3:23 is out of place since it belongs in the previous section where human sin is featured. But in another sense, it provides a most important key for discerning the meaning of Romans 1:18–3:20, since here Paul casts a glance back, summarizing in one sentence the entirety of his argument in these verses. The universality of sin declared in Romans 3:23 confirms for readers that they have captured the major burden of Paul in the long argument that precedes 3:21–26. It is instructive, then, to find the words, πάντες γὰρ ἥµαρτον. The word “all” (πάντες) demonstrates that there is no exception, that both Jews and Gentiles stand guilty before the Lord. We have seen, then, that there is ample contextual justification for the notion that the words, “every person is a liar” captures the central theme of Romans 1:18–3:20. We have seen that Romans 3:4 repristinates the main thesis of 1:18–3:20, emphasizing that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners. Still, the significance of the word “liar” (ψεύστης) should also be investigated. Why does Paul describe all people everywhere as liars?20 The context should be noted, and the antonym stands out by way of contrast. All people are liars, but God is “true” (ἀληθής). God’s reliability is also expressed in Romans 3:3 where God is “faithful” (πίστιν) in contrast to human beings who disbelieve (ἠπίστησάν) and are unfaithful (ἀπιστία). The unbelief of human beings is another way of saying that they are liars, while God’s reliability (ἀληθής) and faithfulness (πίστιν) For other issues pertaining to the interpretation of this verse, see my previous work in this regard, Schreiner, Romans, 160–61. 20

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

15

are featured. Similarly, we see in Romans 3:5 that God is righteous (δικαιοσύνην) and 3:7 reaffirms the idea that God is true (ἀλήθεια) and reliable. Even though Romans 3:5 is not speaking of human beings per se, we can rightly conclude that human beings are “unrighteous” (ἄδικος) in contrast to God. And even though a different form of the word “lie” is used, the notion that human beings are constituted by a lie (ψεύσµατι) crops up in verse 7. Paul repeatedly distinguishes between human beings and God in this paragraph: God is faithful, reliable, righteous, and hence can be trusted. Human beings are unfaithful, liars, and unrighteous, and thus are oriented towards implosion. Returning to Romans 3:4, the word “liar” (ψεύστης) uncovers the deceptiveness, the fraudulence, the deviousness, the guile, and underhandedness that characterizes human beings. Still, there seems to be even more to the term. We saw in Romans 3:1– 8 a contrast between God’s truth, faithfulness, and righteousness and the faithlessness, unrighteousness, and lying character of human beings. We also find, however, a link between Romans 3:4 and the fundamental sin of human beings. In Romans 1:25 human beings “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (µετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει). We notice here the use of the words “truth” (ἀλήθειαν) and “lie” (ψεύδει), matching Romans 3:4 where we find the words ἀληθής and ψεύστης. In Romans 1:21–25 the truth is that God is to be worshiped as God, and the lie is the worship of the creature rather than the creator, the worship of self rather than the glorious God, the giving of praise and honor to the self rather than to the God who gives every good gift. The connection suggests that the word liar (ψεύστης) in Romans 3:4 also points to human idolatry, to human tendency to denigrate God and to exalt the self. The connection of idolatry to lying is not restricted to Paul but is rooted in the OT. Some claim that the OT context was not known to Paul’s readers.21 The matter is complex, deserving more For the status quaestionis on this point, see the edited volume by Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ECL 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 1–6, and for a critical discussion in which Stanley points out that scholars are generally divided on whether the readers of Paul’s letters were familiar with the OT context. Some argue for and 21

16

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

extended treatment than can be provided here. The important work edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, however, supports the claim that the OT was familiar to the readers.22 Thus, there are reasons to think, especially in Romans where the OT is quoted often and where God-fearers were likely a part of the congregations, that the OT was familiar to the readers. Isaiah 44 contains Isaiah’s famous declamation against idolatry and the one worshiping an idol declares, “Isn’t there a lie in my right hand?” (Ψεῦδος ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ µου, Isa 44.20). Idols lie about the basic structure of the universe since they promise deliverance and security when they are completely useless. Jeremiah similarly says about the human crafting of idols, that “they made an image of a lie, and there is no breath in them” (ψευδῆ ἐχώνευσαν, οὐκ ἔστιν πνεῦµα ἐν αὐτοῖς, Jer 10:14 LXX). The utter helplessness of idols is featured. Along the same lines, Jeremiah proclaims that the hills upon which the people worship are deceptive, “the hills were truly a falsehood” (ὄντως εἰς ψεῦδος ἦσαν οἱ βουνοὶ, Jer 3:23 LXX). Isaiah lambasts idolatry in chapter 28 by saying “we have made a lie our hope and we have taken shelter in a lie” (ἐθήκαµεν ψεῦδος τὴν ἐλπίδα ἡµῶν καὶ τῷ ψεύδει σκεπασθησόµεθα, Isa 28:15). The utter vanity of idols is captured by David in Psalm 4:3, “why do you love futility and seek a lie?” (τί ἀγαπᾶτε µαταιότητα καὶ ζητεῖτε ψεῦδος). The OT has a clear tradition linking lying with idolatry since idols never provide what they promise. Human beings turn toward idols for security and significance and then find that their idols are useless. Since lying is tied to idolatry in both Romans 1:25 and in the OT tradition, the claim that every person is a liar (Rom 3:4) does others against this notion. Most scholars agree however, that through the many direct quotations, allusions and echoes, Paul wanted to embed his message within the OT context. 22 See G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), xxiii-xxviii. Only in Romans, there are no less than 60 citations of and allusions to the Old Testament. It is generally recognized that Romans displays the most concentrated example of how Paul draws from the OT compared to the rest of Paul’s letters, as clearly argued by Mark Seifrid, “Romans” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1309–1483.

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

17

not only mean that every person is a sinner and that every person swerves from the truth. Paul also intends to say that every person, among both Jews and Gentiles, fails to worship, praise, and adore the living and true God. No person is naturally God-centered, God-glorifying, and God-exalting; all are narcissistic, selfobsessed, indulging in self-worship. The truth that every person is a liar confirms the scriptural word that God “is justified in your words and will triumph when you judge” (δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε, Rom 3:4). The words are taken from the famous penitential psalm of David (Ps 51:4) when he confessed the sin of murdering Uriah and committing adultery with Bathsheba. It is not my purpose to linger over the psalm in its original context, nor its meaning in Romans. The point that is pertinent is that the psalm is about the venerable David. Even Israel’s greatest king was a liar, one who turned away from the paths of the Lord. Another penitential psalm (Ps 32) about David is introduced in Romans 4:6–8 where a blessing is pronounced over those whose sins are forgiven and covered. In saying that every person is a liar (Rom 3:4) Paul means what he says. No one is righteous, not even one. In and of ourselves we turn to false gods and to evil, to what is destructive false and twisted. Happily, since God is gracious, our lie is not the final word, since there is redemption in Christ Jesus.

3. CONCLUSION

I have argued in this essay that the words “every person is a liar” in Romans 3:4 capture the main thesis of 1:18–3:20 where the sinfulness of both Gentiles and Jews is revealed. The claim that all are liars stands in contrast to God who is true. Human beings are naturally unfaithful and deceptive, but God, by way of contrast, never reneges on his promises. The claim that all are liars also points, both from the OT witness and from the connection to Romans 1:25, to human idolatry. Worshiping and trusting in an idol represents the lie that captures human hearts, as we put our trust in that which we think will cause us to flourish. Paul reminds his readers in Romans that true joy and peace only come through believing (Rom 15:13) in the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ.

18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

THOMAS R. SCHREINER

Achtemeier, Paul J. “Romans 3:1–8: Structure and Argument.” Pages 77–87 in Christ and His Communities: Essays in Honor of Reginald H. Fuller. Edited by Arland J. Hultgren and Barbara Hall. Anglican Theological Review Supplements 11. Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1990. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Bird, Michael F. Romans. Story of God Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Caneday, Ardel B. “Judgment, Behavior, and Justification according to Paul’s Gospel in Romans 2.” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 1 (2011): 153–92. Davies, Glenn N. Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4. JSNTSup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. Gathercole, Simon. “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited.” JSNT 85 (2002): 27–49. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Laato, Timo. Paulus und das Judentum: Anthropologische Erwägungen. Åbo: Åbo Akademi Press, 1991. Matera, Frank J. Romans. Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Matlock, R. Barry. “Zeal for Paul but Not according to Knowledge: Douglas Campbell’s War on ‘Justification Theory’.” JSNT 34 (2011): 115–49. McFadden, Kevin W. Judgment according to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter. Emerging Scholars. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

1. THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ROM. 3:4 IN ROM. 1:18–3:20

19

Moo, Douglas J. “Review Article: The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, by Douglas A. Campbell.” JETS 53 (2010): 143–50. Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Rodríguez, Rafael. If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014. Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer: Kapitel 1– 5. Historisch-theologische Auslegung. Witten: Brockhaus; Giessen: Brunnen, 2015. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Seifrid, Mark. “Romans.” Pages 1309–1483 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Stanley, Christopher D., ed. Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation. ECL 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2012. Stowers, Stanley K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. ———. “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Romans 3:1–9.” CBQ 46 (1984): 707–22. Thiessen, Matthew. “Paul’s Argument against Gentile Circumcision in Romans 2:17–29.” NovT 56 (2014): 373–91. ———. Paul and the Gentile Problem. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography. ConBNT 40. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003.

CHAPTER 2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD: AN ANALYSIS OF ROMANS 3:1-4 JACOBUS KOK EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN I NTRODUCTION

It gives me great pleasure to dedicate this chapter to Martin Webber. In his own life and calling, Romans 3 has played an important role, a chapter on God’s faithfulness against the background of humanity’s unfaithfulness. Martin has always strived for honesty and integrity, and doing things right. Ever since his student days at Fuller and later when he was a teaching assistant (TA) of Ralph P. Martin (early 1980s), he was known by students for his notorious red pen. On one of his birthdays, the students seriously considered presenting him with a large box full of thick red pens. But in the end, they did not—perhaps they saw his heart. Martin is a detailed person: there is one way, and that is the right way. And it is in part for this reason that he is known for his excellence as a copyeditor for numerous projects. His friends and colleagues also know him as someone who would always go the extra mile. So, I dedicate this chapter to Martin, an old and respected friend. 21

22

JACOBUS KOK

The aim of this chapter is to exegetically investigate Romans 3:1–4 and critically evaluate the latest NBV21 Dutch translation. The delimitation to Romans 3:1–4 is a practical choice, simply because of the complexity of the section, and also the limited space this chapter allows. So, I am fully aware that Romans 3:1– 4 is embedded within the larger discourse of Romans 3 on mesolevel, and on macro-level embedded within the larger discourse of Romans. But this section is notoriously complex and warrants a full chapter just on the first four verses. The contribution to scholarship, or the research gap if you wish, is that one seldom finds in commentaries a good linguistic syntax discussion of Romans 3, and this chapter wants to contribute to scholarship by providing a detailed syntax analysis combined with a critical analysis of the latest Dutch NBV21 translation. The structure of the paper will unfold as follows. In the following section we will critically exegete the Greek text of Romans 3:1-4 by (a) positioning the text in its larger textual context, (b) conducting textual criticism, (c) studying the syntax, (d) conducting a detailed exegesis and (e) providing a commentary on the text and then finally (f) reflecting on the way the latest Dutch translation (NBV21) has conducted their translation.

1. THE MACRO-, MESO- AND MICRO-STRUCTURE OF ROMANS

Romans 3 plays an important role in the larger argument Paul wants to make, namely, that humans are inherently wicked and lost, and that not even Jews, as God’s chosen people, have any advantage.1 We agree with most scholars who see Romans 3 as a good example of diatribe and dialogicality, or speech-in-character (ethopoeia).2 Blass, Debrunner, and Rehkopf, in their Grammatik

See Ben Witherington III with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 95, who argue “the net effect is to make very clear how very lost and wicked humankind can be.” This comes down to a rather negative anthropology. 2 In this regard the work of Justin King, Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1-9, BibInt 163 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018) provides an excellent example and summary of previous research including Bultmann, Malherbe, Moo, Porter, and others. See also his summary of 1

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

23

des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, also discuss Romans 3:1 under the heading “Figuren des Gedankes” [figures of thought], and in §496 categorize it as “Die rhetorische Frage,” saying that it has “mannigfache Verwendungsarten… bald dient sie der dialektischen Lebendigkeit und Klarheit, z. B. R3 1 Τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου; mit der Antword πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον.”3 As already noted in the introduction of this volume, the opening section of Romans 3 is notoriously complex, not just because of the many theological themes that are raised or anticipated, but also because of the several difficult grammatical issues that arise.4 For this reason, we need to study this section in significant depth, making sure that the complexity and layeredness of this section is carefully investigated. Any biblical discourse always needs to be put within the larger framework in which it is embedded. Especially with regard to Romans 3, which James Dunn famously called “something of a bridge” between the earlier and later sections or even like a “railway junction” through which Paul develops major ideas in his epistle.5 Most commentators structure Romans 3:1–8 as a unit. Schreiner embeds this pericope within the larger unit of Romans 1:18–3:20 under the heading “God’s righteousness in His Wrath against Sinners.” This part of Romans is subdivided by Schreiner in three parts: A: “The Unrighteousness of the Gentiles (1:18–32)” B: “The Unrighteousness of the Jews (2:1–3:8)” C: “The unrighteousness of All People (3:9–20)”

the different perspectives scholars take in allocating certain questions or answers to Paul or the interlocutor in King, Speech-in-Character, 1–7. 3 Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Friedrich Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 19th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020), 230 §496. 4 See, for instance, Frédéric Godet, Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Romains, 2nd ed. (Paris: Sandoz & Thuillier, 1883), 1:302. Cf. Romano Penna, La lettera di Paolo ai Romani: Guida alla lettura (Bologna: EDB, 2018), 36; and Thomas R. Schreiner (Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018], 177), who remarks that it is “one of the most difficult texts in the whole letter.” 5 See James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 130. Dunn is also referred to by Schreiner, Romans, 178.

24

JACOBUS KOK

Paul’s use, in Romans 3:1 of the verbless clause introduced by the pronoun Τί in combination with the conjunction οὖν (therefore) indicates that this pericope flows forth from the previous discussion and is as such part of a particular discourse structure. For that reason, in our exegesis, we will have to relate to the ideas Paul has already expressed in the previous part, and also combine it to the subsequent discourse. However, this paper is delineated to focus especially on Romans 3:1–4, which forms a subunit within the discourse of Romans 3:1–8 and its larger context (2:1– 3:8). The interpretation of this subunit is done such that it takes cognizance of the larger discourse in which it is situated. We base the text we will study on the Nestle Aland 28th edition which has the following reading: 1 - Τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου ἢ τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτοµῆς; 2 - πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον. πρῶτον µὲν [γὰρ] ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ. 3 - τί γάρ; εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες, µὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει; 4 - µὴ γένοιτο· γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε.

Translation from NIV: What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness?4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.”

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

25

2. TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF ROMANS 3:1–4

First, we will start with the textual criticism and establish the textual basis for the text as we will interact with it. Some manuscripts omit [γὰρ] in 3:2 and generally enjoy a meaningful amount of primary textual evidence for its omission. γὰρ makes the sentence rather clumsy and for that reason it is not strange that many scribes omitted it. An interesting variant occurs in 3:4 with the inclusion of the word ἔστω in 3:4, a reading which is found in G. This reading is most certainly a weaker reading and not the original. It likely represents an effort by a scribe to provide a less ambiguously stative verb (ἔστω) in place of a verb (γινέσθω) that is often dynamic in meaning.6 In Romans 3:4 some manuscripts opt for καθὼς (esp. P46), and some manuscripts opt for καθάπερ, and there is much debate over which of these variants represents the original reading.7 In addition to P46, καθὼς occurs in the Majority Text and in A, D, G. 33, 1739, 1881. We find καθάπερ in ‫א‬, B, Ψ. James Dunn viewed καθάπερ as the superior attestation.8 The observant reader will therefore see that in NA25 καθάπερ is used as Ausgangstext and in NA28 καθὼς is used. In principle, both of these words carry the same meaning, so that the decision bears little influence on the exegetical outcome.9 The Greek text of Romans 3:1–31 can be divided into a smaller unit, namely 3:1–18. Louw places Romans 3:1–4 within the context of Romans 3:1–8. Louw proposes the following semantic discourse analytical framework:10

Schreiner (Romans, 166) argues for a static use of γινέσθω here, thus agreeing in meaning, if not in wording, with the scribe of G. 7 See the discussion in Dunn, Romans, 129. At that time Dunn worked with the NA26. 8 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 129. 9 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 129. 10 I am aware that South African discourse studies as practiced by Louw fell out of fashion and have particular challenges and limitations as well. But I find the following analysis helpful and agree with the argumentative flow of the discourse as proposed by Louw in this specific regard. 6

26

JACOBUS KOK

Figure: Semantic Discourse analysis of Romans 3:1–4 (Ó Louw [adapted by J. Kok])11 As one can see from the graph above, the colas of the pericope (Rom 3:1–18) are clustered in small units that follow the form of questions and answers, characteristic of the genre of diatribe, which are posed to or on behalf of the imaginary interlocutor. According to Louw, the first four colas are part of a unit. Colas 5– 10 follow within the framework of unit B and contain the same structure, namely of two questions which are asked and, in the case that an answer is received, a responding reaction or answer is given.

3. EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 3:1 3.1. Syntax of Romans 3:112

The syntax graph of Romans 3:1 could be represented13 as follows:

Graph adapted from Johannes P. Louw, A Semantic Discourse Analysis of Romans, 2 vols. (Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 1987), ad loc. 12 In the graph below the abbreviations are as follows: S= sentence; CL = Clause; CL-Vbls = Verbless clause; P=predicate function; np = nominal phrase; pron= pronoun; conj=conjunction; 13 Graph taken over from Cascadia Syntax Graphs on Romans 3:1. 11

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

27

Figure: Syntax Graph (Rom 3:1) adapted from Ó Cascadia Syntax Graphs Following Stanley Porter, we can present the functional clause display as follows:14 || C Τί | cj οὖν | S τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου || || cj ἢ | C τίς | S ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτοµῆς; || Note: Τί is in a complement position relative to περισσὸν as subject. Based on Louw’s semantic discourse structure, we can present Romans 3:1 and the parallelism therein as follows:

Figure: Semantic discourse analyses and parallelism indicated Ó J. Kok15

Romans 3:1 contains a sentence comprised of a larger verbless clause, made up by two separate verbless clauses introduced by the interrogative pronoun Τί and linked with the conjunction ἢ. Moo points to other places where Paul uses τί οὖν (e.g., 3:9; 6:15; 7:7; and 11:7; cf. esp. 4:1; 8:31; and 9:19) and says that here Paul uses it to introduce a substantive question.16

= Complement function; cj = Conjunction; S = Subject function. The symbol || indicates the beginning and end of a clause. 15 Abbreviations: I = Interlocutor; P = Paul. 16 Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 180, note 9. 14 C

28

JACOBUS KOK

Such verbless clauses usually contain a core of a subject and a predicate, and then also contain supplementary adverbial clause constituents as a prospect. The pronoun and nominal phrase Τί plays a predicate function, i.e., it makes an attribution regarding the subject of the verbless clause. From there on, the verbless clause Τί οὖν is combined (as complement/predicate) with the subject function of τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου, which forms a nominal phrase. These kinds of phrases are characterized by the fact that they contain a noun, or sometimes a substantival adjective or pronoun, at its head. In the context of this particular verse, the adjective περισσὸν (advantage) functions within an adjectival phrase with περισσὸν at the head of the phrase. This phrase functions as a dependent modifier within the context of the nominal phrase. Adjectival phrases can function as a predicate in the context of an attributive relational clause or function adverbially at the level of the particular clause. In the case of this verse, the verbless clause τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου forms a nominal phrase and has a subject function.17 Consult in this regard also the online open access source of Stanley Porter and others at http://opentext.org/texts/NT/Rom/view/functional-clch3.v0.html (accessed 4 October 2022). But note that Porter functions from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics. This functions a bit differently than the Valency Method, which up to now has been used in Heinrich von Siebenthal’s excellent Ancient Greek Grammar which was published in 2019. It has not been applied to Koine Greek much, although it has been in use for some years already in Latin and Greek education in the Low Countries. There is a growing awareness of the value that the Valency Method in linguistics can play, especially when one wants to compare different languages to one another and use a coherent linguistic system of analysis. The Valency Method investigates the type and the number of arguments which a certain predicate has or can have. It distinguishes between monovalent, bivalent, trivalent and quadrivalent predicates. Valency looks at the amount of component parts which are linked to the predicate. The name “valency” was borrowed from chemistry and the study of atoms and their connections in their inner and outer shell. Valency could be defined in chemistry as the total amount of electrons an atom can lose, gain or share when bonding and achieve an octet. Certain atoms have a certain valency which makes them bondable with other atoms with enough valency to complement them and make the shells “full.” So, e.g., oxygen has 8 electrons, 2 in its inner shell and six in its

17

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

29

The two verbless clauses in Romans 3:1 are syntactically linked by the conjunction ἢ. The conjunction ἢ was often used in antiquity in the context of negative interrogative rhetorical questions (e.g., Justin, Dial. 2.4; Athenagoras 8.3), and Paul uses it similarly elsewhere (see, e.g., Rom 3:29; 6:3; 7:1; and 11:12).18 Also, ἢ in combination with τίς is often used in interrogative sentences. Thus, this would be expected in the context of the diatribe genre. In verse 1b (colon 2), we encounter the verbless clause τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτοµῆς. This has the same semantic structure as the previous verbless clause in the sense that the pronoun τίς forms a noun phrase with a predicate function on the clause level, whereas the nominal phrase ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτοµῆς, has a subject function just as τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου had a subject function. So, we can clearly see the rhetorical parallelism that is created here by Paul, that wants to interrogate the question or “Sache” of what advantage it is to be a Jew and what use or value can be gained from being circumcised. From the general (advantage of Judaioi), the argument goes to the specific (ethnic) markers (circumcision).19

outer shell, implying that it would accept 2 electrons to achieve 8 electrons (which is the maximum allowed in the outer shell), to complete the octate and become stable. So, the valency of oxygen is in other words 2. In the case of the valency method applied to Greek, the verb or predicate has an inherent valency which ranges from monovalent to quadrivalent. See Heinrich von Siebenthal, Ancient Greek Grammar for the Study of the Greek New Testament (New York: Lang, 2019), 439–43 §254. In classical Greek the valency method served as the linguistic basis in the book by Albert Rijksbaron, Siem R. Slings, Peter Stork and Gerry C. Wakker, Beknopte syntaxis van het klassiek Grieks (Lunteren: Hermaion, 2000). All these studies build on the earlier work of Lucien Tesnière, Éleménts de syntaxe structurale (Paris: Klincksiek, 1959). 18 See in this regard the many examples of the interrogative use of ἢ pointed out in BDAG, 432. 19 For a thorough and helpful discussion of social identity and ethnicity within NT studies, see Aaron Kuecker, “Ethnicity and Social Identity,” in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, ed. Coleman A. Baker and J. Brian Tucker (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 59–77.

30

JACOBUS KOK

3.2. Commentary on Romans 3:1

Romans 3:1–8 is notoriously complex to exegete.20 The main content thereof is that Paul argues in favor of the faithfulness of God despite the unfaithfulness of Israel. God is presented as being faithful to the promises he made to Israel. However, God is also a righteous God, and such righteousness entails that he is also the One who judges. From this perspective it could be argued that salvation and judgement are two sides of the same coin. Paul wants to argue that his inclusive gospel message does not do away with the judgement of God. As mentioned above, Paul starts the section with the opening phrase Τί οὖν in Romans 3:1 (what therefore is…), and so connects this verse to the apostrophe and connecting the following section with that which preceded it.21 The conjunction οὖν shows us that Paul is building an argument from a previous section.22 The question arising from the logical flow of Paul’s argument— namely, that it is possible to be inwardly a Jew, by being circumcised in the heart—is what exactly the benefit or gain (τὸ περισσὸν and τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια)23 is of being an ethnic Jew? Here Paul’s argument is framed in the genre of the diatribe in which he imagines an opponent who might object to his message.24 In the previous chapter (Rom 2) Paul argued that possession of the law and covenant in and of itself was not sufficient to merit salvation. He argues that Jews failed to keep the law. Although they have all the marks of membership, like the covenant, the law, the circumcision, etc., they still sin. Being an ethnic Jew from birth does not guarantee that you live out that identity. Paul argues then that one might have all the right Schreiner, Romans, 155. King, Speech-in-Character, 253. Similarly also, see Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 241. 22 Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Romer (Teilband 1: Rom 1-8), EKKNT 6/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2014), 209. 23 Schreiner argues that the noun ὠφέλεια (also in 2:25) refers to “saving advantage.” See Schreiner, Romans, 156–57. 24 King, Speech-in-Character, 187–88. Stanley E. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary, New Testament Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 84–85. 20 21

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

31

external criteria, but internally one might be completely lacking.25 For that reason he says that one might find that there are people who might not be ethnic Jews, but inwardly display all the characteristics of true Jews (Rom 2:26–29). Such people are circumcised in their hearts (Rom 2:29, περιτοµὴ καρδίας). Porter points out that for the ancient Jews, circumcision was an outward sign indicating that the Jews belonged to the covenant community, and that they were chosen and set apart by God.26 However, if one transgresses the law, it becomes uncircumcision. Porter is right that we are here not dealing with supersessionism.27 It is only about internal consistency—if one is circumcised, one is part of God’s covenant community, and should do works of the law from an inward perspective of loyalty and not for the sake of praise of people. If one has the sign of the physical circumcision, but does not live fully by the law, circumcision is in fact simply a useless outward sign. Paul argues that those who fulfill the requirements of God’s law but are not physically circumcised are in fact those who are truly circumcised inwardly, and that is what truly counts. Logically flowing from this is the question of the imaginary Jewish interlocutor who wants to know what advantage there is for those who are (ethnic) Jews. Paul turns to the answer in Romans 3:2.

Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 153. Here Paul is actually involved in the process of “ethnic redefinition” which is part of his larger motif of arguing that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. If God looks at the inward dimension of a person, then the outward appearance which so often is marked by ethnic markers, becomes irrelevant in the eyes of God and by implication should also not serve as boundary markers to demarcate Jews from Gentiles. Thus, argues Esler, it serves the purpose of “bringing Judeans and Greeks together in the overarching identity of the Christ-movement.” 26 Porter, The Letter to the Romans, 82–83. 27 Porter, The Letter to the Romans, 84–85. 25

32

JACOBUS KOK

3.3. Translation of Romans 3:1 Dutch Translation NBV21 Wat hebben de Joden dan nog voor op anderen? Heeft het enig nut dat men besneden is? [Direct English translation: What advantage do the Jews have over others? Is it any use being circumcised?]

The NBV21 translation effectively translated the aspect of advantage that the Jews might have by the more contemporary colloquial words “hebben… nog voor op anderen…”. By including the pronoun “wat” (what) and the subordinating conjunction “dan” (then), NBV21 shows in fact that the current train of thought flows forth from the previous discourse. This is an accurate translation reflecting the Greek well.

4. EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 3:2 4.1. Syntax of Romans 3:2

Figure: Syntax Graph (Rom 3:2) adapted from Ó Cascadia Syntax Graphs Following Stanley Porter, we can present the functional clause display as follows:28 || C πολὺ | A κατὰ πάντα τρόπον || || A πρῶτον | A µὲν | cj [γὰρ] || || cj ὅτι | P ἐπιστεύθησαν | C τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ ||

C = Complement function; A = Attributor function cj = Conjunction; = Subject function; P = Predicate function. The symbol || indicates the beginning and end of a clause and | separates phrases. 28 S

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

33

Romans 3:2 comprises two sentences consisting of two verbless clauses. Sentence one consists of an adjectival phrase introduced by the adjective πολὺ (much) at the head of the phrase, entailing the typical function as a dependent modifier within the context of the nominal phrase. Thus, the prepositional phrase κατὰ πάντα τρόπον functions in an adverbial sense, indicating the aspects related to when/where/how/why of the preposition. So, κατὰ πάντα τρόπον forms a prepositional phrase, i.e., it has a preposition and the nominal phrase it governs, and as such forms a single unit, and the nominal phrase expresses the semantic relationship with the other unit of the clause (e.g., why/how/where, etc). So, typically we often see that prepositional phrases of this sort have an adverbial function at the level of the clause, as is the case here. The second, larger sentence (πρῶτον µὲν [γὰρ] ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ) is introduced by the adverb πρῶτον and the particle µὲν, forming an adverbial phrase with a predicate function. The latter typically has the function of serving as a constituent making an attribution related to the subject, as in this case, of a non-verbal clause. The conjunction γὰρ serves syntactically such that it links larger constituents to convey the semantic relationship between them. Several manuscripts omit the γὰρ (e.g., B D G Y 81. 365. 1506. 2464 latt syp bomss). This leads Wolter to argue that it is possible that “[D]ie Lesart ohne γὰρ durchaus ursprünglich sein” because of the fact that the formulation µὲν γὰρ is typical of Paul (cf. e.g., Rom 2:25; 5:16; 1 Cor 5:3; 11:7, 18; 12:8; 14:17; 2 Cor 9:1; and 11:4).29 Wolter therefore argues that it is very possible that a later corrector wanted to make it closer to the Pauline style. In our opinion there is an emphatic/pleonastic dimension intended here to highlight the point being made, and doing so in a context where a response is needed.30 It makes sense that later scribes would omit the redundant γὰρ. Here γὰρ has a postpositive function (hyperbaton) separating the adverbial phrase πρῶτον µὲν with predicate function from ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ with its subject function on the clause level. Wolter, Römer, 209, note 1. Consult the study of Michael Allen Rudolph, “Reclaiming Γὰρ: The Semantic Significance and Structural Implications of γὰρ as an intersentential conjunction in Romans through Hebrews” (PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014), 342. 29 30

34

JACOBUS KOK

Next, ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ forms a typical verbal clause because it expresses a proposition and has an explicit verbal element functioning at the head of the clause and the other constituents are dependent on it. It is introduced by the conjunction ὅτι. The phrase τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ forms a nominal phrase, because it contains a phrase with a noun at its head. Here it has an object function on the clause level.

4.2. COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 3:2

In Romans 3:2 Paul answers the double question of the interlocutor (v. 1) as to whether there are any advantages to being a Jew. Heinrich Schlier31 puts it well that “Die Antword, die Paulus auf diese Fragen gibt, scheint sich zunächst auf beide zu beziehen: plerophorisch und mit einer gewissen beschwichtigenden Heftigkeit lautet sie: πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον…” [Translation: The answer Paul gives to these questions seems at first to refer to both: plerophorically and with a certain soothing vehemence it reads: πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον…”]. Initially one might get the impression that πολὺ and πάντα would introduce a list of some sort. Or one would think that πρῶτον µὲν would lead to the δεύτερον, but alas! Paul here only gives one reason: First of all, and of greatest importance, he argues, the Jews have received or were entrusted with the words (cf. plural τὰ λόγια) of God. Here some, like Schreiner, translate it with the “oracles” of God and see it as referring to the OT Scriptures.32 Later in Romans 9–11, Paul will explain in more depth how he sees the ethnic Jews’ relationship to the promises contained in the OT. But here Paul, according to Karl Barth, makes it clear that the Jews are the “guardians” entrusted with the oracles of God.33 From this Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, HThKNT 6 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977), 92. 32 Schreiner, Romans, 157; also Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, translated from the sixth edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 79. 33 There are many texts in Jewish writings in which the special place of God’s people are expressed which we cannot discuss here. In this regard, one can for instance think of Josephus, Contra Apionen 1.38–42 where he describes: “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, 31

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

35

perspective they do occupy a special place in God’s plan. Schlier, drawing on Käsemann, sees in ἐπιστεύθησαν34 the notion of “zu treuen Händen übergeben” [Translation: “to give over to trustworthy hands”] which invokes the context of “antiken Depositalrechts” [“ancient law on depositing”].35 Romano Penna argues convincingly that Paul puts the word receive (ἐπιστεύθησαν) in the passive sense of the word, accentuating the fact that God is presented as the one taking the initiative. He says: “Il verbo pisteuo al passive, senza che ne sia esplicato il compliment dágente, rimanda certamente a unázione di Dio… il passive suggerisce semplicemente un atto insindacabile di Dio stesso, che ha agito non condizionato da una cause inherente al giudeo, ma per un proprio libero e gratuito atto elettivo, non motivato da altro che dalla propria fiducia (cf. Dt 7, 7-8)”36 [Translation: “The verb pisteuo in the passive, without the compliment (dágente [acting subject]) being explicit, certainly refers to an anointing of God ... the passive simply suggests an unquestionable act of God himself, who acted not conditioned by a cause inherent in the Jew, but by his own free and gratuitous elective act, motivated by nothing other than by his own trust (cf. Dt 7:7-8)”]. An important part of Romans 1–2 was that Paul pointed out that God’s saving acts to the world is ethnically inclusive in nature. The fact that the Jews have νόµος and circumcision essentially does not provide them with “salvific advantage” over and against nondisagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death.” See also the Talmud, Pirkei Avot 3.14, which describes Israel as God’s beloved, children of the All-Present (cf. Deut 14:1), who have been elected and received “desirable instruments” and good doctrine from God (cf. Prov 4:2). I found helpful material in this regard from Joseph Shulam and Hillary Lecornu, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans (Baltimore, MD: Messianic Jewish Publishers, 1997), 126. 34 Wolter (Römer, 213) says: “Dem Aorist von ἐπιστεύθησαν kann man darum mit guten Gründen ingressive Bedeutung zuschreiben.” Wolter also here refers in this regard to Von Siebenthal, Grammar, 312 §194i. 35 Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 92, note 3, with reference to Käsemann but he does not indicate the exact source. 36 Penna, La Lettera di Paolo ai Romani, 272.

36

JACOBUS KOK

Jews.37 We also see this theme clearly elsewhere in Pauline literature like Galatians 5:6 and 6:15.38 In Galatians Paul explicitly says ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτοµή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουµένη [NIV: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love]. And in the allimportant Galatians 6:15 Paul states that οὔτε γὰρ περιτοµή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις [NIV: Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation]. From the perspective of the future, or eschatology in this regard, there is fundamentally in Paul’s view no difference between Jew and non-Jew. In this regard, God is presented by Paul as being unbiased when it comes to his fair judgement of sin. Thus, although the interlocutor in Paul’s diatribe might have thought that there is some advantage in the fact that the Jews have the law, the circumcision, and the oracles of God, for Paul, because of their sin, they are on equal level with the rest of humanity. I agree with King that Paul’s most important or leading question in Romans 3:2 is basically the following: “Based on what I have argued about God’s impartiality, ethnic inclusiveness, the gospel and your transgression of νόµος, do you really hold any advantage or benefit over non-Jews?” 39 The interlocutor (and Paul as well) “affirms the exclusive Jewish advantage or privilege” he believes he has.40 Paul would agree with this notion, but even so, this essentially does not make any difference because of the fact that all have transgressed the law and fall short in the face of God’s unbiased judgment. One of the large mistakes the interlocutor or those holding similar beliefs make is well expressed by King as follows, namely that he/she mistakenly “considers the λόγια/νόµος as exclusive advantages over non-Jews, thereby misrepresents God’s intent, and ultimately places boundaries around who can or cannot belong to God’s people.”41 It is of course debated whether it is Paul or the King, Speech-in-Character, 255. As well pointed out by King, Speech-in-Character, 255. 39 King, Speech-in-Character, 256. 40 It is of course debated whether it is Paul or the interlocutor who is speaking here. I would agree with this notion of the special advantage of the Jewish people of God. 41 King, Speech-in-Character, 259. 37 38

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

37

interlocutor who is speaking here. It is my contention that both the interlocutor and Paul would agree with the fact that the Jews have a very special advantage and privilege. In this regard it is also noteworthy how a particular Danish translation decided for an “inclusive” translation which reads as follows: Har vi jøder da slet ingen fortrin?” er der måske nogle af jer, der vil spørge. 2Jo, vi har mange fortrin. Først og fremmest var det os, der fik Guds ord betroet”42 [Translation: Do we Jews (vi jøder) have no advantages at all?” maybe some of you want to ask. 2Yes, we have (vi har) many advantages.” First of all, it was us (var det os) who were entrusted with God's word]. Note that here the translators placed the words on the lips of Paul, and not the interlocutor, but clearly in such a way that the ideas are meant to have come from the imaginary interlocutor. The Danish translation was rather innovative here, translating it such that Paul, as ingroupJew (note the inclusive first-person pronoun —“we Jews” [vi jøder]), is presented as agreeing with this fundamental notion that the Jewish people have a special place in God’s heart. Clearly this is no “supersessionist translation,” and it tries to do justice to presenting Paul also as a Jew in an inclusive manner. This translation is commended. Let us now turn to the latest Dutch translation below.

4.3. TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:2 Dutch Translation NBV21 Zeer zeker, en in ieder opzicht. In de eerste plaats zijn het de Joden aan wie God zijn woord heeft toevertrouwd. [Direct English translation: Most certainly, and in every way. In the first place, it is the Jews to whom God has entrusted his word]

The NBV21 translation translated the adjectival phrase πολὺ with the colloquial Dutch “zeer zeker” which intensifies the meaning of “zeker” (certainly) by means of the adverb “zeer” [most]. The NBV21 also translated the prepositional phrase κατὰ πάντα τρόπον in a manner which kept the meaning intended by the original Greek’s adverbial function. The nominal phrase πάντα τρόπον was The Bibelen på Hverdagsdansk (Bible in Everyday Danish) can be accessed here: https://www.bible.com/bible/20/ROM.3.BDAN. 42

38

JACOBUS KOK

translated with “in iedere opzicht,” maintaining both the original adjective (πάντα = ieder [every]) and the original noun (τρόπον = opzicht [way]). This is in other words a very good translation which retains the original Greek meaning and semantic function(s), but also does so in colloquial Dutch. The translation “In de eerste plaats zijn het de Joden aan wie God zijn woord heeft toevertrouwd” [In the first place, it is the Jews to whom God has entrusted his word] is accurate and close to the original Greek, except for the translation of the noun “woord” in the singular form. In the original Greek it appears in the plural form. Other contemporary translations, for instance the 2020 Afrikaanse Bybelvertaling [2020 Afrikaans Bible Translation], retains the original plural form: “Want in die eerste plek is die woorde van God aan hulle toevertrou” [Because in the first place the words of God were entrusted to them]. Both translations succeed in translating the verbal phrase ἐπιστεύθησαν as it would be intended by the aorist indicative passive form. It is our opinion that the translation of the plural into the singular (e.g., NBV21) is unfortunate, and the plural could have been retained without loss of meaning, and would have corresponded closer to the original Greek.

5. EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 3:3 5.1. Syntax of Romans 3:3

Figure: Syntax Graph (Rom 3:3) adapted from Ó Cascadia Syntax Graphs

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

39

Following Stanley Porter, we can present the functional clause display as follows:43 || C τί | cj γὰρ || || cj εἰ | P ἠπίστησάν | S τινες || || A µὴ | S ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν | C τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ | P καταργήσει || Romans 3:3 consists out of three clauses and two sentences. The first sentence,44 τί γάρ εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες, forms a verb-elided clause because it implies that it carried over verbal function from the previous clause as indicated especially by the pronoun τί forming a nominal phrase with adverbial function. The verbal clause εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες, introduced by the conjunction εἰ, can be divided into the verbal phrase ἠπίστησάν (with verbal function/predicate) and the noun phrase consisting of the pronoun τινες (with subject function). The second sentence is µὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει. The verbal clause is introduced by the particle µὴ, with attributor function; followed by the nominal phrase ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν, which clearly has the noun at its head and has a subject function at the clause level; and followed by another nominal phrase, τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ, which has an object function at the clause level; and a complement function. With the verb καταργήσει functioning as a predicate of the verbal phrase representing the verbal action of the proposition. The other clause constituents naturally depend upon this verbal element at the head of the (verbal) clause.

5.2. COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 3:3

Romans 3:3 opens with the verb-elided clause τί γάρ, establishing the link or relation to the previous section. Wolter notes “In der elliptischen Frage τί γάρ, … will γάρ nicht begründen, sondern anknüpfen und fortführen.”45 In this sentence, Paul anticipates the implied question of the interlocutor that logically flows forth = Complement function; A = Attributor function cj = Conjunction; = Subject function; P = Predicate function. The symbol || indicates the beginning and end of a clause and | separates phrases. 44 On the punctuation and omitting the question mark after τί γάρ, see arguments in favor of such alternate punctuation in Moo, Romans, 192–93. 45 Wolter, Römer, 214. 43 S

C

40

JACOBUS KOK

from the previous discussion. What if some Jews have become unfaithful or refused to believe? In Xenophon (Anabasis 2, 6, and 19) the word is used to refer to disloyal solders.46 Elsewhere Paul uses the same word (e.g., 2 Tim 2:13) to express the lack of a sense of obligation, i.e., unfaithfulness of people, vis-a-vis the faithfulness of God. Paul here asks whether their unbelief will nullify or destroy the faithfulness of God (πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ)? Paul then uses the strong verb καταργήσει to express the notion of destruction or nullification. Some commentators point out that already in the use of the particle μὴ, Paul is setting the reader up for answering in the negative. From the graph below it is clear that the word καταργέω is particularly popular with Pauline literature in comparison with the rest of the NT. Luke (13:7) uses it once and Hebrews (2:14) also uses it once:

(Graph generated via Logos Bible Software)

5.3. TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:3 Dutch Translation NBV21 Maar wat als sommigen van hen ontrouw zijn geworden? Maakt hun ontrouw dan een einde aan Gods trouw? [But what if some of them have become unfaithful? Does their unfaithfulness, then, put an end to God's faithfulness?]

There are different possibilities to interpret the substantive questions in Romans 3:3 and different ways in which one could 46

This reference I found in BDAG, 103 (in the discussion of ἀπιστία).

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

41

see who asks the question, e.g., whether it is the interlocutor or Paul. I agree with Douglas Moo and others that we have to divide it into two substantive questions and that Paul is asking both of them.47 Both Moo and I take our clue from the particle μὴ pointing towards the expectation that a negative answer is anticipated and thus creates a continuity with Romans 3:2, and also from the fact that a third person plural is used and not a first person plural as would have been the case if the Jewish interlocutor would have asked the question. The NBV21 translates the nominal phrase τί rather well, considering it functions adverbially in the context of a verb-elided clause, clearly expressing that the clause carries over verbal function from the previous clause, in combination with the particle γάρ to flow over into the verbal clause εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες to form the sentence “maar wat als [τί γάρ; εἰ (But what if)] sommigen van hen [τινες (some of them)] ontrouw zijn geworden [ἠπίστησάν (became unfaithful)]. The aorist indicative active ἠπίστησαν intends to locate the action of the verb in a manner relative to the position in time of the author or speaker as a “snapshot.” Normally one will consider contextual linguistic clues to narrow the field of possibilities. With regard to the semantic verbal aspect, the aorist has perfective aspect, i.e., it takes a bird’s eye point of view and sees the event as a whole or from a relative distance or from above or from the outside.48 This aspect of remoteness of the aorist is part of the semantic quality thereof, i.e., it is essential to it. However, there is also with the aorist the matter of the Aktionsart, i.e., the pragmatic features: the way that the meaning is influenced by the specific use of the author in combination with other linguistic features. The aorist in Greek could have a constative, ingressive, consummative, gnomic, epistolary, proleptic, immediate (dramatic) or future use.49 Some scholars prefer the ingressive/inceptive aorist in this case as referring to the rejection of the gospel per se by some Jews, Moo, Romans, 183–84. Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 19. 49 See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 554–71. 47 48

42

JACOBUS KOK

stressing the beginning of the action or entrance into the state of unfaithfulness relative to the rejection of the gospel.50 Moo51 and Harvey52 seem to opt for the constative, viewing the unfaithfulness of the Jews as a whole as historical fact relative to the interpretation of Paul at that point in time. Paul locates this tendency already in the OT, implying that the tendency has been going on for a long time. It could perhaps be argued that here we have a consummative aorist, stressing the cessation of an act or state: This is in view when one seems to understand the aorist as consummative (zijn geworden); as in the case that some Jews have become unfaithful. Schnabel on the other hand says that the interpretation can go both ways.53 Some might argue that we find in Romans 3:3b a protatis, i.e., an “if” clause, and secondly καταργήσει is in the indicative future form. One could then argue that Paul is saying “if Jews would become unfaithful.” Based on Campbell’s Basics to Verbal Aspect regarding the aorist, it seems that here one can speak of a future aorist.54 This could lead one to think that it should be understood or translated as “Maar wat als sommigen ontrouw zullen zijn? Maakt hun ontrouw dan niet een einde aan Gods trouw?” [But what if some will be unfaithful? Does not their unfaithfulness put an end to God’s faithfulness?”]. However, I am of the opinion that the second part of the sentence which contains καταργήσει should then also be translated with a future sense, for instance: “Zal hun ontrouw niet een einde maken aan Gods trouw?” [“Will not their unfaithfulness put an end to God's faithfulness”]. As one can see, scholars might have different perspectives on this. Thus, we have to make our own informed choice here. Paul See Jewett, Romans, 238–52, and Heikki Räisänen, “Zum Verständnis von Röm 3,1-8,” in The Torah and Christ, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 45 (Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986), 200 as quoted by Moo, Romans, 183. 51 Moo, Romans, 185. 52 John D. Harvey, Romans, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2017), 77. 53 Eckhard J. Schnabel, Commentary on Romans: From the Baker Illustrated Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019), 330. 54 Some might point out that this is conditional, and therefore likely irrealis, hence the modal readings noted here. The likelihood of its reality might explain use of the indicative versus subjunctive. 50

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

43

here decided to use the aorist, in our opinion in a constative manner, i.e., it wants to express the general unfaithfulness of the Jews. With regard to aspect and Aktionsart, the action of the verb stands in a relationship with passage in time, implying that such unfaithful action started in the past, but is ongoing. From the perspective of verbal aspect (perfective), it is thus possible that such a bird’s eye view might entail also the future dimension when unfaithfulness is viewed as a whole. Thus, it entails that we translate it in a perfect sense [zijn geworden] because this expresses the fact that the condition is still in effect and that condition has been in effect for some time.55 So, we are of the opinion that the NBV21 translation “ontrouw zijn geworden” is accurate and reflects the original Greek meaning well. In comparison, the New Afrikaans translation of 2020 translates the aspect similarly as “Maar wat nou? As sommige ontrou geword het?” [But what now? If some have become unfaithful?], whereas the previous Afrikaans translation of 1983 translated it differently as “Maar wat nou as sommige nie getrou gebly het nie” [But what if some did not stay faithful]. This is indeed an interesting way to put it, since it implies that most Jews have stayed faithful, but some have become unfaithful. However, it is closer to the original Greek to translate it in the manner the NBV21 did [ontrouw zijn geworden], implying an action (unfaithfulness) in the past with ongoing reality at the time of the writing of the author (perfect aspect in combination with Aktionsart), i.e., an aorist that wants to express the constative meaning (describing the action in its entirety). Paul contrasts this with God’s constant faithfulness (τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ), something which has been true in the past and will be true in the future, i.e., it will not be nullified in the future (καταργήσει). For that reason, we also interpret θεοῦ as subjective genitive (God’s faithfulness) (also see Ps 33:4 [LXX Ps 32:4 - πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐν πίστει; Jer 32:41; and Hos 2:20 – διαθήκην… ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ… ἐν πίστει).56 Consult Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 19. For a good discussion of some challenges regarding the subjective and objective genitive, see Jan Barkhuizen, “Wat staan in die Grieks?” Kollig op vertaalprobleme wat die Nuwe Testament oplewer,” Tydskrif Vir Geesteswetenskappe 60 (2020), 968–70. 55 56

44

JACOBUS KOK

Moo is of the opinion that the use of the word τινες (some [Jews]) perhaps might indicate an effort to lessen the offence.57 We are however not of the opinion that Paul is intending to lessen the offence since he strongly wants to make the point that not only the Jews but also the rest of humanity have been unfaithful and are full of sin. Some Jews have accepted the gospel. But the majority in this world have not done so, and are subjected therefore to the judgment of God. Modern translations, sensitive to the issue of offence, could perhaps find it helpful to bring this aspect of τινες (some) to the fore. It is clear however that there is a strong dualism created between the faithlessness of the Jews (or all people for that matter) and the faithfulness of God.58 The whole issue of the faithfulness of God is of course a wellknown notion that Paul draws out from the OT. God is consistently presented in the OT as the One who is faithful to the promises he made to Israel, in spite of their consistent unfaithfulness. From the perspective of Paul’s gospel message, the unfaithfulness of the Jews is further illustrated by their unwillingness to believe in Jesus as their promised Messiah. Paul then makes the point that although the Jews have been unfaithful and unbelieving in this regard, this does not nullify, invalidate, or abolish the continuing faithfulness of God, because he is true, as we will see in Romans 3:4 when he uses the word ἀληθής to render the Hebrew ‫ֱאֶמת‬. The translation of καταργήσει with “Maakt hun ontrouw dan een einde aan Gods trouw?” [“Does their unfaithfulness, then, put an end to God's faithfulness?”] is perhaps a watered-down version of what was originally meant with καταργήσει, but nevertheless conveys the meaning well enough. A good alternative is found in the Herziene Statenvertaling that translates it with “tenietdoen” which is closer to the original Greek meaning of “making void or nullify.”

57 58

Moo, Romans, 184. Moo, Romans, 184.

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

45

6. EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 3:4 6.1. Syntax of Romans 3:4

Figure: Syntax Graph (Rom 3:4) adapted from Ó Cascadia Syntax Graphs Following Stanley Porter, we can present the functional clause display as follows:59 || A µὴ | P γένοιτο || || P γινέσθω | cj δὲ | S ὁ θεὸς | C ἀληθής || || S πᾶς ( cj δὲ ) ἄνθρωπος | C ψεύστης || || cj καθὼς | P γέγραπται || || cj ὅπως | A ἂν | P δικαιωθῇς | A ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου || || cj καὶ | P νικήσεις | A [[ P ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί | S σε ]] ||

C = Complement function; A = Attributor function cj = Conjunction; = Subject function; P = Predicate function. The symbol || indicates the beginning and end of a clause and | separates phrases. 59 S

46

JACOBUS KOK

Romans 3:4 consists of two sentences and Johannes Louw’s semantic discourse analyses structures it as follows:

Semantic discourse analysis adapted from Louw The short sentence µR 7i#2,!2 forms a verbal clause. The adverb µR forms the head of the adverbial phrase at clause level, modifying the verb 7i#2,!2. Thus, the latter verb is part of a verbal phrase with a verbal function, i.e., it functions as a constituent representing the action of a particular proposition and thus also in the verbal clause forms the head of the clause on which the other clause constituents depend. The second sentence consists in our opinion of the following clauses: 1. Verbal clause 1: 7,#i49+ .H A 9$d% 86L9m% forms a verbal clause. The verb 7,#i49+, in the present middle imperative (3rd person, singular) forms a verbal phrase with a verbal copula function, in the sense that it facilitates the relationship between the subject and the predicate, i.e., it facilitates an attribution about the subject. A 9$d% forms a nominal phrase with a subject function at clause level. The adjective 86L9m% forms an adjectival phrase with a predicate function at clause level, i.e., it serves as a constituent which wants to make an attribution or identification related to the subject. 2. Verbless clause 2: &G% .H I#9*+&2% J$l4!L% forms a verbless clause and is introduced by the adjective &G% [with conjunction .H] forming an adjectival phrase which functions as a dependent modifier in the context of a nominal phrase with a subject function, coupled with the noun I#9*+&2% at the head forming the nominal phrase. So, &G% …I#9*+&2% has a subject function. The noun J$l4!L% also forms a nominal phrase, and has a predicate (adjectival)

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

3. A. B.

C.

D.

E.

60 61

47

function because as a constituent, it aims to make an attribution about the subject of the non-verbal clause. Also, from the perspective of the valency method, one can point out that we deal here with a nominal clause, which is different from a verbal clause in the sense that the finite verb is absent, implying that the translator needs to insert a form of the verb “to be” to make sense of the sentence in translation. 60 The larger verbal clause 3, introduced by the conjunction καθὼς consists of smaller clauses: The verb γέγραπται (perfect, middle, indicative, 3rd person, singular) forms a verbal phrase with a verbal function at the head of the clause. The next clause, in which Paul quotes the OT from the LXX, is introduced by the conjunction ὅπως which syntactically links larger constituents to articulate their semantic relationship and then continues with the particle ἂν. Moo is correct to point out that the clause is given purpose force by means of the use of the conjunction ὅπως.61 The verbal phrase δικαιωθῇς (aorist, passive, subjunctive, 2nd person, singular) has a verbal function since it forms a constituent representing the action of a proposition and is the head of the clause. ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου is a prepositional phrase because it contains a preposition (ἐν) and governs a nominal phrase (τοῖς [determiner] λόγοις [noun forming a nominal phrase]) σου [pronoun forming/part of a nominal phrase]). At clause level the prepositional phrase functions adverbially because it is a constituent that represents the nature (when/how/why) of the proposition. The next verbal clause (νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε) is introduced by the conjunction καὶ.

See in this regard Von Siebenthal, Grammar, 448 §256d. Moo, Romans, 187, note 50.

48

JACOBUS KOK F. The verb νικήσεις (here62 in future, indicative, active, 2nd person, plural) is at the head of the verbal phrase and thus has a verbal function because as a constituent it represents the action of a particular proposition and within the context of the verbal clause it functions as the head of the clause and the other clause constituents depend on this verbal constituent. Here the verbal (head/main) focus of the clause is that “you may/will prevail.”63 Thus, the “you” will have a subject function as we will see below. G. ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε contains the preposition ἐν and thus forms a prepositional phrase with adverbial function. A preposition is found before a nominal phrase and indicates the semantic relation between the prepositional phrase and the rest of the units in the clause. The pronoun (σε) functions as a noun, and forms a nominal phrase with a subject function at clause level.

6.2. COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 3:4

Paul answers the question posed in Romans 3:3 with perhaps the strongest possible words in Romans 3:4, namely with the negation µὴ γένοιτο—or rather “absolutely not—by no means!” In Pauline literature it occurs rather frequently especially in the context of rhetorical questions (e.g., Rom 3:6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; cf. 1 Cor 6:15; Gal 2:17; and 3:21).64 Thus, Paul says “Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar.” King sees it as the response of the interlocutor: “Given that 3:3 is a leading question from Paul, it would make sense for the response to come from the interlocutor. Does 3:4 with its citation65 of LXX Psalm 50:6 fit his character? Indeed it does. The interlocutor is religiously Jewish and boasts in God (2:17) and νόµος (2:23); of Some manuscripts do not contain the verb in this specific grammatical form. 63 One could comment here on use of future tense in LXX (i.e., reflecting Hebrew imperfective, thus a substitute for the subjunctive). 64 These references are from Dunn, Romans, 132. 65 LXX Psalm 50:6 reads: “σοὶ µόνῳ ἥµαρτον καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα, ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε.” 62

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

49

course he would uphold God’s faithfulness and be familiar with scripture. After all, it is advantageous for the interlocutor to exalt God’s faithfulness…” And so, King argues, the interlocutor correctly answers the question of Paul. He also does not think that the first instance of µὴ γένοιτο belongs to the lips of Paul, but rather to that of the interlocutor.66 I do not agree with King here and rather opt for the traditional interpretation in scholarship that this is the direct response of Paul. One of the reasons is that I and most other scholars see in this the consistency of Paul’s view of the universality of the fallen human condition which is especially clear in the words πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης.67 James Dunn sees in the words γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης a Hebraic connection existing between God’s ἀλήθεια (truth) and God’s πίστις (in verse 3) which could easily be lost if readers are not familiar with the LXX. Dunn points out that ‫ ֱאמוָּנה‬is mostly translated by πίστις in the LXX though predominantly with ἀληθεια in the Psalms.68 The latter word then denotes God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel, says Dunn, who mentions Psalm 89:1, 2, 5, 8, 14, 24, 33, 49 [LXX 88:2, 3, 6, 9, 25, 34, 50], 98[LXX 97]:3, with Psalm 33[LXX 32]:4 as the curious exception to the general rule.69 For Paul, the word had the connotation of covenant faithfulness of God and related concepts like “what is real and true.” So, from this perspective it could be argued that Paul draws on the LXX notions that God is true and faithful and uses it here perhaps with eschatological force to focus attention on the steadfast certainty, truth and truthfulness of God who is true and will be seen to be true. King, Speech-in-Character, 260. See in this regard King, Speech-in-Character, 170–71 for a helpful discussion in which he explains the Malherbe’s Mὴ γένοιτο discussion and how Malherbe expands on Bultmann’s reading of Mὴ γένοιτο and draws on insights after having engaged especially with Epictetus. See Abraham J. Malherbe, “ME GENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul,” in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 25–33. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die Kynisch-Stoische Diatribe, FRLANT 13 (Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 67. 68 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 133. 69 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 133. 66 67

50

JACOBUS KOK

Over and against the truthfulness of God stands the untruthfulness of every human, who are all liars. God’s truth is contrasted qualitatively with the untruth of all humanity. Dunn is of the opinion that Paul most probably here alludes to Psalm 116:11 [LXX 115:2] except for the insertion of the conjunction δὲ by Paul, so as to link syntactically the larger constituents and thereby expressing their semantic relationship: Psalm 115:2 in LXX

πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης

Romans 3:4

πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης

Here in Romans 3:4 Paul cites the LXX of Psalm 50:6 almost verbatim, introducing the quotation with the words καθὼς γέγραπται (as it is written): Psalm 50:6 in LXX

Paul in Romans 3:4 Translation

ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς τοῖς λόγοις σου ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου

So that you may be proved right when you speak

καὶ νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ καὶ νικήσεις ἐν τῷ and prevail when you κρίνεσθαί σε. κρίνεσθαί σε judge The only slight difference is that the LXX reads νικήσῃς instead of Paul’s use of νικήσεις in the future indicative active second person singular, which fits the context here. The Psalmist paints a picture of a heavenly court of law and wants to communicate the fairness and justice of God’s judgement, and contrasts this with the confession of his (David’s) own sin, lawlessness, and, by implication, his lack of justice and his faithlessness and disloyalty. Over and against the sinfulness and unreliability of humankind stands the reliability and trustworthiness of God, who at the final judgment will show his ultimate faithfulness to his people with whom he stands in a covenant relationship. Also in Romans 11, Paul makes clear that it will mainly be at the eschaton where God’s truth and faithfulness will be seen.70 Dunn shows convincingly that the “justice of God’s 70

Dunn, Romans 1-8, 134.

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

51

judgement” is a constant refrain in the anti-Hasmonean Psalms of Solomon (Pss of Sol 2.16–19; 3.3; 4.9, 28; 5.1; 8.7–8, 27, 29–32, 40; 9.3–4; 10.6; 17.12).71 In the Jewish literature mentioned above, God is depicted as a defendant in a lawsuit who always gives admissible evidence that he is faithful to his people, and God always emerges victoriously over his opponents.72 For that reason Paul is very sure of the steadfastness of God’s covenant and faithfulness to Israel. So, as Dunn argues, “Israel can rest confidently in God’s judgment because of his covenant obligation (righteousness) to Israel.”73

6.3. TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:4 Dutch Translation NBV21 Natuurlijk niet. Ieder mens is onbetrouwbaar, maar God is betrouwbaar, zoals ook geschreven staat: ‘Als U spreekt blijkt uw rechtvaardigheid, U overwint in elk geschil.’ [Naturally not (Of course not). Every man is untrustworthy, but God is trustworthy, as it is written: 'When You speak, Your righteousness is evident, You overcome in every dispute].

The NBV21 translates the verbal clause µὴ γένοιτο with “natuurlijk niet” [naturally not] which is a very unfortunate translation because it underplays the strength of the performative dimension intended with µὴ γένοιτο. The optative form µὴ γένοιτο could be taken as a negative oath.74 It occurs often in diatribe style as seen in Epictetus.75 In the NT Paul uses it much in comparison to the frequency thereof in the OT and rest of the NT.76 Similar translations like the Afrikaans 2020 are closer to the intended meaning of the original Greek when they translate it with “Hoegenaamd nie!” [Not at all!]. The intensity of µὴ γένοιτο is further strengthened in the Afrikaans translation by the addition Dunn, Romans 1-8, 134. Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York: United Bible Societies, 1973), 54. 73 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 134. 74 Moo, Romans, 185. 75 Malherbe, Mē genoito, 231–40. 76 Moo, Romans, 185. 71 72

52

JACOBUS KOK

of the exclamation mark indicating that the translators deliberately intended to bring the original intended meaning to the fore. Perhaps the NBV21 could rather have opted for the manner in which previous translations have tried to convey the meaning stronger, e.g., the Herziene Statenvertaling which reads: “Volstrekt niet!” [Absolutely not!]. This reading is much closer to the original and other translations like the Nuwe Afrikaans 2020 translation. Most commentators point out that Paul strongly wants to reject ideas which run contrary to his point that God’s continuing faithfulness stands in stark contrast to man’s continuing unfaithfulness, and for that reason uses the words μὴ γένοιτο as a form of “brusque rejection” of opposite views.77 The translation of γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης with “Ieder mens is onbetrouwbaar, maar God is betrouwbaar” [Every man is untrustworthy, but God is trustworthy] expresses the contrasting parallels of the original Greek. Unfortunately, it does not reflect the present imperative medium of γινέσθω. Some older translations like the Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling of 1933 (Old Afrikaans Translation of 1933) retained the imperative verbal dimension of γινέσθω coupled with the adjectival phrase ἀληθής (with predicate function on clause level) and the nominal phrase ψεύστης (predicate function on clause level) with a translation as follows: “God moet waaragtig wees en elke mens leuenagtig” [God must be true and all humans liars]. The Afrikaans translated the noun phrase ψεύστης (subject compliment) as a predicate adjective with the intention of modifying the noun ἄνθρωπος. Most Dutch translations, even the Hersiene Statevertaling, opt for a translation that expresses the ongoing verbal nature of ψεύστης in semantic form as “God is waarachtig maar ieder mens een leugenaar” [God is true, but every man a liar]. There is a difference in nuance between “leugenaar” (noun) and “leuenagtig” (adjective). It is unclear why the NBV21 changed the order to put “ieder mens is onbetrouwbaar” first, and “God is betrouwbaar” second, while the Greek has the reverse order, and most translations in Dutch and Afrikaans retain the original Greek order.

77

Dunn, Romans 1-8, 140.

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

53

The translation of the verbal LXX quotation from Psalm 50:6 is accurate, considering optimal communication by means of colloquial language. The subordinating and purposive conjunction ὅπως ἂν (in what ever way/so that/purposive) wants to communicate the equivalent of “so that” or “in order that” and “in what ever way.” For that reason, a formal translation like the Herziene Statenvertaling made use of the word “opdat” which grammatically communicates more formally than “zodat.” Formal Dutch grammars also indicate that “opdat” is used to convey purpose, whereas “zodat” is meant to indicate both purpose and result. The translators of NBV21 opted for a more colloquial translation which simplified the original Greek form of the subordinating purposive conjunction in combination with the aorist subjunctive passive δικαιωθῇς, unlike older translations which entailed the translation “Opdat U gerechtvaardigd wordt wanneer U rechtspreekt, en overwint wanneer U oordeelt” as in the Herziene Statevertaling. However, the NBV21 opted for a simple translation expressing the ongoing fact that when(ever) God speaks, his righteousness is evident” [Als U spreekt blijkt uw rechtvaardigheid], and that God overcomes every dispute” [U overwint in elk geschil]. Clearly the purposive force was not translated. But the meaning and effect is conveyed well to make the point that whenever God speaks, his righteousness is evident, and in every dispute, he overcomes and will overcome every dispute in the future also. This meaning contrasts the fleeting temporality of untrustworthy humans vis-a-vis the performance of God’s superior and steadfast trustworthiness. Thus, we are not dealing with an equal dualism, but with a qualitative dualism in which God is always more superior—Deus semper maior!

7. FINAL OBSERVATION AND SUMMARY

Romans 3:1-4 cannot be read in isolation, but rather as part of the macro discourse of the whole letter to the Romans as well as within the meso-context of its position within Romans 2:1–3:31. In a world where there was no permanence, a message like the one we have discussed in this paper, would have been

54

JACOBUS KOK

striking.78 Early Christian authors like Paul proclaimed a God who is not like fleeting man. A God who is trustworthy and faithful. A God who is in control. A God who is full of power, and far above human rule, power and authority (Eph 1:19, 21). A God in whose power believers also share through the Spirit of God (Eph 3:16), which is active in this world. Even though people prove to be unfaithful, and we have no reason to trust in them, we need not despair, since we have every reason to trust in the faithfulness of God and participate in His plans. In Romans 8:31 Paul says “If God is for us, who can be against us?” This comes as a gift. In Romans 1:1–3:31 Paul builds the argument that all people have sinned and must face the righteous judgement of God. After the harsh and negative portrayal of human sin, Paul provides the solution in Romans 3:21 onwards. The solution is faith in Jesus Christ, who was given by God as an offering to bring about reconciliation through his blood (Rom 3:25–26). Paul urged the readers of Romans in 13:13–14 to go against the stream of tendencies one would see in Epicurean philosophy, and rather: “[Let us] Behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh” (NIV).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, William F., Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

See in this regard the interesting work of Bruce Longenecker and the depiction of art in Pompeii that show that the ancients experienced life as fragile and that there was not certainty. One striking image is that of a skull balancing on a butterfly’s wings on a cartwheel which can at any moment tilt over into riches or poverty. See 1.5.2. Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples MANN 109982. Also in Bruce W. Longenecker, In Stone and Story: Early Christianity in the Roman World (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 234–37.

78

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

55

Barkhuizen, Jan. “‘Wat staan in die Grieks?’ Kollig op vertaalprobleme wat die Nuwe Testament oplewer.” Tydskrif Vir Geesteswetenskappe 60 (2020): 959–82. Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated from the sixth edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Friedrich Rehkopf. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 19th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. Bultmann, Rudolf. Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die KynischStoische Diatribe. FRLANT 13. Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Dunn, James D.G. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word, 2008. Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Godet, F. Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Romains. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Paris: Sandoz & Thuillier, 1883. Harvey, John D. Romans. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2017. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. King, Justin. Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1-9: Who’s Speaking When and Why It Matters. BibInt 163. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018. Kuecker, Aaron. “Ethnicity and Social Identity.” Pages 59–76 in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by Coleman A. Baker and J. Brian Tucker. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Longenecker, Bruce W. In Stone and Story: Early Christianity in the Roman World. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Louw, Johannes P. A Semantic Discourse Analysis of Romans. 2 vols. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 1987. Malherbe, Abraham J. “ME GENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul.” Pages 25–33 in Paul and the Popular Philosophers. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

56

JACOBUS KOK

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Handbook on Paul’s letter to the Romans. New York: United Bible Societies, 1973. Penna, Romano. La lettera di Paolo ai Romani: Guida alla lettura. Bologna: EDB, 2018. Porter, Stanley E. The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary. New Testament Monographs 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015. Räisänen, Heikki. “Zum Verständnis von Röm 3,1-8.” Pages 185– 203 in The Torah and Christ. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 45. Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986. Rijksbaron, Albert, Siem R. Slings, Peter Stork and Gerry C. Wakker. Beknopte syntaxis van het klassiek Grieks. Lunteren: Hermaion, 2000. Rudolph, Michael Allen. “Reclaiming Γὰρ: The Semantic Significance and Structural Implications of γὰρ as an Intersentential Conjunction in Romans through Hebrews.” PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief. HThKNT 6. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Commentary on Romans: From the Baker Illustrated Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2019. Schreiner, Thomas. Romans. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. Shulam, Joseph, and Hillary Lecornu. A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans. Baltimore, MD: Messianic Jewish Publishers, 1997. Tesnière, Lucien. Éleménts de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksiek, 1959. Von Siebenthal, Heinrich. Ancient Greek Grammar for the Study of the Greek New Testament. New York: Lang, 2019. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

2. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN AN UNFAITHFUL WORLD

57

Witherington III, Ben with Darlene, Hyatt. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Römer (Teilband 1: Rom 1-8). EKKNT 6/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2014.

CHAPTER 3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9? SOME NEW AND OLD PERSPECTIVES JERMO VAN NES EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN I NTRODUCTION

A notoriously difficult passage for interpreters of Paul’s letter to the Romans is 3:1–9. The NRSV translation reads: (1) Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? (2a) Much, in every way. (2b) For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. (3) What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? (4) By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, “So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.” (5a) But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? (5b) That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 59

60

JERMO VAN NES (6) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (7) But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (8a) And why not say (8b) (as some people slander us by saying that we say), (8c) “Let us do evil so that good may come”? (8d) Their condemnation is deserved! (9a) What then? Are we any better off? (9b) No, not at all; (9c) for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin.

Time and again scholars have struggled with the logic of the argument in this passage, defining it as “obscure,” “digressive,” or “contradictory.”1 The interpretative difficulties are manifold.2 How, for instance, are the questions in verses 1–8 and verse 9 to be understood? Are they similar, or complementary? What about the answers given in verses 2 and 9? Are they in conflict or somehow compatible? And to whom is Paul referring by the firstperson singular in verse 7, and the first-person plural in verses 5, 8, and 9? In order to solve interpretative difficulties like these, contemporary scholars continue to debate whether Paul is using a dialogical style of argumentation—Was he putting objections into the mouth of a (fictive) conversation partner, or was he himself answering questions that he felt might arise from the discussion in Romans 1–2? This question may be irrelevant to

See, for instance, Adolf Jülicher, “Der Brief an die Römer,” in Die paulinischen Briefe und die Pastoralbriefe, ed. Wilhelm Bousset and Wilhelm Heitmüller, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 3rd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917), 2:242; Hans Lietzmann, An die Römer, 3rd ed., HNT 8 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1928), 45; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932), 46; Otto Kuss, Der Römerbrief (Regensburg: Pustet, 1957), 1:99; Heikki Räisänen, “Zum Verständnis von Röm 3,1–8,” SNTSU-A 10 (1985), 106. 2 See, for instance, Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 330–31. 1

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

61

some for interpreting Romans 3:1–9,3 but supposing that the text is constructed as a dialogue “one can get the wrong impression of Paul’s views on Jews and the Law … if one attributes the wrong bits to Paul.”4 In what follows, I will first discuss some of the arguments given by modern scholars for a (non-)dialogical reading of Romans 3:1–8 (or 3:1–95). Next, I will engage the neglected voice of the early church in this debate by tracing the perspectives of early Patristic commentators on the text. Their interpretative clues highlight the importance of reception-oriented exegesis for NT interpretation, which the esteemed honoree of this volume has demonstrated for the Lord’s prayer and the “parting(s) of the ways” between Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity.6

1. ROMANS 3:1–9 – A (DIATRIBAL) DIALOGUE?

Interpreting Romans 3:1–8 (or 3:1–9) as a conversation became a fashion among scholars especially after the publication of Rudolf Bultmann’s seminal study of the Greek diatribe in 1910.7 Defining So Frank Thielman (Romans, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018], 163, n. 3), who notes that “[i]n the end, … there does not seem to be much difference between Paul posing the questions to himself and Paul putting the questions on the lips of an interlocutor whom he has created.” 4 Ben Witherington III with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 93. 5 For a discussion on Romans 3:9 and its relationship to the previous and following sections, see Nils Alstrup Dahl, “Romans 3:9: Text and Meaning,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (London: SPCK, 1982), 184–204. 6 See Martin Webber, “Early Christian Views of the Lord’s Prayer,” in My Brother’s Keeper: Essays in Honor of Ellis R. Brotzman, ed. Thomas J. Marinello and H. H. Drake Williams III (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 61–77; and his “Odes of Solomon and Epistle of Barnabas: Different Christian Perspectives on the ‘Parting(s) of the Ways’ between Judaism and Christianity in the Second Century,” in Drawing and Transcending Boundaries in the New Testament and Early Christianity, ed. Jacobus Kok, Martin Webber, and Jermo van Nes, Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel / Contributions to Understanding the Bible 38 (Zürich: LIT, 2019), 99–114. 7 Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, FRLANT 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910). 3

62

JERMO VAN NES

diatribe as “the form of speech and reply” (der Form von Rede und Gegenrede),8 Bultmann argued that it was a form of oral street preaching typical for wandering Cynic-Stoic philosophers that unconsciously influenced Paul’s preaching style as reflected in his letters. As a literary genre (or Gattung), diatribe in Paul’s letters takes the form of an interjection by a fictitious opponent who raises an immediate objection to a statement of the primary speaker. The speech of this interlocutor is usually introduced by a short introductory formula (e.g., φησί or inquit) followed by a question starting with ἀλλά (“but”). The interlocutor’s identity mostly remains unspecified, but (s)he is often presented as an ἰδιώτης (“commoner”) and is considered to be a representative of the general audience or a member of an opposing philosophical school. Typical for a diatribe, according to Bultmann, was its vivid and fiery—if not polemical—discourse. It was used in service of either a refutation or an exhortation to elicit a positive audience response.9 While Bultmann did not relate Romans 3:1–8 to the diatribal form explicitly, it can be deduced from his sparse comments that he understood verses 1, 3, and 5 to be absurd objections of an interlocutor and verses 4 and 6 as Paul’s harsh rejections of them.10 It is easy to conjecture that he would identify section 7– 8c as another objection of the interlocutor and verses 2 and 8d as responses of the apostle. Bultmann’s implied “script” of Romans 3:1–8 where the interlocutor is asking questions (vv. 1, 3, 5, 78c) to which Paul replies (vv. 2, 4, 6, 8d) represents what Justin King has called the “traditional”11 reading among dialogical interpretations as eventually many commentators on Romans would adopt it (or slightly modify it).12 Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt, 10. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt, 10–12. 10 Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt, 67, 94. 11 Justin King, Speech in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1–9: Who’s Speaking When and Why It Matters, Biblical Interpretation Series 163 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018), 3. 12 So, for instance, Romano Penna, Lettera ai Romani 1-5, Scritti delle origini cristiane 6/1 (Bologna: Dehoniane, 2004), 270–83; Changwong Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe, StBibLit 59 (New York: Lang, 2004), 8 9

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

63

Inspired by a number of classicists arguing in response to Bultmann that diatribe is not a literary genre (or Gattung) but a sub-literary form belonging to rhetorical or oral speech categories,13 Stanley Stowers identified eight primary sources as legitimate representatives of the diatribe style: Teles (Bion), Lucius (Musonius Rufus), Arrian (Epictetus), Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Maximus of Tyre, Seneca, and Philo of Alexandria.14 These sources, according to Stowers, share a “common appropriation of a certain body of popular philosophical traditions,” combine a “dialogical style together with certain other stylistic or rhetorical features,” and (somehow, with the possible exception of Philo) belong to a “scholastic social setting.”15 The latter implies that the Greek diatribe did not arise out of market-place preaching, but rather from classroom instruction, where the tone was not polemical but pedagogical. Diatribal dialogues aimed to expose errors or inconsistencies which (prospective) students were encouraged to correct by adopting the right course of action (e.g., embracing a philosophical life or converting to another philosophical school). Pointing in particular to diatribal dialogues in Epictetus (e.g., Diss. 2.23) and Dio Chrysostom (e.g., Or. 61.2,3), Stowers draws a number of conclusions concerning their form and purpose. First, they are characterized by short (elliptic or anacoluthic) sentences and every-day conversational expressions. Exclamations such as τί οὖν; (“What then?”) and µὴ 94–95; Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context: The Argument of Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 118–20; Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 241; Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 80–83; Alain Gignac, L’épitre aux Romains, Commentaire biblique. Nouveau Testament 6 (Paris: Cerf, 2014), 144; Rafael Rodríguez, If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014), 64–65. 13 See, for instance, Otto Halbauer, De Diatribis Epicteti (Leipzig: Noske Bornen, 1911), 1–7; and Hildegard Cancik, Untersuchungen zu Senecas epistulae morales, Spudasmata 18 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), 47–48. 14 Stanley Kent Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 15 Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 48–49.

64

JERMO VAN NES

γένοιτο (“By no means!”) are common for drawing conclusions and giving rebukes respectively. Second, the use of the first-person plural is rare in diatribal literature except in diatribal dialogues. Referring to the discussion partners, the dialogical “we” was most often used when basic premises and beliefs were shared. And, third, the initial question or objection is expressed by either the teacher or the interlocutor. Whoever started the conversation, the teacher is always in control and guides the discussion to a point or points of agreement and realization on the part of the interlocutor.16 Sometimes the interlocutor’s identity was exposed by means of a rhetorical apostrophe (ἀποστροφή). In that case, the teacher would suddenly shift to the second-person singular and address the imaginary person in a censorious way for either representing a certain vice or being a member of a particular school of thought.17 Based on his overall study of the Greek diatribe, Stowers in later studies points out that Romans 2:17–29 could very well serve as an apostrophe to 3:1–9, as Paul unexpectedly shifts to the second-person singular in 2:17 and characterizes the imaginary interlocutor as someone who proudly proclaims to be a Jew.18 Arguing that the criterion for acceptability by God is the same for both Jews and Gentiles in 2:25–29, Paul’s apostrophe is interrupted by a logical question from the Jewish interlocutor in 3:1— What is the advantage of being a Jew? Unlike traditional readings, Stowers interprets 3:3 after Paul’s brief answer in 3:2 not as another objection from the interlocutor, but as a leading question from Paul as diatribal teacher. Throughout 3:3–9, Paul is not polemicizing against Judaism but leading his student not only to answer his own objections (stated in vv. 4 and 6) but also to affirm Paul’s basic theological beliefs. This is why the interlocutor in verse 9a asks his final question whether Jews are at a disadvantage, which Paul strongly denies as he repeats the overall conclusion of his argument in verse 9b-c that “Jews can Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 158–64. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 105–10. 18 Stanley Kent Stowers, “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Romans 3:1-9,” CBQ 46 (1984): 707–22; A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1994), 159–75. 16 17

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

65

in no way expect to escape full responsibility for what they do in spite of God’s faithfulness.”19 Overall, the interlocutor speaks in verses 1, 4, 6, and 9a and Paul in verses 2-3, 5, 7-8, and 9b-c. For Stowers, this understanding of Romans 3:1–9 better accounts for the dialogical “we” in verses 5, 8, and 9 as it consistently refers to Paul and his conversation partner. It also better fits the overall context of Romans 1:16–2:29, because 3:1–9 serves as “a continuation and enrichment of the double theme of God’s impartiality in judgment and in grace.”20 Stowers’s understanding of diatribe in general has not been seriously questioned,21 but his reading of Romans 3:1–9 has evoked different responses.22 Some have objected to a diatribal reading. Others have proposed a “rescription” of the passage. And yet others have questioned the supposed Jewish identity of the interlocutor. Each of these responses will now be briefly discussed. 1.1 Diatribal Critiques

In 1983, David Hall was one of the first to openly dispute a dialogical interpretation of Romans 3:1–8.23 As his work was published just before Stowers’s article appeared in 1984, most of Hall’s criticisms apply to traditional readings. First, a diatribal understanding of the text would imply that “the objections are stated in detail, and Paul’s replies are brief and inadequate.”24 Second, Paul only uses introductory formulas that are characteristic of the diatribe (e.g., ἐρεῖς οὖν in Rom 9:19; 11:19; ἀλλ᾽ ἐρεῖ τις in 1 Cor 15:35; and φησίν in 2 Cor 10:10) when an Stowers, “Paul’s Dialogue,” 720. Stowers, “Paul’s Dialogue,” 720. 21 So King, Speech in-Character, 124. 22 Joseph A. Fitzmyer (Romans, AB 33 [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 325), Witherington with Hyatt (Romans, 75, 93), and Antonio Pitta (Lettera ai Romani, I Libri Biblici Nuovo Testamento 6 [Milan: Paoline, 2001], 134) seem to accept Stowers’s division of Romans 3:1–9. 23 David R. Hall, “Romans 3.1-8 Reconsidered,” NTS 29 (1983): 183–97. Some of Hall’s criticisms echo earlier critical comments by Frédéric Godet, Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Romains, 2nd ed. (Paris: Sandoz & Thuillier, 1883), 1:303. 24 Hall, “Romans 3.1-8 Reconsidered,” 183. 19 20

66

JERMO VAN NES

imaginary objector is introduced. This is not the case in Romans 3:1–9. Third, the phrase τί ἐροῦµεν; (“what then shall we say?”) in 3:5 cannot be indicative of an objection as Paul uses the phrase elsewhere in the letter to introduce a conclusion (cf. Rom 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; and 9:30). And, fourth, the use of µή in interrogative questions (3:3, 5) always anticipates a negative response, implying that only Paul himself can introduce and affirm these questions (3:4, 6) as this is not to be expected from an objector. For all of these reasons, Hall concludes that Romans 3:1–8 is best understood as a monologue reflecting an internal struggle within Paul’s own conscience. Fitting the main theme of Romans—the relationship of Jew and Gentile to the saving righteousness of God, Paul’s argument in the text runs something like this: (1) The Jew has the advantage of possessing the covenant and its promises (vv. 1, 2); (2) God’s judgment of the Jews, described in chapter 2, does not contradict the covenant because (a) the OT itself recognizes that God’s judgment is consistent with his saving righteousness (vv. 3, 4), (b) if God were not free to exercise his wrath, this would produce intolerable moral consequences (vv. 5-8).25 According to R. Dean Anderson, a dialogical understanding of Romans 3:1–9 only makes sense if “the remarks of the two speakers concerned are immediately identifiable without the aid of separate markers in the text.”26 This was common among dialogues in classical Antiquity (cf. e.g., Cicero, Clu. 70-72). Given the absence of explicit dialogical markers in verses 1–9, Anderson notes that the addressees would not have been able to easily discern which statements belong to which person. By way of alternative, he suggests that Romans 3:1–9 is dialogue-like due to Paul’s use of aitiologia (αἰτιολογία)—a short inquiring question answered by the speaker. This rhetorical technique was very well adapted to conversational style, holding the audience’s attention by its charm

Quoted from Hall, “Romans 3.1-8 Reconsidered,” 185. R. Dean Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, rev. ed., CBET 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 217, n. 59. 25 26

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

67

and expectation of the reason to follow (cf. Rhet. Her. 4.23-24). It would affect the tone of Paul’s speech as he attempts to show how the objections expressed in verses 3 and 5 are unfounded in comparison to what he has been saying in Romans 2. A few other commentators have also expressed their reservations about a diatribal reading of Romans 3:1–9. As Douglas Moo comments, “Paul is not so much reproducing for his readers an argument between himself and another person [i.e., a diatribe] as he is posing questions and objections to himself in order to make his views clear to the Romans.”27 Like Hall and Anderson, Richard Longenecker points to Paul’s consecutive reasoning in absence of any dialogical markers in the text, such as a second-person singular pronoun or suffix (cf. Rom 2:1–5, 17– 24; 9:19–21; and 11:17–24), an introductory formula (cf. Rom 9:19; 11:19; 1 Cor 10:10; and 15:35), or an explicit address with the vocative (cf. Rom 2:1, 3; and 9:20).28 Paul consistently uses such markers in cases of diatribe styling, introducing his own questions with τί οὖν (“What then?”) in 9:19 and ἐρεῖς οὖν (“you will say then”) in 11:19. To Longenecker it seems that this does not apply to the set of questions and answers in Romans 3:1–8, which makes it an internal debate more than a diatribal dialogue.29 1.2 Rescripting Romans 3:1–9

Others have endorsed Stowers’s diatribal understanding of Romans 3:1–9 but questioned the structure of his so-called

Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 190. Cf. Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief, HThKNT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977), 91; Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 115–19; Jakob van Bruggen, Romeinen: Christenen tussen stad en synagoge, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, derde serie (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 58–60; Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer 1-8, EKKNT 6/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Ostfildern: Patmos, 2014), 210; David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC 6 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021), 115. 28 Longenecker, Romans, 333. 29 Longenecker, Romans, 333–34. 27

68

JERMO VAN NES

“rescriptive”30 reading. Neil Elliott, for example, agrees on Stowers’s division of section 3–8c but argues that verse 8d—ὧν τὸ κρίµα ἔνδικόν ἐστιν (“their condemnation is just!”)—belongs to the Jewish interlocutor.31 Inversely, he wonders why Stowers considers verses 1 and 9 as objections raised by this imaginary person. Appealing to Stowers’s own observation that interruptive objections from the interlocutor are to be distinguished from recapitulative questions of the teacher, which are usually marked by phrases such as τί οὖν (“What then?”) or an equivalent, Elliott argues that the questions in verses 1 and 9 “on purely formal grounds”32 are best understood as voiced by Paul. Accordingly, he attributes verses 1, 3, 5, 7–8c, and 9a to Paul, and verses 2, 4, 6, 8d, and 9b to the interlocutor. By using a dialogue, following from the apostrophe in 2:17–29, Paul attempts to clarify the covenantal advantage of Jews in front of his largely non-Jewish audience in Rome. Consequently, Elliott notes, the interlocutor in Romans 3:1–9 agrees with Paul’s reasoning and mainly serves to help the actual audience of the letter get the point, namely that being Jewish has no advantage in being exempted from God’s righteous judgment.33 Douglas Campbell and Justin King are among the very few scholars who have adopted Elliott’s alternative script of Romans 3:1–9, albeit for different reasons.34 Campbell believes that Romans 1–4 and 5–8 are fundamentally incompatible since the former chapters proclaim the gospel in terms of justification by faith that is antithetically opposed to Paul’s apocalyptic, participatory, unconditional, and retrospective gospel outlined in the latter chapters. Appealing to diatribe and the technique of Cf. King, Speech-in-Character, 4. Neil Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism, JSNTSup 45 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 140. 32 Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans, 139. 33 Cf. Neil Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire, Paul in Critical Contexts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 105– 106. 34 Cf. Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 572– 78; King, Speech-in-Character, 163–293. 30 31

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

69

“speaking in character” known as prosōpopoiia (προσωποποιία), Campbell attributes all of the justification by faith language to an opposing Teacher with whom Paul engages in 3:1–9 to prove to the Roman audience the weakness of his gospel.35 King, however, argues that Paul’s presentation of the gospel in Romans 1 involves equality, impartiality, and inclusivity, whereas the character of the gospel as held by the Jewish interlocutor in Romans 2 involves privilege, partiality, and exclusivity. Reflecting both perspectives, Romans 3:1–9 represents a dialogue in which Paul is “posing leading questions that compel the interlocutor to rethink his previously held privileged and exclusive views.”36 Elliott’s rescriptive reading makes best sense, according to King, because all of the first-person speech can be attributed to Paul. It also accounts for the different responses found in verses 2 and 9, as Paul in typical diatribal fashion is exposing the inconsistencies in the interlocutor’s erroneous view of Jewish salvific and eschatological advantage over non-Jews stated in verse 2, and is leading him to affirm Paul’s view of universal equality in verse 9. As such, Elliott’s rescriptive reading of Romans 3:1–9 supports Paul’s overall argument in Romans for universal divine impartiality and anthropological equality, which features prominently in chapters 9–11. 1.3 Paul’s Dialogue Partner—Jew or Gentile?

All of the dialogical interpretations of Romans 3 discussed so far suppose that Paul’s interlocutor was a Jew. In 2003, however, Runar Thorsteinsson challenged the communis opinio by arguing that Paul’s dialogue partner throughout Romans is a Gentile proselyte representing the non-Jewish recipients of the letter, who had close connections with the Jewish community in Rome.37 Insisting on interpreting Romans as a letter and not a speech, Thorsteinsson believes that Romans is addressed to people in Rome of Gentile origin, who are subject to Paul’s apostolic Campbell, Deliverance, 535–38, 572–74. King, Speech-in-Character, 297. 37 Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography, ConBNT 45 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2003). 35 36

70

JERMO VAN NES

authority as “an apostle to the Gentiles” (cf. 11:13). To them Paul proclaims and explains God’s “good news” (cf. 1:15–16). Large parts of the letter are dialogical in nature, which underlines the letter’s pedagogical purpose. When the dialogical style of the diatribe was used in ancient letters, Thorsteinsson argues, the interlocutor was usually crafted as an imaginary person representative for the letter’s audience. Whoever this person was, (s)he should somehow, according to Greco-Roman conventions, represent Paul’s intended audience. Thorsteinsson’s thesis has not been widely accepted,38 but with respect to Romans 3:1–9 has been advanced in particular by Joshua Garroway. Adopting a traditional reading of Romans 3:1– 9, Garroway insists that a Gentile interlocutor best accounts for the use of pronouns as he “expresses concern over the implications of their (that is, Jewish) unbelief [in verse 1], our (that is, Gentile) injustice [in verse 5], and my (that is, Gentile) falsehood over and against the truth of God [in verse 7].”39 He wonders how the passive form προεχόµεθα; (“Are we disadvantaged?”) in verse 9 could be placed on the lips of a Jewish interlocutor since Paul had already confirmed Jewish advantage in verse 2. For Garroway, it would make more sense if this person is a Gentile interlocutor, who after realizing the erroneous implications that he drew from the Jewish advantage Paul confirmed in verses 1–2 and being “now under the impression that Jews do indeed have a certain advantage, understandably asks whether he and his fellow Gentiles are therefore at a disadvantage with respect to Jews.”40

2. PATRISTIC I NTERPRETATIONS OF ROMANS 3:1–9

The discussion so far proves that Romans 3:1–9 is a puzzling passage indeed as modern interpreters of Paul continue to debate See Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Matthew Thiessen, and Rafael Rodríguez, “Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans: The Problem of Identification,” in The So-Called Jew in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, ed. Rafael Rodríguez and Matthew Thiessen (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 7–8. 39 Joshua D. Garroway, “Paul’s Gentile Interlocutor in Romans 3:1-20,” in Rodríguez and Thiessen, The So-Called Jew, 94. Italics original. 40 Garroway, “Paul’s Gentile Interlocutor in Romans 3:1-20,” 94. Italics original. 38

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

71

the dialogical nature of the text, the attribution of words to the (supposed) interlocutor, and the identity of this imaginary person. But what about Paul’s first interpreters? Did they notice similar interpretative problems, and—if so—how did they understand the text? The reception of Paul’s letter to the Romans in general has been researched quite extensively, but Romans 3:1–9 has not been examined in much detail.41 The remainder of this study will offer perspectives from both Greek and Latin commentators writing in the first five centuries of the Christian Era.42 The earliest and most extensive commentary on Romans is offered by Origen (ca. 185–254), whose many works, according to Joseph Trigg, “evidence a splendid education, almost unrivaled among the Fathers.”43 His original Greek commentary on Romans has only survived in fragments but was abbreviated and translated into Latin by Rufinus of Aquileia (ca. 345–411). Origen’s comments on Romans 2:17–24 reveal that he is very much aware that understanding epistolary literature requires distinction among personae, “i.e., who is speaking, to whom the words are addressed, or about whom the discourse is being made” (Comm. Rom. 2.11.3).44 While in that section of his commentary Origen distinguishes between a “spiritual” and a “fleshly” Paul speaking in Romans, he also distinguishes between other

The passage is, for instance, surprisingly missing in Mark Reasoner’s Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005). 42 Unfortunately, many early Greek and Latin commentaries on Romans are only fragmentarily in nature and provide none to hardly any comments on Romans 3:1–9. This is the case for the commentaries by inter alia Diodore of Tarsus (died c. 390), Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428), Gennadius of Constantinople (died c. 471), and Augustine of Hippo (354–430). Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444) comments on Romans verses 3–4 and 5–8, but discusses both passages as if they were entirely Paul’s. 43 Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, ECF (London; New York: Routledge, 1998), 5. 44 English translations of the Latin text derive from Thomas P. Scheck, trans., Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, books 1-10, 2 vols., FC 103-104 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001–2002). 41

72

JERMO VAN NES

speakers. Commenting on Romans 9:14–19, Origen notes that Paul… … had introduced some persona that contradicts him and raises objections by saying: Is there injustice on God’s part if it is not of the one who wills or strives, but of God who shows mercy, and if [God] chose Pharaoh for the purpose of showing in him the authority of his power, and if he himself shows mercy to whom he wants and he hardens whom he wants, so that he asks, Why does he still blame men and why is the one who sins found culpable, since his will would be deemed such concerning each? With a most deserved exclamatory rebuke, [Paul] confronts the person who raises these [complaints] and things like these, as a man who is impudently and inappropriately intruding into the chamber of this mystery (Comm. Rom. 7.16.3).

Being aware of different speakers in Romans, Origen seems to attribute 3:1–8 entirely to Paul. He discusses the passage in two parts. In the first part (vv. 1–4), Origen notes that Paul in his letter to the Romans is “like an arbiter sitting between the Jews and the Greeks, i.e., believing Gentiles,” who “summons and invites both groups to faith in Christ in such a way as to not offend the Jews completely by destroying the Jewish ceremonies nor to cause despair in the Gentiles by affirming the observance of the law and of the letter” (Comm. Rom. 2.14.1). Origen also notes that Paul’s insistence on spiritual over bodily circumcision (cf. Rom 2:25–29) seems to make the Gentile cause superior, allowing for a reading of Romans 3:1–4 “as if he [i.e. Paul] is replying to the complaints of those who are of the circumcision group” (Comm. Rom. 2.14.4). This could imply that the questions asked in verse 1 are raised by someone other than Paul, but the comparator “if” and other notions such as “he tells us,” “he adds,” “he says,” “the Apostle introduces these things,” and “the words of the Apostle” throughout Origen’s commentary on verses 1–4 make this unlikely (Comm. Rom. 2.14.5–6, 8, 15–17, and 19). This is confirmed by Origen’s first comment in the second part (vv. 5–8), where he says that “nearly the entire text of this epistle [is] composed by the Apostle Paul” (Comm. Rom. 3.1.2). Like modern scholars, Origen observes in this part more than once that the “sequence of thought

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

73

is quite incoherent” (Comm. Rom. 3.1.2), and that Paul slips “from one digression into another” (Comm. Rom. 3.1.3). This, for Origen, seems to be due to the objections that originated in the minds of others, such as that “God, who brings wrath upon men, is unjust since his righteousness is confirmed by our unrighteoussness” (Comm. Rom. 3.1.8; cf. Rom 3:5b). Yet Origen nevertheless attributes the entire text of Romans 3:5–8 to Paul as he frequently adds the phrase “he says” (Comm. Rom. 3.1.4, 5, 13, and 14). When Origen in the next section of his commentary summarizes his comment on Romans 3:1–8, he concludes that “he [i.e. Paul] had seemed to say above that if the uncircumcised should keep the righteous requirements of the law, then he will condemn him who, with his circumcision, is a transgressor of the law” (Comm. Rom. 3.2.2). A non-dialogical understanding of Romans 3:1–8 is also found in the Greek homilies on Romans by John Chrysostom (ca. 349–407), who became a bishop in Syria and Constantinople after doing studies under the patronage of a professional orator.45 In what is said to be one of his densest commentaries, Chrysostom discusses Romans 3:1–8 in his sixth homily. While the questions in verses 1, 3, 5, and 7–8 are characterized as objections (cf. Hom. Rom. 6.1, 4, and 7), Chrysostom throughout his commentary on the passage constantly uses phrases such as “he says” (Hom. Rom. 6.1, 4, 6, and 8), “he is saying this” (Hom. Rom. 6.2), and “he adds” (Hom. Rom. 6.3, 6) in relation to the apostle Paul.46 That all text is attributed to Paul becomes evident from a comment on verse 8d—ὧν τὸ κρίµα ἔνδικόν ἐστιν (“whose damnation is just”), of which Chrysostom says that “this is the conclusion to which he [i.e., Paul] has here drawn his discussion” (Hom. Rom. 6.8). This non-dialogical understanding of Romans 3:1–8 differs from more explicitly dialogical passages, such as Romans 9:19–21. Commenting on verse 20a, Chrysostom notes that Paul “stops the See Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, John Chrysostom, ECF (London; New York: Routledge, 2000), 4–11. 46 The English translation of the Greek text derives from J. B. Morris, W. H. Simcox, and George B. Stevens, trans., The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom: Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans, NPNF 11 (1886; repr. Oklahoma: Veritatis Splendor, 2012), 105–26. 45

74

JERMO VAN NES

disputant’s mouth” and takes down “the objector’s unseasonable inquisitiveness, and excessive curiosity.” By asking a counter question in Romans 9:20a, Paul “hushed and softened down his spirit,” and has made “easy of admittance with him” (Hom. Rom. 16.18–20). This suggests that Chrysostom does recognize dialogical passages in Romans, but does not consider 3:1–8 to be one of them. A similar understanding of Romans 3:1–9 appears in the first complete Latin commentary on the Pauline epistles as attributed to “Ambrosiaster,” a name coined in the early modern period to associate the work with the Milanese bishop Ambrosius (ca. 339– 97) to whom the work was attributed in most of the manuscript tradition. The identity of the author of this commentary continues to be a mystery, but (s)he probably wrote it between 366 and 384 AD when serving as a presbyter near or in Rome.47 Nowhere does Ambrosiaster give indications of understanding Romans 3:1–9 to be a dialogical passage. All verses are attributed to Paul by using phrases such as “Paul says,” “he says,” “Paul adds,” etc. (Comm. ep. Paul. Rom 3:1–9). Only on the question ποιήσωµεν τὰ κακά, ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά; (“’Let us do evil so that good may come’?”) in verse 8, does (s)he comment that it was raised by opponents. Yet it was “the apostle” who “asked himself this question” (Comm. ep. Paul. Rom 3:8). Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393–466), whose educational details are unknown to us but whose Greek “works reveal a vast erudition,”48 does not understand Romans 3:1–8 to be dialogical either. He attributes all verses to Paul, introducing them by phrases such as “he adds,” “he cites,” “he is saying,” “he invokes,” and “he

See Theodore S. de Bruyn, Stephen A. Cooper, and David G. Hunter, Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles: Romans, WGRW 41 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), xxiii–xxix. 48 István Pásztori-Kupán, Theodoret of Cyrus, ECF (London; Routledge: New York, 2006), 4. He further notes that Theodoret mastered the biblical languages and was conversant with classical literature, quoting from pagan philosophers, poets and historians throughout his works. 47

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

75

reminds” (Comm. Rom. 2).49 Concerning Romans 3:6–7, Theodoret notes that [t]he divine apostle conducts an argument from the viewpoint of the adversaries. […] Of necessity he adduced the contrary position proposed by the other side, and demonstrated its inappropriateness by refutation. It is not I who am saying this, he says: I marshalled the thoughts of the others (the meaning of in human terms) (Comm. Rom. 3).

While Theodoret thus indicates that the questions originate from others, he still affirms that Paul is the one formulating them. Finally, the classics-trained ascetic teacher Pelagius (ca. 354–420) seems to be one of the first ancient commentators showing awareness of the interpretative difficulties surrounding Romans 3:1–9 as expressed by modern commentators.50 Pelagius does so, however, in a confusing way.51 He attributes verse 1 to Paul, but notes that the apostle in verse 2a—πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον (“Much in every way!”)—“receives a reply in the person of a Jew” (Exp. ep. ad Rom. 3:2).52 Pelagius wonders how verse 2a and the phrase πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης (“everyone is a liar”) in verse 4 can be voiced by Paul as they seem to contradict his denial of Jewish advantage in verse 9 and his statement in verse 5 respectively. He also notes that Psalm 51:6 in verse 4 is cited by “[t]he opposing party,” perceiving verses 2–4 as an extensive objection which “the apostle begins to answer” (Exp. ep. ad Rom. 3:4) from verse 5 onwards.

English translations derive from Robert Charles Hill, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, vol. 1 (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001). 50 On the life and legacy of Pelagius, see Mathijs Lamberigts, “Pelagius and Pelagians,” in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, ed. Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) 258–79. 51 See the comment by Theodore de Bruyn (Pelagius’s Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, OECS [Oxford: Clarendon, 1993], 77, n. 2) in his translation of Pelagius’s commentary on Romans: “There is a confusion of voices in Pelagius’s representation of vv. 2-4.” 52 English translations of the Latin text derive from De Bruyn, Pelagius’s Commentary. 49

76

JERMO VAN NES

3. CONCLUSION

Understanding Romans 3:1–9 as a dialogue seems to be a modern more than an ancient phenomenon. Ever since Rudolf Bultmann’s study on the diatribe, scholars have seriously debated whether the text is to be attributed to Paul in part or in whole. Over the years, several proposals have emerged: Dialogical Readings Traditional readings

Rescriptive Readings

NonDialogical Readings

Bultmann et al.

Stowers et al. Elliott et al.

Hall et al.

3:1

Interlocutor

Interlocutor

Paul

Paul

3:2

Paul

Paul

Interlocutor

3:3

Interlocutor

3:4

Paul

Interlocutor

Interlocutor

3:5

Interlocutor

Paul

Paul

3:6

Paul

Interlocutor

Interlocutor

3:7

Interlocutor

Paul

Paul

Paul

3:8a-c 3:8d

Paul

3:9a

Interlocutor

Interlocutor

Paul

3:9b

Paul

Paul

Interlocutor

3:9c

Interlocutor

Paul

None of the advocates of each proposal for understanding Romans 3:1–9 have considered how the text was understood by Patristic commentators, including Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Theodoret, and Pelagius. All but one of these ancient writers attributed the text to Paul in its entirety, even though Origen and Chrysostom allowed for other dialogical passages in Romans (e.g., 9:19–21). For Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, and Theodoret, some verses were constructed in response to Jewish opposition: verses 1–4 (Origen), verses 1, 3, 5, and 7–8 (Chrysostom), verse

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

77

8 (Ambrosiaster), and verses 6–7 (Theodoret). The only extant Patristic commentator on Romans who seems to allow for a dialogical understanding of Romans 3:1–9 is Pelagius, possibly attributing verses 2–4 to a Jewish opponent. None of these findings say anything conclusive about the (non-)dialogical nature of Romans 3:1–9. Yet perhaps contemporary exegetes should ask themselves why the vast majority of early commentators on Romans, all well-trained and (highly) educated interpreters, did not understood the passage as a (diatribal) dialogue. Even if Pelagius attributes verses 2–4 to a Jewish opponent, his proposal does not match with any of the modern traditional or rescriptive dialogical proposals for Romans 3:1–9.53

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, R. Dean. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. Rev. ed. CBET 18. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Bultmann, Rudolf. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynischstoische Diatribe. FRLANT 13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Cancik, Hildegard. Untersuchungen zu Senecas epistulae morales. Spudasmata 18. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Chrysostom, John. Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Translated by J. B. Morris, W.H. Simcox, and George B. Stevens. In vol. 11 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886. Repr., Oklahoma: Veritatis Splendor, 2012.

For many years, I have been used to expressing my gratitude to Martin Webber for giving helpful comments on my work and correcting my English. This time, my thanks is due to our colleague Jeremy Otten. Martin, I cannot thank you enough for being my teacher, mentor, and friend. You have shaped my education significantly, and your erudition, scholarship, and steadfast character will continue to be a source of inspiration to me. 53

78

JERMO VAN NES

Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “Romans 3:9: Text and Meaning.” Pages 184– 204 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. De Bruyn, Theodore S. Pelagius’s Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. OECS. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. De Bruyn, Theodore S., Stephen A. Cooper, and David G. Hunter. Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles: Romans. WGRW 41. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017. Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932. Elliott, Neil. The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. ———. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism. JSNTSup 45. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Garland, David E. Romans. TNTC 6. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021. Garroway, Joshua D. “Paul’s Gentile Interlocutor in Romans 3:120.” Pages 85–100 in The So-Called Jew in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Edited by Rafael Rodríguez and Matthew Thiessen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Gignac, Alain. L’épitre aux Romains. Commentaire biblique. Nouveau Testament 6. Paris: Cerf, 2014. Godet, F. Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Romains. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Paris: Sandoz & Thuillier, 1883. Halbauer, Otto. De Diatribis Epicteti. Leipzig: Noske Bornen, 1911. Hall, David R. “Romans 3.1-8 Reconsidered.” NTS 29 (1983): 183–97. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jülicher, Adolf. “Der Brief an die Römer.” Pages 223–335 in Die paulinischen Briefe und die Pastoralbriefe. Edited by Wilhelm Bousset and Wilhelm Heitmüller. 3rd ed. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917.

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

79

King, Justin. Speech in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1—9: Who’s Speaking When and Why It Matters. Biblical Interpretation Series 163. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018. Kuss, Otto. Der Römerbrief. Vol. 1. Regensburg: Pustet, 1957. Lamberigts, Mathijs. “Pelagius and Pelagians.” Pages 258–79 in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Lietzmann, Hans. An die Römer. 3rd ed. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1928. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Matera, Frank J. Romans. Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Mayer, Wendy, and Pauline Allen. John Chrysostom. ECF. London; New York: Routledge, 2000. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, books 1-10. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. 2 vols. FC 103-104. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001–2002. Pásztori-Kupán, István. Theodoret of Cyrus. ECF. London; Routledge: New York, 2006. Penna, Romano. Lettera ai Romani 1-5. Scritti delle origini cristiane 6/1. Bologna: Dehoniane, 2004. Pitta, Antonio. Lettera ai Romani. I Libri Biblici Nuovo Testamento 6. Milan: Paoline, 2001. Räisänen, Heikki. “Zum Verständnis von Röm 3,1–8.” SNTSU-A 10 (1985): 93–108. Reasoner, Mark. Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Rodríguez, Rafael. If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief. HThKNT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977.

80

JERMO VAN NES

Song, Changwong. Reading Romans as a Diatribe. StBibLit 59. New York: Lang, 2004. Stowers, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1994. ———. “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Romans 3:1-9.” CBQ 46 (1984): 707–22. ———. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Thielman, Frank. Romans. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018. Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. Vol. 1. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001. Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography. ConBNT 45. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2003. Thorsteinsson, Runar M., Matthew Thiessen, and Rafael Rodríguez. “Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans: The Problem of Identification.” Pages 1–37 in The So-Called Jew in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Edited by Rafael Rodríguez and Matthew Thiessen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context: The Argument of Romans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. Trigg, Joseph W. Origen. ECF. London; New York: Routledge, 1998. Van Bruggen, Jakob. Romeinen: Christenen tussen stad en synagoge. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, derde serie. Kampen: Kok, 2006. Webber, Martin. “Early Christian Views of the Lord’s Prayer.” Pages 61–77 in My Brother’s Keeper: Essays in Honor of Ellis R. Brotzman. Edited by Thomas J. Marinello and H. H. Drake Williams III. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. ———. “Odes of Solomon and Epistle of Barnabas: Different Christian Perspectives on the ‘Parting(s) of the Ways’ between Judaism and Christianity in the Second Century.” Pages 99–114 in Drawing and Transcending Boundaries in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Edited by Jacobus Kok, Martin Webber, and Jermo van Nes. Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel / Contributions to Understanding the Bible 38. Zürich: LIT, 2019.

3. WHO IS TALKING IN ROMANS 3:1-9?

81

Witherington III, Ben, with Darlene Hyatt. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Römer 1-8. EKKNT 6/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Ostfildern: Patmos, 2014.

CHAPTER 4. DOUBLY TRUE: THE TWO SIDES OF GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT (ROMANS 3:9–11) JEREMY D. OTTEN EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN I NTRODUCTION

It is well established that Paul in Romans appeals to God’s “faithfulness” (πίστις) as well as his “justice/righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) in various ways. The “righteousness of God” (δικαιοσύνη θέου) can refer, among other things, to God’s own moral righteousness, the moral standard by which he judges humanity, the righteousness God bestows upon his people, his saving acts for his people, his fidelity to his covenant, or to his vindication either of his own character or of his covenant people.1 See Denny Burk’s (“The Righteousness of God (Diakiosunē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification,” JSNT 34 [2012]: 346– 60) helpful discussion on narrowing down the many options cited in commentaries for interpreting this genitive construction. For discussion on shades of meaning for δικαιοσύνη, see Frank Thielman (“God’s Righteousness as God’s Fairness in Romans 1:17: An Ancient Perspective on a Significant Phrase,” JETS 54 [2011]: 35–48). Cf. Douglas J. Moo, 1

83

84

JEREMY D. OTTEN

Martin Luther’s own shift in understanding of the phrase as it appears in Romans 1:17 makes it quite possibly the most significant Greek genitive in all of human history, and scholars before and after Luther have argued for variations on the many shades of meaning listed above at various places throughout Romans. Likewise, the “faithfulness” (πίστις) of God (3:3) can refer to God’s faithfulness to his covenant people and his promises within the covenant to bless them, as well as, no less, to his faithfulness to his own character and his promises (also within the covenant) to judge sin without bias. Drawing on these concepts of God’s righteousness and faithfulness, Romans 3:1–9 presents, somewhat paradoxically, Paul’s insistence that Jews have “much” advantage “in every way” (πολὺ κατὰ τρόπον, v. 2), while at the same time making the point that he and his fellow Jews do not really have any advantage “at all” (οὐ πάντως, v. 9).2 Likewise, Paul seems to suggest in these verses that God’s faithfulness implies both salvation-historical advantage to Israel (faithfulness to his people) as well as their accountability and culpability, alongside the Gentiles, before a just God (faithfulness to himself and his character). All of this somewhat complex line of reasoning is applied in service to his overall point in this section, that “both Jews as well as Gentiles are all under sin” (3:9).3 Yet the tension remains: can God actually be called faithful if his chosen nation is no better off than all other nations? And Paul seems satisfied to leave that tension unresolved for now. At the same time, the apostle’s poignant wording in verse 3, that “some” (τινές) were unfaithful—implying that others were not— anticipates critical theological argumentation regarding the two paradoxical sides of God’s justice and faithfulness towards Israel, which Paul will develop more fully in Romans 9–11.4

The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 72–100. 2 See below on the interpretative difficulties in verse 9. 3 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are the author’s translation. 4 See especially James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas: Word, 1988), 140.

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

85

This brief study will seek to spell out what Paul has been content to flag yet leave unstated in chapter 3; namely, how the OT remnant concept manifests both sides of God’s trustworthiness. In and through the remnant, God is utterly faithful to his word—his words of salvation for Israel as well as his words of judgment upon her. While numerous scholars have noted links between these two sections, few have given sufficient attention to Paul’s remnant theology within this discussion. To do this, I will first briefly outline Paul’s logic in Romans 3:1–8, highlighting especially the verbal and conceptual ties with chapters 9–11. I will then turn to those chapters, tracing out Paul’s theology of the remnant of Israel and showing how these chapters pick up the thematic threads that have been deliberately left hanging during the intervening six chapters. Finally, I will make concluding comment on the overall function of the remnant concept in Paul’s theology, noting that it holds together otherwise contradictory concepts—salvation and judgment, Jew and Gentile, old and new—thus making God’s words doubly true. I have argued elsewhere that the remnant concept is best characterized by the removal of a large portion of a people through God’s judgment, the remainder of a representative portion by God’s grace, and a renewal of the whole through this remainder.5 Especially in the OT prophets, this is usually followed by a subsequent reaching out to the nations. I will be applying these same categories throughout.

1. “SOME” WERE U NFAITHFUL (ROMANS 3:1–20)

These dense verses at the beginning of Romans come at the heels of Paul’s lengthy argumentation in the previous chapter that neither Jewish ethnicity nor circumcision nor the possession of the law in themselves are sufficient for salvation, or even sufficient to put one on firmer soteriological ground than the Gentiles: “For indeed, circumcision is profitable to you if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision is as good as uncircumcision” (2:25). This naturally raises the question Jeremy D. Otten, I Alone Am Left: Elijah and the Remnant in Luke-Acts (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2021). 5

86

JEREMY D. OTTEN

that introduces chapter 3: “Then what benefit is there in being a Jew, or what good is circumcision?” (v. 1). Perhaps to his readers’ surprise, given the argument of the preceding chapter, Paul insists that the answer is “much in every respect” (v. 2), not least in that the Jews were “entrusted with the words spoken by God [ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ]” (v. 2). In mentioning these divine oracles “in the first place [πρῶτον]” (v. 2), it is likely that Paul intended to give a longer list of Israel’s advantages but cut himself off to discuss this first and most important item in more depth.6 This list is apparently suspended until chapter 9, where Paul finally resumes with “the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the promises,” as well as “the patriarchs” and even “the lineage, physically speaking, of the Messiah” (9:4–5). Especially in light of this continuation of the list, the appeal to “utterances” or “oracles” (λογία) likely refers to the whole OT revelation, especially as it is fulfilled in Christ, of which Israel were the custodians, though with a particular eye towards God’s covenant promises to Israel.7 In saying that Israel was “entrusted” (ἐπιστύθησαν, v. 2) with these words of God, Paul highlights their salvation-historical primacy of place, but also introduces, through wordplay, the key theological question that is raised in the next verse and then more fully developed in chapters 9–11, namely, the question of God’s “faithfulness” to his “word.”8 If, Paul asks, some Israelites were “unfaithful” (ἠπίστησαν), could their “unfaithfulness” (ἀπισία) in fact nullify the “faithfulness” (πίστιν) of God (v. 3)? Paul does not see it necessary to clarify whether the unfaithfulness in question has to do with Israel’s historic violation of the covenant as read in the OT, the Charles D. Myers, “Chiastic Inversion in the Argument of Romans 3–8,” NovT 35 (1993), 46; cf. Moo, Romans, 191; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 138. Pace Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 243, who, though rightly emphasizing the importance of this particular benefit in Paul’s theology (thus translating πρῶτος as “chiefly”), goes too far in pitting the one meaning against the other. 7 Cf. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 138. For a list of interpretative options, see Moo, Romans, 191–92. 8 Jewett, Romans, 243; cf. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 131. 6

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

87

current failure of Jews adequately to keep the law as described in Romans 2, or the failure of (most) Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Likely, Paul has some combination of the first two in mind, but the use of πιστεὺω here strongly suggests that the third is anticipated as well (to be picked up later in 9:30–32 and 10:15– 17).9 More significant for our current discussion, the threefold repetition of the πιστ- stem in this verse further highlights the critical question at play in Paul’s theological discussion: Is God faithful to Israel or not? The two-part corollary to this question is perhaps still more critical: If he is not faithful to Israel, is he then unfaithful to his word? And if he is faithful to Israel (despite her sin), is he then unfaithful to his character? Paul is insistent that neither of these is the case (µὴ γένοιτο, v. 4). God is eternally and absolutely righteous; he is faithful and true, regardless of human unfaithfulness and deceit (v. 4). Paul sums up this section of argument by saying that Jews in fact do not have a soteriological advantage over the Gentiles, since “both Jews as well as Gentiles are all under sin” (3:9).10 However, as we have noted above, this discussion deliberately leaves unresolved the question of God’s enduring faithfulness to Israel—of what value was his covenant with them if they stand no better off than the heathen?11 Nevertheless, he leaves a few clues pointing us to his answer. Moo, Romans, 193–94; though cf. Jewett, Romans, 244, who argues strongly for the third option. See also their discussion on the punctuation difficulties of this verse. 10 On the text-critical and lexical difficulties with the word προεχόµεθα in verse 9, see especially Moo, Romans, 207–210. These difficulties notwithstanding, Moo is correct that the intent of Paul’s question in verse 9 is clearly to return to the topic of verses 1–8 and the question in verse 2, namely, whether Jews are any better or worse off than Gentiles in God’s economy of salvation. 11 Christoph Stenschke (“Römer 9–11 als Teil des Römerbriefs,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9– 11, ed. Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner, WUNT 257 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 207) notes aptly “das Problem bleibt im Raum stehen. Erst Kapitel 9–11 antworten auf die hier aufgeworfenen Fragen.” See also Egon Brandenburger, “Paulinische Schriftauslegung in der Kontroverse um das Verheißungswort Gottes (Röm 9),” ZTK 82 (1985), 5; Michael Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer 9–16, EKKNT 6/2 (Ostfildern: Patmos; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019), 23. 9

88

JEREMY D. OTTEN

In the context of so many universal and absolute statements in this passage (“every human being, v. 4; “all people, Jews as well as Gentiles,” v. 9; “no on . . . not even one,” v. 10; “no one . . . no one,” v. 11; “all . . . no one,” v. 12; etc.), Paul’s use of the word “some [τίνες]” in verse 3 is striking (cf. 11:17). Certainly, this is a “delicate” way of putting things, intended, no doubt to minimize offense, especially in light of his overall argument in this and the previous chapter that Israel’s unfaithfulness is, for all practical purposes, descriptive of the entire nation.12 Even so, this one word also serves as a subtle theological placeholder for the remnant theology, developed in chapters 9–11, that is essential for the integrity of the gospel as Paul articulates it. Namely, it establishes the distinction between faithful and unfaithful within Israel. In so doing, it establishes the compatibility of both judgment and salvation of Israel(ites) with God’s faithfulness to his covenant, while at the same time sustaining the assumption that Paul partially shared with his Jewish contemporaries that (in some way) all Israel would be saved (cf. Rom 11:26). In this way, the Pauline gospel, rather than casting a shadow on God’s faithfulness, shows God to be doubly faithful—faithful to his character and his words of judgment and faithful to his people and his promises for salvation. To see this, we must now direct our attention to chapters 9–11.

2. I T I S NOT AS THOUGH THE WORD OF GOD HAS FAILED (ROMANS 9–11)

Far from being the interruption or appendix to the apostle’s argument that it is sometimes considered, Romans 9–11 is rightly understood as a critical link in the chain of the logic of the epistle.13 Given the focus on the individual’s experiences of sin, justification, and the life of the Spirit in the preceding chapters (though never losing sight of the social and corporate dimensions of the gospel), one can appreciate why thinkers like Augustine and his followers, both ancient and modern, would see the discourse on Israel in the Dunn, Romans 9–16, 139; Moo, Romans, 193. See Stenschke, “Römer 9–11,” 197–225 on the function of this section within the epistle. 12 13

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

89

present section as something like an extended illustration of Paul’s more pressing theological point, namely the election and justification of the individual, or at best a sort of theological backstop put in place to tidy up doctrinal loose threads.14 In point of fact, however, we have already suggested that these chapters form a critical part in the logic of Paul’s argumentation, and thus in the overall purpose of his epistle. It is here that the apostle is finally able to return to the critical questions that he has raised but allowed to remain hanging for more than half of the letter, presumably so that they can be treated in sufficient depth here. Nor are the questions discussed here a mere theological abstraction— doctrinal curiosities but of no practical value. What is at stake is nothing less than the integrity of the gospel as Paul preaches it. If he were to suggest that Jews indeed have a soteriological advantage over other peoples, then the universality of the Pauline gospel would be false, and Gentiles would indeed be best advised to embrace circumcision and the law. Yet at the same time, Paul is unable to deny God’s eternal election of and covenant with Israel. To do that would not only sever the new covenant from its moorings in the old but also, in invalidating the latter, call into question the validity of the former.15 If these questions are left unresolved, then God is seen to be unfaithful (either to his people, his word, or his standard of righteousness), and the Pauline gospel to be unsound. But if they are successfully answered, God is seen to be doubly true. Although the stakes need no further raising, Paul does so in the first section (9:1–5), raising a heart-felt personal lament over the present unbelief of so many of his kinfolk.16 His hypothetical prayer “to be myself accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake See Moo, Romans, 569–72. “Of course, Paul could have cut the Gordian knot by simply claiming that the church had taken over Israel’s position and leaving it at that. But what, then, would become of the continuity between the OT and the gospel? Paul could not jettison these promises, for to do so would be to jettison the gospel” (Moo, Romans, 570–71). 16 See Moo, Romans, 574–75, on the basic outline of these three chapters. Cf. Florian Wilk, “Rahmen und Aufbau von Römer 9–11,” in Wilk and Wagner, Between Gospel and Election, 227–53. 14 15

90

JEREMY D. OTTEN

of my brothers and kin” (v. 3) gives us the first intimations of the remnant theme. On the strength of the several other allusions to Moses in this section (9:14–18; 10:19; and 11:13–14), most commentators recognize a reference here to Exodus 32:32.17 In the context of that passage, Yahweh has just threatened to wipe out the entire nation of Israel for their sin with the golden calf, leaving only Moses as a remnant, out of whom he will rebuild “a great nation” (Exod 32:10). Although Moses’s intercession for Israel—staking his own life on their behalf—stays God’s judgment, this scene serves as a critical moment in the OT remnant concept, not least in that it is also a model for Elijah’s own experience as Israel’s remnant, centuries later on the same mountain (1 Kgs 19:10–18).18 Whether or not Paul actually prayed this prayer or believed that he could serve as a substitute for his people, the image he draws from these OT passages is clear enough: the nation as a whole fallen into apostasy—this time by their rejection of the gospel—and Paul, like Moses and Elijah before him, as a lone faithful Israelite. After such a personal introduction, Paul lays the first block of his argument in 9:6–29, insisting that “it is not as though the word [λόγος] of God has failed” (v. 6), despite the widespread failure on the part of his fellow Jews to embrace Jesus as the Messiah. This is, first of all, because even among the first descendants of Abraham, God had exercised sovereign authority to elect some but not others. Citing the examples of God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael (vv. 7–9) and Jacob over Esau (vv. 10–13), Paul argues that from the very outset, God’s election has been a matter of his mercy, not of genetics, human exertion, or human will (v. 16). If God dealt thus even with the patriarchs, it should be no surprise, Paul tells us, that he would call only some “from among the Jews” (ἐξ Ἰουδαίων) (v. 24).19 Moreover, Paul argues, Moo, Romans, 578–80; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 544; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 508; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 532. 18 See further, Otten, I Alone Am Left, 34–44. 19 The mention of God’s election of some “from among the Gentiles” also (v. 24), though owing to the same divine sovereignty, is a surprising addition at this point, but it serves to anticipate Paul’s later development 17

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

91

the “word” (λόγος) of God has not failed (v. 6) because God’s λόγος does not entail only covenantal promises of blessing, but also promises of judgment—this λόγος too must be carried out, and “with finality and swiftness” (v. 28; cf. Isa 10:22–23 LXX).20 These two sides of God’s λόγος are exemplified in the two classic remnant texts to which Paul appeals. One the one hand, God’s judgment on Israel for rejecting his Messiah is devastating: “Though the number of the children of Israel be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant [ὑπόλειµµα] of them will be saved” (v. 27; cf. Isa 10:22).21 Yet on the other hand, the preservation of such a remnant for Israel reveals that God has not abandoned her or his promises to her, so that the prophetic lament contains with it a seed of hope for renewal: “If the Lord of Hosts had not left descendants [σπέρµα] to us, we would have become like Sodom, and been like Gomorrah” (v. 29; cf. Isa 1:9).22 However severe the of this point in chapter 11. See N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 1187. 20 It is unfortunate that the use of “sentence” to render λόγος in verse 28 in most EVV, though accurate within its immediate context, obscures the link with λόγος in verse 6. These two instances of the word on either end of the passage capture the tension Paul develops: God’s word of promise cannot fail, but neither will his word of judgment. 21 Isaiah 10:22 (quoted in v. 27) and Hosea 1:10 (quoted in v. 26) are linked by their reference to God’s promise to make Israel as numerous “as the sand of the sea” (Gen 22:17), which is probably one of Paul’s reasons for using them together (Moo, Romans, 632–33, n. 302). Both texts recognize the importance of God’s covenant faithfulness to the remnant concept, though they come at it from different directions. Hosea uses this promise as grounds for hope in the restoration of the remnant (Hos 1:10–11; cf. Gen 32:12). Isaiah, much like Paul at this point, holds it in tension with Israel’s present state and their pending judgment, warning the people not to presume upon God’s election (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 1:271). 22 Paul follows the LXX in using σπέρµα in place of the MT’s more technical “remnant [‫( ”]ָשׂ ִריד‬which explains the NRSV’s choice for “survivors” here.) Isaiah frequently uses seed imagery as an apt metaphor for the paradox of the remnant (esp. in 6:13; 14:22, 30; 15:9 LXX). On the one hand, a seed is a tiny representation of what Israel was and ought to be, but on the other, it carries with it the hope that these few survivors will grow into something greater.

92

JEREMY D. OTTEN

judgment on her, Israel is fundamentally unlike Sodom and Gomorrah, because a remnant—a seed of hope for renewal—is allowed to remain. In the section that follows (9:30–10:21), Paul further discusses the surprise of Israel’s failure to attain God’s righteousness while Gentiles have attained it in large numbers through the gospel. It is this large-scale Jewish rejection of the gospel (coupled with unprecedented Gentile acceptance of it) that is the occasion for the theological problem Paul wrestles with. This prompts him to raise once again in the next section (11:1– 10) the question of whether God has been unfaithful (11:1; cf. 9:6). And once again, the answer is an emphatic “no!” (µὴ γένοιτο). The apostle initially supplies himself as evidence of God’s continued faithfulness to his people—God cannot have rejected Israel entirely if Paul himself, by lineage and upbringing an Israelite, is saved (v. 1). Yet such a remnant—a handful of Jewish believers as a sort of theological placeholder—is not sufficient.23 Such tokenism fails to do justice not only to God’s promises to Israel, but also to the OT remnant concept itself. He argues instead that the remnant of Jewish believers in his day (including himself) is a guarantee of future national renewal, making his point in large part from the episode of Elijah on Mount Horeb mentioned above as one of the critical OT passages for the remnant concept (vv. 2–5; cf. 1 Kgs 19:10–18).24 Paul adapts the wording of 1 Kings 19:10, 14 somewhat and in so doing highlights Elijah’s role as the quintessential remnant figure. The verb ὑπολείπω in verse 3, following the LXX, serves to flag the remnant concept, and its use with µόνος, though not quite identical with the LXX construction (ὑπολέλειµµαι ἐγὼ µονώτατος), See further, William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity, LNTS 322 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 128; Scott Hafemann, “The Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:25–27: A Response to Krister Stendahl,” ExAud 4 (1988): 49–51. 24 See further, Otten, I Alone Am Left, 62–64; cf. Johannes Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 108; Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah, Andrews University Monographs 5 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972), 391. 23

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

93

nevertheless captures the meaning and sentiment of the OT passage.25 The abbreviation of the quotation causes the emphasis to fall on Elijah’s isolation as the remnant rather than on Israel’s apostasy.26 Paul’s assertion that Elijah “pleads with God against Israel” (ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ) (v. 2, emphasis added), though not explicitly stated in 1 Kings 19, is nevertheless an accurate assessment.27 Furthermore, the fact that Elijah stands as Israel’s accuser at this moment in no way disqualifies him from his position as remnant; it only serves to highlight the extent of Israel’s apostasy and thus the depths of the prophet’s aloneness.28 In every respect, Elijah functions as the remnant, but the key point in this text is that Elijah does not remain alone. The divine reply shifts attention to the seven thousand, which is the true focus of this passage: “I have kept [κατέλιπον] for myself [ἐµαυτῷ] seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (v. 4).29 Paul’s statement that there was “a remnant [λεῖµµα], chosen by grace” also “in the present time [καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ]” (v. 5) serves to draw the lines of the analogy: Paul (and his fellow Jewish believers) stand in the place of Elijah as Israel’s remnant. And like the OT prophet, they could hope for thousands more, chosen by grace, to join their number. The phrase ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ thus serves on the one hand to link Paul’s day with that of Elijah (today there

On Paul’s adaptation of his source, see Jewett, Romans, 655–56; Moo, Romans, 694, n. 584. 26 Markus Öhler, Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im frühen Christentum, BZNW 88 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 255–56; Jewett, Romans, 656. 27 See further, Otten, I Alone Am Left, 38–42. 28 Contra Öhler, Elia im Neuen Testament, 256; cf. Schreiner, Romans, 614; William S. Campbell, “The Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel,” JSNT 13 (1981), 35. Öhler suggests that Paul uses Elijah to voice the views of his hypothetical opponents, thus distancing the prophet from the remnant and from himself. However, this reverses the facts: Paul’s opponents are suggesting that the Lord has rejected Israel (11:2), whereas Elijah’s accusation is that Israel has abandoned the Lord. 29 Paul adapts and abbreviates the text as found in either LXX or MT, including his use of aorist instead of future tense to show his historical perspective on the event, though still remaining faithful to the general sense of the passage (Moo, Romans, 694, n. 584; Jewett, Romans, 657). 25

94

JEREMY D. OTTEN

is only a remnant, just as it was in Elijah’s day), as well as to situate Paul’s experience within the broader pattern of remnant theology (today there is only a remnant, but in the future there will be more).30 Just as the seven thousand would join Elijah, and that group symbolized the hope of a purified and restored Israel, so Paul could look at the small band of believing Israelites around him and take hope that one day all Israel would be saved. After further discussing the hardening that has prevented the majority of Israel (apart from the elect remnant) from embracing the gospel (vv. 6–10), Paul raises in the final section of his argument (11:11–32), the question of whether Israel’s “stumbling” is permanent (11:11). This too is answered with a resounding “no!” (µὴ γένοιτο). Furthermore, he argues, the present influx of Gentile believers is in no way a threat to Israel’s historic election or future conversion. To the contrary, in Paul’s view his Gentile mission will in fact be the vehicle for Israel’s revival (vv. 11–12). Although the conversion of the nations is often linked to the remnant of Israel in OT prophetic texts (esp. Isa 11:10; 49:6; and 66:19), Paul introduces to this connection the theme of jealousy (vv. 11, 14), whereby Yahweh threatened to make Israel’s remnant jealous by directing his attentions to the nations (Deut 32:21; cf. Rom 10:19).31 This added dimension allows the apostle, somewhat intriguingly, to reverse the chronology implied in most OT remnant texts, in which Israel’s restoration precedes or is at least contemporaneous with the conversion of the nations.32 By See also Hafemann, “Salvation of Israel,” 49. Gottlob Schrenk (“λεῖµµα, κτλ.” in TDNT 4:211) notes that the “surprise” of Romans 11 “is that the leimma is not the final goal.” 31 Moo, Romans, 705–6; Dunn Romans, 631, 669–70; Munck, Christ and Israel, 125; cf. Richard Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11, WUNT II/63 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 7–43. This assumes a positive understanding of παραζηλόω in verses 11 and 14. A minority opinion interprets this verb negatively, as a reference to further hardening (see esp. Murray Baker, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul’s Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and Israel’s Yes,” CBQ 67 [2005]: 469–84). 32 Intriguingly, a similar pattern is found in Tobit 14:6–7: “Then all the nations in the whole world will all be converted and will truly fear God. They will all abandon all their idols who deceitfully have led them into 30

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

95

contrast, in Paul’s schema, a successful Gentile mission will precede, and in fact bring about, the restoration of Israel.33 In the final verses of this section (vv. 16–32), Paul grounds his confidence for Israel’s future in a robust remnant theology: the existence of a remnant implies not only salvation-historical continuity but also a hope for renewal. He illustrates this with two word pictures: “If the portion offered as first fruits is holy, so also is the whole lump of dough. And if the root is holy, so also are the branches” (11:16). Even if there is no consensus on the exact significance of the respective elements of the two images, their general meaning is clear.34 God’s covenantal promises with Israel, given to the patriarchs and maintained in the remnant, are a guarantee of the future restoration of the entire nation, a future which is not at all threatened by the large numbers of Gentile converts at the present time. Some scholars identify the “first fruits” with the remnant (i.e., Jewish believers), an identification that is particularly attractive in light of Paul’s argument to this point (esp. vv. 2–5) as well as because of the concept of a portion being removed to represent the whole.35 However, the immediate context their error, and in righteousness they will praise the eternal God. All the Israelites who are saved in those days and are truly mindful of God will be gathered together; they will go to Jerusalem and live in safety forever in the land of Abraham, and it will be given over to them. Those who sincerely love God will rejoice, but those who commit sin and injustice will vanish from all the earth” (NRSV). 33 See Dale C. Allison Jr., “Romans 11:11–15: A Suggestion,” PRSt 12 (1985): 23–30. 34 See further in Hafemann, “Salvation of Israel,” 51; Dan G. Johnson, “Structure and Meaning of Romans 9–11,” CBQ 49 (1984), 99; Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 451–53; Bruce Chilton, “Romans 9–11 as Scriptural Interpretation and Dialogue with Judaism,” ExAud 4 (1988), 33; cf. Moo, Romans, 714–21; Campbell, Creation of Christian Identity, 129; Markus Barth, “One God, One Christ, One People,” ExAud 4 (1988), 16–17. 35 Hafemann, “Salvation of Israel,” 51; cf. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 671, who includes Gentile believers in this remnant as well. The identification with the remnant is often supported by the use of “first fruits” elsewhere in Paul (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:15; 2 Thess 2:13). Although these verses all refer to the first converts of a particular region or people group (with the

96

JEREMY D. OTTEN

better supports the traditional interpretation, in which the “first fruits” represents the patriarchs and God’s promises to them. This is in part because of the parallelism with the “root” (see further below), as well as because of the logic of the first fruits being the first portion of something (a harvest or a batch of dough), which is meant to influence how all that follows is viewed (cf. Num 15:17– 21).36 By contrast, one would expect the remnant to be removed in the middle of the process (and likely just before the rest of the batch was spoiled!) Thus, while the image of a batch of dough and its first fruits does not lend itself naturally to illustrate the remnant concept itself, it is a powerful demonstration of the principle of God’s election of Israel through the patriarchs—the very principle that has been hanging since chapter 3 and that, as we have seen in the above discussion, requires the remnant concept for its resolution. The first fruits require a “happy ending” for the whole batch, as it were, and the remnant is the vehicle equipped to navigate through the present unhappy circumstances to that happy outcome. As is common in biblical imagery, this picture is immediately followed by a more complex picture that allows more theological nuance and precision.37 In the imagery of the tree in verse 16b, there are various possible referents for the “root,” but most likely it represents the patriarchs as the recipients of God’s covenantal promises. It is God’s faithfulness to these promises that was first called into question in chapter 3 and has been so thoroughly discussed in the present section of the epistle. Just as the root guarantees the health of the tree’s branches, so God’s election of and promises to the patriarchs implies blessing for their descendants (all the more,

expectation of more), there is no specific connection with the remnant concept itself. 36 The question has been raised as to whether the first fruits in Numbers 15:17–21 did in fact have a sanctifying effect on the rest of the batch (Moo, Romans, 716–717; cf. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 671–72). Even so, Paul’s point regarding the organic connection and representative function of the first fruits vis-à-vis the batch still stands. 37 See, e.g., the progression of Jesus’s parables in Luke 15:3–32 in which each subsequent parable allows for further elements to be added to the one unifying principle.

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

97

because the “gifts and call of God are irrevocable” [v. 29]). However, the image becomes more complex. “Some” (τίνες) of the branches were broken off (v. 17), presumably due to their unfaithfulness or unbelief (cf. 3:3). Yet such an eventuality, tragic as it is, is no direct threat either to the integrity of the roots, nor the health of the good branches that remain. To put it in the language of 3:3, the unfaithfulness of “some” in no way nullifies God’s faithfulness to his promises. To the contrary, this remnant of healthy branches would serve as a sign that the roots are still intact. Paul continues, adding yet another layer of complexity. Just as the removal of some branches is no threat to the health of the roots, neither is the grafting in of “wild olive shoots” (i.e., Gentiles) “in among the branches” (ἐν αὐτοῖς) any threat to the overall integrity of the tree, nor is the presence of these wild branches a threat to the native ones.38 To the contrary, the very fact that foreign branches can be grafted in “contrary to nature” lends hope to the prospect of the much easier task of regrafting the original branches (v. 24).39 The key criterion for inclusion or exclusion is the presence or absence of faith (πιστίς) (v. 20), and Paul earnestly hopes that the unbelief (ἀπιστία) of his kinsfolk will be reversed (v. 23).

With most EVV, I translate ἐν αὐτοῖς in verse 17 as “in among them” (i.e., the remaining branches). NRSV’s “in their place” (i.e., the brokenoff branches) assumes that τίνες at the beginning of the verse must be the antecedent of αὐτοῖς. However, τῶν κλάδων (the branches as a whole) functions just as suitably as an antecedent, and “among them” is a more natural rendering of ἐν αὐτοῖς. More to the point, Paul’s argument up to this point (esp. vv. 11–12) and his discussion of regrafting in verses 23– 24 both point strongly away from the idea of direct substitution. For the same reasons, the ἵνα in verse 19 is best understood as showing result instead of purpose. 39 The logic of Paul’s imagery stands, with no need to go into the practicalities of keeping the removed branches alive long enough to regraft them, etc. So too, the question of whether or not Paul was aware that it was more common to craft cultivated branches into wild trees rather than the reverse is moot. The image as he presents it is conceivable, and it is the best arrangement to carry his point. See further in Moo, Romans, 718–21. 38

98

JEREMY D. OTTEN

What is presented in vv. 23–24 as a possibility or hope is expressed in the next verses (vv. 25–26) as an expectant certainty. Paul’s bold claim in verse 26, “in this way, all Israel will be saved,” has been the subject of tremendous discussion over the centuries, and we can only hope to comment on it within the context of the remnant theology that has been our focus throughout this study.40 First of all, it has been the fate of ethnic Israel that has been in view in this section as well as in chapter 3 (and indeed, has not been far from view throughout the entire epistle). As we have seen, it is this particular question that has prompted the questions concerning God’s own faithfulness. Any interpretation of “Israel” in this verse as referring to the Church as a “spiritual Israel” would seem to do injustice to the weight of the question Paul raises in 3:3 and addresses in more depth here. Simply to say that Israel as a nation is abandoned and the Church steps in to take her place is exactly the sort of neat solution that Paul has been so careful to avoid. For Paul, the integrity of the gospel itself depends upon God’s faithfulness in some way to his promises to the historic people of Israel. Second, for the same reasons, we must rule out the other convenient solution, namely, that all Israelites, by virtue of their ethno-religious identity, and regardless of their response to the gospel, are saved. Not only is this soundly rejected in the opening chapters of his letter (esp. 3:9; cf. 11:20), but this would obviate Paul’s argumentation and nullify the Pauline gospel. To say that God is faithful to his people For a more detailed discussion on this verse, see especially Moo, Romans, 734–41; Hafemann, “Salvation of Israel,” 52–53; Dunn, Romans 9–16, 682; Baker, “Paul and the Salvation of Israel,” 480–84; Johnson, “Structure and Meaning of Romans 9–11,” 91–103. Cf. Wolfgang Reinbold, “Zur Bedeutung des Begriffes ‘Israel’ in Römer 9–11,” in Wilk and Wagner, Between Gospel and Election, 401–16; Christopher Zoccali, “‘And So All Israel Will Be Saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship,” JSNT 30 (2008): 289–318; Barth, “One People,” 17, 22; Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 4; Chilton, “Romans 9–11,” 33; Charles M. Horne, “Meaning of the Phrase ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved’ (Romans 11:26),” JETS 21 (1978): 329–34; Hermann Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 358, 433, 511. 40

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

99

but not to his word of judgment against sin is still to make God unfaithful. Moreover, it makes the cross unnecessary (cf. esp. 9:31–32). Paul expects that, in some way, “all Israel” will be saved through faith leading to the forgiveness of sins (v. 23; cf. vv. 26b–27).41 Third, it is tempting therefore, especially in light of our present focus, to identify “all Israel” as the remnant, that is, the minority of ethnic Jews who have embraced the gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, as many scholars point out, Paul is ready to distinguish between two different “Israels” (9:6).42 Yet it must be further noted that it is in this very verse that the true “Israel,” indicating the elect/remnant, is distinguished from “all Israel,” indicating the nation as a whole.43 Furthermore, if “all Israel” meant only the remnant, Paul could easily have ended his discussion at 11:1—God has not abandoned his people because Paul exists as a believing Jew.44 Yet as we have argued above, such a remnant was no more acceptable for Paul than it was for Moses or Elijah. In the biblical conception of the remnant of Israel, the remnant implies renewal (cf. Isa 4:2–6; 37:30–32; 49:6). Therefore, just as the OT prophets spoke of Israel’s remnant as a guarantee of a future restoration of the nation, so Paul saw the remnant in his own day as the guarantee of a future conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ of a representatively large majority of ethnic Israelites. Here at least comes full and resounding resolution to the question that has been left hanging since chapter 3, and it is no coincidence that these verses are followed by such a resounding hymn to God’s glorious ways See Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer, 210. Cf. Reinbold’s crisp summary of the problem (“Zur Bedeutung des Begriffes ‘Israel’,” 401.) 43 The wording is not identical, with 9:6 referring to every single ethnic Israelite (οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ = “not everyone who is descended from Israel is Israel”) and 11:26 referring in some way to the nation as a whole (καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται = “and in this way all Israel will be saved.”). Nevertheless, the distinction established in 9:6 between a “true” or “spiritual” subset of the nation over against the nation broadly speaking suggests that the latter is in view in 11:26, when “all Israel” is mentioned. 44 Cf. Wolter, Der Brief an die Römer, 207. 41 42

100

JEREMY D. OTTEN

(11:33–36). The failure of many Jews in Paul’s day to embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ is thus no threat to God’s faithfulness, not only because God remains faithful to the nation through the remnant of believing Jews, but also because the remnant holds with it the promise of nation-wide blessing through a future largescale conversion.

3. CONCLUSION

In the immediate context of Paul’s argument, as well as in the presumed social context of Paul’s letter to the Romans, the apostle’s appeal to remnant theology serves to create a salvationhistorical interdependence between Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus within which neither group can despise the other. First and foremost, both groups are on equal footing soteriologically, since they are both “under the power of sin” and thus in need of redemption (3:9). Yet beyond this, Gentile believers, despite their large and growing numbers, cannot despise the Jews in their midst, for they must recognize that the blessings of salvation that they enjoy are not rightfully theirs, but are extended to them “unnaturally” (11:24; cf. vv. 17–24). Similarly, Jewish believers cannot despise the Gentiles in their midst as illegitimate, since it is their own existence as the remnant of Israel that provides theological justification for the Gentile mission (11:1–6; cf. esp. Isa 49:6) and it is, by Paul’s schematization, this Gentile mission that will ultimately facilitate the conversion of their nation. More broadly, however, Paul’s remnant theology serves an even greater theological purpose. It establishes the justice and faithfulness of God within the gospel of Jesus Christ. God is faithful to his righteousness and to his words of judgment against sin because all, Jew and Gentile alike, stand before him condemned for their own unfaithfulness. At the same time, God is faithful to his covenant with Israel because, despite their widespread rejection of the gospel, he has preserved a remnant, chosen by grace, who were, in Paul’s day as in our own, enjoying the benefits of salvation in Jesus Christ. Because this remnant exists, the Gentile mission may commence with no threat to Israel’s salvation-historical priority. And yet because this remnant is merely a remnant (with the majority hardened to the gospel),

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

101

the occasion is right for attentions to be directed towards the evangelization of the nations. Yet finally, this remnant is the surety of greater things to come for Israel, namely, her renewal through the gospel. In holding all these themes in tension—the undeniable sinfulness of Jew and Gentile alike, God’s irrevocable election of Israel, the conversion of many Gentiles to receive the blessings of salvation directed towards Israel, and the unbelief of “some” (if not most) Jews so that they miss out on these benefits—Paul’s remnant theology shows God to be doubly true, though every human being be proven false.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Romans 11:11–15: A Suggestion.” PRSt 12 (1985): 23–30. Baker, Murray. “Paul and the Salvation of Israel: Paul’s Ministry, the Motif of Jealousy, and Israel’s Yes.” CBQ 67 (2005): 469– 84. Barth, Markus. “One God, One Christ, One People.” ExAud 4 (1988): 8–26. Bell, Richard. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. WUNT II/63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Brandenburger, Egon. “Paulinische Schriftauslegung in Der Kontroverse Um das Verheißungswort Gottes (Röm 9).” ZTK 82 (1985): 1–47. Burk, Denny. “The Righteousness of God (Diakiosunē Theou) and Verbal Genitives: A Grammatical Clarification” JSNT 34 (2012): 346–60. Campbell, William S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. LNTS 322. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. ———. “The Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel.” JSNT 13 (1981): 27–45. Chilton, Bruce. “Romans 9–11 as Scriptural Interpretation and Dialogue with Judaism.” ExAud 4 (1988): 27–37. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. WBC 38B. Dallas: Word, 1988. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

102

JEREMY D. OTTEN

Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Hafemann, Scott. “The Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:25–27: A Response to Krister Stendahl.” ExAud 4 (1988): 38–58. Hasel, Gerhard F. The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah. Andrews University Monographs 5. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972. Horne, Charles M. “Meaning of the Phrase ‘And Thus All Israel Will Be Saved’ (Romans 11:26).” JETS 21 (1978): 329–34. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Johnson, Dan G. “Structure and Meaning of Romans 9–11.” CBQ 49 (1984): 91–103. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Munck, Johannes. Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9– 11. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Myers, Charles D. “Chiastic Inversion in the Argument of Romans 3–8.” NovT 35 (1993): 30–47. Öhler, Markus. Elia im Neuen Testament: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im frühen Christentum. BZNW 88. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah. 2 vols. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Otten, Jeremy D. I Alone Am Left: Elijah and the Remnant in LukeActs. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2021. Reinbold, Wolfgang. “Zur Bedeutung des Begriffes ‘Israel’ in Römer 9–11.” Pages 401–16 in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Edited by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner. WUNT 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Ridderbos, Hermann. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

4. GOD’S FAITHFULNESS IN THE REMNANT CONCEPT

103

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Stenschke, Christoph. “Römer 9–11 als Teil des Römerbriefs.” Pages 197–225 in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Edited by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner. WUNT 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Thielman, Frank. “God’s Righteousness as God’s Fairness in Romans 1:17: An Ancient Perspective on a Significant Phrase.” JETS 54 (2011): 35–48. Wilk, Florian. “Rahmen und Aufbau von Römer 9–11.” Pages 227–53 in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Edited by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner. WUNT 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3-4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Römer 9–16. EKKNT 6/2. Ostfildern: Patmos; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019. Zoccali, Christopher. “‘And So All Israel Will Be Saved’: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship.” JSNT 30 (2008): 289–318.

CHAPTER 5. THE SONG OF SINS: THE CHAIN OF REFERENCES TO HUMAN BODY PARTS IN ROMANS 3:13–18 AS A POSSIBLE ALLUSION TO THE DESCRIPTIVE SONGS OF THE CANTICUM CANTICORUM BORIS PASCHKE EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN I NTRODUCTION

In order to prove to the Christian believers in Rome that both Jews and Gentiles are all under the power of sin (Rom 3:9), the apostle Paul presents to them a chain of seven OT quotations that are mainly based on the Septuagint.1 The catena (1) is introduced with the formula καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι (Rom 3:10a); (2) consists of citations from LXX Ecclesiastes 7:20; Psalm 13:1–3; 5:10; 139:4; 9:28; Isaiah 59:7; and Psalm 35:2 (Rom 3:10b–18); and (3) has

Erwin Ochsenmeier, Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1-3: Étude exégétique et théologique, BZNW 155 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 148–56. 1

105

106

BORIS PASCHKE

been understood in terms of both a psalm and a song of lament (Klagelied).2 The structure of the catena is twofold: In the first part (Rom 3:10b–12), the sinfulness of all humanity is stressed with quotations from LXX Ecclesiastes 7:20 and Psalm 13:1–3. In the five OT texts cited in the catena’s second part (Rom 3:13–18), however, the universal nature of sin is less obviously expressed. F. F. Bruce remarks, “If the quotations were examined one by one, it would be necessary to relate them to their historical contexts: some at least of them had a particular rather than a universal reference.”3 As various exegetes have observed, the unifying factor of the texts quoted in Romans 3:13–18 is that they all refer to body parts of human beings,4 namely to their throats, tongues, lips, mouths, feet, and eyes. According to Francis Davidson and Ralph P. Martin,5 the Scripture verses “may have been put together to suggest that the entire human person (throat, tongue, feet, eyes) has shared in sin.”6 Or, in the words of Alphonse Maillot, “l’homme est pécheur de la tête aux pieds.”7 The present contribution strengthens this interpretation by pointing to evidence that has so far been overlooked. As will be argued below, in spite of its negative thrust, the description of the sinful human body in Romans 3:13–18 is reminiscent of the so-

Karl Kertelge, Der Brief an die Römer, Geistliche Schriftlesung 6 (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971), 68. 3 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1963), 97. 4 Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 357. 5 Ralph P. Martin (Fuller Theological Seminary) has been the doctoral promotor of Martin Webber who, in turn, was the supervisor of both my licentiate thesis and doctoral dissertation (Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven). As his former student and now colleague, I am very grateful for the privilege of working and ministering with Martin Webber whom I wholeheartedly wish God’s blessings. 6 Francis Davidson and Ralph P. Martin, “Romans,” in New Bible Commentary, ed. Donald Guthrie et al. 3rd ed. (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), 1021. 7 Alphonse Maillot, L’épître aux Romains: Epître de l’œcuménisme et théologie de l’histoire (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1984), 98. 2

5. THE SONG OF SINS

107

called waṣf poems found in the Song of Songs. In following the Oriental Studies scholar Johann Gottfried Wetzstein,8 many OT scholars refer to these poems with the Arabic term ‫ وﺻﻒ‬/ waṣf (i.e., “description”9). Dianne Bergant explains, “The Song of Songs contains several examples of a particular kind of Arabic poem known as a waṣf. This form of poem uses exaggerated metaphor and, in an orderly fashion, describes the body of the loved one, part by part.”10 However, the Arabic term waṣf is anachronistic because it stems from a time much later than the poems of the Songs of Songs. As alternative technical terms, the German noun Beschreibungslied 11 and its English equivalent “descriptive song”12 are also used in scholarship on the Song of Songs. Because the Arabic, German, and English terms are established in scholarship to an equal extent, all three termini technici will be used in the present research. The oldest descriptive songs from the Ancient Near East are of Sumerian, Old Babylonian, Egyptian, and Ugaritic origin and stem from as early as the third and second millennia BCE.13 In the Canticles, the four main descriptive songs are found in LXX Canticles 4:1–7, 5:10–16, 6:4–7, and 7:2–10. In addition, several other verses of the Song of Songs also contain waṣf material.14 In this regard, LXX Canticles 4:11 plays an important role in the present study. As a Jew well-versed in the Bible (cf. Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14; Phil 3:5–6), the apostle Paul was familiar with the descriptive Johann Gottfried Wetzstein, “Bemerkungen zum Hohenliede,” in vol. 4, part 4 of Biblischer Commentar über die poetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, ed. Franz Delitzsch (Leipzig: Dörfling & Franke, 1875), 172. 9 Tressy Arts, ed., Oxford Arabic Dictionary: Arabic-English, English-Arabic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 891, s.v. ‫وﺻﻒ‬. 10 Dianne Bergant, The Song of Songs, Berit Olam Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), xv. 11 Hans-Peter Müller, “Hohes Lied I-IV,” in vol. 3 of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hans Dieter Betz et al. 4th. ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 1838. 12 David Bernat, “Biblical Waṣfs Beyond Song of Songs,” JSOT 28 (2004), 329. 13 Cf. Wolfram Herrmann, “Gedanken zur Geschichte des altorientalischen Beschreibungsliedes,” ZAW 75 (1963), 176–97. 14 Cf. Müller, “Hohes Lied,” 1838. 8

108

BORIS PASCHKE

songs of the Canticles. Likewise, the Roman readers of Romans 3:13–18 most likely also knew the Song of Songs in general and its Beschreibungslieder in particular. As David A. DeSilva states on the basis of Acts 2:10, 18:2 and Sueton’s Claudius (25.4), “Christianity in Rome … probably had a strong Jewish character and a deep rootedness … in the Old Testament (LXX).”15 It is, thus, possible that Paul—who apparently favored metaphorical descriptions related to the human body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12–31; Eph 6:14–17)—deliberately put together the chain of quotations in Romans 3:13–18 as a negative counterpart to the waṣfs of the Canticles. If so, Romans 3:13–18 might be considered an anti-waṣf.16 The present study is twofold: Firstly, in order to argue for the thesis of Romans 3:13–18 as deliberate counterpart to the waṣfs of the Song of Songs, both the similarities and differences between the Pauline catena and the Canticles’ descriptive songs will be examined. Secondly, the various implications of the antiwaṣf-thesis with regard to the exegesis of Romans 3:13–18 will be highlighted. In terms of methodology, the waṣfs are studied in the form of both the Septuagint (i.e., the version familiar to Paul’s Roman audience) and the Hebrew text (i.e., the version Paul himself was also acquainted with as Phil 3:5 and Acts 22:3 suggest).17

David A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 599. 16 Cf. Bernat, “Biblical Waṣfs,” 346–47: The term anti-waṣf has been coined by Bernat who applies it to the Qumran passage 4Q184.2-4. For more details, see below section 1.3. 17 Biblical texts are quoted from the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), the Septuaginta (LXX) edited by Alfred Rahlfs, and the twenty-eighth edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece. 15

5. THE SONG OF SINS

109

1. COMPARISON OF ROMANS 3:13–18 WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE SONGS OF THE CANTICUM 1.1 Similarities 1.1.1. Human Anatomy

The chain of OT citations in Romans 3:13–18 contains references to six human body parts, namely to the sinners’ (1) throat (λάρυγξ, v. 13a / LXX Ps 5:10a); (2) tongues (γλῶσσαι, v. 13b / LXX Ps 5:10b); (3) lips (χείλη, v. 13c / LXX Ps 140:4); (4) mouth (στόµα, v. 14 / LXX Ps 10:7); (5) feet (πόδες, v. 15 / LXX Isa 59:7–8); and (6) eyes (ὀφθαλµοί, v. 18 / LXX Ps 36:2).18 With the exception of two, all these body parts are mentioned in the plural. With regard to χείλη (v. 13c), πόδες (v. 15), and ὀφθαλµοί (v. 18), this is not surprising because they usually come in pairs. However, the plural possessive pronoun αὐτῶν (that in v. 13 also appears with both the plural noun γλῶσσαι and the singular noun λάρυγξ) makes clear (or even underlines) that in all these five cases, more than one person is in view. With the same effect, the singular noun στόµα is introduced by the plural relative pronoun ὧν (v. 14). All six body parts, thus, describe a group of persons. Further, all of these six body parts are expressly mentioned in at the least one (and some even in several) of the waṣfs of the Song of Songs. Firstly, an express reference to the λάρυγξ (throat) is found in LXX Canticles 7:10. Secondly, the γλῶσσα (tongue) expressly occurs in LXX Canticles 4:11. Thirdly, an express mention of the χείλη (lips) is found in three of the waṣfs (LXX Cant 4:3, 11; 5:13; and 6:7). Fourthly, the “mouth” occurs in the MT of Canticles 4:3 (Gesenius, 18th ed. and HAL, s.v. ‫ ;מדבר‬cf. LXX, λαλία). Fifthly, the “feet” (‫ )פעמים‬are mentioned in MT Canticles 7:2 (Gesenius, 18th ed. and HAL, s.v. ‫ ;פעם‬cf. LXX, διαβήµατα). Sixthly, the ὀφθαλµοί (eyes) are expressly mentioned in all four major waṣfs (LXX Cant 4:1, 9; 5:12; 6:5; and 7:3). Not only in the Canticles, but also in Romans 3:13–18, the throat (consisting of

In Romans 3:15 (cf. LXX Isa 59:7), the blood (αἷµα) is not that of the sinners, but that of their victims. 18

110

BORIS PASCHKE

λάρυγξ and φάρυγξ) is the only body part not visible from the outside. When writing Romans 3:13–18, Paul might have had the waṣfs of the Canticles in mind where all six body parts he mentions have parallels/similarities. Put differently, Paul does not mention any body part not occurring in the Song of Songs. In order to argue for the sinfulness of humans, he could have easily cited numerous other/additional OT texts with negative references to body parts absent from the waṣfs of the Canticles (i.e., back, ears, face, forehead, heart, and neck).19 The fact that he abstained from doing so might be another argument for understanding Romans 3:13–18 in terms of an allusion to the waṣfs. 1.1.2. Textual Structure

All waṣfs of the Canticles describe the body of the respective lover in an orderly fashion. Generally speaking, the poems in Canticles 4:1–7, 5:10–16, and 6:4–7 move downward. In so doing, they, respectively, describe (1) the woman’s upper body from her eyes to her breasts; (2) the man’s entire body from his head to his feet; and (3) the woman’s head from her eyes to her cheeks. The waṣf in Canticles 7:2–10, however, displays an opposite, i.e., upward, movement and describes the woman’s body from her feet to the hair on her head. The description of the human body in Romans 3:13–18 is downwards rather than upwards and, as such, resembles the waṣf about the man in LXX Canticles 5:10–16. According to Luke Timothy Johnson, the OT quotations in the Pauline passage “refer to parts of the body, from top to bottom.”20 Paul first groups three verses from the Book of Psalms (LXX Ps 5:10; 139:4; and 9:28) referring (or relating) to the human mouth (Rom 3:13–14). Likewise, in some of the waṣfs of the Song of Songs, two (MT Cant 5:13, 16: lips and throat) or even three (MT Cant 4:2–3: teeth, lips,

Cf. Genesis 6:5 and 8:21; Jeremiah 2:27; 7:24, 26; 17:9; 19:15; and 32:33; Ezekiel 3:7; and Zechariah 7:11. 20 Luke Timothy Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Reading the New Testament Series (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 46. 19

5. THE SONG OF SINS

111

and mouth) parts of the mouth are mentioned. Douglas Moo assumes with regard to Paul’s procedure in Romans 3:13–14: “The order of the quotations may intentionally reproduce the sequence of organs involved in producing speech: throat – tongue – lips – mouth.”21 However, perhaps Moo here reads too much into the text because the order “throat – tongue” was already prescribed by LXX Psalm 5:10. After mentioning the “feet” (Rom 3:15–17), the catena refers to the “eyes” (Rom 3:18) and thus turns the initial downward movement into an upward one. In so doing, the catena parallels LXX Canticles 5 where after the downward movement to the man’s legs/feet (v. 15) the waṣf moves upwards and refers to his throat (v. 16). 1.1.3. Phraseology

With regard to the phraseology, three similarities between Romans 3:13–18 and the waṣfs of the Song of Songs can be observed. – Firstly, the three waṣfs focusing on the woman (LXX Cant 4:1–7; 6:4–7; and 7:2–10) directly address her in the second person. However, the waṣf devoted to the man (LXX Cant 5:10–16) refers to him in the third person.22 Likewise, Romans 3:13–18 continuously describes the sinners in the third person. – Secondly, in Romans 3:13a, it is stated: τάφος ἀνεῳγµένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν. Because no comparative particle (e.g., ὡς) is employed, this is a metaphor rather than a simile. Besides similes (e.g., LXX Cant 5:12), the waṣfs of the Canticles also contain metaphors (e.g., LXX Cant 4:1).23 – Thirdly, the wording ὑπὸ τὸ χείλη αὐτῶν (Rom 3:13c) is reminiscent of the phrase ὑπὸ τὴν γλῶσσάν σου (LXX Cant 4:11).

Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 212. 22 Cf. Bernat, “Biblical Waṣfs,” 331. 23 Cf. Bernat, “Biblical Waṣfs,” 332. 21

112

BORIS PASCHKE

1.1.4. Literal and Figurative Descriptions

The catena in Romans 3:13–18 displays a combination of literal (i.e., vv. 13b, 14, 15, and 18) and figurative (i.e., vv. 13a and 13c) descriptions of the sinners’ body parts. Likewise, the waṣfs of the Canticles employ both literal (e.g., LXX Cant 4:3b; 5:11b, 16; and 7:2) and figurative (e.g., LXX Cant 4:1–2) descriptions. The literal description in Romans 3:15 (ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷµα) closely resembles the one in LXX Canticles 7:2 (διαβήµατά σου ἐν ὑποδήµασιν) because in both cases, the walk of the person(s) described is in view. The figurative descriptions in Romans 3:13 employ architectural (τάφος) as well as animal (ἀσπίς) imagery and in so doing belong to the same category as some of the descriptions found in the waṣfs of the Song of Songs. Here, various buildings (LXX Cant 4:4) and animals (cf. below 1.2.4) are listed. However, as will be demonstrated below (1.2.4), in terms of their thrust/message, the negative descriptions in Romans 3:13– 18 fundamentally differ from the laudatory ones in the Canticles. 1.2. Differences 1.2.1. Human Anatomy

In the Canticles, the immediate literary contexts of the waṣfs demonstrate that the poems in 4:1–7; 6:4–7; and 7:2–10 describe a woman and that the song in 5:10–16 describes a man. The first and third of the female waṣfs further have in common that they refer to the woman’s δύο µαστοί (“two breasts”) and, thus, to her specifically feminine body parts. However, the passage in Romans 3:13–18 does not specify the sex(es) of the sinners. Particular references to either male or female body parts are absent, maybe because it would have been difficult (if not impossible) to find respective OT quotations. Some body parts mentioned in the waṣfs are absent from Romans 3:13–18 even though Paul could have easily found respective OT quotations supporting his line of argument. This is, for instance, the case with regard to teeth (LXX Cant 4:2; 6:6; Ps 56:5, ὀδόντες), neck (MT Cant 4:4; 7:5; Ps 75:6, ‫)צואר‬, and hands (MT Cant 5:14, ‫ ;ידים‬cf. MT Ps 55:21, ‫)יד‬. Such (or similar)

5. THE SONG OF SINS

113

additions to the catena would have even further strengthened the argument presented in sub-section 1.1.1 above. 1.2.2. Textual Structure

With regard to how the descriptions of the body parts are structured in the Beschreibungslieder of the Hebrew Song of Songs, David Bernat explains, In the waṣf depicting the male, the body part always takes the first syntactic position in the sentence, and is followed by the description … The three “female” waṣfs also display the aforementioned pattern, but in a few instances, the reverse is evident. Song 4.3, for example reads ‫“( כפלח הרמון רקתך‬like a slice of pomegranate is your brow”), with the description preceding the body part.24

Bernat’s observation also applies to the Septuagint version of the waṣfs. The catena in Romans 3:13–18 has a different structure. As illustrated in the table below, with one exception (i.e., the transition from no. 4 to no. 5), the order of body part and description is reversed in each new sentence.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Rom 3:13a (= LXX Ps 5:10a) Rom 3:13b (= LXX Ps 5:10b) Rom 3:13c (= LXX Ps 139:4) Rom 3:14 (= LXX Ps 9:28) Rom 3:15a (=LXX Isa 59:7) Rom 3:18 (= LXX Ps 35:2)

First Part description γλῶσσαι description στόµα πόδες description

Sentence Second Part λάρυγξ description χείλη description description ὀφθαλµοί

However, as suggested in the above-cited remark of Bernat, the alternating structure of Paul’s catena is not totally unprecedented in the waṣfs of the Canticles. There is another and even stronger structural difference between the waṣfs and Romans 3:13–18. In all four waṣfs, the positive descriptions of the individual body parts are introduced by (LXX Cant 4:1; 5:10; and 6:4) and/or lead to (LXX Cant 4:7; 5:16; 6:9; and 7:6) a general laudatory summary statement

24

Bernat, “Biblical Waṣfs,” 332.

114

BORIS PASCHKE

concerning the entire body of the respective person. With regard to the end of the male waṣf, for instance, Helmer Ringgren states: “V. 16b faßt alles zusammen: sein ganzes Wesen ist Wonne.”25 However, such a summarizing general evaluation is absent from the catena in Romans 3:13–18. 1.2.3. Phraseology

Whereas each of the four waṣfs of the Song of Songs describes an individual human being in the singular, Paul’s catena in Romans 3:13–18 focusses on the sinners collectively and thus consistently refers to them in the plural. Most of the body parts, for instance, are accompanied by the plural possessive pronoun αὐτῶν (Rom 3:13 [thrice], 15, and 18). In order to arrive at such a consistent collective description, Paul had to (slightly) modify the wording of some of the referenced Psalm texts. This is the case, for instance, in Paul’s citation of LXX Psalm 35:2 in Romans 3:18. As Erwin Ochsenmeier observes, “Paul suit ici exactement le texte de la LXX si ce n’est qu’il transforme αὐτοῦ en αὐτῶν, généralisant ainsi la perspective.”26 In the same vein, Paul even made two modifications in his quotation of LXX Psalm 9:28 in Romans 3:14. He first changed οὗ to ὧν and then, deleted αὐτοῦ. Ochsenmeier comments, “Le pronom relatif est au pluriel dans le texte de l’épître pour faire le lien avec le passage précédent. Paul généralise donc le pécheur individuel du psaume à tous les pécheurs visés ici … Le possessif αὐτοῦ a également disparu, sans doute pour assurer la cohérence avec le pronom relatif pluriel.”27 1.2.4. Literal and Figurative Descriptions

Between the descriptions of Romans 3:13–18 and those of the Beschreibungslieder, two kinds of differences can be observed. Firstly, while the waṣfs focus on the physical appearance of the persons described, the Pauline passage refers to the moral/religious Helmer Ringgren, “Das Hohe Lied übersetzt und erklärt,” in Das Hohe Lied, Klagelieder, Das Buch Esther, trans. and explained by Helmer Ringgren and Artur Weiser, ATD 16/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 26. 26 Ochsenmeier, Mal, 155. 27 Ochsenmeier, Mal, 153 with n. 371. 25

5. THE SONG OF SINS

115

attitude and sinful behavior is in view. Secondly, whereas the waṣfs’ evaluation of the described persons is thoroughly positive, Paul’s evaluation of the sinners is negative throughout. The table below demonstrates how Paul—in using the same kind of pictures, similes, or metaphors—comes to evaluations diametrically opposed to those of the descriptive songs. Positive / harmless / lively

Negative / dangerous / deadly

1

Movements διαβήµατά σου ἐν ὑποδήµασιν (LXX Cant 7:2)

ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷµα (Rom 3:15)

2

Buildings / e.g., στῦλοι µαρµάρινοι building (LXX Cant 5:15) structures

τάφος (Rom 3:13a)

3

Animals

e.g., περιστεραί (LXX Cant 4:1)

ἀσπίδες (Rom 3:13c)

4

Animal products

µέλι καὶ γάλα ὑπὸ τὴν γλῶσσάν σου (LXX Cant 4:11)

ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὸ χείλη αὐτῶν (Rom 3:13c)

5

Tastes

γλυκασµοί (LXX Cant 5:16)

πικρία (Rom 3:14)

In commenting on the above opposites (nos. 1–5), it should be noted that (1) whereas the Shulamite makes lovely (and lively) dancing steps (cf. LXX Cant 7:1, χοροί), the sinners are on their warful way to shed blood (no. 1); (2) positively connotated buildings (e.g., Tower of David) or building structures (e.g., marble pillars) stand over against, of all things, graves (no. 2); (3) in the table, rather peaceful animals28 face poisonous snakes (no. 3); (4) the woman’s mouth contains honey and milk, the sinners’ mouths snake venom instead (no. 4; note also the ὑπό-construction employed in either case); and (5) sweet and bitter tasting mouths are juxtaposed. 1.3. Conclusions

The various anatomical (1.1.1), structural (1.1.2), phraseological (1.1.3), and “descriptorial” (1.1.4) similarities between the passage Romans 3:13–18 on the one hand and the descriptive Besides doves, the waṣfs mention deer, gazelles, goats, ravens, and sheep as metaphors and/or similes. 28

116

BORIS PASCHKE

songs of the Canticles on the other hand suggest that the former might be an allusion to the latter. As such, Romans 3:13–18 is similar to the allusions to the waṣfs found in chapter 15 of the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter.29 However, in contrast to the laudatory waṣfs, Romans 3:13–18 describes the various body parts in a negative and depreciative manner (1.2.4). The catena might, thus, be understood as an “anti-waṣf.” This term has been coined by Bernat who has applied it to the description of the so-called “Wicked Woman” in the Qumran passage 4Q184.2-4: 4Q184.2-4 constitutes an anti-waṣf … In the Qumran composition, the woman’s body is described, part-by-part, in a passage displaying the list parallelism that is the structural hallmark of the standard waṣf. However, 4Q184 subverts the typical poetics of love. Rather than praising any of the physical features, the poem emphasizes their corrupting, deleterious, attributes.30

The same is done in the anti-waṣf in Romans 3:13–18. This thesis is not weakened by the anatomical (1.2.1), structural (1.2.2), and phraseological (1.2.3) differences existing between the waṣfs and Romans 3:13–18. These differences might even lead to some new exegetical insights with regard to the Pauline passage. These exegetical implications will be briefly highlighted in the following section.

2. I MPLICATIONS FOR THE EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 3:13–18 2.1. Sinfulness of the Entire Human Body

As became obvious above (1.2.2), in contrast to each of the waṣfs, a summarizing general evaluation of the entire body is absent from Romans 3:13–18. However, a reader familiar with the descriptive songs of the Canticum canticorum will inevitably and spontaneously add such a “Gesamtbewertung.”31 This, of course, is not a positive, but a negative one. Put differently, the evaluCf. Ringgren, “Das Hohe Lied,” 26. Bernat, “Biblical Waṣfs,” 346–47. 31 Yair Zakovitch, Das Hohelied, trans. Dafna Mach, HThKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004), 227. 29 30

5. THE SONG OF SINS

117

ation will be the exact opposite of those found in the waṣfs. For example, the statement ὅλη καλὴ εἶ … καὶ µῶµος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν σοί in LXX Canticles 4:7 emphasizes the “perfection”32 of the woman’s body. If this laudatory general evaluation comes to the reader’s mind during his or her lecture of Romans 3:13–18, the general conclusion concerning the sinners must be something in the sense of “They have no inward beauty at all … and they are full of flaws.” In the same vein, on the basis of LXX Canticles 5:16 (ὅλος ἐπιθυµία), the conclusion of Romans 3:13–18 might be something like “Nothing about them is attractive.” 2.2. Universality of Human Sinfulness

With his accusativus cum infinitivo construction in Romans 3:9 (Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ’ ἁµαρτίαν εἶναι) and the immediately following proof texts from LXX Ecclesiastes 7:20 and Psalm 13:1–3 (i.e., in Rom 3:10–12), Paul stresses the universality of human sinfulness. Even though this teaching is not expressly repeated in Romans 3:13–18, this text, as an anti-waṣf alluding to the Canticles, does implicitly support and illustrate Paul’s thesis in Romans 3:9 that all (πάντες) are sinners. Five considerations are worthwhile in this regard. – Firstly, when reading Romans 3:13–18 against the background of the waṣfs that each describe an individual person, the Pauline text’s broader focus on a collective group of people (cf. above 1.2.3) becomes all the more apparent. A collective influence by sin is a prerequisite for a universal scope of sin. – Secondly, the knowledge that each descriptive song of the Canticum particularly focuses on either a woman or a man leads to an increased awareness that the wording of Romans 3:13–18 is more general/neutral (cf. above 1.2.1) and, thus, might recall that both men and women are sinful. – Thirdly, the persons depicted in the waṣfs appear to be rather young (cf., e.g., LXX Cant 5:11, raven black locks). Since the age of the sinners, however, is not indicated in Dennis F. Kinlaw, “Song of Songs,” in vol. 5 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 1228. 32

118

BORIS PASCHKE

–

the Pauline catena, this passage seems to refer to both young and older people. Fourthly, the international flavor of the waṣfs might support Paul’s thesis of the universality of sin. Dianne Bergant comments on MT Canticles 7:1–6, Heshbon, Lebanon, Damascus and Carmel are all situated on or near one of the important international highways that traversed the land of Israel … Along such travel routes came the caravans carrying the spices, precious metals, and rich dyes referred to in many of the poems of the Song of Songs. All of these features demonstrate the international character of the poems, as well as the universally recognized beauty of the woman.33

–

Fifthly, in the waṣfs of the Canticles, the laudatory descriptions and summaries exaggerate the respective person’s beauty. With regard to MT Canticles 5:6–10, for example, Helmer Ringgren speaks of a “Beschreibung …, die … den Eindruck erweckt, keinen lebenden Menschen, sondern eine Statue aus Gold, Elfenbein und Marmor zu beschreiben.”34 On this background, it becomes obvious that the catena in Romans 3:13–18 exaggerates as well. For instance, (almost) every human being has a mouth (cf. Rom 3:14) capable of speaking kind and beneficial words (cf. Rom 15:6; Eph 4:29; 6:19; Col 3:8) and feet (cf. Rom 3:15–17) bringing help and peace to others (cf. Rom 10:15; Eph 6:15).35

3. CONCLUSION

In the year 1609, Shakespeare’s Sonnets were published. Some of these 154 poems (i.e., nos. 127–152) were devoted to the so-called

Bergant, Song of Songs, 88. Ringgren, “Das Hohe Lied,” 25. 35 In the same vein, for positive sounds produced by the (pneumatically gifted) tongue cf. the references to γῶλσσαι in 1 Corinthians 12–14. For a positive evaluation on (divinely enlightened) human eyes (ὀφθαλµοί), see Ephesians 1:18. 33 34

5. THE SONG OF SINS

119

“Dark Lady” and probably written around the year 1590. In sonnet 130, William Shakespeare uses a list of images that portray a rather unattractive outward appearance of the said woman. This already becomes evident in the opening line “My Mistres eyes are nothing like the Sunne.”36 As Martin Seymour-Smith comments, “He [Shakespeare] is satirizing the ‘poetical’ insincerity of some of his contemporaries.”37 About 1500 years before Shakespeare, thus the thesis of the present Festschrift contribution, Paul might have already made use of a literary technique quite similar to that of the great English poet: In his catena in Romans 3:13–18, the apostle probably alludes to the famous laudatory love poems of his Jewish culture, i.e., the so-called waṣfs of the Canticles, and turns them into their opposite. In contrast to Shakespeare, however, Paul did not want to satirize. He, rather, intended to illustrate a serious matter, namely the (universality of the) sinfulness of the entire human being. He turned, as it were, the Song of Songs into a “Song of Sins.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arts, Tressy, ed. Oxford Arabic Dictionary: Arabic-English, EnglishArabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Bergant, Dianne. The Song of Songs. Berit Olam Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001. Bernat, David. “Biblical Waṣfs Beyond Song of Songs.” JSOT 28 (2004): 327–49. Betz, Hans Dieter, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel, eds. Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 9 vols. 4th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998–2007. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1963. Davidson, Francis, and Ralph P. Martin. “Romans.” Pages 1012– 48 in New Bible Commentary. Edited by Donald Guthrie, J. Alec Motyer, Alan M. Stibbs, and Donald J. Wiseman. 3rd ed. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970. Shakespeare’s Sonnets, edited with an Introduction and Commentary by Martin Seymour-Smith (London: Heinemann, 1963), 105. 37 Shakespeare’s Sonnets, 178. 36

120

BORIS PASCHKE

DeSilva, David A. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Herrmann, Wolfram. “Gedanken zur Geschichte des altorientalischen Beschreibungsliedes.” ZAW 75 (1963): 176–97. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament Series. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2001. Kertelge, Karl. Der Brief an die Römer. Geistliche Schriftlesung 6. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971. Kinlaw, Dennis F. “Song of Songs.” Pages 1199–1244 in vol. 5 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Maillot, Alphonse. L’épître aux Romains : Epître de l’œcuménisme et théologie de l’histoire. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1984. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Müller, Hans-Peter. “Hohes Lied I-IV.” Columns 1838–1840 in vol. 3 of Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Fourth ed. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Ochsenmeier, Erwin. Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1-3: Étude exégétique et théologique. BZNW 155. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Ringgren, Helmer. “Das Hohe Lied übersetzt und erklärt.” Pages 1– 37 in Das Hohe Lied, Klagelieder, Das Buch Esther. Translated and explained by Helmer Ringgren and Artur Weiser. ATD 16/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Edited with an Introduction and Commentary by Martin Seymour-Smith. London: Heinemann, 1963. Wetzstein, Johann Gottfried. “Bemerkungen zum Hohenliede.” Pages 162–77 in vol. 4, part 4 of Biblischer Commentar über die poetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Edited by Franz Delitzsch. Leipzig: Dörfling & Franke, 1875. Zakovitch, Yair. Das Hohelied. Translated by Dafna Mach. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004.

CHAPTER 6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 MARK PARIDAENS EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN I NTRODUCTION

On October 13, 2021, the first copy of the new Dutch translation of the Bible (NBV21) was presented to Willem-Alexander, King of the Netherlands, in The Hague. It is a completely revised version of the NBV from 2004. The NBV aims to be a faithful translation into natural Dutch. These are also the starting points of the NBV21. From 2004 onward the translation team maintained a database which grew to include several thousand readers’ suggestions for improvements.1 These reader responses have been taken into account in the revision of the NBV. Some 12,000 changes have been made in the NBV21 (not including the reverential capitals).2 Thus, NBV21 aims to be an improved Matthijs de Jong, “Op weg naar de NBV21,” Met Andere Woorden 39 (2020): 7–10. 2 The NBV had chosen not to capitalize deity pronouns. This issue was a very sensitive one and was one of the main reasons why readers did not use the NBV or used it with reservations. See Matthijs de Jong and Cor Hoogerwerf, NBV21: De vertaalmethode toegelicht (Haarlem; Antwerpen: Nederlands-Vlaams Bijbelgenootschap, 2021), 53–56. 1

121

122

MARK PARIDAENS

version of the NBV: the accuracy of the translation has been strengthened and new scientific insights have been applied. NBV21 also brings more consistency by smoothing out unnecessary variation within the translation. This essay will focus on the translation of one verse, Romans 3:21, in order to examine the extent to which the translation of that verse in the NBV21 is indeed an improvement over the NBV and to what extent its translation meets the intended objective of more consistency. Special attention will be paid to the rendering of the perfect πεφανέρωται. In Porter’s view, the perfect expresses only the state of the grammatical subject.3 This view has been challenged by a number of recent studies. This essay aims to show that in πεφανέρωται the emphasis is on the preceding event and that the translation of the passive perfect should also take into account the implied Agens. A proposal will be made for a different lexical fill-in of the verb φανερόω to increase consistency.4

1. VERSE 3:21 NA28

Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόµου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται µαρτυρουµένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόµου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν,

NBV

Gods gerechtigheid, waarvan de Wet en de Profeten al getuigen, wordt nu ook buiten de wet zichtbaar:

NBV21 Maar nu is Gods gerechtigheid, waarvan de Wet en de Profeten al getuigen, zichtbaar geworden buiten de wet om: ESVB

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it

Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, Studies in Biblical Greek (New York: Lang, 1989), 259. 4 I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for some helpful comments and suggestions for improvement. 3

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 123

1.1. TRANSLATION OF νυνὶ δὲ

Where the NBV left νυνὶ δὲ untranslated, the NBV21 translates with “maar nu” (“but now”). This is a considerable improvement because νυνὶ δὲ here clearly marks the transition to a new section, which can be seen as the climax of all of Paul’s argument.5 Herman Ridderbos speaks here of “het grote: maar nu” (“the great: but now”).6 The expression νυνὶ δὲ can then best be interpreted temporally here: it emphasizes the salvation-historical turn in man’s condition. The bleak picture of humanity outside the gospel is contrasted with the human state in the new era.7 C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:199: “We may go farther and say that it is the center and heart of the whole of Rom I.16b-15.13.” 6 Herman Ridderbos, Aan de Romeinen, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, eerste serie (Kampen: Kok, 1959), 81. Douglas J. Moo (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 221) quotes Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ exclamation in this regard: “there are no more wonderful words in the whole of Scripture than just these two words ‘But now’.” 7 Ridderbos, Romeinen, 81–82. Cf. Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, EKKNT (Zürich; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 1:184: “Gegenüber der Zeit, auf die sich der Zorn bezieht, ist eine neue Zeit angebrochen” (“In contrast to the time to which the wrath refers, a new time has dawned”). Joseph A. Fitzmyer (Romans, AB 33 [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 344) speaks of an “eschatological now” and sees other examples of this in Romans 3:26; 5:9, 11; 6:22; 7:6; 8:1, 18; 11:5, 30, 31; and 13:11. A. Romero Criado (“Análisis semántico de los lexemas νῦν y νυνί en el Nuevo Testamento” [“Semantic Analysis of the Adverbial Lexemes νῦν and νυνί in the New Testament], Habis 50 [2019], 236) has specifically researched the meaning of the lexemes νῦν and νυνί in the NT and comes to the following finding: “Su definición es ‘En el momento actual’. Su traducción es ‘ahora, en este momento’” (“Its definition is ‘At the present moment’. Its translation is ‘now, at this moment’”). He translates Romans 3:21 as follows: “Ahora, en cambio, independientemente de (toda) Ley, ha sido proclamada una justificación que Dios concede, avalada por la Ley y los Profetas” (“Now, on the other hand, independently of (all) Law, a justification has been proclaimed that God grants, endorsed by the Law and the Prophets”). We find the combination νυνὶ δὲ in Romans 3:21; 6:22; 7:6, 17; 15:23, 25; 1 Corinthians 12:18; 13:13; 15:20; 2 Corinthians 8:11, 22; Ephesians 2:13; Colossians 1:22; 3:8; Philemon 9, 11; and Hebrews 8:6; 9:26. Νυνὶ is the intensified form of νῦν. The demonstrativum ί never occurs alone but is attached as a suffix 5

124

MARK PARIDAENS

Νυνὶ δὲ also has this temporal meaning in Romans 6:22 and 7:6. The NBV translates νυνὶ δὲ with “maar nu” (“but now”) in these two verses, followed herein by the NBV21. Νυνὶ δὲ can also have a logical meaning, as, e.g., in Romans 7:17.8 The NBV21 translates here just as the NBV rightly does with “dan” (“now then”). That we best understand νυνὶ δὲ in Romans 3:21 temporally is also evident from the fact that Paul explicitly speaks of ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ in 3:26, “at the present time.”9 In addition, the verb φανεροῦσθαι is often used in conjunction with a temporal marker.10 We find a to other demonstrativa or adverbs. These get a stronger demonstrative meaning. It stems from the spoken language. Cf. Raphael Kühner and Friedrich Blass, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache (Hannover: Hansche, 1890), 1:620. 8 So also, e.g., in 1 Corinthians 12:18 and 13:13, where the NBV and the NBV21 however do not translate with “dan” (“now then”). According to Frédéric L. Godet (Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. A. Cusin, rev. and ed. T. W. Chambers [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883; repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977], 146), νυνὶ δὲ also expresses a logical, moral contrast in Romans 3:21: “it is the contrast between the condemnation pronounced by the law (ver. 20) and the righteousness acquired without the law (ver. 21).” 9 Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 178. 10 William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 4th ed., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1900), 82. Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 201: “In view of the presence of πεφανέρωται the contention of some commentators that νυνί has a purely logical force here must surely be rejected, and its temporal significance firmly maintained.” Similarly, Rudolph Cornely (Commentarius in s. Pauli apostoli epistolas: I. Epistola ad Romanos [Paris: Lethielleux, 1896], 181): “quare cum plurimis antiquis ac modernis temporalem significationem rectius retinebimus” (“therefore, with most of the ancient and modern interpreters, we shall more correctly retain the temporal meaning”). However, according to Johannes Woyke (“‘Einst’ und ‘Jetzt’ in Röm 1-3? Zur Bedeutung von νυνὶ δέ in Röm 3,21,” ZNW 92 [2001], 206), νυνὶ δὲ has a purely rhetorical function, with the adverbial expression containing both a logical and a temporal element. Romano Penna (Lettera ai Romani 1-5, Scritti delle origini cristiane 6/1 [Bologna: Dehoniane, 2004], 1:315) follows Woyke in this, “Le due possibili funzioni di fatto sono congiunte: in tanto avviene ora un passo avanti nell‘argomentazione dell‘Apostolo in quanto egli evidenzia il superamento di una fase storica o comunque di una modalità di rapportarsi a Dio, che è di altri, ma che non deve (più)

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 125 clear parallel in Colossians 1:26: νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ. Both the NBV and the NBV21 translate νῦν δὲ here with “maar nu” (“but now”). In Romans 11:30, νῦν δὲ is also used in a temporal sense to mark the contrast between the disobedience of “eens” (“once”) and the mercy experienced by the Gentiles “nu” (“now”).11 However, the NBV leaves this salvation-historically important νῦν untranslated. The NBV21 does make the temporal weight of the adverb stand out: “Zoals u God eens ongehoorzaam was, maar door hun ongehoorzaamheid nu Gods barmhartigheid hebt ondervonden” (“As you once were disobedient to God, but through their disobedience have now experienced God’s mercy”).12

1.2. TRANSLATION OF ΠΕΦΑΝΕΡΩΤΑΙ

The NBV21 translates πεφανέρωται with a “voltooid tegenwoordige tijd” (VTT), which is a present perfect tense: “is … zichtbaar geworden” (“has become visible/manifest”), while NBV translates the perfect with an “onvoltooid tegenwoordige tijd” (OTT), which is a simple present tense: “wordt zichtbaar” (“becomes visible/manifest”). The correct rendering of a perfect is always a challenge for the translator.13 contraddistinguere il cristiano” (“The two possible functions are de facto interlinked: in so much there is now a step forward in the apostle’s argument in that he emphasizes the overcoming of a historical phase or at least of a way of dealing with God, which belongs to others, but which should not (anymore) characterize the Christian”). Similarly, Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, HTA (Giessen: Brunnen, 2015), 1:378. 11 Ridderbos, Romeinen, 268. 12 Cf. also Romans 16:26, where NBV and NBV21 translate φανερωθέντος δὲ νῦν with “maar dat nu is geopenbaard” (“but that has now been revealed”). 13 The perfect is considered to be a marked tense of great importance for exegesis. Thus, James Moulton calls the perfect “the most important, exegetically, of all Greek Tenses” (James H. Moulton and Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980], 140). So does Maximilian Zerwick (Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, trans. and rev. Joseph Smith [Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute, 1963], 96), “The perfect has often much to offer toward the interpretation of the text.” Cf. Stanley E. Porter (Linguistic Analysis of

126

MARK PARIDAENS

1.2.1. Traditional View of the Perfect

Traditionally, the perfect is understood as a third aspect besides the present aspect (“imperfective”) and the aorist aspect (“perfective”). It then expresses the state that results from the past action (“resultative perfect”). The perfect thus seems to combine within itself the aspects of the aorist and the present.14 The context must then determine whether it is the present aspect rather than the aorist aspect that is emphasized.15 If the focus is on the present state, not referring to a preceding event, then one speaks of a “toestandsperfectum” (“present state perfect”).16 If the focus is more on the preceding event, which is then presented as particularly relevant to the moment of speaking, then we are dealing with the so-called “current-relevance perfectum.”17 the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015], 211): “The perfect tense-form is distributionally marked in relation to the present and aorist, occurring the least frequently.” 14 Friedrich Blass and Albert Debrunner (Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 15th ed. [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979], 279) put it as follows: “Das Perfektum vereinigt gleichsam Präsens und Aorist in sich, indem es die Dauer des Vollendeten ausdrückt; so kann ein Pf. wie πεπλήρωκατε Apg 5.28 aufgelöst werden in ἐπληρώσετε καί νῦν πλήρης ἐστίν...” (“The perfect unites, as it were, present and aorist in itself, expressing the continuance of the completed action; thus a Pf. like πεπλήρωκατε Acts 5.28 may be resolved into ἐπληρώσετε καί νῦν πλήρης ἐστίν....”). Nicholas Ellis (“Aspect-Prominence, Morpho-Syntax, and a Cognitive-Linguistic Framework for the Greek Verb,” in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch [Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016], 143) prefers to speak of the “combinative aspect”, “reflecting the perfective nature of the verbal event and the imperfective nature of its ongoing relevance.” 15 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 574. 16 Albert Rijksbaron et al., Beknopte syntaxis van het klassiek Grieks (Lunteren: Hermaion, 2006), 70–71. 17 Evert van Emde Boas et al., Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 421. Robert Crellin (“The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 431–32) finds these same tense-aspectual categories in the NT. He speaks of anterior (“a past action with current relevance”), resultant state (“a state resulting from an event taking place

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 127 This double character of the perfect can be illustrated from Romans 5:2 where we find two perfecta: δι’ οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαµεν ⸂[τῇ πίστει]⸃ εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαµεν καὶ καυχώµεθα ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ. The ESV translates the first perfect with a present perfect “we have obtained” and the second perfect with a simple present “we stand.” The first perfect emphasizes the prior event and the second perfect emphasizes the present state.18 1.2.2. Diachronic Development of the Perfect in Relation to the Aorist

Martin Haspelmath sees an evolution occurring from a resultative perfect in Homer to a “current-relevance perfect” in classical Greek. In post-classical Greek, the perfect evolves further into a “perfective” perfect and thus comes into competition with the

prior to reference time”), and “state concurrent with the reference time of the clause with no reference to any prior event.” 18 So, Soon Ki Hong, “An Evaluation of Stanley E. Porter’s Suggestions of a Third Level of ‘Frontground’ for the Perfect Tense-form: Case Studies in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2019), 306–307. Hanbyul Kang (“Three Nuances of the Perfect Indicative in the Greek New Testament” [PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2020], 48) calls the perfect ἕστηκα “a tricky case because ‘resultative-stative’ does not satisfactorily explain its nuance,” as he admits that “it is difficult to draw a firm line between the resultative-stative and pure stative.” He considers ἕστηκα “to deliver a purely stative nuance.” Amalia Moser (“Tense and Aspect after the New Testament,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 552–53) quotes a passage from Plato’s Parmenides 141e to demonstrate this dual nature of the perfect: οὔτε ποτὲ γέγονεν οὔτ᾽ ἐγίγνετο οὔτ᾽ ἦν ποτέ, οὔτε νῦν γέγονεν οὔτε γίγνεται οὔτε ἔστιν, οὔτ᾽ ἔπειτα γενήσεται οὔτε γενηθήσεται οὔτε ἔσται (“it neither has become nor became nor was in the past, it has neither become nor is it becoming nor is it in the present, and it will neither become nor be made to become nor will it be in the future,” translation from Harold Fowler, Perseus). Moser explains: “The meaning of state as a result of prior action necessarily associates the perfect with the past, without discarding its present dimension. As the classical period progresses, the perfect’s developing relationship with the past becomes more pronounced.”

128

MARK PARIDAENS

aorist.19 Eventually the perfect disappears, while the aorist continues and is still used in Modern Greek.20 According to Pierre Chantraine,21 this development toward a “historical perfect” begins in Hellenistic times and, around the first and second centuries AD, there is no longer a functional distinction between the aorist and the perfect: “Le parfait dans le Nouveau Testament devient narratif” (“The perfect in the New Testament becomes narrative”).22 Chrys Caragounis also sees this phenomenon emerging in the NT and attributes it to “the loss of feeling for the distinction between the aorist and the perfect.”23 Geoffrey Horrocks sees “the diminution of the functional distinction between perfect and aorist revealed by the increasing use in the Koine of the perfect as a simple past tense” as a result of “the confusion of the aspectual viewing point with the temporal reference point.”24 Amalia Moser explains the disappearance of the perfect from a change in the Greek verbal system, with a shift from the expression of the Aktionsart to the expression of time and aspect. This left only the binary opposition between the present aspect and the aorist aspect, which we still find in Modern Greek today. According to Moser, the beginning of this evolution can already be found in the NT. 25 According to Steven Runge, the

Martin Haspelmath, “From Resultative to Perfect in Ancient Greek,” Función 11-12 (1992): 187–224. 20 Haspelmath, “From Resultative to Perfect in Ancient Greek,” 218. 21 Pierre Chantraine, Histoire du parfait grec, Collection linguistique 21 (Paris: Champion, 1927), 214–252. 22 Chantraine, Histoire du parfait grec, 239. 23 Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 154–55. He blames Porter for failing to pay attention to this early development and, as a result, also arriving at misinterpretations of Greek texts (p. 327). According to Porter (Verbal Aspect, 273), the perfect does not lose its specific semantic meaning until the 4th-5th century AD. 24 Geoffrey Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), 176–77. 25 Moser, “Tense and Aspect,” 558–60. 19

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 129 disappearance of the perfect may be due “to decreasing precision in marking relevant material....”26 1.2.3. The View of Stanley Porter

In his 1989 monograph, Stanley E. Porter challenges the traditional view of the perfect.27 In his definition of the perfect aspect he excludes the idea of a prior action: “It is appropriate to reassert that the Perfect grammaticalizes the state or condition of the grammatical subject as conceived by the speaker. Whether a Steven E. Runge, “Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect,” in The Greek Verb Revisited, 483. Italics his. 27 Porter, Verbal Aspect. In 1992, Porter published a grammar of NT Greek (Idioms of the Greek New Testament) that incorporates these insights. Porter sees this grammar as a milestone in the study of NT Greek because it makes a conscious effort for the first time to integrate a modern linguistic framework into the study of NT Greek. He regrets that grammarians and commentaries still make extensive use of the traditional grammars of Georg Benedikt Winer (1822) and Friedrich Blass (1896). So, Stanley E. Porter, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, 197. C. J. Ruijgh (review of Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, by Stanley E. Porter, Mnemosyne 48 [1995], 352) qualifies Porter as “d’extrémiste parmi les ‘aspectualistes’” (“an extremist among the ‘aspectualists’.” In his review of Porter’s 1989 monograph, he shows that adopting a robust linguistic theory does not automatically lead to robust exegesis. Ruijgh points to numerous mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Greek texts cited by Porter. Similarly, Caragounis (Development of Greek, 328) judges, “Further, he often misunderstands and mistranslates the ancient authors”; and, more recently, Aaron Tresham (“Tense and Aspect in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans” [ThD diss., The Master’s Seminary, 2011], 299): “Although Porter’s aspect-only theory does not force him to adopt any particular interpretation, it has been shown that his theory consistently leads him to adopt inadequate understandings of these texts.” According to Alexander Andrason and Christian Locatell (“The Perfect Wave: A Cognitive Approach to the Greek Verbal System,” Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics 5 [2016], 13), adherence to an “invariant semantic core” inevitably leads to “forced exegesis.” They then discuss Porter and Campbell’s “Semantic Invariant Approaches” and conclude: “This is also made clear by the fact that one invariant meaning that satisfactorily encompasses all uses has proved elusive and forces exegetes to contrive speculative interpretations in order to harmonize each use with the supposedly invariant core” (p. 91). 26

130

MARK PARIDAENS

previous event is alluded to or exists at all is a matter of lexis in context and not part of aspectual semantics.”28 Thus, in Porter’s view, the perfect has only a stative meaning. This is why, in his commentary on the letter to the Romans, Porter consistently translates the perfect πεφανέρωται as “in a manifested state.”29 He considers the perfect to be the most marked tense, which he then calls the “frontground tense,” in line with the then-current linguistic research.30 1.2.4. Porter’s View Challenged

Soon Ki Hong has researched this suggestion of Porter in her dissertation and finds that Porter’s term “frontground” does nothing to aid the interpretation of the perfect, but on the contrary creates confusion.31 Her argument is that “ancient Greek authors chose the perfect not to deliver the highest prominence on a discourse level but to indicate a present state that results from anterior activity and functions as background for main events or themes.”32 She then established three rules to examine the use of the perfect in a text. She summarizes the three rules as follows: When the perfect finite verb, mostly indicative, is associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative, it highlights the subject’s anterior activity (either temporal or Porter, Verbal Aspect, 259. Stanley E. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 93. Moo (Romans, 222) follows Porter in this purely stative interpretation of πεφανέρωται, where the νυνὶ δὲ then, according to Moo, makes clear “that Paul is thinking of the present time (= ‘stands manifest’).” 30 Porter, Idioms, 23: “The aorist is the background tense, which forms the basis for the discourse; the present is the foreground tense, which introduces significant characters or makes appropriate climactic references to concrete situations; and the perfect is the frontground tense, which introduces elements in an even more discrete, defined, contoured and complex way.” 31 Hong, “Evaluation,” 6, 17. 32 Hong, “Evaluation,” 3. Runge (“Discourse Function,” 482) has done research on the ‘discourse function’ of the Greek perfect in Luke, Romans, and Hebrews, finding that most perfecta provide “supportive information.” 28 29

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 131 logical) while still engaging its present state (Rule 1). When the perfect finite verb, mostly indicative, is associated with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative, it highlights the subject’s present state resulting from anterior activity (Rule 2). When the perfect non-indicative, mostly participle, is connected with a substantive, it describes the substantive with its dual feature of indicating a present state resulting from anterior activity. The perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity. The perfect middle/passive participle tends to highlight a present state (Rule 3).33

Using these rules, she examined all the perfecta in the Gospel of Mark and Paul’s letter to the Romans. On πεφανέρωται then, Rule 1 applies because this perfect is associated with a present participle (µαρτυρουµένη) with the adverbial meaning of “manner.” The perfect then delivers the meaning of “already manifested prior to the utterance.”34 She summarizes, “Thus according to Rule 1, I suggest that the perfect (πεφανέρωται) highlights the anterior activity of Jesus’ redemptive death in the immediate context, which functions to support the following exposition.”35 1.2.5. Πεφανέρωται as a Passivum Divinum

Hong derives this meaning of the perfect without focusing on the lexical character or the voice of the verb.36 However, Buist Fanning, who conducted research on verbal aspect at the same time as Porter, believes that for the correct interpretation of aspect, special attention must also be paid to the interaction between aspect and Aktionsart.37 He classifies φανερόω as a verb Hong, “An Evaluation,” 241–42. Hong, “An Evaluation,” 245. 35 Hong, “An Evaluation,” 246. She quotes James Dunn (Romans 1-8, WBC 38A [Dallas: Word, 1988], 165), who in his commentary indicates that the perfect was used to emphasize that “a decisive act has already taken place which has proved to be the eschatological turning point in the history of salvation.” Dunn translates πεφανέρωται with “has been revealed” (p. 163). 36 Hong, “An Evaluation,” 246. 37 Buist M. Fanning (Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek [Oxford: Clarendon, 1990], 50) states: “Aspect operates so closely with such 33 34

132

MARK PARIDAENS

indicating accomplishment.38 When combined with the perfect, this type of verb indicates “that the action is carried to its completion and highlights, in addition, continuing consequence from the action.”39 The passive form of the perfect then emphasizes primarily the state of the subject.40 Here, however, we run into a problem. In Romans 3:21 the nominal constituent δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is indeed the grammatical subject, but not the logical subject.41 Indeed, we are dealing here with the so-called passivum divinum, where God is then the logical subject.42 The verb retains its (semantically) transitive character. It is thus the presence of an (implied) Agens that makes us opt here for a true

features and is so significantly affected by them that no treatment of it can be meaningful without attention to these interactions.” C. M. J. Sicking (Hoofdstukken uit de Griekse ‘syntaxis’ [Amsterdam: Polak & Van Gennep, 1971], 38–39) distinguishes the following Aktionsarten: durative, stative, punctual, perfective, inchoative, terminative, transformative, resultative, and iterative. The differences in the Aktionsarten have an objective basis, since they correspond to the differences in the reality to which the speaker refers. The grammatical aspect, on the other hand, involves the subjective choice of the speaker. Porter (Linguistic Analysis, 202) sees the place of Aktionsart in the discussion of verbal aspect as one of the major points of difference between his approach and that of Fanning and Campbell : “Porter minimizes the role of Aktionsart and considers it to involve a (problematic) debate about lexis, not aspect, and hence to be unimportant for defining aspectual semantics.” 38 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 151. Fanning (Verbal Aspect, 149, n. 54) describes ACCOMPLISHMENTS as “durative bounded actions” and “nonhomogenous.” 39 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 153. 40 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 294. On page 295, he cites Romans 3:21 as an example. 41 For the distinction between the grammatical, logical, and psychological subject see S. C. Dik and J. G. Kooij, Algemene Taalwetenschap (Utrecht; Antwerpen: Het Spectrum, 1979), 223–24. 42 Markus Bockmuehl (“Das Verb ϕανερόω im Neuen Testament: Versuch einer Neuauswertung,” BZ 32 [1988], 89) points out that the verb φανερόω often occurs in the passive and is then a passivum divinum. So also John D. Harvey, Romans, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2017), 92.

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 133 passivum.43 The logical interpretation of the sentence is then, “God heeft zijn gerechtigheid bekendgemaakt” (“God has made his righteousness known”).44 The NBV and NBV21 translate πεφανέρωται with the intransitive, transformative (change of state) verb “zichtbaar worden” (“become visible”). This suggests the transition from a hidden to a visible state, where the use of the VTT in the NBV21 still implies a vague reference to a prior action.45 However, the concept of passivum divinum is not without its difficulties. In an instructive article, Smit and Renssen assert that the term passivum divinum is an invention of the nineteenh century that has done more harm than good to the exegesis of the NT. They therefore suggest that the term should no longer be used: “it seems the preferable course of action to retire the notion of the passivum divinum after more than 40 years of (dis)service to the exegesis of the New Testament and take its demise as occasion for a fresh examination of the use of agentless passives in the New Testament...”46 Rijksbaron et al., Beknopte syntaxis, 79, “Het verschil tussen het intransitieve en het normale passivum ligt in de af- respectievelijk aanwezigheid van een Agens” (“The difference between the intransitive and the normal passivum lies in the absence or presence of an Agent, respectively”). 44 See, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1973), 64: “The passive expression has been revealed may, of course, be rendered active as ‘God has shown’ or ‘God has revealed’.” 45 Ernst Käsemann (Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 93) rejects the idea that the righteousness of God has always been present in “hidden” form. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans [PG 60:443]), however, understands it in that sense. In his commentary on this verse, he says: “Καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, Ἐδόθη, ἀλλὰ, Πεφανέρωται, τὸ τῆς καινοτοµίας ὑποτεµνόµενος ἔγκληµα- τὸ γὰρ πεφανερωµένον, ὡς παλαιὸν καὶ κρυπτόµενον φανεροῦται.” Philip Schaff (NPNF1 11:377) translates as follows: “And he does not say, ‘was given,’ but ‘is manifested,’ so cutting away the accusation of novelty. For that which is manifested, is so as being old, but concealed.” 46 Peter-Ben Smit and Toon Renssen, “The Passivum Divinum: The Rise and Future Fall of an Imaginary Linguistic Phenomenon,” Filología Neotestamentaria 27 (2014), 24. 43

134

MARK PARIDAENS

In this sense, they follow Daniel Wallace, who, while acknowledging that there are many examples of divine passives to be found in the NT, views them as not related to a desire to avoid the name of God, as is usually assumed. He suggests that the divine passive is a specific type within passive constructions in which no agent is expressed.47 As one reason why no agent is expressed with a passive verb, Wallace mentions, “The focus of the passage is on the subject; an explicit agent might detract from this focus.”48 From a linguistic point of view, then, the passive construction is a valency-decreasing construction that allows for “‘de-perspectivizing’ or ‘downplaying’ a controlling participant.”49 Grammatically, this manifests itself in the fact that the Agens is shifted to the periphery of the sentence. It changes from argument to satellite and is often not expressed either.50 According to Harm Pinkster, two discourse factors play a role in choosing between an active or a passive clause in Latin: a passive can be chosen “to effect a topic shift” or, on the other hand, “to create continuity of perspective.”51 The function of the passive in Romans 3:21 is clearly there to shift attention from God’s wrath and judgment to God’s saving righteousness: “Romans 3:21–26 turns the corner in the argument.”52 If we now start from the logical subject, the sentence can be rendered active in Greek as follows: Νυνὶ δὲ πεφανέρωκεν ὁ θεὸς τήν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ. Robert Crellin who has researched the syntax and semantics of the active perfect in literary Koine Greek then Wallace, Greek Grammar, 438. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 436. Italics his. 49 Thomas E. Payne, Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 306. 50 Harm Pinkster, Latijnse Syntaxis en Semantiek (Amsterdam: Grüner, 1984), 10. 51 Harm Pinkster, The Oxford Latin Syntax (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1:250–52. According to Albert Rijksbaron (The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction, 3rd ed. [Amsterdam: Gieben, 2002], 141), the latter factor is most important: “If the Agent can be easily inferred from the context, then the passive presentation has the advantage of ‘topic continuity’.” 52 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 178. 47 48

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 135 predicts on the basis of the lexical nature of the verb (“Nonhomogenous durative verbs describing activities and accomplishments”)53 a reference to a past event.54 In The Epistle of Barnabas 2.4 we encounter an example where God is the subject of πεφανέρωκεν: Πεφανέρωκεν γὰρ ἡµῖν διὰ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν, ὅτι οὔτε θυσιῶν οὔτε ὁλοκαυτωµάτων οὔτε προσφορῶν χρῄζει. Michael Holmes translates the verse as follows: “For he has made it clear to us through all the prophets that he needs neither sacrifices nor whole burnt offerings nor general offerings...”55 1.2.6. Πεφανέρωται as a ‘Current-Relevance’ Perfect

In our view the perfect πεφανέρωται in Romans 3:21 focuses on a past event determining the present.56 So we are dealing here with They are the so-called “Non-change of state verbs,” for which Crelling (The Syntax and Semantics of the Perfect Active in Literary Koine Greek, Publications of the Philological Society 47 [Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016], 60) uses the abbreviation “non-COS verbs.” 54 Crellin (Syntax and Semantics, 61) quotes a phrase from Josephus (Ant. 12.213) to illustrate that in this type of verb the perfect refers to a preceding event: “οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι τὸ κρέας ἐσθίουσιν, τὰ δ' ὀστᾶ ῥίπτουσιν, ὅπερ ἄνθρωπος ὢν κἀγὼ νῦν πεποίηκα.” He translates the sentence as follows: “Men, however, eat the meat, but throw away the bones, which is exactly what I, who am also a man, have now done.” Crellin thus uses a present perfect to translate πεποίηκα. So does Ralph Marcus in his LCL volume (Josephus, Ant. 12.213). The NBV21 translates the perfect πεποίηκα in John 13:12 with a VTT “ik heb gedaan” (“I have done”). As a matter of fact, the NBV21 also translates the aorist ἐποίησα two verses further (John 13:15) in the same way: “wat Ik voor jullie gedaan heb” (“What I have done for you”). Porter (Verbal Aspect, 328) translates the aorist here with a simple present: “as I do for you.” In Porter’s view, the perfect πεποίηκα in John 13:12 can only refer to the past “by implicature on the basis of deixis, not tense form” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 260–61). 55 The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. and rev. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 383. 56 Similarly, e.g., Everett F. Harrison and Donald A. Hagner (“Romans,” in vol. 11 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008], 69), “The perfect tense of ‘has been made known,’ in contrast to the present tense ‘is revealed’ in 1:17 (where the ongoing proclamation of the gospel requires it), draws attention to the appearing of Jesus Christ in the arena of history (cf. 2 Tim 1:10).” So also Otto Michel (Der Brief an die Römer, 53

136

MARK PARIDAENS

a “current-relevance perfect” by which the writer wants to emphasize the relevance of a prior event for the present moment of writing.57 Eduard Lohse aptly expresses this: “Sie weist auf ein KEK 4 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955], 148): “πεφανέρωται (anders Röm 1:17: ἀποκαλύπτεται) weist auf das einmalige Ereignis in der Geschichte hin, an das Gottes Offenbarung gebunden ist” (“πεφανέρωται [different Rom 1:17: ἀποκαλύπτεται] points to the unique event in history to which God’s revelation is bound”). Klaas Bentein (“Perfect Periphrases in Post-Classical and Early Byzantine Greek: An Ecological-Evolutionary Account,” Journal of Greek Linguistics 12 [2012], 231) points out that in “Middle Post-Classical Greek” (I-III AD) the stative/resultative aspect is more and more expressed by a periphrastic construction with εἰµί and a perfect participle: “What is remarkable, however, is that the construction seems to become more and more functionally specialized toward the expression of the resultative aspectual function.” We find such a periphrastic perfect in, e.g., 2 Corinthians 4:3: ἐστὶν κεκαλυµµένον. According to Murray J. Harris (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 327), the periphrastic expression puts the focus on the “condition of ‘veiledness’.” Here he follows Ernest De Witt Burton (Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1982], 40), who indicates that such periphrastic forms denote the “existing state.” Thus, in Romans 3:21, a description with “ἐστὶν πεφανερωµένη” would indeed strongly emphasize the “manifested state” of God’s righteousness. 57 Rijksbaron et al., Beknopte Syntaxis, 71. According to Andrason and Locatell (“The Perfect Wave,” 16), the nuance of current relevance is “one of the most typical traits of perfects cross-linguistically.” In a very instructive article, they point out that in a natural language we can expect a variety of meanings (polysemy) in a grammatical form: “Polysemy is not a collection of random values, but a coherent set, in which all the senses of a form are connected to its conceptual prototype or the central value, either directly through meaning extension (discussed below) or else through one or more intervening meaning extensions which may all exist synchronically. This observation, known as the relatedness principle, is one of the tenets of modern cognitive semantics” (p. 17). The central value of the Greek perfect has historically been the “resultative proper stage.” From this center, the other meanings develop in a continuum according to a “simultaneous cline” and an “anterior cline” (p. 59). The “anterior cline” is represented graphically as follows: resultative proper® present perfect ® perfective past ® nonperfective past (p. 27); the “simultaneous cline” as follows: resultative proper ® resultative stative present ® stative present ® non-stative present (p. 28).

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 137 bestimmtes Geschehen der Vergangenheit—den Kreuzestod Christi—hin, das die Gegenwart durch seine verwandelende und erneuerende Kraft qualifiziert” (“It points to a specific event of the past—the death of Christ on the cross—that qualifies the present by its transforming and renewing power”).58 According to James Dunn, the perfect emphasizes “that a decisive act has already taken place which has proved to be the eschatological turning point in the history of salvation.”59 Richard Longenecker indicates that Paul’s use of the perfect “is speaking about (1) a decisive act that has already taken place and (2) the effects of that past act that continue on into the present.”60 In the translation of πεφανέρωται the emphasis must therefore lie on this preceding event (aorist aspect), without completely sacrificing the present aspect.61 In a Dutch translation we then end up with a VTT.62 In this sense, the translation of NBV21 with Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 130. 59 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 165. 60 Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 406. See, e.g., also Klaus Haacker (Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, THKNT 6 [Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006], 86): “so wird durch dieses Perfekt das, was in der Verkündigung des Evangeliums geschieht auf einen historischen Anfang zurückgeführt, der die Gegenwart bestimmt” (“so by this perfect tense, what happens in the proclamation of the Gospel is traced back to a historical beginning that determines the present”); and Bockmuehl (“Das Verb ϕανερόω im Neuen Testament,” 96): “Es handelt sich mit anderen Worten in 3,21(ff) um das historische Heilsereignis in Jesus Christus” (“In other words, in 3:21(ff) it is about the historical salvation event in Jesus Christ”). 61 Penna (Lettera ai Romani 1-5, 316, note 14) speaks of a “dualità semantica sacrificata” (“semantic duality sacrificed”) in this context. If we break the perfect into its two components, in the sense suggested by Blass, we get the following description—δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἐφανέρώθη καὶ νῦν φανερά ἐστιν: “Gods gerechtigheid werd bekendgemaakt en is nu bekend” (“God’s righteousness was made known and is now known”). 62 Since the perfect has the semantic potential of an aorist, we should not be surprised that the two tenses can be translated in the same way. With regard to the Greek of the New Testament, Chantraine (Histoire du parfait, 235) notes, “Le parfait perd peu à peu sa valeur propre pour se rapprocher de l’aoriste” (“The perfect tense gradually loses its own value and becomes closer to the aorist tense”). Thus, the perfect τετύφλωκεν in 58

138

MARK PARIDAENS

“is … zichtbaar geworden” (“has become visible/manifest”) is an improvement over the NBV. To do justice to the passivum divinum, however, one must choose a semantically transitive, passive translation. Indeed, most English translations here choose a passive present perfect. The ESV translates with “has been manifested,” the NIV with “has been made known.” 1.2.7. The Lexical Meaning of φανερόω

The question now is what is the correct lexical interpretation of the verb φανερόω in Romans 3:21. In this regard, the article by

John 12:40 has the same temporal value as that of the aorist ἐπώρωσεν in the same verse. The use of the perfect here seems “tout arbitraire” (“entirely arbitrary”) (p. 238). The NBV21 translates the two tenses with a VTT: “Hij heeft hun ogen verblind en hun hart ongevoelig gemaakt” (“He has blinded their eyes and made insensitive their hearts”). Similarly, the aorist ἐφανερώθη in Colossians 1:26 is translated with a VTT: “is onthuld” (“has been revealed”). According to the study of Kang (“Three nuances,” 142), we find 89 examples of these so-called “aoristic perfects” in the NT. In Kang’s view, such perfecta have “no relevance to the present time” (p. 140). He places the perfect πεφανέρωται in Hebrews 9:26 under this category and translates with “has been manifested” (p. 177). The perfect πεφανέρωται in Romans 3:21, however, still belongs to the first stage which he describes as “Resultative-stative.” Many middle/passive perfect forms have this resultative-stative nuance. Again, he translates with “has been manifested” (p. 74). It is Kang’s thesis that the three nuances of the perfectum can co-exist in the Greek New Testament: “The Greek New Testament preserves perfects conveying the simple past, as well as perfects of resultative-stative and anterior nuance” (p. 185). This agrees with the assessment of Moulton (Syntax, 85): “Although a very large number of perfects in the NT cannot fairly be distinguished from aorists, there are still some which retain true resultative, and some a present, meaning.” Andrason and Locatell (“The Perfect Wave,” 20) rightly point out that there is no such thing as taxonomic purity: “In natural language, cases of absolute taxonomical uniformity are exceptional. What does constitute a rule are intermediate cases, where properties typical of the class a are accompanied by traits exemplary of another class b or other classes c, d, and so on. Therefore, the relation of belonging to a given taxonomical type is understood as approaching the prototype, rather than being identical to it.”

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 139 Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann63 has proved to be of great influence, where it is stated that “Paul uses φανερόω and ἀποκαλύπτω synonymously.”64 Markus Bockmuehl, who has done new research on the meaning of the verb φανερόω, nevertheless sees an important difference in the fact that φανερόω emphasizes making the saving event in Christ empirically visible: “Vielmehr handelt es sich um die unlangst ergangene ‘Wahrnehmbarmachung’ des von Gott seit Urzeiten verheißenen μυστήριον, und zwar in dem geschichtlichen Heilshandelen Christi” (“Rather, it is a question of the recent ‘making perceptible’ of the µυστήριον promised by God since time immemorial, namely in the historical act of salvation of Christ”).65 In Dutch we then end up with a translation with “zichtbaar maken” (“make visible”). Also, in Romans 1:19 ἐφανέρωσεν emphasizes that concrete-empirical perceptibility.66 The NBV21 translates the verb ἐφανέρωσεν in that verse with “kenbaar maken” (“make known/manifest”) and the adjective φανερός with “bekend” (“known”). A translation with “bekendmaken” (“manifest/make known”) also seems appropriate in Romans 3:21 and all the more so because it increases consistency with φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν in 2 Timothy 1:10, which according to William Sanday and Arthur Headlam, along with καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη in 1 John 1:2, is the closest parallel to Romans 3:21.67 The NBV21 translates φανερωθεῖσαν intransitively with “is Rudolf Bultmann and Dieter Lührmann, “φαίνω, φανερός, κτλ,” TDNT 9:1–10. 64 Bultmann and Lührmann, TDNT 9:4. See, e.g., Dunn (Romans 1-8, 165): “Paul reiterates the thematic assertion of 1:17, with φανερόω used in place of ἀποκαλύπτω (but obviously as synonyms-TDNT 9:4; EWNT 3:988).” According to Longenecker (Romans, 405), the alternation is purely due to the desire to avoid monotony. Godet (Romans, 146) sees a difference only in the imagery: ἀποκαλύπτειν then refers to “an object which was hidden by a veil, and which is made known by withdrawing the veil” and φανεροῦν to “an object placed in the shade, and on which rays of light are let fall.” 65 Bockmuehl, “Das Verb ϕανερόω im Neuen Testament,” 99. 66 Bockmuehl, “Das Verb ϕανερόω im Neuen Testament,” 95. 67 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 83. That is also how Fitzmyer (Romans, 344) understands the verb φανεροῦν; he translates the perfect with “has been disclosed” and explains, “Again Paul uses the vb. phaneroun, not in 63

140

MARK PARIDAENS

bekend geworden” (“has become known/manifest”). The ESV here translates consistently with Romans 3:21: “and which now has been manifested.” Based on this lexical interpretation of the verb φανερόω and the meaning of the perfect πεφανέρωται, we propose the following revision of the translation of the verse in the NBV21: “Maar nu is Gods gerechtigheid, waarvan de Wet en de Profeten al getuigen, bekendgemaakt buiten de wet om.” (“But now God’s righteousness, to which the Law and the Prophets already bear witness, has been made known/has been manifested apart from the Law.”)

2. CONCLUSION

It is clear from all this that the NBV21 has proceeded carefully. The translation of Romans 3:21 in the NBV21 is an improvement over the NBV because it honors the theologically important νυνὶ δὲ in its translation with the rendering “maar nu” (“but now”). The rendering of the perfect πεφανέρωται with “is zichtbaar geworden” (“has become visible”) is also an improvement over the NBV because now a VTT is used, implying a (vague) reference to a preceding event. However, the semantically intransitive translation of πεφανέρωται does not do justice to the passivum divinum. Moreover, a lexical fill-in with “bekendmaken” (“manifest/make known”) increases consistency with Romans 1:19 and 2 Timothy 1:10.68 the sense of “reveal” (as with apokalyptein in 1:17), but of “making known, making public” in the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ.” Compare Penna (Lettera ai Romani 1-5, 317): “faneróō implica maggiormente l'idea del far conoscere apertamente, del rendere visible, con un più evidente riferimento ai fruitori di ciò che viene disvelato” (“faneróō implies more the idea of making known openly, of making visible, with a more obvious reference to the recipients of what is being disclosed”). In a footnote, Penna (Lettera ai Romani 1-5, 317, note 17) points out that φανερόω also has exactly the same meaning in other places in Paul (cf. Rom 1:19; 16:26; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 2:14; 3:3; 4:10, 11; 5:10, 11; 7:12; and 11:6). 68 With this article I would like to express my deep appreciation to my colleague Martin Webber. We share a classical background. This background undoubtedly explains his great sensitivity to language and

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 141

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrason, Alexander, and Christian Locatell. “The Perfect Wave: A Cognitive Approach to the Greek Verbal System.” Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics (2016): 7–121. Bentein Klaas. “Perfect Periphrases in Post-Classical and Early Byzantine Greek: An Ecological-Evolutionary Account.” Journal of Greek Linguistics 12 (2012): 205–75. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 15th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Bockmuehl, Markus. “Das Verb ϕανερόω im Neuen Testament: Versuch einer Neuauswertung.” BZ 32 (1988): 87–99. Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1982. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Grand Rapids : Baker, 2006. Chantraine, Pierre. Histoire du parfait grec. Collection Linguistique 21. Paris: Champion, 1927. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Cornely, Rudolph. Commentarius in s. Pauli apostoli epistolas: I. Epistola ad Romanos. Paris: Lethielleux, 1896. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–1979. Crellin, Robert. The Syntax and Semantics of the Perfect Active in Literary Koine Greek. Publications of the Philological Society 47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. ———. “The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament.” Pages 430–57 in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis. Edited by Steven E.

his broad cultural interests. He was always the first to point out to us that a new grammar or lexicon of Greek had appeared. He has also stimulated the thorough study of Greek at our faculty in many other ways. È stato un piacere lavorare con te!

142

MARK PARIDAENS

Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. De Jong, Matthijs. “Op weg naar de NBV21.” Met Andere Woorden 39 (2020): 4–19. De Jong, Matthijs, and Cor Hoogerwerf. NBV21: De vertaalmethode toegelicht. Haarlem; Antwerpen: Nederlands-Vlaams Bijbelgenootschap, 2021. Dik, S. C., and J. G. Kooij. Algemene Taalwetenschap. Utrecht; Antwerpen: Het Spectrum, 1979. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. Ellis, Nicholas J. “Aspect-Prominence, Morpho-Syntax, and a Cognitive-Linguistic Framework for the Greek Verb.” Pages 122–60 in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Godet, Fréderic. Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Revised and edited by T. W. Chambers. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1883. Repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977. Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. THKNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Harrison, Everett F., and Donald A. Hagner. “Romans”. Pages 557–725 in vol. 11 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Rev. ed. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Harvey, John D. Romans. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2017. Haspelmath, Martin. “From Resultative to perfect in Ancient Greek.” Función 11-12 (1992): 187–224. Hong, Soon Ki. “An Evaluation of Stanley E. Porter’s Suggestions of a Third Level of “Frontground” for the Perfect Tense-form: Case Studies in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans.” Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2019.

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 143 Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Kang, Hanbyul. “Three Nuances of the Perfect Indicative in the Greek New Testament.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2020. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Kühner, Raphael, and Friedrich Blass. Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache. 4 vols. Hannover : Hansche, 1890– 1904. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Saint Paul : Epître aux Romains. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1922. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Moser, Amalia. “Tense and Aspect after the New Testament.” Pages 539–62 in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Moulton, James Hope. Prolegomena. Vol. 1 of Grammar of New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985. Moulton, James Hope, and Nigel Turner. Syntax. Vol. 3 of Grammar of New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980.

144

MARK PARIDAENS

Newman, Barclay M., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. New York: United Bible Societies, 1973. Patralogia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857– 1886. Payne, Thomas E. Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Penna, Romano. Lettera ai Romani 1-5. Bologna: Dehoniane, 2007. Pinkster, Harm. Latijnse Syntaxis en Semantiek. Amsterdam: Grüner, 1984. ———. The Oxford Latin Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015–2021. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek. New York: Lang, 1989. ———. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. ———. Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015. ———. The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015. Ridderbos, Herman. Aan de Romeinen. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Eerste Serie. Kampen: Kok, 1959. Rijksbaron, Albert. The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Gieben, 2002. Rijksbaron, Albert, Siem R. Slings, Peter Storck, and Gerry C. Wakker. Beknopte Syntaxis van het klassiek Grieks. Lunteren: Hermaion, 2006. Romero Criado, A. “Análisis semántico de los lexemas νῦν y νυνί en el Nuevo Testamento” [“Semantic Analysis of the Adverbial Lexemes νῦν and νυνί in the New Testament”]. Habis 50 (2019): 225–43. Ruijgh, C. J. Review of Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, by Stanley E. Porter. Mnemosyne 48 (1995): 352–66. Runge, Steven E. “Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect.” Pages 458–85 in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for

6. THE TRANSLATION OF ROMANS 3:21 IN THE NBV21 145 Biblical Exegesis. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. 4th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1900. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer 1-5. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Giessen: Brunnen, 2015. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998. Sicking, C.M.J. Hoofdstukken uit de Griekse ‘syntaxis’. Amsterdam: Polak & Van Gennep, 1971. Smit, Peter-Ben with Toon Renssen. “The passivum divinum: The Rise and Future Fall of an Imaginary Linguistic Phenomenon.” Filología Neotestamentaria 27 (2014): 3-24. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1886–1889. Tresham, Aaron K. “Tense and Aspect in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” Ph.D. diss., The Master’s Seminary, 2011. Van Emde Boas, Evert, Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. 3 vols. EKKNT 6. Zürich: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978–1982. Woyke, Johannes. “‘Einst’ und ‘Jetzt’ in Röm 1-3? Zur Bedeutung von νυνὶ δέ in Röm 3,21.” ZNW 92 (2001): 185–206. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Translated and revised by Joseph Smith. Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institute, 1963.

CHAPTER 7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY AND THE PROBLEM OF DEATH IN ROMANS 3:23 MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK THEOLOGISCHE UNIVERSITEIT KAMPEN | UTRECHT I NTRODUCTION

In 2010, the Journal for the Study of the New Testament published an article by Ben C. Blackwell titled “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3.23.”1 Studying the literary context of glory language throughout Romans, Blackwell argues that the word “glory” (δόξα) in Romans 3:23 denotes not only elevated honor, but also incorruption. The term thus combines sociological and ontological notions in this particular locus. Blackwell builds a convincing argument, relating Romans 3:23 closely to what Paul elaborates further in chapters 5–8. However, he has little to say about the precise connection between incorruption and honor. He is content with indicating that honor and incorruption are “mutually constitutive.”2 Ben C. Blackwell, “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3.23,” JSNT 32 (2010): 285–308. He gives a clear overview of the different currents of interpretation regarding Paul’s use of δόξα in this text. 2 Blackwell, “Immortal Glory,” 297. 1

147

148

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK

From Blackwell’s argument, it follows that the phrase “lack of glory” refers to both mortality and shame at the same time.3 In this chapter, I will corroborate his findings by showing how, in Jewish tradition and in the Umwelt, mortality was connected to shame and how both notions being connected provided a plausible background for the expression “lack of glory” in Romans 3:23.4 As is the case with honor, shame is an evaluative and relational category.5 It can be recognized in the sources through sensitivity to status markers, such as specific social behavior or the use of certain vocabulary and imagery that mark low status.6 Blackwell, “Immortal Glory,” 285. The verb ὑστερέω is sometimes translated as “to lack” (e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 204), referring to the glory lost in man’s fall; other times as “to fall short of” (e.g., Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 226), referring to the glory that fallen man is failing to reach. For an overview of the discussion, see Steven E. Enderlein, “To Fall Short or Lack the Glory of God? The Translation and Implications of Romans 3:23,” JSPL 1 (2011): 213–23. He argues that “to lack” is the better interpretation, suggesting “that Paul already has in mind the Adam / Christ contrast, which later becomes explicit in Romans 5” (213). 5 Honor discourse has an evaluative character as it evaluates a state of affairs, rather than “purely” describing it. See David A. deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 12. He refers to an unpublished paper by Jerome H. Neyrey, who claimed that attention to the dimension of honor and shame in NT texts allows the interpreter to “see as the natives see, (…) value what they value; (…) understand why they act the way they do” (italics mine). 6 For an introduction to the study and character of honor discourse and how it functioned as a way of social engineering, see David A. deSilva, The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), 1–33. For vocabulary and imagery related to honor and shame, see the relevant domains in LouwNida; John H. Elliott, Conflict, Community, and Honor: 1 Peter in SocialScientific Perspective, Cascade Companions (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 51–86. In this publication, Elliott also offers an appendix of honor-shame vocabulary and related semantic domains (80–87); David A. deSilva, Despising Shame, 27–35. See also Zeba A. Crook, The Ancient Mediterranean Social World: A Sourcebook (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 63–92. 3 4

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

149

First, I focus on whether death was a shameful reality in the Umwelt of the Bible and, if so, why precisely? Then I look at Jewish perspectives and perspectives of Jesus followers,7 specifically Paul’s argument in his letter to the Romans.8 Some preliminary remarks are needed. This chapter focuses on death and, by extension, the decay, deterioration, or corruptibility of human beings, of which death is, ultimately, the culmination point.9 While mapping attitudes toward death and mortality, it is impossible to avoid relying on broad outlines and thereby doing injustice to the multifaceted lived reality.10 Moreover, primary sources are scant and are spread across varying genres. This raises questions about the extent to which they reflect this lived reality. The secondary literature is also ambiguous in its interpretations.11 Last but not least, I want to note what an honor it is to contribute this chapter to the Festschrift for Professor Martin Webber, who is known among his colleagues as a wise and thoughtful scholar with a broad and profound knowledge of the NT and its settings. Despite death and shame being the topics in this chapter, the firm hope we live by is the ultimate context that makes it worthwhile to investigate them. And hope is a theme Martin knows all too well.

I avoid using the label of “Christian” for Paul in line with the questions of recent researchers of the “Paul within Judaism” perspective (see, e.g., Magnus Zetterholm, “The Paul Within Judaism Perspective,” in Perspectives on Paul: Five Views, ed. Scot McKnight and B. J. Oropeza (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 171–218. 8 Unless otherwise stated, translations of biblical texts are from the NRSV. 9 Gerhard von Rad, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, vol. 1 of Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 388. 10 Compare C. Clifton Black II, “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8,” JBL 103 (1984), 416; Lloyd R. Bailey, Sr., Biblical Perspectives on Death, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 5. 11 Compare the long list of differing interpretations in Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 25–28. 7

150

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK

1. THE SHAME OF DEATH IN THE UMWELT OF THE BIBLE

In both Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman societies, human mortality was first described as a neutral fact, a natural phenomenon, a mere inescapable given.12 There is a clear divide between humans and the gods. Humans are mortal; life belongs exclusively to the gods. In the Atrahasis Epic, death is a feature built into humans to keep them in their place. They exist primarily to serve the gods. “By existential definition, and because it suits the gods, humans are mortal: they die.”13 Gilgamesh, searching for ways to overcome mortality, is recalled: “Gilgamesh, whither rovest thou? The life thou pursuest thou shalt not find. When the Gods created mankind, death for mankind they ordained, life in their own hands retaining.”14 In Greco-Roman literature, a basic attitude of acceptance with regard to mortality is also found, which Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood has referred to as “Tame-Death.”15 However, the mere fact that Gilgamesh desperately tries to overcome this divide shows that, despite acceptance, mortality also

Webber and Kok, however, mention that there is evidence that for many non-Jews, death was not considered the end. They had hope for postmortem reunion with loved ones. See Martin I. Webber and Jacobus Kok, “Early Christian Thinking on Hope,” in Historical and Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Hope, ed. Steven C. van den Heuvel (Cham: Springer, 2020), 25–45. 13 Jon Davies, Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. Religion in the First Christian Centuries (London; New York: Routledge, 1999), 52–53. See also Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 5–7. 14 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” translated by E. A. Speiser (ANET, 90). 15 E.g., Homer, Od. 3.236–38; Il. 6.145–49; 12.322–28. Sourvinou-Inwood borrows this terminology from Philippe Ariès, who studied attitudes toward death in Medieval France. Christiane SourvinouInwood, “To Die and Enter the House of Hades: Homer, Before and After,” in Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the Social History of Death, ed. Joachim Whaley (London: Europa Publications, 1981), 15–39. See also Ian Morris, “Attitudes Toward Death in Archaic Greece,” Classical Antiquity 8.2 (1989): 296–320. Morris, however, departs form SourvinouInwood when he doubts her thesis of a fundamental change of this attitude around 700 BCE. 12

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

151

evoked negative feelings. No one wishes to die.16 Accordingly, old age was seen as decay, deterioration which could evoke feelings of disgust.17 This involves the evaluative dimension of shame, a downgrading in status, and resulted in social marginalization.18 For example, in the Babylonian myth of Erra and Ishum, Erra is called upon to go to war: “… up to your duty! Why have you been sitting in the city like a feeble old man, why sitting at home like a helpless child? Shall we eat woman-food like non-combatants?”19 The image of an old man is used here to shame Erra with the aim of correcting his attitude. In the Roman period, Cicero (Cato) highlights the benefits of old age, though his doing so also points to a similar climate in which old age is viewed negatively. Here again, status and shame play a role: For I have often listened to the complaints of my contemporaries (…) wherein they used to lament (…) because they were scorned by the people who had been wont to pay

Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death,” 416, referring to Homer, Od. 11.487–88; Aristotle, Rhet. 2.23 (citing Sappho); Euripides, Ale. 669; Iph Aul. 1252–53; Plato, Crat. 403b. 17 Rivkah Harris, Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia (Oklahoma: University Press, 2000), 50–66. See, e.g., a Sumerian folktale, particularly lines 27– 38 in Bendt Alster, Studies in Sumerian Proverbs, Mesopotamia. Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 3 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1975), 90–99. Zie ook CAD Q, 45b.3a; Plato, Ax. 367b; Xenophon, Apol., 6, 8. 18 Harris refers to the marginalization of elderly men by equating them with children and women, e.g., in CAD S 183. See also an Old Babylonian treaty from Ishchaly which states that the compensation to be paid for murder of an old man or women is the same as for a child (Samuel Greengus, Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity [Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1979]). Also in the Greco-Roman milieu elderly men are equated with children and women because of their infirmitas in opposition to qualities typical of the adult male citizen, who was at the center of activity. See Thomas Wiedemann, Adults and Children in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 17–25; See, e.g., Aristotle, Rhet. 2.13; Juvenal, Sat. 10.188–288; Lucian, Luct., 16–17. See for further references Tim Parkin, “The Ancient Greek and Roman Worlds,” in The Long History of Old Age, ed. Pat Thane (London: Thames & Hudson, 2005), 31–70. 19 Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993), 2:774. 16

152

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK them court. But it seemed to me that they were not placing the blame where the blame was due. For if the ills of which they complained were the faults of old age, the same ills would befall me and all other old men (…).20

However, in some cases, longevity and death were viewed positively, such as those instances in which honor could be gained. The idea that “a good old age” was a “reward for, and therefore proof of, a virtuous life” was widespread throughout the ancient Near East.21 For Cicero, too, a virtuous life could entail honor in later years, old age gathering “the fruits of influence at the last.”22 Even death could be a cause for honor, especially the death of the young hero in battle.23 For the Canaanites and Mesopotamians, “heroism” “is almost synonymous with death in battle, and is the closest men get to breaching the mortal/immortal divide.”24 The element of immortality is in the establishing of a “name” and, by this, eternal fame.25 The same holds for the Greco-Roman heroes.26 Dying young in battle is therefore important; it is an honorable choice to give up one’s life for fame. For a young man, all things are seemly, if he falls in battle, lying dead, pierced by the sharp bronze; yes, all things are beautiful for the dead man, whatever happens; but when the dogs defile the grey hair, grey beard, and genitals of an old man who

Cicero, Sen., 3.7 (Falconer, LCL). Harris, Gender and Aging, 53–54. 22 Cicero, Sen., 18.62, 63 (Falconer, LCL). 23 Davies, Death, Burial and Rebirth, 50–51 referring to words of the dying Enkidu, friend of Gilgamesh: “he who falls in battle is blessed, but I shall die in disgrace” (51). 24 Davies, Death, Burial and Rebirth, 51. 25 Morris refers to a distinction Martha Nussbaum makes in this regard between two kinds of immortality: kinetic (the fame passed down through the generations) and static (reserved for gods). See Morris, “Attitudes Toward Death,” 312. 26 Davies, Death, Burial and Rebirth, 143–44, 159, 162; Morris, “Attitudes Toward Death,” 304. See also J.W. van Henten and F. Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity, The Context of Early Christianity (London, Routledge 2002). 20 21

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

153

has been killed, this is the most miserable thing for wretched mortals.27 Apart from establishing fame, death in some cases was viewed positively as a release from suffering, as at least bringing rest.28 Characteristic of their dualistic view of reality, some Greek traditions welcomed death as a liberation of the immortal soul.29 In short, in the Umwelt of the Bible, death, as a fact, was primarily considered a natural and inevitable phenomenon for humans. In that respect, there was a clear divide between humans and gods. The experience of aging and decay, of which death was the culmination point, was foremost perceived as negative and, at a social level, shameful. Only in some cases could “good old age” be an honorable sign of virtue, comparable to the heroic death of a young man in battle.

2. J EWISH PERSPECTIVES AND PERSPECTIVES OF JESUS FOLLOWERS (I.E., PAUL) ON THE SHAME OF DEATH 2.1. Jewish Perspectives

Referring to Genesis 3:6, Lloyd Bailey states that, although negative overtones were expressed, the OT also adopts an accepting attitude toward mortality. The cessation of biological life was understood as appropriate for humans.30 The negative overtones were strongly connected to Israel’s covenant understanding. First, death was experienced as the cutting of communion with Yahweh (e.g., Ps 88:5 and Jonah 2:3–5). For Jews, the realm of death extended far beyond the “cessation of biological life.” Weakness, illness, disability, or oppression were places where death manifested itself in the realm of the living.31 “(…) death begins to become a reality at the point where Yahweh forsakes a man, where he is silent, i.e., at whatever point the lifeHomer, Il. 22.71–76, cited by Morris, “Attitudes toward Death,” 304. Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death,” 416–17, referring to Euripides, Tro. 606–7, 634. 29 Plato, Phaed. 114–15; Cicero, Sen., 21. 30 Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 52–57. 31 See, e.g., Psalm 116:3–11 where “the pangs of Sheol laid hold on” the suppliant after which he was saved by the Lord. 27 28

154

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK

relationship with Yahweh wears thin. From there it is only a step till the final cessation of life (…).”32 Second, mortality was considered a consequence of sin (Gen 2–3; Isa 38:17), a thought that is more foregrounded in intertestamental literature (Wis 1:13; 2:23–24; 1 En. 5:9; and 4 Ezra 7:62–131).33 Both being cut off from communion with Yahweh and sinful status are sources of shame. In Psalm 88 the threat of being abandoned by God, not being remembered by Him anymore, provokes a lament which is shrouded in notions of shame. The psalmist cries out to the Lord: (1) O Lord, God of my salvation, when, at night, I cry out in your presence, (2) let my prayer come before you; incline your ear to my cry. (3) For my soul is full of troubles, and my life draws near to Sheol. (4) I am counted among those who go down to the Pit; I am like those who have no help, (5) like those forsaken among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, like those whom you remember no more, for they are cut off from your hand. (6) You have put me in the depths of the Pit, in the regions dark and deep. (7) Your wrath lies heavy upon me, and you overwhelm me with all your waves. (Selah) (8) You have caused my companions to shun me; you have made me a thing of horror to them. I am shut in so that I cannot escape; (…) (14) O Lord, why do you cast me off? Why do you hide your face from me? (15) Wretched and close to death from my youth up, I suffer your terrors; I am desperate. (…) (18) You have caused friend and neighbor to shun me; my companions are in darkness. (Ps 88:1–18)

The Psalmist experiences death; his life draws near to the Pit, the grave; he is cut off from Yahweh’s hand. The mere fact that the Lord hides his face and seems to give up his faithful protection causes the psalmist’s companions, friend and neighbor, to shun him (vv. 8 and 18). In fact, the Lord made him “a thing of horror”

Von Rad, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, 388; See also Aubrey R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1949), 88–107. 33 Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death,” 415. 32

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

155

to them (v. 8).34 The connection of death with sin further reinforces low status and shame. As king Hezekiah wrote after he had been sick and recovered from his sickness: 17 Surely it was for my welfare that I had great bitterness; but you have held back my life from the pit of destruction, for you have cast all my sins behind your back. 18 For Sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the Pit cannot hope for your faithfulness. 19 The living, the living, they thank you, as I do this day; fathers make known to children your faithfulness. (Isa 38:17–19; italics mine)

In Isaiah 38:17 Hezekiah’s premature death, which would imply being cut off from communion with Yahweh, is related to his own sins and his rescue from this shameful fate to the removal of these (v. 17). Stated otherwise, as becomes clear from, e.g., Deuteronomy 30:15–20, turning away from God by not obeying him is a shameful reality as evidenced by the loss of his blessings and the presence of curse, which leads to death (Deut 30:15–20). Being the opposite of a blessed state, the concept of “curse” denotes low status and, thus, shame.35 Furthermore, death as a collective curse because of the original transgression of Adam or Eve (or both) is a frequently recurring thought in the intertestamental literature.36

The language of Psalm 88, especially verse 8, can also be understood in the context of purity and purification. Impurity can be a source of shame. Elliott includes terminology of purity and holiness in his list of honor vocabulary found in 1 Peter. See Elliott, Conflict, Community, and Honor, 84. On the correspondence of holiness, purity, and honor, see Werner Mischke, The Global Gospel: Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World (Scottsdale, AZ: Mission ONE, 2015), kindle edition, par. 2.9, “Purity”. 35 See, e.g., the shameful position of Cain in Genesis 4:11; the opposition of blessing to curse in Genesis 12:2–3; cf. Deuteronomy 30:19. 36 Sirach 25:24; 2 Enoch 30:17; Apocalypse of Moses 14; 2 Baruch 54:15, 56:6; 2 Esdras 3:7; cf. Josephus, Ant. 3.8.1.188–92; Philo, Mos. 2.147. According to Bailey, this link between mortality in general (apart from premature mortality) and sin is a later development in the OT that cannot necessarily be derived from Genesis 2–3 (Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 53, 77). Von Rad (The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, 391), in turn, sees an evolution in the attitude of the Israelite toward 34

156

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK

In Jewish literature, as in the Umwelt, death sometimes has positive connotations.37 It can be an occasion for faithful witness, as is the case in the martyrdom of Eleazar in 2 Maccabees 6:18– 31, who preferred an honorable death (v. 19, µετ’ εὐκλείας θάνατον) above eating pork. His death became an honorable example of nobility and a memorial of courage for his people (v. 31). There is also in Jewish tradition the idea of “a good death,” which means to die in “good” old age. For instance, the Lord promises to Abram: “As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age” (Gen 15:15). The “good death” stands in contrast to the “bad death,” which is violent, premature, or without a surviving heir.38 In Wisdom literature also longevity sometimes counts as a blessing (Prov 3:16 and Eccl 9:4). In short, as was the case in the Umwelt, the Jewish tradition also shows various stances toward mortality, which were, however, connected to Israel’s covenant understanding. First and foremost, death was a shameful reality, both because it cut one off from communion with Yahweh and because of its connection to sin, in an individual or collective mode. Consequently, being “counted among those who go down to the Pit” resulted in social shunning. Only in some cases are positive connotations with death expressed, such as dying in good old age or death as an occasion for an honorable witness of faith. 2.2. Perspective of Jesus Followers (i.e., Paul)

The concept of death as a collective curse because of original sin figures prominently in Paul’s letter to the Romans specifically in chapters 5–8.39 The apostle articulates this most clearly in death. Both hypotheses are based in part on assumptions about source material and redaction of texts. 37 Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 79; Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death,” 415. Van Henten and Avemarie, Martyrdom and Noble Death, 42–87. 38 E.g., 1 Samuel 2:31; 2 Samuel 18:32–33; Amos 7:11. For more references see Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 48–51. See also Von Rad, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, 389–90. 39 Throughout these chapters, θάνατος κτλ. is abundantly present (some forty-three times).

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

157

Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned (…).” Paul outlines death in a mythological sense as a personified “power” that exercises dominion over humanity. Death is understood as “sin’s partner in crime,”40 reigning in the lives of people and in creation as a whole.41 Paul’s argument in chapters 5–8 is embedded in the broader honor discourse of the preceding sections of the letter where Paul describes human sin in terms of dishonoring God (1:18–32) and not conforming to the picture of God’s law (2:1–3:20). In 1:21, e.g., ungodly and unrighteous people, though they knew God, did not honor him (ἐδόξασαν) or give thanks to him (v. 21). On the contrary, they exchanged the majesty of the imperishable God for images of perishable beings. Three times Paul states that God consequently has surrendered them (παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) to their own shameful actions, desires and character (v. 24, εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιµάζεσθαι τὰ σώµατα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς, “to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves”; v. 26, εἰς πάθη ἀτιµίας, “to degrading passions”; v. 28, εἰς ἀδόκιµον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ µὴ καθήκοντα, “to a debased mind and to things that should not be done”). In 2:6–11, akin to the opposite ways of life and death in Deuteronomy 30:15–20, Paul is very clear about the options and the outcome. God will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality (δόξαν, τιµή, and ἀφθαρσίαν), he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. Thus, in line with

Joseph R. Dodson, The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans, BZNW 161 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 123. 41 θάνατος figures as a personified power in 5:12 (twice), 14, 17; and 7:5. For the personification of death as a power in this world, see also Martinus C. de Boer, Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse: Essays on Paul and Apocalyptic (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020), 78–79; Dodson, Powers, 123–39. Already in the Jewish tradition, death was sometimes perceived in a mythological way, e.g., in Isaiah 25:6–8 and Job 18:13. See Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death,” 414. 40

158

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK

his Jewish inheritance, for Paul the shame of mortality is connected to sin and the ensuing alienation from God. At the same time, Paul transcends this inheritance. He finds a way out of this low-status situation through the coming of the Christ and the dawning of the eschaton. By dying on the cross, Christ, as the second Adam, broke the ultimate power of sin and death and opened new prospects for life (Rom 5:15, 21). The shameful status of mortality, the alienation from God because of sin, gives way to an honorable status of kinship (Rom 8:15–17). God’s children look forward to their inheritance of future final glorification, which means the ultimate redemption of their bodies (Rom 8:22–23) and fullness of life eternal.42 There will be no more decay.43 In Jewish thinking, the realm of death extended far beyond the cessation of biological life. In a similar way, for Paul, the death and resurrection of Christ mean that the realm of life is not confined to life eternal. New life, in all its aspects, is already present in the inaugurated eschaton as a genuine reality for God’s children. Whereas in Romans 5 life (ζωή) as the antipode of death is fashioned primarily in future terms, Romans 6:4–5 shows that Paul also conceived of the Christian life as permeated even now by the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. (4) Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (5) For if we have been united with him in a death like his,

For an analysis of the honor discourse in connection to death and suffering in Romans 5–8, see Myriam Klinker-De Klerck, “Paul’s View on Christian Suffering: Honor Discourse as a Lens,” Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 10 (2020): 121–37. 43 Already in the OT there is mention of resurrection (e.g., Dan 12:2). In comparison to the OT, early Jewish texts and the NT show a more sophisticated elaboration of eschatology (see, e.g., Outi Lehtipuu, The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, NovTSup 123 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007), 125–54. In the perspective of Jesus followers resurrection is central and grounded in the resurrection of Jesus himself. 42

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

159

we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Rom 6:4–5)

To “walk in newness of life” (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατέω) is what a “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις)44 in Christ should do, “to walk” being a technical term for the Christian life.45 Paul continues in verse 11: “So you also must consider yourselves dead (νεκρούς) to sin and alive (ζῶντας) to God in Christ Jesus”. Because the apostle parenetically addresses the lives of the hearers, the death-life vocabulary is often understood in more of a metaphorical rather than natural, biological, way.46 However, to detach this language from the biological-ontological undertones that also resonate in it would be to misinterpret its reference.47 In Romans 5–8, the biological sense is obviously present when Paul refers to the death of Jesus (four times in 5:6–10; three times in 6:3–5; twice in 6:9; and in 8:34), though the biological sense is also apparent when Christians (or humans in general) are under discussion (6:12; 7:2, 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15. Heinrich Seesemann, “πατέω κτλ.,” in TDNT 5:944. 46 De Boer, Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse, 78, does acknowledge that biological death cannot be excluded here but nevertheless argues that in Romans 5–8 (in contrast to 1 Cor 15) the focus is on the metaphorical sense. Contra John M.G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) 500–503, who convincingly points to how often the life of Jesus is cited in Romans 6–8. According to Barclay, the reason for this is that Paul is not talking about an anthropological phenomenon here, a “reformation of the self,” but rather an “eccentric” phenomenon, drawing on the “life from the dead” that was inaugurated by Jesus’ resurrection” (501). “Believers ‘live to God’ (6:11) as walking miracles, all the more evidently miraculous because this new creation life begins, in their case, not on the other side, but on this side of death” (501). Commentaries remain somewhat vague in their characterization of this reality. For example, Moo (Romans, 380–81) points to the union with Christ but says little else about the nature of the new life. Robert Jewett (Romans, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 408) speaks of “corporate mysticism.” 47 See also Peter Stuhlmacher, who argues that Paul’s terminology of “new creation” refers to “ein welthaftes und zugleich doxologisches sein (a worldly and at the same time doxological state of being).” See his “Erwägungen zum ontologischen Charakter der καινὴ κτίσις bei Paulus,” EvT 27 (1967): 1–35. 44 45

160

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK

3; and 8:11, 36).48 An expression such as “present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life” (ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας, 6:13) points to “genuine” newness of life that is already present in the believers. In short, in line with his Jewish tradition, Paul in his letter to the Romans conceives of mortality as a shameful reality. Death is a curse on all humanity because of original sin. Paul transcends his tradition where he sees in Christ a definite removal of that shameful mortal status. Alienation from God gives way to an honorable status of kinship in which the believer, looking forward to final glory, i.e., fullness of life, already experiences newness of life right now.

3. CONCLUSION

In comparing different perspectives, both in the Umwelt of the Bible and in the Jewish and Christian tradition, we can see that there is a connection between mortality and shame. In all these perspectives, there is a clear divide between the human and the divine: humans are mortal, gods have eternal life. Despite these parallels, there are also differences in the way shame and mortality are linked. In the polytheistic cultures of the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman times, the divide between humans and gods seems intended and inevitable. Eternal fame is the closest humans can get to desired immortality. Shame is primarily associated with the low status of being merely human and the inevitable decay of body and mind. In the Jewish views and those of Jesus followers (i.e., Paul), the basic idea of a covenant changes the perspective on the shame of mortality in a fundamental way. Mortality and decay are experienced as shameful alienation from God. Death entails being completely cut off from this covenant relationship. Shame is primarily associated with sin. This divide between God and his creatures was obviously not intended. For Christians, through the death and resurrection of Christ, the shameful curse of death has See also the biological sense of death (terminology of νεκρόω) at the end of chapter 4, a kind of prelude to the chapters 5–8, where Paul refers to the example of Abraham and Sarah in verses 17, 19 (twice), and the application in verse 24. 48

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

161

been lifted and, by consequence, the divide is no longer inevitable.49 Indeed, new life is an already experienced reality, despite the residue of death during the overlap of the ages. With regard to the interpretation of δόξα in Romans 3:23 as referring to elevated honor and incorruption at the same time, the above established connection between mortality and shame in Paul’s worldview supports Blackwell’s view.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alster, Bendt. Studies in Sumerian Proverbs. Mesopotamia. Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 3. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1975. Bailey, Sr., Lloyd R. Biblical Perspectives on Death. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Barclay, John M.G. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Black II, C. Clifton. “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5– 8.” JBL 103 (1984): 413–33. Blackwell, Ben C. “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3.23.” JSNT 32 (2010): 285–308. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. Crook, Zeba A. The Ancient Mediterranean Social World: A Sourcebook. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Davies, Jon. Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity: Religion in the First Christian Centuries. London; New York: Routledge, 1999. De Boer, Martinus C. Paul, Theologian of God’s Apocalypse: Essays on Paul and Apocalyptic. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020. deSilva, David A. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2nd ed. Atlanta: SBL, 2008. ———. The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999. Compare Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 89 and 91, who comes to a similar conclusion. He does not reckon, however, with the dimension of shame. 49

162

MYRIAM KLINKER-DE KLERCK

Dodson, Joseph R. The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans. BZNW 161. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Elliott, John H. Conflict, Community, and Honor: 1 Peter in SocialScientific Perspective. Cascade Companions. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Enderlein, Steven E. “To Fall Short or Lack the Glory of God? The Translation and Implications of Romans 3:23.” JSPL 1 (2011): 213–23. Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. Vol. 2. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993. Gelb, Ignace J., and Martha T. Roth. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2010. Greengus, Samuel. Old Babylonian Tablets from Ishchali and Vicinity. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1979. Harris, Rivkah. Gender and Aging in Mesopotamia. Oklahoma: University Press, 2000. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Johnson, Aubrey R. The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1949. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Klinker-De Klerck, M. “Paul’s View on Christian Suffering: Honor Discourse as a Lens.” JSPL 10 (2020): 121–37. Lehtipuu, Outi. The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. NovTSup 123. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014. Mischke, Werner. The Global Gospel. Achieving Missional Impact in Our Multicultural World. Scottsdale, AZ: Mission ONE, 2015. Kindle edition. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Morris, Ian. “Attitudes Toward Death in Archaic Greece.” Classical Antiquity 8 (1989): 296–320.

7. SHAMEFUL MORTALITY

163

Parkin, Tim. “The Ancient Greek and Roman Worlds.” Pages 31– 70 in The Long History of Old Age. Edited by Pat Thane. London: Thames & Hudson, 2005. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane. “To Die and Enter the House of Hades: Homer, Before and After.” Pages 15–39 in Mirrors of Mortality: Studies in the Social History of Death. Edited by Joachim Whaley. London: Europa Publications, 1981. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Erwägungen zum ontologischen Charakter der καινὴ κτίσις bei Paulus.” Evangelische Theologie 27 (1967): 1–35. Van Henten, J.W., Avemarie F. Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian Antiquity. The Context of Early Christianity. London, Routledge 2002. Von Rad, Gerhard. The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Volume 1 of Old Testament Theology. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Webber, Martin I., and Jacobus Kok. “Early Christian Thinking on Hope.” Pages 25–45 in Historical and Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Hope. Edited by Steven C. van den Heuvel. Cham: Springer, 2020. Wiedemann, Thomas. Adults and Children in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Zetterholm, Magnus. “The Paul Within Judaism Perspective.” Pages 171–218 in Perspectives on Paul. Five Views. Edited by Scot McKnight and B. J. Oropeza. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020.

CHAPTER 8. JEWISH ROOTS OF PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW: A CLOSE READING OF ROMANS 3:23 AND MATTHEW 9:9–13 FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN1 NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY, POTCHEFSTROOM I NTRODUCTION

The words: γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης (Let God be trustworthy and every person a liar, Rom 3:4), apparently played a significant role in the life and ministry of Martin Webber.2 In honour of him, this essay takes this verse as point of departure for a brief investigation of Paul’s teaching on the Law in Romans. I link this with my main field of research, which is on the Law in Matthew, to demonstrate some similar issues in these two NT books.

Sections of my arguments on the Law in Matthew and specifically references to Matthew 9:9-13 are based on my PhD-thesis ‘The Torah in Matthew’ as published by LIT Verlag and is reused here with permission. See Francois P. Viljoen, Torah in Matthew (Zürich: LIT, 2018). 2 Paul quotes Psalm 51:4 (LXX 50:6) in which he compares the human unfaithfulness with the faithfulness of God. 1

165

166

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

Romans 3:4 exhibits a great deal of Paul’s teachings on the trustworthiness of God in contrast to the dishonesty of humanity, and eventually boils down to Paul’s teachings on the Law and justification. When it comes to these teachings, scholars such as Moore and Sanders opine that Paul’s teachings are out of keeping with his Jewish roots.3 They accuse Paul of misconstruing Jewish understanding of these teachings. Similar arguments are also lodged about the teachings of Matthew. It is argued that the Matthean Jesus proposed a new Law,4 or abrogated certain aspects of the Law,5 or differentiated between what was required of Jewish followers of Jesus and nonJewish followers of Jesus.6 The Law and justification in Matthew likewise remain a hotly debated issue. In response to these scholarly allegations, this essay investigates the Jewish roots of Paul’s and Matthew’s teachings respectively on the Law and justification. This is done by taking Romans 3:23 and Matthew 9:13 as representative texts.7 The way Paul and Matthew each address the question of the prodigality of all humanity and how God grants his grace are explored. It is argued that both Paul’s and Matthew’s teachings are not foreign to their Jewish roots, as is often assumed. To do so, a brief overview is given of scholarly debates about the Law in Paul and Matthew respectively, followed by a close

George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930), and E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Augsburg: Fortress, 1977). 4 Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (New York: Holt, 1930); George D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950); and Günther Bornkamm, End-expectations and Church in Matthew (London: SCM, 1963). 5 John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976). 6 Isaac W. Oliver, Torah praxis after 70 CE: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish Texts, WUNT II/355 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). 7 While one should avoid the error of reading Matthew through the eyes of Paul, one should also avoid exaggerating the contrasts between Matthew and Paul as if their teachings of law and grace would be in conflict with one another. 3

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

167

reading of these two verses within their immediate contexts. Based on this investigation conclusions are drawn on the roots of these two passages to demonstrate the closeness of these passages to Jewish thoughts on Law and justification, though with a specific reference to Jesus as the agent through whom God would grant his covenantal mercy.

1. I SSUES REGARDING LAW AND JUSTIFICATION IN PAUL AND M ATTHEW 1.1. Law and Justification in Paul

Since Luther, Reformed scholars have commonly argued that legalistic works-righteousness stood in the center of ancient Judaism. It was argued that Jews believed that they could earn the favor of God by obeying the law of Moses. Based on this traditional perspective, it was assumed that Paul presented his argument on justification by faith as a corrective to the mistake of Jewish merit theology.8 However, in ongoing academe, this view of Paul’s teachings has increasingly been questioned.9 Moore, a student of Judaism, expressed his amazement of what he regards as Paul’s misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the Jewish Law: How a Jew of Paul’s antecedents could ignore, and by implication deny, the great prophetic doctrine of repentance, which, individualized and interiorized, was a cardinal doctrine of Judaism, namely, that God, out of love, freely James P. Ware, “Law, Christ, and Covenant: Paul’s Theology of the Law in Romans 3:19-20,” JTS 62 (2011), 514. 9 Much of this debate was initiated by Adolf Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1935), 35–38, 135–39, and revived by Ernst Käsemann, “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus,” ZTK 58 (1961): 367–78, who regarded “δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ” as an existing technical apocalyptic term. Rudolf Bultmann disputed Käsemann’s view and argued that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ was “ein Neuschöpfung des Paulus,” in “Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ,” JBL 83 (1964), 16. While the meaning of the righteousness of God is hotly debated, it surely has as its core the idea of God’s faithfulness to his promises (James M. Howard, “Reexamining Romans 1-8 with the Pentateuch,” BibSac 177 [2020]: 70– 90). 8

168

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN forgives the sincerely penitent sinner and restores him to his favor—that seems from the Jewish point of view inexplicable.10

Sanders developed Moore’s argument.11 He opines that Paul’s theology of the law lacks both consistency and coherence. In his view, Paul deals with the law neglecting its gracious covenantal context. He argues that ancient Judaism was not a religion of works-righteousness. He referred to God’s gracious covenant and the mercy which God granted based on repentance and sacrifices. He accuses Paul of forsaking the Jewish covenantal thought in his dealing with the Law. The debate on Paul’s view of the Law gained further momentum with the so called “New Perspective on Paul” as proposed by Dunn.12 According to Dunn, Paul’s teaching on justification by faith does not oppose legalism within Judaism, but the exclusion of Gentiles from the covenant community. Dunn’s initial stance was that the ἔργα νόµου (“works of the law”) in Paul’s writings refer to Jewish identity markers, namely the observance of the Sabbath, circumcision, and purity laws.13 However, in his later writings he opines that it could include all the works of the law.14

Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 150. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 31–428. 12 James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 354–59; and his The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What and Whither? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 23–38, 44–47). 13 Dunn’s argument fits quite well with the struggle of the Jews to maintain their identity within the Hellenistic culture and under the Roman Empire. Laws regarding the Sabbath, circumcision, diet, and purity formed identity markers of their society. Jewish religious leaders defended and enforced these identity markers, which resulted in boundary markers between Jews and Gentiles. cf. Archie T. Wright, “Jewish Identity, Beliefs, and Practices,” in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 310–23. This gave “Judaism” its nationalistic, anti-Gentile, and exclusive character. Cf. James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 292. 14 Dunn, The New Perspective, 107–11. 10 11

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

169

In Aletti’s view, Paul’s argument in Romans is not to persuade his readers of the sinfulness of all and their need for forgiveness.15 According to Aletti, that was already commonly recognized by ancient Judaism. Paul’s argument is rather about the way humans can experience God’s grace. While the Jews would find God’s grace through the law, Paul would argue that grace is received through Christ. This brief overview demonstrates the ongoing arguments on Paul’s teaching of the Law, righteousness and salvation. Without attempting to attend to all these issues, this essay investigates whether Paul indeed did misconstrue and neglect the ancient Jewish understanding of these key aspects. Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23 will be taken as focal point for this investigation. 1.2. Law and justification in Matthew

As it is in the case of Paul, the treatment of the Law remains a much-debated issue in Matthew as well. Jesus’s relation to the Law forms a significant motif in Matthew’s Gospel, much more than any of the other Synoptic Gospels.16 Matthew depicts Jesus as the last and greatest expositor of the Law. Davies remarks: “Matthew has draped his Lord in the mantle of a teacher of righteousness.”17 Barth’s article “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law” has stimulated considerable scholarly discussion on the Law in Matthew. Barth differentiates between what he regards as belonging to tradition and belonging to the editorial reworking of the author, respectively.18 He has demonstrated how Matthew

Jean-Noel Aletti, “Romans,” in International Bible Commentary, ed. William R. Farmer (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 1553– 1600. 16 William R. G. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels, WUNT II/97 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 165; and Francois P. Viljoen, Torah in Matthew, 1. 17 William D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 102. 18 Gerhard Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, ed. Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz J. Held (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 58–62. 15

170

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

more decisively warns his addressees against the judgement of God and therefore urges them to meticulously adhere to God’s will. He regards the reason for this emphasis to be the Sitz im Leben of the author and his addressees. Matthew’s perspective on the Law is largely determined by his opposition to antinomians.19 Besides this opposition to antinomians, he likewise opposes the Pharisees and the Rabbinate of his day. Barth rejects the view that Jesus was the giver of a nova lex, as proposed by scholars like Bacon, Kilpatrick, and Bornkamm.20 Barth concludes that Jesus in Matthew does not oppose the law of Sinai, but the interpretation of it by a dominant Rabbinic strain. Meier has made a redactional-critical study of Matthew 5:17–20 in relation to the antitheses that follow in Matthew 5:21– 48.21 He argues that Matthew has carefully constructed Matthew 5:17–20 with a clear theological intent. Matthew’s redaction expresses (1) the connection between salvation history, Christ and the Law, (2) pastoral exhortations to the church leaders and Christians of his day, and (3) polemic against the Pharisees. Meier argues that the Matthean Jesus abrogated some elements of the Mosaic Law as expressed in Jesus’ words: “All things I have commanded you” (Matt 28:20). Meier regards these things as “secundum, praeter or contra the Mosaic Law.”22 Foster investigated the Law within the social location of the Matthean community.23 He argues that the Matthean group originated within Judaism (intra muros). However, by the time the Gospel was composed, this community functioned outside the confines of its original setting (extra muros). A breach had developed between the “synagogue” and the “church.” The “church” was recruiting new members from amongst the Gentiles, which created some tension with the traditional Torah observers. He demonstrates how much of the debate in Matthew revolves around the issue of Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding,” 159–64. Bacon, Studies in Matthew, 223; Kilpatrick, Origins, 107; and Bornkamm, “End-expectations and Church in Matthew,” 35. 21 Meier, Law and History. 22 Meier, Law and History, 168. 23 Paul Foster, Community, Law, and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel, WUNT II/177 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 177. 19 20

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

171

Torah observance and the fact that the mission amongst the Gentiles marked a departure from various forms of Judaism that emerged after the destruction of the temple. He argues that the Matthean community was decisively rejected by parties in Formative Judaism. Oliver argues that Matthew expected the Jewish followers of Jesus to continue observing the Jewish Law in full, though the Gentiles were only expected to keep the ethical commandments and certain purity and dietary laws from the Mosaic Law.24 This would enable fellowship between Jewish and Gentile worshippers within the Jesus movement. He concludes that Matthew represents a strain of Judaism that was in a bitter conflict with Pharisaic Judaism but was nevertheless indebted to Jewish tradition and thought. As in the case of Paul, this brief overview demonstrates aspects of the ongoing arguments over Matthew’s teaching of the Law, righteousness, and salvation. Without attempting to attend to all these issues, this essay also investigates whether Jesus in Matthew did indeed misconstrue and neglect the ancient Jewish roots of the Torah with reference to righteousness and salvation. The scene of Matthew 9:9–13 is taken as focal point for this investigation.

2. J EWISH ROOTS IN ROMANS AND M ATTHEW

This section proceeds in investigating the probable Jewish roots of Romans 3:23 and Matthew 9:9–13 respectively. N. T. Wright fittingly remarks on quotations, echoes or allusions in the NT: “What matters is how the relevant texts would be understood in the first century, both by Second Temple Jews in general and then by early Christians as they saw everything afresh in the light of Jesus and the Spirit.”25

Oliver, Torah Praxis after 70 CE. N. T. Wright, “Responding to Exile,” in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright, ed. James M. Scott (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 321. 24 25

172

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

2.1. Jewish Roots of Romans 3:23

With reference to the accusations of inter alia Moore and Sanders as mentioned before, the question arises whether Paul did indeed misrepresent the Jewish understanding of the law, righteousness, and salvation. A closer investigation of Paul’s pivotal statement in Romans 3:23—πάντες γὰρ ἥµαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ (“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”) seems to shed light on the issue. With this statement the entire argument of Romans 1:18–3:23 reaches a climax. Paul’s argument in Romans 1:18–3:23 is built upon the foundation of human inability to fulfil the law.26 In Romans 1:16– 17 Paul, by quoting from Habakkuk 2:4, announces the main theme of his epistle—Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (“the righteous will live by faith”), followed by an exposition of the depravity of all humanity and the impossibility of righteousness through works of the law (Rom 1:18–3:20).27 He begins by describing the sins of the Gentiles (Rom 1:18–32) a sentiment that Jews certainly would have shared. He then proceeds by drawing attention to the impartiality of God’s judgement. Not only Gentiles fall under God’s judgement, but Jews too (Rom 2:1–16). He develops his argument by explaining that even Jews stand guilty before God (Rom 2:17–29). He concludes his argument with the statement that both Jews and Gentiles have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).28 Jews and Gentiles are in a similar position, and Israel’s failure to be a light to the world has made them part of the problem.29 From an attentive reading of this statement, it becomes clear that it echoes a passage from the OT Writings: “Enter not into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before B. J. Oropeza “Justification by Faith in Christ or Faithfulness of Christ? Updating the πίστις χριστοῦ Debate in Light of Paul’s Use of Scripture,” JTS 72 (2021): 102–24. 27 Anders Nygren (Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949], 157–58) argues that the Habakkuk quote in Romans 1:17 reflects the “whole message of this epistle.” 28 Stephen Hultgren, “Texts in Context: Romans 3:19-28,” WW 37 (2017), 405. 29 Howard, Re-examining Romans 1-8, 74. 26

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

173

you” (Ps 143:2 [LXX Ps 142:2]).30 The question is therefore what Jews would have understood by this phrase. In this psalm, the psalmist expresses the lack of righteousness of all humanity. All he can do is to is to plead by YHWH’s covenantal relationship with him. He trusts that YHWH will show mercy as He remains faithful to his covenant. The psalmist repeatedly appeals to YHWH’s chesed (Ps 143:8, 12), his unfailing covenantal love. When he considers his standing before God, he can only count on the grace and forgiveness of YHWH. He realizes that without God’s grace all are condemned. The righteous in the Psalms frequently confess their sinfulness and plead for forgiveness (cf. Ps 32; 38; 41; 51; 85; 90; 103; 130), but then continue to express their assurance that God would show mercy and forgiveness. They have this assurance not because of their own dignity, but because of their covenantal relationship with YHWH, based on their faith in Him (cf. Ps 143:1, 5, 8, 9, and 10). The righteous in the Psalms are not righteous because of their own merit, but because of their trust in YHWH. They call on his name and take refuge in him (cf. Ps 5:11; 25:6– 7; 32:10; 64:10; 71:1–2; 84:12; 86:5, 11; 125:1–2; 130:3–4; 143:1, 8, 9). All these Psalms declare the impossibility of humans to be righteousness based on their own dignity. All humans need God’s grace and mercy. All they can depend on is God’s covenantal faithfulness and his continual divine forgiveness. The wicked, on the contrary, are the arrogant who elevate themselves and do not humble themselves before YHWH. They do not have respect for his will. They rebel against him and reject his covenant (cf. Ps 14:1–4; 16:4; 36:1–4; 94:4–11; 97:7; 115:2–8). Pointedly the wicked are not limited to the Gentiles. Even some people of Israel live as wicked fools. This idea is not only found in the Psalms but also in numerous places in Jewish literature. Isaiah 59:1–5 (“…your iniquities have made a separation between you

William Dumbrel, “Remarks on the Interpreting of Paul and the Function of Romans 3:20 in its Context,” RTR 6 (2005): 135–46; Richard B. Hays, “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 (1980), 113; Oropeza, “Justification by Faith,” 113; and Ware, Law, Christ, and Covenant, 527. 30

174

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

and your God…”)31 and Daniel 9:4–19 (“… we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled …”)32 on the one hand express the sin of God’s people, but on the other, that their hope of salvation and redemption lies only with YHWH’s steadfast love. The text of 1QS 11.9–14 is likewise telling in expressing the inability of all to justify themselves, while counting on God’s mercy for justification and salvation: As for me, I belong to wicked mankind, to the company of ungodly flesh. My iniquities, rebellions, and sins, together with the perversity of my heart, belong to the company of worms and to those who walk in darkness. For mankind has no way, and man is unable to establish his steps since justification is with God and perfection of way is out of His hand. … As for me, if I stumble, the mercies of God shall be my eternal salvation. If I stagger because of the sin of flesh, my justification shall be by the righteousness of God which endures forever. … He will draw me near by His grace, and by His mercy will He bring my justification. He will judge me in the righteousness of His truth and in the greatness of His goodness He will pardon all my sins. Through His righteousness He will cleanse me of the uncleanness of man and of the sins of the children of men, that I may confess to God His righteousness, and His majesty to the Most High.33

It is noteworthy to see that 1 Enoch 3:15 apparently alludes to Psalm 143:2 when the seven holy ones instruct Methuselah: “Declare everything to thy son Methuselah, and show to all thy children that no flesh is righteous in the sight of the Lord, for He is their Creator.” Isaiah 59:1–5: “Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear ….” 32 Daniel 9:4–19: “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules…” 33 Translation derives from Géza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Classics, 2012). 31

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

175

Allusions to Psalm 143:2 frequently also occur in the Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot) of Qumran. In 1QH 9.13–15 the psalmist declares that he can only hope for God’s forgiveness and mercy “for there is no one who is righteous in your judgement.” In 1QH 16.11 the psalmist pleads by God’s covenant, mercy, grace and forgiveness, and then confesses: “And I know that no man is righteous apart from you.” 1QH 7.28–31 states: “Who in your presence is righteous when he enters into your judgement … no one can stand before your wrath. But you bring all the faithful into your presence through forgiveness, purifying them of their rebellious sins in your rich goodness and in the abundance of your mercy, to make them stand in your presence forever.” These few examples demonstrate that Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23 finds many parallels in Jewish literature. Paul certainly stands within a strong Jewish exegetical tradition. It is almost certain that he in this statement alludes to Psalm 143:2 when he pronounces the need of all humanity for God’s covenantal grace, love, and mercy. It is clear that Psalm 143:2 has served as an important passage of exegetical reflection within ancient Judaism to express the conviction that no human can be righteous without God’s covenantal grace and mercy. In Romans 3:10–18 Paul lists a series of passages from the Jewish Scriptures (Ps 14:1–3; 53:1–3; Eccl 7:20; Ps 5:9; 10:7; 36:1; 140:3; Isa 59:7, 8). All these passages express the universal sinfulness of humankind. It is even possible that Paul with this series has used an existing catena composed within in a Jewish setting.34 Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23 then forms a logical conclusion to his preceding argument, and he substantiates this by alluding to Psalm 143:2.35

Leander E. Keck, “The Function of Romans 3:10-18: Observations and Suggestions,” in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl, ed. Jacob. Jervell and Wayne. A. Meeks (Oslo; Bergen; Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 141–57. 35 Francis Watson (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 3) fittingly remarks that “Paul’s theology is intertextual in form, in the sense that it is constituted by its relation to an earlier corpus of texts that function as communally normative scripture.” 34

176

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

N. T. Wright remarks: “The point of the covenant with Israel, in the whole of Scripture, is that it was the means by which God was rescuing the children of Adam and so restoring the world.”36 The essence of Paul’s argument is that God’s covenantal promises have reached their fulfilment in Jesus Christ. In Romans 3:24–26, which forms the subsequent section of his argument, Paul explains God’s answer to this confession and plight: “… justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, … This was to show God’s righteousness … so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” In Jesus Christ God offers his covenantal mercy as fulfilment of his promises. Through Jesus, God has kept his promise to Abraham.37 The “works of the law, τὰ ἔργα νόµου” (Rom 3:20) by which no human being will be justified therefore refer to the observance of the law apart from the covenant and its promise of mercy in Jesus Christ. Hays puts it pointedly: “Paul … is committed to the affirmation that the God who raised Jesus from the dead is the same God who gave the promises to Israel.”38 From this overview it is clear that Paul firmly stands within strong ancient Jewish traditions that expect God’s mercy and forgiveness for those who realize their depravity, confess their guilt, and plead for his mercy. 2.2. Jewish Roots of Matthew 9:9-13

Similar arguments on depravity, guilt and mercy are found in the First Gospel. Matthew 9:9–13, the scene in which Jesus calls Matthew as his disciple and subsequently eats with tax collectors and sinners, serves as example. It is commonly known that tax collectors and sinners represent a disgraceful formulaic pair in the Synoptic Gospels.39 Pointedly, N. T. Wright, “Yet the Sun Will Rise Again: Reflections on the Exile and Restoration in Second Temple Judaism, Jesus, Paul, and the Church Today,” in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright, 75. 37 Howard, Re-examining Romans 1-8, 74. 38 Hays, “Logic of Romans 3,” 109. 39 Tax collectors were deeply despised. They were regarded as unpatriotic, and were associated with shameful characters such as beggars, thieves, and adulterers (cf. Matt 5:46; Luke 3:12–13; 5:29–30; 7:34, etc.). Cf. Bruce J. 36

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

177

Jesus calls Matthew the tax collector, who is regarded as such disgraceful figure, and feasts with him along with fellow disgraceful tax collectors and sinners. In NT times table fellowship and feasting were regarded as symbols of mutual acceptance and closeness.40 With this conduct Jesus demonstrates his acceptance of unworthy disgraceful figures. Jesus acts as agent of God and in doing so, he demonstrates the meaning of God’s mercy. The Pharisees in the narrative severely question Jesus’ conduct. Considering their religious and social pre-occupations, they regard the people with whom Jesus eats fit only for the judgment of God. They regard Jesus’ action totally unacceptable, both socially and religiously. Jesus responds in three parts. In the first part, Jesus uses a well-known proverb from the ancient world:41 Οὐ χρείαν ἔχουσιν οἱ ἰσχύοντες ἰατροῦ ἀλλ' οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες42 (“it is not the healthy who need the doctor, but the sick”, Matt 9:12). Obviously, Jesus implies spiritual sickness. By “the sick” Jesus refers to Matthew and the tax collectors and sinners, and by “those who are well” he refers to the presumptuous Pharisees. However, this does not mean that they are really (socially and religiously) well, but that they pride themselves as being healthy. Jesus is the doctor enacting God’s mercy towards those who humbly realise their need to be healed. Jesus proceeds by validating his action with reference to the prophet Hosea: Ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν (“I desire mercy, not

Malina and Richard L. Rohrbauch, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 415–16; and J. Andrew Overman, Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew, The New Testament in Context (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 126. 40 Craig L. Blomberg, Contagious Holiness: Jesus’ Meals with Sinners (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 15; and Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993), 238. 41 “For the one whose body is ill needs a physician” (Menander, fr. 591); “Physicians are not among the healthy but spend their time among the sick” (Plutarch, Apoph. lac., 230F); “Physicians are commonly with the sick but they do not catch the fever” (Diogenes Laertius, Vita 6.1.1). 42 οἱ κακῶς ἔχοντες can be translated more directly as “those who have misery.”

178

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

sacrifice,” Hos 6:6).43 He instructs the Pharisees, who pride themselves in their knowledge of Scripture, to go and learn what this prophesy means (Matt 9:13a).44 The introductory words “go and learn what it means” represent a rabbinic formula to encourage pupils for Torah study, which means “go and discern the sense of Scripture” or “go and make a valid inference from the scriptural statement.”45 The Matthean Jesus aligns himself with the sense of Hosea’s statement. Jesus uses this reference as basis for his halakha and argues that his conduct forms a practical application of this prophetic saying. The words of Jesus precisely render the Masoretic text. The original context contributes significantly to the understanding of Matthew 9:9–13. In the original Hosean context the theme of covenantal loyalty is dominant.46 Hosea bases his prophesy on the requirements of proper behaviour of partners in a covenantal relationship. Jesus accuses the Pharisees of not understanding the meaning of Hosea 6:6. In Hosea 6 the people of Israel are accused of neglecting their covenantal relation with YHWH. YHWH expresses his displeasure with the fleeting devotion of Israel and issues his judgement against them. He requires true piety and not mere outward religious pretention. By implication the Pharisaic attitude in Matthew is presented as unmerciful and in contradiction to the meaning of the Torah according to Hosea’s prophesy.

It seems that this quotation plays a significant role in Matthew’s teaching on the Law. It is unique amongst Synoptic parallels and is even absent in the entirety of the NT, but it occurs twice in Matthean material (Matt 9:13 and 12:7). 44 This is a powerful comeback. Since they derogatorily called Him teacher (Matt 9:11), Jesus gives them a teaching assignment. Cf. Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 227. 45 William D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 8-18, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 104; and Osborne, Matthew, 337. 46 Duane A. Garret, Hosea and Joel, NAC 19A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 160; and James Limburg, Hosea – Micah, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 28-30. 43

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

179

Finally, Jesus describes his own mission with an ἦλθον (I have come)-saying that expresses the character of his mission: 47 οὐ γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁµαρτωλούς (for I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners, Matt 9:13b). The δικαίοι (righteous) are contrasted with the ἁµαρτωλοί (sinners). The Pharisees regard themselves as the δικαίοι, while the tax collectors and sinners are depicted as the ἁµαρτωλοί. Obviously the word δικαίοι does not refer to the objective fact, but ironically to the assumed subjective opinion of self-righteousness by the Pharisees. The implication is therefore that salvation is not granted to the complacent Pharisees in the scene, but to the shameful figures who realize their own unworthiness and admit their sinfulness. As a conclusion to Jesus’ healing ministry of Matthew 8–9,48 Matthew interprets Jesus’ healings in terms of Isaiah 53:4: ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος Αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡµῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν (“This was to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases,’” Matt 8:17). This version closely relates to the Hebrew text: “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering” (Isa 53:4). In the LXX version the diseases are interpreted metaphorically to refer to sins, οὗτος τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡµῶν ὀδυνᾶται (“He bears our sins, and is pained for us”). In Matthew 9:9–13, this metaphoric interpretation applies. Jesus, the doctor, came to heal the sick, namely the sinners. Jesus breaks the tragic effect of sin. With his compassionate conduct towards the despised and disgraceful figures, he demonstrates the meaning of mercy (Matt 9:13a). However, those who boastfully take pride in their own worth forfeit his healing. Jesus in Matthew 9:9–13 explicitly substantiates his conduct with this reference to Hosea. Based on this scene it is clear that Matthew’s teaching on the Law is also firmly rooted in Jewish tradition.

This is the third of the seven “I have come”-statements in Matthew: 5:17 (2x); 9:13; 10:34 (2x), 35; 20:28, which explains Jesus’ God given mission. 48 The healing narrative describes a series of ten miracle stories. Matthew tells a series of nine healing miracles stories (Matt 8–9) and a nature miracle of Jesus stilling the storm (Matt 8:23–27), making a total of ten. 47

180

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

3. CONCLUSION

An essay of this format can obviously not answer the numerous issues regarding the Law in Romans and Matthew, yet it does demonstrate that both Paul’s and Matthew’s teachings on the Law are not detached from Jewish roots. Much evidence from Jewish literature proves that there were strong strains within ancient Judaism that recognized the depravity of all and the belief that no human can keep the Law in such a way as to be justified before God. Gentiles as well as Jews fall short of meeting the standard of the Law. All one can do, is to plead by God’s covenantal mercy. However, in the light of the opposition that both Paul and Matthew experienced from Jews in their times, it is apparent that different views regarding depravity and justification did exist among the Jews. This is not surprising, given the different Jewish sects that existed in NT times. What obviously was novel to Jews in their teaching, is that Jesus is the agent through whom God grants his mercy. Mercy is found in and through Him. While Paul profoundly states that all humans are corrupted by sin, and that no person can justify him/herself before God by works of the law, he teaches that God offers his unmerited, gracious action to save in Jesus Christ. Jesus became the ransom of helpless sinners. Yet, any appeal to God for mercy has to be done with true repentance. Matthew teaches that Jesus forgives sins and heals the “sick.” Jesus becomes the presence and source of God’s mercy. In Matthew 9:9–13, the author contrasts inappropriate, impenitent responses to Jesus’ ministry (as typified by the Pharisees) with what should be the proper penitent response (as typified by the tax collectors and sinners) in order to be justified before God. Overall, both Paul and Matthew teach that in Jesus the mercy and the justice of God perfectly converge. The righteous are those who put their trust in the trustworthy God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aletti, Jean-Noel. “Romans.” Pages 1553–1600 in International Bible Commentary. Edited by William R. Farmer. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. Bacon, Benjamin W. Studies in Matthew. New York: Holt, 1930.

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

181

Barth, Gerhard. “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law.” Pages 58–164 in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Edited by Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz J. Held. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Blomberg, Craig L., Contagious Holiness: Jesus’ Meals with Sinners. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Bornkamm, Günther. “End-expectations and Church in Matthew.” Pages 15–51 in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. Edited by Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz J. Held. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ.” JBL 83 (1964): 12–16. Davies, William D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. Matthew 8-18. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Dumbrel, William J. “Remarks on the Interpretation of Paul and the Function of Romans 3:20 in its Context.” RTR 6 (2005): 135–46. Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Jesus Remembered. Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. The New Perspective on Paul: Whence, What, and Whither? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Foster, Paul. Community, Law, and Mission in Matthew’s Gospel. WUNT II/177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Garrett, Duane A. Hosea and Joel. NAC 19A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. WBC 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993. Hays, Richard B. “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3.” JBL 99 (1980): 107–15. Howard, James M. “Re-examining Romans 1-8 with the Pentateuch.” BibSac 177 (2020): 70–90. Hultgren, Stephen. “Texts in Context: Romans 3:19-28.” WW 37 (2017): 404–11. Käsemann, Ernst. “Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus.” ZTK 58 (1961): 367–78.

182

FRANCOIS P. VILJOEN

Keck, Leander E. “The Function of Romans 3:10-18: Observations and Suggestions.” Pages 141–57 in God’s Christ and His People: Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl. Edited by Jacob Jervell and Wayne A. Meeks. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget, 1977. Kilpatrick, George D. The Origins of the Gospel according to Matthew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1950. Limburg, James. Hosea–Micah. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. Loader, William R. G. Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law: A Study of the Gospels. WUNT II/97. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbauch. Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Meier, John P. Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. Moore, George F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927–1930. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949. Oliver, Isaac W. Torah Praxis after 70 CE: Reading Matthew and Luke-Acts as Jewish texts. WUNT II/355. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Oropeza B. J. “Justification by Faith in Christ or Faithfulness of Christ? Updating the πίστις χριστοῦ Debate in Light of Paul’s Use of Scripture.” JTS 72 (2021): 102–24. Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Overman, J. Andrew. Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel according to Matthew. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Augsburg: Fortress, 1977. Schlatter, Adolf. Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1935. Vermes, Géza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin Classics, 2012. Viljoen, Francois P. Torah in Matthew. Zürich: LIT, 2018.

8. PAUL’S AND MATTHEW’S TEACHINGS ON THE LAW

183

Ware, James P. “Law, Christ, and Covenant: Paul’s Theology of the Law in Romans 3:19-20.” JTS 62 (2011): 513–40. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Wright, Archie T. “Jewish Identity, Beliefs, and Practices.” Pages 310–23 in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Wright, N. T. “Responding to Exile.” Pages 305–332 in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright. Edited by James M. Scott. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017. ———. “Yet the Sun Will Rise Again: Reflections on the Exile and Restoration in Second Temple Judaism, Jesus, Paul, and the Church Today.” Pages 19–80 in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright. Edited by James M. Scott. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017.

CHAPTER 9. LAW AND FAITH AS TWO ESCHATOLOGICAL MARKERS OF IDENTITY IN ROMANS 3:19–31 PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY, POTCHEFSTROOM I NTRODUCTION

In the past few decades, much has been written about the way in which the works of the law should be understood in relation to faith, as well as Paul’s position towards the Judean1 identity. In the so-called New Perspective on Paul (NPP hereafter), the tendency is to understand Paul’s polemic against the Mosaic law as critiquing Judean exclusivism, based on the notion that the works of the law served as a marker of identity. In other words, “works of the law” is understood to be mainly confined to those laws that pertain to Judean exclusivity, especially circumcision. Consequently, in this reading of Paul, faith is not generally understood in opposition to works-righteousness or legalism, as it To account for the hermeneutical distance between modern Judaism and the Judean identity of the first century, the term “Judean” is preferred here rather than “Jewish” (Philip La G. Du Toit, God’s Saved Israel: Reading Romans 11:26 and Galatians 6:16 in Terms of the New Identity in Christ and the Spirit [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2019], 31–39). 1

185

186

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

is in the traditional, Lutheran understanding. Rather, faith is understood as being inclusive of all identities.2 This approach is also to a large extent related to the view that many proponents of the NPP hold that πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom 3:22) is not to be understood as “faith in Christ” (objective genitive) but as “the faith(fulness) of Christ” (subjective genitive).3 In the so-called Radical New Perspective on Paul (RNPP hereafter), also known as the Paul Within Judaism approach, it is held that Paul and his fellow Christ-followers from an ethnically Judean background never abandon their Judean identity. Rather, Gentile followers of Christ are understood as a subgroup that are accommodated within the Christ-following community on the basis of a minimum set of requirements that they have to fulfill (Acts 15:19–32; 16:1– 5; 21:25), excluding the so-called markers of Judean identity such as circumcision, food laws, and the keeping of the Sabbath. In other words, in this approach, different covenantal conditions apply for Judean and Gentile followers of Christ.4 In this chapter, the main question that will be asked is how law and faith in the Letter to the Romans should be understood in relationship to each other. A pivotal passage in this regard is Romans 3:19–31, which is not only important to understand this relationship, but to understand the build-up of Paul’s argument in E.g., James D. G. Dunn, Romans, WBC 38, 2 vols. (Dallas: Word, 1988); The New Perspective on Paul, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Richard B. Hays, The Letter to the Galatians, NIB 11 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 238–39. 3 E.g., Hays, Galatians, 239–40; N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 and 4 (London: SPCK, 2013), 838–39; Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 409–13. 4 E.g., William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 89–93; Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperCollins, 2009), 252; Mark D. Nanos, “Paul’s Relationship to Torah in Light of his Strategy ‘To Become Everything to Everyone’ (1 Corinthians 9.19–23),” in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, ed. Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 123–24; J. Brian Tucker, Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 62–114. 2

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

187

Romans. Consequently, Romans 3:19–31 (mainly vv. 21–23) will be probed for its position in the letter’s rhetorical build-up and its significance for understanding the relationship between law and faith. A discussion on identity will follow in relation to the New Perspective(s) on Paul. Hereafter, the findings will be discussed in light of social identity theory.

1. THE STRUCTURE AND RHETORICAL BUILD -UP OF ROMANS 1–3

After Paul’s introduction in Romans 1:1–15, thematic statements follow in 1:16–17, in which he declares that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, including the Judean and Greek, in which the righteousness of God has been revealed, from faith to faith. Then, in 1:18–30, Paul starts his discourse about God’s wrath that is revealed against all ungodliness and people’s unrighteousness. Although Paul seems to mainly focus on the Gentiles in 1:18–32 and on the Judeans in 2:1–3:8,5 1:18–32 is arguably best understood as pertaining to all people universally in the situation before the revelation of Christ. In his argument, Paul starts at the beginning of salvation history, sketching the plight of humankind in need of salvation. The references to the Creator (v. 25), the order in creation6 (vv. 20– 27) and people’s disregard for God’s glory in creation (v. 23), confirm that Paul’s argument starts from the beginning of salvation history. In verse 23, at first glance, Paul’s rhetoric primarily seems to be directed to Gentiles, especially with his reference to idolatry. Yet Jewett argues that Paul actually mainly has the golden calf episode in mind here, although the references to humans, birds, four-legged animals and serpents include pagan practices. The connection with the golden calf is relatively assured if the terms used in verse 23 are compared with Psalm 105:20 LXX (Ps 107:20 MT), in which Israel is accused of (ex)changing (ἀλλάσσω) God’s glory for the likeness or image

Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 104. 6 See, e.g., Moo, Romans, 125–26. 5

188

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

(ὁµοίωµα)7 of a calf that eats grass.8 Further, in Romans 1:32, Paul refers to people knowing the “ordinance” or “judgment” (δικαίωµα) of God, which he later in 2:26 defines as the “ordinances” or “judgements” of the law (δικαιώµατα τοῦ νόµου). In other words, the people over whom God’s wrath is revealed seem to include those under the law. In terms of identity, it can thus be inferred that although Paul mainly focuses on the Gentiles in 1:18–30, all people before Christ or outside of a relationship with Christ are included in principle. The universality of the situation sketched above is further confirmed in Romans 2:1 and 2:3 by the general reference to “O man” (ὦ ἄνθρωπε), who has no right to judge others who commit the same sins. In 2:1–11, Paul’s argument thus still pertains to the situation before Christ’s revelation in which God’s judgment is applied to all people on the basis of their works. Similarly, in 2:9– 11, Judeans and Greeks are judged on the same basis: whether they do good works. In fact, the Judeans seem to be prioritized in respect to judgement (v. 9). I have argued elsewhere that it is important to realize that Paul’s point here is not so much to provide an account of how justification in the OT was understood, but that in terms of his rhetorical strategy, he is deliberately problematizing the situation of humankind before Christ’s revelation. In other words, although justification on the basis of works would certainly be a principle found in the OT,9 it is not Paul’s intention to provide comprehensive criteria for justification in the OT here.10 In 2:12–16, the Mosaic law is brought into the equation. Here Paul argues that Judeans and Gentiles alike will be judged for not adhering to the demands of the law. Even the Gentiles, although they do not have the law, “are a law to themselves” (v. 14, cf. vv. 26–27). Later, in 2:26, Paul states that an uncircumcised Romans 1:23 uses the same terms. Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 160– 62; cf. Moo, Romans, 119–20. 9 See, e.g., Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 20:11, 13, and 21. 10 Du Toit, Saved Israel, 54–68; “Paul’s Radicalisation of Law-obedience in Romans 2: The Plight of Someone under the Law,” IDS 50 (2015): a2034. 7 8

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

189

person (a Gentile) can be considered righteous if he or she keeps the precepts of the law. In other words, Paul seems to universalize people’s positions towards the Mosaic law in the era before the revelation of God’s righteousness (3:21). In 2:17–29 Paul focuses on the Judean identity specifically, arguing that it does not help that one claims covenant status or righteousness on the basis of merely possessing the law or being circumcised. The law needs to be kept for one to be considered righteous (2:6, 13, and 26–27). I have argued elsewhere that in Paul’s argument, even “the circumcision of the heart in the spirit” (περιτοµὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύµατι, v. 29) does not necessarily picture someone under the new covenant, but someone under the old covenant who obeys the law, thus being upright in their conduct. Such a notion can be derived from verses 26–27 in which someone who does the works of the law (even being a Gentile) is considered as circumcised, as well as several OT texts in which circumcision of the heart is portrayed as equivalent to the actual fulfilling the demands of the law.11 The true circumcision that is of the heart in the spirit thus constitutes someone who is inwardly capable to fulfill the demands of the law, which is contrasted to “the letter” (οὐ γράµµατι, v. 29). Here, “the letter” points to the possession of the law12 and a claim on righteousness on the basis of possessing the law by extension. The underlying question, however, is if it is in any way possible (for someone under the law) to be inwardly capable of actually fulfilling the demands of the law, which is arguably the exact kind of tension Paul wants to create in his argument at this point. If merely possessing the law or being circumcised is not enough for Paul, it could be asked whether the Judean has any advantage in being a Judean or being circumcised, which are exactly the questions of 3:1. Paul answers that they have a great advantage in being entrusted with God’s oracles (ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 2), but this advantage does not place them in a Especially Leviticus 26:41; Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:13–14, and 25–26. See Du Toit, Saved Israel, 60–63. 12 Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 130. See also γράµµα in verse 27 in which it specifically points to possessing the written code (the law). 11

190

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

better position before God, for, as Paul later confirms, both Judean and Gentile “are under sin” (ὑφ’ ἁµαρτίαν εἶναι, v. 9), “no one is righteous” (οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος, v. 10), and “no one does good” (οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα, v. 12). In 3:19, Paul continues that the law speaks to “those who are under13 the law” (τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόµῳ) so that the whole world can be held accountable before God. In 3:20, the conclusion is drawn that by the “works of the law” (ἔργων νόµου) nobody will be justified in God’s sight, since through the law comes the knowledge of sin. In light of the general picture that Paul painted of human depravity in 3:9–18, it is very unlikely that the “works of the law” are to be confined to those laws (such as circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath observance) that mark off the identity of Judeans from other nations.14 The “works of the law” here rather points to “doing what the law requires”15 in general, although not excluding markers of identity. As Jewett points out, markers of identity within Mediterranean cultures also involved “gaining honor and avoiding shame,” which amounted to “a human system of competing for glory and honor.” Paul thus also reacted against such human-centered sinful competition.16

2. L AW AND FAITH AS TWO SALVATION-HISTORICAL OR E SCHATOLOGICAL W AYS OF EXISTENCE IN ROMANS 3:21–31

In the Pauline corpus, the notion of being in or under the law (Rom 2:12; 3:19; 6:14, 15; 1 Cor 9:20; Gal 3:23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18; and Phil 3:6), as is also mentioned in Romans 3:19, can be seen as pointing to a previous phase in salvation history under the power or authority of the Mosaic law. This is exceptionally clear from 6:14– Most translations translate ἐν as “under” here, e.g., NRSV; NIV; ESV; and NKJV. 14 Contra Dunn, Romans, 1:159. 15 James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 475. As Moo (Romans, 216–17) points out, although Dunn in his earlier works restricted the works of the law to Judean identity markers (e.g., Dunn, New Perspective, 107–11), most scholars now agree that law observance in general is in view here. 16 Jewett, Romans, 266–67. 13

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

191

15 in which Paul contrasts the way of existence under the law with the existence under grace. According to 6:16–18, Christ-believers are no longer slaves of sin, but became slaves of righteousness in Christ. Moo points to several “bits of evidence” that the juxtaposition of being under the law and under grace points to a salvation-historical contrast: (1) Such a notion fits naturally into “the transfer of realm language that so characterizes Rom. 5:12– 8:39.” (2) In 3:9, the language “under the power of” sin was used, in which slavery imagery was prominent. “Law” and “grace” are thus “viewed as realms or powers.” (3) Paul’s other references to “under the law” all “denote the objective situation of ‘subject to the rule of the Mosaic law.’”17 In Dunn’s words, the contrast in 6:14– 15 is a contrast of their “pre-Christian state with their Christian state.”18 But apart from a salvation-historical contrast, there is also an eschatological contrast in that being under the law points to “the old realm” and being under grace points to the “new age” in Christ.19 Another pertinent passage in Romans that exemplifies an eschatological (and salvation-historical) contrast between the old and new way of existence is Romans 7:5–6. Here, the contrast is between the era “in the flesh” (ἐν τῇ σαρκί, v. 5) in which people’s sinful passions were aroused by the Mosaic law and the era “in the newness of the Spirit” (ἐν καινότητι πνεύµατος, v. 6) in which people were released from the law, having died to it. Paul calls the existence under the power of the law “the old way of the written code” (παλαιότητι γράµµατος, v. 6). That Paul points to a previous existence under the law, is especially indicated by the imperfect ἦµεν (“we were [living]”), which is contrasted with the νυνί (“now”) in verse 6. The contrast in this passage is indeed

Moo, Romans, 412. So also Stephen Westerholm, “Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics,” NTS 30 (1984): 242–43; James D. G. Dunn, “Under the Law,” in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer, ed. Jan Krans et al., NovTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 50–52; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 326. 18 Dunn, “Under the Law,” 50. 19 Longenecker, Romans, 617; cf. Moo, Romans, 413. 17

192

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

salvation-historical,20 but in respect to the contrast between the old and the new situation, also eschatological.21 Longenecker thus sees the νυνί of verse 6 as an “eschatological ‘now’.”22 Fee argues that “life in the flesh” here does not belong to believers’ “eschatological present,”23 and that “[t]he Spirit is God’s effective replacement of Torah observance.”24 In other words, the new era in the Spirit represents God’s eschatological inbreaking in history, making the previous era “eschatologically old.”25 To come back to Romans 3:21–31, verse 21 starts with νυνὶ δέ (“but now”). Here, the νυνί is an “eschatological now”26 par excellence. Most commentators agree that with the start of verse 21, there is a major turning point in Paul’s argument.27 As Paul was sketching the situation under the old era from 1:18 to 3:20, he now turns to the new era that has dawned in the history of salvation.28 Now, God’s righteousness has been revealed or manifested (φανερόω) apart from the Mosaic law of which Scripture bears witness: the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe (3:21–22).

Moo, Romans, 444; Schreiner, Romans, 351. Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 503–8; Longenecker, Romans, 637. 22 Longenecker, Romans, 637. 23 Fee, Empowering Presence, 505. 24 Fee, Empowering Presence, 507. 25 Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009), kindle edition, 137. 26 Longenecker, Romans, 402, 446, 449; cf. Dunn, Romans, 176. Philip F. Esler (Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 156, 267) resists the eschatological interpretation, arguing that Paul has the present in mind. Yet, Paul’s “now” points to a realized (albeit not over-realized) eschatology here in that the end has already started to break into the present. 27 E.g., Dunn, Romans, 176; Longenecker, Romans, 382; Moo, Romans, 241; Schreiner, Romans, 188; Frank Thielman, Romans, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 202. 28 Longenecker, Romans, 399; Moo, Romans, 241; Schreiner, Romans, 188. 20 21

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

193

The first important aspect of the new era is that God’s righteousness has been manifested apart from the Mosaic law. God’s righteousness can be understood as having both attributive and communicative nuances. In other words, God’s righteousness involves his just character (attributive) as well the notion that God is the one who justifies believers (communicative). Both aspects are present here.29 The fact that God justifies apart from the law means that, as verse 20 states, people are not justified on the basis of the works of the law. In light of the eschatological “now” of verse 21, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that according to Paul’s logic, in the old era obedience to the law was considered to be the criterion for one to be justified30 or at least that people aspired to be justified on the basis of their works (cf. esp. 2:13). This kind of conclusion is also suggested by the reasoning that God’s righteousness has only been manifested “now”—in the new era. Such reasoning would in fact perfectly fit Paul’s argument and underline the necessity of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ. This is, I propose, exactly what Paul is arguing for here. In other words, in Paul’s rhetoric, he seems to enhance the contrast between the new and the old era in order to highlight the radical inbreaking of God’s eschatological action in the present. As suggested by the discussion of Romans 2 above, it was certainly a prevalent idea in many strands of Judean religion that final justification was (largely) based on (perfect) obedience to the law. In his discussion of Romans 3:21, Moo, however, argues that “justification has always been by faith.”31 This might be the kind of conclusion one can come to if justification in the OT is studied, but that is not the point Paul is trying to make here.32 In fact, Paul seems to radicalize the contrast between the old and the new era here by accentuating the need for the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ. Longenecker, Romans, 404. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:198. 31 Moo, Romans, 242. 32 Such a notion is also problematic in this context, for Paul never unambiguously establishes faith as a means of justification apart from Christ (see below). 29 30

194

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

In respect to Paul’s reference to justification “apart from the law” (Rom 3:21), the law is indeed presented as a system and a stage33 in the history of salvation. As many OT texts (see above) and extra-biblical sources suggest, obedience to the demands of the law was central to final justification in many strands of second temple Judean religion, as is argued in the traditional perspective on Paul,34 even though there were strands in which strict obedience to the law was not that central, as is argued in the NPP.35 Yet, in Paul’s logic, God’s righteousness that has now been revealed in Christ is presented as the moment in history when justification by faith came into effect.36 The same notion is more explicit in Galatians 2:23 and 2:25 in which Paul depicts faith as something that came (ἐλθεῖν, v. 23) or has come (ἐλθούσης, v. 25) eschatologically37 in Christ. Since Paul has argued in Romans 1:18—3:20 that people in Moo, Romans, 242. See especially Simon Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 37–90, and more recently Jason Maston (Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul, WUNT II/297 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 22–74) in which he focuses on the principle of life through Torah observance in Ben Sira (second century BCE). 35 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977). It is noteworthy, however, that Maston (Divine and Human Agency, 73–74) questions Sanders’ presentation of Ben Sira as an example of covenantal nomism. Maston in fact shows that Ben Sira depicted God as reacting to human obedience or disobedience. 36 Of course, Paul later in Romans 4 argues that Abraham was justified on the basis of his faith, which he uses as example and prototype for believers in Christ, but Paul arguably does not intend to establish faith as the means of justification in the old era under the law. Although faith seems to be presented ambiguously in that it is not specifically being described as faith in Christ, in verse 24 faith is defined Christologically as being in him who raised Jesus from the dead. Yet if the rest of Romans is considered, Paul never presents faith as being apart from Christ and his salvific work (Du Toit, Saved Israel, 81–86). See especially Joshua W. Jipp (“Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4,” JSNT 32 [2009]: 217–42) who points out how Romans 3:27–4:1 previews 4:2–27, implying that Romans 4 has to be understood in view of Paul’s “prior Christological commitments” (239). 37 Moisés Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 172–73. 33 34

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

195

the old era ought to be justified on the basis of obedience to the law and not the mere possession of the law, but at the same time that no one is righteous and that all people fall short of God’s glory, it indeed begs the question whether anyone in the old dispensation was justified, or if so, on what basis they were justified. As argued elsewhere, this is exactly the kind of underlying tension that Paul wants to create in his rhetoric, only to offer a solution to the problem later on in Romans 11.38 It could be asked at this point what is meant by Paul’s reference to the “law” that is upheld or confirmed (ἵστηµι) in the light of righteousness by faith that has been revealed (3:31). In light of the context, it cannot mean that people are justified on the basis of fulfilling the demands of the law. It rather points to the fact that the law is still upheld with respect to its function to provide knowledge of sin (3:20) and to make people solely rely on God’s righteousness in Christ that is accepted through faith (3:21).39 The second aspect of the new era that comes to the fore in Romans 3:22 is that God’s righteousness has been revealed through faith. Much has been written about whether πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (v. 21) must be taken as an objective genitive (“faith in Jesus Christ”) or a subjective genitive (“Jesus Christ’s faith[fulness]”). This debate will not be rehearsed here. In short, while a subjective genitive certainly makes sense in context, as many NPP proponents argue,40 the fact that Paul nowhere unambiguously ascribes faith or faithfulness to Christ amidst numerous unambiguous references It can be argued that Romans 11:26 can in fact be understood as an answer to this underlying question (see Du Toit, Saved Israel, 262–334). 39 Cf. Michael P. Middendorf, Romans 1–8, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2013), 302. 40 Hays, Galatians, 239–40; Wright, Faithfulness, 838–39; Longenecker, Romans, 409–13. One of the main arguments is that if the genitive of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is taken as objective, there exists a redundancy in Paul’s mention of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. In other words, Paul would mention the same principle twice. Many grammatical arguments are also advanced, e.g., the idea that πίστις and a genitive of person would always refer to the faith[fulness] of a person. Yet Schreiner (Romans, 190–94) discusses numerous arguments and examples in the NT, showing that that grammatical argument cannot be decisive. 38

196

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

to human faith, remains problematic. Thielman also points out that an objective genitive would better fit 1:17 to which this verse in all probability alludes.41 The traditional interpretation of viewing the genitive as objective in which πίστις points to human faith is thus preferred.42 Here, faith is presented as the means of justification in contrast to the works of the law of the old era (3:20). This same contrast between faith and works is echoed in 3:27–31. But to what exactly do the works of the law refer? As is clear from 2:17–29, it definitely includes circumcision, which is an identity marker for the Judean identity, but as is clear from the references to the general moral depravity of all people, including Judeans (3:10–18), the works of the law cannot be confined to markers of identity either. The eschatological revelation of faith as the means of justification thus stands in contrast to both an exclusive Judean identity and the endeavor to merit salvation on the basis of generally adhering to the law’s commandments.43 Notions from both the traditional perspective and the NPP can thus be established.

3. THE E SCHATOLOGICALLY OLD AND NEW E RAS AS REPRESENTATIVE OF TWO EXCLUSIVE IDENTITIES

In Romans 3:22, Paul points out that there is now “no distinction” (οὐ . . . διαστολή) between believers, which specifically lies on the level of identity. Rosner argues that in the Pauline corpus, Judeans are generally seen as being “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόµον, Rom 6:14–15; 1 Cor 9:20; Gal 3:23; 4:4–5, 21; and 5:18) whereas Gentiles are seen as not being under the law.44 This is only partially true, however. As was seen from Paul’s discussion of the old era under the law and sin, there is a sense in which Gentiles Thielman, Romans, 204–5. Moo, Romans, 244–46; Schreiner, Romans, 190–94; Thielman, Romans, 204–5. 43 Cf. Longenecker, Romans, 368–69; Moo, Romans, 242–43. Longenecker specifically draws attention to 4QMMT in which “works of the law” point to “a list of prescribed practices . . . followed by an exhortation that speaks of doing acts of righteousness before God.” 44 Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 47–59. 41 42

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

197

are also seen as being under the law and thus subject to its moral demands (esp. Rom 2:14–15), even though they did not have the written law (see above). Similarly, it is not only the Gentiles who came to belief in Christ and are thus considered as righteous apart from the law. In respect to identity in the new era, there is “no distinction” between these two ethnic groups. In fact, Paul declares in 3:23–24 that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory and that all people groups are now justified, as a free gift, by accepting it in faith. As Moo points out, there is thus now no difference “with respect to their standing before God.”45 In the RNPP, however, a fundamental difference between Judeans and Gentiles remains in that different covenantal conditions apply for different ethnic groups, which is problematic to uphold in light of Paul’s argument. As discussed, while the works of the law is certainly wider than markers of identity, they definitely include them too. Although circumcision did not guarantee salvation, as some forms of the Judean religion seemed to advocate,46 it was a covenantal sign between God and his people (Gen 17:9–14 and Acts 7:8). It was thus more than a cultural symbol. As Paul in Romans 2:25 and Galatians 5:3 imply, circumcision puts one under the obligation to fulfil the whole law. Similarly, the Sabbath served as a sign between God and people that they might know that God sanctifies them (Exod 31:13 and Ezek 20:12). Even the food laws did not merely separate Israel from other nations, they also functioned to separate the holy from the profane in order to preserve God’s people as holy (Lev 11:44–47). In other words, these identity markers were more than mere cultural or ethnic identity markers. They were also part and parcel of God’s old covenant with his people. This idea can especially be seen from Galatians 3:15–17 in which Paul addresses the issue of God’s covenant/testament with Abraham, arguing that the law of Moses that came 430 years later did not annul the original covenant but confirmed that very covenant. Although the Judean identity

Moo, Romans, 246. C. K. Barrett, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, BNTC (London: A&C Black, 1962), 58; Cranfield, Romans, 1:172. 45 46

198

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

developed into more of a social and cultural identity, in Paul’s discourse, the Judean identity derives its roots from God’s covenant with his people. In fact, it was after the exile, after God’s people were bereft of the temple and were restricted to Judea, when the term “Judean” came into being. It is clear from the works of Josephus (e.g., Ant. 11.169–73) that in the second temple era, the term Ἰσραηλίτης (“Israelite”) was used more as a term to describe God’s people of the OT before the exile, whereas the term Ἰουδαῖος (“Judean”) was more of an ethnic and cultural designation that denoted the people of the second temple, without pertinent religious connotations.47 In other words, although the term “Judean” became a social identity and Paul also uses it in such a way (e.g., Gal 3:27 and Rom 2:9–3:1), he deliberately hints to its original (etymological) meaning in 2:29 as someone who praises God (cf. Gen 29:35), although turning the meaning around by referring to someone whose praise is from God. What Paul is thus doing in his argument in Romans 2:12–29, is that he takes the Judean identity back to its theological roots under the old covenant, under the law, in which one is indebted to fulfill the whole law. In other words, in Paul’s argument, the Judean identity cannot be legitimized on mere cultural or ethnic grounds, for Judeans are ultimately under the old covenant, and they need to live according to its demands. Yet, at the same time, Paul argues that nobody can meet the demands under the law, neither Judeans nor Gentiles, which fact renders those of both identities in need of the revelation of God’s righteousness through faith in Christ. Paul thus arguably problematizes a claim on righteousness on the basis of a social identity, especially a Judean identity that claims a certain status or standing before God on the basis of their cultural heritage in the form of being circumcised and in possessing the law. In Christ, identity is defined theologically, in terms of God’s righteousness (3:21), and not in terms of cultural heritage. In fact, there is “no distinction” (3:22) in that all people groups, regardless of cultural heritage, relate to God on the same basis, which is by accepting God’s righteousness by faith in Christ. Stated differently, in Paul’s exposition of the new 47

See Du Toit (Saved Israel, 31–34) for a more complete discussion.

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

199

eschatological era that was revealed in Christ, cultural differences are relativized and not constitutive in defining core-identity, that is, your status before God. It is so that Paul still acknowledges cultural differences, as becomes clear in his treatment in Romans 14 of the issue of congregants from different ethnic backgrounds considering some foods non-kosher while others have no problem eating such foods. In this regard, people must make room for one another. But in respect of their core-identity in Christ and people’s standing or status before God, there is no distinction between ethnic groups. There is thus a sense in which identity in Romans 1:18–3:20 largely corresponds to a social or cultural identity, whereas identity in 3:21–31 corresponds to an identity that is theologically defined. On another level, in Paul’s exposition, the way of existence in the eschatologically old era is an existence under the law in which righteousness is dependent on human ability to adhere to God’s legal demands. Other than that, God’s people were marked off by covenantal laws such as circumcision, Sabbath observance and food laws. In the old covenant, identity is thus marked off by the law (Rom 1:18–3:20). By contrast, in the new era in Christ, identity is marked off by faith and existence in the new era is under God’s grace, being dependent on God’s righteousness (3:21–31). In the same vein, Paul in Romans 7:5–6 (see above) portrays an existence in the flesh as representative of the old eschatological era under the law and an existence in the Spirit as representative of the new eschatological era in Christ. Here, apart from faith as an identity marker, the indwelling Spirit and life by the Spirit can also be seen as additional identity markers in the new era. It can thus be concluded that in Paul’s exposition, the conditions for membership in the covenant have been redrawn in Christ,48 away from works based on human performance or human achievement, including laws that marked off identity, towards the completed work of Christ that provides God’s righteousness and the eschatological Spirit to believers through faith. In the new

See especially Philip La G. Du Toit, “Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership in the New Faith-Era in Christ,” Neot 52 (2018): 41–67. 48

200

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

covenant, identity is thus marked off by faith and the eschatological Spirit, which is based not on human ability or performance, but on God’s provision in Christ.

4. IDENTITY IN ROMANS 3:21–31 IN RELATION TO SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

In social identity theory, identity formation is seen as a socially directed process in which negotiation takes place between group norms and boundaries, including cultural phenomena such as ethnicity, honor and shame, patron and client relationship, and kinship language and relations.49 In this understanding, a process of social categorization is perceived to be taking place in which intergroup behavior causes discrimination against the outgroup, favoring the ingroup.50 As discussed elsewhere,51 in social identity approaches, Paul’s theology can be reduced to the ideological justification for the formation of the so-called Christ movement’s social identity,52 or all constructions of reality are perceived as ethnocentric.53 In other words, the tendency in these approaches is to see Paul’s “theologizing” as ultimately subordinate to a socially determined process. Social scientific categories are thus seen as ultimate and controlling categories for identity in Paul.54 In these

See e.g., Denise K. Buell, Why this New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); Caroline Johnson Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007); Campbell, Paul; J. Brian Tucker, You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010). 50 Philip F. Esler, “An Outline of Social Identity Theory,” in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, ed. J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 14–15. 51 Du Toit, Saved Israel, 6–8. 52 E.g., Tucker, Remain, 39. 53 E.g., Sze-kar Wan, “Collection for the Saints as Anticolonial Act: Implications for Paul’s Ethnic Reconstruction,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), 191–215. 54 Du Toit, Saved Israel, 7. 49

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

201

approaches, the perception of identity in the Pauline corpus tends to be reductionistic.55 This is not to say that a process of social identity formation does not exist among early Christians. But the new identity in Christ is to be seen as primarily a theological reality that affects the social world rather than seeing the in-Christ identity as primarily a socially created identity that determines theology.56 The theological origin of identity is especially clear in Romans 3:21–31, in which a believer’s righteous status is pictured as a gift based on God’s righteousness. A similar approach is followed by Kar Yong Lim who understands the problem in the Corinthian congregation as improper social alignment with their new status that resulted from the new creation in Christ. In other words, in the early Christian community, social identity formation is primarily derived from the new reality that was created in Christ.57

5. CONCLUSION

Romans 3:21–31 can be understood as constituting a major turning point in Paul’s rhetoric. In 1:18–3:20, Paul portrays the situation under the old covenant, under the law, in which all people, Judeans and non-Judeans, relate to God on the basis of the works of the law. The works of the law include both the moral demands of the law (traditional perspective on Paul) and the works that marked off identity (NPP). At its core, people thus related to God on the basis of human achievement or ability. Yet Paul rhetorically problematizes this existence in that no one is able to (perfectly) obey the law and that all people are fallible, sinful, and fall short of God’s glory. This describes the human Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 347–48. 56 Du Toit, Saved Israel, 8. 57 Kar Yong Lim, “‘If Anyone is in Christ, New Creation: The Old has Gone, the New has Come’ (2 Corinthians 5.17): New Creation and Temporal Comparison in Social Identity Formation in 2 Corinthians,” in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament, ed. J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 289– 310. 55

202

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

plight in desperate need of a solution. In light of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Christ (3:21), the existence under the old covenant can be considered as eschatologically old and redundant. By contrast, as indicated mainly by the eschatological “now” in 3:21, in the new era in which God’s righteousness has been revealed, people now relate to God on the basis of faith, which stands opposite to the works of the law. Essentially, in the new era, one’s standing before God and one’s core-identity are based on the completed work of Christ, and not on human performance, whether such performance involves trying to adhere to the moral demands of the law (traditional perspective on Paul) or the (human) marking off of identity (NPP). The net effect is that in respect to identity, the law can be understood as a marker of identity under the eschatologically old era, whereas faith as well as the indwelling Spirit—as Paul later (Rom 7–8) indicates—constitute the markers of identity in the new eschatological era in Christ. By way of conclusion, the following contrasts between the old and new eras in Paul are proposed: Old Era

New Era

Romans 1:18–3:20

Romans 3:21–31

An existence under the law

An existence under grace

Old covenant

New covenant

Identity and righteousness based on the works of the law

Identity and righteousness based on faith (and the indwelling Spirit)

Identity and righteousness based on human ability

Identity and righteousness based on God’s completed work in Christ

An eschatologically old or An eschatologically new way redundant way of existence of existence, awaiting final that ended with the revelation completion. of God’s righteousness

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

203

Barrett, C. K. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. London: A&C Black, 1962. Buell, Denise K. Why this New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Campbell, William S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979. Dunn, James D. G. Beginning from Jerusalem. Volume 2 of Christianity in the Making. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. _______. The New Perspective on Paul. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. _______. Romans. 2 vols. WBC 38. Dallas: Word, 1988. _______. “Under the Law.” Pages 48–60 in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Edited by Jan Krans, Bert-Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit, and Arie Zwiep. NovTSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Du Toit, Philip La G. “Galatians 3 and the Redefinition of the Criteria of Covenant Membership in the New Faith-Era in Christ.” Neot 52 (2018): 41–67. _______. God’s Saved Israel: Reading Romans 11:26 and Galatians 6:16 in Terms of the New Identity in Christ and the Spirit. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2019. _______. “Paul’s Radicalisation of Law-obedience in Romans 2: The Plight of Someone under the Law.” IDS 50 (2015): a2034. Eisenbaum, Pamela. Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Esler, Philip F. “An Outline of Social Identity Theory.” Pages 13– 39 in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. _______. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994.

204

PHILIP LA G. DU TOIT

Gathercole, Simon. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hays, Richard B. The Letter to the Galatians. NIB 11. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jipp, Joshua W. “Rereading the Story of Abraham, Isaac, and ‘Us’ in Romans 4.” JSNT 32 (2009): 217–42. Johnson Hodge, Caroline. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lim, Kar Yong. “‘If Anyone is in Christ, New Creation: The Old has Gone, the New has Come’ (2 Corinthians 5.17): New Creation and Temporal Comparison in Social Identity Formation in 2 Corinthians.” Pages 289–310 in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Maston, Jason. Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul. WUNT II/297 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009. Kindle edition. Middendorf, Michael P. Romans 1–8. ConC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2013. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Nanos, Mark D. “Paul’s Relationship to Torah in Light of his Strategy ‘To Become Everything to Everyone’ (1 Corinthians 9.19–23).” Pages 106–40 in Paul and Judaism: Crosscurrents in Pauline Exegesis and the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations. Edited by Reimund Bieringer and Didier Pollefeyt. London: T&T Clark, 2012.

9. LAW AND FAITH AS MARKERS OF IDENTITY

205

Rosner, Brian S. Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM, 1977. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. Silva, Moisés. Interpreting Galatians. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Thielman, Frank. Romans. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018. Tucker, J. Brian. Remain in your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. _______. You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Wan, Sze-kar. “Collection for the Saints as Anticolonial Act: Implications for Paul’s Ethnic Reconstruction.” Pages 191– 215 in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Kirster Stendahl. Edited by Richard A. Horsley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Westerholm, Stephen. “Letter and Spirit: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics.” NTS 30 (1984): 229–48. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 and 4. London: SPCK, 2013.

CHAPTER 10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS OF THE USE OF THE PHRASE IN THE LXX ALBERT J. COETSEE NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY, POTCHEFSTROOM I NTRODUCTION

Numerous passages in the OT refer to God as being “just.”1 In fact, the attribute of God’s justice or righteousness is foundational to the OT’s view of God. Justice or righteousness is part of God’s very being. Within the vast array of references to God’s justice in the OT is a category where the author(s) use a double negative to emphasize the exact opposite: these passages state that God is not unjust, emphasizing that he is totally just. Only seven passages from the OT and its additions in the LXX fall within this category:2 all of them contain the negative particle “not” (οὐκ/µή) in E.g., Ezra 9:15; Psalm 7:9, 11; 35:24; 71:19; 116:5; Ecclesiastes 3:17; Isaiah 5:16; 45:21; and 58:2. 2 In this regard I differ from Michael P. Middendorf, Romans, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2013), 879, who states that unrighteousness “in reference to God” occurs “only three times in the LXX.” He lists Deuteronomy 32:4, 2 Chronicles 19:7, and Psalm 91:16. 1

207

208

ALBERT J. COETSEE

combination with the noun ἀδικία, the adjective ἄδικος or the verb ἀδικέω, all with God as explicit or implicit subject. These passages are Deuteronomy 32:4, Odes 2:4, 2 Paralipomenon 19:7 (i.e., 2 Chronicles 19:7), 1 Esdras 4:36, Psalm 91:16, Job 8:3, and Zephaniah 3:5. As far as can be determined, no synopsis of the use of the phrase in the LXX has been published. This article endeavors to do exactly that by discussing the occurrence and use of the phrase in each passage, and providing a synopsis of its findings by means of a categorization. The critical text of the Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum is used as the basis for the investigation. In addition to this general aim, the article investigates whether there are any indications that one or more of these seven passages is based on or alludes to any of the other passages. That is: Is it possible that one or more of these passages form the background of some of the others, or even all the others? Apart from being a worthy scholarly investigation, the results of the study can be used for investigations of the possible OT background of references to “God is not unjust” in the NT (Rom 3:5; 9:14; and Heb 6:10), since the basic assumption is that Paul and the author of Hebrews generally quoted from and alluded to the LXX. This is investigated in a subsequent article in this volume, with both articles warmly dedicated to Martin Webber.

1. DEUTERONOMY 32:4

The first OT reference to God not being unjust—at least in canonical terms—is Deuteronomy 32:4. The verse is part of the so-called “Song of Moses”, a major poetical composition close to the end of the book of Deuteronomy. Because of its uniqueness within Deuteronomy, the Song has received numerous detailed and particular studies.3 Scholars are divided about the dating of

Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 374. Cf. J. Gordon McConville, Deuteronomy, ApOTC (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 450–51. 3

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

209

the Song.4 Various scholars argue for its antiquity,5 even that it may be one of the earliest literary pieces in the OT.6 The genre of the Song is mostly considered to be that of a rîb, a prophetic or covenant lawsuit.7 Some scholars, however, argue that the Song has parallels with wisdom rather than prophetic literature.8 Whatever the case may be, it is clear that the Song has numerous liturgical elements and has a didactic function. That Deuteronomy 32 had a place within Jewish liturgical practice, is attested by its occurrence in the Qumran manuscript 4QDeutj.9 While the structure of the Song is complex and a matter of continuing debate,10 most agree that Deuteronomy 32:1–3 forms the introduction of the Song,11 and Deuteronomy 32:4–6 the main thesis.12 After the Song’s initial call to hear the teaching that is to

Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 451–52. For references to scholars who argue for an early date, see Craigie, Deuteronomy, 374, and Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 277. For discussion of how various scholars date and interpret the Song, see Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 852–57. 6 Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 747–48. 7 Cf. Edward J. Woods, Deuteronomy, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 308–309; McConville, Deuteronomy, 451; and Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 297. 8 Block, Deuteronomy, 747; and his “The Power of Song: Reflections on Ancient Israel’s National Anthem (Deuteronomy 32),” in How I love your Torah, O Lord! Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Daniel I. Block (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 166. Cf. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 374. For the view that Deuteronomy 32 broadly fits the category of a hymn, see Matthew Thiessen, “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43),” JBL 123 (2004): 401–24. 9 Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 980. 10 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 375. For a discussion of the rhetorical analysis of the passage, see Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 859–68. 11 Cf. Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 12–34, HThKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016), 2154. 12 Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 299–300. Cf. Block, Deuteronomy, 746–47. 4 5

210

ALBERT J. COETSEE

follow and a declaration of God’s qualities (Deut 32:1–3),13 verse 4 emphatically states: θεός, ἀληθινὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ κρίσις· θεὸς πιστός, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία· δίκαιος καὶ ὅσιος κύριος.14 “God, his works are true, and all his ways are fair, a faithful God, and there is no injustice, a just and holy God.”15

Deuteronomy 32:4 is “the theological axiom that governs the poem.”16 The righteousness of God is in the foreground.17 The verse piles up five nominal sentences to emphasize one theo-

Tigay, Deuteronomy, 300. Literally, the phrase in Deuteronomy 32:3 means “to proclaim the name of the Lord.” 14 John W. Wevers, ed., Deuteronomium, vol. 3 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 345. 15 All translations are my own. The translation of the noun ἀδικία here as “injustice” is supported by Laura Bigoni et al., “ἄδικος, ἀδικέω, ἀδικία, ἀδίκηµα,” in Historical and Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint, ed. Eberhard Bons (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 1:220–21. 16 Woods, Deuteronomy, 309. Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium, 2174. Duane L. Christensen (Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, WBC 6B [Nashville: Nelson, 2001], 793), argues that Deuteronomy 32:1–6 has a chiastic structure, with the emphasis falling on Deuteronomy 32:4. Block (Deuteronomy, 748) imagines an antiphonal liturgy in the Song, with verse 4 as a creedal affirmation by the congregation. 17 In the MT, Deuteronomy 32:4 starts with a reference to “the rock” (‫)ַהצּוּר‬, which is a metaphor for God. In fact, the MT version of the Song contains another seven references to “the rock,” which is used either as a reference to a rock in the natural sense (Deut 32:13), as a reference to YHWH (Deut 32:15, 18, 30, and 31) or as a reference (in a polemical and ironical sense) to idols (Deut 32:31 and 32:37). The metaphor refers to the reliability, strength and trustworthiness of the Lord. The LXX translates the reference to “the Rock” as “God” (θεός), most probably for theological reasons. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 448; Lundbom, Deuteronomy, 873; Otto, Deuteronomium, 2146; Carmel McCarthy, Deuteronomy: Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 139–140; Cornelis den Hertog, Michael Labahn, and Thomas Pola, “Deuteronomion / Deuteronomium / Das fünfte Buch Moses,” in Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare, ed. Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 1:593. 13

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

211

logical truth: God is completely faithful and just.18 The very next verses (Deut 32:5–6) form an abrupt and tragic contrast: while God is completely faithful, Israel is utterly faithless.19 The remainder of the Song elaborates on both these themes.20

2. ODES 2:4

The Book of Odes is a somewhat obscure book in the LXX of which the earliest extant manuscript evidence is found in the fifthcentury Codex Alexandrinus (included in Rahlfs’ critical edition of the LXX).21 It consists of a compilation of hymns, poems and prayers (fittingly called “Odes”), of which the majority are excerpts from existing biblical material,22 and of which the Greek text “is largely identical with the texts it references.”23 Ode 2, for example, the longest Ode, contains a copy of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:1–43, with only slight divergences. Important for the current investigation is Odes 2:4, which states:

Tigay, Deuteronomy, 300. Brueggemann (Deuteronomy, 278) refers to Deuteronomy 32:1–43 as “a deeply YHWH-centered poem.” 19 Wright, Deuteronomy, 298; Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 278. 20 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 300. 21 James A. Miller, “‘Let Us Sing to the Lord’: The Biblical Odes in the Codex Alexandrinus” (PhD diss., Marquette University, 2006), 4. Despite its appearance in Rahlfs’ critical edition of the LXX, the Book of Odes is not translated in the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). This is also noted by Jeremiah Coogan, “Appendix: Odes,” in Jubilees, Judith, Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalms 151-155, Psalms and Odes of Solomon, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon; Appendix: Odes, vol. 2C of Textual History of the Bible: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures, ed. Frank Feder and Matthias Henze (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019), 548. Siegfried Kreuzer (Introduction to the Septuagint, trans. D. A. Brenner and P. Altmann [Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019], 321) indicates that the omission is deliberate, since the NETS limited itself “to the Jewish Scriptures and did not want to repeat text already found elsewhere in the Septuagint.” 22 The Book of Odes is not the only anthology of biblical hymns or poems in existence. See Coogan, “Odes,” 537–72, for an overview of biblical odes in various ancient languages. For the sake of the current investigation, “Odes” refers to the collection of fourteen Greek texts found in Codex Alexandrinus (LXXA). 23 Kreuzer, Introduction to the Septuagint, 321. 18

212

ALBERT J. COETSEE θεός, ἀληθινὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ κρίσις· θεὸς πιστός, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία, δίκαιος καὶ ὅσιος κύριος.24 “God, his works are true, and all his ways are fair, a faithful God, and there is no injustice, a just and holy God.”

The critical text of Odes 2:4 is identical to that of Deuteronomy 32:4, barring the use of the comma after ἀδικία instead of the ano teleia mark. Miller, who investigates the numerous instances of divergence between the Odes and the text of Scripture (for possible indications of the use of variant Vorlagen, among other reasons), finds twenty-two (smaller) differences between Ode 2 and Deuteronomy 32:1–43,25 but none between Odes 2:4 and Deuteronomy 32:4. For the sake of the current investigation, it should be noted that the occurrence of Deuteronomy 32:1–43 in Odes 2:1–43 confirms that the Song of Moses was used in liturgical contexts.26 The use of Deuteronomy 32:1–43 in as early as the Second Temple period is attested.27 The purpose of the biblical odes may have been, among others, to promote the reader’s participation in the particular song or hymn.28 This all suggests that Deuteronomy 32:1–43 was well-known in the biblical and post-biblical era, and Deuteronomy 32:4, which functions as the theological heart of the Song, vividly lived on the lips and in the minds of its singers.

3. 2 PARALIPOMENON 19:7

The second book of Paralipomenon 19:4–11 narrates the reforms of Jehoshaphat, specifically related to judgment: he appointed judges throughout the land (2 Par 19:5–7) and Levites, priests, and heads of families in Jerusalem (2 Par 19:8–11).29 Upon

Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, vol. 10 of Septuaginta, 343. Miller, “Let Us Sing,” 150. 26 Miller, “Let Us Sing,” 2. Cf. Kreuzer, Introduction to the Septuagint, 320– 21. 27 Coogan, “Odes,” 539. 28 Coogan, “Odes,” 540. 29 This passage has no parallel in 1–2 Kings. For discussion of its historicity, see Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 272–73. 24 25

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

213

appointing judges, he exhorts them about the manner in which they should perform their tasks, and motivates why (2 Par 19:6b– 7). Verse 7 states: καὶ νῦν γενέσθω φόβος κυρίου ἐφ’ ὑµᾶς, καὶ φυλάσσετε καὶ ποιήσετε, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν µετὰ κυρίου θεοῦ ἡµῶν ἀδικία οὐδὲ θαυµάσαι πρόσωπον οὐδὲ λαβεῖν δῶρα.30 “And now, let the fear of the Lord be upon you, and watch out and do, because there is no injustice with the Lord our God, nor admiration of a face nor accepting of gifts.”

The judges are motivated to render just decisions, since they are the Lord’s agents or representatives,31 and they are to reflect his character, specifically his righteousness, justice and fairness.32 Japhet makes the following important observation about the Chronicler’s formulation: “It is noteworthy that the attributes of divine justice as models for judges’ conduct are defined in negative terms: ‘For there is no perversion of justice with the Lord our God, or partiality, or taking bribes’ . . . the Chronicler chooses to formulate his expression in a negative way, by the absence of certain qualities rather than the existence of any. He also avoids active verbs which might imply any ‘doing’ on God’s part; only nouns are used.”33

While the words of 2 Paralipomenon 19:5–7 form parallels with various passages, the most striking are Deuteronomy 10:17 (the Lord is not partial and takes no bribe) and 16:18–20 (the appointment of judges who should judge fairly). This, along with the distinction between lower (2 Par 19:5–7) and higher courts (2 Par 19:8–11), which seems to reflect the distinction made in Robert Hanhart, ed., Paralipomenon Liber II, vol. 7/2 of Septuaginta, 258–59. 31 Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2019), 170. 32 Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC 15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 149, and John A. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles, NAC 9 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 289. 33 Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 775. 30

214

ALBERT J. COETSEE

Deuteronomy (16:18–20; 17:8–13),34 suggests that Deuteronomy’s rhetoric influences the passage.35

4. 1 E SDRAS 4:36

For the most part, the book commonly known as 1 Esdras36 has close parallels with Ezra, Nehemiah 7–8, and 2 Paralipomenon 35–36.37 First Esdras 3:1–5:6 is an exception,38 containing a debate among three young men (the bodyguards of the king) over what thing is strongest in creation, followed by king Darius rewarding the winner of the debate. The first youth argues that wine is the strongest (1 Esd 3:16–23), the second the king (1 Esd 4:1–12) and the third women (1 Esd 4:13–32). The third youth (identified as Zerubbabel)39 augments his argument by arguing that truth is the strongest of all (1 Esd 4:33–41).40 Mark J. Boda, 1–2 Chronicles, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2010), 324. Cf. Jacob M. Myers, 2 Chronicles, AB 13 (New York: Doubleday, 1973), 108. 35 Cf. Thompson, Chronicles, 289, and Steven L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 293. 36 The title “Esdras” designates a number of different works, and can consequently cause confusion. For discussion of works with this title and their respective contents, see Hector M. Patmore, “1 Esdras,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. J. K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 178–79, and Matthias Henze et al., “Ezra,” in Baruch/Jeremiah, Daniel (Additions), Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira, Enoch, Esther (Additions), Ezra, vol. 2B of The Textual History of the Bible: Deuterocanonical Scriptures, ed. Frank Feder and Matthias Henze (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019), 425. 37 Henze et al., “Ezra,” 430. 38 Since 1 Esdras 3:1–5:6 is Sondergut, various scholars argue that it is a later addition. Cf. Jacob M. Myers, I and II Esdras, AB 42 (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 53; Richard J. Coggins and Michael A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 23, and Kreuzer, Introduction to the Septuagint, 226. 39 The purpose of the narrative seems to introduce and magnify Zerubbabel as the wisest youth, and to indicate why the king of Persia gave leave to the Jews to reconstruct the temple. Cf. Myers, Esdras, 53–55, and Patmore, “1 Esdras,” 191. 40 Within 1 Esdras 3:1–5:6, the third youth’s elaboration on truth (1 Esd 4:33–41) is viewed as an addition within the larger addition. Cf. Anthony Hilhorst, “The Speech on Truth in 1 Esdras 4,34–41,” in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of 34

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

215

Zerubbabel’s debate about truth contains multiple references to the “unjust” word-group (ἄδικος, ἀδικία). His narrative, however, is very ambiguous. Although he speaks of truth, one gets the impression that he may be referring to God. Following his reference to the earth, sky and sun, Zerubbabel states in verse 35: οὐχὶ µέγας ὃς ταῦτα ποιεῖ; καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια µεγάλη καὶ ἰσχυροτέρα παρὰ πάντα.41 “Is he not great who does these things? The truth is also great and stronger than all things.”

From the immediate context, “he” (ὅς) would refer to the sun in verse 34 (ἥλιος). These words on the lips of a Jewish leader in exile who later reminds the king of his promise to rebuild the temple may contain an implicit reference to God.42 This ambiguity is continued in verse 36: πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τὴν ἀλήθειαν καλεῖ, καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς αὐτὴν εὐλογεῖ, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα σείεται καὶ τρέµει, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν µετ’ αὐτοῦ ἄδικον οὐδέν.43 “The whole earth calls upon the truth, and the heaven praises her, and she shakes and trembles all the works, and with him there is nothing unjust.”

his 65th Birthday, ed. Florentino García Martínez, Anthony Hilhorst, and Casper J. Labuschagne, VTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 135, and Michael F. Bird, 1 Esdras: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 166. Zipora Talshir, 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, SBLSCS 50 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 208, however, argues that there is “no evidence that the speech on truth existed independently and was artificially appended to the others.” 41 Robert Hanhart, ed., Esdrae Liber I, vol. 8/1 of Septuaginta, 82. 42 Talshir, 1 Esdras, 212 states that the verse “may refer to God as the creator of earth and heaven and sun, mentioned earlier, while the rest of the text would then refer to truth as a facet of God.” Dieter Böhler (“Esdras I / Das erste Buch Esdras / Das dritte Buch Esra,” in Septuaginta Deutsch, 1183–84), however, interprets verse 35 as referring to the activity of the sun. Bird, 1 Esdras, 174 comments that “the spectacular journey of the sun is simply the warm up act to the real star of the speech, viz., the ‘God of truth’.” 43 Hanhart, ed., Esdrae Liber I, 82.

216

ALBERT J. COETSEE

While the first part of the verse is about truth, which is feminine (ἀλήθεια), the second part of the sentence abruptly makes use of a masculine pronoun in the prepositional phrase µετ’ αὐτοῦ.44 The reference seems to be to heaven (οὐρανός). Why there would be no injustice with heaven is not clear. Again, the ambiguity of the text suggests that it may refer to God:45 with God there is nothing unjust. The end of Zerubbabel’s speech continues the ambiguity and concludes with the only explicit reference to God. The final sentences of verse 40 states: καὶ αὐτῇ ἡ ἰσχὺς καὶ τὸ βασίλειον καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία καὶ ἡ µεγαλειότης τῶν πάντων αἰώνων. εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς τῆς ἀληθείας.46 “And to her is the power and the kingship and the authority and the majesty of all ages. Blessed be the God of truth.”

The doxology, which is explicitly devoted to truth, is a common praise formula for God.47 That God may be implied in his reference is suggested by the explicit praise directed towards him in the final words of the passage. This “increase[es] the identification between God and truth.”48 Talshir, in fact, ends by stating that “God and truth seem to be interconnected in this speech, to the point of identification,”49 while Bird argues that truth in 1 Esdras 4:33–41 “is virtually a hypostasis of God.”50

Some manuscripts (e.g., LXXN) change µετ’ αὐτοῦ to µετ’ αὐτῆς, which then refers to truth. Cf. Talshir, 1 Esdras, 213; Bird, 1 Esdras, 176. Böhler (“Esdras I,” 1184) views the masculine pronoun as a translation error from the Aramaic. For in-depth discussion of the different readings, see Hilhorst, “1 Esdras 4,” 139–40. 45 Cf. Myers, Esdras, 48, and Talshir, 1 Esdras, 213. 46 Hanhart, ed., Esdrae Liber I, 83. 47 Hilhorst, “1 Esdras 4,” 140–41. 48 Talshir, 1 Esdras, 219. Hilhorst (“1 Esdras 4,” 139, 151) considers this final sentence to be secondary, while Böhler (“Esdras I,” 1184) views the praise of God after the praise of truth as a surprise (“überraschend”), and interprets it as a possible translation error from the Aramaic. 49 Talshir, 1 Esdras, 220. 50 Bird, 1 Esdras, 167–68. See also pages 173–74 and 178. 44

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

217

In short, it seems best to conclude that 1 Esdras 4:33–41 deliberately makes use of ambiguity in its description of truth.51 For the sake of the current investigation, the most striking statement is “with him there is no injustice” (1 Esdras 4:36), which may refer to God,52 and which forms a parallel with similar phrases in the LXX.53

5. PSALM 91:16

Psalm 91 (LXX; MT Ps 92), which the title calls “a song for the Sabbath Day,”54 ends with an overview of the flourishment of the righteous, i.e., those serving God (Ps 91:13–16 LXX [MT Ps 92:12– 15]). In contrast to the eventual destruction of the wicked (Ps 91:7– 10), the righteous are compared to a palm tree and cedar (Ps 91:13) that produces fruit even in old age (Ps 91:15). This flourishing of the righteous, according to the psalmist, has the following result (Ps 91:16):55 τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὅτι εὐθὴς κύριος ὁ θεός µου καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία ἐν αὐτῷ.56

Hilhorst (“1 Esdras 4,” 151) concludes that the depiction of truth “enables the author to satisfy a Persian as well as a Jewish audience, both of which had a special interest in truth.” 52 Bigoni et al. (“ἄδικος,” 202) state that the adjective ἄδικος is never used with reference to God in the LXX. If 1 Esdras 4:36 indeed refers to God, this reference would be an exception. 53 Talshir (1 Esdras, 213, 216) specifically notes the parallels between 1 Esdras 4:36, 39, and 2 Par 19:7. 54 For some discussion of this title, see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. L. M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 437, and 443–45. 55 The idea that Psalm 91:16 indicates result is supported by Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn, A Handbook on Psalms (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 183. Charles A. Briggs (Psalms, ICC [Edinburgh: Clark, 1907], 286) argues (unconvincingly in my view) that verse 16 is an inappropriate dogmatic gloss. 56 Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi cum Odis, 242. Like Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 92:16 in the MT includes a reference to the Lord as a “rock” (‫)צוּר‬. The phrase “he is my rock” is dropped in the LXX. There is also a difference between the kethiv and qere reading of the verse, with most translations opting to follow the latter. Cf. Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 463. 51

218

ALBERT J. COETSEE “…to declare that the Lord my God is upright, and there is no injustice in him.”

Psalm 91:16 states that the flourishing of the righteous is a living testimony of God’s character, specifically his righteousness and faithfulness toward his covenant people.57 As indicated elsewhere in the discussion of God’s “injustice,” the “negative construction points to the positive dependability of God.”58 While Psalm 91:13–16 has parallels with other psalms (notably Ps 1)59 and picks up motifs found elsewhere in the psalm,60 Deuteronomy 32:4 forms the clearest parallel with Psalm 91:16. Some scholars view Psalm 91:16 as a “deliberate echo”61 of or “quotation”62 from Deuteronomy 32:4.63

6. JOB 8:3

In Job 8, the second of Job’s friends, namely Bildad the Shuhite, attempts to convince Job of his folly amid his suffering. Bildad starts by describing Job’s discourse as “a much-speaking wind of your mouth” (πνεῦµα πολυρῆµον τοῦ στόµατός σου), that is, a verbose discourse without substance (Job 8:2). This he follows up with the rhetorical question of Job 8:3: µὴ ὁ κύριος ἀδικήσει κρίνων ἢ ὁ τὰ πάντα ποιήσας ταράξει τὸ δίκαιον;64 “Will the Lord act unjustly when he judges, or will the Maker of all things disturb what is right?” Cf. Tate, Psalms, 468, and Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 3 (90–150), Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2016), 72. 58 Tate, Psalms, 463. 59 Cf. Beth L. Tanner, “Psalm 92,” in The Book of Psalms, ed. N. deClaisséWalford, R. A. Jacobson, and B. L. Tanner, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 704. 60 Most notable is the use of the verb “to proclaim/declare” (ἀναγγέλλω) at the beginning of verses 3 and 16. 61 W. Dennis Tucker Jr. and Jamie A. Grant, Psalms, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 2:366. 62 Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms, 441. 63 Cf. Bratcher and Reyburn, Psalms, 183, and John Goldingay, Psalms 90–150, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 60. 64 Joseph Ziegler, ed., Iob, vol. 11/4 of Septuaginta, 245. 57

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

219

The “rhetorical question conveys Bildad’s surprise and dismay.”65 What happened to Job cannot be unjust, because it comes from God,66 and God never perverts justice.67 His major premise is that God and injustice are totally incompatible;68 God, who is perfectly just, rules justly.69 Although Job has not insisted that God is unjust, he has hinted at this, and Bildad with his traditionalist conviction about the retribution principle warns against it.70 There are a number of differences between Job 8:3 in the MT and the LXX.71 For the current investigation, the greatest difference is the use of the double negative in the LXX (lit. “will not the Lord act unjustly”) to emphasize Bildad’s premise in a most definite manner: God will not act unjustly. Strikingly, this is the only occurrence of the verb ἀδικέω in the LXX with God as subject.72 Elihu makes the same argument in Job 34:10–12, though with different wording. Based on its content, these words of Job 8:3 form a parallel with Deuteronomy 32:4, as some scholars indicate.73

David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, WBC 17 (Dallas: Word, 1989), 202. Samuel R. Driver and George B. Gray, Job, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 75–76. 67 John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 156. 68 Cf. Choon-Leong Seow, Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 516; Robert L. Alden, Job, NAC 11 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 116; Clines, Job, 202. 69 Markus Witte, Das Buch Hiob, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021), 182. 70 Hartley, Job, 156. 71 The subjects of the bicolon in the MT are “God” (‫ )ֵאל‬and “the Almighty” (‫)ַשׁ ַדּי‬, while in the LXX it is “the Lord” (ὁ κύριος) and “the Maker of all things” (ὁ τὰ πάντα ποιήσας). In the MT, the verb “bend/pervert” (‫ )ָﬠ ַות‬is used twice with “judgment” (‫ )ִמְשָׁפּט‬and “righteousness” (‫ )ֶצ ֶדק‬as objects. Clines (Job, 198) states that the LXX’s use of two different verbs are “probably simply stylistic.” 72 Bigoni et al., “ἄδικος,” 213. 73 Marvin H. Pope, Job, AB 15 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 64; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job, OTL (London: SCM, 1985), 174; Seow, Job, 516. 65 66

220

ALBERT J. COETSEE

7. ZEPHANIAH 3:5

Zephaniah 3:1–8 is a woe pronouncement directed towards Jerusalem. The main complaint is that the city is defiled (Zeph 3:1–2) and its leaders (officials, judges, prophets, and priests) utterly corrupt (Zeph 3:3–4). In stark contrast to these leaders verse 5 describes the Lord as follows: ὁ δὲ κύριος δίκαιος ἐν µέσῳ αὐτῆς καὶ οὐ µὴ ποιήσῃ ἄδικον· πρωὶ πρωὶ δώσει κρίµα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ εἰς νῖκος ἀδικίαν.74 “But the Lord in her midst is just and he will surely not do what is unjust; morning by morning he will give his judgment and no injustice unto victory.”75

Zephaniah 3:5 emphasizes the Lord’s righteousness. This is done by means of positive and negative statements, all with legal connotations, and all confirming that the Lord is completely just.76 The reference to “in her midst” seems to underscore that despite the corruption of Jerusalem, the Lord has not given up on Jerusalem.77 The reference to “morning by morning” is best Joseph Ziegler, ed., Duodecim Prophetae, vol. 13 of Septuaginta, 281. Rahlfs’ critical edition of Zephaniah 3:5 contains the additional phrases εἰς φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκρύβη καὶ οὐκ ἔγνω ἀδικίαν ἐν ἀπαιτήσει placed between πρωὶ πρωὶ δώσει κρίµα αὐτοῦ and καὶ οὐκ εἰς ν[ε]ῖκος ἀδικίαν. For some discussion, see Hans Schmoll and Gottfried Seitz, “Sophonias / Zefanja,” in Septuaginta Deutsch, 2436. 75 This translation follows the NETS in the final clause. In the MT, the final clause seems to shift abruptly from God to a wrongdoer: “but the unjust know no shame” (‫) ְו ֽל ֹא־יוֹ ֵ֥ד ַע ַﬠָ֖וּל ֽבֶֹּשׁת‬. Cf. Adele Berlin, Zephaniah, AB 25A (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 130, and Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 174–75. John M. P. Smith, William H. Ward, and Julius A. Brewer (Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, ICC [Edinburgh: Clark, 1948], 241) view the clause as a superfluous gloss. Some interpret the phrase as a reference to Baal. Cf. Ralph L. Smith, Micah–Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 138, and Michael B. Shepherd, A Commentary on the Book of the Twelve: The Minor Prophets, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018), 368. In the LXX, the shift from God to a wrongdoer is absent; the description falls on God throughout. 76 Cf. Sweeney, Zephaniah, 172–73. 77 Kenneth L. Barker and Waylon Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, NAC 20 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 480. In the 74

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

221

viewed as a description of the constancy of the Lord’s judgment (cf. Lam 3:23).78 Some have noted the parallel between Zephaniah 3:5 and Deuteronomy 32:479 as well as 2 Paralipomenon 19:7 and Psalm 92:16 (MT).80

8. A CATEGORIZATION OF FINDINGS

Having discussed the seven LXX passages that refer to God as not being “unjust” in their respective contexts, it is possible to categorize the findings by indicating the similarities and differences between them, and to draw some conclusions. As a means of reference, Table 1 provides an overview of the phrases used to describe the justice of God in double negative form, the ἄδικ- word employed and the subject of the phrase. Passage

Phrase

ἄδικ- stem

Subject

Deut 32:4

καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία

ἀδικία

θεός

Odes 2:4

καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία

ἀδικία

θεός

2 Par 19:7 ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν µετὰ κυρίου θεοῦ ἡµῶν ἀδικία

ἀδικία

κύριος θεός

1 Esd 4:36 καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν µετ’ αὐτοῦ ἄδικον οὐδέν

ἄδικος

ὁ θεός?

Ps 91:16

καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία ἐν αὐτῷ

ἀδικία

κύριος ὁ θεός

Job 8:3

µὴ ὁ κύριος ἀδικήσει κρίνων

ἀδικέω

ὁ κύριος

Zeph 3:5

καὶ οὐ µὴ ποιήσῃ ἄδικον

ἄδικος

ὁ κύριος

Table 1: References to God not being unjust in the LXX MT, the reference to the Lord “in her midst” (‫ )ְבִּק ְרָ֔בּהּ‬forms a parallel with the corrupt leaders within Jerusalem’s midst (‫ְבִּק ְרָ֔בּהּ‬, Zeph 3:3). 78 Barker and Bailey, Zephaniah, 480, and David J. Clark and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on the Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 188. For the possibility that the phrase refers to the daily morning liturgy of the temple, see Sweeney, Zephaniah, 173–74. 79 Shepherd, Book of the Twelve, 368. 80 Sweeney, Zephaniah, 172–73.

222

ALBERT J. COETSEE

8.1. Phrases

As determined by the parameters of this study, all seven phrases employed in the LXX to refer to the injustice of God are formulated in negative terms. Without exception the negative formulation is used to emphasize that God is completely just; injustice is absent from his character and conduct. The most common formulation is a combination of the negative adverb “not” (οὐκ) and the verb “is” (ἔστιν), as is evidenced by its use in five of the phrases (Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4; 2 Par 19:7; 1 Esd 4:36; and Ps 91:16). 8.2. ἄδικ- stem

The most common ἄδικ- word employed is the noun ἀδικία (4x: Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4; 2 Par 19:7; and Ps 91:16), followed by the use of the adjective ἄδικος (2x: 1 Esd 4:36 and Zeph 3:5). The least common is the use of the verb ἀδικέω, which is used only once (Job 8:3). 8.3. Subject

Not much can be deduced from the varying subjects of the passages investigated. “God” (θεός) is the subject in two occurrences (Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4) and implicitly in a third (1 Esd 4:36), “Lord” (ὁ κύριος) in two (Job 8:3 and Zeph 3:5) and “Lord God” (κύριος [ὁ] θεός) in two (2 Par 19:7 and Ps 91:16). 8.4. Key words

Each passage employs different words and phrases for the sake of its argument and purpose. Despite this, and apart from the ἄδικword-group, a number of similar key words are found in some of these passages, namely ἀληθινός/ἀλήθεια (Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4, and 1 Esd 4:36), κρίσις/κρίνω/κρίµα (Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4; Job 8:3; and Zeph 3:5) and δίκαιος (Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4; Job 8:3; and Zeph 3:5). All these words are related to justice (see also εὐθής in Ps 91:16 and πιστός in Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4).

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

223

8.5. Genre

The majority of the references to a form of “God is not unjust” are found in poetical texts (4x: Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4; Ps 91:16; and Job 8:3), followed by narrative texts (2x: 2 Par 19:7 and 1 Esd 4:36). One reference is found in a prophetic text (Zeph 3:5). 8.6. Contrast

Strikingly, six of the seven passages draw explicit or implicit contrasts between God, who is described as completely just, and human beings, who are viewed as unjust. The three explicit passages are Deuteronomy 32:4 // Odes 2:4, and Zephaniah 3:5: the first two contrast God with the utter unfaithfulness of Israel, while the final passage contrasts God with Israel’s corrupt leaders. In three passages God is implicitly contrasted with the unjust Job (Job 8:3), judges who may pervert justice (2 Par 19:7), and wine, the king, women, all human beings and all their works (1 Esd 4:36). Psalm 91:16 does not draw a contrast between God and men, but between faithful men who are the beneficial recipients of the Lord’s covenant blessings, and the wicked, who will perish. 8.7. Argument

While these seven passages have different arguments and aims, the theological heart of each is the same: it emphasizes that God is completely just; there is no injustice in his character or conduct. Five of the seven references contain an explicit statement in this regard (Deut 32:4 // Odes 2:4; 2 Par 19:7; Ps 91:16; and Zeph 3:5). To this can be added the possible reference in 1 Esdras 4:36. The remaining passage is Job 8:3, where the reference to God not being unjust is used in a polemic context to implicitly convince Job by means of a rhetorical question to change his convictions, specifically regarding the justice of God. The most comprehensive (and dogmatic) statement about God’s character is found in Deuteronomy 32:4 (echoed in Odes 2:4). The sole aim of its five nominal sentences is to state that God is absolutely just. Other passages use the reference to God’s justice to call the righteous to persevere in righteousness (Ps 91:16), the judges to reflect God’s character (2 Par 19:7), the hearers to praise the God of truth (1 Esd 4:36, 40), the corrupt

224

ALBERT J. COETSEE

people of God to return to him (Zeph 3:5) and Job to abandon his faulty thinking (Job 8:3).

9. CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion of each phrase within its context and the synopsis of the occurrence and use of a form of the phrase “God is not unjust” in the LXX, an attempt can be made to answer the question whether there are any indications that one or more of these seven passages are based on or allude to any of the other passages. In my view, there is no conclusive evidence that one passage deliberately quotes another. That being said, as the synopsis above has indicated, there are a number of similarities between these passages that might suggest a deliberate or unconscious allusion to or echo of another passage. If there is some form of intertextual influence, Deuteronomy 32:4 has the strongest possibility of having influenced (some of) the other passages. The reasons for this are: -

-

-

-

Deuteronomy 32 is possibly one of the oldest literary pieces in the OT. Deuteronomy 32 played a part in Israel’s liturgy, as is evidenced by its use in the Second Temple period, its occurrence in a Qumran manuscript and the duplication of Deuteronomy 32:1–43 in Odes 2:1–43. All of this suggests that Deuteronomy 32:1–43 was well-known in the biblical and post-biblical era. Deuteronomy 32:4 forms the theological heart of the Song, and if the Song was indeed well-known, this statement of the character of God would have lived in the minds and hearts of worshipers. Deuteronomy 32:4 is the most comprehensive (or “theological”) statement of all the passages investigated above, scaffolding various phrases to describe God’s character and to emphasize that he is completely just. Less convincing, though still noteworthy, various scholars point to the parallel between Deuteronomy 32:4 and some of the other passages investigated in this study,

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

225

including Psalm 91:16, 2 Paralipomenon 19:7, Job 8:3, Zephaniah 3:5, and, to a lesser degree, 1 Esdras 4:36.

Although by no means conclusive, it might be that Deuteronomy 32:4’s statement “there is no injustice” with God formed the bedrock for a traditional conviction about the justice of God that was transmitted through the Song and oral tradition and was incorporated by individuals and biblical authors for their respective arguments. This might also be the case in the three NT occurrences of “God is not unjust” (Rom 3:5; 9:14; and Heb 6:10), which are investigated in a subsequent article in this volume.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alden, Robert L. Job. NAC 11. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993. Barker, Kenneth L., and Waylon Bailey. Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. NAC 20. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998. Berlin, Adele. Zephaniah. AB 25A. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Bird, Michael F. 1 Esdras: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Block, Daniel I. “The Power of Song: Reflections on Ancient Israel’s National Anthem (Deuteronomy 32).” Pages 162–84 in How I love your Torah, O Lord!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy. Edited by Daniel I. Block. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. ———. Deuteronomy. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Boda, Mark J. 1–2 Chronicles. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2010. Böhler, Dieter. “Esdras I / Das erste Buch Esdras / Das dritte Buch Esra.” Pages 1165–97 in Genesis bis Makkabäer, vol. 1 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Bons, Eberhard. Historical and Theological Lexicon of the Septuagint. 4 vols. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020- . Bratcher, Robert G., and William D. Reyburn. A Handbook on Psalms. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

226

ALBERT J. COETSEE

Brenton, Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha, Greek and English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986. Briggs, Charles A. Psalms. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1907. Brueggemann, Walter. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12. WBC 6B. Nashville: Nelson, 2001. Clark, David J., and Howard A. Hatton. A Handbook on the Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Clines, David J.A. Job 1–20. WBC 17. Dallas: Word, 1989. Coggins, Richard J., and Michael A. Knibb. The First and Second Books of Esdras. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Coogan, Jeremiah. “Appendix: The Odes.” Pages 537–572 in Jubilees, Judith, Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalms 151155, Psalms and Odes of Solomon, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon; Appendix: Odes, vol. 2C of Textual History of the Bible: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by Frank Feder and Matthias Henze. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019. Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Den Hertog, Cornelis, Michael Labahn, and Thomas Pola. “Deuteronomion / Deuteronomium / Das fünfte Buch Moses.” Pages 523–601 in Genesis bis Makkabäer, vol. 1 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Dillard, Raymond B. 2 Chronicles. WBC 15. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Driver, Samuel R., and George B. Gray. Job. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Goldingay, John. Psalms 90–150. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. OTL. London: SCM, 1985. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Esdrae Liber I. Volume 8/1 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

227

Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. ———, ed. Paralipomenon Liber II. Volume 7/2 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Henze, Matthias, et al. “Ezra.” Pages 423–542 in Baruch/ Jeremiah, Daniel (Additions), Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira, Enoch, Esther (Additions), Ezra, vol. 2B of Textual History of the Bible: The Deuterocanonical Scriptures. Edited by Frank Feder and Matthias Henze. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019. Hilhorst, Anthony. “The Speech on Truth in 1 Esdras 4,34–41.” Pages 135–51 in The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Anthony Hilhorst, and Casper J. Labuschagne. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Hermeneia. Translated by L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Klein, Ralph W. 2 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Kreuzer, Siegfried. Introduction to the Septuagint. Translated by D. A. Brenner and P. Altmann. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019. Leithart, Peter J. 1 & 2 Chronicles. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2019. Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. McCarthy, Carmel. Deuteronomy: Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. McConville, J. Gordon. Deuteronomy. ApOTC. Leicester: Apollos, 2002. McKenzie, Steven L. 1–2 Chronicles. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004.

228

ALBERT J. COETSEE

Middendorf, Michael P. Romans. ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2013. Miller, James A. “‘Let Us Sing to the Lord’: The Biblical Odes in the Codex Alexandrinus.” PhD diss., Marquette University, 2006. Myers, Jacob M. 2 Chronicles. AB 13. New York: Doubleday, 1973. ———. I and II Esdras. AB 42. New York: Doubleday, 1974. Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 12–34. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2016. Patmore, Hector M. “1 Esdras.” Pages 178–94 in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint. Edited by J. K. Aitken. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Pope, Marvin H. Job. AB 15. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Psalmi cum Odis. Volume 10 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. ———. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996. Ross, Allen P. A Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 3 (90–150). Kregel Exegetical Library. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2016. Schmoll, Hans, and Gottfried Seitz. “Sophonias / Zefanja.” Pages 2429–39 in Psalmen bis Daniel, vol. 2 of Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. Seow, Choon-Leong. Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Shepherd, Michael B. A Commentary on the Book of the Twelve: The Minor Prophets. Kregel Exegetical Library. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018. Smith, John M. P., William H. Ward, and Julius A. Brewer. Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel. ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 1948. Smith, Ralph L. Micah–Malachi. WBC 32. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. Sweeney, Marvin A. Zephaniah. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Talshir, Zipora. 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary. SBLSCS 50. Atlanta: SBL, 2001.

10. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: A SYNOPSIS

229

Tanner, Beth L. “Psalm 92.” Pages 702–705 in The Book of Psalms. Edited by N. deClaissé-Walford, R. A. Jacobson, and B. L. Tanner. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Tate, Marvin E. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Dallas: Word, 1990. Thiessen, Matthew. “The Form and Function of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1–43).” JBL 123 (2004): 401–24. Thompson, John A. 1, 2 Chronicles. NAC 9. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Tigay, Jeffrey H. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tucker, W. Dennis Jr., and Jamie A. Grant. Psalms 73–150. Volume 2 of Psalms. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018. Wevers, John W., ed. Deuteronomium. Volume 3/2 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Witte, Markus. Das Buch Hiob. ATD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021. Woods, Edward J. Deuteronomy. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011. Wright, Christopher J. H. Deuteronomy. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Duodecim Prophetae. Volume 13 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. ———, ed. Iob. Volume 11/4 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

CHAPTER 11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY OF DEUTERONOMY 32:4, ROMANS 3:5 AND 9:14, AND HEBREWS 6:10 ALBERT J. COETSEE NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY, POTCHEFSTROOM I NTRODUCTION

Only three passages in the NT explicitly refer to God as not being “unjust.”1 This is done either by means of a rhetorical question or a statement:

A fourth passage can be added, namely Matthew 20:13. The words are from the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, with the landowner asking the laborers: “Friend, I am doing you no wrong (οὐκ ἀδικῶ σε); did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?” (NRSV). The landowner seems to represent God, with the verse then implying that God is not unjust. See Richard T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 749. Cf. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, Hermeneia, trans. J. E. Crouch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 533–35. Since, however, the text does not state this explicitly (due to its nature as a parable), Matthew 20:13 will not be further investigated in this study. 1

231

232

ALBERT J. COETSEE “But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust [ἀδικία] to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way).” (Rom 3:5) “What then are we to say? Is there injustice [ἀδικία] on God’s part? By no means!” (Rom 9:14) “For God is not unjust [ἄδικος]; he will not overlook your work and the love that you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.” (Heb 6:10)2

All three references to God not being unjust are likely the authors’ own compositions for the sake of their arguments. Consequently, very few scholars investigate or even mention the possible OT background of the phrase. Based on the findings of the previous investigation in this volume, this article investigates whether the three occurrences of the phrase “God is not unjust” in the NT might allude to or echo one of the passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust” (cf. Deut 32:4; Odes 2:4; 2 Par 19:7; 1 Esd 4:36; Ps 91:16; Job 8:3; and Zeph 3:5).3 More specifically, the article investigates whether Deuteronomy 32:4 forms the background of all or any of the occurrences of the phrase in the NT, since the previous study found that Deuteronomy 32:4 has the strongest possibility of having influenced (some of) the other LXX passages that describe God as “not unjust.” The investigation is done by discussing the occurrence and use of the phrase in each NT passage, and conducting an intertextual analysis. This article contributes to research on the use of the OT in the NT, and is dedicated to Martin Webber, who has a special interest in Romans 3. These three passages are quoted from the NRSV; all subsequent translations are my own. 3 The basic assumption in scholarship is that Paul and the author of Hebrews generally quoted from and alluded to the LXX. Cf. Florian Wilk, “The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text,” in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, SCS 53 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 253–71, and Martin Karrer, “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint,” in Septuagint Research, 335–53. Consequently, the LXX— specifically the Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum—will form the basis of comparison. 2

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

233

1. ROMANS 3:5

Romans 3:5, which is one of the primary foci of the current investigation, is intimately tied up with the argument of Romans 3:1–8. For the sake of interpreting the text within its context, brief discussion of the passage as a whole is necessary. Romans 3:1–8 is viewed by various scholars as one of the most difficult passages in all of Romans.4 The primary reasons for this are “the rapid-fire sequence of questions”5 and the fact that the passage functions as a bridge between the previous and subsequent sections.6 Despite this, the gist of the passage is clear: Paul makes use of diatribe7 to argue that despite Israel’s unfaithfulness, God remains faithful to his people. What Paul argues very briefly here he will unpack in more detail in Romans 9:1– 11:36.8 The passage consists of two parts, namely Romans 3:1–4 and 3:5–8. In light of his previous arguments about Jews and the circumcision (esp. Rom 2:28–29), Paul anticipates objections from a Jewish audience (Rom 3:1). He therefore insists that the Jews have “many” advantages (Rom 3:2a), but ends by only Cf. Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 326, and Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 155–56. Paul J. Achtemeier (“Romans 3:1–8: Structure and Argument,” in Christ and his Communities: Essays in Honor of Reginald H. Fuller, ed. Arland J. Hultgren and Barbara Hall [Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1990], 77–87) argues that part of the difficulty in interpreting Romans 3:1–8 is solved when realizing that the nature of Paul’s argument is to educate, and not to refute. 5 Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 187. 6 Michael P. Middendorf, Romans, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2013), 216. 7 For a discussion of who is speaking in Romans 3:1–8, namely Paul or an interlocutor, see Justin King, Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1–9, Biblical Interpretation Series 163 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018), 252–93. For discussion against the notion that Romans 3:1–8 is composed in the form of a diatribe, see David R. Hall, “Romans 3.1–8 reconsidered,” NTS 29 (1983): 183–97. 8 Moo, Romans, 189. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 129–30. 4

234

ALBERT J. COETSEE

referring to one:9 they were made custodians of “the oracles of God” (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom 3:2b).10 It seems like Paul anticipated some Jewish response to “the oracles of God” and therefore immediately digressed to address this response.11 The heart of his anticipation seems to be the question: if God promised in his “oracles” to be faithful to the Jews as his chosen people, but some of them were unfaithful to him, can their faithlessness nullify God’s faithfulness (Rom 3:3)? Romans 3:3, in fact, is “the leading question that dominates the whole discussion.”12 Paul answers very strongly that this is not the case,13 and supports this with Scriptural proof: an allusion to Psalm 116:11 (LXX 115:2) and a quotation of Psalm 51:4 (LXX 50:6). While commentators have a hard time determining the exact use and function of the allusion and quotation,14 it seems likely that Paul quotes Psalm 51:4 in such a way that it implies that human unfaithfulness in some way magnifies God’s faithfulness.15 Paul, however, realizes that a false inference could be drawn from what he has just said in Romans 3:3–4,16 especially from his citation of Psalm 51:4, and he guards against this in Romans 3:5– 8. Paul anticipates the objection of some opponents in Romans 3:5:

Based on the formulation “much in every way” (πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον) one would expect Paul to provide a list with various advantages, like in Romans 9:4–5. Cf. Longenecker, Romans, 341. 10 The phrase is best interpreted as God’s whole OT revelation. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 326. 11 Moo, Romans, 190–91. 12 Fitzmyer, Romans, 325. Cf. Frank Thielman, Romans, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 166. 13 While the phrase µὴ γένοιτο can be translated in various ways, it is meant as a strong denial. In the NT, the phrase is almost exclusively found in Paul’s letters. Cf. Longenecker, Romans, 344. 14 Cf. Jackson Wu, “Why is God Justified in Romans? Vindicating Paul’s Use of Psalm 51 in Romans 3:4,” Neot 55 (2017): 291–314, and Moo, Romans, 195–97. 15 Longenecker, Romans, 349. 16 C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1:183. 9

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

235

εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡµῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν, τί ἐροῦµεν; µὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν; κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω.17 “But if our unrighteousness serves to demonstrate the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God, who inflicts wrath, is unjust? (I speak in a human way).”

The verse consists of two questions followed by an apology. The second question, which sharpens the first by indicating the nature of the difficulty,18 is a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer.19 That the question should be answered in the negative is supported by Paul’s parenthetic apology, which suggests that he views the question itself as blasphemous.20 The explicit negative answer follows in Romans 3:6: “By no means!” (µὴ γένοιτο). Paul argues that the conviction that God is unjust is “incompatible with the biblical doctrine that God is a just judge.”21 God’s “judging righteousness . . . is a constituent part of God’s righteousness.”22 God is righteous even when he judges.23 The question of Romans 3:5 is repeated in a different form in Romans 3:7 and followed by another objection in Romans 3:8a, which is so absurd that Paul merely states that the condemnation of such a conviction is deserved (Rom 3:8b).24 In sum, Romans 3:5 links on to the main argument of Romans 3:1–8: God remains faithful despite the unfaithfulness of his people; he remains just even when inflicting wrath on human beings. Returning to the main aim of the current investigation, the question can be asked: does Paul in his use of the rhetorical This and subsequent quotations from the Greek NT are from the NA28. Cranfield, Romans, 184, and Longenecker, Romans, 350. 19 Cf. James B. Prothro, “Rhetorical Questions in Romans 3 and 10: A Critique of Douglas Campbell’s Rereading,” Early Christianity 6 (2015), 224. 20 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 135. 21 Moo, Romans, 189. 22 Schreiner, Romans, 163. 23 Cf. Hall, “Romans 3.1–8 Reconsidered,” 188. Richard B. Hays (“Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3,” JBL 99 [1980]: 111–15) argues that “the righteousness of God” (Rom 3:5) is a functional equivalent of “the faithfulness of God (Rom 3:3) and “the truthfulness of God” (Rom 3:7), and that Romans 3:5 in essence deals with the issue of God’s integrity. 24 Moo, Romans, 204. 17 18

236

ALBERT J. COETSEE

question “is God unjust?” in Romans 3:5 allude to or echo one of the passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust”? Excluding Deuteronomy 32:4 for now, there seems to be a slight parallel between Romans 3:5 and Job 8:3, since both are rhetorical questions implying a negative answer, confirming that God is just. Job 8:3, however, is unique among references to the injustice of God in Scripture, making use of the verb “do wrong” (ἀδικέω). In Romans 3:5, Paul makes use of the adjective “unjust” (ἄδικος). Closer investigation reveals greater similarities between Romans 3:5 and Deuteronomy 32:4 in terms of the use of key words and syntax: -

-

Key words: Including the broader context, both passages contain similar key words, namely ἀληθής (Rom 3:4) / ἀληθινός (Deut 32:4), κρίνω (Rom 3:4) / κρίσις (Deut 32:4), and δικαιόω (Rom 3:4) / δίκαιος (Deut 32:4). Syntax: Both Deuteronomy 32:4 and Romans 3:5 have “God” ([ὁ] θεὸς) as subject, contain a negative particle (οὐκ [Deut 32:4] and µὴ [Rom 3:5]) and have “unrighteousness” or “injustice” as predicate (ἀδικία [Deut 32:4] and ἄδικος [Rom 3:5]).

These similarities, however, are quite general. The key words are all related to the semantic domain of justice and are found in numerous passages—among others in Psalm 51:4, which is quoted in Romans 3:4. The similarities in terms of syntax are also quite common. In fact, the differences between the passages are greater than the similarities: -

-

Syntax: Deuteronomy makes use of the verb “is” (ἔστιν) to state that God is not unjust, while the verb is absent in Romans 3:5. In addition, Deuteronomy 32:4 and Romans 3:5 contain various words and phrases not found in the other (τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ, πιστός, ὅσιος κύριος [Deut 32:4] / ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν [Rom 3:5]). Structure: Romans 3:5 moves from the unrighteousness of man to the righteousness of God. The Song of Moses moves from the faithfulness of God (Deut 32:4) to the unfaithfulness of Israel (Deut 32:5–6).

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

237

Consequently, one is hard pressed to find an allusion to Deuteronomy 32:4 in Romans 3:5. The immediate background is Paul’s reasoning in Romans 3:3–4, especially his quotation of Psalm 51:4. At best, if Deuteronomy 32:1–43 is in the back of Paul’s mind in Romans 3:1–8, as some scholars suggest,25 it can be argued that Romans 3:5 contains the faintest echo of Deuteronomy 32:4. Paul’s rhetorical question about the “injustice” of God in Romans 3:5 has various parallels with his similar question in Romans 9:14, to which the investigation now turns.

2. ROMANS 9:14

In Romans 9:1–13, Paul turns to addressing the question of Israel’s unbelief of the gospel and whether this indicates that God’s promises to his people have failed. Paul’s argument is that not all Israelites truly belong to Israel (Rom 9:6), and that not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants (Rom 9:7). To substantiate his claim, Paul refers among other things to God’s sovereign choice of Jacob over Esau (Rom 9:10–12), and by means of Malachi 1:2–3 (LXX) to God’s love for the former and hate for the latter (Rom 9:13). Paul’s purpose is to indicate that God’s choice “was utterly free, unfettered by any human quality or performance.”26

Thielman (Romans, 167) states that the contrast between God’s faithfulness and Israel’s unfaithfulness appears, among others, in the Song of Moses (Deut 32:1–43), that this Song “was in Paul’s mind when he wrote Romans” and that “Paul probably had this more elaborate line of thought in mind” in Romans 3:3. He does not, however, explicitly link Romans 3:5 and Deuteronomy 32:4. Cf. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 163–64, who notes that Deuteronomy 32 is frequently found in Pauline literature. He argues that Paul reads Deuteronomy 32 as a prophetic prefiguration of God’s dealings with Israel through the gospel, and, as such, that “Deuteronomy 32 contains Romans in nuce” (italics his). 26 Thielman, Romans, 454. 25

238

ALBERT J. COETSEE

Paul anticipates that some may argue that this suggests that God acts arbitrarily and therefore unfairly.27 To address this objection, Paul returns to the style of the diatribe and poses his own “reflective question” in Romans 9:14:28 Τί οὖν ἐροῦµεν; µὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ; µὴ γένοιτο. “What shall we then say? Is there injustice with God? By no means!”

The introductory question “What shall we then say?” which occurs seven times in Romans,29 is consistently used as an introduction to a specific section or subsection of material,30 and is used when Paul anticipates that a false conclusion could be drawn.31 The main question is whether God, in his choice of Jacob over Esau even before their births, is unfair or unjust, that is, acted “against what is right.”32 Paul’s question clearly expects a negative answer, as is implied by the use of the strong adversative particle µή in an interrogative sentence,33 and by Paul’s own emphatic negative response “By no means!” in the very words following the question. Paul supports his claim with Scriptural proof by quoting Exodus 33:19 (LXX), which states that God shows mercy and

Cf. Schreiner, Romans, 495. This may in part also be an argument that Paul’s opponents expressed during his ministry, as Longenecker (Romans, 817) suggests. 28 Cranfield, Romans, 482. Similarly, Brian J. Abasciano (“Is There Unrighteousness with God? Romans 9.14–18,” in Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis, LNTS 317 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011], 169) views this as Paul’s own question to “move his argument forward.” 29 Romans 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; and 9:14, 30. 30 Longenecker, Romans, 816. This is why various scholars treat Romans 9:14–18 or 9:14–23 as a unit. 31 Cranfield, Romans, 481. 32 Moo, Romans, 611. Abasciano (“Is There Unrighteousness with God?,” 171) interprets ἀδικία in Romans 9:14 to refer “most specifically … to unfaithfulness to the divine promises to Israel.” 33 Longenecker, Romans, 816, and Middendorf, Romans, 871. 27

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

239

compassion to whomever he wishes (Rom 9:15).34 The quoted words form a parallel with other passages in Exodus, especially the unveiling of God’s name (Exod 3:14) and attributes (Exod 34:6).35 These passages describe the nature of God and the way he characteristically acts.36 Paul, in other words, argues that God does not act arbitrarily; he acts as he has always acted and as he revealed himself: with sovereign freedom to choose the objects of his mercy.37 Consequently, Paul concludes that God’s bestowal of mercy does not depend on human will or exertion, but solely on God who shows mercy (Rom 9:16).38 Returning to the main point of the current investigation, it is clear that Romans 9:14 echoes Paul’s question of Romans 3:5:39 (1) both are introduced by the statement “what shall we (then) say” (τί [οὖν] ἐροῦµεν;); (2) both are rhetorical questions; (3) both rhetorical questions expect a negative answer, as is indicated by the use of the adversative particle µή; (4) both refer to the “injustice” (ἄδικος [Rom 3:5] and ἀδικία [Rom 9:14]) of God; (5) both are followed by the strong negative response “By no means!” (µὴ γένοιτο, cf. Rom 3:6). In both cases Paul defends the righteousness of God by insisting that God is not unjust in his conduct. The difference between the two verses has to do with the surrounding context, which Dunn fittingly captures by stating

For discussion of Paul’s use of Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9:14–15, see John Piper, “Prolegomena to Understanding Romans 9:14–15: An Interpretation of Exodus 33:19,” JETS 22 (1979): 203–16, and B. J. Oropeza, “Paul and Theodicy: Intertextual Thoughts on God’s Justice and Faithfulness to Israel in Romans 9–11,” NTS (2007): 57–80. 35 Cf. Dunn, Romans, 552. Moo (Romans, 612) indicates how Paul in Romans 9 cites “OT texts in which God himself speaks,” providing “the most important evidence we can have about God’s essence and ways of acting.” 36 Schreiner, Romans, 496. 37 Thielman, Romans, 445. 38 Cf. Moo, Romans, 613. In 9:17–18, Paul uses essentially the same argument as he does in 9:15–16, this time appealing to the example of God’s treatment of Pharaoh. 39 This is noted by various scholars. See, among others, Sam K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 (1980), 280, and Abasciano, “Is There Unrighteousness with God?,” 169–71. 34

240

ALBERT J. COETSEE

that Romans 9:14 “is posed from the other end of the time scale, from the perspective of election rather than that of judgment.”40 The question remains whether Paul deliberately alludes to or echoes one of the passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust.” Of the seven passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust,” the rhetorical question of Romans 9:14—like that of Romans 3:5—again forms a parallel with Job 8:3.41 The closer parallel, however, is with Deuteronomy 32:4. This is noted by several commentators who insert a reference to Deuteronomy 32:4 in their discussion of Romans 9:14, albeit without elabofration.42 The only scholar I found who provides (very brief) argumentation that Romans 9:14 alludes to Deuteronomy 32:4, is Belli.43 He argues that the development of the theme “there is no injustice with God” is similar in Deuteronomy 32 and Romans 9, and that the occurrence of Deuteronomy 32 later in Romans (10:19 and 11:11) strengthens the possibility of the reference. A comparison between the two passages, however, delivers little in the way of concrete similarities: -

-

Syntax: Deuteronomy 32:4 is a statement which explicitly states that “there is no injustice [with God]” (καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία), while Romans 9:14 is a rhetorical question asking “Is there injustice with God?” (µὴ ἀδικία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ;). Key words: Apart from the occurrence of ἀδικία which is found in both passages, there are no other key words of Deuteronomy 32:4 found in or around Romans 9:14.44

It seems best to conclude that there is not any substantial evidence to view Romans 9:14 as containing an allusion to or

Dunn, Romans, 561. Robert H. Mounce (Romans, NAC 27 [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995], 199) inserts a brief reference to 2 Chronicles 19:7 in his discussion of Romans 9:14. In my view, the parallels between Deuteronomy 32:4 and Romans 9:14 are stronger. 42 Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 566, and Dunn, Romans 1–8, 551. 43 Filippo Belli, Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11, AnBib 183 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2010), 43. 44 The noun ἀλήθεια is found in Romans 9:1 (cf. ἀληθινός in Deut 32:4) and the noun ἔργον in Romans 9:12 (similarly in Deut 32:4), but the first is too far removed and the second too general to suggest a parallel. 40 41

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

241

echo of Deuteronomy 32:4.45 The question of Romans 9:14 seems to be Paul’s own composition, based on his convictions about God’s nature and character as expressed in Scripture, which, in the immediate context, is taken from Malachi 1:2–3 (Rom 9:13) and Exodus 33:19 (Rom 9:15).

3. HEBREWS 6:10

Hebrews 5:11–6:12 is considered by various scholars as the third warning passage of the book. Of the five warning passages in Hebrews,46 the words of Hebrews 6:4–6 and 10:26–31 are the most severe. Throughout Hebrews the unknown author is concerned about the faith commitment of the addressees. Based on his perception of the danger that threatens them, he starts the current passage by shaming the addressees for their unwillingness to listen to and understand advanced Christian doctrine (Heb 5:11– 6:3).47 Subsequently, he gives the severe warning that those who have experienced various blessings associated with conversion and yet apostatize cannot be “restored again to repentance” (πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς µετάνοιαν), that is, will be eternally lost (Heb 6:4– 6).48 He accompanies this severe warning with a graphic Abasciano (“Is There Unrighteousness with God?,” 169, n. 75) states that while Belli’s suggestion that Romans 9:14 alludes to Deuteronomy 32:4 is intriguing, “the volume of the proposed echo is very low.” 46 The warning passages are Hebrews 2:1–4, 3:7–4:13, 5:11–6:12, 10:26– 31, and 12:14–29 (or parts thereof). 47 Cf. Albert J. Coetsee, “A More Comprehensive Comprehension and Appropriate Application: An Answer to Dwindling Faith Commitment from the Book of Hebrews,” IDS 55 (2021), 4–5. 48 Grammatically, Hebrews 6:4–6 is a long and complex sentence. See William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC 47A (Dallas: Word, 1991), 132, and Gareth L. Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 268, for discussion of its composition. The severe warning of Hebrews 6:4–6 has been a crux interpretum from early times, especially the question of how its content relates to the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. Harold W. Attridge (The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989], 167) and Paul Ellingworth (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 317) point out the importance of reading this warning within its context while keeping its rhetorical function in mind (cf. Heb 6:9–12). 45

242

ALBERT J. COETSEE

agricultural image, illustrating what the expected result of God’s mercy among the addressees should be and how the opposite can expect nothing else than judgment (Heb 6:7–8).49 In Hebrews 6:9, however, the tone of the author changes. The transition is signaled by the author’s only use of the vocative “beloved” (ἀγαπητοί) in the book. The author states that despite his severe warning, he50 is confident of “better things” (τὰ κρείσσονα) in the case of the addressees, “namely” (καί)51 “things that belong to salvation” (ἐχόµενα σωτηρίας). He is, to put it plainly, convinced that they will persevere in faith and be saved. The reason (note the use of γάρ) for his conviction follows in Hebrews 6:10: οὐ γὰρ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑµῶν καὶ τῆς ἀγάπης ἧς ἐνεδείξασθε εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα αὐτοῦ, διακονήσαντες τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ διακονοῦντες. “For God is not unjust to overlook your work and the love which you have demonstrated for his name by serving the saints and still serving [them].”

The foundation for the author’s conviction is the righteousness of God. Using a strong double negative (“God is not unjust”), he emphasizes his conviction that God is totally just.52 In this A number of OT passages have been proposed as the possible background of the image, including Genesis 3:17–18, Deuteronomy 11:11–17, 26–28, 28:12, 29:17, Isaiah 5:1–5, 28:23–29, and Ezekiel 19:10–14. For discussion, see David M. Allen, “Deuteronomic Representation in a Word of Exhortation: An Assessment of the Paraenetic Function of Deuteronomy in the Letter to the Hebrews” (PhD diss, University of Edinburgh, 2007), 139–48; Cockerill, Hebrews, 278; and Donald Guthrie, “Hebrews,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 962–64. I tend to agree with the latter that the image echoes several elements from Deuteronomy. 50 The first-person plural in Hebrews 6:9 is best viewed as an epistolary plural. Cf. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 329, and David L. Allen, Hebrews, NAC 35 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010), 394. 51 The καί is epexegetic. Cf. Lane, Hebrews, 133, and Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews, SP 13 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 126. 52 John W. Kleinig, Hebrews, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2017), 296. Cf. Erich Grässer, An die Hebräer, EKKNT 17 (Zürich: Benziger, 1990), 1:364. 49

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

243

context, ἄδικος has a strong moral undertone. The author argues that God, being just, will not “overlook” (ἐπιλανθάνοµαι) the work and love of the addressees. The verb has the nuance of indifference,53 implying that God does not sufficiently care about their former and present conduct towards fellow-Christians.54 This, however, states the author, is not the case. The author’s basic argument seems to be that the addressees’ past and present conduct counts in their favor. Although it would be going too far to argue that the author is supporting some doctrine of the meritorious character of good works,55 he does seem to be convinced that God rewards people for and judges them according to their works (cf. Heb 11:6).56 Based on his argumentation in Hebrews 6:9–10, the author ends with the gentle exhortation that the addressees should persevere (Heb 6:11) to inherit God’s promises (Heb 6:12). Having determined the meaning of Hebrews 6:10 within its context, the question remains to be answered whether there is any indication that the author is alluding to or echoing one of the passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust.” Notably, a number of scholars point to the parallel between Hebrews 6:10 and Romans 3:5,57 but no scholars were found who argue for a See BDAG, 374. Various scholars point out that the conduct of the addressees referred to is probably their service to fellow-Christians during the severe trials expressed in Hebrews 10:32–34 (cf. Heb 13:1–6). Hebrews 6:10 states that while this service was directed towards fellow-Christians, at its very heart it was done for God’s “name” (ὄνοµα), that is, his sake. Cf. Attridge, Hebrews, 175, and Lane, Hebrews, 133. 55 This is not taught elsewhere in Hebrews, and would contradict the author’s emphasis on the single and sufficient sacrifice of Christ for salvation (Heb 7:1–10:18). Cf. Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 226. 56 This seems to be a traditional OT conviction, found especially in the Psalms. Cf. James W. Thompson, Hebrews, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 136; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 151; Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2015), 194; Attridge, Hebrews, 174; Grässer, An die Hebräer, 365; Kleinig, Hebrews, 297. 57 Cf. Mitchell, Hebrews, 126, and Grässer, An die Hebräer, 365. 53 54

244

ALBERT J. COETSEE

specific OT background of the phrase “God is not unjust,”58 let alone Deuteronomy 32:4. As with the occurrence of a form of the phrase “God is not unjust” in Romans 3:5 and 9:14, Deuteronomy 32:4 forms the closest parallel with Hebrews 6:10. Both texts contain similar explicit statements about God’s character, stating that “there is no injustice [with God]” (οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία [Deut 32:4]) and “God is not unjust” (οὐ γὰρ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς [Heb 6:10]). In both instances “God” ([ὁ] θεὸς) is the subject, “injustice” or “unjust” is the predicate (ἀδικία [Deut 32:4] and ἄδικος [Heb 6:10]) and the sentence is negated (οὐκ [Deut 32:4] and οὐ [Heb 6:10]). In addition, a number of key words are found in the wider context of both passages: “earth” (γῆ, Deut 32:1 and Heb 6:7), “rain” (ὑετός, Deut 32:2 and Heb 6:7) and God’s “name” (ὄνοµα, Deut 32:3 and Heb 6:10). In addition, both Deuteronomy 32:4 and Hebrews 6:10 refer to “work / works” (ἔργον / ἔργα). This, however, is as far as similarities go. There are notable differences between the two passages: -

-

Syntax: Deuteronomy 32:4 contains the verb “is” (ἔστιν) in the expression “he is not unjust”, while the verb is absent in Hebrews 6:10. Key words: Deuteronomy 32:4 and Hebrews 6:10 contain various words and phrases not found in the other (τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ, πιστός, ὅσιος κύριος [Deut 32:4] and ἐπιλανθάνοµαι, ἀγάπη, ἐνδείκνυµι, διακονέω [2x] [Heb 6:10]). In addition, the similar words in the passages are used in different ways: in Deuteronomy 32:1 the “earth” is called as a witness of the Song, while in Hebrews 6:7 it is used in the agricultural image to refer to “ground” that drinks up rain; the “rain” in Deuteronomy 32:2 is used figuratively to refer to the teaching of the Song, while in Hebrews 6:7 it refers to God’s repeated blessings among the addressees; in Deuteronomy 32:3 God’s name is used in a statement of praise, while in Hebrews 6:10 it is used to refer to God’s “sake”; Deuteronomy 32:4 refers to God’s works (τὰ ἔργα

Attridge, Hebrews, 174, n. 10, briefly refers to 1 Esdras 4:36 and 40, but without discussion. 58

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

-

-

245

αὐτοῦ), while Hebrews 6:10 refers to the work of the addressees (τοῦ ἔργου ὑµῶν). Structure: In Hebrews 6 the author’s argument moves from the negative (Heb 6:4–8) to the positive (Heb 6:9– 12), while in Deuteronomy 32 it is the opposite: it moves from the positive (Deut 32:4) to the negative (Deut 32:5). Argument: Hebrews 6:10 is about the assurance that God will reward the addressees for their conduct. Deuteronomy 32, however, does not contain any reference to reward; it functions as a description of God’ character, especially his faithfulness.

Consequently, except for the reference to God not being unjust and the use of the agricultural image in Hebrews 6:7–8 (which may have various passages from Deuteronomy as background), there is no suggestion that in Hebrews 6:10 the author is alluding to or echoing Deuteronomy 32:4. Rather, the author’s argument seems to be based on his conviction that God rewards people for their works, which is a traditional OT conviction.

4. CONCLUSION

This article investigated three passages in the NT that explicitly refer to God as not being “unjust” to determine whether these passages might allude to or echo one of the passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust,” specifically Deuteronomy 32:4. The investigation found that of the seven passages in the LXX that state that “God is not unjust,” Deuteronomy 32:4 indeed forms the closest parallel with the occurrence and use of the similar phrase in all three NT passages. The reference to a form of “God is not unjust” in Romans 3:5, Romans 9:14, and Hebrews 6:10 share similarities with Deuteronomy 32:4 in terms of key words, and to a lesser degree, in terms of syntax. Immediately, however, one must add that there are also great differences between the key words and syntax of Deuteronomy 32:4 and these passages, as well as differences in terms of structure and argument. All things considered, it does not seem that Paul and the author of Hebrews deliberately allude to or echo Deuteronomy 32:4 in these passages. It seems best to conclude that all three

246

ALBERT J. COETSEE

references to God not being unjust are the author’s own composition for the sake of his argument. While these arguments do not seem to be based on one of the OT passages that state that God is not unjust, the arguments of these authors are indeed based on the OT: in Romans 3:5, Paul’s argument is based on Psalm 51:4 (LXX 50:6); in Romans 9:14, his argument is based on Malachi 1:2–3 and Exodus 33:19; in Hebrews 6:10, the author’s argument is based on the traditional OT conviction that God rewards people for their works. Based on their convictions rooted in the OT Scriptures, Paul and the author of Hebrews argue that God is absolutely just. Paul uses this argument to instruct his addressees about the justice of God in judgment (Rom 3:5) and election (Rom 9:14), while the author of Hebrews uses it to comfort his addressees in the midst of his severe warning against apostasy (Heb 6:10). It is, however, still possible that Deuteronomy 32:4 could have had an influence on the conceptual framework of Paul and the author of Hebrews. The fact that Deuteronomy 32 is possibly one of the oldest literary pieces in the OT, played a part in Israel’s liturgy and was well-known in the biblical and post-biblical era, suggests that the confession of God’s character in Deuteronomy 32:4 may have been well-known to Paul and the author of Hebrews. The quotations from and allusions to Deuteronomy 32 by Paul and the author of Hebrews in their respective books (inter alia Rom 10:19; 11:11; and Heb 1:6; 10:30a, 30b) confirm that they were familiar with the Song of Moses. Consequently, the theologically-rich words of Deuteronomy 32:4 might have been part of the rich diversity of conceptual influences on the thoughts of Paul and the author of Hebrews when writing and structuring their respective arguments in Romans 3:5, Romans 9:14, and Hebrews 6:10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abasciano, Brian J. “Is There Unrighteousness with God? Romans 9.14–18.” Pages 154–224 in Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis. LNTS 317. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011.

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

247

Achtemeier, Paul J. “Romans 3:1–8: Structure and Argument.” Pages 77–87 in Christ and his Communities: Essays in Honor of Reginald H. Fuller. Edited by Arland J. Hultgren and Barbara Hall. Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1990. Allen, David L. Hebrews. NAC 35. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2010. Allen, David M. “Deuteronomic Representation in a Word of Exhortation: An Assessment of the Paraenetic Function of Deuteronomy in the Letter to the Hebrews.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2007. Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Belli, Filippo. Argumentation and Use of Scripture in Romans 9–11. AnBib 183. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2010. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Cockerill, Gareth L. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Coetsee, Albert J. “A More Comprehensive Comprehension and Appropriate Application: An Answer to Dwindling Faith Commitment from the Book of Hebrews.” IDS 55 (2021): a2704. Cranfield, C. E. B. Romans. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. France, Richard T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Grässer, Erich. An die Hebräer. EKKNT 17. 3 vols. Zürich: Benziger, 1990–1997.

248

ALBERT J. COETSEE

Guthrie, Donald. “Hebrews.” Pages 919–95 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Hall, David R. “Romans 3.1–8 Reconsidered.” NTS 29 (1983): 183–97. Hays, Richard B. “Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3.” JBL 99 (1980): 107–15. ———. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Karrer, Martin. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Septuagint.” Pages 335–53 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SCS 53. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. King, Justin. Speech-in-Character, Diatribe, and Romans 3:1–9. Biblical Interpretation Series 163. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018. Kleinig, John W. Hebrews. ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2017. Lane, William L. Hebrews 1–8. WBC 47A. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991. Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20. Hermeneia. Translated by J. E. Crouch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Middendorf, Michael P. Romans. ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2013. Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. SP. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Mounce, Robert H. Romans. NAC 27. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, Press, 1995. Oropeza, B. J. “Paul and Theodicy: Intertextual Thoughts on God’s Justice and Faithfulness to Israel in Romans 9–11.” NTS 53 (2007): 57–80. Piper, John. “Prolegomena to Understanding Romans 9:14–15: An Interpretation of Exodus 33:19.” JETS 22 (1979): 203– 16.

11. “GOD IS NOT UNJUST”: AN INTERTEXTUAL STUDY

249

Prothro, James B. “Rhetorical Questions in Romans 3 and 10: A Critique of Douglas Campbell’s Rereading”. Early Christianity 6 (2015): 220–29. Schreiner, Thomas R. Commentary on Hebrews. Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2015. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018. Thielman, Frank. Romans. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018. Thompson, James W. Hebrews. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Wilk, Florian. “The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text.” Pages 253–71 in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SCS 53. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Williams, Sam K. “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” JBL 99 (1980): 241–90. Wu, Jackson. “Why is God Justified in Romans? Vindicating Paul’s Use of Psalm 51 in Romans 3:4.” Neot 55 (2017): 291– 314.

PART II: THEMATIC, THEOLOGICAL, AND RECEPTION-HISTORICAL STUDIES

CHAPTER 12. THE WORDS OF GOD: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3:2 IN LIGHT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT MART-JAN PAUL EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN I NTRODUCTION

In Romans 3, the apostle Paul indicates that the Jews have all kinds of privileges. Verse 2 reports: “First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.”1 This means that the Jewish people have the content of words that God has spoken in the past, while other peoples do not. Those words were spoken in earlier times, but have been handed down and, according to the apostle, have a lasting value for later generations. I would like to elaborate on this subject, as a gesture of thanks for the good cooperation with my colleague Dr. Martin Webber. At the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, we recognize ourselves to be occupied fundamentally with the meaning of these “words of God” for the benefit of students and Translation of the NIV of the Greek lógia. Several other translations have “oracles” (KJV, NET Bible, NRSV) —perhaps less adapted to modern language; if we only understand that “words” does not mean separate words (onómata or the like). 1

253

254

MART-JAN PAUL

scholars alike. In research and education, we try to discover and pass on their richness. This article explores Paul’s view on the message of God and the ways it was given to Israel. We first consider “the words of God” in Romans 3, and then some of the ways God spoke in the OT. His words are recorded in writing and were taken as a reliable tradition. In current scientific research, this is often thought of differently. Yet it remains important to take the words of God to heart.

1. PAUL ON “THE WORDS OF GOD ”

After describing the position of the Jews in Romans 2:12–29, it emerges that Israel has a great privilege over the other nations. In the first place because this people has been entrusted with the lógia of God (3:2).2 In classical Greek, this word (in the singular lógion) is used to describe authoritative communication from the realm of the gods, the divine reply to enquiries at an oracular site. Only the gods can speak a lógion.3 This word is much more restricted than the more general word lógos. The plural lógia is used many times in the LXX and four times in the NT (Acts 7:38; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12; and 1 Pet 4:11). Not only “words,” but also “stories about events” can be meant. Douglas Moo observes that the word lógia gives rise to a plethora of suggestions about its specific reference here: divine utterances of the OT; God’s self-revelation in both the OT and the NT; the Law, especially the Decalogue; and the promises of the OT, or the OT as a whole.4 According to Jakob van Bruggen, the apostle Paul does not seem to limit himself to the scriptures or “the Law.” We can also think about the actions of the prophet John the Baptist and of Jesus. For Paul, the word of God through the earlier prophets and For text-critical issues and for the place of the verse in the context, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 324– 27. For a rhetorical analysis, see Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 238–43. 3 See LSJ, 1056. 4 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 182. 2

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

255

God’s words through the prophet John the Baptist and through Jesus of Nazareth are one and the same thing (see Acts 13:17– 41), according to Van Bruggen.5 However, it seems better to restrict the word to the earlier revelations. The suggestion that Paul intended to include Jesus’s words and ministry is neither supported in the direct context nor by the use of the expression in Second Temple Judaism.6 In the epistle to the Romans, the words of God are assumed in many different expressions, such as the Gospel that God promised through his holy prophets, in the holy scriptures (1:2). He has revealed (1:19) and said (9:15, 25). In most cases, God’s speaking is recorded and known from Scripture.7 That is why Paul often uses the expression “as it is written.”8 He uses the names of Adam and Abraham from the book of Genesis. Moses, David, Isaiah, and Hosea are mentioned as authors of the recorded words of God.9 These words of God are authoritative.10 Given these many examples, it seems best to understand the lógia in a broad sense as the Scripture, the OT as a whole.11

Jakob van Bruggen, Romeinen: Christenen tussen stad en synagoge, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, derde serie (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 58–59. 6 The use of the aorist episteuthēsan “entrusted” points to earlier revelation. The revealed righteousness in Jesus Christ is in the present (Rom 3:21). Benno Zuiddam, “Oracles of God: A Comparative Study of Apostolic Christianity and its Greco-Roman World” (PhD diss., NorthWest University, Potchefstroom, 2008), 144. 7 Romans 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; and 11:2. 8 Romans 1:17; 3:4, 10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3–4, 9, and 21. 9 Moses (Rom 10:5, 19); David (Rom 11:9); Isaiah (Rom 9:27, 29; 10:16, 20; and 15:12). 10 Benno Zuiddam, Fika J. van Rensburg, and P. Jorrie Jordaan, “Λόγιον in Biblical Literature and its Implications for Christian Scholarship,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 379–94. They argue that the expression is exclusively used for divine speech, and exclusively addressed to the human world. It is applied in an intimate setting of covenant relationship and its content is revelatory in nature. 11 For the relation between the OT and the understanding of righteousness in Romans 3, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of 5

256

MART-JAN PAUL

Paul sets forth as the greatest point of Jewish distinction the fact that God has spoken to them (to Moses and the prophets) and entered, with these words, into a special relationship with them (Deut 4:8 and Ps 147). Of the privileges of the Jewish people, only one is mentioned here; other privileges feature further on in the letter, such as the adoption as sons, the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises; “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ” (Rom 9:4–5).

2. GOD’S SPEAKING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

From the wide range of possibilities in the overview above, we focus here on examples of God’s speaking in the writings of the OT. The Bible contains also histories and reactions of people to his revelation, but the written texts derive their nature as “Word of God” from the fact that they contain God’s spoken word. From the hundreds of examples, we initially choose the earliest period. These examples are meant as illustrations of the various ways God spoke and also of his faithfulness. 2.1. Speaking in the Book of Genesis

In Genesis 1, there is a striking emphasis on God’s speaking at creation. Thus, in his first recorded words, He is not addressing someone else, but “commanding,” giving an assignment, with the aim that something arises. Then the created man is audibly addressed (1:28–29). Another form of speaking in this chapter is the “calling” that appears in three verses. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night” (v. 5). The firmament was given the designation “heaven” (v. 8). God called the dry spaces “earth” and the confluence of water “seas” (v. 10). His speaking has performative quality, also in blessing his creatures (cf. Ps 33:6, 9). For us, the question arises how God’s designations became known, for this event preceded the creation of man. The narrator

God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020), 210–17.

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

257

presupposes that God revealed the content to men.12 In the dialogues in the first three chapters, it appears that God spoke to man in a direct way, and not through indirect means such as dreams and visions. In a later period, the LORD spoke to Abram: “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you” (12:1). Abram obeyed and set out for the land of Canaan. When he was at Shechem, the LORD appeared and spoke again (12:7). God’s communication was audible and visible here. After this, in a vision, the word of the LORD came (hāyâ) to Abram (15:1). God spoke several times through visions and dreams to the patriarchs and the prophets (46:2; cf. Num 12:6). “The word of the LORD to” (also in Gen 15:4) is a common expression among prophets. In Genesis 20:7 Abram is also called a prophet, as a person who receives messages of God. In the vision in Genesis 15, a conversation took place, in which God responded to Abram’s questions and concerns and showed him the starry sky. This is followed twice by a covenant in which God communicated audibly and visibly and gave firm promises (Gen 15 and 17). As elsewhere, a covenant is a confirmation of an existing relationship and an additional assurance of commitments made.13 Abram had known the LORD for a long time, but here he received a solemn assurance of God’s plans for his life. Later, Abraham sent a servant to Paddan-Aram to find a wife for Isaac. He was convinced that God would send His angel to achieve this goal (24:7; cf. 25:20). Miraculously, the servant came into contact with Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel, and This is also related to the view of the age of the traditions in the book of Genesis. In Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, sabbath keeping is motivated by an appeal to the week of creation, so that it must have been known. 13 See Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Nottingham: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 57, 75–76; MartJan Paul, “The New Covenant in the Context of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology: Biblical, Historical and Systematic-Theological Perspectives, ed. Hans Burger, Gert Kwakkel, and Michael Mulder, Studies in Reformed Theology 42 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022), 124–45, esp. 129–30. 12

258

MART-JAN PAUL

acknowledged throughout that this was God’s guidance (24:27, 48, 50). Laban and Bethuel gave permission for Rebekah to become Isaac’s wife, “as the LORD has spoken” (v. 51). In this case, speaking is done by the particular direction of events, not by an audible voice. 2.2. God’s Revelation to Moses

In the subsequent books of the Bible, Moses’ special position is mentioned. He received it at his calling in Midian (Exod 3) and was confirmed in it by the exodus of the people from Egypt. In the book of Exodus we learn of Moses’ mediating role in receiving the legislation and making the covenant (Exod 19–24). Over time, Miriam and Aaron questioned Moses’s unique role as leader of the people, because God had also spoken through them (Num 12:2). Then the LORD made it clear that there is an essential difference between the way He reveals Himself to prophets in general (including Aaron and Miriam) and to Moses. Usually, prophets receive God’s revelation in visions and dreams, indirectly (v. 6). With Moses, the servant of the LORD, however, it is fundamentally different: God speaks to him “face to face” (v. 8). Only with Moses is His speaking clear and not in riddles;14 only he may behold “the form” (temunâ) of the LORD (cf. Ex 33:18– 23). This is how Miriam and Aaron are corrected. While Moses is the continuous speaker for most of the book of Deuteronomy, God speaks to him repeatedly in the last chapters (Deut 31–34). This is followed in the final chapter by a concluding glance back at the life of Moses, in which his unique position is also expressed. “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). In that retrospective, signs and wonders are also mentioned (vv. 11–12). God’s direct communication with Moses has been described several times, but it is difficult for us to fathom. In any case, this intimacy was exceptional, and later prophets no longer received their messages in the same direct manner.

14

See 1 Corinthians 13:12–13.

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

259

2.3. Prophets in the Old Testament

Although Abraham is also called a prophet (Gen 20:7), it is not until Samuel that the expression becomes more common. It is noteworthy that in the meantime two prophetesses are mentioned: Miriam (Exod 15:20) and Deborah (Judg 4:4). During the period in the wilderness there were seventy elders prophesying, but that was only temporary (Num 11:25). Many prophets have appeared from Samuel to the time of the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). Some of them, e.g., Isaiah and Jeremiah, served for decades. In Samuel’s days, the word of the LORD was rare and there were not many visions (1 Sam 3:1). So, there were few prophetic activities. In those circumstances, the young Samuel was called. Eli (as high priest) did not recognize this at first, and Samuel had no experience with it: “The word of the LORD had not yet been revealed to him” (v. 7). Over time, Samuel received more words from God (also in “visions”). The people of Israel noticed the prophecies emerging, and as a result, all Israel recognized his position (vv. 19–21). The divine origin of messages is also evident from the words of a servant of Saul. He spoke of “a man of God,” saying that “everything he says comes true” (1 Sam 9:6). In this regard, the text makes an explanatory remark: “Formerly, in Israel, if a man went to inquire of God, he would say, ‘Come, let us go to the seer,’ because the prophet of today used to be called a seer” (v. 9). This comment mentions a shift in terminology, and also seems to indicate a fairly common practice. During king David’s life, the word of the LORD came to “the prophet Gad, the seer of David” (2 Sam 24:11). Both designations are used here. On another occasion, the prophet Nathan responded positively to David’s intention to build a temple. But at night the prophet received a correction and special promises for the future (2 Sam 7). This is an example of a situation where God’s word goes against the desire of a prophet. 2.4. Dreams and Visions

A dream is a sequence of images and thoughts that occur during sleep. What exactly dreams are and what they are for, is still

260

MART-JAN PAUL

largely unknown to current science.15 In the Bible, dreams can occur without any meaning (Eccl 5:2; EVV 5:3), but there are also dreams in which God reveals Himself. In ancient times there was a deep awareness that gods (spirits) could reveal themselves in dreams. While in that case some dreams contain clear messages, others only contain symbols that need to be explained, usually by a professional dream interpreter. There were several books to help the interpreter in the explanation of images or actions in the dream. Sometimes individuals tried to receive a dream (e.g., by sleeping in a temple), but other dreams came uninvited.16 It is striking that references to dreams are especially present in the books of Genesis and Daniel, when the Israelites lived among nations who believed that dreams were a legitimate way of receiving a divine message. The word “vision” comes from the Latin visio (sight or view). It is a personal experience of something that is sensorily inexplicable, but that is reality for the recipient—the visionary. God (or any other spiritual source) can give messages through visions. The visions concern a visual experience, but often voices are also audible, and it is also possible that the recipient himself participates in the events shown. Visions are akin to revelation dreams, just described, and sometimes both words are used for certain experiences. So, there is not always a clear distinction between the two. One difference is that prophets could also receive visions during the day, in a waking state (cf. Balaam in Num 24:4, 16).17 The book of Habakkuk opens with the sentence: “The oracle that the prophet Habakkuk saw” (NRSV) and chapter 2 states that the Oneirology is the scientific study of dreams. A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956): 179–373. Ernst L. Ehrlich distinguishes six themes in Der Traum im Alten Testament, BZAW 73 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1953): (1) incubation (in a temple), (2) symbolic dreams, (3) divine commands in dreams, (4) dreams as a means of divine revelation, (5) dreams in comparisons, and (6) the rejection of dreams as a means of revelation. 17 James E. Miller, “Dreams and Prophetic Visions,” Bib 71 (1990): 401– 404. 15 16

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

261

prophet looked “to see what He will say to me” (Hab 2:1). Then the prophet is instructed to write down the vision (2:2). The word “vision” appears in the inscriptions of various prophetic books, as in Isaiah: “the vision ... which he saw” (Isa 1:1). The number of visions described in the Bible is large, and some are very extensive (such as the Book of Revelation). Eliphaz, one of Job’s friends, spoke of a vision he had received (Job 4:13).18 We can imagine a prophet receiving a vision in seclusion, but Ezekiel 8:1 describes the situation where the LORD’s hand comes upon Ezekiel while sitting in his house with the elders of Judah before him (cf. 20:1–2). In the vision that follows, the prophet is lifted up by the Spirit and brought to Jerusalem.

3. WRITTEN RECORD 3.1. In the Old Testament Period

God has spoken to people frequently. The messages were passed on, but also written down. These texts were given special authority and were later also considered as words of God. The first time we read in the Bible about written texts with special authority is when the people of Israel made camp at Mount Sinai. After hearing from God what the provisions were that the people were to abide by, Moses wrote them down (Exod 24:4). During the covenant ceremony, Moses took blood to sprinkle on the altar and on the people. He also read the book of the covenant. The people promised obedience in this ceremony (24:6–8). In this way, this book received official status as a covenant document. Then Moses received instructions for the construction of the tabernacle. He was also given two stone tablets, “inscribed by the finger of God” (31:18). The material and the fact that God himself wrote the text show the special status of these two documents. They contained the text of the Ten Words (so-called in 34:28 and Deut 10:4). Here the question arises as to the origin of this vision. See Mart-Jan Paul, “The Disturbing Experience of Eliphaz in Job 4: Divine or Demonic Manifestation?” in Goochem in Mokum: Wisdom in Amsterdam, ed. George J. Brooke and Pierre Van Hecke, OtSt 68 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016), 108–20. 18

262

MART-JAN PAUL

Years later, Moses said farewell to the people and gave speeches recorded in the book of Deuteronomy. At the end of the book it is mentioned that he wrote down his teaching and gave it to the priests (Deut 31:9). They were to place that writing with the ark (vv. 24–26). Moses instructed them to read the text every seven years, on the Feast of Tabernacles (vv. 10–11). The legislation for the king stipulates that he was to make a copy for himself of the scroll that is in the care of the priests (17:18). There should be no transmission errors in the tradition and therefore the original was always to be used. Twice it is stated that the content must remain unchanged. The Israelites may neither add nor detract from Moses’ teaching (4:2; 12:32; cf. Rev 22:18–19). The official repository and this provision show the great authority of the book of Deuteronomy.19 Centuries later, in the time of King Josiah, the temple in Jerusalem had fallen into disrepair and was restored. During that work, the high priest Hilkia found a scroll, the authority and authenticity of which the prophetess Hulda confirmed (2 Kgs 22 and 2 Chr 34). It is likely that the book of Deuteronomy was found, partly because of the repository and the proclaimed punishments.20 In response, there was a covenant renewal in which the text of the book was read aloud and also served as the basis for the renewed devotion (2 Kgs 23). During the reign of Josiah and in the period thereafter, Jeremiah prophesied. After the prophet had communicated his message only by word of mouth for many years, he called in Baruch the scribe at God’s command and had his prophecies recorded (Jer 36:1–4). When King Zedekiah was read the scroll, Cf. Arie Versluis, “Covenant in Deuteronomy: The Relationship between the Moab, Horeb and Patriarchal Covenants,” in Covenant, 79–100. 20 See Mart-Jan Paul, Het Archimedisch punt van de Pentateuchkritiek: Een historisch en exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning Josia (2 Kon 22-23) (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1988), 314–16. Cf. James K. Hoffmeier, “The Discovery of the Book of the Law in 2 Kings 22:8-10 in the Light of the Eighth to Seventh Centuries in the Ancient Near East,” in Write That They May Read: Studies in Literacy and Textualization in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Daniel I. Block (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020), 278–93. 19

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

263

he cut out parts and threw them into the fire (vv. 23–25). Then Jeremiah and Baruch provided a second scroll, with even more prophecies than the first one (v. 32). In earlier times, the prophet Isaiah was instructed, “Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it in a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness” (Isa 30:8). The written record is for later generations and has a lasting value. The realization of the content may take a while. The written record serves as a bridge across time. In the course of history, it was important for Israel to interact with earlier revelations. In the books of the time of the exile and afterwards, there are several indications as to the reception and use of the written word. After the exile, the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem was consecrated and under Nehemiah followed the rebuilding of the city walls. Then the people gathered in the square in front of the Water Gate and asked Ezra the scribe to bring the law of Moses. He stood on a wooden platform, with Levites to his left and right. When he opened the scroll, all the people stood up in reverence (Neh 8:1–6). Such is apparently the authority of this writing! Later that month, the people gathered for a day of fasting, confession, and prayer (Neh 9). Even then they read from the law book of the LORD, their God (v. 3). Apparently, the people viewed the code as a direct message from God. At the end of this short overview from the OT it is good to look at Daniel’s attitude. He read “from the books” the message of the prophet Jeremiah about a period of seventy years (Dan 9:1– 2). The books (scrolls) would have been a collection of prophetic books or prophecies, although their extent is unknown. In any case, Jeremiah’s prophecies belonged to that collection. He spoke in Jeremiah 25:12 and 29:10 about a period of seventy years. The way Daniel handled this message shows that he took it as God’s word. From the above it appears that certain writings were given official authority before there was a canon or closed group of writings. The account of Joshua’s covenant with the people was given official status (Josh 24:26). The ark with the Ten Commandments was placed in Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:6–9 and 2

264

MART-JAN PAUL

Chr 5:7–10), and it is likely that the scriptures mentioned were preserved there. We are less well informed about the later process of canonization. Nehemiah may have played a role in this (cf. 2 Macc 2:13–14).21 In addition to the written messages, the oral tradition remained important.22 3.2. Reliability according to Flavius Josephus

The descriptions mentioned above leave open the question of how reliable the texts are. Did the writers provide as accurate a historical account as possible, or did they allow themselves liberties in reporting? Flavius Josephus believes that this representation was accurate. He points out in his writing Against Apion (1.8–9) that the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Phoenicians were very careful to preserve their own respective histories for many centuries, enshrined in public records written by their wisest individuals.23 This attitude is in contrast to the Greeks. On many points even Thucydides is accused by some of lying, although he is reputed to have written the history of his time with the highest standards of accuracy (Ag. Ap. 1.18). Several causes might possibly be found for the errors in the Greek writings, such as the lack of official documentation and also that those who rushed into writing were concerned not so much to discover the truth, as to display their literary prowess (Ag. Ap. 1.20–25). It is evidence of true history if everyone both says and writes the same things about the same events (Ag. Ap. 1.26). Among the nations in touch with the Greeks, it was the Phoenicians in particular who used writing both for managing daily life and for transmitting the Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 150–52. Cf. Arie van der Kooij, “Preservation and Promulgation: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Nóra Dávid et al., FRLANT 239 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 29–40, esp. 32. 22 Mart-Jan Paul, “Oral Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism,” in Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and Eric Peels, Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics, Studies in Reformed Theology 32 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018), 123–36. 23 Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, trans. John M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006). 21

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

265

memory of public events (Ag. Ap. 1.28). The Jewish ancestors took the same, not to say still greater, care over the records than the nations mentioned, assigning this task to the chief priests and prophets. These records are preserved “with great precision” (Ag. Ap. 1.29). The greatest proof of this precision of the Jewish people is that the records contain the names of the high priests and their succession from father to son for the last two thousand years (Ag. Ap. 1.36). Josephus writes also that no Jew has ventured either to add, or to take away, or to alter anything of the Scriptures. It is innate in every Judean to regard them as decrees of God (Ag. Ap. 1.42–43; cf. 2.219). Josephus used the above arguments to demonstrate the antiquity of the Jewish scriptures, and meanwhile he mentions criteria for historicity. He admires the Greeks for their eloquence, but finds their earlier and recent historiography unreliable (Ag. Ap. 1.44–46). We cannot prove the details of the apologetic reasoning of Josephus, but Paul’s way of quoting the Scriptures shows similarity in the recognition of trustworthiness and authority (while also distinguishing myths; cf. 1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; Titus 1:14). Anyone who reads Jewish Antiquities, however, notices that Josephus allows himself some liberties in his own account of the events that are in the Bible. For example, in direct speech he has Balaam speak about the possibility for the Midianites to seduce the Israelites. In the book of Numbers this is only briefly mentioned (Num 31:16). Josephus also gives speeches by the Midianite girls (Ant. 4.126–39). He describes the events of Numbers 25 in a fairly free way. However, he does not make any substantive changes. 3.3. Modern Scientific Explanations

While the words of the OT were authoritative for Paul and his readers, in our time many other approaches are seen. In OT and NT times, people claimed to have heard the voice of God in all sorts of ways, and sometimes received visionary messages. According to tradition, this also happened in later times. Although these testimonies were often accepted uncritically in the

266

MART-JAN PAUL

past, it has become common in the last few centuries to explain such experiences as natural phenomena as much as possible. In the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, there have been many scholars who believe that God’s speech cannot be experienced literally and concretely, because this would be a breach of the laws of nature. In the 1970s, Casper Labuschagne drew attention to the subject of “God’s speaking.” He noted with astonishment how little this subject has been seriously considered in modern theology. He himself explicitly chooses the subjective approach. For him, “God’s speaking” is one of the ways in which we speak about and on behalf of God. Thus, he sees the speaking of God as an anthropomorphism, a human-shaped approach. “God spoke, so to speak.”24 Phillip Wiebe has spent years researching religious experiences and visions. He mentions all kinds of natural explanations, such as the theory of the disembodied soul, the persona theory, the archetype theory of Carl Jung, the theory of mental events, Julian Jaynes’s theory of stress, and other psychoanalytic explanations, such as those of Sigmund Freud. He also mentions the near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences of the soul. There are also all kinds of neurophysiological explanations. Yet he leaves room for authentic experiences of God.25 In recent decades, many prophetic texts have been found in the ancient Near East. A comparison of the prophets of YHWH in Israel with prophets in other countries and religions yields several similarities, which have received considerable emphasis in scholarly circles. Robert Gordon speaks in this context of the danger of “the disappearance of the Israelite prophet.”26 In an important survey work, Martti Nissinen considers prophecy within the category of non-inductive forms of divination (i.e., not Casper J. Labuschagne, Wat zegt de Bijbel in GODS naam? Nieuwe bijbeluitleg en modern godsgeloof (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1977). 25 Phillip H. Wiebe, Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 26 Robert P. Gordon, “Where Have All the Prophets Gone? The ‘Disappearing’ Israelite Prophet Against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy,” BBR 5 (1995): 67–87. 24

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

267

deducible from observations) found in the ancient Near East. He views prophecy in Israel as a form of intuitive divination.27 Several other scholars, however, object to that characterization and highlight the unique aspects of prophecy in Israel.28 Amidst these discussions it is important to recognize the special regard Paul and his readers had for the lógia of God.

4. CONCLUSION

In the above, some aspects of God’s speaking to people emerged.29 For the apostle Paul, this was a reality, and the words of God were found for him in Scripture, which we call the “Old Testament.”30 These messages have great authority. According to Paul, the Jewish people have the great privilege of having access to those words. In so doing, he also underlines for the readers of the letter to the Romans how important it is to listen to these words and to take their message to heart.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beckwith, Roger. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Ehrlich, Ernst L. Der Traum im Alten Testament. BZAW 73. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1953. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans, AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Martti Nissinen, Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), viii, and 14–19. He uses the term “divination” as an umbrella term. 28 John N. Oswalt, “Is There Anything Unique in the Israelite Prophets?” BibSac 172 (2015): 67–84. 29 For a more elaborate treatment, see Mart-Jan Paul and Jan Hoek, Een stem uit de hemel: Gods spreken in de Bijbel en in onze tijd (Apeldoorn: Labarum, 2021). 30 For the background and first use of the term “Old Testament,” see Mart-Jan Paul, “Das Neue Testament als Fortsetzung und Vollendung des Alten Testaments,” in Theologie des Alten Testaments: Die bleibende Botschaft der hebräischen Bibel, ed. Hendrik J. Koorevaar and Mart-Jan Paul (Giessen: Brunnen, 2016), 324–47, esp. 331–34. 27

268

MART-JAN PAUL

Gordon, Robert P. “Where Have All the Prophets Gone? The ‘Disappearing’ Israelite Prophet Against the Background of Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy.” BBR 5 (1995): 67–87. Hoffmeier, James K. “The Discovery of the Book of the Law in 2 Kings 22:8-10 in the Light of the Eighth to Seventh Centuries in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 278–93 in Write That They May Read: Studies in Literacy and Textualization in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Scriptures. Edited by Daniel I. Block. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2020. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Josephus, Flavius. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Edited by Steve Mason. 10 vols. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999-. Labuschagne, Casper J. Wat zegt de Bijbel in GODS naam? Nieuwe bijbeluitleg en modern godsgeloof. ’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1977. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Miller, James E. “Dreams and Prophetic Visions.” Bib 71 (1990): 401–404. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Nissinen, Martti. Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East: With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956): 179–373. Oswalt, John N. “Is There Anything Unique in the Israelite Prophets?” BibSac 172 (2015): 67–84. Paul, Mart-Jan. “Das Neue Testament als Fortsetzung und Vollendung des Alten Testaments.” Pages 324–47 in Theologie des Alten Testaments: Die bleibende Botschaft der hebräischen Bibel. Edited by Hendrik J. Koorevaar and MartJan Paul. Giessen: Brunnen, 2016. ———. “The Disturbing Experience of Eliphaz in Job 4: Divine or Demonic Manifestation?” Pages 108–120 in Goochem in Mokum: Wisdom in Amsterdam. Edited by George J. Brooke and Pierre Van Hecke. OtSt 68. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016.

12. THE WORDS OF GOD

269

———. “Oral Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism.” Pages 123–36 in Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics. Edited by Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and Eric Peels. Studies in Reformed Theology 32. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018. ———. “The New Covenant in the Context of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 124–45 in Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology: Biblical, Historical and Systematic-Theological Perspectives. Edited by Hans Burger, Gert Kwakkel, and Michael Mulder. Studies in Reformed Theology 42. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022. ———. Het Archimedisch punt van de Pentateuchkritiek: Een historisch en exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning Josia (2 Kon 2223). ’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1988. Paul, Mart-Jan, and Jan Hoek. Een stem uit de hemel: Gods spreken in de Bijbel en in onze tijd. Apeldoorn: Labarum, 2021. Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020. Van Bruggen, Jakob. Romeinen: Christenen tussen stad en synagoge. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, derde serie. Kampen: Kok, 2006. Van der Kooij, Arie. “Preservation and Promulgation: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 29–40 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer, and Shani Tzoref. FRLANT 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Versluis, Arie. “Covenant in Deuteronomy: The Relationship between the Moab, Horeb and Patriarchal Covenants.” Pages 79–100 in Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology: Biblical, Historical and Systematic-Theological Perspectives. Edited by Hans Burger, Gert Kwakkel, and Michael Mulder. Studies in Reformed Theology 42. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022. Wiebe, Phillip H. Visions of Jesus: Direct Encounters from the New Testament to Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

270

MART-JAN PAUL

Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Nottingham: Apollos; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007. Zuiddam, Benno. “Oracles of God: A Comparative Study of Apostolic Christianity and its Greco-Roman World.” PhD diss., North-West University, Potchefstroom, 2008. Zuiddam, Benno, Fika J. van Rensburg, and P. Jorrie Jordaan. “Λόγιον in Biblical Literature and its Implications for Christian Scholarship.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 379–94.

CHAPTER 13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS: ITS RELEVANCE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SYNOPTIC PARALLELS BETWEEN 1 AND 2 THESSALONIANS AND BETWEEN COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS1 ARMIN D. BAUM FREIE THEOLOGISCHE HOCHSCHULE GIESSEN 1. METHODOLOGICAL PROLEGOMENA

In 2006, the systematic theologian Friedrich Beisser (1934–2019) published an essay on the authenticity of the Letter to the Ephesians. At the beginning of his reflections, he made the following observation: Among our interpreters of the New Testament there are basic dogmas which no one who wants to be taken seriously as a This essay is dedicated to my colleague Martin Webber, with whom I have had the privilege of working together in the PhD program of the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven since 2006. With his high academic standards and scholarly integrity, he has been a constant example for me. 1

271

272

ARMIN D. BAUM critical scholar may call into question. One of them is the conviction that the Letter to the Ephesians could not have been written by Paul at any rate, that it rather originates from a much later time.2

Beisser’s assessment is probably an exaggeration, for who would dispute that internationally respected biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger (1914–2007)3 and Harold Hoehner (1935– 2009)4 or, more recently, Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943)5 and Stanley Porter (b. 1956)6 are serious exegetes and historians? Still, Beisser’s point cannot be completely dismissed out of hand, especially when it comes to German theology. It is hard to imagine a doctoral or post-doctoral student at a German-speaking theological faculty daring to treat the Letter to the Ephesians as an authentic letter using the arguments of Hoehner or Johnson. In this article I am not concerned with the question of whether the Letter to the Ephesians is authentic or not. Nor do I want to reflect on presumed dogmas of NT scholarship. Rather I am interested in the critical method by which one can distinguish between authentic and inauthentic texts of antiquity and of the NT. 1.1 The Need for Consistent Criteria in Historical Criticism

Whoever investigates the literary authenticity of the NT Pauline letters should respect a basic methodological rule: all 13 letters must be analyzed according to the same criteria. In other words: the same standards must be applied to all 13 letters. Two biblical scholars have recently reminded us of this critical principle.

Friedrich Beisser, “Wann und von wem könnte der Epheserbrief verfasst sein?,” KD 52 (2006): 151–64, 151. My translation. 3 Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 270–72. 4 Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians (Grand Rapid: Baker, 2002), 2–61. 5 Luke Timothy Johnson, Constructing Paul, vol. 1 of The Canonical Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 81–85, 249–58. 6 Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 384–404. 2

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

273

In an illuminating essay on critical method, the German NT scholar Klaus Haacker expressed his conviction that “literary criticism needs to distance itself from criteria that are informed less by the sources than by the history of reception.”7 According to Haacker, the historical critique of the NT letters is still too strongly influenced by Martin Luther’s preference for the Letters to the Galatians and to the Romans as well as by F. C. Baur’s preference for an anti-Jewish Paul, who could only have written the four so-called main letters (Hauptbriefe). The historical predilection for certain letters in the 16th and 19th century should no longer mislead scholars into analyzing them less strictly than the other nine Pauline letters or into applying standards to the other Paulines that one does not apply to the four (or six or seven) preferred letters. The American NT scholar Harold Hoehner has made the same point. While working on his great commentary on Ephesians, he realized that this letter is not always measured with the same yardstick as Galatians, which is about the same length: “It is a strange phenomenon that virtually no one ever questions the authorship of Galatians.”8 To make his methodological discomfort as clear as possible, Hoehner examined the Letter to the Galatians on the basis of the same criteria which are regularly applied to the Letter to the Ephesians. This led him to the satirical conclusion that Paul could not possibly have written the Letter to the Galatians. But Hoehner was quite serious in his plea to apply the same critical standards of authenticity to all 13 Pauline letters. 1.2 The Relevance of Consistent Criteria for the Analysis of the Pauline Parallels

The rule that all 13 Pauline letters must be analyzed according to the same criteria is also relevant for the critical examination of the synoptic parallels between the Pauline letters. Not infrequent-

Klaus Haacker, “Rezeptionsgeschichte und Literarkritik: Anfragen an die communis opinio zum Corpus Paulinum,” TZ 65 (2009): 209–28, 217. 8 Harold W. Hoehner, “Did Paul Write Galatians?” in History and Exegesis, ed. S.-W. Son (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 150–69, 150. 7

274

ARMIN D. BAUM

ly, scholarly research has focused exclusively on the parallels between the disputed Paulines, leaving out of consideration the parallels between the undisputed Pauline letters. While it is generally known that Galatians and Romans are closely related and have many synoptic parallels, in important studies on the parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians and between Colossians and Ephesians they have hardly or not at all been considered. Because of this methodological shortcoming, conclusions have been drawn from the parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians or between Colossians and Ephesians that would not have been possible if the researchers had looked at the parallels between all Pauline letters. This can be illustrated by some of the most seminal research contributions on synoptic parallels in the Pauline corpus.

2. HISTORY OF RESEARCH 2.1 Previous Historical Criticism of the Parallels between the Deutero-Paulines

The most influential study to date on the synoptic parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians was written in 1903 by William Wrede. He considered the parallels between the two letters as the main argument which after a period of vacillation led him to the conviction that 2 Thessalonians could not be authentic.9 His crosscheck with the parallels between Paul’s letters to the Galatians and to the Romans was limited to a few general sentences (see below). Obviously, Wrede did not consider it necessary to conduct a more thorough comparison with the correspondences between Galatians and Romans. To this day the most thorough analysis of the synoptic parallels between Colossians and Ephesians is that of Leslie Mitton, published in 1951. In his view, these two letters could not have been written by the same author because “the similarities

William Wrede, The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, trans. Robert Rhea (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 2; confirmed by Wolfgang Trilling, Untersuchungen zum 2. Thessalonicherbrief, ETS 27 (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1972), 157. 9

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

275

are far too close and numerous.”10 Paul could not have remembered so precisely the wording of an earlier letter, especially if he had written it several months or even years before.11 Like Wrede, Mitton, did not check his thesis against the synoptic parallels between Galatians and Romans. The same methodological problem is evident in a different way in Rainer Reuter’s Synopsis of the NT Letters. He launched a large-scale project whose aim was to systematically collect and compile for the first time the synoptic parallels within NT epistolary literature.12 In the volumes published so far, however, he presented only the parallels between the undisputed and the disputed Pauline letters; in volume one between 1 and 2 Thessalonians and between Colossians and Ephesians, and in volume two between the undisputed letters and the Pastorals.13 A presentation of the synoptic parallels between the undisputed Pauline letters was never envisioned.14 Because Reuter did not include the parallels between Galatians and Romans in his synopsis, this useful tool gives an incomplete picture. 2.2 Previous Historical Criticism of the Parallels between the Proto-Paulines

The synoptic parallels between the undisputed Pauline letters have rarely been presented and studied as a whole. Reuter’s historical overview of synoptic work on the NT letters since Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791) suggests that the parallels

C. Leslie Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951), 57. 11 Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 113. 12 Rainer Reuter, Colossians, Ephesians, II. Thessalonians, vol. 1 of Synopsis of the New Testament Letters, Studies in the Religion and History of Early Christianity 5 (Frankfurt: Lang, 1997), 9. 13 Reuter, Colossians, Ephesians, II. Thessalonians, 17–19. Not yet published are volume 3 with the parallels to Hebrews, James and 1 Peter; volume 4 with the parallels to Jude and 2 Peter; and volume 5 with the parallels to the Johannine epistles. 14 Rainer Reuter, Textvergleichende und synoptische Arbeiten an den Briefen des Neuen Testaments: Geschichte – Methodik – Praxis, Studies in Religion and History of Early Christianity 13 (Frankfurt: Lang, 2003), 264–66. 10

276

ARMIN D. BAUM

between Galatians and Romans as well as the other protoPaulines have played no significant role in synoptic research.15 The situation is essentially the same today. Apart from the scattered and rather brief remarks in scholarly commentaries on Galatians and Romans,16 hardly any scholarly publications on the subject can be found. A notable exception is an article of 1857 by the young Joseph Lightfoot, in which he prepared a Greek synopsis of the parallels between Galatians and Romans and compared their correspondences with the relationship between the other parallel letters in the Corpus Paulinum.17 In his commentary on Galatians, which was published a few years later, he presented an English synopsis of Galatians and Romans and also compared it to parallels between the other Pauline letters.18 More than 100 years after Lightfoot, Udo Borse published a detailed study on the similarities between the Greek wording of Galatians and Romans. He picked up observations from Lightfoot’s commentary on Galatians and described the contacts between Galatians and Romans in their Greek text in even more detail.19 In contrast to Lightfoot, however, Borse did not include the parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians or between Colossians and Ephesians in his considerations.20 In what follows, I will draw on Lightfoot’s and Borse’s analysis of the parallels between Galatians and Romans. My present investigation complements an already published article

Reuter, Textvergleichende, 53–141. Cf., e.g., the Pauline parallels to Romans collected by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 43 (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 71–73. 17 J. B. Lightfoot, “On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians,” The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 3 (1857): 289–327, 310–17. 18 J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), 50–55. 19 Udo Borse, Der Standort des Galaterbriefes, BBB 41 (Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1972), 120–43. 20 Reuter’s extensive research review of synoptic work on the NT epistles (Textvergleichende und synoptische Arbeiten, 53–141) does not include the contributions by Lightfoot and Borse. 15 16

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

277

on parallel letters and speeches in ancient literature21 and a forthcoming article on parallel speeches by Martin Luther King.22 These three articles approach the Pauline parallel letters from different angles but come to a common conclusion.

3. A GREEK SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

In the exegetical literature, the fact that the Letter to the Galatians and the Letter to the Romans have several overlaps has often been noted and sometimes presented in tabular form.23 The following table is my own summary of the evidence: Galatians Romans 1:1–5 1:1–7+ 1:6–10 1:11–12 1:13–14 1:15–17 1:1–5 1:18–20 1:21–24 2:1–10 2:11–14 2:15–16 3:20–31 2:17–18 2:19–21 div. 3:1–5 3:6–9 4:11–17+

Prescript Letter Opening Thesis Pre-Christian Life Election and Calling Visit in Jerusalem Stay in Syria and Cilicia Visit in Jerusalem Conflict in Antioch Faith or Works of the Law Christ as Servant of Sin? Dying and Living with Christ Receiving the Spirit Justification of Abraham

Armin D. Baum, “The Parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians Against the Background of Ancient Parallel Letters and Speeches,” in Who Created Christianity? Fresh Approaches to the Relationship between Paul and Jesus, ed. Craig A. Evans and Aaron White (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2020), 194–216. 22 Armin D. Baum, “Where Did the Parallels between Colossians and Ephesians Come from?” in Paul, Rhetoric and Language, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 12 (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 23 See, for example, Fitzmyer, Romans, 71–73; Gerd Theissen, Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments als literaturgeschichtliches Problem (Heidelberg: Winter, 2007), 126–27; Michael Theobald, Der Römerbrief, EdF 294 (Darmstadt: WBG, 2000), 110–12. 21

278

ARMIN D. BAUM

3:10–14 3:15–20 3:21–29 4:1–3 4:4–7 4:8–11 4:12–20 4:21–31 5:1–4 5:5–12 5:13–15 5:16–18 5:19–23 5:24–26 6:1–5 6:6–10 6:11–17 6:18

div. 4:13–15 div. 8:15–17 [14:5] 9:6–9 div. 13:8–9 div. [6:6] [15:1a] [13:8b] [8:6, 13] [2:25] 16:20

Fulfilling the Law or Believing Law of Moses or Promise of Abr. Scriptural Proof and Illustrations Minor Heirs Redemption and Sonship New and Old Knowledge of God Paul and the Galatians Sarah und Hagar Freedom from the Law Danger of Circumcision Freedom and Law of Love Freedom through the Spirit Catalogues of Vices and Virtues Crucifixion of the Flesh Dealing with Sinners Dealing with Money Autographic Letter Ending Final Blessing

Table 1: Passages of Galatians with Parallels in Romans This table already leads to a first relevant observation. As Joseph Lightfoot stated in his commentary on Galatians: Setting aside the personal matter and the practical lessons, and excepting here and there a digressive illustration, almost every thought and argument in the Epistle to the Galatians may be matched from the other epistle.24

Even if this summary should be somewhat overstated, it cannot be denied that Galatians and Romans share much common material. However, as I have shown in the review of research above, a simple and complete synoptic presentation of the Greek text of Galatians and Romans is not available. Therefore, building on the previous work of Lightfoot and Borse, I will present below a Greek 24

Lightfoot, Galatians, 50–51.

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

279

synopsis of all the parallel passages. In this synopsis I follow the majority opinion that Paul wrote Galatians earlier than Romans. In the left column I have printed the Greek text of the passages of Galatians, which have one or more parallels in Romans. The right column contains the parallel Greek passages of Romans. (The presentation would look slightly different if one were starting from Romans.) I have marked in bold the words that are completely or in part identical. 3.1 Prescript (Gal 1:1–5 // Rom 1:1–7) [Gal 1:1] Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ [Rom 1:1–6] Παῦλος δοῦλος ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ ἀφωρισµένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ … νεκρῶν [1:2a] καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐµοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοὶ, [1:2b] ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς [1:7a] πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώµῃ Γαλατίας, ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, [1:3] χάρις ὑµῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ [1:7b] χάρις ὑµῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν καὶ κυρίου θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. [1:4] τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡµᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡµῶν, [1:5] ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας [11:36b] αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀµήν (cf. 16:27). τῶν αἰώνων, ἀµήν. 3.2 Election and Calling (Gal [Gal 1:15–17] Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ ἀφορίσ ας µε ἐκ κοιλίας µητρός µου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἀποκαλύψαι τὸ ν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐµοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωµαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέµην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵµατι …

1:15–17 // Rom 1:1–5) [Rom 1:1–5] Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισµένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ … περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ …, δι’ οὗ ἐλάβοµεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόµατος αὐτοῦ …

280

ARMIN D. BAUM

3.3 Faith or Works of the Law (Gal 2:15–16 // Rom 3:20–31) [Gal 2:15] Ἡµεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁµαρτωλοί· [2:16a] εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ [Rom 3:28] λογιζόµεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπο ς ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς νόµου ἔργων νόµου. [2:16b] ἐὰν µὴ διὰ πίστεως [3:22a] δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [2:16c] καὶ ἡµεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαµεν, [2:16d] ἵνα δικαιωθῶµεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ [2:16e] καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόµου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ (Ps 143:2)

[3,22b] εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (cf. 5:1) … [3:26b] … εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ. [3:20a] διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (Ps 143:2) …

3.4 Dying and Living with Christ (Gal 2:19–21 parr.) [Gal 2:19a] ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόµου [Rom 7:4a] … καὶ ὑµεῖς νόµῳ ἀπέθανον, ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόµῳ … (cf. 7:6a) [2:19b] ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. [6:11] … λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς [εἶναι] … ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ … [2:20a] Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωµαι· [6:6a] … ὅτι ὁ παλαιὸς ἡµῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη … (cf. 6:8a: … σὺν Χριστῷ …) [2:20b] ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, [14:7a] οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἡµῶν ἑαυτῷ ζῇ … [2:20c] ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐµοὶ Χριστός· [2:20d] ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, [14:8a] ἐάν τε γὰρ ζῶ µεν, [2:20e] ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ [14:8b] τῷ κυρίῳ ζῶ µεν, … τοῦ θεοῦ [2:20e] τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός µε [8:37b] … τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος ἡµᾶς [2:20f] καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν [8:32a] ὅς … ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν πάντων ὑπὲρ ἐµοῦ … παρέδωκεν αὐτόν … 3.5 Justification of Abraham [Gal 3:6] Καθὼς Ἀβραὰµ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (Gen 15:6)·

(Gal 3:6–9 // Rom 4:11–17) [Rom 4:3b] … ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰµ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (Gen 15:6) (cf. 4:9).

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS [3:7] γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάµ. [3:8a] προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεός, [3:8b] προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραὰµ ὅτι ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (Gen 12:3)· [3:9] ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάµ.

281

[4:11b] … εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας … (cf. 4:16; 9:7) [9:30b] ὅτι ἔθνη … κατέλαβεν δικαιοσύνην, δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως (cf. 3:30) [4:17a] καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε (Gen 17:5) … [4:12b] … τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν τοῖς ἴχνεσιν τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡµῶν Ἀβραάµ.

3.6 Fulfilling the Law or Believing (Gal 3:10–14 parr.) [Gal 3:10a] Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων [Rom 4:15a] ὁ γὰρ νόµος ὀργὴν νόµου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν· κατεργάζεται … [3:10b] γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐµµένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραµµένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόµου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά (Deut 27:26). [3:11a] ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόµῳ οὐδεὶς [3:20a] διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ … [3:11b] ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως [1:17b] … ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (Hab 2:4)· ζήσεται (Hab 2:4). [3:12] ὁ δὲ νόµος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ [10:5] Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν πίστεως, ἀλλ’ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόµου ὅτι ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς (Lev 18:5). ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς (Lev 18:5). [3:13a] Χριστὸς ἡµᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν [8:2b] … ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόµου τῆς ἁµαρτίας καὶ τοῦ ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόµου θανάτου [3:13b] γενόµενος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν κατάρα, [3:13c] ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεµάµενος ἐπὶ ξύλου (Deut 21:23), [3:14a] ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία [4:16b] … εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν τοῦ Ἀβραὰµ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν παντὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, σπέρµατι … [3:14b] ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ [8:15b] … ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα πνεύµατος λάβωµεν διὰ τῆς υἱοθεσίας … πίστεως.

282

ARMIN D. BAUM

3.7 Law of Moses or Promise Rom 4:13–15) [Gal 3:15a] Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· [3:15b] ὅµως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωµένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. [3:16a] τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰµ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρµατι αὐτοῦ. [3:16b] οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρµασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός· καὶ τῷ σπέρµατί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός. [3:17] τοῦτο δὲ λέγω· διαθήκην προκεκυρωµένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ µετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόµος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. [3:18a] εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόµου ἡ κληρονοµία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· [3:18b] τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰµ δι’ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός. [3:19a] Τί οὖν ὁ νόµος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη …

of Abraham (Gal 3:15–20 // [Rom 3:5b] … κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω (cf. 6:19).

[4:13a] Οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόµου ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰµ ἢ τῷ σπέρµατι αὐτοῦ …

[4:14] εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ νόµου κληρονόµοι, κεκένωται ἡ πίστις καὶ κατήργηται ἡ ἐπαγγελία· [4:15b] … οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόµος οὐδὲ παράβασις (cf. 5:20).

3.8 Scriptural Proof and Illustrations (Gal 3:21–29 parr.) [Gal 3:21a] ὁ οὖν νόµος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν [τοῦ θεοῦ]; [3:21b] µὴ γένοιτο. [Rom 3:4a] µὴ γένοιτο … [3:21c] εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόµος ὁ [7:10b] … εὑρέθη µοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ δυνάµενος ζῳ οποιῆσαι, εἰς ζω ήν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον· [3:21d] ὄντως ἐκ νόµου ἂν ἦν ἡ [3:20a] διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιοσύνη· δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ … [3:22a] ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ [11:32] συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν … (cf. γραφὴ τ ὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁµαρτίαν, 3:9–10; 7:14) [3:22b] ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ [4:13] … ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς Ἀβραὰµ ἢ τῷ σπέρµατι αὐτοῦ … πιστεύουσιν. διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως. [3:23a] Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν [3:23b] ὑπὸ νόµον ἐφρουρούµεθα

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS [3:23c] συγκλειόµενοι εἰς τὴν µέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, [3:24a] ὥστε ὁ νόµος παιδαγωγὸς ἡµῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, [3:24b] ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶµεν· [3:25] ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσµεν. [3:26a] Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε [3:26b] διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· [3:27a] ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, [3:27b] Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. [3:28a] οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖο ς οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, [3:28b] οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, [3:28c] οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· [3:28d] πάντες γὰρ ὑµεῖς εἷς ἐσ τε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. [3:29a] εἰ δὲ ὑµεῖς Χριστοῦ, [3:29b] ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰµ σπέρµα ἐστέ, κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόµοι. 3.9 Redemption and Sonship [Gal 4:4a] ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωµα τοῦ χρόνου, [4:4b] ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόµενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόµενον ὑπὸ νόµον, [4:5a] ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόµον ἐξαγοράσῃ (cf. 3:13), [4:5b] ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωµεν. [4:6a] Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, [4:6b] ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡµῶν

283

[3:21–22a] … πεφανέρωται … δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … [10:4a] τέλος γὰρ νόµου Χριστὸ ς [10:4b] εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι. [6:15] … οὐκ ἐσµὲν ὑπὸ νόµον … (cf. 6:14) [8:14b] … οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν (cf. 9:26). [3:22b] … διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … [6:3b] … ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθηµεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν … [13:14a] ἀλλ’ ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν … [10:12a] οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίο υ τε καὶ Ἕλληνος …

[12:5a] οὕτως οἱ πολλοὶ ἓν σῶµά ἐσ µεν ἐν Χριστῷ … [9:8b] … τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίζεται εἰς σπέρµα. (Gal 4:4–7 // Rom 8:15–17) [Rom 8:3b] … ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέµψας ἐν ὁµοιώµατι σαρκὸς ἁµαρτίας … [8:15a] οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα δουλείας … [8:15b] ἀλλ’ ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα υἱοθεσίας [8:14b] οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσ ιν. [8:16a] αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦµα συµµαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύµατι ἡµῶν

284

ARMIN D. BAUM

[4:6c] κρᾶζον· αββα ὁ πατήρ. [4:7a] ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλ’ υἱός· [4:7b] εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόµος διὰ θεοῦ.

[8:15c] ἐν ᾧ κράζοµεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ. [8:16b] ὅτι ἐσµὲν τέκνα θεοῦ. [8:17b] εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόµοι …θεοῦ ...

3.10 Keeping Holy Days (Gal 4:10 // Rom 14:5) [Gal 4:10a] ἡµέρας παρα- [Rom 14:5a] Ὃς µὲν [γὰρ] τηρεῖσθε … κρίνει ἡµέραν παρ’ ἡµέραν … 3.11 Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:21–31 // Rom 9:6–9) [Gal 4:21–31] Tell me, you [Rom 9:6–9] It is not as who desire to be subject to the though the word of God had law, will you not listen to the failed. For not all Israelites law? For it is written that truly belong to Israel, and not Abraham had two sons, one all of Abraham's children are by a slave woman and the his true descendants; but ‚It is other by a free woman. One, through Isaac (Ἰσαὰκ) that the child of the slave, was descendants shall be named born according to the flesh for you’ (Gen 21:12). This (κατὰ σάρκα); the other, the means that it is not the child of the free woman, was children of the flesh (τὰ τέκνα born through the promise (δι’ τῆς σαρκὸς) who are the ἐπαγγελίας). Now this is an children of God, but the allegory: these women are children of the promise (τὰ two covenants. One woman, τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) are in fact, is Hagar, from Mount counted as descendants. For Sinai, bearing children for this is what the promise slavery. Now Hagar is Mount (ἐπαγγελίας) said, ‘About this Sinai in Arabia and cor- time I will return and Sarah responds to the present shall have a son (υἱός)’ (Gen Jerusalem, for she is in slavery 18:10). (NRSV) with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, ‘Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children, burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs; for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous than the children of

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

285

the one who is married’ (Isa 54:1). Now you, my friends, are children of the promise (ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα), like Isaac (Ἰσαὰκ). But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the scripture say? ‘Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child (τοῦ υἱοῦ) of the free woman’ (Gen 21:10). So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. (NRSV) 3.12 Freedom from the Law (Gal 5:1–4 parr.) [Gal 5:1a] Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡµᾶς [Rom 8:2a] ὁ γὰρ νόµος τοῦ Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· πνεύµατος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε … (cf. 6:18). [5:1b] στήκετε οὖν καὶ µὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε. [5:2a] Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω [11:13a] Ὑµῖν δὲ λέγω … ὑµῖν [5:2b] ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέµνησθε, Χριστὸς ὑµᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. [5:3] µαρτύροµαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ [2:25a] Περιτοµὴ µὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεµνοµένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέ- ἐὰν νόµον πράσσῃς … της ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόµον ποιῆσαι. [5:4a] κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, [5:4b] οἵτινες ἐν νόµῳ δικαι- [9:31a] Ἰσραὴλ δὲ διώκων νόµον ο ῦσθε, δικαιοσύνης … [5:4c] τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. [11:6b] … ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις.

286

ARMIN D. BAUM

3.13 Freedom and the Law of Love (Gal 5:13–15 // Rom 13:8–9) [Gal 5:13a] Ὑµεῖς γὰρ ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, ἀδελφοί· [5:13b] µόνον µὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορµὴν τῇ σαρκί, [5:13c] ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης [Rom 13:8a] Μηδενὶ µηδὲν δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις. ὀφείλετε εἰ µὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν· [5:14a] ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόµος ἐν ἑνὶ [13:8b] ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, νόµον πεπλήρωκεν. [13:9a] τὸ γὰρ οὐ µοιχεύσεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐκ ἐπιθυµήσεις (Ex 20:13–17), καὶ εἴ τις ἑτέρα ἐντολή, [13:9b] ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται [5:14b] ἐν τῷ· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν [13:9c] [ἐν τῷ]· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν (Lev πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν (Lev 19:18). 19:18). 3.14 Freedom through the Spirit (Gal 5:16–18 parr.) [Gal 5:16] Λέγω δέ, πνεύµατι [Rom 8:4b] … τοῖς µὴ κατὰ περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυµίαν σαρκὸς σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦµα (cf. 6:12; 7:14). οὐ µὴ τελέσητε (cf. 5:25b). [5:17a] ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυµεῖ [7:23b] βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόµον ἐν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύµατος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦµα τοῖς µέλεσίν µου ἀντιστρατευκατὰ τῆς σαρκός, όµενον τῷ νόµῳ τοῦ νοός µου [5:17b] ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, [5:17c] ἵνα µὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε [7:15b] … οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω τοῦτο τ αῦτα ποιῆτε. πράσσω … (cf. 7:19) [5:18a] εἰ δὲ πνεύµατι ἄγεσθε, [8:14a] ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύµατι θεοῦ ἄγονται … [5:18b] οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόµον. [6:14–15] … οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόµον … (cf. 6:15; 7:6; 8:2) 3.15 Crucifixion of the Flesh [Gal 5:24] οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήµασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυµίαις.

(Gal 5:24 // Rom 6:6) [Rom 6:6a] τοῦτο γινώσκοντες ὅτι ὁ παλαιὸς ἡµῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶµα τῆς ἁµαρτίας …

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

287

3.16 Carrying One Another’s Burdens (Gal 6:2 parr.) [Gal 6:2a] Ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη [Rom 15:1a] Ὀφείλοµεν δὲ βαστάζετε ἡµεῖς οἱ δυνατοὶ τὰ ἀσθενήµατα τῶν ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν … [6:2b] καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε [13:8b] … ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν τὸν νόµον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἕτερον νόµον πεπλήρωκεν. 3.17 Flesh or Spirit [Gal 6:8a] ὅτι ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν, [6:8b] ὁ δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

(Gal 6:8 // Rom 8:6 / 8:13) [Rom 8:6a] τὸ γὰρ [Rom 8:13a] εἰ γὰρ φρόνηµα τῆς σαρκὸς κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε, θάνατος, µέλλετε ἀποθνῄσκειν· [8:6b] τὸ δὲ φρόνηµα τοῦ πνεύµατος ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη·

[8:13b] εἰ δὲ πνεύµατι τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώµατος θανατοῦτε, ζήσεσθε.

3.18 Circumcision and Keeping the Law (Gal 6:13 // Rom 2:25) [Gal 6:13a] οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ περι- [Rom 2:25a] Περιτοµὴ µὲν γὰρ τεµνόµενοι αὐτοὶ νόµον φυλάσσου- ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόµον πράσσῃς … σιν … 3.19 Final Blessing (Gal 6:18 // Rom 16:20) [Gal 6:18] Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου [Rom 16:20b] … Ἡ χάρις τοῦ ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ µετὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ µεθ’ ὑµῶν. πνεύµατος ὑµῶν, ἀδελφοί· ἀµήν.

4. THE PHENOMENON OF SELF-REPETITION

For more than 100 years, scholars have put forth as one argument against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians that Paul would not have repeated himself in this way. 4.1 Repetitions in 1 and 2 Thessalonians

According to William Wrede, it is quite plausible that Paul may have “relied on the structure and thoughts of a letter which he had just directed to another addressee.” At the same time, it is difficult for the reader to imagine a reclusive Paul who has just read his earlier letter and then allows himself to

288

ARMIN D. BAUM become dependent upon it for the same community, who is so wanting for words, that in more than half of the letter he can hardly fathom how to strike up a new tone, and who again and again uses the same words and expressions at the exact same place in the text.

In that case, “an entire half of the letter must be attributed to Paul’s own plagiarism” (i.e., self-plagiarism).25 4.2 Repetitions in Colossians and Ephesians

Heinrich Julius Holtzmann argued that Paul could not have written both Colossians and Ephesians because “it is definitely contrary to his otherwise sufficiently documented wealth [of ideas and formulations] that he should have repeated himself in this way.”26 Holtzmann found it more acceptable to assume that the repetitions were the work of a post-Pauline author. Likewise, Pierrre Benoit found it difficult to attribute the conscious imitation of Colossians in Ephesians to the apostle Paul.27 Among the more recent commentators on Ephesians, Rudolf Schnackenburg argued that it is otherwise not “the apostle’s habit to repeat himself in this way and, as it were, to quote himself over and over again.”28 Joachim Gnilka agreed that “an author would not use his own earlier work as a template.”29 4.3 Repetitions in Galatians and Romans

Considering Paul’s many self-repetitions in Galatians and Romans, the argument that the correspondences between Colossians and Ephesians speak against a common author and Wrede, The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, 31–32. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe aufgrund einer Analyse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1872), 33–34. My translation. 27 Pierre Benoit, “Rapports littéraires entre les épîtres aux Colossiens et aux Éphésiens,” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, ed. Joseph Blinzler, Otto Kuss, and Franz Mussner (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), 11–22, 21. 28 Rudolf Schnackenburg, Der Brief an die Epheser, EKKNT 10 (Cologne: Benziger, 1982), 26–27. My translation. 29 Joachim Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief, HThKNT 10 (Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2002), 13. My translation. 25 26

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

289

therefore against the authenticity of at least one of these letters is untenable. Since Paul felt free to repeat his own ideas and words so extensively in Galatians and Romans, it is quite possible and even to be expected that he did so as well in other letters whenever he returned to the same or similar topics. In this respect it should not be forgotten that even attic orators like Demosthenes and Isocrates with their high literary and stylistic standards did not hesitate to repeat sections from their earlier speeches more or less verbatim in their later speeches.30 Wrede’s more specific thesis that Paul would at least not have repeated himself in a letter like 2 Thessalonians that was addressed to the same congregation as 1 Thessalonians is also unwarranted. Paul’s words in his Letter to the Philippians indicate that this ancient preacher and teacher had different priorities than some of his modern interpreters: “To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard” (Phil 3:1).

5. THE AMOUNT OF VERBAL A GREEMENT

A second argument against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians is that after several weeks or months Paul could not have been able to reproduce the wording of 1 Thessalonians and Colossians respectively from memory. 5.1 The Amount of Verbal Agreement between 1 and 2 Thessalonians

As William Wrede observed, extensive verbal agreements between 1 and 2 Thessalonians are rare. Most extensive is the agreement in 1 Thessalonians 2:9 // 2 Thessalonians 3:8 (with 10 identical words). The other verbal agreements are much more limited.31 Nevertheless, according to Wrede there are more parallels to the first letter in the short second letter to the Thessalonians than there are in all of Paul’s letters and certainly in all of the written documents of the New See the evidence in Baum, “The Parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” 210–13. 31 Wrede, The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, 26. 30

290

ARMIN D. BAUM Testament combined. Furthermore, among all of Paul’s letters … a similar relatedness does not occur for a second time...32

From these observations, Wrede drew a clear conclusion: the suggestion that in 2 Thessalonians Paul called to mind what he had written in 1 Thessalonians can explain only very few of the similarities between the two letters. An appeal to Paul’s memory and subconscious recollections can explain neither “the total of contacts” nor “the special congruence of the specifics as well as also the smallest and extrinsic aspects of the parallels, and beyond that the actual positions and placings of the parallels.”33 5.2 The Amount of Verbal Agreement between Colossians and Ephesians

According to Leslie Mitton’s calculation, 34% of the words of Colossians correspond more or less exactly to the wording of Ephesians. Conversely, 26.5% of the words of Ephesians correspond more or less exactly to the wording of Colossians.34 Based on this evidence, Leslie Mitton rejected the view that both letters were written by the same author. He was convinced that “the similarities are far too close and numerous.” Paul would not “have any clear verbal memory of … what the exact words were which he used in any one letter, especially if that letter had been written months or even years previously.”35 5.3 The Amount of Verbal Agreement between Galatians and Romans

The problem with Wrede’s argument is that he overestimated the correspondences between 1 and 2 Thessalonians and underestimated the correspondences between Galatians and Romans.

Wrede, The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, 13–14; cf. the comprehensive overview by Reuter, Colossians, Ephesians, II. Thessalonians, 621–739. 33 Wrede, The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, 29. 34 Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 56–57; cf. the identification of the nearly exact and the less exact correspondences in columns 3 and 4 of Appendix I (279–315). 35 Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 113. 32

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

291

This becomes most evident in the few sentences which he devoted to these two undisputed letters: In the Letter to the Galatians and in the Letter to the Romans, for example, we do certainly find various parallels of expression and thought among those passages where related themes are dealt with. Nevertheless, there with those passages we never have the impression of a repetition as here, because assuredly the similarity seems to disappear when some different aspects emerge. Moreover, there the parallels are to be explained without exception from the property and acquirement of definite theological thoughts and teachings or firm and practical principles.36

In contrast to Wrede’s claim, any detailed comparison between a synoptic presentation of 1 and 2 Thessalonians and a synoptic presentation of Galatians and Romans demonstrates that the amount of verbal correspondences between Galatians and Romans is much higher than that between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. This was already obvious in Lightfoot’s synoptic presentation of the parallels between Galatians and Romans37 which Wrede, unfortunately, did not consult. In light of this evidence, Wrede’s argument that similar passages in 1 and 2 Thessalonians cannot both be attributed to Paul is untenable. At the same time, no two letters in the Corpus Paulinum exhibit more verbal agreement than Colossians and Ephesians. In relation to their length, Galatians and particularly Romans have fewer verbal agreements than Colossians and Ephesians. But does that prove that Paul could not have written Ephesians? If Galatians and Romans are authentic, their many and close verbal agreements demonstrate that Paul carried many of his formulations in his memory for a long time and had a clear verbal memory of words which he had used months or even years ago in an earlier letter. If Paul wrote Ephesians not months or years after Colossians but about the same time, would this not explain quite

Wrede, The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, 14. Lightfoot, “On the Style and Character,” 310–17; cf. idem, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 50–55. 36 37

292

ARMIN D. BAUM

naturally why these two letters agree a bit more closely than Galatians and Romans?

6. CONFLATIONS OF TWO OR M ORE PASSAGES 6.1 Conflations in 2 Thessalonians

The correspondence between 1 and 2 Thessalonians consists not only of simple parallels where the wording of just one passage in one letter displays some agreement with just one passage in the other letter. Rather, sometimes two or more passages in the earlier letter correspond with one passage in the later letter: [1 Thess 3:4a] καὶ γὰρ ὅτε πρὸς ὑµᾶς ἦµεν, προελέγοµεν ὑµῖν … [4:1a] Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶµεν ὑµᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦµεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ …

[2 Thess 3:10–12] καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἦµεν πρὸς ὑµᾶς, τοῦτο παρηγγέλλοµεν ὑµῖν … τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις παραγγέλλοµεν καὶ παρακαλοῦµεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ …

Table 2: Conflation of 1 Thess 3:4a and 4:1a in 2 Thess 3:10–12 This literary phenomenon has been called conflation since the author of 2 Thessalonians as it were conflated two or more passages from different places of 1 Thessalonians into a single passage. 6.2 Conflations in Ephesians

The same phenomenon can be found in Colossians and Ephesians. For convenience’s sake I present the relevant material according to the majority view that Colossians was written before Ephesians. In the following cases, two passages from different parts of Colossians have been conflated in one passage of Ephesians:38 [Col 3:18] Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ.

[Eph 5:21–23] Ὑποτασσόµενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ,

For more cases of conflation see Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 63–67 and 319–21 (Appendix III). 38

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS [1:18a] καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώµατος τῆς ἐκκλησίας …

293

ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώµατος·

Table 3: Conflation of Col 3:18 and 1:18a in Eph 5:21–23 For some scholars, conflations have become one of the most important arguments against Pauline authorship. E. P. Sanders asserted not only that conflations “are widely recognized as marks of literary dependence.” He was also convinced that Paul would not have conflated passages from his own letters, since “Paul was too original a writer to construct new sentences out of fragments of old ones.” In other words: “The greater the evidence of conflation, the less likely it is that Paul did it,” while conflation “might well suit the purpose of an imitator.”39 6.3 Conflations in Romans

Unfortunately, Sanders and other scholars who used the same argument did not cross-check their interpretation of conflation in the deutero-Pauline parallel letters with the evidence in the protoPauline parallel letters. As the parallels between Galatians and Romans demonstrate, Paul himself did not hesitate to construct a new sentence out of several old ones. In the above synoptic tables I have already displayed the conflation of Galatians 1:1-5 and 1:15–16 in Romans 1:1–7, and I add here a few additional examples: [Gal 3:27a] ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν [Rom 6:3–8] ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι, ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθητε ἐβαπτίσθηµεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν … [2:19] ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόµου νόµῳ …ὁ παλαιὸς ἡµῶν ἄνθρωπος συνἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ εσταυρώθη … εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνοµεν σὺν συνεσταύρωµαι· Χριστῷ, πιστεύοµεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσοµεν αὐτῷ …

E. P. Sanders, “Literary Dependence in Colossians,” JBL 85 (1966): 28– 45, 32. 39

294

ARMIN D. BAUM

Table 4: Conflation of Gal 3:27a and 2:19 in Rom 6:3–8 [Gal 5:1a] Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡµᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν … [4:4b] ... ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ … [5:16b] … πνεύµατι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυµίαν σαρκὸς οὐ µὴ τελέσητε.

[Rom 8:2–4] ὁ γὰρ νόµος τοῦ πνεύµατος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε … ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέµψας … τοῖς µὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦµα.

Table 5: Conflation of Gal 5:1a; 4:4b; and 5:16b in Rom 8:2–4 [Gal 5:18a] εἰ δὲ πνεύµατι ἄγεσθε … [3:26a] Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε … [4:6b] … ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡµῶν κρᾶζο ν· αββα ὁ πατήρ.

[Rom 8:14–15] ὅσοι πνεύµατι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν …

γὰρ

ἀλλ’ ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζοµεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ.

Table 6: Conflation of Gal 5:18a; 3:26a; and 4:6b in Rom 8:14–15 These instances underscore again how disadvantageous it is that to date a simple Greek synopsis of Galatians and Romans is still not available. Had Sanders taken notice of the conflations of sections from Galatians in Romans, he would certainly not have used this literary phenomenon as an argument against the literary authenticity of Ephesians.

7. REPEATED BORROWING FROM THE SAME PASSAGES 7.1 Repeated Borrowing in 2 Thessalonians

The reversal of conflation is repeated (or recurring) borrowing from one passage in an earlier letter in different places of a later letter. In several instances, one passage in 1 Thessalonians corresponds to two or more passages in 2 Thessalonians. Again, I confine myself to just one example:

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS [1 Thess 5:12–14] Ἐρωτῶµεν δὲ ὑµᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑµῖν … Παρακαλοῦµεν δὲ ὑµᾶς, ἀδελφοί, νουθετεῖτε τοὺς ἀτάκτους …

295

[2 Thess 2:1a] Ἐρωτῶµεν δὲ ὑµᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … [3:6a] Παραγγέλλοµεν δὲ ὑµῖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν ὀνόµατι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡµῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ στέλλεσθαι ὑµᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ ἀτάκτως περιπατοῦντος …

Table 7: The Repeated Borrowing from 1 Thess 5:12–14 in 2 Thess 2:1a and 3:6a 7.2 Repeated Borrowing in Ephesians

Similarly, Colossians 3:5–7 corresponds in its first half with Ephesians 5:3–6 and in its second half with Ephesians 2:1–2:40 [Col 3:5–7] Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ µέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν ἀκαθαρσίαν πάθος ἐπιθυµίαν κακήν, καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν, ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρία, δι ’ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ [ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας]. ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑµεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε, ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις·

[Eph 5:3–6] Πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα ἢ πλεονεξία µηδὲ ὀνοµαζέσθω ἐν ὑµῖν …, ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης, ὅ ἐστιν εἰδωλολάτρης, οὐκ ἔχει κληρονοµίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ. Μηδεὶς ὑµᾶς ἀπατάτω κενοῖς λόγοις· διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας. [2:1–2] Καὶ ὑµᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώµασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁµαρτίαις ὑµῶν, ἐν αἷς ποτε περιεπατήσατε κατὰ τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ κόσµου τούτου …

Table 8: The Repeated Borrowing from Col 3:5–7 in Eph 5:3–6 and 2:1–2

According to Mitton, the instances where a single passage from Colossians is echoed at several different places in Ephesians, are “not the kind of thing one would anticipate if the similarities were due merely to the fact that the same mind was at work on 40

See Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 316–18 (Appendix II).

296

ARMIN D. BAUM

Ephesians.” Rather, this specific kind of borrowing indicates that Ephesians was written by a non-Pauline author who had “intimate literary acquaintance” with Colossians.41 7.3 Repeated Borrowing in Romans

The problem with Mitton’s argument is that repeated borrowing from the same passage is also a common phenomenon in the parallel passages of Galatians and Romans. One example out of many suffices to make this visible. If Galatians is older than Romans, Paul reproduced sections of Galatians 2:15–19 in three different chapters of his letter to the Romans: [Gal 2:15–19] Ἡµεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁµαρτωλοί· εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόµου ἐὰν µὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … καὶ ἡµεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαµεν … ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ … ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόµου νόµῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωµαι·

[Rom 3:28] λογιζόµεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόµου. [3:22a] δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας [3:20a] διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόµου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ … [7:4b] … καὶ ὑµεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόµῳ διὰ τοῦ σώµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ [6:11b] … ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ … [6:6b] … ὁ παλαιὸς ἡµῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη … [6:8a] … ἀπεθάνοµεν σὺν Χριστῷ …

Table 9: The Repeated Borrowing from Gal 2:15–19 in Rom 3:28, 22a, 20a; 7:4b; 6:11b, 6b, 8a According to this and many similar parallels, repeated borrowing is exactly what can be expected if the same mind was at work in two parallel texts. Synoptic presentations like this one make it 41

Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 134.

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

297

quite clear not only that Paul liked to construct new sentences out of several old ones (conflation) but also that he liked to reuse material from one section of an earlier letter at different places of a later letter. Repeated borrowing from the same passages cannot serve as an argument against the authenticity of a Pauline letter.

8. THE REUSE OF WORDS AND PHRASES WITH A DIFFERENT MEANING 8.1 The Reuse of Words and Phrases with a Different Meaning in Ephesians

Leslie Mitton pointed to three well known key words from Colossians which the author of Ephesians reused with a different meaning: µυστήριον (in Col 1:26–27; 2:2; 4:3; and Eph 1:9; 3:3; 5:32; and 6:19), οἰκονοµία and πλήρωµα. Mitton argued that these differences in meaning make it difficult to ascribe both letters to the same author.42 In addition, Mitton pointed to two passages where the author of Ephesians reproduced not just a word but a phrase from Colossians with a different meaning. While according to Colossians 1:26 the mystery has been revealed “to his holy ones,” the author of Ephesians 3:5 transformed the noun ἅγιος into an adjective and said it has been revealed “to his holy apostles and prophets”43: [Col 1:26] τὸ µυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυµµένον ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν– νῦν δὲ ἐφανερώθη τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ

[Eph 3:5] ὃ ἑτέραις γενεαῖς οὐκ ἐγνωρίσθη τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὡς νῦν ἀπεκαλύφθη τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ προφήταις ἐν πνεύµατι

Table 10: The Reproduction of a Phrase with a Different Meaning in Ephesians

Mitton interpreted such reproductions of words and phrases with a different meaning as evidence for a post-Pauline origin of Ephesians. He asked: 42 43

Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 86–97. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 85.

298

ARMIN D. BAUM Is this mechanical reproduction of words, in violation of their original sense, what we should expect of Paul, in a second letter closely modelled on an earlier one and written immediately after it? Would it not rather be the meaning of the words that would linger in his mind? Is it not, on the other hand, just the kind of phenomenon that betrays the hand of an imitator …?44

8.2 The Reuse of Words and Phrases with a Different Meaning in Romans

However, a comparison of Galatians and Romans reveals some very similar phenomena. The expression “the weakness of the flesh” is used with different meanings in Galatians (4:13) and Romans (6:19). As not only Borse has observed, in Galatians 4:13 “flesh” is the physical body and the phrase “the weakness of the flesh” denotes a state of weakness of the physical body, more specifically a disease, while in Romans 6:19 “flesh” is the sinful human nature and the phrase “the weakness of the flesh” denotes the moral weakness of human nature.45 If Galatians and Romans are authentic, these and similar phrases with different meanings cannot be used as evidence of a post-Pauline origin of a Pauline letter. Elsewhere, Paul reused the same words with the same meaning but with a different syntax. While in Galatians 4:6 it is “the Spirit” of the Son of God who is crying “Abba! Father!”, in Romans 8:15 it is the sons of God who utter this cry. And while in Galatians 4:7 the child of God is an heir “through God,” in Romans 8:17 the children of God are heirs “of God”: [Gal 4:6–7] Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡµῶν κρᾶζο ν· αββα ὁ πατήρ. ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλ’ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόµο ς διὰ θεοῦ.

[Rom 8:15–17a] οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον ἀλλ’ ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζοµεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ … εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόµοι· κληρονόµοι µὲν θεοῦ …

Table 11: The Reproduction of Phrases with a Different Meaning in Romans

44 45

Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 81. Borse, Der Standort des Galaterbriefes, 133.

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

299

As this comparison of Galatians and Romans demonstrates, Paul was rather flexible in his use of words and phrases and in his syntax. Such variations do not constitute evidence that one of the letters in question cannot be the work of Paul but should more probably be read as the work of an imitator.

9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Surprisingly in the critical analysis of the synoptic parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians and between Colossians and Ephesians, the synoptic parallels between Galatians and Romans have rarely been considered. This is an unfortunate shortcoming since according to an undisputed methodological rule (at least in theory) all 13 Pauline letters must be measured against the same critical standards. The undisputed letters of Paul must not be left out of consideration or examined less strictly than the disputed ones. Double standards are not acceptable. As my simple Greek synopsis of Galatians and Romans reveals, the arguments against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians, which are based on their synoptic parallels with 1 Thessalonians and Colossians respectively apply as well to the synoptic parallels between Galatians and Romans. While scholars have often interpreted substantial repetition, a considerable amount of verbal agreement, conflations of two or more passages, repeated borrowings from the same passages, and the reuse of words and phrases with a different meaning as clear indications of inauthenticity, in his Letter to the Romans Paul used all these literary strategies. It follows that if according to these criteria 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians must be regarded as unauthentic, for the same reasons Romans cannot be the work of Paul. Or vice versa, if these criteria cannot be applied to test and disprove the authenticity of Romans, then neither may they be used to test and disprove the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians. Frankly, for obvious reasons, I prefer the second option. As a matter of course, the observations in this article do not settle the question whether 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians are authentic or not, but they imply that for methodological reasons the arguments from the synoptic parallels between the disputed

300

ARMIN D. BAUM

Pauline letters which have been developed and applied by William Wrede, Leslie Mitton, E. P. Sanders, and many others must be abandoned. They simply are not reliable critical instruments.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baum, Armin D. “The Parallels between 1 and 2 Thessalonians Against the Background of Ancient Parallel Letters and Speeches.” Pages 194–216 in Who Created Christianity? Fresh Approaches to the Relationship between Paul and Jesus. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Aaron White. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2020. ———. “Where Did the Parallels between Colossians and Ephesians Come from?” In Paul, Rhetoric and Language. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 12. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming. Beisser, Friedrich. “Wann und von wem könnte der Epheserbrief verfasst sein?” KD 52 (2006): 151–64. Benoit, Pierre. “Rapports littéraires entre les épîtres aux Colossiens et aux Éphésiens.” Pages 11–22 in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. Edited by Joseph Blinzler, Otto Kuss, and Franz Mussner. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963. Borse, Udo. Der Standort des Galaterbriefes. BBB 41. Cologne; Bonn: Hanstein, 1972. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 43. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Gnilka, Joachim. Der Epheserbrief. HThKNT 10. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 2002. Haacker, Klaus. “Rezeptionsgeschichte und Literarkritik: Anfragen an die communis opinio zum Corpus Paulinum.” TZ 65 (2009): 209–28. Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians. Grand Rapid: Baker, 2002. ———. “Did Paul Write Galatians?” Pages 150–69 in History and Exegesis. Edited by S.-W. Son. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe aufgrund einer Analyse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1872. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Constructing Paul. Volume 1 of The Canonical Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020.

13. A SYNOPSIS OF GALATIANS AND ROMANS

301

Lightfoot, J. B. “On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians.” The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 3 (1857): 289–327. ———. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. London: Macmillan, 1865. Repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957. Metzger, Bruce M. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Mitton, C. Leslie. The Epistle to the Ephesians: Its Authorship, Origin and Purpose. Oxford: Clarendon, 1951. Porter, Stanley E. The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Reuter, Rainer. Colossians, Ephesians, II. Thessalonians. Volume 1 of Synopsis of the New Testament Letters. Studies in the Religion and History of Early Christianity 5. Frankfurt: Lang, 1997. ———. Textvergleichende und synoptische Arbeiten an den Briefen des Neuen Testaments: Geschichte – Methodik – Praxis. Studies in Religion and History of Early Christianity 13. Frankfurt: Lang, 2003. Sanders, E. P. “Literary Dependence in Colossians.” JBL 85 (1966): 28–45. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Der Brief an die Epheser. EKKNT 10. Cologne: Benziger, 1982. Theissen, Gerd. Die Entstehung des Neuen Testaments als literaturgeschichtliches Problem. Heidelberg: Winter, 2007. Theobald, Michael. Der Römerbrief. EdF 294. Darmstadt: WBG, 2000. Trilling, Wolfgang. Untersuchungen zum 2. Thessalonicherbrief. ETS 27. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1972. Wrede, William. The Authenticity of the Second Letter to the Thessalonians. Translated by Robert Rhea. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017.

CHAPTER 14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?” (ROM 3:29A): THE RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT AT THE LAST SUPPER AND THE INCLUSION OF GENTILES ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN THEOLOGISCHE UNIVERSITEIT KAMPEN | UTRECHT I NTRODUCTION

The words spoken by Jesus at the evening before his death are often read aloud in churches at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. These are the words he uttered during the Last Supper with his disciples, while breaking the bread and passing around the cup of wine. On raising the cup Jesus mentioned a new covenant. The wine, symbolizing the blood of Christ, “is” (that is to say, “signifies”) the new covenant. Regular guests at the Lord’s Table have become accustomed to hearing these words of institution, and are therefore also accustomed to

303

304

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

the term “new covenant,” but what did Jesus mean when he, within the circle of his first disciples, spoke of the new covenant?1 It is remarkable that the term “new covenant” (καινὴ διαθήκη) occurs only in a few biblical contexts, to be divided into three clusters. First of all, the term is used in Jeremiah 31:31–34 LXX, where God makes the promise to his people Israel of a future renewal of the covenant. This prophecy is cited entirely in Hebrews 8:8–12 (and briefly in Rom 11:27), because Christ is “the mediator of a new covenant” (διαθήκης καινῆς µεσίτης, Heb 9:15 and 12:24). Next, the term can also be found in 2 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul labels himself and his co-workers “ministers of a new covenant” (διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης). Finally, the term still resounds in the tradition of the Lord’s Supper, as it was recorded in the gospels, and has also been passed on by Paul: Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the [new]2 covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:27–28; see also Mark 14:23–24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25).3

Now, in Greek the term διαθήκη is not generally used to denote a covenant in the sense of an agreement between two parties. For that, the word συνθήκη, “treaty” or “pact,” is used, which occurs a few times in the LXX but nowhere in the NT. Translators preferred the word διαθήκη, uncommon in this context, to render the Hebrew term ‫ְבּ ִרית‬. In this way, they wanted to emphasize that the covenant with God was not a result of negotiations and compromises between two equal parties, but was solely due to the Lord’s initiative.4

An earlier draft of this essay, highlighting more the connection between the Last Suppper and the Lord’s Table, has been published in Sárospataki Füzetek 21 (2017): 109–20. 2 For a brief discussion of the textual variation here, see note 16. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, all English scriptural citations are taken from the New International Version (NIV). 4 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), 1:452. 1

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

305

Yet διαθήκη in Greek actually means “a testamentary disposition.”5 Whether that nuance in meaning resounds in the last supper tradition of the gospels is uncertain, but when Paul writes to the Corinthians about a new διαθήκη, his Greek, Gentile audience probably heard something about a new arrangement in it. This raises the question: in what respect, then, is the new covenant a new disposition or arrangement? How could a renewal of God’s covenant with Israel include non-Jews? This problem reflects the intriguing question of Romans 3:29a: “Or is God the God of Jews only?” Paul’s frame of thought in the whole of Romans 3:21–4:25 is God’s covenantal faithfulness, as Tom Wright has extensively argued.6 The interpretation of this textual unit may be enriched by some research in the field of biblical theology. Doing this, our main question will be: how are both Jewish and Gentile believers involved in the new covenant, as it was announced by Jesus at the Last Supper? This essay, cordially dedicated to Martin Webber, aims to explore the last supper tradition—the words of institution, in particular regarding the cup—as transmitted in the Gospels, which can also be found with Paul when he writes to the Corinthians about “the Lord’s Supper” (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, 1 Cor 11:20).7 We will consider successively the historical context of the

Sometimes “last will” or “testament” (Gal 3:15 and Hebr 9:16–17). With the collective nouns “Old Testament” and “New Testament,” the early church referred to the Bible books belonging to the old or, respectively, the new covenant. See W. C. van Unnik, “Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη – A Problem in the Early History of the Canon,” in 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum, Generalia, vol. 2 of Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik, ed. C. K. Barrett, A. F. J. Klijn, and J. Smit Sibinga, NovTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 157–71, esp. 159–64. 6 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3-4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 995–1007. 7 For an analysis of the last supper traditions in earliest Christianity, including Matthew and Paul, see Amiel Drimbe, The Church of Antioch and the Eucharistic Traditions (ca. 35-130 CE), WUNT II/529 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020). The first Christian author to use the institution narratives is Justin Martyr. He quotes Jesus from the written gospels— memoirs of the apostles as he calls them—albeit not verbatim. Concerning the cup with wine, Justin (1 Apol. 66.2–3) writes: “Similarly, 5

306

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

cup circulating at the Passover meal (section 1: the toast), the wine of Jesus’s blood as a metaphor for his atoning death on behalf of many (section 2: the taste), and the power of the Spirit as bonding factor in the new covenant (section 3: the aftertaste). It will be shown that Jesus announced on the eve of Good Friday the renewal of God’s covenant with Israel, with a surprising inclusion of Gentile Christ-believers.

1. THE TOAST

It is important to understand the historical setting. In Jerusalem, Jesus had invited his disciples for the Passover meal.8 This could be celebrated within the family circle, but also with a group of friends. Passover (Pesach) was and is Israel’s feast of liberation, in which the exodus out of Egypt was commemorated during the course of an extensive meal. This meal lasted the whole evening and children were allowed to stay up to take part. One followed a fixed ritual with special dishes on the table: bitter herbs, a paste or sauce of fruit and nuts, unleavened bread (matzah) and a cup of wine. The father of the house explained the symbolic meaning of all this. For example, pointing to the unleavened bread he would say: “This is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in Egypt.” The youngest child then asked the standard question about what was so special about this evening, upon which the father told the story of the exodus. During the meal, the cup was filled and passed around repeatedly, each time after the father of the house uttered a prayer of blessing.9 The annual commemoration of the exodus belongs to the prescriptions of the Torah. In celebrating Passover, the people of Israel were to continue to remember how they have been led out he also took the cup, and after giving thanks said: ‘This is my blood,’ and to them only did he give it.” 8 Regarding the question whether the last meal of Jesus with his disciples was a Passover meal, see I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Exeter: Paternoster, 1980), 57–75. 9 For the celebration of the Passover during the time of Jesus, see especially Shmuel Safra and Ze’ev Safrai, “The Pesach Holiday During the Second Temple Period” in Haggadah of the Sages: Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem: Carta, 2009), 9–15.

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

307

of Egypt by the Lord. By keeping those stories alive throughout that night vigil, Israel’s deliverance became something of the present, as if everything were happening all over again. When the Israelites celebrated Passover, Gentiles were viewed as (hostile) outsiders. Jesus was, in fact, celebrating Passover with his disciples. Eating this meal in a reclined position, although not prescribed in the Torah, seems to have become traditional during the Second Temple period. All four Gospels mention “reclining” at a table (ἀνάκειναι, Matt 26:20; Mark 14:18; John 13:23; ἀναπίπτειν, Luke 22:14). In this intimate circle, Jesus was transforming the Passover meal by giving a new meaning to certain ingredients. The significance of bread and cup he related directly to himself: this is my body, this is my blood. It was the last evening before his death. This was, therefore, also a farewell meal, during which he himself would hand out the bread and cup to his disciples for the very last time. The Gospel of John mentions only that Jesus dipped his bread in the sauce (John 13:26), but the other evangelists, as well as the apostle Paul, mention the actual words spoken with the bread and at the cup. The passing around of the cup, to which Jesus gave his personal explanation, happened “after they had eaten” (µετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, according to both Luke and Paul). Although the designation of this particular moment is not entirely clear, most interpreters rightly consider this to be the third time the cup was refilled, officially concluding the supper.10 After this, the song of praise would be sung (the second part of the Psalms known as the Hallel: Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26). According to the gospel tradition, this third cup circulated after Jesus had said the prayer of thanks, the Jewish grace after For the Passover celebration according to early rabbinic tradition, see David Instone-Brewer, Feasts and Sabbaths: Passover and Atonement, vol. 2A of Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 115–200. He contends that the fourth and very last cup (“the cup of redemption”) was added to the ritual somewhere around 70 CE, to prevent the Passover meal degenerating into a drinking bout while the participants lingered at the table, as was the Greco-Roman custom (185–88). 10

308

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

the meal (εὐχαριστήσας, cf. Matt 15:36; Mark 8:6; John 6:11, 23). In the Mishna, the following formula has been fixed: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who created the fruit of the vine” (Berachot 6.1). Paul calls the cup of the Lord’s Supper “the cup of blessing” (τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, 1 Cor 10:16).11 He also states that this cup makes us one with the blood of Christ. In Scripture a cup can signify several things. For example, God may give someone the cup of his wrath to drink (Isa 51:17, 22; Matt 20:22; Mark 10:38; John 18:11) and Jesus would drink that cup to the last drop. In Gethsemane, he not only prayed that he might be saved from “this hour,” but he also asked: “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me” (Matt 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; cf. John 12:27). Yet the cup of God’s wrath was not taken from him. This cup alludes to blood being shed, Jesus says.12 His wording does not refer to the application of wine, which could also be poured out or shed on other occasions. In this case, the cup of wine simply is meant to be drunk. The cup which Jesus hands out contains “blood wine,” symbolizing bloodshed.13 Blood represents the entirety of human existence: as long as blood flows through our veins we are alive. Blood is life; it can accomplish atonement and thereby save the life of a sinner (Deut 12:23 and Lev 17:11). Being guilty or innocent of someone’s blood concerns the responsibility for life and death (Matt 27:4, 24–25; cf. Acts 20:26). In short, the bloodshed that Jesus was alluding to regarded human life that was flowing away into death, a violent death (cf. Gen 4:10; Ezek 35:6; and Hebr 12:24) as Jesus’s life was about to be taken by means of crucifixion. “This is my blood” then

Cf. Didache 9–10 on the thanksgiving meal and the accompanying prayers in the early church. 12 For the association of (red) wine with blood, see Genesis 49:11, Deuteronomy 32:14, and Isaiah 63:3, 6. 13 The combination of “blood” with “pouring out” or “being shed” occurs more than once in the NT: Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50; Acts 22:20; Romans 3:15; and Revelation 16:6. 11

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

309

means: this is me in my violent death.14 When the cup, filled with the wine of his blood, subsequently circulates among the disciples to drink from together, after an explicit invitation of Jesus (“Drink from it, all of you”), they are in some way participating in the death of the Lord. This is why Paul emphasizes the unity of believers with Christ (1 Cor 10:16). In what manner do the disciples participate? In the night of the exodus from Egypt, blood functioned as a sign and as a mark of safety. The Israelites had been instructed to dab the blood of the slain Passover lamb onto the door posts and lintel of their houses. The angel of death would then pass them by; the occupants of a house with this blood mark would be spared (Exod 12:7, 13, 23–28)—and this while all the Egyptians’ firstborn sons were killed that night. Although the red wine is not connected directly with this function of blood, the repeated drinking from the cup did count as a toast to the liberation out of Egypt. What Jesus indicates, then, is that the new exodus is approaching: once again there will be a wondrous deliverance of God’s people from the stranglehold of evil. When drinking this “blood wine,” all the table companions would have been thinking of the exodus from Egypt. At the same time, Jesus points ahead to his violent death. Not the blood of the Passover lamb, but the blood of God’s Son brings true deliverance from evil. Jesus’s blood is a sign and a mark of safety for his disciples. Because of his death on the cross, where innocent blood was shed, the lives of Jesus’s followers will be spared. Our Passover Lamb is Christ, Paul writes (1 Cor 5:7). And Romans 3:21–31 seems to recall Passover (cf. 3:25, πάρεσις, “passing by”).15 According to Matthew, Jesus actually spoke explicitly about the beneficial consequence of his selfsacrifice: his blood would be shed “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). It is God’s forgiveness that makes a new covenant possible (Jer 31:34; cf. Matt 1:21).

Otfried Hofius, “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis. Erwägungen zu 1 Kor 11,23b-25,” in Paulusstudien, WUNT 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 203–40, esp. 227. 15 Tom Holland, Romans: The Divine Marriage (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 91–94. 14

310

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

The impact of God’s forgiveness elucidates also the eschatological promise made by Jesus when he handed out the cup: “I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt 26:29; see also Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18; cf. Isa 25:6). Toasting the new exodus means expecting the coming age with eager anticipation.

2. THE TASTE

What Jesus said while raising the cup has a deep meaning: my self-sacrifice, even unto death by crucifixion, establishes the reality of the new covenant. Whereas Luke and Paul indeed mention the new covenant, in Matthew and Mark the manuscript tradition is not univocal: the oldest Greek manuscripts lack the adjective καινός, “new.”16 Nevertheless, the use of the definite article clearly points to the [new] covenant, a familiar term from Israel’s prophetic tradition, from Jeremiah in particular. Only Jeremiah 31:31–34 mentions explicitly a new covenant, which the Lord was going to set up with Israel (the ten tribe kingdom) and Judah (the two tribe kingdom), so that his people were to become one people again.17 Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994], 95) suggests that the textual variant καινῆς has been inserted from the parallel passages in Luke and 1 Corinthians. Even then, it seems to be a clarification by the transcribers rather than an incorrect interpretation. In both Matthew and Mark the reading καινῆς is broadly supported: not only by the Byzantine tradition, but for example also by the old Latin and Syriac translations. In Matthew, various old majuscules, including the Codex Bezae (Western tradition), also support this reading. 17 For the context of this prophecy in Jeremiah, see Mart-Jan Paul, “The New Covenant in the Context of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology: Biblical, Historical and SystematicTheological Perspectives, ed. Hans Burger, Gert Kwakkel, and Michael Mulder, Studies in Reformed Theology 42 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022), 124–45. In the Qumran literature, the new covenant is mentioned without reference to the prophecy of Jeremiah (CD 6.19; 8.21; 19.33– 34; 1QpHab 2.3; 1Q28b 3.26; 5.21; 1Q34 3.2). The Qumran community seems to have understood itself, representing the totality of God’s people, as the result of a covenant renewal. 16

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

311

Moreover, Ezekiel prophesied of a covenant characterized by peace, which would last forever (Ezek 16:60; 37:26; cf. Isa 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; and 1QS 4.22; 5.5–6). It was meant to endure so much that no adaptation or renewal was required anymore, as had been the case with the old covenant. In both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, forgiveness of sins was promised within the scope of that new, everlasting covenant: God would never again think about what his people had done wrong, and he would make atonement for their sins (Jer 31:34 and Ezek 16:63). Finally, a somewhat enigmatic text from Zechariah may also be considered, promising that captives would be released when the King returns to Zion, “because of the blood of my covenant with you” (Zech 9:11). However, this expression is to be understood literally; it is obvious that the covenant of God with his people, ratified with blood, functions as a guarantee that this prophetic promise of salvation will be fulfilled. In sum, the OT prophets promised an eschatological era when God would act “in a new way to protect the covenant from the faithlessness of his people, to include the widest range of people within the covenant relationship and to bring forgiveness to all those who stand within this covenant relationship.”18 This prophetically foretold future is proclaimed a reality by Jesus at that last supper. All the more so because his suffering and crucifixion answers to the profile of the suffering Servant from Isaiah 53: “he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities ... the Lord makes his life an offering for sin ... Alistair I. Wilson, “Luke and the New Covenant: Zechariah’s Prophecy as a Test Case,” in The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Jamie A. Grant and Alistair I. Wilson (Leicester: Apollos, 2005), 156–77, esp. 165. He argues that the prophecy of Zechariah (Luke 1:77) is echoing Jeremiah 31:4 in the words “knowledge” and “forgiveness.” See in the same volume also Kim Huat Tan, “Community, Kingdom, and Cross: Jesus’ View of Covenant,” 122– 55. Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum (Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012], 433–530) as well as Michael J. Gorman (The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of a New Covenant: A (Not So) New Model of the Atonement [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014]) provide a biblical theological overview of the covenant theme. 18

312

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” By mentioning in Jesus’s words of institution that the bloodshed was meant “for the forgiveness of sins,” the evangelist Matthew makes explicit the relationship with this prophetic tradition from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, supported by Isaiah and Zechariah. The wine of the Holy Supper tastes of forgiveness. Hebrews 9–10 elaborates extensively on the aspect of Jesus’s self-sacrifice unto death. That Jesus sacrificed his life to reconcile the sin of God’s people and to achieve forgiveness, the author interprets as the typical task of the high priest. At the same time, Jesus surpassed all earthly high priests, because he gained entrance to the Holy Place with his own blood, after he “had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins” (Heb 10:12). In the last chapter of this letter, covenant terminology is used to allude to the death and resurrection of Jesus: “Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant [ἐν αἵµατι διαθήκης αἰωνίου] brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep . . .” (Heb 13:20). Here the everlasting covenant is the motivation for God’s action.19 Regarding the phrase “cup of the new covenant,” commentaries frequently refer to the moment at which the covenant of Sinai was ratified by means of a blood sprinkling ritual. This is not without reason. According to Exodus 24:8, Moses sprinkled the people of Israel with blood and said: “This is the blood of the covenant [τὸ αἷµα τῆς διαθήκης] that the Lord has made with you” (LXX Exod 24:8). Hebrews 9:18–22 recalls this event in order to argue that there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (αἱµατεκχυσία). Blood has binding strength. Nevertheless, despite the fact that in Exodus 24:8 the words “blood” and “covenant” occur together, there are three reasons why we should not think exclusively of this historical context. First, the Sinai covenant was bilateral, an agreement between God and his people, whereas the covenant to which Jesus refers was The Greek preposition ἐν must here be taken as causal or instrumental, comparable with διά (cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, rev. ed., NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 388, note 119). Because Christ has sacrificed his life, God brought him away from the dead on account of his covenant. 19

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

313

proclaimed unilaterally by God, requiring no promise from the people. Second, the blood sprinkling ritual from Exodus 24 is missing at the Passover meal—a cup of wine was passed around and no more than that. Third, the expression “new/everlasting covenant” does not occur in connection with the Sinai covenant, as it does in the prophetic tradition. As far as the biblical background of the blood of the new covenant is concerned, we should therefore also think of the fulfilment of what prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, supported by Isaiah and Zechariah, prophesied in line with Exodus 24. “The days are coming,” says Jeremiah 31:31, and those days have now come. Good Friday has come, because according to Jewish custom the next day starts after sunset. And it was exactly at sunset when Israel had departed out of Egypt (Deut 16:6; Jer 31:32 explicitly mentions the moment of being led out of Egypt). Centuries later, on this particular evening of Passover, a new day dawned. Jesus will sleep no more. It is his dying day and, at the same time, the moment at which the new covenant of God commences. As Michael Gorman puts it: “Now, at this Passover Meal, the Last Supper is really the First Supper, the first celebration of the new covenant.”20 Forgiveness of sin creates a new commitment, after the relationship between God and his people was disrupted due to Israel’s continuous disobedience. When God’s Son died for the atonement of sin, this new arrangement, based on forgiveness, came into effect.21 Thus the new covenant actually started on Good Friday. For whom is the new covenant? Luke seems to place the most emphasis on what was happening within the group of disciples, as far as farewell emotions are concerned, which is perhaps the reason why he uses the second person plural: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” By giving his life, Jesus founded a brotherhood. From now on, the blood bond between him and his disciples would be unbreakable. Matthew and Mark both emphasize the drinking together of all from one and the same cup. And in their rendering, this “all” is followed by 20 21

Gorman, The Death of the Messiah, 38. Van Unnik, “Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη,” 166–67.

314

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

“many,” a reference to the Servant prophesies in the book of Isaiah (Isa 52:14–15; 53:11–12).22 These different perspectives in the Synoptic Gospels are not mutually exclusive. The Last Supper constitutes a new covenant community, rooted in God’s ancient promises, with the Messiah at the center. The new covenant and its corresponding meal are ultimately intended for all followers of the Lord, not exclusively for “the people of Israel and the people of Judah” (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:8).23 The circle of supper guests would expand in the future, even far beyond the borders of Israel, and also for those “many” Jesus was going to sacrifice himself (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; Heb 9:28; cf. John 11:52; Rom 5:15, 19; 1 Tim 2:6; and 1 John 2:2). It is in the course of this expansion that the Gentiles come into view. Can there be any place for them in the new covenant? Paul writes boldly in Romans 3:22–24: “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”24

3. THE AFTERTASTE

Covenant renewal means that God wants to make a new start with Israel. He is not making a different covenant, with other people as partners, but he lays down a different foundation, to better establish his relationship with Israel. The new covenant is a better arrangement, in the sense that it “is established on better promises” (Heb 8:6). It was not the covenant that had failed, but Israel. In Hebrews 8:7, the Jeremiah quote is presented as a rebuke of the people. Because the old covenant did not have the desired effect, God made a new arrangement: a better alternative than the Sinai covenant, to achieve the same goal. His relationship with Israel is given more legal force, because the people’s debt has been paid once and for all, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus. For the day of his The terms “many” and “all” alternate in prophetic texts (e.g., Isa 2:2– 3, 53:6, 12; cf. Rom 5:18–19). 23 Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 497. 24 See my “Geen aanzien des persoons: Petrus, Jakobus en Paulus over de impact van Gods gelijkheidsregel” (farewell lecture presented at the Theologische Universiteit Kampen | Utrecht, Kampen, 24 June 2022). 22

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

315

death was, paradoxically, the moment of the promised covenant renewal.25 At the heart of the new covenant is God’s personal intervention to restore the relationship with his people. The Torah, which structures the covenant, is no longer imposed from outside, as becomes clear from Jeremiah 31:31–34, but internalized through the mind and heart. The required obedience is impressed onto the heart, so that love for God is deeply rooted and emerges from that steadfast basis. Then the old covenant promise will return with renewed strength: “I will be their God, and they will be my people,” the result being, that no one needs to be urged anymore to know the Lord—as in former days. The whole community of faith lives in connection with God, they know him from personal experience. All this becomes possible through the renewing strength of God’s forgiveness: “For I will forgive their wickedness, and will remember their sins no more.” In the new covenant, forgiveness will be no longer temporary in nature, but definite. A recurrence and application of the Jeremiah quote can be found in Hebrews 10:15–17. The new covenant is no longer in the future, the author ensures his readers: our heavenly high priest has brought it into effect by his single sacrifice. Forgiveness is now a fact. What aftertaste does the “blood wine” have that Jesus Christ offers? If God renews his covenant with Israel, what then would be the position of non-Jewish believers concerning the new covenant at the time of salvation? From a redemption-historical perspective, this is an intriguing issue. Nowhere does the NT actually say that they were incorporated into Israel. On the contrary, according to Peter, the Israelites are the ones who belong to the covenant which God had made with their fathers (Acts 3:25). And Paul writes that the covenants belong to the Israelites (Rom 9:4; cf. 11:7), whereas non-Jews were by nature strangers to the covenant promises (Eph 2:12). From Romans 9–

Unlike Paul in Galatians 3, the author of Hebrews does not define the relationship between the “old covenant” (made at Sinai) and God’s covenant with Abraham. Accordingly, this aspect is not considered here. 25

316

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

11, however, it is apparent that Gentile believers were also welcomed by the God of Israel. He makes no distinction between people who call upon the same Lord (Acts 15:9; Rom 3:22; and 10:12). The new covenant is inclusive; God is not the God of Jews only, as Paul argues in Romans 3:21–31.26 For this reason, Paul called himself and his co-workers “ministers of a new covenant” (διακόνοι καινῆς διαθήκης, 2 Cor 3:6). After Good Friday, he had been called to be an apostle, with the charge of carrying out this new will of God, not only among the Jews, but also among the nations. Concerning the old arrangement, Paul writes that it centred around the Torah: one had to adhere to the letter of the law (τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης, 2 Cor 3:14). But in the new arrangement, life through the Spirit is at the center. It is there that we find room for salvation of the nations, to whom Paul and his co-workers proclaimed the gospel. They were equipped to serve the new administration that came into effect on Good Friday. Henceforth, the God of Israel wants to connect with all who base their lives on the death of his Son. In this respect, Gentiles have the same privileges as Israelites (cf. 1 Pet 2:9–10). The new covenant thus has extended, in practice, to a wide variety of people. This expansion was not a later missionary move. Rather, it took place in accordance with Jesus’s self-understanding at the Last Supper, when he described the taste of the wine: forgiveness for many. Although it was always about God’s covenant with Israel, the new covenant announced by Jeremiah did not receive a national name (such as the Sinai, Davidic, or Zion covenant).27 There was a built-in openness, in advance, toward the Gentiles. When the Servant of Isaiah 53 is said to suffer for “many others,” according to most interpreters one should think, considering his worldwide

On the prerequisites and implications of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, see Christoph Stenschke, “Die Sendung zu den Nichtjuden: Voraussetzungen und Auswirkungen der Heidenmission,” in Kernthemen neutestamentlicher Theologie, ed. Armin D. Baum and Rob van Houwelingen (Giessen: Brunnen, 2022), 311–26. 27 H. de Jong, Van oud naar nieuw: De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament (Kampen: Kok, 2002), 155. 26

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

317

mission, of God’s salvation for all people.28 The way in which this would take place is also indicated. In Ezekiel, God promises to give his people a new heart and a new spirit to ensure that they observe his laws and rules, with the key promise: “And I will put my Spirit in you” (Ezek 36:26–27): the Spirit as the beating heart of the new covenant. The “pouring out” of the Spirit onto all, prophesied by Joel, was realized: onto the Jews in Jerusalem, as well as in the house of the Roman Cornelius at Caesarea (ἐκχεῶ, LXX Joel 3:1–2; Acts 2:17–18, 33; and 10:45). And this “pouring out” of the Spirit corresponds terminologically with the blood of Jesus that is “poured out” (ἐκχυννόµενον, Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; cf. Luke 22:20). The combination of prophecies from Jeremiah and Ezekiel is precisely what Paul also uses centuries later to explain to the Corinthians that the promises of the new covenant also apply to them, as non-Jews. Thanks to their faith in Christ, they live through the Spirit too: “You show that you are a letter [of recommendation] from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor 3:3 ESV). Observe here the spiritual power of the new covenant. Thus, it was in Greece, too, that Christians drank from the “cup of the Lord,” as Paul calls it in his letter to the Corinthians ([τὸ] ποτήριον [τοῦ] κυρίου, 1 Cor 10:21 and 11:27). Paul passed on to them a tradition which had also been maintained in the Gospels and which refers back to the Lord himself (1 Cor 11:23a).29 The Corinthian congregation may feel connected to the people of Israel in celebrating the new exodus at the Lord’s Supper. Communal eating and drinking to his remembrance emphasizes the spiritual bond between Christians, who are gathered at the same table, together with Christ, as were the first disciples. He is the head of the congregation. The bond with each other is anchored in him. All members of the congregation drink from the See for his worldwide task, Isaiah 49:6, cited in Luke 2:32 and Acts 13:47. In the book of Isaiah the nations repeatedly come into focus. Isaiah 52:15 even speaks of “many nations.” 29 The only places where Paul speaks further about “blood” are Romans 3:25, 5:9, and 1 Corinthians 10:16 (cf. Acts 20:26, 28). 28

318

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

cup of the new covenant, as a foretaste of the eschatological messianic banquet. Mutual differences fall away against the preponderance of their bond with the heavenly host. Even today, the death of the Lord, whose blood was poured out for the atonement of sins, has binding strength. At the supper of his remembrance, bread and wine are shared. In that way, it becomes an ecumenical meal, celebrating the faithfulness of God to his covenant promises. The wine of the Lord’s Supper can therefore be said to have an aftertaste of spiritual bonding in the worldwide community of faith, consisting of all who are led by the Spirit.

4. CONCLUSION

While raising the cup at the Last Supper, Jesus was toasting a new exodus: the deliverance from sins by God’s forgiveness. His disciples tasted “blood wine” and formed a community of faith, based on Jesus’s imminent self-secrifice on the cross. The aftertaste means that, by renewing his covenant with Israel, God welcomes all who let themselves be guided by the Holy Spirit at the Lord’s Table, continuing to the present day. This is how both Jewish and Gentile believers are involved in the new covenant, as it was announced by Jesus at the Last Supper. Three perspectives in the field of biblical theology now emerge: • •

•

Redemption-historical: God delivers his covenant people through the blood of Christ: his self-sacrifice unto death. Prophetic: The promised new covenant commences on Good Friday and includes all the followers of the Crucified One. Ecumenical: A worldwide Holy Supper community, sharing the new covenant meal, is being founded by the Spirit.

These perspectives align with and shed light on Paul’s argument in Romans 3:21–4:25, specifically 3:21–31, concerning God’s covenant faithfulness. Simon Gathercole remarks: “Paul gives one knockdown argument for why God has not instituted justification by works of Torah as his final word: because that would give only the opportunity of justification to Jews, a ridiculous idea, leading

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

319

to the reduction ad absurdum of God being God of the Jews only.”30 Righteousness is given to all believers through faith in Jesus Christ. Grace is a gift of God; the redemption of his people has been realized by the sacrifice of his Son. God is not only the God of Jews, but also of Gentiles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. De Jong, H. Van oud naar nieuw: De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament. Kampen: Kok, 2002. Drimbe, Amiel. The Church of Antioch and the Eucharistic Traditions (ca. 35-130 CE). WUNT II/529. Tübingen; Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Gathercole, Simon J. Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Gorman, Michael J. The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of a New Covenant: A (not So) New Model of the Atonement. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014. Grant, Jamie A., and Alistair I. Wilson, eds. The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. Hofius, Otfried. “Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis. Erwägungen zu 1 Kor 11,23b-25.” Pages 203–40 in Paulusstudien. WUNT 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Holland, Tom. Romans: The Divine Marriage. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Instone-Brewer, David. Feasts and Sabbaths: Passover and Atonement. Volume 2A of Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Simon J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 230. 30

320

ROB VAN HOUWELINGEN

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. Marshall, I. Howard. Last Supper and Lord’s Supper. Exeter: Paternoster, 1980. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Paul, Mart-Jan. “The New Covenant in the Context of the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 124–45 in Covenant: A Vital Element of Reformed Theology: Biblical, Historical and Systematic-Theological Perspectives. Edited by Hans Burger, Gert Kwakkel, and Michael Mulder. Studies in Reformed Theology 42. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022. Safra, Shmuel, and Ze’ev Safrai. Haggadah of the Sages: Introduction and Commentary. Jerusalem: Carta, 2009. Stenschke, Christoph. “Die Sendung zu den Nichtjuden: Voraussetzungen und Auswirkungen der Heidenmission.” Pages 311– 26 in Kernthemen neutestamentlicher Theologie. Edited by Armin D. Baum and Rob van Houwelingen. Giessen: Brunnen, 2022. Tan, Kim Huat. “Community, Kingdom and Cross: Jesus’ View of Covenant.” Pages 122–55 in The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives. Edited by Jamie A. Grant and Alistair I. Wilson. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. Van Houwelingen, Rob. “Geen aanzien des persoons: Petrus, Jakobus en Paulus over de impact van Gods gelijkheidsregel.” Farewell lecture presented at the Theologische Universiteit Kampen | Utrecht. Kampen, 24 June 2022. Van Unnik, W. C. “Ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη – A Problem in the Early History of the Canon.” Pages 157–71 in 1 Peter, Canon, Corpus Hellenisticum, Generalia. Volume 2 of Sparsa Collecta: The Collected Essays of W. C. van Unnik. Edited by C. K. Barrett, A. F. J. Klijn, and J. Smit Sibinga. NovTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Wilson, Alistair I. “Luke and the New Covenant: Zechariah’s Prophecy as a Test Case.” Pages 156–77 in The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives.

14. “OR IS GOD THE GOD OF JEWS ONLY?”

321

Edited by Jamie A. Grant and Alistair I. Wilson. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3-4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

CHAPTER 15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM? APHRAHAT’S DEMONSTRATIONS AS A WINDOW TO JEWISH INITIATION IN PERSIA NATHAN WITKAMP EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN I NTRODUCTION

Although the apostle Paul rejected circumcision as an identity marker for the new Christian community consisting of Jews and non-Jews (cf. Rom 3:30 and Gal 5:6), subsequent history shows that circumcision still remained something to reckon with in inter-religious contacts between Jews and Christians. This is particularly true for Mesopotamia, where large numbers of Christians and Jews were living side by side. Scholars as early as the middle of the twentieth century have noted the parallel between Jewish proselyte initiation and Christian initiation in Syria: circumcision-baptism vs. anointing-baptism.1 The latter

Gerard Rouwhorst, “A Remarkable Case of Religious Interaction: Water Baptisms in Judaism and Christianity,” in Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature, ed. Marcel Poorthuis, 1

323

324

NATHAN WITKAMP

became the dominant pattern for initiation in Syriac-speaking Christianity in the fourth century. In two studies from 1979 and 1981, Sebastian Brock argued that the Christian pattern was modelled after the Jewish rite, with anointing replacing circumcision.2 More recently, the same view has been developed more elaborately by Gerard Rouwhorst in three papers from 2009, 2018 and 2019.3 This approach, which I would like to coin the “Brock-Rouwhorst thesis,” explains, among other things, why Syrian authors could parallel the pre-baptismal anointing with Jewish circumcision or use cutting imagery to describe the anointing. This Syrian liturgical mimicry—which probably also went the other way round4—suggests, at least, some sort of engagement between Jewish and Christian communities. It is likely that this relationship was basically qualified by mutual competition.5 Especially concerning the recruiting of converts, one would Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 17 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009), 120. 2 Sebastian P. Brock, The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition, Gorgias Liturgical Studies 4 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 48, 78–79, 119–21; idem, “The Transition to a Post-Baptismal Anointing in the Antiochene Rite,” in The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies on the Themes of Thanksgiving and Redemption in the Central Prayers of the Eucharistic and Baptismal Liturgies in Honour of Arthur Hubert Couratin, ed. Bryan D. Spinks (Rome: Edizioni Liturgische, 1981), 217, 219. 3 Gerard Rouwhorst, “Initiation by Circumcision and Water Baptism in Early Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Ritual Dynamics in Jewish and Christian Contexts: Between Bible and Liturgy, ed. Claudia D. Bergmann and Benedikt Kranemann (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019), 165–89; idem, “Liturgical Mimesis or Liturgical Identity Markers: The Initiation of Christians and the Baptism of Christ in Early Syriac Christianity,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy (New York, 10–15 June, 2014), ed. Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetić, and Gabriel Radle, Eastern Christian Studies 28 (Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 25–47; idem, “Remarkable Case.” 4 It is likely that Jewish proselyte baptism was inspired by Christian baptism (Rouwhorst, “Remarkable Case,” 121–23; idem, “Liturgical Mimesis,” 40). 5 Cf. Rouwhorst, “Initiation by Circumcision,” 185; cf. Jacob Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 4.

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

325

expect that both communities were eager to prove that they, and they only, were the true people of God and followed the proper prescriptions and rituals. A strategy that could fulfil this need was to mirror one’s own initiation ritual to that of the competitor in order to tone down one another’s claims for owing (the spiritual truth of) that particular rite de passage. Against this background, Aphrahat (…345) provides a remarkable case.6 From his Demonstrations—the first literary work originally written in Syriac—we learn that Aphrahat was seriously engaged in Jewish-Christian dialogue.7 Several Demonstrations make clear that there really was something at stake and that members of the community as well as potential converts had to be inured against the bold claims of Judaism.8 Within such a situation, one would expect Aphrahat to exploit the similarities between both initiation rites, e.g., by arguing that anointing fulfils and surpasses Jewish circumcision. But quite surprisingly, in his Demonstration on Circumcision he not only ignores the connection between anointing and circumcision, but also portrays baptism (the immersion) as a We do not know very much about Aphrahat’s life and person. From his only extant writing, The Demonstrations, it is clear that he lived in Persia—possibly in Adiabene—and had “some sort of authority” (Sebastian P. Brock, “Aphrahat,” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage, ed. Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, and Lucas Van Rompay (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias; Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2011), 24–25). We also know that he was an ascetic (iḥidāyā) and was involved with the proto-monastic movement of the socalled bnay qyāmā (sons of the covenant). But it is not certain that he was among the clerics (see Peter Bruns, Aphrahat: Demonstrationes/ Unterweisungen, vol. 5/1 of Fontes Christiani [Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1991], 1:41–47). 7 The Demonstrations consist of two major parts, Demonstrations 1–10 and 11–22, and a concluding 23rd Demonstration. Based upon Aphrahat’s own remark in Demonstrations 22.25, the compilation of the two main parts can be dated exactly in 337 and 344 CE respectively; the final Demonstration was compiled in the Summer of 345 (Dem. 23.69). 8 Aphrahat’s primary audience probably consisted of monks and pastors (cf. Bruns, Aphrahat, 38). The Demonstrations are preceded by a letter of a friend who requests Aphrahat to (further) instruct him in the faith and the required spiritual works. Frequently, Aphrahat calls this addressee “my beloved friend” (Dem. 1.1, 1.15, 1.18, etc.). 6

326

NATHAN WITKAMP

circumcision.9 Rouwhorst makes the following important remark in this regard: Several factors may have played a role in the development of this variety. Thus, the fact that Ephrem and Aphrahat place different accents in their interpretation of Christian initiation is doubtless related to more general differences in theology. However, of perhaps even greater importance are the character of the various Christian groups and their historical settings; more in particular, the relations they had with Judaism and with Jewish communities.10

The last-mentioned factor, Aphrahat’s historical setting and his relation with Judaism in particular, forms the impetus for the present paper. It is the author’s conviction that the apparent mismatch between Aphrahat’s approach and the supposed Jewish initiation pattern can be solved satisfactorily by a more careful study of proselyte initiation in third/fourth-century Mesopotamia. To this end, we shall discuss the Brock-Rouwhorst thesis with special reference to the relevant Talmudic passages. This will show that the pattern of circumcision-baptism was still not universally applied in Aphrahat’s time, and thus leads to the proposal that he deliberately ignored the anointing and shifted the parallel with circumcision to the immersion, since the Jewish community he was engaged with (still) initiated non-Jews by circumcision alone. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to our understanding of Christian-Jewish interaction in Mesopotamia in general and Aphrahat’s situation in particular.

1. THE BROCK-ROUWHORST THESIS

As mentioned in the introduction, the Brock-Rouwhorst thesis asserts that the Christian Syrian initiation pattern was modelled after the Jewish rite for the initiation of Gentiles. In the following, I will first briefly discuss both patterns and the relevant sources Demonstrations 11.11–12; PS 1/1:501, 504; ET: Kuriakose Valavanolickal, Aphrahat Demonstrations II, Mōrān ʼEthʼō Series 24 (Kottayam; Kerala, India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2005), 15–17. Cf. Rouwhorst, “Initiation by Circumcision,” 178. 10 Rouwhorst, “Initiation by Circumcision,” 183. 9

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

327

and then provide the main arguments brought forward for the thesis itself. This will form the necessary background for the study of Aphrahat’s dialogue with the Jews in the second part of this paper. 1.1. Jewish Proselyte Initiation

Our knowledge of Jewish proselyte initiation in late antique Syria and Mesopotamia is mainly based upon Talmud Bavli, Yevamot 46a/b and 47a/b.11 The tractate bYev 46a/b presents a couple of discussions between two rabbis complemented with other voices. The first concerns an argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, two Tannaite sages of the Javne period.12 The Sages taught in a baraita:13 With regard to a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says that this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathers following the exodus from Egypt that they were circumcised but were not immersed. With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua says that this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: Whether he immersed but was not circumcised or whether he was circumcised but

Cf. bAvod.Zar 59a and the later medieval tractate Gerim; cf. Talmud Yerushalmi, yQidd 64d, 44–55. For a helpful discussion of bYev 46a/b and 47a/b, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Hellenistic Culture and Society (Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999), 198–238. I also want to express my gratitude to Pieter Siebesma, who introduced me to the complex world of the Talmud. Of course, any mistakes are my own. 12 The Tannaim (Aramaic: “teachers”) were Jewish scholars who were active between ca. 10–220 CE. After the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, the center of learning moved from Jerusalem to Javne. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are 3rd generation Tannaim, ca. 80 – ca. 110 CE. The Tannaim were succeeded by the Amoraim (“interpreters” or “reciters”) who were active between ca. 220 and ca. 500 in Palestine and Babylonia, which resulted in the Talmud Yerushalmi (ca. 400 CE) and the Talmud Bavli (ca. 500/600 CE) respectively. 13 A Baraita concerns an authoritative saying which has not been taken up in the Mishna. 11

328

NATHAN WITKAMP did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses.14 […] The Gemara15 concedes: Rather, the baraita must be reinterpreted as follows: With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the halakha is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone is effective. Where they disagree is with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives that it is effective from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees because he maintains that in the conversion of the forefathers there was also an immersion.16

The Baraita seems to say that Rabbi Yehoshua accepted a conversion by immersion only. According to the Gemara, however, the only point of difference between the rabbis seems to refer to the situation that someone is circumcised but not immersed. Rabbi Eliezer would have meant that circumcision suffices, while Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion would have been that an extra immersion is necessary for conversion. Remarkably, both are said to consent with a conversion by immersion only. But the “correct opinion” is that of the “rabbis” (elsewhere, “sages”), viz. that both circumcision and immersion are required. Later in the same tractate we come across a discussion between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda, also Tannaim but from a later period:17 Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who came and said: I was circumcised for the sake of conversion but I did not immerse, the court should immerse him, as what would be the problem with that; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since in any case the court bYev 46a,20; Text and ET: William Davidson Talmud (= Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz); https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.46a.20?lang=bi. 15 The Gemara concerns the commentary on the Baraita (or Mishna). 16 bYev 46b,1; Text and ET: Davidson; https:// https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.46b.1?lang=bi. 17 th 5 generation Tannaim; ca. 135 – ca. 170. 14

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

329

immerses him, Rabbi Yehuda does not require proof of the convert’s claim that he was circumcised for the sake of conversion because he holds that it is sufficient to be either circumcised or immersed for the sake of conversion. Rabbi Yosei says: The court does not immerse him. He holds that both circumcision and immersion must be performed specifically for the sake of conversion and are indispensable parts of the conversion process. Therefore, since it is impossible to verify the convert’s claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.18

So, complementing the earlier positions, Rabbi Yehuda holds that either circumcision or immersion results in a valid conversion, while Rabbi Yosei represents the viewpoint of the rabbis. To sum up, Talmud Bavli provides the following options for the initiation of non-Jews: a) circumcision without immersion; b) immersion without circumcision; c) circumcision or immersion; and d) circumcision and immersion. However, Cohen contends that the position of Yehoshua in the Baraita is probably a later interpolation for the sake of symmetry.19 The main arguments for this are that 1) in the Yerushalmi, which is older, rabbi Yehoshua agrees that circumcision is mandatory and that 2) neither Bavli nor Yerushalmi provides a case of someone who got converted by immersion only. But if immersion without circumcision (option b) is indeed only a theoretical option, also option (c) becomes suspicious since this also allows initiation by immersion only. As a consequence, only (a) and (d) remain as the most realistic practices. The latter is clearly the desired position of the governing voice of Talmud Bavli, and a more detailed description of this rite for initiation of Gentiles is presented in bYev 47b. After the presentation, examination and instruction of the candidate, it states: If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. If there still remain on him bYev 46b,8; Text and ET: Davidson; https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.46b.8?lang=bi. 19 Cohen, Beginnings, 219–21. Cf. Moshe Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism: The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, AJEC 99 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018), 65. 18

330

NATHAN WITKAMP shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, they circumcise him again a second time to remove them. When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately, and two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion and inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. Once he has immersed and emerged, he is like a born Jew in every sense.20

Cohen concludes that the Baraita of the conversion ceremony in bYev 47b, including the above quoted passage, probably stems from the second century CE.21 But this does not imply a common practice at that time. Moshe Lavee asserts that “much textual evidence exists that this was neither a widespread nor accepted custom even well into the amoraic period in the Land of Israel.”22 An interesting illustration of this diversity in the amoraic period is found in tractate Yevamot itself. In bYev 46a,14 it is narrated that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba (ca. 290 – ca. 320), who came from Babylonia(!), visited Gabala where he saw Jewish women “who had become pregnant from converts who were circumcised but had still not immersed to complete their conversion process.”23 We get the picture, then, that even in the late third/early-fourth century, the desired rabbinic pattern of circumcision-immersion was still no commonplace. Eventually, it would become the dominant ceremony but not self-evidently so. Rabbinic rules were not everywhere known or accepted as guidelines for the conversion ceremony.24 Or as Cohen puts it bluntly, “just outside the rabbinic orbit chaos still prevailed.”25

bYev 47b,2; Text and ET: Davidson; https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.47b.2?lang=bi. 21 Cohen (Beginnings, 223) notes that “[t]he emergence of immersion as a conversion ritual is no doubt to be connected with the emergence of the possibility that women too could convert to Judaism, not merely through marriage to a Jewish spouse but in their own right.” 22 Lavee, Conversion, 61. 23 bYev 46a,14; Text and ET: Davidson; https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.46a.14?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en. 24 Lavee, Conversion, 61. 25 Cohen, Beginnings, 225. Cf. Lavee, Conversion, 61. 20

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

331

1.2. Christian Initiation in Syria

As for Christian initiation in Syria, there is a strong consensus among liturgical scholars that the early pattern of initiation was anointing-baptism, an anointing of the head followed by an immersion in water. The relevant sources here are the Didascalia (3rd century), the Acts of Thomas (3rd century), Ephrem the Syrian (4th century), the Syriac Acts of John (5th century?), AR (fifth-century),26 and Narsai of Nisibis (5th century). By way of illustration, I will shortly discuss the more prominent sources per century,27 followed by an inquiry into the structure of Aphrahat’s initiation rite. The most important witness for the early period is the Acts of Thomas, which survives in a Greek and a Syriac version, both of which contain five accounts of baptism, viz. in chapters 26–27, 49, 120–21, 131–33, and 157–58.28 In both versions, the common pattern is anointing-baptism and is described in all accounts except for that of chapter 49.29 Interestingly, the anointing is usually presented as the most prominent ritual in the Acts. This is An anonymous baptismal commentary witnessed by the two Syriac sources A (British Library, Add. 14496, f. 23) and R (I.E. Rahmani, I Fasti della Chiesa Patriarcale Antiochena (Rome, 1920), x–xiii). 27 These early rites have been discussed elaborately elsewhere. See, e.g., Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). 28 That AT was originally composed in Syriac has been shown convincingly by Harold W. Attridge, “The Original Language of the Acts of Thomas,” in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 241–50. 29 Both versions of chapters 157–58 have an anointing of head and body. The same is true for the Syriac version of chapters 120–21. The other accounts only mention an anointing of the head. In chapter 49 the Greek version speaks of a “sealing,” while the Syriac version clearly mentions a baptism in water but without an anointing. The nature of the “sealing” of the Greek version is not clear. For the different proposals, see, e.g., Nathan Witkamp, Tradition and Innovation: Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Narsai of Nisibis, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 149 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018), 258. 26

332

NATHAN WITKAMP

further corroborated by the observation that the common name for the anointing, %$#‫( ܪܘ‬rūšmā) or σφαγίς is used for the entire rite.30 Ephrem and Narsai are two clear witnesses of the pattern anointing-baptism in the fourth and fifth centuries.31 Although Ephrem nowhere provides a detailed description of initiation, the several allusions to it means we may safely assume that it basically consisted of an anointing followed by an immersion. He states, for example, “April gives rest to the fasters, it anoints, baptizes and clothes in white.”32 Narsai’s case is even stronger and his two Liturgical Homilies clearly witness the pattern anointingbaptism, which he himself summarizes several times with the phrase “oil and water.”33 Yet, for the sake of completeness it must be noted that, although the anointing-baptism was still the ritual center, the rite Narsai knew consisted of more than just an anointing followed by an immersion. It included additional rituals like an apotaxis/syntaxis and an enrolment, that in the course of time were added to its ritual center. This is no exception but

Cf. Susan E. Myers, Spirit Epicleses in the Acts of Thomas, WUNT II/281 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 112; Ferguson, Baptism, 430. 31 With this difference that in Ephrem and Narsai the anointing and the immersion receive equal ritual weight and that in Aphrahat the emphasis shifts to the immersion, as we will see. For a discussion of the rites and their mystagogy in Aphrahat and Ephrem, see, e.g., Witkamp, Tradition and Innovation, 263–70. 32 De Virginitate 7.2; Text and ET: Sebastian P. Brock and George A. Kiraz, Ephrem the Syrian: Select Poems, Eastern Christian Texts 2 (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2006), 184–85. “clothes in white” refers to the white baptismal garment the neophytes received after baptism. See further On Virginity, 7.5, 7.8, and 7.9–10. 33 See Witkamp, Tradition and Innovation; for the phrase “oil and water,” esp. pp. 62–63. Interestingly, even Narsai’s younger contemporary, Jacob of Serugh (ca. 451–521), seems to witness an initiation rite which basically consisted of the traditional Syrian pattern of anointing-baptism. See Sebastian P. Brock, “Baptismal Themes in the Writings of Jacob of Serugh,” in Symposium Syriacum 1976, OrChrAn 205 (Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1978), 339–40. 30

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

333

witnesses the broader development in East- and West-Syria and beyond of expanding initiation rites.34 How does Aphrahat fit into the general picture of initiation by anointing-baptism? Like Ephrem, Aphrahat nowhere provides a detailed discussion of the baptismal rite. The passage in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations that comes closest to a chronological inventory of the initiation process is the following: “But for us, this is required, to observe the feast in its time from season to season, fasting in purity, praying constantly, praising in diligence, saying psalms as is becoming, giving the sign (with the cross) and the baptism according to its law;35 the holy blessings in their time, and all customary things may be completed.”36 The crucial phrase here is “giving the sign” (‫'ܠ‬$& %$#‫)ܪܘ‬, and different proposals have been offered, like a confirmation, a handing over of the creed (traditio symboli), or an anointing (with or without a signing of the cross).37 Although any proposal remains conjectural, the latter seems the most promising in light of another passage in the Demonstrations where the %$#‫ ܪܘ‬is associated with oil.38 The best conjecture we can make then is that Aphrahat’s community initiated new converts by the similar pattern of anointingbaptism.

Compare, among other sources, the initiation rites of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the Testamentum Domini. See Witkamp, Tradition and Innovation. 35 Or “according to its rite.” See J. Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 110b. 36 Demonstrations 12.13; PS 1/1:537; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 31–32. 37 Baby Varghese, Les onctions baptismales dans la tradition syrienne, CSCO 512/82 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 37; Simon Matthew Jones, “Womb of the Spirit: The Liturgical Implications of the Doctrine of the Spirit for the Syrian Baptismal Tradition” (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), 99–100. 38 Demonstrations 23.3; PS 1/2:9; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 258–59. Cf. Edward J. Duncan, Baptism in the Demonstrations of Aphraates the Persian Sage (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1945), 108–15, and Varghese, Onctions, 37–39, who both opt for this view. See further Witkamp, Tradition and Innovation, 263–65. 34

334

NATHAN WITKAMP

1.3. Ritual Mimicry

The above shows that the rites of Jewish proselyte initiation and Christian initiation in Syria—especially that of the Syriac speaking communities—are remarkably similar. The Brock-Rouwhorst thesis holds that this is no mere coincidence: the Christian pattern has been modelled after that of Jewish proselyte initiation, with the circumcision replaced by an anointing. Rouwhorst gives the following arguments to corroborate this thesis.39 First, the anointing has a similar function as the circumcision: it is a sign both of separation from the old way of life and unbelievers, and of belonging to God’s flock. In other words, like circumcision, the anointing is an identity marker. Second, the term %$#‫( ܪܘ‬see above) could be used to designate Jewish circumcision as well as the prebaptismal anointing. So, Aphrahat in his Demonstration 11.6 uses both %$#‫ ܪܘ‬and the verb )#‫ ܪ‬to designate circumcision as a token that separates the seed of Abraham from the unclean people,40 while at other places he uses it concerning the pre-baptismal anointing.41 And, third, the anointing is sometimes explicitly portrayed as an alternative to circumcision. One of the clearest examples of this is found in the hymn On Epiphany, traditionally attributed to Ephrem:42 From the peoples he separated the People, by the former mark (%$#‫ܘ‬+*) of circumcision (0‫ܪܘܬ‬.- ‫ ܕ‬sic); but by the mark (%$#‫ܘ‬+*) of anointing, the peoples He separates from the People … (stanza 4) […]

Rouwhorst, “Initiation by Circumcision,” 177–78; cf. idem, “Remarkable Case,” 119–20; idem, “Liturgical Mimesis,” 38–42. 40 PS 1/1:481, 484–85; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 7–9. 41 Demonstrations 12.13; PS 1/1:537; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 31–32. Demonstrations 23.3; PS 1/2:9; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 258–59. Demonstrations 23.63; PS 1/2:134; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 305. 42 See Gerard Rouwhorst (“Le noyau le plus ancien des hymnes de la collection ‘Sur L’Epiphanie’ et la question de leur authenticité,” VG 66 [2012]: 139–59), who argues that this hymn is an authentic work of Ephrem. 39

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

335

The anointing of the People was a foreshadowing of Christ; their rod a mystery of the Cross; their lamb a type of the Only begotten; their tabernacle a mystery of your Churches; their circumcision a token of your mark (‫ܢ‬43$#‫ ܕܪܘ‬0‫ܘܪܬܗ ܐܬ‬.-). Under the shadow of your goodly thing, sat the People of old. (stanza 13)43

This pairing of anointing and circumcision is still found in Jacob of Serugh44 and even in the later East Syrian Ordo: For you gave holy oil to men of old as a mark (rushma) and token of temporal priesthood and transient kingship, but now you have transmitted it to be a symbolic mark for those who move from things earthly to things heavenly, with an immortal body and incorruptible soul, being circumcised with a circumcision without hands, stripping off the flesh of sin at the circumcision that belongs to Christ… 45

All taken together, the Brock-Rouwhorst thesis offers a plausible explanation for the similarities between the initiation rites of Judaism and Christianity in Syria and Mesopotamia.46 An illustration of its explanatory force is, for example, that it makes sense of an otherwise unintelligible passage in Narsai where he says, “The iron of the oil the priest holds on the tip of his fingers; Edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers, Hymnen de Nativitate (epiphania), CSCO 186 (Leuven : Peeters, 1959), 147, 149; ET: Gregory the Great (II), Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat, vol. 2/13 of the Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1898), 269–70. Words or phrases in italics are my own adaptations to bring the translation into closer harmony with the Syriac. 44 Brock, “Baptismal Themes,” 338. 45 Brock, The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition, 79. For a German translation of the whole Ordo, see Gustav Diettrich, Die nestorianische Taufliturgie (Giessen: Ricker’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1903). See p. 36 for the cited passage. The Syrian Ordo (supposedly) goes back to Ishoyābh III (580-658). But cf. Bryan D. Spinks, Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent (Burlington: Ashgate, 2006), 74. 46 Of course questions remain about, for example, the exact time of introduction of the baptismal anointing and the reason why the Christian communities chose to replace circumcision with an anointing. 43

336

NATHAN WITKAMP

and he signs the body and the senses of the soul with its sharp (edge). The son of mortals whets the oil with the words of his mouth; and he makes it sharp as iron to cut off iniquity.”47 Since there is no direct mention of circumcision here, the author evidently appeals to the common knowledge of his audience.

2. A PHRAHAT AND THE JEWS

Before discussing Aphrahat’s approach of baptism, it is important first to have a closer look at his religious context. Even the mere table of contents of his Demonstrations shows that Aphrahat was seriously engaged with Judaism: eight out of the twelve Demonstrations from the second major part (including the final Demonstration), written in 344/345 CE, are specifically directed against the Jews and their practices.48 These Demonstrations show that Judaism was a lively reality for Aphrahat’s community and not just a rhetorical device to shape the Christian identity.49 This Narsai, Mēmrā 22, “On Baptism”; Alphonse Mingana, Narsai Doctoris Syri: Homiliae et carmina (Mosul: Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1905), 1:365, lines 6–8; ET: R.H. Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 41–42. 48 These are: On Circumcision (11); On Passover (12); On Sabbath (13); On the Distinction between Foods (15); On the Peoples which have taken the Place of the People (16); On the Messiah who is the Son of God (17); Against the Jews on Virginity and Continence (18); Against the Jews on account of their Saying that it is certain for them to be gathered Together (19); On Persecution (21); and parts of On the Cluster of Grapes (23). The first ten Demonstrations from 337 CE are mainly concerned with the Christian way of life, including faith, prayer, humility, and so on. 49 Bruns (Demonstrationes, 55) asserts that Aphrahat’s writings reliably mirror the contacts and conflicts between the two religions, and Jacob Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, xi, even remarks that, “Outside of the Babylonian Talmud, Aphrahat … provides the only substantial literary evidence on the state of Mesopotamia-Babylonian Judaism in Sasanian times.” The exact nature of Aphrahat’s contact with the Jews and whether or not this concerned rabbinic Judaism, is a matter of debate. But all scholars agree that Aphrahat was engaged with Judaism. For a concise overview of the history of research, see Eliyahu Lizorkin, Aphrahat's Demonstrations: A Conversation with the Jews of Mesopotamia, CSCO 64 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012). Cf. Peter Bruns, “Aphrahat der Persische Weise, …345” in Syrische Kirchenväter, ed. Wassilios Klein (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 111–23; cf. Sam Janse, “De joodse achtergrond van het gebed in Aphrahats Demonstrationes 23.53–59,” 47

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

337

becomes particularly visible by the urgency with which he discusses practical issues like the validity of circumcision, the sabbath, or the dietary laws, and also by references to Jews who “are exulting, boasting and taking pride in the fact that they declare unclean and make a distinction between foods”50 and say “We are the children of God and the children of Abraham.”51 In all likelihood, these reflect actual encounters between Jews and Christians. But what is particularly striking is that several times Aphrahat directly addresses a Jewish interlocutor, as in, “Say to me, o scribe, the wise disputer of the people”52 and “o wise debater of the people who does not examine the words of the law.”53 It is clear, then, that interaction with Judaism was of great concern for Aphrahat.54 The primary reason for his ChristianJewish argument must be sought, however, not in an anti-Jewish (or even antisemitic) sentiment,55 but in the religious competition between Judaism and Christianity.56 We may assume that this situation was intensified by the then current Great Persecution (340-401) under Shapur II. In the 21st demonstration On

NedTT 59 (2005): 41–59; cf. Adam Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions in Aphrahats Demonstration’s,” JECS 14 (2006): 157–81. 50 Demonstrations 15.9; PS, 1/1:757; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 126. 51 Demonstrations 16.8; PS, 1/1:783; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 137. 52 Demonstrations 15.5; PS, 1/1:744; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 120. 53 Demonstrations 12.3; PS, 1/1:512; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 21. Elsewhere he says, e.g., “o sage” (Dem. 11.1; PS, 469; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 3). Cf. Bruns, Demonstrationes, 55. 54 One must also not forget that Persian Christianity “took root in the Jewries of Edessa and Adiabene” (Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 2). 55 As was sometimes the case in the Greek- and Latin-speaking West. Cf. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 5. Cf. idem, “The Jewish-Christian Argument in Fourth Century Iran: Aphrahat on Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Dietary Laws,” JES 7 (1970), 283. The latter is a more limited pre-publication of his Aphrahat and Judaism. Most introductory information is similar in both studies. 56 Probably not in the last place because the two religions had much in common. Bruns (Demonstrationes, 56) notes: “Die polemische Abgrenzung der syrischen Väter gegen das Judentum spricht nicht gegen, sondern eher für die enge Verwandtschaft der beiden religiösen Gruppen.”

338

NATHAN WITKAMP

Persecution, Aphrahat narrates encounter with a Jewish sage:

the

following

illustrative

I have heard a shameful thing, and it greatly grieved me, because the unclean say that, “This people who is gathered from all the Nations has no God.” And the wicked say thus, “If there is a God for them why does he not require vengeance for his people?” Darkness grew more thick upon me when the Jews also reproach us and magnify themselves over the children of our people. It happened one day that a man who is called ‘the sage of the Jews’ asked me, saying, “Jesus who was called your teacher wrote for you, “If there shall be faith in you like a single grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, Move, and it will move away from before you, and even be lifted up and fall into the sea, for it shall obey you” (Mt. 17:20; 21:22). Thus there is in all your people not one wise man whose prayer is heard, (who) asks of God that your persecution should cease from you. For it is written thus for you in a text “That there is nothing which you shall not be able to do” (Mt. 17:20).57

The very topic of the demonstration On Persecution is to counter this Jewish charge, which in all likelihood reflects the actual situation. At stake was probably not only the credibility of Christianity as such, but also the danger of Jewish converts to Christianity turning back to Judaism, which enjoyed relative peace at that time.58 And part of the argument may have been that Christians suffered because they no longer observed important Jewish practices like circumcision, the sabbath, and dietary laws.59 In order to ward off this threat, Aphrahat would then endeavour to spiritually equip his audience by showing that

Demonstrations 21.1; PS, 1/1:932; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 201. Bruns, Demonstrationes, 54. Cf. Samuel Hugh Moffett, Beginnings to 1500, vol. 1 of A History of Christianity in Asia (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003), 141. Cf. Lehto, “Dimensions,” 157, note 2. Neusner (Aphrahat and Judaism, 4) asserts that the Christian community “included large numbers of converted Jews.” 59 Cf. Demonstrations 15.9. 57 58

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

339

Christianity is still the better option and so counter the Jewish critique of Christianity.60

3. BAPTISM: THE SECOND CIRCUMCISION

One of the issues that concerned Aphrahat’s Jewish-Christian argument was initiation, and that is the topic of his Demonstration on Circumcision (Dem. 11), the first polemic against Jewish practices.61 In this Demonstration, Aphrahat argues that the bottom line of salvation history is redemption through faith, otherwise called “the circumcision of the heart,” and that circumcision of the flesh never had any salvific value (Dem. 11.2; 11.5; 11.10; and 11.11).62 This is not only shown—so he argues— by the observation that this practice was not part of the earlier covenants of Adam, Enoch, and Noah, and only followed Abraham’s faith (Dem. 11.3 and 11.11), but also by the phenomenon that neither those of Israel who violated the Mosaic laws nor idol worshipers of other nations were saved by their circumcision.63 The real function of circumcision, according to Aphrahat, was to mark and separate Israel from the unclean peoples (Dem. 11.2; 11.4; and 11.6). In this way, no one was left with any excuse (at least, the men) if he transgressed the laws: his circumcision showed that he was an Israelite and, thus, could have known better. Because of this practical function, there was no need for the people of Israel to get circumcised during the forty-year period in the wilderness. This became urgent only when Israel entered Canaan and was going to live between the unclean idol worshipers. But, Aphrahat concludes, this function

Both parties undoubtedly employed a strategy of criticizing the other, and Neusner (Aphrahat and Judaism, 42) may be right that Aphrahat in fact deals with “the Jewish critique of Christianity” and that this “critique was reinforced by the peace and prosperity enjoyed by Jewry in a time of Christian suffering.” 61 For a structural analysis of this demonstration, see Lizorkin, Aphrahat’s Demonstrations, 52–59. 62 Cf. Romans 2:25–29. 63 Aphrahat argues that the Egyptians, the Edomites, and the Moabites and the Ammonites must have known circumcision (11.8). 60

340

NATHAN WITKAMP

of circumcision was only temporary and has been replaced and surpassed by baptism under the new covenant. Key in Aphrahat’s argumentation is Joshua 5:2–8, which describes the circumcision of the people of Israel after having crossed the Jordan (Dem. 11.6–7).64 Since this generation had not been circumcised in the wilderness, Joshua is ordered here to “Circumcise again the children of Israel a second time” (Josh 5:2). Aphrahat explains that this second circumcision—of the flesh— presupposes a first circumcision of the heart, with reference to Deuteronomy 10:16. This pattern of a spiritual circumcision followed by a circumcision of the flesh Aphrahat applies to Christian initiation, “Those who are circumcised in their heart and those who will be circumcised a second time in the true Jordan, the baptism for the forgiveness of the sins, will live” (Dem. 11.11).65 Then follows an enumeration of the similarities between “Joshua the son of Nun” and “Joshua our Saviour” (i.e., Jesus),66 the first part of which says: Joshua the son of Nun circumcised the people a second time with knives of stone when he and his people crossed the Jordan; Joshua [Jesus], our redeemer a second time circumcised the peoples who believed in him with the circumcision of the heart, and they were baptized and circumcised with the knife which is his word that is sharper than the two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12). Joshua the son of Nun led the people across to the Land of Promise; and Joshua our redeemer promised the land of the living to whoever passed through the true Jordan and believed, and circumcised the foreskin of his heart.67

Interestingly, Talmud Bavli contains a discussion of the same biblical passage and in particular the meaning of “again” and “a second time” (bYev 71b). Could it be that both Aphrahat and the rabbis are commenting on the same Mishnaic source? 65 PS, 501; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 15. 66 A common play on words, since Joshua and Jesus are the same word in Syriac. 67 Demonstrations 11.12; PS, 1/1:501; ET: Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 29. 64

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

341

Aphrahat concludes the Demonstration on Circumcision as follows, “Blessed are those who are circumcised in the foreskin of the heart and who are born from water, the second circumcision.”68

4. TOWARDS A PROPOSAL

As the above passages show, Aphrahat retains the pattern “circumcision of the heart–second circumcision,” i.e., the circumcision of the heart followed by an initiation ritual, but replaces the Jewish circumcision of the flesh by Christian ܳ ܶ ܳ baptism: the new and true “second circumcision” (0':8ܳ7‫ ܬ‬0‫ܽܘܪܬ‬.-).69 A couple of things stand out here. The first concerns methodology: although he could have done so—and clearly does so on other occasions (cf. Dem. 12.13)—it is notable that Aphrahat does not refer to Paul (Col 2:11–12) in order to argue that baptism is a spiritual circumcision.70 The obvious reason for this is that he is in dialogue with the Jews and therefore uses, as far as possible, only the source that has authority for both parties, the Jewish Tanakh.71 But one thing that is most remarkable is that Aphrahat deliberately pictures baptism as a circumcision and ignores the pre-baptismal anointing. This shows, above all, that Aphrahat is not primarily concerned here to accurately describe the initiation rite he is familiar with. Instead, he seems eager to convince an interlocutor—whether a (converted) Jew or a non-Jew—with all the rhetorical devices he possesses, that baptism, even the Christian initiation rite as a whole, is actually a circumcision. Assuming lively contacts between Christian and Jewish communities in Aphrahat’s day, and that Jews and Christians were probably each other’s religious competitors, it is likely that Demonstrations 11.12; PS, 1/1:504; ET: Valavanolickal, Demonstrations II, 17. Demonstrations 11.12; PS, 1/1:504. We see the idea of baptism as a “second circumcision” later reflected in Ephrem. See P. Georges Saber, La théologie baptismale de Saint Ephrem: Essai de théologie historique (Kaslik-Liban: Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit, 1974), 40–42. 70 Aphrahat once refers to “the Apostle [Paul]” in this Demonstration (11.11), but that concerns Hebrews 1:1, which does not speak of circumcision. 71 Cf. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 5. 68 69

342

NATHAN WITKAMP

Aphrahat endeavours to argue that Christian initiation surpasses or, to say the least, is not inferior to Jewish initiation. But the pivotal question is why Aphrahat would have bothered to portray baptism as a circumcision at all, if the Jews of his vicinity practiced circumcision followed by an immersion? His argument even seems counterproductive in this regard. Would it not have been easier and more logical for him to take the Jewish pattern of circumcision–baptism as a stepping stone for arguing the superiority of Christian initiation? In that case we would have expected a comparison between anointing and circumcision similar to that in Ephrem’s hymn on Epiphany, instead of a comparison between baptism and circumcision. How can we make sense of Aphrahat’s portrayal of baptism as a circumcision with reference to his Jewish-Christian argument? A solution to this issue takes us back to Talmud Bavli, Yevamot 46a/b and 47a/b. We have seen that this source suggests that circumcision followed by an immersion eventually became the majority view during the third/fourth centuries. At the same time there were good reasons to suppose that the traditional praxis of initiation by circumcision alone was more persistent than the rabbis desired. Indeed, traditions, and rituals in particular, are usually slow to change. Therefore, it is not unlikely that when Aphrahat compiled his Demonstration on Circumcision in the year 344 CE, Jewish initiation was still not standardized to the circumcision–immersion pattern.72 The latter would give rise to the common Christian pattern of anointing-baptism in Syria during the fourth century. This inspired Christian authors to present the anointing as an alternative to circumcision, strengthening their argument in the interreligious dialogue with Judaism. But Aphrahat’s situation is clearly different. His eloquent portrayal of the immersion instead of the anointing as an alternative to circumcision, and his complete silence on the anointing, suggests that the Jewish community he was in dialogue

The rabbinic centers were in Pumbadita and Sura, near Babylon, while Aphrahat possibly resided in Adiabene, in the northwest of the Sassanid empire (Bruns, Demonstrationes, 43–44). 72

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

343

with did initiate proselytes by circumcision alone. In this way, Aphrahat becomes a window into Jewish initiation in Persia. Admittedly, this proposal is necessarily conjectural. But it is historically plausible and, above all, offers a strong explanation for Aphrahat’s otherwise peculiar portrayal of initiation against the background of the common Syrian pattern of anointing-baptism. His creative use of Joshua 5:2–8 offers him the opportunity to retain the value of the circumcision of the heart on the one hand, and to portray baptism as a replacement of the physical circumcision on the other hand. In this way, he is able to remain within the Jewish Verstehungshorizont and to exploit this substrate to show that Christian baptism “in the true Jordan” is the fulfilment of all of this.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Attridge, Harold W. “The Original Language of the Acts of Thomas.” Pages 241–50 in Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism, and Christian Origins, Presented to John Strugnell on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. Beck, Edmund. Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers, Hymnen de Nativitate (epiphania). CSCO 186. Leuven: Peeters, 1959. Brock, Sebastian P. “Baptismal Themes in the Writings of Jacob of Serugh.” Pages 325–47 in Symposium Syriacum 1976. OrChrAn 205. Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1978. ———. “The Transition to a Post-Baptismal Anointing in the Antiochene Rite.” Pages 215–25 in The Sacrifice of Praise: Studies on the Themes of Thanksgiving and Redemption in the Central Prayers of the Eucharistic and Baptismal Liturgies in Honour of Arthur Hubert Couratin. Edited by Bryan D. Spinks. Rome: Edizioni Liturgische, 1981. ———. The Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition. Gorgias Liturgical Studies 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ———. “Aphrahat.” Pages 24–25 in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz, and Lucas Van Rompay.

344

NATHAN WITKAMP

Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias; Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2011. Brock, Sebastian P., and George A. Kiraz, trans. Ephrem the Syrian: Select Poems. Eastern Christian Texts 2. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2006. Bruns, Peter. Aphrahat: Demonstrationes/Unterweisungen. Vol. 5/1 of Fontes Christiani. Freiburg im Breisgau; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1991. ———. “Aphrahat der Persische Weise, …345.” Pages 111–23 in Syrische Kirchenväter. Edited by Wassilios Klein. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999. Connolly, R. H. The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Diettrich, Gustav. Die nestorianische Taufliturgie. Giessen: Ricker’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1903. Duncan, Edward J. Baptism in the Demonstrations of Aphraates the Persian Sage. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1945. Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Gregory the Great (II), Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat. In vol. 2/13 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1898. Janse, Sam. “De joodse achtergrond van het gebed in Aphrahats Demonstrationes 23.53–59.” NedTT 59 (2005): 41–59. Jones, Simon Matthew. “Womb of the Spirit: The Liturgical Implications of the Doctrine of the Spirit for the Syrian Baptismal Tradition.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 1999. Lavee, Moshe. The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism: The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity. AJEC 99. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018.

15. CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM?

345

Lehto, Adam. “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions in Aphrahats Demonstration’s.” JECS 14 (2006): 157–81. Lizorkin, Eliyahu. Aphrahat's Demonstrations: A Conversation with the Jews of Mesopotamia. CSCO 64. Leuven: Peeters, 2012. Mingana, Alphonse. Narsai Doctoris Syri: Homiliae et carmina. Vol. 1. Mosul: Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1905. Moffett, Samuel Hugh. Beginnings to 1500. Vol. 1 of A History of Christianity in Asia. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003. Myers, Susan E. Spirit Epicleses in the Acts of Thomas. WUNT II/281. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Neusner, Jacob. “The Jewish-Christian Argument in Fourth Century Iran: Aphrahat on Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Dietary Laws.” JES 7 (1970): 282–90. ———. Aphrahat and Judaism: The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Patrologia Syriaca. Edited by R. L. Graffin. 3 vols. Paris, 1897– 1907. Rouwhorst, Gerard. “A Remarkable Case of Religious Interaction: Water Baptisms in Judaism and Christianity.” Pages 103–26 in Interaction between Judaism and Christianity in History, Religion, Art and Literature. Edited by Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, and Joseph Turner. Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 17. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. ———. “Le noyau le plus ancien des hymnes de la collection ‘Sur L’Epiphanie’ et la question de leur authenticité.” VG 66 (2012): 139–59. ———. “Initiation by Circumcision and Water Baptism in Early Judaism and Early Christianity.” Pages 165–89 in Ritual Dynamics in Jewish and Christian Contexts: Between Bible and Liturgy. Edited by Claudia D. Bergmann and Benedikt Kranemann. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019. ———. “Liturgical Mimesis or Liturgical Identity Markers: The Initiation of Christians and the Baptism of Christ in Early Syriac Christianity.” Pages 25–47 in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy (New York, 10–15 June, 2014). Edited by Bert Groen, Daniel Galadza, Nina Glibetić, and Gabriel Radle. Eastern Christian Studies 28. Leuven: Peeters, 2019.

346

NATHAN WITKAMP

Saber, P. Georges. La théologie baptismale de Saint Ephrem: Essai de théologie historique. Kaslik-Liban: Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit, 1974. Smith, J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999. Spinks, Bryan D. Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent. Burlington: Ashgate, 2006. Valavanolickal, Kuriakose. Aphrahat Demonstrations II. Mōrān ʼEthʼō Series 24. Kottayam; Kerala, India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2005. Varghese, Baby. Les onctions baptismales dans la tradition syrienne. CSCO 512. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Witkamp, Nathan. Tradition and Innovation: Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Narsai of Nisibis. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 149. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018.

CHAPTER 16. LEADING THE RIGHTEOUS: LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE IN THE LIGHT OF ROMANS 3 JACK BARENTSEN EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN DEDICATION

With Martin Webber as my promotor from 2005-2010, I discovered the value of the social identity theory of leadership.1 This pointed me to the value of cultural anthropology in the study of the Scriptures, but also the value of the social sciences both in exegeting the NT and in exegeting our late modern context for discipleship, church formation, and identity construction. I have since applied myself to teaching and researching church leadership in various contemporary contexts, learning the tools of qualitative empirical research. However, with the opportunity of this Festschrift in honor of Martin’s supervision over a decade ago, I take up the social science notion of privilege to approach the text of Romans 3, both as a NT exegete and as a leadership scholar Jack Barentsen, Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission: A Social Identity Perspective on Local Leadership Development in Corinth and Ephesus, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 168 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011). 1

347

348

JACK BARENTSEN

seeking to learn from biblical sources with an eye to contemporary church leadership practices.

I NTRODUCTION

Privilege has become a hotly contested category. The growing economic inequality between the global north and south deepens the gap between privilege and poverty. Western countries struggle to face the continuing impact of their past involvement in slave trade. Race, education, sexual orientation, and gender identity have become conflicted grounds of privilege and discrimination, inspiring advocacy and social activism.2 While privilege may simply indicate social differences in wealth, education, or opportunity, for many it has become a powerful (but hotly contested) negative moral label that needs defense and accountability.3 The debate about privilege has permeated far beyond marginal spaces and academic discourse. Churches and religious leaders reflect on diversity and the multi-ethnic church,4 while others address racial privilege in the church.5 In addition, NT scholars have taken up related issues such as sensitivity to outsiders,6 and ethnicity and race.7 Notions like advantage and Khyati Y. Joshi, White Christian Privilege: The Illusion of Religious Equality in America (New York: New York University Press, 2021). 3 Elizabeth Sweeny Block, “White Privilege and the Erroneous Conscience: Rethinking Moral Culpability and Ignorance,” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 39 (2019): 357–74. 4 Johannes Reimer, Multikultureller Gemeindebau: Versöhnung Leben (Marburg: Francke, 2011); Richard W. Hardison, “A Theological Critique of the Multi-Ethnic Church Movement: 2000-2013” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014). 5 Efrem Smith, The Post-Black and Post-White Church: Becoming the Beloved Community in a Multi-Ethnic World, Leadership Network (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012). 6 Jacobus Kok and John A. Dunne, eds., Insiders Versus Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament. Perspectives on Philosophy and Religious Thought 14 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014). 7 David Horrell, Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race, and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020). 2

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

349

privilege, and related concepts of social order, responsibility and oppression, are not uniquely modern, but color human cultures throughout history. Social privilege may be defined as any entitlement, sanction, power, immunity, and advantage or right granted or conferred by the dominant group to a person or group solely by birthright membership in prescribed identities.8

Privilege often leads the privileged to view situations of prejudice or discrimination without a sense of responsibility for their privilege and the resulting inequalities, or without trying to avoid or eradicate oppression.9 This describes the impact of privilege on social order, without necessarily requiring the framework of critical (race) theory to interpret the social dynamics. Privilege may have both positive and negative effects on social order, an observation that resonates with the ancient structures of patronage, in which privilege was an important factor governing social exchange, sustaining the social hierarchy in its structures of belonging and exclusion.10 This perspective offers an approach to Romans 2–3 that treats Paul’s concern about Jewish advantage as a discourse about the effect of privilege on the social ordering of the early Christian community in Rome. Paul addresses religious, social, and moral privileges in theological language. The explicit focus is on Jewish advantage, while Roman privileges are addressed implicitly. A study of Paul’s arguments about Jewish (and Roman) advantage provides suggestions for how contemporary churches and

Linda Black and David Stone, “Expanding the Definition of Privilege: The Concept of Social Privilege,” Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development 33 (2005), 245. 9 Black and Stone, “Expanding the Definition of Privilege,” 246. 10 Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection, WUNT II/124 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), and James Harrison, Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context, WUNT II/172 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017). 8

350

JACK BARENTSEN

Christian leaders can handle their own structures of privilege within their communities and their civic context.

1. PERSPECTIVES ON J EWISH PRIVILEGE

Romans 3 opens with questions about Jewish privilege towards the close of a long section of divine indictment and judgment on all peoples. This section starts with an extended portrayal of divine judgment on “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (1:18, ESV), which speaks to both Jews and non-Jews in Rome (c.f. the general ἄνθρωπος, 1:18). Jews and non-Jews would hear different things in this passage. Philip Esler points out that this section relates to non-Jews since Jews would not identify with this list of idolatry, licentiousness and other shameful deeds; they would protest if Paul intended to describe them with such a list.11 For Jewish believers, this list would probably be reminiscent of prophetic passages of judgment against the idolatry of the nations. However, as Peter Oakes explains, scenes of divine judgment are also a familiar part of Roman life in the many wall paintings in Roman houses depicting conflict between the gods, whose wrath sometimes transformed people into half-human creatures. Thus, non-Jewish believers might also recognize Paul’s portrayal of divine judgment from their own religious narratives, yet be surprised that there is only one God, distant in heaven instead of fighting with all-toohuman competing gods, and that He could be known through creation. Moreover, it would make sense to non-Jewish believers that unwillingness to honor God appropriately results in personal transformation towards increasing shame and wickedness, although the manner in which Paul expresses that in Romans 1 would be surprising.12 The different hearers within the Christian communities in Rome would interpret this passage from the perspective of their own social and religious location in the city,

Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 151. 12 Peter Oakes, Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 153–54. 11

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

351

hearing the same indictment against unrighteousness, while their differing backgrounds inevitably contextualized the message. Paul steps up the argument in 2:1, addressing non-Jewish believers (ὦ ἄνθρωπε) who apparently agree with the preceding indictment of Gentile sinfulness. James Dunn argues that Paul already envisions the Jewish believer here, since “the evenhandedness of divine retribution … is calculated to win specifically Jewish assent.13 However, Romans were proud of their laws, and vigorously sought to implement them throughout the world, so that this may equally well apply to Roman believers.14 The sins of 1:18–31 were clearly recognizable in various districts in a major city like Rome, but surely some respected householders and other Roman citizens would abstain from such shameful acts. They would have been surprised, even offended, by Paul’s description of themselves as Gentiles without the law, since they valued Roman citizenship and Roman laws as superior. Yet, that they “naturally” fulfilled the Jewish law (2:14) at least acknowledged their adherence to Roman law while Paul clearly claimed priority for the divine law as held by Jews. So Paul steps up his argument in 2:1 to indict also the Roman citizen who might claim moral advantage and privilege. In 2:17, Paul steps up his argument once again, now explicitly addressing Jewish believers (“if you call yourself a Jew,” ESV). They fall under the same indictment as the upright Romans, since Jews also transgress the very law they uphold. But the indictment of Jews is worse than of the Romans, since Jewish transgression of divine law is not only a matter of personal shame and loss of status, but it also dishonors the God who gave the law: “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (2:24, ESV). So Roman citizens who transgressed their own laws are under God’s wrath, but at least they could claim ignorance of the Law as given to Jews. Jewish transgression, however, cannot be softened by ignorance, but must be reckoned fully, including the dishonor and blasphemy it brings to the very God they claim to serve. So then, having received the Law and 13 14

James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word, 1988), 78. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 151.

352

JACK BARENTSEN

being circumcised were dubious privileges, because they appear to become liabilities leading to stricter judgment rather than privilege and honor in comparison to “the nations.”15 So, just like Roman privilege, Jewish privilege does not grant honor and status before God as hoped and expected, and it might even lead to a more severe judgment. Up to this point in the argument, every time someone might have claimed moral advantage or privilege, Paul has argued that such privilege does not hold up under divine judgment. This essentially settles the argument. However, the question of Jewish privilege must be addressed explicitly, because Jesus, the Savior, is descended from David (1:3), as was promised in the Jewish Scriptures (1:2). Thus, salvation is for the Jew first, and then also for the Greek, i.e., the nations (1:16); and so is judgment, first for Jews, then for Greeks (2:9). The gospel of Christ is historically and theologically rooted in a certain Jewish priority, but Paul’s indictment of all, Jew and Greek, seems to contradict this. Has this Jewish priority now been abrogated? What effect would that have for Christian communities where Jewish and Gentile believers mix? Hence, Paul now raises the question of Jewish privilege explicitly (3:1), and in fact he supports it. His rhetorical questions, “What advantage has the Jew?” and “What is the value of circumcision?” are resoundingly answered in the affirmative: “Much, in every way.” At this point, Paul does not specify his specific addressees as he did in 2:1 and 2:17. He fields the question as a concern for the entire community, as a question that would now impress itself upon Jewish and non-Jewish believer alike. From the perspective of the non-Jewish believer, and perhaps even an average Roman person, the privileges Paul specifies were simply the distinctives that Jews claimed for themselves: having received divine oracles (τὰ λόγια) as well as the divine (Mosaic) law (2:17), and physical circumcision as symbol of belonging to the Jewish people (2:25).16 In the middle

Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 149. 16 Loosely following the analysis in Oakes, Reading Romans, 152–56. 15

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

353

of the first century AD, such Jewish claims to distinctiveness may have raised anti-Jewish sentiment, a phenomenon which is welldocumented for this period in Rome and which was reflected in the infamous edict of Claudius in 49 AD, expelling all Jews from Rome.17 Paul’s relabeling of these disrespected markers of Jewishness as privilege within the Christian faith community may well have been interpreted by non-Jewish believers as a rehabilitation of Jewish distinctiveness within the church, and thus as an urge to honor the Jewish origins of the gospel and indeed of the entire Christ-follower movement, resisting the cultural anti-Jewish sentiment that might have otherwise colored their perception of and actions towards Jewish believers within the community. From the perspective of the Jewish believer, Paul’s relabeling may have been a welcome support, since many Jewish believers returned to Rome after the edict of Claudius (see the Jewish names in Rom 16). Reintegration of Jewish believers in mostly Gentile churches at a time of anti-Jewish sentiment may not have been smooth, so Paul’s insistence on Jewish privilege would have improved their social reintegration and standing within the church. In addition, Jewish believers would have recognized the prophetic overtones in “the oracles of God,” a phrase which probably returns in the reference to “the Law and the Prophets” that witnessed to the coming righteousness of God (3:21). Jewish believers, more than their non-Jewish fellow believers, would have understood Paul’s reference to prophecies as a witness to the future salvation of Israel,18 a topic to which Paul later returns (Rom 9–11). Since Paul did not specify his intended audience in 3:1, his words leave room for the different interpretations by Jewish and non-Jewish believers, both included in his audience but probably with the majority non-Jewish. Even so, his reference to all the Jewish advantages does not reach beyond the first item listed, the Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” in The Romans Debate, ed. Karl P. Donfried (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 100; as cited in Oakes, Reading Romans, 74. 18 See Schreiner, Romans, 148. 17

354

JACK BARENTSEN

reception of divine oracles. This one privilege immediately raises an objection, “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?” (3:3, ESV). Paul speaks here about Jews in the third person, addressing his question to an unnamed objector. For the non-Jewish believer, who is well aware of the anti-Jewish sentiment but also that the majority of Jews in Rome did not follow Christ, the obvious question is, “how could Jewish privilege still be relevant for us non-Jewish believers, or even for the Jews themselves? Have they not forfeited their privilege?” (cf. 3:3–4). As the argument unfolds, it might then be the Jewish believer who objects, “but if my sin results in greater honor for God, why am I still being judged so harshly?” (cf. 3:5–7). Since Paul does not indicate specific people or groups within his audience, it is precarious to suggest an interpretation that is dependent on addressee identification. Yet, it is generally agreed that Paul’s audience in the Roman church was diverse, which the flow of his argument seems well equipped to take into account. In response, Paul affirms that God will certainly judge all humans because of their sin, regardless of their status or privilege within the community. Paul’s words appear to suggest that Jewish privilege actually resulted in greater judgment over Jewish sin, which in turn resulted in many Gentiles coming to faith ahead of many Jews. At least this would be plainly observed in the Roman context, with more Gentile than Jewish Christians within the church. If Jewish privilege was still real and active, why then did more Gentiles than Jews come to Christ? It seems that their privilege made things worse rather than better for the Jews. This line of argument influences the interpretation of Paul’s rhetorical question in 3:9, which is notoriously difficult to translate. Of the various interpretations proposed, the translation, “Are we Jews any worse off?” seems to fit the context best. This reading is, of course, quite the opposite of the usual translations, such as “Are we Jews any better off?” in the ESV. A key difficulty in this text is the verb, προεχόµεθα, which is first-person plural, middle or passive. It is difficult, first, to identify the “we” in relation to the previous verses, although the next verse in 3:9 uses the firstperson plural as clear reference to Paul. Second, the verb προέχω

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

355

means “have an advantage” in its active form, but this meaning is rarely attested in the middle or passive.19 The passive can legitimately be translated as, “Are we then worse off?”20 although this is frequently rejected as making no sense.21 The “we” refers to Paul speaking, but in the preceding verses, he seems to identify himself with the Jews. The argument would then be, “Are we worse off because of our privilege? Do Gentiles now go ahead of Jews in becoming members of God’s people?” Interpreted in this fashion, this passage would be the seed to be developed more extensively in Romans 9–11 about the current salvation of the Gentiles in light of the current hardening but future salvation of Jews. Also, this interpretation would show the complex way in which Roman and Jewish privilege interacted in the church in Rome. For Greek or Roman hearers, Jewish privilege and Jewish identity seemed at odds with their cultural anti-Jewish sentiment, and with Roman pride and privilege as the civilizing nation of the world with its highly reputed laws. However, the Jewish origin of the gospel, both historically and socially, was irrefutable and needed to be accounted for in the social structures of the new community. Jewish Christians deserved a place as full members of the community of faith, which moreover had some distinctive Jewish identity elements. Jewish hearers were used to claiming these privileges, at least in their previous synagogue context, as their mark of distinction in Roman society with all of its idolatry, and as a basis for self-esteem. Yet, they were now involved in Christian communities where their ancient Jewish privilege gave them no elevated social or religious standing. They were to take their place within the Christian community next to other non-Jewish believers in equal standing. See LSJ, 1479–80, s.v. προέχω. Schreiner, Romans, 163, mentions this as the third out of four exegetical options, but rejects it because in his opinion, it contradicts God’s faithfulness. Dunn (Romans 1-8, 144) defends the exegetical option “What then do we plead in our defense,” which identifies the “we” with the same “we” as the next verb, “we have already charged.” 21 See EDNT, 3:155, s.v. προέχω. 19 20

356

JACK BARENTSEN

The above interpretation of Paul’s argument up through chapter 3 shows a continual interaction with social and religious privilege from various perspectives, showing that neither Roman nor Jewish privilege is sufficient to escape divine judgment, that Jewish privilege is nevertheless important, even though at times a liability, and that the end result remains consistent: all, both Jew and Greek, are shown to be under the same divine judgment (3:9). How this privilege was to shape or reshape the community was a matter to be developed in later chapters. Chapters 9–11 present Jewish privilege in light of God’s promises for the future salvation of Israel, in spite of current appearances. Chapters 12– 15 implicitly address the role of status, privilege and hierarchy in the life of a community with various social and ethnic backgrounds.22 Throughout, Paul addresses a diverse audience, which we have here only divided into a Jewish and a non-Jewish believer. For the matter of Jewish versus Roman privilege this is sufficient, although a more complete reading of the letter requires taking into account a greater diversity among the first hearers of the letter.23

2. PRIVILEGE AS BOUNDARY MARKER

After this engagement with Romans 3, this chapter now moves towards a more general consideration of privilege as a factor in human relationships and community life. The Jewish privilege that Paul refers to in various phrases in Romans 2–3, is made explicit in chapter 9: they are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (Rom 9:4–5, ESV).

These privileges might be described more generically as religious privilege (access to a divinity), moral privilege (access to divine

See Oakes, Reading Romans, 98–127. This is precisely what Oakes (Reading Romans) proposes on the basis of extensive anthropological and archaeological evidence in Pompeii. 22 23

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

357

commandments), and ethnic privilege (belonging to the chosen race or people). For Jews, their various privileges created a social identity that made them distinct from others, yet valuable in their own eyes, in spite of their minority status in Rome. Jews saw themselves as distinct because they distanced themselves from idolatry and worshipped the only true God. Jews considered themselves righteous because unlike their neighbors, they treasured, studied, and followed the Law as given by God. Jews also maintained ethnic distinctives through regulations about intermarriage and their emphasis on circumcision. Proselytism allowed a certain openness for non-Jewish God-fearers to join the synagogue, but full membership required full adoption of the law as well as circumcision. Hence, these privileges functioned as identity markers, creating social boundaries that excluded most others except those with the proper claims of Jewishness.24 For non-Jewish people, however, these Jewish marks of distinction were not a matter of pride, but often a matter of indifference or even of disparagement and vilification. These distinctives characterized a group who distanced themselves from typical Roman customs, who exempted themselves from the normal honoring of the emperor, and who maintained strange rituals and distinctives as compared to other groups and ethnicities. Most non-Jewish people would not easily identify with Jewish distinctives, and it is quite possible that they were not very familiar with these distinctives if their normal social life did not include any dealings with Jews or the synagogue. Instead, these people would identify with their own group with its own social distinctiveness. Depending on the nature of the group, here too one might situate certain notions of privilege. The concept of privilege in general marks the distinctiveness of particular social groups, which provides an occasion for careful This assumes that social identities are not only psychological constructs, but also shape social behavior. For an explanation of social identities as essentially performative, see Guy Elcheroth and Stephen Reicher, Identity, Violence and Power: Mobilising Hatred, Demobilising Dissent, Identity Studies in the Social Sciences (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 73–98. 24

358

JACK BARENTSEN

boundary management, to include some and exclude others. Privilege functions as one of the motivations for group identity and boundary management.25 It feeds into the self-esteem generated through social identification, which in turn fosters loyalty in boundary management to avoid loss of privilege. Moreover, the group and its privileges reduces uncertainty in one’s social environment, creating relatively impermeable boundaries, discouraging people from leaving (or joining) the group. The group also empowers the accomplishment of certain tasks, such as avoiding idolatry and maintaining ritual and moral purity, constructing a repertoire of habits and tasks that generated material and social competence.26 Finally, groups offer an interface for interaction with the larger society, since one could trade and maintain relationships without losing distinctiveness; hence privilege and group identity is not only about exclusion, but also about interaction. Clearly, privilege—alongside other social aspects—plays an important role in creating group identities, maintaining social boundaries and facilitating social interaction.27 The Greco-Roman system of patronage created a multi-layer system of social hierarchy where many people were connected to the wealth and privilege of the few. Roman privilege, for instance in terms of citizenship, wealth and ownership, and authority and legal status, is limited to the higher echelons of society, and gradually trickles down the social hierarchy. This builds a community around privilege, but it is the privilege and authority

For notions of distinctiveness and identity motivations, see Vivian L. Vignoles, Xenia Chryssochoou, and Glynis M. Breakwell, “The Distinctiveness Principle: Identity, Meaning, and the Bounds of Cultural Relativity,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 (2000): 337–54; and Vivian L. Vignoles et al., “Beyond Self-Esteem: Influence of Multiple Motives on Identity Construction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (2006): 308–33. 26 Etienne Wenger-Trayner et al., Learning in Landscapes of Practice: Boundaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability in Practice-Based Learning (Abingdon: Routledge, 2015). 27 Cf. a modern study of privilege such as Bernd Reiter, The Dialectics of Citizenship: Exploring Privilege, Exclusion, and Racialization (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2013). 25

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

359

of the few rather than the group that offers social cohesion, security, self-efficacy and a regime of competence. Alternatively, it appears that Jewish privilege cut across various social strata. Jews might be (non-elite) householders, craftsmen (relatively prosperous or at subsistence level), slaves, or of other social strata. Jewish privilege, then, functions as a mechanism to connect people across the social hierarchy into one community with a primary focus on Jewish worship, morals and lifestyle.28 In the Roman empire, it frequently happened that religious cults were transplanted to new cities because of migration and slavery, reduplicating religious communities in the new setting in correspondence with their “native” location29— which probably corresponds to the shaping of the synagogue in Rome and other places. Such religious communities and identities seem to function as alternative to, or perhaps more appropriately at cross purposes with the Greco-Roman system of patronage. Privilege, then, is closely related to social identification, and to boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. Jewish and Roman privileges distribute differently within the communities they shape, and individuals are connected to these privileges in different modes. These privileges also relate differently to the ever-present social hierarchy in Roman society. It is this complex state of affairs that seems to be the focus of Paul’s discussion in Romans 3, where he presents an argument for the re-evaluation of Jewish and Roman privilege within the context of the community of Christ followers.

3. PRIVILEGE AND CHANGE

The above discussion of privilege clearly implies that a change of privilege is likely to be strongly resisted; yet, this is what Paul advocated for the Roman Christians. In terms of the modern leadership language, Paul was not advocating technical change, See further Philip A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 29 James Constantine Hanges, Paul, Founder of Churches: A Study in Light of the Evidence for the Role of “Founder-Figures” in the Hellenistic-Roman Period, WUNT 292 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 28

360

JACK BARENTSEN

following known patterns of adjustment and change, but adaptive change, that would deeply affect all those involved. The challenge of such a change is well captured by Heifetz and Linsky: Adaptive change stimulates resistance because it challenges people’s habits, beliefs, and values. It asks them to take a loss, experience uncertainty, and even express disloyalty to people and cultures. Because adaptive change forces people to question and perhaps redefine aspects of their identity, it also challenges their sense of competence. Loss, disloyalty, and feeling incompetent: That’s a lot to ask. No wonder people resist.30

If this is true in a highly individualized society like the late modern West, this would certainly apply to the highly stratified and collectivist culture of the first century Mediterranean world. Paul needs careful discernment and sensitive leadership to negotiate the various forms and expressions of Jewish and Roman privilege successfully, as the analysis above of Paul’s argument in Romans 2–3 already demonstrates. Those who hold privilege are most motivated to resist change. It generates dynamics of exclusion, which leads to racialization to justify the exclusion of “the other.”31 This dynamic is recognizable in Romans when Paul contrasts Jews with Gentiles, Greeks, and barbarians (1:13–14, 16; 2:9–10, 14, 24; 3:9, 29; 9:24, 30; 10:12; 11:11–13, 25; 15:9–12, 16, 18, 27; and 16:4). Paul here employs Jewish and Greco-Roman categories for outsiders in racial terms (Greeks, barbarians, Gentiles), but he reframes the category to mark inclusion. Paul does not discuss privilege to motivate exclusion, but rather attempts to recast the role of privilege as a way to open social boundaries. This affects different groups within the Roman Christian community differently. Oakes points out that a (non-elite) Roman householder, concerned for the group meeting in his house, might be particularly interested in how to view and manage such a group. How could he identify what is happening in his own Ronald A. Heifetz and Martin Linsky, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading (Boston: Harvard Business School, 2002), 30. 31 Reiter, The Dialectics of Citizenship. 30

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

361

household? He would hear Paul’s declamations about the priority of the Jew first, then the Greek—with respect to the gospel, to divine judgment, and to eventual redemption—with surprise, hearing many elements of Jewish identity attributed to himself and his Roman house church. Even though he might have known about the origins of the gospel in Israel, why would he and most of his non-Jewish fellow believers want to identify themselves by certain Jewish identity markers? He would again be surprised (and probably relieved) that Paul did not demand full Jewishness through circumcision and keeping the Jewish law.32 When it came to exercising his usual prerogatives as a privileged Roman, this Roman householder-believer would discover that he was not the one to offer a sacrifice to the divinity at the start of the common meal, as would be expected within the Roman hierarchy, but that the entire community presented itself as sacrifice (12:1–2).33 He would also discover that his usual role as manager and distributor of tasks within the community had changed; this role appeared to have become a charismatic process directed in some way by God (12:6–8).34 Various other aspects of his privileged role as householder turn out to work differently within this Christian community in his own household. As householder, he had to relinquish many of his Roman privileges and adapt to a partial identification with Jewish privilege.35 To the Jewish believer Paul’s proposals would have sounded very differently. For Jews, their privileges were the main way in which they found their place in Roman society. This would have been especially important for Jews of lower social status, since their Jewish privilege and identity as part of the synagogue compensated for their low social status in ordinary Roman life. Oakes, Reading Romans, 152–53. Oakes, Reading Romans, 99. 34 Oakes, Reading Romans, 105. 35 It is no wonder that the social hierarchy in society strongly affected the rise of churches and their network in the second century, quickly giving rise to a religious hierarchy in and among churches, parallel to dominant Roman social hierarchy. See Alistair Stewart-Sykes, The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014). 32 33

362

JACK BARENTSEN

Their Jewish privilege was only partially acknowledged in the Christian community, namely respect for their Scriptures and the Mosaic Law, with a qualified appreciation for their circumcision. However, in their standing before God it did not distinguish them from “the nations,” the Gentiles, and perhaps even made them worse off. In terms of salvation history, these advantages were important, generating hope in the future salvation of Israel, but their privilege did not give them status within the Christian community, while they even had to participate in fellowship with those who did not abide by their most treasured Jewish identity markers. These believers lost some of their most treasured aspects of Jewish identity, without compensation by an increase in status in the Roman social hierarchy. For a non-Jewish slave or a craftworker at subsistence level, neither set of privileges would have been very meaningful. Jewish privilege would have been quite foreign to them, without much attraction since they were preoccupied with their work simply to survive, and besides could not easily fulfill the requirements to join the synagogue as God-fearers or full members. As to Roman privilege, that was more likely a cause of injustice and frustration to them, since at the bottom of the social hierarchy, they benefitted least from Roman privilege, while working extremely hard to sustain their patron’s privilege. Paul’s words about God’s judgment over all people, and his justification of those who believe, might have been their greatest comfort, assuring them that in the end, there would be justice and status for them as well.36 The changes Paul advocated finally brought some privilege and status into the lives of these believers at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Depending on the social location and perceived privileges of various believers in Rome, some would be inclined to resist how Paul reshaped Jewish privilege, some might initially even despise being incorporated into Jewish privilege, while many might welcome it. This was not merely or even primarily a theological debate about the priority of Israel in the divine plan of salvation, but a shifting of social privilege, social status and social 36

Oakes, Reading Romans, 132–43.

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

363

boundaries, in ways that made many people uncomfortable and even angry because they lost privilege and honor, while others might have been glad to be noticed and receive honor from God as the church’s Patron, to be imitated by human leaders and fellow believers in recognizing and honoring one another as fellow Christ followers, regardless of social privilege or status.

4. PRIVILEGE AS LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE

So far, this chapter has offered a reading of Romans 2–3 in light of the theme of privilege, demonstrating how various perspectives on privilege are evident in the text. Next, the function of privilege as identity marker and social boundary was explored, analyzing how both Jewish and Roman identity might have impacted the Roman church. This showed, in turn, that privilege was a vital factor in leadership and change, since any proposal that reinterpreted privilege was likely to be costly for some, to profit a number of others, while for others it might be a neutral issue. Lastly, this section asks what contemporary churches and their leadership can learn from how Paul handled privilege in Romans 3. First, it is clear that theological and social aspects are intertwined in Romans 2–3. The main concern of the argument is not to present a theological treatise on human sinfulness and divine judgment on all without distinction. Rather, the argument for universal sinfulness and judgment is marshalled by the need to minimize the role of social privilege and exclusion, in order to encourage respectful and humble (instead of honor-seeking) participation in the faith community. This implies not only that theological concepts have social consequences, but also that theological reflection arises out of a social context that is in need of theological interpretation. This presents contemporary church leaders with the challenge of carefully exegeting their current context, and to bring to bear biblical exegesis and theological concepts on the situation in order to shape a gospel community that responds to the redemption and reconciliation accomplished by Christ in a way that is appropriate to its context. If Paul was indeed motivated to address Jewish privilege because of the need to address Jewish reintegration in the Roman church, then this may well present one of the primary reasons for

364

JACK BARENTSEN

the writing of the letter.37 Paul’s stated reason, of course, relates to his impending visit on the way to Spain (15:24), and perhaps Esler is right that the letter should also be read as Paul’s bid to be recognized as apostolic leader in Rome.38 However, Jewish privilege is uniquely addressed in Romans, unlike Paul’s argument in Galatians—in spite of many common themes—which prompts reflection on the role this privilege and the situation of Jewish participation in the Roman church may have played as part of the occasion for the writing of the letter. Second, Paul choses to address Jewish privilege explicitly. Paul must have had good reason to do so, and the above argument is an attempt to explain that. Even though Paul upholds Jewish privilege, its social impact is essentially negated: neither Jewish heritage nor Jewish future hope have any impact on the honor and social status of Jews within the Christian community, at least not in principle. Paul presents a string of quotations from the Jewish Scriptures (3:10–18) to underscore this point. Campbell suggests that this use of Scripture positions Paul within the synagogue tradition of scriptural interpretation and open dialogue. Doing so maintains Paul’s connection with the synagogue and avoids the charge that he invents a novel interpretation “in Christ.”39 Indeed, the verses quoted (Ps 14:1–3; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isa 59:7–8; and Ps 36:1) describe the wickedness of the unrighteous, often from the perspective of the faithful, persecuted believer. These passages may have been read through Jewish eyes as judgment on the unbeliever and idolater, perhaps even among their own people. Paul then reinterprets these passages and applies them resolutely to all people, so that even the faithful Jew could not claim exemption. This reinterpretation of Scripture in the synagogue tradition of interpretive dialogue allows Paul to reevaluate the social impact of See the discussion in Schreiner, Romans, 13–14. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 133–34, 138, 196; see also Jack Barentsen, “Pre-Pauline Leadership and Pauline Constitution in the Roman Church: An Alternative Interpretation of Romans 12 and 16,” in The Letter to the Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 226 (Leuven; Paris; Walpole: Peeters, 2009), 589–610. 39 William S. Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity, LNTS 322 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 57–61. 37 38

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

365

Jewish privilege and identity, an issue that required explicit discussion to negotiate successfully. This presents contemporary church leaders with the challenge to not only interpret the meaning of Scripture accurately and faithfully, but to do so with an eye on their own contemporary situation. The preacher’s task is not only to present the ancient meaning of Scripture accurately, but even more so to craft an interpretation that speaks to their contemporary situation while remaining faithfully anchored in Scripture. Sometimes, in time of need and crisis, fresh insights from Scripture emerge in open dialogue, disagreeing, negotiating, and discerning what God might be saying to the church today through the Scriptures.40 Examples of struggles over such renewed insights are Luther’s rereading of Romans within the context of centuries of reform movements, the rereading of slavery passages within the context of the fight to abolish slavery, the rereading of passages about church leadership within the context of the shifting male-female balance in church leadership, the rereading of certain passages within the context of new medical ethics about beginning and end of life issues, and the rereading of passages about sexual expression within a context of intense debate about human sexuality and gender identity. In each of these and many more situations, the interpreter’s horizons of understanding impact the reading of the biblical text with its own horizons of understanding, which often results in changes—however slight or significant—in insight and identity. This interpretive process allowed Paul to bridge legitimate and significant differences, enabling him to craft an overarching identity that connected various hearers into one clear in-Christ identity, while yet respecting subgroup differences.41 Such creativity is also needed today, as church leaders craft overarching See for instance Stephen Lewis, Matthew Wesley Williams, and Dori Grinenko Baker, Another Way: Living and Leading Change on Purpose (St. Louis: Chalice, 2020). 41 Campbell, Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity, 57–60; Esler, Conflict and Identity, 153–55; see also J. Brian Tucker, You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011). 40

366

JACK BARENTSEN

identities to bridge the differences between old timers and newcomers, between older and younger generations, between tradition and innovation, between local and migrant Christians, and whatever other dividing lines might affect the unity of the church. Third, Paul choses to address Roman privilege only implicitly. Again, Paul had good reasons to do so, avoiding offense to his Roman audience and protecting the church and its testimony lest it be perceived as anti-Roman and anti-imperial. Thus, Roman privilege was not explicitly addressed in Romans 2–3 or elsewhere in Romans, but as the discussion above demonstrates, it probably was strongly implicated. The discussion above of Romans 12 already mentioned the impact on the householder role in bringing the sacrifice before the common meal, or in distributing tasks and managing the community. Moreover, Paul’s appeal to not judge but to accept one another in Christ in Romans 14–15 subverts both Jewish and Roman privilege without mentioning either explicitly. Here too, Paul’s contrary instructions indirectly challenged Roman privilege, while he sought to include legitimate differences by urging cooperation and service by individuals and their subgroups to contribute to and benefit the whole community. Hence, while their heritage might predispose Jewish believers to become teachers within the Christ movement, this is not by way of superior status, nor by human appointment by the church’s chief householder, but as a gift from God to the community. Similarly, while social status and (relative) wealth might predispose Roman believers to exercise authority and direct the community’s activity within their own household, they are instructed instead to serve humbly next to other believers, carrying out their unique ministry of provision and leadership as a gift to the community.42 The entire community lives by divine forgiveness and grace, so that humble service and mutual accountability move the church’s witness forward. One might label Paul’s approach to community life in Romans 12–15 as pastoral, providing instructions for life together

Jack Barentsen, “Leiderschap als veelvoud van geestesgaven,” Inspirare 4 (2019): 39–48. 42

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

367

as effective alternative to the usual cultural patterns of behavior, yet without explicitly contradicting or denouncing cultural values. This, too, challenges contemporary church leaders to discern when it is time to confront privilege or prejudices head-on, and when to approach this more pastorally. For instance, Paul’s words on slavery enabled a more humane practice of slavery in the name of the gospel without overthrowing the reigning social and economic order; yet, those very words eventually led to the abolition of slavery and a different economic regime. Paul’s words on husband/wife relationships enabled a life of mutual submission and respect in light of the gospel, without overthrowing the hierarchical social (and political and economic) order; yet, his words on equality eventually led to the emancipation of women and a new social and economic order with more equality between men and women. Within this pastoral tradition, many church leaders have gradually given more room for female contributions in church life and leadership, with gradual shifts towards increasing female responsibilities, yet without explicitly confronting structures of inequality until it was more opportune to do so.43 Similarly, pastoral support for those struggling with homosexuality or other gender identity issues—or perhaps supporting parents after a “coming out” of one of their children— creates room for compassion and understanding, long before formal policies try to change theological barriers and social norms. Given cultural hypersensitivity to such issues of racism and sexuality, a pastoral approach may be wiser to enable respectful life together in a common focus on Christ, while explicitly tackling such issues might only lead to polarization and loss of (public) respect. Hence, the context and sensitivity of an issue requires careful leadership discernment as to how to lead and address the issue, while yet striving for an overarching identity where difference does not detract from a united life in Christ.

Laura Dijkhuizen and Jack Barentsen, “Inclusionary and Exclusionary Practices in Leadership Roles of Evangelical Churches in the Netherlands,” in Inclusion-Exclusion: Islam and Christianity, ed. Bernhard Reitsma and Erika Visscher (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming). 43

368

JACK BARENTSEN

Fourth and last, Paul’s discourse about privilege and participation should make contemporary church leaders cautious about a leadership culture that celebrates the leader and that encourages leader exceptionalism. Unfortunately, so many situations of leader abuse in nearly all Christian traditions have now been documented and reported in the media, that churches and their leaders cannot remain naïve about God’s call to ministry and the actual practices of leadership.44 Several leadership studies acknowledge that the romance of leadership, which celebrates the leader as nearly the sole effective agent in the organization, is unfounded and risky for the organizations they lead.45 Paul’s argument that “all have sinned” not only levels the ground for Jewish and non-Jewish believers, but also for leaders and followers in Christian communities and organizations. Yet, all too often, Christian leaders are valued for their strategic accomplishments (cf. “works of law”), their successes (cf. boasting and honor-seeking), or their status (cf. religious privilege), instead of being received within the community as only one of the gracious gifts, exercised by faith within a culture of trust, not of merit. Hence, a church does not rise or fall depending on its obedience to its leaders; rather, even leadership in the church is principally egalitarian, though functionally distinct. In summary, this chapter has investigated how Paul handled the social fact of privilege within the context of the Christian community in first century Rome. Paul’s theological and social appraisal of privilege turns out to be highly relevant to how he envisioned leading a community with a diversity in social status and privilege. Even though this chapter contains no explicit Anson D. Shupe, Spoils of the Kingdom: Clergy Misconduct and Religious Community (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2007); Lim Siew Pik, “Toxicity in Clergy Leadership: An Emerging Phenomenon of Leaders’ Personal Power in the Pentecostal Charismatic Church,” Journal of Religious Leadership 15 (2016): 31–54. 45 Mary Uhl-Bien and Rajnandini Pillai, “The Romance of Leadership and the Social Construction of Followership,” in Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl, ed. Boas Shamir et al. (Greenwich: Information Age, 2007), 187–210; Michelle C. Bligh and Birgit Schyns, “The Romance Lives On: Contemporary Issues Surrounding the Romance of Leadership,” Leadership 3 (2007): 343–60. 44

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

369

references to leadership titles or practices,46 there is much to be gleaned by contemporary church leaders in how to practice leadership within communities where titles, entitlement and privilege often play a hidden and destructive role. This chapter was written with the hope that these reflections might cast new light on how to lead the righteous, without exceptionalism either for the leaders or their followers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Translated by James W. Thompson and John W. Medendorp. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990– 1993. Barentsen, Jack. Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission: A Social Identity Perspective on Local Leadership Development in Corinth and Ephesus. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 168. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. ———. “Leiderschap als veelvoud van geestesgaven.” Inspirare 4 (2019): 39–48. ———. “Pre-Pauline Leadership and Pauline Constitution in the Roman Church: An Alternative Interpretation of Romans 12 and 16.” Pages 589–610 in The Letter to the Romans. Edited by Udo Schnelle. BETL 226. Leuven; Paris; Walpole: Peeters, 2009. Black, Linda L., and David Stone. “Expanding the Definition of Privilege: The Concept of Social Privilege.” Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development 33 (2005): 243–55. Bligh, Michelle C., and Birgit Schyns. “The Romance Lives On: Contemporary Issues Surrounding the Romance of Leadership.” Leadership 3 (2007): 343–60. Block, Elizabeth Sweeny. “White Privilege and the Erroneous Conscience: Rethinking Moral Culpability and Ignorance.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 39 (2019): 357–74.

For instance, Andrew D. Clarke, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership, LNTS 362 (London: T&T Clark, 2008) contains no reference to Romans 3 in its content or index. 46

370

JACK BARENTSEN

Campbell, William S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. LNTS 322. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Clarke, Andrew D. A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership. LNTS 362. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Dijkhuizen, Laura, and Jack Barentsen. “Inclusionary and Exclusionary Practices in Leadership Roles of Evangelical Churches in the Netherlands.” Inclusion-Exclusion: Islam and Christianity. Edited by Bernhard Reitsma and Erika Visscher. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, forthcoming. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. Elcheroth, Guy, and Stephen Reicher. Identity, Violence and Power: Mobilising Hatred, Demobilising Dissent. Identity Studies in the Social Sciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Hanges, James Constantine. Paul, Founder of Churches: A Study in Light of the Evidence for the Role of “Founder-Figures” in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. WUNT 292. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hardison, R. Willson. “A Theological Critique of the Multi-Ethnic Church Movement: 2000-2013.” PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014. Harland, Philip A. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Harrison, James R. Paul’s Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. WUNT II/172. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017. Heifetz, Ronald A., and Martin Linsky. Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading. Boston: Harvard Business School, 2002. Horrell, David G. Ethnicity and Inclusion: Religion, Race, and Whiteness in Constructions of Jewish and Christian Identities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Joshi, Khyati Y. White Christian Privilege: The Illusion of Religious Equality in America. New York: New York University Press, 2021.

16. LEADERSHIP AND PRIVILEGE

371

Joubert, Stephan J. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. WUNT II/124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016. Kok, Jacobus, and John A. Dunne, eds. Insiders Versus Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship Between Mission and Ethos in the New Testament. Perspectives on Philosophy and Religious Thought 14. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Lewis, Stephen, Matthew Wesley Williams, and Dori Grinenko Baker. Another Way: Living and Leading Change on Purpose. St. Louis: Chalice, 2020. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Oakes, Peter. Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Pik, Lim Siew. “Toxicity in Clergy Leadership: An Emerging Phenomenon of Leaders’ Personal Power in the Pentecostal Charismatic Church.” Journal of Religious Leadership 15 (2016): 31–54. Reimer, Johannes. Multikultureller Gemeindebau: Versöhnung Leben. Marburg: Francke, 2011. Reiter, Bernd. The Dialectics of Citizenship: Exploring Privilege, Exclusion, and Racialization. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2013. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Shupe, Anson D. Spoils of the Kingdom: Clergy Misconduct and Religious Community. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2007. Smith, Efrem. The Post-Black and Post-White Church: Becoming the Beloved Community in a Multi-Ethnic World. Leadership Network. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012. Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Tucker, J. Brian. You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1–4. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.

372

JACK BARENTSEN

Uhl-Bien, Mary, and Rajnandini Pillai. “The Romance of Leadership and the Social Construction of Followership.” Pages 187–210 in Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Edited by Boas Shamir, Rajnandini Pillai, Michelle C. Bligh, and Mary Uhl-Bien. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, 2007. Vignoles, Vivian L., Xenia Chryssochoou, and Glynis M. Breakwell. “The Distinctiveness Principle: Identity, Meaning, and the Bounds of Cultural Relativity.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 (2000): 337–54. Vignoles, Vivian L., Camillo Regalia, Claudia Manzi, Jen Golledge, and Eugenia Scabini. “Beyond Self-Esteem: Influence of Multiple Motives on Identity Construction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (2006): 308–33. Wenger-Trayner, Etienne, Mark Fenton-O’Creevy, Steven Hutchinson, Chris Kubiak, and Beverly Wenger-Trayner. Learning in Landscapes of Practice: Boundaries, Identity, and Knowledgeability in Practice-Based Learning. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. Wiefel, Wolfgang. “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity.” Pages 85–101 in The Romans Debate. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

CHAPTER 17. “LET GOD BE TRUE THOUGH EVERY ONE WERE A LIAR” (ROM 3:4): SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3 CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE BIBLISCH-THEOLOGISCHE AKADEMIE WIEDENEST I NTRODUCTION

In our day and age speech, in particular public speech, and its truthfulness has become a major contentious issue. We hear politicians and other public figures speak without blushing of “alternative truth” when, quite obviously, they are lying or lie whenever feasible. Even church leaders at the highest level lie or conveniently forget their involvement in problematic procedures. It has become commonplace to identify and deplore the amount of “fake news” in the social media. In such a context it is worthwhile for students of religion to inquire what remedies and guidance religious traditions have to offer in this regard. Christian scholars and leaders obviously turn to the canonical sources and the rich traditions of the ethical reflection and teaching of the Church … and there is much to be found. There are several studies of speech ethics in the NT, broadly understood as the ethics of truthful speech and the 373

374

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

appropriate manner of speaking.1 In the present larger context, such studies are becoming increasingly relevant. In the NT, considering its length, the letter of James is one of the obvious candidates for speech ethics.2 Other studies focus on Jesus’s assertions on reliable and truthful speech and different aspects of speech ethics in the Corpus Paulinum. Few studies focus on speech ethics in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. The third chapter of Romans, the focus of this collection of essays, is best known (and loved by Protestants) for its concise presentation of justification by faith. However, the chapter also makes significant descriptive (rather than prescriptive) contributions to speech ethics, although these statements do not appear in the admonishing last third of the letter (Rom 12:1–15:13), commonly associated with the new existence of believers. Romans 3 identifies humans as liars in contrast to the truthfulness of God and quotes some drastic descriptions of human speech in the extensive mixed quotation from Scripture to prove that all people are indeed under the dominion of sin as a personified power and in need of the justification offered in Christ Jesus. This essay examines these several assertions about the proper use and misuse of speech in Romans 3. In closing, we will also briefly examine whether Paul’s own discourse meets the criteria of ethical speech. Before we turn to these statements in Romans 3, we will briefly survey references to speech ethics in Romans 1–2, on which the statements in Romans 3 build.

See Oda Wischmeyer, “A New Testament Approach to (Biblical) Ethics from the Perspective of Language: Moods of Ethical Speech in New Testament Texts and Their Hermeneutical Relevance,” in Key Approaches to Biblical Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue, ed. Volker Rabens, Jacqueline Grey, and Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn, BibInt 189 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2021), 324–46; Matthias Konradt, Ethik Im Neuen Testament, GNT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022), 447. 2 See William R. Baker, Personal Speech-Ethics in the Letter of James, WUNT II/68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), and Suzanne Luther, Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief, WUNT II/394 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 1

17. SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3

375

1. SPEECH E THICS IN ROMANS 1–2

The fact that speech plays a significant role in Romans 3 does not come as a surprise when the references to human and divine speech in Romans 1–2 are taken into consideration: -

-

-

-

-

Despite of their knowledge of God through the revelation in creation, the Gentiles do not honor God or thank him (Rom 1:21). Fully mistaken, “they claim to be wise” and have exchanged the truth about God for a lie (1:25; ESV throughout the article). Failing to thank and worship God, the Gentiles “did not see it fit to acknowledge God” (1:28), which they should have done through their words and deeds. Failure of Gentiles on the interhuman level includes several sins of the tongue: gossip (1:29), slander, and boastfulness (1:30). In addition, Gentiles approve of those who practice such things, be it through toleration, actions, or their words (1:32). Humans are hypocrites: they are quick to judge others while they practice the very same things themselves (2:1– 3). A mere hearing of the Law will not do; only those who actually do the law will be justified (2:13). Calling oneself a Jew and boasting in (the knowledge of and the privileges granted by) God needs to be accompanied by the corresponding deeds (2:17). The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of Israel’s disobedience (2:24).3

However, not all human speech is negative. Romans 1–2 also include references to appropriate human speech and to divine speech: -

God has promised his gospel “beforehand through the prophets in the holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:3). They conveyed the divine word. Jesus was declared to be the

See Christoph Stenschke, “Blasphemy IV. New Testament,” in Birsha – Chariot of Fire, vol. 4 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, ed. Hans-Josef Klauck et al. (Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2012), 105–13. 3

376

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

-

-

-

-

Son of God in power” (1:4). The Romans are “called by God to belong to Jesus Christ” (1:6). Paul thanks God through Jesus Christ for all of the Roman believers (1:8). The faith of the Romans is proclaimed (probably through Christians) in all the world (1:8). Paul mentions the Romans always in his prayers, asking that somehow, by God’s will, he may at last succeed in coming to them (1:10). During this visit, Paul intends to “impart to them some spiritual gift to strengthen them” (1:11). He is “eager to preach the gospel to you, who are in Rome” (1:15). In strong contrast to the Gentile refusal to honor God and to thank him, Paul’s interspersed doxology in verse 25 indicates the right verbal reaction to God’s revelation: “… the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” In Romans 2, Paul lists a number of praiseworthy activities. He speaks of Jews instructing others on the basis of the law (2:18, 20), teaching them (2:20–21), preaching against stealing (2:21) and saying that one must not commit adultery (2:22): However, all this positive speaking must be accompanied by the appropriate deeds (2:20–22). Boasting in the law (before those who do not have it) is useless when God is dishonoured by breaking the same law (2:23). Those who obey the will of God, be they Jews or Gentiles may count on getting “praise not from humans but from God” (2:29).

Both the negative and positive references to human speech in Romans 1–2 reveal that speech is presented as a powerful and reliable indicator of the spiritual status of people. This close link is based on the OT wisdom tradition and the teaching of Jesus, and sets the stage for Paul’s references to human speech in Romans 3. Divine speech also serves as an indicator of God’s character. In his words and the way in which they are fulfilled, God’s truthfulness and reliability become discernible. Though not stated explicitly in Romans 1–3, divine speech should inform and determine human speech.

17. SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3

377

2. DIVINE AND HUMAN SPEECH IN ROMANS 3:4–8, 13–14, 19, 21, AND 274

Romans 3 contains several references to divine and human speech. Paul presents both in contrast to and perhaps even in competition with each other. We first survey what is said about the word of God/divine speech. Then we turn to the mainly negative statements on human speech. It will become clear that in this chapter, Paul does not offer a nuanced analysis of human speech but emphasizes its problematic and sinful character vis-à-vis the truthful speech of God. The way humans use their speech-related body parts is an indication that they are indeed under the dominion of personified sin and in dire need of the redemption that is offered in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:24). 2.1. Divine Speech

Romans 3 contains a number of references to divine and human speech:5 2.1.1. Romans 3:2 – The Oracles of God as Israel’s Privilege over against Non-Jews

The first reference to speech/speaking in Romans 3 is not a regimentation of human speech but a reference to divine speech. Perhaps surprising after the relativizing of Jewish identity at end of chapter 2, Paul affirms that the Jews do have advantages after all, “much in every way” (Rom 3:2). They were entrusted with the “oracles of God” (3:2). In contrast to those who know God as creator only through his self-revelation in his works which are there for all to behold (cf. 1:20), the Jews have received his word. For recent detailed treatments of Romans 3, see Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007); Eckhard J. Schnabel, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer Kapitel 1–5, Historisch-Theologische Auslegung (Witten: Brockhaus; Gießen: Brunnen, 2015), and Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016). 5 See the survey and analysis by Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 607–94. 4

378

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

God has spoken to them. From the beginning of the letter, the Scriptures have played a significant role in Paul’s argumentation: The gospel of God was promised by him beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures (1:2). Scripture attests that “The righteous shall live by faith” (1:17; cf. Hab 2:4). Romans 2 describes the failure of Jews vis-à-vis this word: they readily judge others, that is, non-Jews, and boast in knowing God’s will while at the same time, they fail to obey this word themselves. 2.1.2. Romans 3:4 – Human Lies and the Vindication of God through His Word

Israel’s lack of faithfulness and obedience to the covenant stipulations cannot nullify the faithfulness of God to his word: “Let God be true though every one were a liar” (3:4). In his words, God is reliable and faithful—independent of the human reaction to this word. Paul will return to this theme and will provide a detailed argument to prove this case in Romans 9–11, which concludes with the affirmation that “the gift and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:29). Paul does not provide in this verse his own evidence for the claim that all humans distort the truth (“though everyone were a liar”), but provides argumentation for the claim that God is true in his words with a quotation from Scripture, the very “oracles of God”: “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” 2.1.3. Romans 3:19 – The Law Addresses Jews

“Whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law.” As the word of God, the Law “speaks” to people. The Scripture references quoted in Romans 3:10–18 constitute a divine assessment of humanity’s plight. The divine word affirms what Paul has proven for Gentiles and Jews from Romans 1:18 onwards. Paul here uses Law pars pro toto for the entire HB/OT. The several verses which have been linked together in the catena of Romans 3:10–18 do not refer to or speak to non-Jews but to “those under the Law” (see Gal 4:4—“born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law”). Interestingly, in his combination of Scripture references to prove his case that all “are under sin” (3:9), Paul does not quote OT statements on non-Jews,

17. SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3

379

such as prophetic utterances against foreign people, but texts which include Jews or have Jews as their primary reference. Thus, the law affirms Paul’s assessment not only of non-Jews (not disputed) but also of Jews: these verses also apply to them. 2.1.4. Romans 3:19 – God’s Words Set Against Human Speech

Because these words (“whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law”) also apply to Jews (the disputed part of Paul’s assessment of humanity “under sin”), “every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (3:19). Because with his word God passes the final verdict, humans must fall silent. Their speech and claims are not relevant at all. Their boasting, a major theme in Romans, is doomed to stop. They have nothing to bring forward in their defence. All the talk and boasting attributed to the Jews in Romans 2 is brought to an end. In addition, because the verdict of the law also applies to Jews, there is no room for judgement with regard to others, as Paul argued in Romans 2. There he showed in some detail that knowing and having the word of God does not suffice: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom 2:13). With his rejection of the legitimacy of Jewish judgement, Paul touches the theme of Romans 14:1–15:13 early on in the letter.6 There is no justification for Jewish judgment of non-Jews. Paul fully affirms the role of the law as revealing the true state of humans, non-Jews and Jews alike, and indicating their plight before God. They are guilty, cannot make a defence for themselves, stand before God convicted and need the salvation offered in Christ Jesus. God’s word provides the assessment that counts, not human self-presentation and boasting.

Scot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019) has rightly emphasised that the entire letter needs to be read in view of the congregational problems mentioned in Romans 14–15. 6

380

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

2.1.5. Romans 3:21—The Faithful Witness of Scripture to the Righteousness of God

With their words, the Law and the Prophets bear witness to the righteousness of God, even though this is achieved apart from the Law (3:21). This indicates the limits of the law vis-à-vis human failure, a theme to which Paul will return in Romans 7 (see also 3:28). However, with the new revelation of righteousness by faith, the Law is not overthrown, but “on the contrary, we uphold the law” (3:31). Thus, while Paul fully affirms the law as divine (see also 7:12, 14), affirms its judgement of sinful humanity, and affirms its validity (demonstrated in Romans 4), he also insists that divine righteousness has been manifested apart from it (3:21). The reasons for this are provided in Romans 7. 2.2. Human Speech

Romans 3 also contains several references to human speech, which is primarily characterised as negative and in opposition to divine speech: 2.2.1. Romans 3:4 – Humans as Liars

Again, there is a distinct contrast between human speech and divine truth: while God is justified in his truthful and reliable words, all humans are liars (3:4). The contrast between human and divine speech is emphasised again in verse 7: “If through my lie God’s truth abounds.” In contrast to God, humans cannot be trusted in what they say. This applies to their speech interactions with each other (see, for instance, 1:29–30) and their claims with regard to God. Jewett notes that the assertion in Romans 3:4 “continues the theme from 1:18 and 1:25, that in the light of the Christ event, which discloses the truth about God, humans are shown to be chronically suppressing the truth and exchanging truth for lies.”7 Furthermore, in contrast to statements on human lying found in both Greek and Hebrew literature, “only Paul systematically develops the claim that all men and women of every culture are liars.”8 “Even the psalmist, whom Paul quotes, 7 8

Jewett, Romans, 246. Jewett, Romans, 246.

17. SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3

381

assumes a distinction between the righteous and the wicked, so the citation has a more sweeping bearing in Paul’s argument than in the original. . . . Paul allows no exceptions.”9 The Scripture quotation from Psalm 51:4 underscores the truthfulness of divine speech. Using legal language, the Psalmist claims that God is justified in his words (vindicated by what he says), his words stand up to careful scrutiny. His words underscore His faithfulness rather than nullify it (3:3). 2.2.2. Romans 3:5—Misguided Human Speech

At first sight, Romans 3:5 seems to present a positive instance of human reflection and consideration: “What shall we say?” However, the conclusion drawn and expressed in human words is highly reprehensible: “That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us” (3:5). However, entertaining this thought reflects the limits of human perception and speech. To question God’s righteousness is presumptuous (see Rom 9!) and displays a limited human perspective: “I speak in a human way” (3:5). With this statement, Paul indicates the limits of human reasoning and speech. The conclusions which humans may draw with their logic (with all the limits imposed on their minds as indicated in Rom 1) do not stand up to divine verdict. 2.2.3. Romans 3:8—Humans as Slanderers

Humans lie not only with regard to divine truth but also with regard to each other. Paul’s opponents deliberately distort Paul’s message into the absurd question “And why not do evil that good may come?” “… as some people slanderously charge [βλασφηµούµεθα] us with saying.” Such people surely draw the judgment of God on themselves: “Their condemnation is just” (3:8).10 2.2.4. Romans 3:13–14—The Dire State of Human Speech

The most extensive and drastic references to the negative aspects of human speech appear in the form of quotations in Paul’s Jewett (Romans, 246) rightly notes the anti-imperial edge (“to counter the superiority claims that dominate Rome.”) 10 See Stenschke, “Blasphemy,” 105–13. 9

382

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

extended scriptural catena, which seeks to provide proof from the Scriptures that indeed “both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (3:9): “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness” (Rom 3:13–14).11 That human speech would appear in this string of quotations is not surprising in view of the statements earlier in Romans 3 and in view of the sins of the tongue which appear in Romans 1–2. Paul’s quotations address the different parts of the human body associated with human speech: The throat is likened to places of utmost decay and impurity; the tongue is used to deceive others, to lie to them. The human mouth is likened to the mouths of vipers: under their lips is the venom of poisonous snakes with which they attack, bite and poison others. Human speech is characterised by “curses and bitterness.” For Paul, what people say indicates and makes visible what is in their hearts and minds (cf. Matt 12:34) and demonstrates their state under the dominion of sin. This is not an abstract claim or state, but a verdict that can be experienced aurally.12 Through this divine verdict and disqualification of human speech, it is clear why “every human mouth may be stopped” (3:19). With this extensive quotation from the Scriptures (3:10–18), Paul refutes the charge of not taking God’s word seriously and distorting divine truth (3:8). Rather, he fully affirms it and proclaims its verdict, even though devastating, on Jews and Gentiles alike. 2.2.5. Romans 3:27—The Exclusion of All Human Boasting

In view of what God has done in Jesus Christ, the solution offered in the revelation of divine righteousness, and the salvation he graciously bestows on people, which they cannot achieve for themselves, all human boasting is excluded (3:27, as seen above on chs. 1–2, Paul has already demonstrated that all such boasting is unfounded!). As all people receive justification by faith in See also James 3:8. For the larger context see Mary T. Brien, “The Psalter at Work in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in The Letter to the Romans, ed. Udo Schnelle, BETL 226 (Leuven; Paris; Walpole: Peeters, 2009), 475–86. 12 Just as the Gentiles’ failure before God is visible in their idolatry (Rom 1:23, 26). 11

17. SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3

383

Christ and his work, all boasting, claiming, and affirming privileges and superiority over others is excluded (see Rom 2 and 14–15). Such claims are unfounded and must not be made. In this way, Paul deconstructs any Jewish boasting. With his proclamation of justification by faith in Romans 3, Paul upholds and affirms the law in its validity (3:31). Thus, despite the negative assessment of human speech throughout this chapter, not all human speech is negative. Paul’s proclamation of the Gospel surely is not. The marked contrast between divine and human speech in Romans 3 serves the important rhetorical purpose of demonstrating that all humanity is under the dominion of sin and in need of the redemption offered in Christ Jesus. This is what God solemnly declares in his reliable and truthful word. All human claims to the contrary and to superior status (3:1–2) which are not supported by actual behaviour are exposed and identified for what they are: a refusal to acknowledge divine truth and a downright lie which, in fact, only confirms the divine verdict. Thus, there is no foundation for human boasting before God and people or for judging others. To such unfounded claims and activities Paul will return in Romans 14:1–15:13.

3. REFLECTION ON ROMANS 3 AS “SPEECH”

Romans 3 and the entire letter of Paul is in itself an instance of truthful speech. Throughout the chapter, Paul is “speaking.” While some Roman Christ-believers would read his letter, most of the recipients would hear the content of the letter read out to them, perhaps “performed” by Phoebe (16:1–2) or others who had come from Corinth to Rome. In a sense, they heard Paul speaking to them through his letter. Two aspects in the references to speech in Romans 3 can be related to Paul’s own manner of speaking and thus to his speech ethics. How is Paul himself “speaking” in this chapter and addressing the issues at hand? How is Paul’s speech to be evaluated? 3.1. Paul and His Interlocutor in Strife

Romans 3 does not only contain Paul’s “speech,” written down in a letter and to be presented orally to the listeners in Rome, but it

384

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

also constitutes a diatribe, a form of “contentious conversation,” in which both sides employ polemics. The Jewish interlocutor in Romans 3:8 charges Paul with being a libertine, arguing that Paul is not concerned with the Law: “and why not do evil that good may come?” This charge is serious, as it aims to discredit Paul’s Jewish identity and authority.13 Surely Paul insists on binding ethical standards and in his own way affirms the law, which becomes evident in the remainder of the chapter and of the letter. In response to this charge, Paul offers little in terms of an explanation or detailed argument (at least not in the immediate context), but fervently strikes back “tit for tat”: Such an objection to his proclamation is not considered a serious interaction which would deserve attention. Rather, it is actually blasphemous, and needs to be treated as such. People who make such false claims and in this way discredit Paul and the gospel which he is commissioned to proclaim deserve the just judgement of God. This is, also on Paul’s side, a strong way of disqualifying the interlocutor (who disqualified himself with his misleading reduction of Paul’s teaching). It is an instance of polemic rhetoric as it is common in ancient rhetoric and rhetoric in general and is to be evaluated against this background.14 Studies of the strategy of “tit-for-tat” indicate that this manner of interaction is limited to short clashes and need not (and should not) determine the entire course of interaction.15 Paul’s later interactions with the (less offensive) objections of his interlocutor(s) are more detailed and more amenable in tone. In a sense one can say that at least when it comes to defending his own person and the truth of the See Jewett, Romans, 250–51. See, for instance, Oda Wischmeyer and Lorenzo Scornaienchi, eds., Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur: Texte und Kontexte, BZNW 170 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2011), and Markus Hundt, Sprachliche Aggression bei Martin Luther: Argumentationsformen und -funktionen am Beispiel der Streitschrift „Wider das Papsttum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet“ (1545), Lingua Historica Germanica 27 (Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2022). 15 See, for instance, Avinash K. Dixit, Susan E. Skeath, and David McAdams, Games of Strategy, 5th ed. (New York: Norton, 2020), and Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2006). 13 14

17. SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3

385

gospel against unfounded vicious accusations, you reap from Paul as you sow. 3.2. Paul’s Own Way of Referring to the Oracles of God

As we have seen, in Romans 3:13–14, Paul refers to the Scriptures to prove that all people are indeed under the dominion of sin (3:9). A significant aspect of human failure is their speech. To support this argument, Paul quotes Psalms 5:9, 140:3, and 10:7 in these two verses. His use of Scripture is selective: while he readily quotes the assertions regarding the speech of the wicked, he omits the references to God-pleasing speech in these Psalms, which not only condemn the speech of the wicked, but also contain the confessions, prayers and praise of the righteous/the pious psalmist and his community (5:1–3, 7–8, 11–12; 140:4, 6– 8, 12–13; 10:12–18).16 Paul thus leaves out the positive occurrences of proper pious speech which are attested by the very Scriptures which he quotes to demonstrate the human plight under the dominion of sin. While the Scriptures provide a nuanced assessment of human speech (both negative and positive), Paul strings assertions of this discourse together in a way that highlights the negative aspects to prove his case. Yes, Scripture contains such drastic depictions of human speech and the body parts primarily involved in it—and Paul quotes these assertions to make his point—but this is not all that Scripture has to say on the topic (nor does Paul deny this). To charge Paul with distorting the evidence of the very Scriptures which he adduces in order to make his case would be to disregard the conventions of ancient rhetoric.17 In addition to these conventions, one needs to take Paul’s positive references to human speech into account, not only in Romans 1–3, but also elsewhere in the letter (e.g., 4:6; 8:31–39; 9:29; 10:9–13) which provide a balanced portrayal.

See Jewett, Romans, 261–62. See Johan S. Vos, Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik, WUNT 149 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 16 17

386

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

4. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

This survey indicates that Romans 3 makes a significant contribution to speech ethics in the NT. Its particular contribution lies in its juxtaposition of divine and human speech. The truthful and trustworthy divine speech is the standard against which all human speech needs to be measured … and utterly fails. Romans 3 contains a number of references to divine speech. It is characterised as fully reliable and truthful in both judgement and in salvation. Paul will affirm the faithfulness of God in Romans 11:29: “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” The negative references to human speech in Romans 3 contribute to the demonstration that all humanity is under the dominion of sin and in need of the redemption offered in Christ Jesus. All human claims to the contrary or to a superior status that is not supported by actual behaviour is exposed (2:12–24) and identified for what it is: a refusal to acknowledge divine truth and a downright lie which inadvertently confirms the divine verdict on humanity. People who cherish Romans as part of their canonical Scripture are called to accept God’s truthful analysis of the human predicament, his judgement, and their inability to save themselves, and to accept the salvation offered in the gospel. Claims to superiority and status are still widespread, serve in the identity construction of individuals and entire societies, and can have disastrous consequences for others and eventually also for those who make such claims. Romans 3 invites people to trust God’s reliable word afresh in times when the truthfulness of words counts little. People who put their faith in the Scripture and the proclamation of the gospel will not be disappointed. What God has promised in the gospel, he will not recall (11:29). In contrast, human speech is characterised by lies. Paul challenges the integrity of all human speech. Therefore, some of what can be observed in human speech of the past and in our day and age should not come as a surprise in view of Paul’s analysis. It should keep believers from being gullible in view of the manipulation they face through propaganda, both ancient and contemporary, and various media, but also in personal conversations. Paul’s trenchant analysis calls them to integrity in

17. SPEECH ETHICS IN ROMANS 3

387

their speech, following the speech-ethics of Jesus (e.g., Matt 5:37). However, that is not the entire picture. Paul also indicates how human speech should be used in thanking and praising God (see the several doxologies in the letter, especially the letter’s conclusion with an extensive praise of God, 16:25–27), in proclaiming the gospel and affirming the truthfulness of God. Later in the letter, he will call on believers to generously use spiritual gifts which involve their speech (12:6–8, prophecy, teaching, exhortation). This they can do through the renewal of their minds in view of the many displays of divine mercy (12:1– 2). They may count on the life-transforming power of the Spirit (8:1–18) not only to transform their minds but also their speech so that they henceforth use their body parts related to speech— their throats, tongue, lips and mouths (3:13–14)—to thank, honour and praise God, share the gospel, and serve each other with the gifts they have received.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Axelrod, Robert. The Evolution of Cooperation. Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Baker, William R. Personal Speech-Ethics in the Letter of James. WUNT II/68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Brien, Mary T. “The Psalter at Work in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Pages 475–86 in The Letter to the Romans. Edited by Udo Schnelle. BETL 226. Leuven; Paris; Walpole: Peeters, 2009. Dixit, Avinash K., Susan E. Skeath, and David McAdams. Games of Strategy. 5th ed. New York: Norton, 2020. Hundt, Markus. Sprachliche Aggression bei Martin Luther: Argumentationsformen und -funktionen am Beispiel der Streitschrift „Wider das Papsttum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet“ (1545). Lingua Historica Germanica 27. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2022. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Konradt, Matthias. Ethik Im Neuen Testament. GNT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022.

388

CHRISTOPH STENSCHKE

Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Luther, Suzanne. Sprachethik im Neuen Testament: Eine Analyse des frühchristlichen Diskurses im Matthäusevangelium, im Jakobusbrief und im 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT II/394. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. McKnight, Scot. Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019. Schnabel, Eckhard J. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer Kapitel 1– 5. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Witten: Brockhaus; Gießen: Brunnen, 2015. Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” Pages 607–94 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. Stenschke, Christoph. “Blasphemy IV. New Testament.” Pages 105–13 in Birsha – Chariot of Fire, volume 4 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. Vos, Johan S. Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus: Studien zur antiken Rhetorik. WUNT 149. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Wischmeyer, Oda. “A New Testament Approach to (Biblical) Ethics from the Perspective of Language: Moods of Ethical Speech in New Testament Texts and Their Hermeneutical Relevance.” Pages 324–46 in Key Approaches to Biblical Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Edited by Volker Rabens, Jacqueline Grey, and Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn. Biblical Interpretation Series 189. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2021. Wischmeyer, Oda, and Lorenzo Scornaienchi, eds. Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur: Texte und Kontexte. BZNW 170. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2011.

CHAPTER 18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH AND BEING COMMITTED TO IT RONALD T. MICHENER EVANGELISCHE THEOLOGISCHE FACULTEIT, LEUVEN γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης. (NA28) “Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true.” (NRSV) “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” (NIV) Romans 3:4

I NTRODUCTION

The title of this article contains a double entendre. First of all, it suggests that we do not understand “Truth” as it is, whether that truth refers to God or ultimate reality. We are finite, limited, beings who do not have access to reality apart from our incomplete interpretations. Yet, with our limitations in comprehending God and God’s creation, we seek to remain committed to God just the same. A second understanding of the title expresses a commitment to “not knowing” itself. That is, a commitment to a particular sort of ignorance. The commitment to “not knowing” in the sense this article seeks to prescribe, however, is not a blind, “ignorance is bliss,” approach to life and a wave-of-the-hand dismissal of our cognitive resources of perception. Rather, it suggests that we must be committed to 389

390

RONALD T. MICHENER

rejecting the hubris involved in aspiring to grasp, for ourselves, that which is always beyond our grasp, comprehension, and control. To do this, I will provide a theological reflection on a sensibility observed in Karl Barth’s theological musings on Romans 3:4, “Let God be true, and every man a liar” observed in The Epistle to the Romans, along with selections from Church Dogmatics I and III.1 This essay finds Barth exceptionally helpful in providing a pastoral-ethical call to theological humility, a general sensibility that is readily apparent in Barth’s appropriation of Kierkegaard’s rendering of God as “infinite qualitative distinction.”2 In being committed not to know, one See Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). McCormack points out that the emphasis on human inability to know God is especially pertinent for Barth’s second edition (Romans II) of Der Römerbrief (1922), 201, 207. He notes that in at least nine passages Barth decried his tendency (in the first edition of Der Römerbrief) to make an ongoing connection between the being of God and that of humankind (180). McCormack poses the primary question of Romans II: “How could God be known by human beings without ceasing to be God, to be the master of the relation between God and humankind?” (207–8). To this, McCormack provides his understanding of Barth’s answer: “God is the God whom we do not know, the Unknown God who, if we are to know Him, must make Himself known, and must do so in such a way that He remains God even in—precisely in—His revelation” (248–49). 2 As Barth puts it: “Der Verdacht, hier werde mehr ein- als ausgelegt, ist ja wirklich das Naheliegendste, was man über meinen ganzen Versuch sagen kann. Ich habe dazu folgendes zu bemerken: Wenn ich ein ‘System’ habe, so besteht es darin, dass ich das, was Kierkegaard den ‘unendlichenqualitativen Unterschied’ von Zeit und Ewigkeit genannt hat, in seiner negativen und positiven Bedeutung möglichst beharrlich im Auge behalte. ‘Gott ist im Himmel und du auf Erden’ [vgl. Pred. 5,1]. Die Beziehung dieses Gottes zu diesem Menschen, die Beziehung dieses Menschen zu diesem Gott ist für mich das Thema der Bibel und die Summe der Philosophie in Einem.” Karl Barth, Der Römerbrief, 2nd ed. (Zürich: TVZ, 1922), 16–17. The English version is rendered: “I know that I have laid myself open to the charge of imposing a meaning upon the text rather than extracting its meaning from it, and that my method implies this. My reply is that, if I have a system, it is limited to a recognition of what Kierkegaard called the ‘infinite qualitative distinction’ between time and eternity, and to my regarding this as pos1

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

391

recognizes one’s humble position and lack of pure motives in seeking God, whose knowledge of us is much more significant than our knowledge of God. This essay will not provide a complete exegetical/contextual reading of Romans 3:4, nor will it give an exhaustive critical evaluation of Barth’s commentary on this verse. With such major caveats, what will it do? It will take several of Barth’s overarching reflections, ruminations, and “rabbit-trails” on Romans 3:4 offering perspectives that I suggest remain true to the larger questions on knowing God to which Barth alerts his readers. I will offer a perspective, in line with Barth’s dialectical sensibilities, that is pessimistic with respect to humanity’s faithfulness to seek, and ability to know, God’s truth. At the same time, I will suggest, also with Barth in mind, that it is through one’s cognizance of this unfaithfulness and inability that God’s truth is nevertheless made manifest. With Barth’s characteristic dialectic engagement, he seeks to navigate the tension of knowing and not knowing: It is by confessing our “not knowing” we find and embrace the truth of knowing God. In Barth’s commentary on Romans, he put it like this: “We know that God is He whom we do not know, and that our ignorance is precisely the problem and the source of our knowledge.”3 This intriguing irony expresses the epistemological sensibility of Barth’s theology that I wish to pursue.

1. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH AND HUMAN I NABILITY

Barth is well known for his pessimism about human knowing and the monumental gap between God and humankind. Barth claims in his “Preface to the Second Edition” of his Romans commentary, that if he has any system at all, it would be his appropriation of Kierkegaard’s “infinite qualitative distinction,” which Barth also believes to be the “theme of the Bible and the essence of sessing negative as well as positive significance: ‘God is in heaven, and thou art on earth.’ The relation between such a God and such a man, and the relation between such a man and such a God, is for me the theme of the Bible and the essence of philosophy.” Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns, 6th ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 10. 3 Barth, Romans, 45.

392

RONALD T. MICHENER

philosophy.” In Barth’s mind, this separational gap was also the case for Paul when writing the book of Romans, and remains significant for Barth in his own writing.4 God is God and humans are not. Whether looking to Scripture, history, Augustine, or the Reformers, it is clear “that–There is none that understandeth.”5 Barth makes it clear that humankind’s lack of knowledge of God stems from its inadequacy, mentally, morally, or otherwise. Only God may be found ultimately true; humanity’s efforts are bound to deception. As Barth begins his observations on Romans 3:4 (“Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true,” NRSV), he emphasizes that only God alone is true, not humankind: He is the Answer, the Helper, the Judge, and the Redeemer; not man, whether from the East or from the West, whether of Nordic stock or of Biblical outlook; not the pious nor the hero nor the sage; not the pacifist, nor the man of action; not even the Super-man—but God alone, and God Himself! If this be forgotten, we must again and again be reminded of the inadequacy of all who bear revelation, and of the gulf which separates them from what they bear, in order that we may be referred once again to the Beginning and the Origin. The bearer of revelation himself lives of the recognition that God is declared to be God by his inadequacy.6

Barth, Romans, 10. Barth, Romans, 86. Bold print in original. Barth’s strong reaction against human effort and ability was certainly influenced by his context. Some even endorsed the First World War as the outworking of God in history, which was more about human interests and conceptual idolatry. See John R. Franke, Barth for Armchair Theologians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 44–45. Franke suggests that Barth’s Romans commentary “can be understood as an extended reflection on the meaning and implications of the first of the Ten Commandments, ‘You will have no other gods before me’” (45). Shedding additional light in this regard, George Hunsinger concurs that German Christians were succumbing to political idolatry, expressed in terms of “Nationalism, militarism, and anti-Semitism.” George Hunsinger, Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed: Doctrinal Essays on Barth and Related Themes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 91. 6 Barth, Romans, 80. 4 5

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

393

Yet, with this pessimistic outlook on human ability, and strong statement of inability, there remains a glimmer of hope. Barth continues: This is his confession (Ps. 116:10–14): I believed, and therefore have I spoken, but I was sore troubled: and it proceeds—I said in my alarm (in my ecstasy, LXX), all men are liars. All men! Yes, precisely. Only when the all-embracing contrast between God and men is perceived can there emerge the knowledge of God, a new communion with Him, and a new worship. . . .7

In the perception of inability and of God’s quantitative and qualitative distinction from humanity, a certain sort of relational, worshipful, knowledge of God emerges. Apprehending our limitations and lack of knowledge before God is essential for “knowing” God. For Barth, by realizing, recognizing, the “Personality which we are not,” our own personality is made known. That is, that which may indeed “be known of God” is a “recognition of the absolute heteronomy under which we stand.”8 Kenneth Oakes points out that throughout Barth’s commentary on Romans, he makes a contrast between the invisible and visible.9 The “invisible” pertains to faith, and the “visible” to humanly sight. Human observation does not provide direct access to knowledge of God, only God grants access to Godself through faith, which is invisible. God remains hidden, yet for Barth, not simply because God is transcendent, but because God “actively reveals himself to and hides himself from humanity so that we might know that God is God; the Lord is sovereign even over knowledge about himself.”10 Barth confirms this later in his commentary when he says that human knowledge and truth towards God is only “realized” from God, as God’s knowledge is not temporal, but it is “eternal and unobservable.” Human beings, in the midst of temporality, condemnation, and lack of knowledge before God, nevertheless find peace in God. In their embarrassing Barth, Romans, 80. Italics in original. Barth, Romans, 46. Italics in original. 9 Kenneth Oakes, Reading Karl Barth: A Companion to The Epistle to the Romans (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 16. 10 Oakes, Reading Karl Barth, 17. 7 8

394

RONALD T. MICHENER

insecurity before God and dependence upon God is where human beings find, ironically, their security, assurance, and justification before God.11 I will return to this thought again below, as it pertains to humans and the understanding of truth. Barth does not limit his assessment to humanity’s finiteness and limitations in contrast to God, but also to humanity’s moral ineptitude before God. Human beings lack the understanding and “deep perception of the nature of things,” but they also fail to seek God; none are righteous in motive or character. Humans practice deceit, their mouths express curses and bitter words, they are quick to shed blood, are prone to destruction, and they fail to practice the fear of God.12 This moral, personal, and cognitive ineptitude is subject for Barth to the judgement of history, as it reveals a “final deprivation” where humanity becomes “dumb before God,” showing that “God alone is just” and everyone else is guilty. But in this discovery is found, nevertheless, God’s ultimate faithfulness, completely uncompromised by the humankind’s unfaithfulness.13 Indeed, Barth expresses clearly that God alone is true, but all others are untruthful in themselves.

2. BEING COMMITTED TO NOT K NOWING AND K NOWING GOD THROUGH THIS COMMITMENT

It is clear from the brief words and examples above that Barth does not hold high prospects for human knowing since God is the only one who is true, faithful, and knowing. Any knowing to which humans have access is provided directly by God and is in no way linked to human ability, mastery, or control. This depraved and deprived condition of humanity may not be abandoned for some idealistic notion of eventual triumph over one’s limitations. It must be faced squarely. It requires a resolute commitment to a humble “not knowing” before God who knows all, the God who knows us even when we cannot know God. And, Barth, Romans, 325. Barth, Romans, 86; see also 87–91. Previously, Barth (Romans, 81) also refers to Psalm 51, where the Psalmist’s despairs of his moral failure, impurity, and infidelity before God’s absolute faithfulness. There is nothing a human being may offer to God, except one’s contrition. 13 Barth, Romans, 88–89. 11 12

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

395

as we will see, being resilient in the condition of not knowing is where indeed God and God’s truth is proclaimed and revealed. As Kirstin Sanders puts it: “To recognize that our knowledge is only human, and that God dwells beyond it, might be to glimpse God for the very first time.”14

3. CHURCH OF J ACOB AND CHURCH OF E SAU

As Barth returns to and expands upon the theme found in Romans 3:4: “Let God be true and every man a liar” (NIV),15 he discusses the adequacy of the Word of God in view of the inadequacy of human beings when faced with the Truth of the Word of God. Humans “are bound to receive and proclaim the Truth as it is with God, as soon as they do receive it and do proclaim it ceases to be the Truth; that, however true the Theme of the Church may be, as the theme of the Church it is untrue.”16 To illustrate this, Barth divides the church into the “Church of Esau” and the “Church of Jacob.” The Church of Esau is the church observed in history, it is the practiced Church; it is that which is “knowable,” marked by failure, schism, and reform.17 On the other hand is the Church of Jacob, which is invisible, “unknowable,” without history, and where “Truth appears above the deceit of men” in the grace, calling and election of God.18 Human beings may only speak in the context of the Church of Esau, always dependent upon Jacob, realizing Esau is only Esau “because he is not-Jacob.”19 Kenneth Oakes, commenting on Barth in this regard, submits that there is both a “relationship” between Jacob and Esau, and also a Kirstin Sanders, “Wait, You’re Not Deconstructing?,” Christianity Today, 14 February 2022, https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/march/exvangelicaltheology-wait-youre-not-deconstructing.html. 15 Note that the NRSV inverses the order of the Greek text: “Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true.” This essay will use both NIV and NRSV, depending on the specific emphasis desired. 16 Barth, Romans, 341. 17 Barth, Romans, 341. As Barth puts it, “It may be seen at Jerusalem, or Rome, or Wittenburg, or Geneva. The past and future can be comprehended without exception under its name” (341). 18 Barth, Romans, 342. 19 Barth, Romans, 342. 14

396

RONALD T. MICHENER

“problem.” So, he replies: “The church must seriously ask itself whether it can actually produce anything other than lies and deceptions. There is no room for resignation or abandonment here, for the task is to wrestle with the God of Jacob.”20 In Church Dogmatics II.1 Barth picks up on this theme once again, also with reference to Romans 3:4. The preacher may only speak as a human being with fallible human speech, but this “cannot be considered abstractly without denying the Church as the body of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ as its Head.”21 Even with the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church, it does not negate frail and fallible human communication about God; it is only possible to “identify the Church with its Lord only indirectly in the unity of the body with its head” relying completely on “the free grace of God and therefore on prayer.”22 Again, Barth wants to downplay any notion of human ability to portray truth about God even with God’s intervention (via the Holy Spirit). Humans are always inadequate, subject to lies and inaccuracies of thought; only God may be found true. For Barth, it is not that truth does not exist, but truth must not be linked to human ability, nor does it stem from human existence at all. Truth is not about what human beings can do or know, but rather about God’s “prerogative” as “the Lord who speaks and acts in Israel.” Truth is about God’s revelation, God’s faithfulness, God’s mercy, and God’s “speaking and acting.”23 Truth is only provided by God to human beings; it is not “an independent possibility” that humans may manage, but it is only

Oakes, Reading Karl Barth, 107 Karl Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God, vol. 1/2 of Church Dogmatics, trans. G. T. Thomson and Harold Knight, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956; repr., London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 754. 22 Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 1/2:755. Barth said that he clearly has in mind a contrast with Roman Catholicism and its perspective on the authority of the Church (755). 23 Karl Barth, The Doctrine of God, vol. 2/1 of Church Dogmatics, trans. T. H. L. Parker et al., ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957; repr., London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 207. See also p. 98, where Barth says that truth is never “self-evident.” 20 21

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

397

a possibility that is provided by God, since only God is truth. Paul Nimmo expresses this well: For Barth, it was crucial to understand divine revelation as an utterly transcendent act that is beyond all human grasp and power, in order to recognize its utterly gracious nature: there was no way from creaturely being to knowing God, and no analogy of being (analogia entis) between God and humanity. In truth, this was the same broad concern which distanced Barth from the other dialectical theologians: the denial of the idea that faith was a human possibility.24

God’s gracious action and initiative must always be the point of departure for Barth. With this in mind, how then may success in human knowledge of God be attained or understood?

4. SUCCESS IN HUMAN K NOWING?

If success in human knowledge (of God) pertains to veracity of what is stated to be known, then how is such success determined? Success is a slippery concept for Barth at this point because success cannot be something which we may ever claim to have attained. Success is more like a theological journey, “an undertaking and attempt” instead of that which provides “definitive results.” Understanding God is an ongoing process that always demands God as the starting point, and always God, rather than human beings, as the one working in the process of revealing truth.25 Success, then, is about the process, attempt, and journey “to the goal hidden in God Himself.” Success is not personal accomplishment of this goal, but the imperfect journey of “success appropriate to us” as human beings that does not “coincide with the self-knowledge of God.”26 But with its limitations as a “theologia viatorum,” it is indeed “true.” God, however, will never be mastered or comprehended, but always hidden from our full comprehension. Further, any knowledge of God that is bequeathed to us comes only from God’s grace and not by our Paul T. Nimmo, Barth: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 6–7. 25 Barth, The Doctrine of God, 208. 26 Barth, The Doctrine of God, 209. 24

398

RONALD T. MICHENER

human nature. In fact, this will remain the case into eternity as our knowing turns from that of the Church militant (always marked by error) to the knowing of the Church triumphant, which is whole and “free from dispute.” Even then, this knowing is not the “knowledge of the triune God Himself,” but will be, and continue to be forever, “the knowledge of the church of Jesus Christ.” It is indeed a true, authentic knowledge, but an “adapted” knowledge for the limitations of human beings. We are both far from God and near to God. But we may only speak of the truth of our knowledge in the sense of the truth of God’s self-revelation.27 Avoiding any hint of natural theology was essential for Barth. Knowledge of God is only by God’s revelation, and this is only via the mediation of Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Word.28 It is clear, according to Barth, that human beings do not have any natural capacities to attain knowledge of God or innate capacities for faith in God. However, as to how any limited knowledge is appropriated is not so clear. There are debates over the early and late Barth on the subject of the analogia entis. Keith L. Johnson argues, from Barth, that some capacity in some form must exist, suggesting there must be at least some “point of contact” (Anknüpfungspunkt) between God and human beings.29 Barth considers this “point of contact” an “aptness” that is loaned to human beings from God; it is not something that stems from Barth, The Doctrine of God, 209. Paul D. Jones (The Humanity of Christ: Christology in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008], 204), drawing from volume 4/1 of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, 188, claims that Barth holds to “neo-Kantian assumptions” by suggesting that “God employs a creaturely medium, qualitatively dissimilar to God’s own being, in order to reveal Godself to humankind.” Further, human understanding of God only comes via “the ‘veil’ of flesh, assumed by the Son.” 28 George Hunsinger, Reading Barth with Charity: A Hermeneutical Proposal (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 157–58. 29 Keith L. Johnson, Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010), 168. Johnson’s book is devoted to investigating the apparent difference between the early and late Barth on his view and/or appropriation, of the analogia entis (2–3). Johnson argues that indeed “a shift had occurred” (3). See also Johnson, Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis, 1–12. 27

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

399

human ability itself. But, for Barth, this capacity or point of contact cannot, for instance, come from the imago Dei, because the imago Dei was “totally annihilated” in the Fall.30 This aptness on loan from God can be articulated not as analogia entis (as in Roman Catholicism), since it is not inherent to being human, but rather as analogia fidei, as the bridge may only be made directly by God, through the faith granted by God to humans through Christ.31 Success in contact between God and human beings is always about God’s success in Christ, not human success in any form.

5. COMMITMENT TO HUMILITY AND NOT K NOWING

As Barth emphasized, human beings are unable to know God at all apart from God’s gracious revelation of God’s self. But this understanding of strong inability of human knowledge of God is itself a disclosure of knowledge. This seems to be a dialectical contradiction: we have knowledge of God in realizing that we cannot know God. It is both a negation and affirmation of knowing God. But in the affirmation of the negation, there knowledge is located.32 Only when we have repented of our arrogance in “speaking about God” will be able to listen to God “on God’s terms and by his Spirit begin to speak about him on the basis of revelation alone.”33 As Kurt Richardson notes, there is a “combination of humility and confidence that must characterize all of our theological speaking and writing.”34 We are unable to think

Karl Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God, vol. 1/1 of Church Dogmatics, 2nd ed., trans. G. W. Bromiley, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936; repr., London: T&T Clark, 2004), 238. 31 Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 1/1:239–44. See also Johnson, Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis, 169–70. 32 See also Kurt Anders Richardson, Reading Karl Barth: New Directions for North American Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 55. Richardson states: “Much of this reflection is a recovery of the truth that on our own we can say nothing true about God. This will also be a part of Barth’s assault on religion as such” (55). 33 Richardson, Reading Karl Barth, 54. 34 Richardson, Reading Karl Barth, 127. 30

400

RONALD T. MICHENER

or speak of God,35 but in realizing that we are unable, we therefore still think and speak of our inability in this regard. In Barth’s characteristic dialectical manner, he states: It is the one characteristic of the revelation of God attested in the Bible that when it is issued it is impossible for man not to proceed to think of God, or to be silent about God. When it is issued, man is convicted of his inability to think of God and to speak of God. And when it is issued, it is required of man that in spite of inability, and even in his inability, he should still do both. On the ground of this requirement, thanks to the truth of God in it, there is a true knowledge of God on the part of man.36

Truthfulness in knowledge in this manner, being compelled to speak of God in our inability to speak of God, provides humility. Any knowledge or “veracity of our thinking and speaking” comes via God’s grace, not our own ability or success. Returning to Romans 3:4, Barth again insists: “In the true knowledge of God, it will necessarily be true and known again and again that God is true and all men are liars.” This, however, does not require us to immerse ourselves in despair, for despair is not about humility, but pride. Humility accepts God’s grace and justification, and “accepts grace in judgment.”37 Lack of humility about knowledge of God also surfaces in sectarian efforts to purport our “true” versions of Christianity, each of which enthusiastically support their pious positions from the Bible, whether Protestant or Catholic, or this pastor or that pastor’s teachings. Any person may find and support her position from the Bible. But one must not assume that this gives license to claim that one has grasped the revelation of “true religion.”38 Instead, Barth insists (repeating the dictum of Rom 3:4) that we Giving consideration to Barth’s response of “Nein” to Brunner, George Hunsinger argues that Barth “was neither apophatic nor sectarian in theological epistemology.” Hunsinger, Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed, 88. 36 Barth, The Doctrine of God, 212. 37 Barth, The Doctrine of God, 213. 38 Karl Barth, The Word of God and Theology, trans. Amy Marga (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011), 24. Italics in original. 35

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

401

“must seek out our answer” from the fact that “‘God is true and all humans are liars.’”39 Again, what is of primary significance is not what we think of God, but what God thinks of us. As Barth says, “The Bible does not tell us how we are supposed to talk with God, but rather what God says to us. It does not say how we are to find our way to him, but how God has sought and found the way to us.”40 In a similar vein, Stephen N. Williams insists that pietism is not the answer, it is rather the problem for Barth, because it is the religion of grasping, not of being grasped. It is the twin of rationalism and no true heir to the Reformation.”41

6. CONCLUSION: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES I T MAKE?

As we indicated in the introduction, we have entertained a double meaning on the understanding of truth as it plays out theologically in Barth’s recurrent reflections on Romans 3:4. Truth pertains to veracity or accuracy of knowledge of God, and it also pertains to “being true” in terms of faithfulness. When commenting on this verse, Joseph Fitzmyer also observes that Paul had such variations in mind when it comes to this passage: In using alēthēs, Paul plays on its two meanings: “true, honest”; and “faithful, loyal.” Although the second meaning is clearly intended in the context (God’s fidelity to his promises and oracles), the first cannot be excluded, because of the allusion to Ps 116:11 (LXX 115:2), pas anthrōpos pseustēs, “Every human being is a liar.” For Paul, though every human being would appear before God as a liar, God’s truthfulness and fidelity would shine forth.42

Reflecting on this passage theologically, with a Barth-inspired lens, we understand truthfulness as more that the absence of intentional deceit. Truth is a broad concept that includes accuracy of knowledge (of God, in this instance) but also pertains to being

Barth, The Word of God and Theology, 24. Barth, The Word of God and Theology, 25. 41 Stephen N. Williams, Revelation and Reconciliation: An Angle on Modernity, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Clarke, 2021), 68. 42 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, AB 33 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 328. 39 40

402

RONALD T. MICHENER

faithful, and in this sense, practicing truthfulness or faithfulness to the Truth, which is God and God alone, through Jesus Christ. In making such claims, we are not providing a philosophical or epistemological argument on the meaning of truth, as such, but rather presenting a “Barthianesque” theological sensibility on the truth of human knowing as it pertains to our comprehension of God. Affirming God as true and human beings as liars (Rom 3:4) is not to say that human beings are only telling lies or always intentionally trying to deceive. But in our broader theological appropriation in this regard (keeping in mind the aforementioned double entendre on the notion of truth), the notion of “lie” includes general human pride in the attempt to claim knowledge and truth about ultimate reality (God), when in fact, human beings are helpless to obtain any knowledge of such reality because it is far beyond their capacity. Instead of submitting themselves to God alone in total dependence, human beings “lie” in their manifestation of pride and failure to disavow their false understanding of personal autonomy and independence. Only God is truth; humans are self-deceivers with mixed motives (morally and epistemologically) in the seeking of God’s truth. As we are confronted with the “dialectical polarity” between the God who remains hidden (Deus absconditus), and the God who reveals (Deus revelatus),43 our human pretensions are erased. In our theological appropriation of this dialectic, we will always be faced with an asymmetry between God’s revelation and our response to that revelation,44 as we noted above, with Barth’s distinction between the Church of Jacob and the Church of Esau. But it is in our un-knowing and silence before God, where authentic knowledge of God is discovered, in faith. This is a “circularity of truth in the knowledge of God, the circulus veritatis Dei,” via the analogia fidei.45 By cognizance of one’s own unfaithfulness and one’s commitment to the inability to know, God’s Richardson, Reading Karl Barth, 126–27. Richardson makes reference to volume 2/1 of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, 362–65, 541–50. 44 Richardson, Reading Karl Barth, 54. 45 Richardson, Reading Karl Barth, 52–53. In this section Richardson cites from volume 2/1 of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, 250–51. 43

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

403

truth is opened in the grace and truth of Jesus Christ. This is a commitment to rejecting the hubris of grasping, for us, that which is always beyond our grasp. Against modern conceptual idolatries of reason46 marked by the relentless optimism of the human mind to claim knowledge for the sake of oppressive power and control (economically, politically, inter-personally), the hubris of human ability and progress, these Barth-inspired reflections also call us to radical humility and justice.47 The deconstruction of our own selfconstructed edifices and claims to knowledge and truth prod us to seek justice for the other, and hospitality to the other. As we are faced with our own unworthiness to grasp God and master our understandings and expressions of theological truth, the ironic soft power of silence and compassion for the other begins to emerge. As we practice this intentional discipline of “notknowing,” we become more adept at silence before the other, listening to the other among us. The practice of humility before God reinforces our needed humility before others. When we have no reason to boast in our own efforts and abilities, we open up space for listening carefully to the injustices others have faced, even perhaps by our own positions of theological dominance. But as we face our own limitations and unworthiness, it must not lead to despair, but instead point us towards hope in the overwhelming grace of God, and God’s knowledge of us. In this hope, we may then extend hope to others (amidst our differences, political or otherwise) both among believers coming from different traditions and theological Richardson (Reading Karl Barth, 124) astutely submits: “Instead of worshiping the true God, human beings turn to their idols, and this we do because of our unrighteousness. And so, the idols of our own contrivance represent fully our own attempts at mediating the relation between God and ourselves by ourselves. In the case of the Romans text, the revelation of Christ is first of all the revelation of God’s wrath against all suppression of truth, which is quintessentially unrighteousness. Barth is intent on avoiding any kind of abstraction regarding pagan humanity.” 47 Although we do not share Barth’s particular history and context, his basic sensibility remains applicable for modernist theological approaches that place excessive confidence in the power of human reason to make theological judgements. 46

404

RONALD T. MICHENER

perspectives, and among unbelievers with whom we are making an effort to provide a witness for Christ Jesus. As only God is “proved true” (Rom 3:4b, NRSV), we are silenced (cf. Rom 3:19) and stripped of our pride, first before God, then before others.48 But in this acknowledgement and embrace of weakness, we proclaim the justice and strength of God to overcome pride and build bridges of reconciliation. In the book of Romans, as Douglas Harink points out, Paul subverts the categories of “weak” and “strong” that represent the “imbalance of social power” in order to bring “solidarity and unity at the table.”49 As Gentiles and Jews often looked down on one another, in Romans 1:18–3:20 Paul is confronting this tendency. Neither Jew nor Gentile may boast privilege or priority over the other, all fall short of living in view of God’s justice in Christ Jesus. God’s justice prevails even when humans fail to act justly. God is true, and God is faithful to always make things right.50 We are reminded that there is nothing we can do in our own efforts to reach God, or act justly, truthfully, or faithfully towards God or others, without God’s redemption and renewal of our lives through the resurrection work begun in Jesus.51

Douglas J. Moo (Romans, The NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000], 113) suggests that the images in this passage are judicial. Being silenced, with nothing to say in defense, the “defendant recognizes that he or she is at the mercy of the judge (God), who is about to pronounce sentence.” Without negating Moo’s observation, this essay is focusing on the broader narrative of justice in terms of God’s faithfulness in being true, in contrast to human inability and moral inadequacy to think and act truthfully. This emphasis is made by Sarah Heaner Lancaster (Romans, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015], 55): “Paul is posing a question about God’s righteousness (as faithfulness to covenant promises). And, of course, his answer is that God continues to be trustworthy in the covenant, and is therefore righteous. Even if everyone else is false, God is still true.” 49 Douglas Harink, Resurrecting Justice: Reading Romans for the Life of the World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020), 192. Harink acknowledge influence on this point from Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). 50 Harink, Resurrecting Justice, 50. 51 Harink, Resurrecting Justice, 111. 48

18. ON NOT KNOWING THE TRUTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

405

Barth, Karl. Der Römerbrief. 2nd ed. Zürich: TVZ, 1922. ———. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. 6th ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1968. ———. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Volume 1/1 of Church Dogmatics. 2nd ed. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936. Repr., London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. ———. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Volume 1/2 of Church Dogmatics. Translated by G. T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956. Repr., London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. ———. The Doctrine of God. Volume 2/1 of Church Dogmatics. Translated by T. H. L. Parker, W. B. Johnston, Harold Knight, and J. L. M. Haire. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957. Repr., London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. ———. The Word of God and Theology. Translated by Amy Marga. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2011. Franke, John R. Barth for Armchair Theologians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Harink, Douglas. Resurrecting Justice: Reading Romans for the Life of the World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020. Hunsinger, George. Reading Barth with Charity: A Hermeneutical Proposal. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Hunsinger, George. Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed: Doctrinal Essays on Barth and Related Themes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Johnson, Keith L. Karl Barth and the Analogia Entis. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010. Jones, Paul D. The Humanity of Christ: Christology in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008. Lancaster, Sarah Heaner. Romans. Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015.

406

RONALD T. MICHENER

McCormack, Bruce L. Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Moo, Douglas J. Romans. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Nimmo, Paul T. Barth: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Oakes, Kenneth. Reading Karl Barth: A Companion to The Epistle to the Romans. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. Richardson, Kurt Anders. Reading Karl Barth: New Directions for North American Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. AB 33. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Sanders, Kirstin. “Wait, You’re Not Deconstructing?” Christianity Today, 14 February 2022. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/march/exvan gelical-theology-wait-youre-not-deconstructing.html. Williams, Stephen N. Revelation and Reconciliation: An Angle on Modernity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Clarke, 2021.

INDICES INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES Old Testament Genesis 1 1:5 1:8 1:10 1:28–29 2–3 3:6 3:17–18 4:10 4:11 6:5 8:21 12:1 12:2–3 12:7 15 15:1 15:4 15:15 17 17:9–14 20:7 22:17

256 256 256 256 256 154, 155 (n. 36) 153 242 (n. 49) 308 155 (n. 35) 110 (n. 19) 110 (n. 19) 257 155 (n. 35) 257 257 257 257 156 257 8, 197 257, 259 91 (n. 21)

407

24:7 24:27 24:28 24:50 24:51 25:20 29:35 32:12 46:2 49:11

257 258 258 258 258 257 198 91 (n. 21) 257 308 (n. 12)

Exodus 3 12:7 12:13 12:23–28 15:20 19–24 20:11 24 24:4 24:6–8 31:13 31:17 31:18 32:10

258 309 309 309 259 258 257 (n. 12) 313 261 261 197 257 (n. 12) 261 90

408

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

32:32 33:18–23 34:28

90 258 261

Leviticus 11:44–47 12:3 17:11 18:5 26:41

197 8 308 188 (n. 9) 189 (n. 11)

Numbers 11:25 12:2 12:6 15:17–21 24:4 24:16 25 31:16

259 258 257, 258 96, n. 36 260 260 265 265

Deuteronomy 4:2 4:8 7:7–8 10:4 10:16 11:11–17 11:26–28 12:23 12:32 14:1 16:6 17:18 28:12 29:17 30

262 256 35 261 6, 189 (n. 11), 340 242 (n. 49) 242 (n. 49) 308 262 35 (n. 33) 313 262 242 (n. 49) 242 (n. 49) 188 (n. 9)

30:6 30:15–20 30:19 31–34 31:9 31:10–11 31:24–26 32

32:13 32:14 32:15 32:18 32:21 32:30 32:31 32:37 34:10 34:11–12 2

6, 189 (n. 11) 155, 157 155 (n. 35) 258 262 262 262 237 (n. 25), 240, 245, 246 244 237 (n. 25) 244 244 210 (n. 17), 217 (n. 56) 210 (n. 17) 308 (n. 12) 210 (n. 17) 210 (n. 17) 94 210 (n. 17) 210 (n. 17) 210 (n. 17) 258 58

Joshua 5:2 5:2–8 24:26

340 340, 343 263

Judges 4:4

259

1 Samuel 2:31 3:1 3:7

156 (n. 38) 259 259

32:1 32:1–43 32:2 32:3 32:4

INDICES 3:19–21 9:6 9:9

259 259 259

2 Samuel 7 12:1–7 18:32–33 24:11

259 6 156 (n. 38) 259

1 Kings 8:6–9 19 19:10 19:10–18 19:14

263 93 92 90, 92 92

2 Kings 22 23

262 262

2 Chronicles 5:7–10 19:7 34

264 240 (n. 41) 262

Ezra 9:15

207 (n. 1)

Nehemiah 8:1–6 9 9:3

263 263 263

Job 4:13 18:13

261 157 (n. 41)

409 Psalms 4:3 5:1–3 5:7–8 5:9 5:11 5:11–12 7:9 7:11 10:7 10:12–18 14:1–3 14:1–4 16:4 25:6–7 32 32:10 33:4 33:6 33:9 35:24 36:1 36:1–4 38 41 51 51:4

51:6 53:1–3 55:21 56:5 62:12 64:10 71:1–2 71:19 75:6

16 385 385 175, 364, 385 173 385 207 (n. 1) 207 (n. 1) 175, 364, 385 385 175, 364 173 173 173 173 173 43, 49 256 256 207 (n. 1) 175, 364 173 173 173 173, 394 (n. 12) 17, 165 (n. 2), 234, 236, 237, 246, 381 75 175 112 112 6 173 173 207 (n. 1) 112

410

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

84:12 85 86:5 86:11 88 88:1–18 88:5 88:8 88:18 89:1 89:2 89:5 89:8 89:14 89:24 89:33 89:49 90 92 92:12–15 92:16 94:4–11 97:7 98:3 103 107:20 115:2–8 116:5 116:10–14 116:11 125:1–2 130 130:3–4 140:3 140:4 140:6–8 140:12–13 143:1

173 173 173 173 154, 155 (n. 34) 154 153 154, 155, n. 34 154 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 173 217 217 217, 221 173 173 49 173 187 173 207 (n. 1) 393 12, 50, 234, 401 173 173 173 175, 364, 385 385 385 385 173

143:2 143:5 143:8 143:9 143:10 143:12 147

173, 174, 175 173 173 173 173 173 256

Proverbs 3:16 4:2 24:12

156 35 (n. 33) 6

Ecclesiastes 3:17 5:1 5:2 7:20 9:4

207 (n. 1) 390 (n. 2) 260 175 156

Canticles (Song of Solomon) 4:1–7 110, 112 4:2–3 110 4:4 112 5:6–10 118 5:10–16 110, 112 5:13 110 5:14 112 5:16 110 6:4–7 110, 112 7:1–6 118 7:2–10 110, 112 7:5 112 Isaiah 1:1 1:9 2:2–3

261 91 314 (n. 22)

INDICES 4:2–6 5:1–5 5:16 10:22 11:10 25:6 25:6–8 28 28:15 28:23–29 30:8 37:30–32 38:17 38:17–19 44 44:20 45:21 49:6 51:17 51:22 52:14–15 52:15 53 53:4 53:6 53:11–12 53:12 55:3 58:2 59:1–5 59:7 59:7–8 59:8 61:8 63:3 63:6 66:19

99 242 (n. 49) 207 (n. 1) 91, n. 21 94 310 157 (n. 41) 16 16 242 (n. 49) 263 99 154, 155 155 16 16 207 (n. 1) 94, 99, 100, 317 (n. 28) 308 308 314 317 (n. 28) 311, 316 179 314 (n. 22) 314 314 (n. 22) 311 207 (n. 1) 173, 174 (n. 31) 175 364 175 311 308 (n. 12) 308 (n. 12) 94

411 Jeremiah 2:27 4:4 7:24 7:26 9:13–14 9:25–26 17:9 19:15 25:12 29:10 31:4 31:31 31:31–34 31:31 31:32 31:34 32:33 32:40 36:1–4 36:23–25 36:32

110 (n. 19) 6, 189 (n. 11) 110 (n. 19) 110 (n. 19) 189 (n. 11) 189 (n. 11) 110 (n. 19) 110 (n. 19) 263 263 311 (n. 18) xxiv, 314 310, 315 313, 314 313 309, 311 110 (n. 19) 311 262 263 263

Daniel 9:1–2 9:4–19 12:2

263 174, n. 32 158 (n. 43)

Ezekiel 3:7 8:1 16:60 16:63 19:10–14 20:1–2 20:11 20:12 20:13

110 (n. 19) 261 311 311 242 (n. 49) 261 188 (n. 9) 197 188 (n. 9)

412

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

20:21 35:6 36:26–27 37:26

188 (n. 9) 308 317 311

Hosea 1:10 1:10–11 6 6:6

15:6 17:5 18:10 21:10 21:12

91 (n. 21) 91 (n. 21) 178 178

Amos 1:3–2:3 2:4–5 2:6–16 7:11

Exodus 3:14 20:13–17 24:8 33:19

6 6 6 156 (n. 38)

34:6

239 286 312 238, 239 (n. 34), 241, 246 239

Jonah 2:3–5

Leviticus 18:5 19:18

281 286

153

Habakkuk 2 2:1 2:2 2:4

260 261 261 172, 378

Zephaniah 3:3

221 (n. 77)

Deuteronomy 10:17 16:18–20 17:8–13 21:23 27:26 32 32:1–3 32:1–6 32:1–43

Zechariah 7:11 9:11

110 (n. 19) 311

Septuagint Genesis 12:3

281

32:3 32:4

280 281 284 285 284

213 213, 214 214 281 281 209, n. 8, 224 209, 210 210 (n. 16) 211 (n. 18), 212, 224, 237 210 (n. 13) xxii, xxiii, 207 (n. 1), 208, 210, n. 16, 212, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, 236, 237, n. 25, 240, n. 41, n.

INDICES

32:4–6 32:5 32:5–6

44, 241, n. 45, 244, 245, 246 208 245 211, 236

2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 19:4–11 212 19:5–7 212, 213 19:6b–7 213 19:7 xxii, xxiii, 207 (n. 1), 208, 212, 213, 217 (n. 53), 221, 222, 223, 225, 232 19:8–11 212, 213 35–36 214 1 Esdras 3:1–5:6 3:16–23 4:1–12 4:13–32 4:33–41 4:34 4:35 4:36

4:39 4:40

214, n. 38, n. 40 214 214 214 214, n. 40, 216, 217 215 215, n. 42 xxii, xxiii, 208, 214, 215, 217, n. 52, n. 53, 221, 222, 223, 225, 232, 244 (n. 58) 217 (n. 53) 216, 223, 244 (n. 58)

413 2 Esdras 3:7

155 (n. 36)

Nehemiah 7–8

214

Tobit 14:6–7

94 (n. 32)

2 Maccabees 2:13–14 6:18–31 6:19 6:31

264 156 156 156

Psalms 1 1:3 1:16 5:10 5:10a 5:10b 9:28 10:7 13:1–3 32:4 35:2 36:2 50:6 88:2 88:3 88:6 88:9 88:25 88:34 88:50

218 218 (n. 60) 218 (n. 60) 105, 110, 111 109, 113 109, 113 105, 110, 113, 114 109 105, 106, 117 43, 49 105, 113, 114 109 48, 50, 53, 165 (n. 2), 234, 246 49 49 49 49 49 49 49

414

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

91 91:7–10 91:13 91:13–16 91:15 91:16

97:3 105:20 115:2 116:3–11 139:4 140:4 142:2 143:2 Odes 2 2:1–43 2:4

Ecclesiastes 7:20

217 217 217 217, 218 217 xxii, xxiii, 207 (n. 1), 208, 217, n. 55, 218, 221, 222, 223, 225, 232 49 187 12, 50, 234, 401 153 (n. 31) 105, 110, 113 109 173 280

211, 212 212, 224 xxii, xxiii, 208, 211, 212, 221, 222, 223, 232

105, 106, 117

Canticles (Song of Solomon) 4:1 109, 111, 113, 115 4:1–2 112 4:1–7 xx, 107, 111 4:2 112 4:3 109 4:3b 112 4:4 112

4:7 4:9 4:11 5:10 5:10–16 5:11 5:11b 5:12 5:13 5:15 5:16 6:4 6:4–7 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:9 7:1 7:2 7:2–10 7:3 7:6 7:10 Job 8 8:2 8:3

113, 117 109 107, 109, 111, 115 113 xx, 107, 110, 111 117 112 109, 111 109 111, 115 111, 112, 113, 115, 117 113 xx, 107, 111 109 112 109 113 115 109, 112, 115 xx, 107, 111 109 113 109

34:10–12

218 218 xxii, xxiii, 208, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 232, 236, 240 219

Wisdom 1:13

154

INDICES 2:23–24

154

Sirach 25:24

155 (n. 36)

Psalms of Solomon 2:16–19 51 3:3 51 4:9 51 4:28 51 8:7–8 51 8:27 51 8:29–32 51 8:40 51 9:3–4 51 10:6 51 17:12 51

415 Isaiah 6:13 10:22–23 14:22 14:30 15:9 53:4 54:1 59:7 59:7–8

91 (n. 22) 91 91 (n. 22) 91 (n. 22) 91 (n. 22) 179 285 105, 109 (n. 18), 113 109

Jeremiah 3:23 10:14 31:31–34 32:41

16 16 304 43

221

Hosea 2:20

43

Lamentations 3:23

Joel 3:1–2

317

New Testament

Habakkuk 2:4

281

Zephaniah 3:1–2 3:1–8 3:3–4 3:5

Malachi 1:2–3

220 220 220 xxii, xxiii, 208, 220, n. 74, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 232

Matthew 1:21 5:17 5:17–20 5:21–48 5:37 5:47 8–9 8:17 8:23–27 9:9–13

237, 241, 246

9:11

309 179 (n. 47) 170 170 387 176 179, n. 48 179 179 (n. 48) xxi, 165 (n. 1), 171, 176, 178, 179, 180 178 (n. 44)

416 9:12 9:13

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

9:13a 9:13b 10:34 10:35 12:7 12:34 15:36 17:20 20:13 20:22 20:28 21:22 23:35 26:20 26:27–28 26:28 26:29 26:30 26:39 27:4 27:24–25 28:20

177 166, 178 (n. 43), 179 (n. 47) 178, 179 179 179 (n. 47) 179 (n. 47) 178 (n. 43) 382 308 338 231 (n. 1) 308 179 (n. 47), 314 338 308 (n. 13) 307 304 309, 317 310 307 308 308 308 170

Mark 8:6 10:38 10:45 14:18 14:23–24 14:24 14:25 14:26 14:36

308 308 314 307 304 317 310 307 308

Luke 1:77 2:32 3:12–13 5:29–30 7:34 11:50 13:7 15:3–32 22:14 22:18 22:20 22:42

311 (n. 18) 317 (n. 28) 176 176 176 308 (n. 13) 40 96 307 310 304, 317 308

John 6:11 6:23 11:52 12:27 12:40 13:12 13:15 13:23 13:26 18:11

308 308 314 308 138 (n. 62) 135 (n. 54) 135 (n. 54) 307 307 308

Acts 2:10 2:17–18 2:33 3:25 5:28 7:8 7:38 10:45 13:17–41 13:47 15:9

108 317 317 315 126 (n. 14) 197 xxiii, 254 317 255 317 (n. 28) 316

INDICES 15:19–32 16:1–5 18:2 20:26 20:28 21:25 22:3 22:20 Romans 1 1–2 1–3 1–4 1:1–5 1:1–6 1:1–7 1:1–15 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:6 1:7a 1:7b 1:8 1:10 1:11 1:13 –14 1:15 1:15–16 1:16 1:16–17 1:16b–15:13 1:17

186 186 108 308, 317 (n. 29) 317 (n. 29) 186 107, 108 308 (n. 13)

69, 350, 381 35, 60, 374, 375, 376, 382 10, 54, 376, 385 68 277, 279 279 277, 279, 293 187 255, 352, 378 352, 375 376 376 279 279 376 376 376 360 376 70 352, 360 172, 187 123 (n. 5) 84, 135 (n. 56), 136 (n. 56), 139 (n. 64), 140 (n. 67),

417

1:17b 1:18 1:18–30 1:18–31 1:18–32 1:18–3:20

1:18–3:23 1:19 1:19–20 1:19–32 1:20–27 1:21 1:21–23 1:21–25 1:23

1:24 1:25 1:26 1:26–27 1:28 1:29 1:29–30 1:32

172 (n. 27), 196, 255 (n. 8), 378 281 4, 13, 14, 350, 378, 380 187, 188 351 5, 23, 157, 172, 187 xviii, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17, 23, 172, 192, 194, 198, 201, 202, 404 172 139, 140, n. 67, 255 4 4, 7 187 10, 157, 375 4 15 5, 187, 188 (n. 7), 382 (n. 12) 5, 157 15, 16, 17, 187, 375, 376, 380 5, 157, 382 (n. 12) 5 5, 157, 375 375 380 5, 188, 375

418 2

2–3 2:1 2:1–3 2:1–5 2:1–11 2:1–16 2:1–29 2:1–3:8 2:1–3:20 2:1–3:31 2:2 2:3 2:4–5 2:5 2:6 2:6–10 2:6–11 2:9 2:9 –10 2:9–11 2:9–3:1 2:12 2:12–16 2:12–29 2:12–24 2:13 2:13–15 2:14 2:14–15

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3 xxv, 5, 11, 30, 66, 67, 69, 87, 193, 376, 377, 378, 379, 383 349, 356, 360, 363, 366 5, 6, 188, 351, 352 6, 375 5, 67 188 5, 172 4 23, 24, 187 157 53 6 5, 6, 188 6, 8 9 189 7, 8 6, 157 188, 352 360 188 198 5, 190 7, 188 198, 254 386 189, 193, 375, 379 8 188, 351, 360 7, 197

2:17 2:17–20 2:17–24 2:17–29 2:18 2:20 2:20–21 2:20–22 2:21 2:21–24 2:22 2:23 2:24 2:25 2:25a 2:25–29 2:26 2:26–27 2:26–29 2:27 2:28–29 2:29 3

48, 64, 351, 352, 375 7 67, 71 7, 64, 68, 172, 189 376 376 376 376 376 8 376 48, 376 10, 351, 360, 375 33, 85, 197, 278, 287, 352 285, 287 8, 64, 72, 339 (n. 62) 188 188, 189 31 189 (n. 12) 9, 233 31, 189, 198, 376 xvii, xviii, xix, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, 11, 13, 21, 22, 23, 69, 86, 96, 98, 99, 232, 253, 254, 255 (n. 11), 347, 350, 356, 359, 363, 369 (n. 46), 374,

INDICES

3:1

3:1b 3:1–2 3:1–4

3:1–8

3:1–9

3:1–18 3:1–20 3:1–31 3:2

375, 376, 377, n. 4, 380, 382, 383, 386 23, 24, 26, n. 13, 27, 29, 30, 32, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 86, 189, 233, 352, 353 29 70, 383 xix, 22, 24, 25, 26, 53, 72, 76, 233 xvii, xix, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 23, 24, 25, 30, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 72, 73, 74, 85, 87 (n. 10), 233, n. 4, 235, 237 xix, 59, 61, 64, 65, n. 22, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, n. 42, 74, 75, 76, 77, 84 25, 26 85 25 xxiii, 11, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 41, 60, 62,

419

3:2a 3:2b 3:2–3 3:2–4 3:3

3:3b 3:3–4 3:3–8c 3:3–9 3:4

3:4a

64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 76, 84, 86, 87 (n. 10), 189, 253, 254, 377 75, 233 234 65 75, n. 51, 77 xx, 11, 13, 14, 38, 39, 40, 48, 49, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 73, 76, 84, 86, 88, 97, 98, 234, 235 (n. 23), 237 (n. 25), 354, 381 42 71 (n. 42), 234, 237, 354 68 64 xviii, xxvi, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 87, 88, 165, 166, 236, 255 (n. 8), 378, 380, 389, 390, 391, 395, 396, 400, 401, 402 282

420 3:4b 3:4–8 3:5

3:5b 3:5–7 3:5–8

3:6

3:6–7 3:7

3:7–8 3:7–8c 3:8 3:8a 3:8a–c 3:8b 3:8d 3:9

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3 404 377 xxii, 15, 60, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 75, 76, 208, 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, n. 23, 236, 237, n. 25, 238 (n. 29), 239, 240, 243, 244, 245, 246, 381 73, 282 354 12, 66, 71 (n. 42), 72, 73, 233, 234 48, 62, 64, 65, 66, 68, 76, 235, 239 75, 77 15, 60, 70, 76, 235, n. 23, 380 65, 73, 76 62, 68 60, 74, 77, 381, 382, 384 235 76 235 62, 68, 73, 76 10, 27, 60, 61 (n. 5), 68, 69, 70, 75, 84, 87, n. 10, 88, 98, 100, 105, 117,

3:9a 3:9b 3:9b–c 3:9c 3:9–10 3:9–18 3:9–20 3:10 3:10a 3:10–12 3:10–18 3:10b–12 3:10b–18 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:13a 3:13b 3:13c 3:13–14

3:13–18

3:14

190, 191, 354, 356, 360, 378, 382, 385 64, 65, 68, 76 68, 76 64, 65 76 282 10, 190 4, 9, 23 13, 88, 190, 255 (n. 8) 105 10, 13, 117 175, 196, 364, 378, 382 106 105 88 13, 88, 190 109, 112, 114 109, 111, 112, 113, 115 109, 112, 113 109, 111, 112, 113, 115 xxvi, 10, 110, 111, 377, 381, 382, 385, 387 xx, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118

INDICES 3:15

3:15a 3:15–17 3:16b 3:18 3:19

3:19–20 3:19–31 3:20

3:20a 3:20–31 3:21

3:21–22 3:21–22a 3:21–23 3:21–26

109, n. 18, 112, 113, 115, 308 (n. 13) 113 10, 111 114 10, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114 10, 190, 377, 378, 379, 382, 404 13 186, 187 10, 124 (n. 8), 176, 190, 193, 195, 196 280, 281, 282, 296 277, 280 xx, xxi, 54, 122, 123 (n. 7), 124, n. 8, 132, n. 40, 134, 135, 136 (n. 56), 137 (n. 60), 138, n. 62, 139, 140, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 202, 353, 377, 380 192 283 187 14, 134

421 3:21–31

3:21–4:25 3:22 3:22a 3:22b 3:22–24 3:23

3:23–24 3:24 3:24–26 3:25 3:25–26 3:26 3:26b 3:27 3:27–31 3:27–4:1 3:28 3:29 3:29a 3:30 3:31 4

4:1 4:2–27 4:3 4:3b 4:6 4:6–8

xxiv, 192, 199, 200, 201, 202, 309, 316, 318 305, 318 186, 195, 196, 198, 316 280, 296 280, 283 314 xxi, 14, 147, 148, 161, 166, 169, 171, 172, 175 xxi, 197 xxi, 377 176 309, 317 (n. 29) 54 123 (n. 7), 124 280 377, 382 196 194 (n. 36) 280, 296, 380 29, 360 305 281, 323 48, 195, 380, 383 160 (n. 48), 194 (n. 36), 380 27, 238 (n. 29) 194 (n. 36) 255 (n. 7) 280 385 17

422 4:9 4:11–17 4:11b 4:12b 4:13 4:13a 4:13–15 4:14 4:15a 4:15b 4:16 4:16b 4:17 4:17a 4:19 4:24 5 5–8

5:1 5:2 5:5 5:6–10 5:9 5:11 5:12 5:12–8:39 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17 5:18–19

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3 280 277, 280 281 281 282 282 278, 282 282 281 282 281 281 160 (n. 48), 255 (n. 8) 281 160 (n. 48) 160 (n. 48), 194 (n. 48) 158 68, 147, 156, 157, 158 (n. 42), 159, n. 46, 160 (n. 48) 9, 280 127 9 159 123 (n. 7), 317 (n. 29) 123 (n. 7) 157, n. 41 191 157 (n. 41) 158, 314 33 157 (n. 41) 314 (n. 22)

5:19 5:20 5:20–21 5:21 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:3b 6:3–5 6:3–8 6:4–5 6:6 6:6a 6:6b 6:8a 6:9 6:11 6:11b 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:14–15 6:15 6:16–18 6:18 6:19 6:22 7 7–8 7:1 7:2 7:3 7:4a 7:4b 7:5 7:5–6

314 10, 282 12 158 66, 238 (n. 29) 48 29 283 159 293, 294 158, 159 278, 286 280, 286 296 280, 296 159 159, n. 46, 280 296 159, 286 160 190, 283 190–91, 196, 286 27, 48, 190, 283, 286 191 285 282, 298 123 (n. 7), 124 380 202 29 159 160 280 296 157 (n. 41), 191 9, 191, 199

INDICES 7:6 7:6a 7:7 7:10b 7:12 7:13 7:14 7:15b 7:17 7:19 7:23b 8:1 8:1–4 8:1–18 8:2 8:2a 8:2b 8:2–4 8:3b 8:4b 8:6 8:6a 8:6b 8:11 8:13 8:13a 8:13b 8:14a 8:14b 8:14–15 8:15 8:15a 8:15b 8:15c 8:15–17 8:15–17a

123 (n. 7), 124, 191, 192, 286 280 27, 48, 66, 238 (n. 29) 282 380 48 282, 286, 380 286 123 (n. 7), 124 286 286 123 (n. 7) 9 387 286 285 281 294 283 286 278, 287 287 287 160 278, 287 287 287 286 283 294 298 283 281, 283 284 158, 278, 283 298

423 8:16a 8:16b 8:17 8:17b 8:18 8:22–23 8:31 8:31–39 8:32a 8:34 8:36 8:37b 9 9–11

9:1 9:1–5 9:1–13 9:1–11:36 9:3 9:4 9:4–5 9:6

9:6–9 9:6–29 9:7 9:7–9 9:8b 9:10–12 9:10–13 9:12

283 284 298 284 123 (n. 7) 158 27, 54, 66, 238 (n. 29) 385 280 159 160, 255 (n. 8) 80 239 (n. 35), 240, 356, 381 xx, 11, 34, 69, 84, 85, 86, 88, 315–316, 353, 355, 356, 378 240 (n. 44) 89 237 233 90 315 86, 234 (n. 9), 256, 356 13, 90, 91, n. 20, 92, 99, n. 43, 237 278, 284 90 237, 281 90 283 237 90 240 (n. 44)

424

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

9:13 9:14

9:14–15 9:14–18 9:14–19 9:14–23 9:15 9:15–16 9:16 9:17 9:17–18 9:19 9:19–21 9:20a 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:27 9:28 9:29 9:30 9:30b 9:30–32 9:30–10:21 9:31a 9:31–32 9:33 10:4a

237, 241, 255 (n. 8) xxii, 48, 208, 225, 232, 237, 238, n. 29, n. 32, 239, 240, n. 41, 241, n. 45, 244, 245, 246 239 (n. 34) 90, 238 (n. 30) 72 238 (n. 30) 239, 241, 255 239 (n. 38) 90 255 (n. 7) 239 (n. 38) 27, 65, 67 67, 73, 76 73, 74 88, n. 90, 360 255 91 (n. 20), 283 91, n. 21, 255 (n. 9) 91, n. 20 91, 255 (n. 9), 385 66, 238 (n. 29), 360 281 87 92 285 99 255 (n. 8) 283

10:4b 10:5 10:9 10:9–13 10:11 10:12 10:12a 10:15 10:15–17 10:16 10:19

10:20 11 11:1 11:1–6 11:1–10 11:2 11:2–5 11:3 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:6b 11:6–10 11:7 11:8 11:9 11:11 11:11–12 11:11–13 11:11–32 11:12 11:13

283 255 (n. 9), 281 9 385 255 (n. 7) 316, 360 283 118, 255 (n. 8) 87 255 (n. 9) 9, 90, 94, 240, 246, 255 (n. 9) 255 (n. 9) 50, 94 (n. 30), 195 48, 92, 99 100 92 93, n. 28, 255 (n. 7) 92, 95 92 93 93, 123 12 285 94 27, 315 255 (n. 8) 255 (n. 9) 9, 48, 94, n. 31, 240, 246 94, 97 (n. 38) 360 94 29 70

INDICES 11:13a 11:13–14 11:14 11:16 11:16b 11:16–32 11:17 11:17–24 11:19 11:20 11:23 11:23–24 11:24 11:25 11:25–26 11:26

11:26b–27 11:27 11:29 11:30 11:31 11:32 11:33–36 11:36b 12 12–15 12:1–2 12:1–15:13 12:5a 12:6–8 12:19 13:8a 13:8b 13:8–9 13:9a

285 90 9, 94, n. 31 95 96 95 88, 97, n. 38 67, 100 65, 67, 97 (n. 38) 97, 98 97, 99 97 (n. 38), 98 97, 100 360 98 88, 98, 43, 195 (n. 38), 255 (n. 8) 99 304 97, 378, 386 123 (n. 7), 125 123 (n. 7) 282 100 279 366 356, 366 361, 387 374 283 361, 387 255 (n. 8) 286 278, 286, 287 278, 286 286

425 13:9b 13:9c 13:11 13:12–13 13:13–14 13:14a 14 14–15 14:1–15:13 14:5 14:5a 14:7a 14:8a 14:8b 14:11 15:1a 15:3–4 15:6 15:9 15:9–12 15:12 15:13 15:16 15:18 15:21 15:23 15:24 15:25 15:27 16 16:1–2 16:4 16:5 16:20 16:20b 16:25–27

286 286 123 (n. 7) 258 (n. 14) 54 283 199 366, 379 (n. 6), 383 379, 383 284 284 280 280 280 255 (n. 8) 278, 287 255 (n. 8) 118 255 (n. 8) 360 255 (n. 9) xix, 17 360 360 255 (n. 8) 123 (n. 7) 364 123 (n. 7) 360 353 383 360 95 (n. 35) 278, 287 287 387

426

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

16:26 16:27 1 Corinthians 2:3 4:5 5:3 6:15 9:20 10:10 10:16 10:21 10:32 11:7 11:18 11:20 11:23a 11:25 11:27 12–14 12:8 12:12–31 12:18 13:13 14:5 14:17 14:20 14:40 15:20 15:35 15:58 16:14 16:15

125 (n. 12), 140 (n. 67) 279

12 140 (n. 67) 33 48 190, 196 67 308, 309, 317 (n. 29) 317 12 33 33 xxiv, 305 317 304 317 118 33 108 123 (n. 7), 124 (n. 8) 123 (n. 7), 124 (n. 8) 278 33 12 12 123 (n. 7) 65, 67 12 12 95 (n. 35)

2 Corinthians 2:14 3:3 3:6 3:14 4:3 4:10 4:11 5:10 5:11 5:17 7:12 8:11 8:22 9:1 10:10 11:4 11:6

140 (n. 67) 140 (n. 67) 9, 304, 316 316 136 (n. 56) 140 (n. 67) 140 (n. 67) 140 (n. 67) 140 (n. 67) 159 (n. 44) 140 (n. 67) 123 (n. 7) 123 (n. 7) 33 65 33 140 (n. 67)

Galatians 1:1 1:1–5 1:2a 1:2b 1:3 1:4 1:5 1:6–10 1:11–12 1:13–14 1:14 1:15–16 1:15–17 1:18–20 1:21–24 2:1–10 2:11–14 2:15

279 277, 279, 293 279 279 279 279 279 277 277 277 107 293 277, 279 277 277 277 277 280

INDICES 2:15–16 2:15–19 2:16a 2:16b 2:16c 2:16d 2:16e 2:17 2:17–18 2:19 2:19a 2:19b 2:19–21 2:20a 2:20b 2:20c 2:20d 2:20e 2:20f 2:23 2:25 3 3:1–5 3:6 3:6–9 3:7 3:8a 3:8b 3:9 3:10–14 3:10a 3:10b 3:11a 3:11b 3:12 3:13 3:13a 3:13b

277, 280 296 280 280 280 280 280 48 277 293, 294 280 280 277 280 280 280 280 280 280 194 194 315 (n. 25) 277 280 277, 280 281 281 281 281 278, 281 281 281 281 281 281 283 281 281

427 3:13c 3:14a 3:14b 3:15 3:15–17 3:15–20 3:15a 3:15b 3:16a 3:16b 3:17 3:18a 3:18b 3:19a 3:21 3:21a 3:21b 3:21c 3:21d 3:21–29 3:22a 3:22b 3:23 3:23a 3:23b 3:23c 3:24a 3:24b 3:25 3:26a 3:26b 3:27 3:27a 3:27b 3:28a 3:28b 3:28c 3:28d

281 281 281 305 (n. 5) 197 278, 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 282 48 282 282 282 282 278, 282 282 282 190, 196 282 282 283 283 283 283 283, 294 283 198 283, 293, 294 283 283 283 283 283

428 3:29a 3:29b 4:1–3 4:4 4:4a 4:4b 4:4–5 4:4–7 4:5 4:5a 4:5b 4:6 4:6a 4:6b 4:6c 4:6–7 4:7 4:7a 4:7b 4:8–11 4:10a 4:12–20 4:13 4:21 4:21–31 5:1a 5:1b 5:1–4 5:2a 5:2b 5:3 5:4a 5:4b 5:4c 5:5–12 5:6 5:13a 5:13b

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3 283 283 278 190, 378 283 283, 294 196 278, 283 190 283 283 298 283 283, 294 284 298 298 284 284 278 284 278 298 190, 196 278, 284 285, 294 285 278, 285 285 285 197, 285 285 285 285 278 36, 323 286 286

5:13c 5:13–15 5:14a 5:14b 5:16 5:16b 5:16–18 5:17a 5:17b 5:17c 5:18 5:18a 5:18b 5:19–23 5:24 5:24–26 5:25b 5:26 6:1–5 6:2 6:2a 6:2b 6:6–10 6:8 6:8a 6:8b 6:11–17 6:13 6:13a 6:15 6:18

286 278, 286 286 286 286 294 278, 286 286 286 286 190, 196 286, 294 286 278 286 278 286 12 278 287 287 287 278 287 287 287 278 287 287 36, 159 (n. 44) 278, 287

Ephesians 1:9 1:18 1:19 1:21 2:1–2

297 118 54 54 295

INDICES 2:12 2:13 3:3 3:5 3:16 4:29 4:32 5:3–6 5:17 5:21–23 5:32 6:14–17 6:15 6:19

315 123 (n. 7) 297 297 54 118 12 295 12 292, 293 297 108 118 118, 297

Philippians 3:1 3:5 3:5–6 3:6

289 108 107 190

Colossians 1:18a 1:22 1:26 1:26–27 2:2 2:11–12 3:5–7 3:8 3:18 4:3

293 123 (n. 7) 125, 138 (n. 62), 297 297 297 341 295 118, 123 (n. 7) 292, 293 297

1 Thessalonians 2:9 289 3:4a 292 4:1a 292

429 5:12–14

295

2 Thessalonians 2:1a 2:13 3:6 3:8 3:10–12

295 95 (n. 35) 295 289 292

1 Timothy 1:4 2:6 4:7

265 314 265

2 Timothy 1:10 2:13

135 (n. 56), 139, 140 40

Titus 1:14

265

Philemon 9 11

123 (n. 7) 123 (n. 7)

Hebrews 1:1 1:6 2:1–4 2:14 3:7–4:13 4:12 5:11–6:3 5:11–6:12 5:12 6 6:4–6

341 (n. 70) 246 241 (n. 46) 40 241 (n. 46) 340 241 241, n. 46 xxiii, 254 245 241, n. 48, 245

430 6:7 6:7–8 6:9 6:9–10 6:9–12 6:10

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

9:28 10:12 10:15–17 10:26–31 10:30a 10:30b 10:32–34 11:6 12:14–29 12:24 13:1–6 13:20

244 242, 245 242, n. 50 243 241, n. 48, 245 xxii, 208, 225, 232, 241, 242, 243, n. 54, 244, 245, 246 243 243 243 (n. 55) 123 (n. 7), 314 314 xxiv, 314 304 312 304 305 (n. 5) 312 123 (n. 7), 138 (n. 62) 314 312 315 241, n. 46 246 246 243 (n. 54) 243 241, n. 46 304, 308 243 (n. 54) 312

James 3:8

382 (n. 11)

6:11 6:12 7:1–10:18 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:8–12 9–10 9:15 9:16–17 9:18–22 9:26

1 Peter 2:9–10 4:11

316 xxiii, 254

1 John 1:2 2:2

139 314

Revelation 16:6 22:18–19

308 (n. 13) 262

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Moses 14 155 (n. 36) 2 Baruch 54:15 56:6

155 (n. 36) 155 (n. 36)

1 Enoch 3:15 5:9

174 154

2 Enoch 30:17

155 (n. 36)

4 Ezra 7:62–131

154

Dead Sea Scrolls 1Q28b 3.26 5.21

310 (n. 17) 310 (n. 17)

INDICES 1Q34 3.2

310 (n. 17)

1QH 7.28–31 9.13–15 16.11

175 175 175

1QpHab 2.3

310 (n. 17)

1QS 4.22 5.5–6 11.9–14

311 311 174

4Q184 2–4

108 (n. 16), 116

4QDeutj

209

4QMMT CD 6.19 8.21 19.33–34

431 Hellenistic Jewish authors Josephus, Ant. 3.8.1.188–92 4.126–39 11.169–73 12.213

155 (n. 36) 265 198 135 (n. 54)

Josephus, C. Ap. 1.8–9 264 1.38–42 34 (n. 33) Philo, Mos. 2.147

155 (n. 36)

Rabbinic Works Avodah Zarah 59a

327 (n. 11)

196 (n. 43)

Berakhot 6.1

308

310 (n. 17) 310 (n. 17) 310 (n. 17)

Pirkei Avot 3.14

Babylonian literature Atrahasis Epic 150 Erra and Ishum 151 Ishchaly 151 (n. 18)

35 (n. 33)

Qiddushin 64d, 44–55

327 (n. 11)

Yevamot 46a, 14 46a, 20 46a/b 46b, 1 46b, 8 47a/b 47b

330, n. 23 328 (n. 14) 327, n. 11, 342 328 (n. 16) 329 (18) 342 329

432

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

47b, 2 71b

330 (n. 20) 340 (n. 64)

Apostolic Fathers Barnabas 2.4

135

Didache 9–10

308 (n. 11)

Early Christian authors Ambrosiaster, Comm. ep. Paul Rom 3:1–9 74 Rom 3:8 74 Athenagoras 8.3

29

John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 6.1 73 6.2 73 6.3 73 6.4 73 6.6 73 6.7 73 6.8 73 16.18–20 74 Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 66.2–3 305 (n. 7) Justin Martyr, Dial. 2.4 29

Origen, Comm. Rom. 2.11.3 71 2.14.1 72 2.14.4 72 2.14.5–6 72 2.14.8 72 2.14.15–17 72 2.14.19 72 3.1.2 72, 73 3.1.3 73 3.1.4 73 3.1.5 73 3.1.8 73 3.1.13 73 3.1.14 73 3.2.2 73 7.16.3 72 Pelagius, Exp. ep. ad Rom. 3.2 75 3.4 75 Theodoret of Cyrus, Comm. Rom. 2 75 3 75

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Acts of Thomas 26–27 49 120–21 131–33 157–58

331 331, n. 29 331, n. 29 331 331, n. 29

INDICES Apocalypse of Peter 15 116

Syriac authors Aphrahat, Dem. 1.1 1.15 1.18 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.6–7 11.8 11.10 11.11 11.11–12 11.12

12 12.3 12.13

13 15 15.5 15.9 16 16.8

325 (n. 7) 325 (n. 7) 325 (n. 7) 336 (n. 48), 339 337 (n. 53) 339 339 339 339 334, 339 340 339 (n. 63) 339 339, 340, 341 (n. 70) 326 (n. 9) 340 (n. 67), 341 (n. 68, n. 69) 336 (n. 48) 337 (n. 53) 333 (n. 36), 334 (n. 41), 341 336 (n. 48) 336 (n. 48) 337 (n. 52) 337 (n. 50), 338 (n. 59) 336 (n. 48) 337 (n. 51)

433 17 18 19 21

23.63 23.69

336 (n. 48) 336 (n. 48) 336 (n. 48) 336 (n. 48), 337, 338 338 (n. 57) 325 (n. 7) 336 (n. 48) 333 (n. 38), 334 (n. 41) 334 (n. 41) 325 (n. 7)

Ephrem, Virg. 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.9–10

332 (n. 32) 332 (n. 32) 332 (n. 32) 332 (n. 32)

21.1 22.25 23 23.3

Narsai, Mēmrā 22 336 (n. 47)

Greco-Roman sources Aristotle, Rhet. 2.13 151 (n. 18) 2.23 151 (n. 16) Cicero, Clu. 70–72

66

Cicero, Sen. 3.7 18.62 18.63 21

152 (n. 20) 152 (n. 22) 152 (n. 22) 153 (n. 29)

434

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

Dio Chrysostom, Or. 61.2 63 61.3 63 Diogenes Laertius, Vita 6.1.1 177 (n. 41) Epictetus, Diss. 2.23 63 Euripides, Ale. 669 151 (n. 16) Euripides, Iph. Aul. 1252–53 151 (n. 16) Euripides, Tro. 606–607 153 (n. 28) 634 153 (n. 28) Homer, Il. 6.145–49 12.322–28 22.71–76

150 (n. 15) 150 (n. 15) 153 (n. 27)

Homer, Od. 3.236–38 11.487–88

150 (n. 15) 151 (n. 16)

Juvenal, Sat. 10.188–288

151 (n. 18)

Lucian, Luct. 16–17

151 (n. 18)

Menander, Fr. 591 177 (n. 41)

Plato, Ax. 367b

151 (n. 17)

Plato, Crat. 403b

151 (n. 16)

Plato, Parm. 141e

127 (n. 18)

Plato, Phaed. 114–15

153 (n. 29)

Plutarch, Apoph. lac. 230F 177 (n. 41) Rhet. Her. 4.23–24

67

Suetonius, Claud. 25.4 108 Thucydides, Ag. Ap. 1.18 264 1.20–25 264 1.26 264 1.28 265 1.29 265 1.36 265 1.42–43 265 1.44–46 265 2.219 265 Xenophon, Anab. 2 40 6 40 19 40

INDICES Xenophon, Apol. 6 151 (n. 17)

435

8

151 (n. 17)

INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Authors names are only listed where they are mentioned in the body text or discussed in a footnote. Simple citations are omitted. If the author is discussed in both the body text and a footnote, both numbers are listed, separated by commas: “5, n. 6” indicates that an author is discussed on page 5 as well as on footnote 6 of that page. If the author is discussed only in the footnote, the number appears in parenthesis after the page number: “323 (n. 5)” indicates that the author is discussed on footnote 5 of page 323. Abasciano, B. J., 238 (n. 28, n. 32), 241 (n. 45) Achtemeier, P. J., 233 (n. 4) Aletti, J.-N., 169 Anderson, R. D., 66, 67 Andrason, A., 129 (n. 27), 136 (n. 57), 138 (n. 62) Ariès, P., 150 (n. 15) Attridge, H. W., 241 (n. 48), 244 (n. 58) Bacon, B. W., 170 Bailey, L., 153, 155 (n. 36), 161 (n. 49) Barclay, J. M. G., 159 (n. 46) Barentsen, J., xxv Barth, G., 169, 170 Barth, K., xxvi, 34, 390, n. 1, n. 2, 391, 392, n. 5, 393, 394, n. 12, 395, n. 17, 396, n. 22, n. 23, 397, 398, n. 27, n. 29, 399, n.

32, 400, n. 35, 401, 402, 403, n. 46, n. 47 Baum, A. D., xxiii Baur, F. C. , 273 Beale, G. K., 16 Beisser, F., 271, 272 Benoit, P., 288 Benteim, K., 136 (n. 56) Bergant, D., 107, 118 Bernat, D., 108 (n. 16), 113, 116 Bird, M. F., 215 (n. 42), 216 Blackwell, B. C., 147, 148, 161 Blass, F., 22, 126 (n. 14), 129 (n. 27), 137 (n. 61) Block, D. I., 210 (n. 16) Bockmuehl, M., 132 (n. 42), 137 (n. 60), 139 Böhler, D., 215 (n. 42), 216 (n. 44, n. 48) Bornkamm, G., 170 Borse, U., 276, n. 20, 278, 298

436

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

Brewer, J. A., 220 (n. 75) Briggs, C. A., 217 (n. 55) Brock, S. P., 324 Bruce, F. F., 106 Brueggemann, W., 211 (n. 18) Bruns, P., 336 (n. 49), 337 (n. 56) Bultmann, R., 61, 62, 63, 76, 139, 167 (n. 9) Burk, D., 83 (n. 1) Burton, E. D., 136 (n. 56) Campbell, C. R., 42, 129 (n. 27), 132 (n. 37) Campbell, D. A., 4 (n. 1), 68, 69 Campbell, W. S., 364 Caragounis, C., 128, 129 (n. 27) Carson, D. A., 16 Chantraine, P., 128, 137 (n. 62) Christensen, D. L., 210 (n. 16) Clarke, A. D., 369 (n. 46) Clines, D. J. A., 219 (n. 71) Coetsee, A., xxii Cohen, S. J. D., 329, 330, n. 21 Cornely, R., 124 (n. 10) Cranfield, C. E. B., 123 (n. 5), 124 (n. 10) Crellin, R., 126 (n. 17), 134, 135 (n. 54) Criado, R., 123 (n. 7) Davidson, F., 106 Davies, G. N., 10 (n. 13) Davies, J., 152 (n. 23) Davies, W. D., 169 De Boer, M., 159 (n. 46) Debrunner, A., 22, 126 (n. 14) De Bruyn, Th., 75 (n. 51)

DeSilva, D. A., 108, 148 (n. 4) Dunn, J. D. G., 10, n. 13, 23, 25, 49, 50, 51, 95 (n. 35), 131 (n. 35), 137, 139 (n. 64), 168, n. 13, 190 (n. 15), 191, 351, 355 (n. 20) Du Toit, P., xxi Ehrlich, E. L., 260 (n. 16) Ellingworth, P., 241 (n. 48) Elliott, J. H., 148 (n. 4), 155 (n. 34) Elliott, N., 68, 69 Ellis, N., 126 (n. 14) Enderlein, S. E., 148 (n. 4) Esler, P. F., 31 (n. 25), 192 (n. 26) Fanning, B. M., 131, n. 37, 132 (n. 37, n. 38) Fee, G. D., 192 Fitzmyer, J. A., 123 (n. 7), 139 (n. 67), 401 Foster, P., 170 Franke, J. R., 392 (n. 5) Freud, S., 266 Gathercole, S., 318 Garroway, J., 70 Gnilka, J., 288 Godet, F. R., xvii, n. 1, 124 (n. 8), 139 (n. 64) Gordon, R. P., 266 Gorman, M. J., 313 Hall, D., 65, 66, 67 Haacker, K., 137 (n. 60), 273 Hafemann, S., 95 (n. 35)

INDICES Hagner, D. A., 135 (n. 56) Harink, D., 404 Harris, M. J., 136 (n. 56) Harris, R., 151 (n. 18) Harrison, E. F., 135 (n. 56) Harvey, J. D., 42 Haspelmath, M., 127 Hays, R. B., 176, 235 (n. 23), 237 (n. 25) Heifetz, R. A., 360 Hilhorst, A., 216 (n. 48), 217 (n. 51) Hoehner, H., 272, 273 Holmes, M. W., 135 Holtzmann, H. J., 288 Hong, S. K., 130 Horrocks, G., 128 Hunsinger, G., 392 (n. 5), 400 (n. 35) Hyatt, D., 22 (n. 1) Instone-Brewer, D., 307 (n. 10) Jaynes, J., 266 Jewett, R., 86 (n. 6), 87 (n. 9), 159 (n. 46), 187, 190, 380, 381 (n. 9) Johnson, K. L., 398, n. 29 Johnson, L. T., 110, 272 Jones, P. D., 398 (n. 27) Jordaan, J., 255 (n. 10) Jung, C., 266 Kang, H., 127 (n. 18), 138 (n. 62) Käsemann, E., 12, 35, 133 (n. 45), 167 (n. 9) Kierkegaard, S., 390, n. 2, 391

437 Kilpatrick, G. D. , 170 King, J., 22 (n. 2), 36, 48, 49, n. 67, 62, 68, 69 Klinker-De Klerck, M., xxi Kok, J., xix, 26, 27, 150 (n. 12) Kreuzer, S., 211 (n. 21) Labuschagne, C., 266 Lancaster, S. H., 404 (n. 48) Lavee, M., 330 Lightfoot, J. B., 276, n. 20, 278, 291 Lim, K. Y., 201 Linsky, M., 360 Lloyd-Jones, M., 123 (n. 6) Locatell, C., 129 (n. 27), 136 (n. 57), 138 (n. 62) Lohse, E., 136 Longenecker, B. W., 54 (n. 78) Longenecker, R. , 67, 137, 139 (n. 64), 192, 196 (n. 43), 238 (n. 27) Louw, J. P., 25, n. 10, 26, 27, 46 Lührmann, D., 139 Luther, M., 84, 167, 273, 365 Maillot, A., 106 Marcus, R., 135 (n. 54) Martin, R. P., 21, 106, n. 5 Maston, J., 194 (n. 34, n. 35) McCormack, B. L., 390 (n. 1) McFadden, K. W., 8 (n. 11), McKnight, S., 379 (n. 6) Meier, J. P., 170 Metzger, B. M., 272, 310 (n. 16) Michaelis, J. D., 275 Michel, O., 135 (n. 56)

438

LET GOD BE TRUE: PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANS 3

Michener, R., xxvi Middendorf, M. P., 207 (n. 2) Miller, J. A., 212 Mitton, L., xxiii, 274, 275, 290, 295, 296, 297, 300 Moo, D. J., 27, 41, 42, 44, 47, 67, 87 (n. 10), 111, 123 (n. 6), 130 (n. 29), 159 (n. 46), 190 (n. 15), 191, 193, 197, 239 (n. 35), 254, 404 (n. 48) Moore, G. F., 166, 167, 168, 172 Morris, I., 150 (n. 15), 152 (n. 25) Moser, A., 127 (n. 18), 128 Moulton, J. H., 125 (n. 13), 138 (n. 62) Mounce, R. H., 240 (n. 41)

Paridaens, M., xx Paschke, B., xx Pásztori-Kupán, I., 74 (n. 48) Paul, M.-J., xxiii Penna, R. , xvii (n. 1), 35, 124 (n. 10), 137 (n. 61), 140 (n. 67) Pinkster, H., 134 Porter, S. E., 27, 28 (n. 17), 31, 32, 39, 45, 122, 125 (n. 13), 128 (n. 23), 129, n. 27, 130, n. 29, n. 30, 131, 132 (n. 37), 135 (n. 54), 272

Neusner, J., 336 (n. 49), 339 (n. 60) Newman, B. M., 133 (n. 44) Neyrey, J. H., 148 (n. 4) Nida, E. A., 133 (n. 44) Nimmo, P. T., 397 Nissinen, M., 266, 267 (n. 27) Nussbaum, M., 152 (n. 25) Nygren, A. , 172 (n. 27)

Rehkopf, F., 22 Renssen, T., 133 Reuter, R., 275, 276 (n. 20) Richardson, K. A., 399, n. 32, 403 (n. 46) Ridderbos, H., 123 Rijksbaron, A., 133 (n. 43), 134 (n. 51) Ringgren, H., 114, 118 Rosner, B. S., 196 Rouwhorst, G., 324, 326, 334, n. 42 Ruijgh, C. J., 129 (n. 27) Runge, S. E., 128, 130 (n. 32)

Oakes, K., 393, 395 Oakes, P., xxv, 350, 356 (n. 23), 360 Ochsenmeier, E., 114 Öhler, M., 93 (n. 28) Oliver, I. W., 171 Otten, J. D., xix, 77 (n. 53)

Sanders, E. P., 166, 168, 172, 194 (n. 35), 293, 294, 300 Sanders, K., 395 Schaff, P., 133 (n. 45) Schlier, H., 34, 35 Schnabel, E. J., 42 Schnackenburg, R., 288

INDICES Schreiner, T. R., xvii, xviii, 3, 23, n. 4, 25 (n. 6), 30 (n. 23), 34, 195 (n. 40), 355 (n. 20) Schrenk, G., 94 (n. 30) Seifrid, M., 16 (n. 22) Seymour-Smith, M., 119 Shakespeare, W., 118, 119 Sicking, C. M. J., 132 (n. 37) Smit, P.-B., 133 Smith, J. M. P., 220 (n. 75) Sourvinou-Inwood, C., 150, n. 15 Stanley, C. D., 15 (n. 21) Stenschke, C., xxv, 87 (n. 11) Stowers, S. K., 63, 64, 65, 68 Stuhlmacher, P., 159 (n. 47) Talshir, Z., 215 (n. 40, n. 42), 216, 217 (n. 53) Thielman, F., 61 (n. 3), 196, 237 (n. 25) Thorsteinsson, R., 69, 70 Tresham, A., 129 (n. 27) Trigg, J., 71 Van Bruggen, J., 254, 255 Van Houwelingen, R., xxiv Van Nes, J., xix

439 Van Rensburg, F. J., 255 (n. 10) Von Rad, G., 155 (n. 36) Von Siebenthal, H., 28 (n. 17) Viljoen, F., xxi Wallace, D. B., 134 Ward, W. H., 220 (n. 75) Watson, F. , 175 (n. 35) Webber, M. I., xviii, 3, 21, 77 (n. 53), 106 (n. 5), 140 (n. 68), 149, 150 (n. 12), 165, 208, 232, 253, 271 (n. 1), 305, 347 Wetzstein, J. G., 107 Wiebe, P., 266 Wilckens, U., 123 (n. 7) Williams, S. N., 401 Wilson, A. I., 311 (n. 18) Winer, G. B., 129 (n. 27) Witherington III, B., 22 (n. 1) Witkamp, N., xxiv Wolter, M. , 33, 35 (n. 34), 39 Woyke, J., 124 (n. 10) Wrede, W., xxiii, 274, 275, 287, 289, 290, 291, 300 Wright, N. T., 171, 176, 305 Zerwick, M., 125 (n. 13) Zuiddam, B., 255 (n. 10)