Paul and His Mortality: Imitating Christ in the Face of Death 9781575068343

Citation preview

Paul and His Mortality

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor

Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor

Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary

Advisory Board Leslie C. Allen Fuller Theological Seminary Donald A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary Karen H. Jobes Wheaton College

I. Howard Marshall University of Aberdeen Elmer A. Martens Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Bruce K. Waltke Knox Theological Seminary Edwin M. Yamauchi Miami University

 1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil  2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens  3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr.  4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim  5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer  6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins  7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery  8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews  9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock 10. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament, edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus 11. Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, by Gary G. Hoag 12. Paul and His Mortality: Imitating Christ in the Face of Death, by R. Gregory Jenks

Paul and His Mortality Imitating Christ in the Face of Death

by

R. Gregory Jenks

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2015

© Copyright 2015 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Jenks, R. Gregory. Paul and his mortality : imitating Christ in the face of death / by R. Gregory Jenks.    pages  cm. — (Bulletin for biblical research supplements ; 12) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-833-6 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Paul, the Apostle, Saint.  2.  Paul, the Apostle, Saint—Death and burial.  3.  Death—Biblical teaching.  4.  Death—Religious aspects—Christianity—History of doctrines.  I.  Title. BS2506.3.J46 2015 225.9′2—dc23 2015028580

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾™

To Jim Bruton Stalwart friend, spiritual father, seasoned veteran of life’s battles, sage, and mentor, you have modeled Christ for me and have encouraged the presence of Christ in me, at personal sacrifice for most of my temporal life, for which I will be eternally grateful. And to my mom Who through word and example led me to love the Scriptures, who has lived a long and very good life and now may not understand these words of gratitude but nevertheless deserves the honor they convey. I love and miss you.

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ix Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xi 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 Statement of Thesis: Death and Mortality  2 Scope and Method  5 Contribution and Limitations  5

2.  The Semantics of Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7 The Dilemma of Definition: A Need for Specificity  8 Volition and Responsibility  10 Defining Death  12 Noble Death  13 Martyrdom 17 Atoning Sacrifice  24 Vicariousness: Substitution, Representation, Imitation  28 Virtue and Volition  33

3.  Mortality among the Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   35 Paul as the Hub of Intersecting Worldviews  35 Cultural Transition in the First Century  39 Epistemology, Gentiles, and Death  42 Mortality from a Gentile Mindset  53 Conclusion: Mortality among the Gentiles  58

4.  Mortality among the Jews: The Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   60 The Old Testament and Mortality  61 The Torah and Mortality  62 Summary 96

5.  Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the Old Testament Canon . . . . . . . . . . . .   98 The Wisdom Literature and Mortality  104 The Writing Prophets and Mortality  112 The Afterlife in the Old Testament  119 Summary: Death in the Old Testament Canon  121 vii

viii

Contents

6.  Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period . .  123 Cultural Changes in the Intertestamental Period  123 Ideological Polarities as Expressions of Hope  131 Pharisees and the Popular Majority  133 Sadducees and the Secularists  133 Essenes and Other Messianic Groups  134 Zealots, Sicarii, and Israelite Fighters  134 Summary: Mortality among the Jews  136

 7. Jesus and Voluntary Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Jesus’ Teaching: Discipleship and Mortality  142 Jesus’ Teaching: Eschatology and Coming Judgment  145 Jesus’ Ministry: The March to Calvary  147 The Unique and Inimitable Nature and Effect of Christ’s Passion  148 Jesus’ Death as Voluntary Death  157 Summary: Paul’s Sense of Mortality Grounded in Jesus’ Death  163

 8. The Nascent Church and Voluntary Death . . . . . . . . . . 165 Notable New Testament Martyrs  165 Death as Temporal Judgment in the New Testament  170 Paul in Acts: Mortal Threat in Ministry  172 Summary: Mortality in the Nascent Church  173

 9. Paul’s View of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Prolegomena: Paul as Controversial Witness and Theologian  176 Death in Paul’s Life and Writings  180

10.  Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death . . . . . . . . . 194 Paul as Imitator  195 Paul as Imitated  205 Death for Paul or Death for All?  223 Summary and Conclusion  226

11.  Conclusion: Paul and His Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Appendix A: The Date of Paul’s Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Acknowledgments As I put the final touches on this project of many years and the culmination of so much of my spiritual journey, I reflect on all the friends and loved ones who have affected me to make it possible. I have a rich heritage thanks to my mom and dad and grandfather, raising me with an eye to my spiritual development. I grew up in churches where God’s servants taught, disciplined, and led me through my own often-tumultuous search to know and trust him. Youth leaders, high school friends, family, college and seminary professors, pastors, therapists, coworkers, girlfriends, school colleagues, church folk and other mentors and protégés, in and through battles, shaped my thinking and my direction. I will always be grateful for each of you and see God’s hand in my life because of you. Besides my mom, I dedicate this book to Jim Bruton, who as my pastor when I was a young teen began to guide me. Now we are both much older, but he has endured with me and to this day offers me friendship and counsel and listens to my ramblings with great patience and ease. You are the truest of friends, and I know better what God must be like because I know you. O captain! My captain! Somehow, God allowed me to fall in the shadow of a host of model men and women who give their lives for others. Exemplary among them is George Murray, whom I met very early in my development while in Europe. The heavens opened while he taught the book of John, and I better grasped God’s world and my own calling in those weeks. He invited me to his home in Italy, then his school in South Carolina, then to join his mission organization, and he now offers me insight, prayer, and counsel. I am grateful for my professors, particularly, Buist Fanning, David Lowery, and Mike Svigel, for their oversight; Robert Chisholm for help in proofreading; John Grassmick for making me a better writer; Dorian CooverCox for encouragement in the trenches; Gordon Johnston for inspiration; Jay Smith for friendship and example of scholarship; and my mentors, John Reed and Ken Hanna. My long-time friends have helped me weather life’s storms and encouraged me in faith and practice. I am grateful especially for Paul and Vic Copan, Peter Frick, David Larsen, Ben Simpson, Malcolm Gill, Bernie Cueto, Bruce Mills, Mark and Ruth Pichaj, David Bicheno, George Clark, Barry Denton, Kurt and Laura Snyder, Nate and Carol Laurence, Mert Paben, Beth Stapleton, Jo McCleary, Connie Freeman and the Barnabas Journey, Mark Baird, Angela Pace, Richard and Lindsay Jenks, Bob Culp, Tim Keller, and Jack West. Finally, thanks to those who had an immediate hand in producing this book: Rick Hess, Craig Blomberg, and the folks at Eisenbrauns, especially Amy Becker. ix

Abbreviations AARSR AB ABD

American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion Series Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AcBib Academia Biblica ACW Ancient Christian Writers AnBib Analecta Biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Part 2, Principat. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972– AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament ASORDS American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies AYBRL Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library BDAG Danker, Frederick W. Walter Bauer, 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 BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, C. A. and Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 BDR Brill Dictionary of Religion. Edited by Kochu von Stuckrad. Translated by Robert R. Barr. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2006 BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BHT Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BJS Brown Judaic Studies BRev Bible Review BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BT The Bible Translator BWA(N)T Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CahT Cahiers théologiques CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly xi

xii

Abbreviations

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CC Continental Commentaries CH Church History CJA Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity CNS Cristianesimo nella storia Comm Communio ConBNT Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series ConcC Concordia Commentary CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly CTR Criswell Theological Review CurTM Currents in Theology and Mission DFT Dictionary of Fundamental Theology. Edited by René Latourelle and Rino Fisichella. New York: Crossroad, 1995 DJBP Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 B.C.E. to 600 C.E. Edited by Jacob Neusner and William Scott Green. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan Library Reference, 1996 DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992 DNTB Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000 DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: Inter­ Varsity, 2003 DOTWPW  Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman III and Paul Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008 DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993 EC Encyclopedia of Christianity. Edited by John Bowdern. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary EDT Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001 EncCT Encyclopedia of Christian Theology. Edited by Jean-Yves Lacoste. 3 vols. New York: Routledge, 2005 ER Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed. 15 vols. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005 EvQ Evangelical Quarterly EvT Evangelische Theologie FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

Abbreviations

xiii

GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Review HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly JEBS Journal of European Baptist Studies JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JR Journal of Religion JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LEC Library of Early Christianity LHBOTS The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary MNTS McMaster New Testament Studies NAC New American Commentary NCB New Century Bible NDBT New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000 Neot Neotestamentica NIBCNT New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen NTL New Testament Library NTMo New Testament Monographs

xiv NTOA NTS OBT OCM OCPh

Abbreviations

Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus New Testament Studies Overtures to Biblical Theology Oxford Classical Monographs Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Edited by Ted Honderich. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995 ODJR Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997 OED Oxford English Dictionary. Edited by John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner. 2nd ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Clarendon / New York: Oxford University Press, 1989 OIS Oriental Institute Seminars PBM Paternoster Biblical Monographs PiNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary PSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin RBS Resources for Biblical Study RevExp Review and Expositor SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge SBFLA Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annus SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SHAR Studies in the History and Anthropology of Religions SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary SHR Studies in the History of Religions SJOT Scandanavian Journal of the Old Testament SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SP Sacra Pagina SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature StPB Studia Post-biblica SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments SymBU Symbolae Biblicae Upsalienses SymS Symposium Series TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TBT The Bible Today TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 TGSS Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Spiritualità TGST Tesi Gregoriana, Serie Teologia TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

Abbreviations

xv

TS Theological Studies TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur TynBul Tyndale Bulletin VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WGRWSup  Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WW Word and World ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche ZPEB Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975

Chapter 1

Introduction You will die, not because you are ill, but because you are alive; even when you have been cured, the same end awaits you; when you have recovered, it will be not death, but ill-health, that you have escaped (Seneca, Epistles 78.7). So teach us to consider our mortality, so that we might live wisely (Ps 90:12). 1 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain (Phil 1:21).

No one knows for certain when, where, or how the Apostle Paul died. Tradition sets the year of his death either in A.D. 64 or in late A.D. 67 / early A.D. 68 and puts the place of his death in Rome. Tradition also says that Paul was a martyr and that he was beheaded at the bequest of Caesar Nero. Some say he was martyred after having been imprisoned in Rome with the Apostle Peter, who himself was martyred shortly thereafter. The annals of Christianity have different embedded traditions regarding Paul’s death. 2 The relative obscurity of Paul’s death is noteworthy in light of how history has documented deaths before and after his, particularly deaths motivated by religious ideology. Two hundred years before his death, the death of the nine Maccabean martyrs—Eleazar, the 90-year-old scribe, and the mother with her seven sons—became a central story in Jewish lore. The deaths of John the Baptist and, of course, Jesus, are central to the gospel story. James’s martyrdom receives short shrift in Acts, but the martyrdom of Stephen occupies much of Luke’s account of the early church. Hebrews 11 lists those who were persecuted and died who were “commended for their faith, yet they did not receive what was promised” (Heb 11:39). John’s Revelation mentions the martyrdom of Antipas (Rev 2:13) and many nameless martyrs who “did not love their lives so much that they were afraid to die” (Rev 12:11). Jumping forward from the canonical writings, the life and writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr all underscore their death. The accounts of these deaths are both preserved and discussed in early church literature, but Paul’s death, by contrast, passes without great fanfare. Not only is the obscure record of Paul’s death noteworthy in light of the record of the deaths of these famous religious figures, but it is also remarkable given the frequent reference Paul makes to his own death, often with 1. Here and throughout, I cite from the NET Bible translation unless otherwise specified. 2. For an overview of current discussions and more resources that point to when and where Paul died, see Appendix A, pp. 233–234.

1

2

Chapter 1

enthusiasm and optimism. “For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain” (Phil 1:21), he says to his followers from a prison cell while awaiting a capital trial. In that same letter, he urges the Philippians to rejoice if he is offered as a libation, a drink offering to the sacrifice and service of their faith (Phil 2:17–18). He wants to share in Christ’s sufferings and to be conformed to his death (Phil 3:10). Elsewhere, he shares that as an apostle he is paraded “as one condemned to die” (1 Cor 4:9), that he faces death daily (1 Cor 15:31), and that death works in him, but life in his followers (2 Cor 4:12). He claims to be crucified with Christ (Gal 2:20), crucified to the world (Gal 6:14), and in his sweeping lists of activities where he suffered for his work advancing the gospel he speaks frequently of coming to the brink of dying (e.g., 2 Cor 6:9–10; 11:22–26). Facing death was a core factor in Paul’s ministry. Facing death was an inevitable resolute step he had to make in order to fulfill his calling. Paul was constantly reminded of his mortality. Thus, the obscure and conflicting traditions and paucity of literature on his actual death deserve mention and serve as an impetus for this work.

Statement of Thesis: Death and Mortality Mortality, an awareness of ultimate termination, can be approached passively or actively. We humans uniquely understand that death is inevitable. “There’s nothing certain except death and taxes!” we quip. Our focus is on the latter part of the phrase, the inconvenience of paying to support the state, which is based on the absolute certainty of the first, that we will die. Modern medicine fueled by commercialism and the health industry portrays death as an accident and as avoidable if you eat the right foods, exercise, take appropriate medications, and sleep properly. No matter how earnestly we seek to delay it, however, death will one day come knocking on our door. But we hate and seek to avoid it. Death is popularly personified as a grotesque skeletal monster with cape, hammer and sickle visiting unwittingly and in the most inappropriate moments. Euphemisms for death abound as a way to avoid speaking about it directly. We say that someone “passed away,” “rests in peace,” “sleeps,” “has gone on to his or her reward,” “gave up the ghost,” “lies six feet under”; or the more irreverent, “kicked the bucket,” “bought the farm,” or “is pushing up daisies.” Despite current ethical controversies in which arguments for suicide are promoted, few people openly embrace death in modern society and many people fear and dread it. That is a passive approach to mortality. An active view of mortality, choosing to die prematurely whether for country or an ideology or some other motive, is a common theme in classic literature. Death is one thing; premature death is quite another and has always been looked on unfavorably unless one dies prematurely for the right reason. 3 An active stance toward mortality that the ancients discussed re3. Lloyd R. Bailey (Biblical Perspectives on Death, OBT 5 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 52) affirms that in the OT “protests against ‘death’ are aimed primarily at those qualities

Introduction

3

ferred to a particular setting or occasion that provided a valid context for choosing death. While most die of natural causes such as failed health or accidents, and some desire to end their lives prematurely to escape physical or soul pain, many exemplary figures in history chose death voluntarily and prematurely from what they perceived as altruistic motives. These people embraced their mortality, not from a passive perspective of living in realism that eventually they would one day die, but actively, as participants in the death process. Death was something at times to be seized. The Apostle Paul was this sort of person. He acknowledged his vulnerability to passive death as a mortal, that at any moment he might die or come near death (e.g., 2 Cor 1:9–10). He gives us some of the most mournful and vitriolic words about how death is God’s and our enemy (Rom 6:21– 23; 7:24; 1 Cor 15:25–26; Phil 2:27). But he also spoke openly about choosing death. He claims: “My aim is to know him . . . to be like him in his death” (Phil 3:10–11). Some might object that he is only speaking figuratively. At times, he does speak in metaphor. When he says, “I have been crucified with Christ!” (Gal 2:20), he is not saying he was one of the thieves crucified to the right or left of Jesus. In some metaphoric but, nevertheless, real and meaningful sense, he is identified with Christ, and in Christ, and this identification has a real connection with the historical event when Christ hung on the cross. It is for the interpreter to divine the bridges from the original historical event of Jesus hanging on the cross to Paul’s and the Galatians’ context in order to understand Paul’s meaning. In the same verse, he can claim, “Christ lives in me.” Christ did not live bodily within Paul, but how far are we to understand this metaphor? Our point here is not to interpret these expressions, but only recognize Paul’s use of metaphor when he talks about death. While Paul does use death metaphorically, at other times he speaks literally. He embraces literal death and is willing and at times eager to die physically. When he says, “to depart and be with Christ is far better,” then, “what I shall choose, I do not know” (Phil 1:22), he is looking at the prospect of being executed by Rome for his testimony about Christ, first to the Jews, which brought him to the place of being on trial at all, then to Caesar himself, to whom he appealed when he was not getting the justice he deserved in the provincial court of Caesarea. This literal active mortality produces a strange fascination. Apart from perhaps grave situations of unbearable physical pain or hopeless despair or misfortune, why would anyone value premature death? and situations which detract from life lived to the full (illness, alienation, persecution, doubt, and so on) or at a ‘bad’ biological death. They are seldom if ever directed against the appropriateness of death itself.” So Kent Harold Richards, “Death, Old Testament,” ABD 2:109: “Death is seen as the normal end of life. . . . Death was a problem when it came prematurely. Whatever their understanding of premature death, it is here where humans begin questioning, whether in a polytheistic or a monotheistic context.”

4

Chapter 1

Paul’s language presumes a positive benefit of death that in some situations supersedes life itself. What were the conditions that would lead him to embrace the risk of mortal harm? Paul well understood the tragedy of death. His gospel served as its antidote and as the ultimate explanation and ground for life. When and why then does he choose physical death over life? Paul, the greatest theologian for life, repeatedly put himself in the way of mortal harm and spoke enthusiastically about dying because of a greater paradigm. His affirmative stance on voluntary death serves a rhetorical purpose. This work is about that paradigm and that rhetorical purpose. Paul viewed Jesus’ redemptive death in a positive light, but many other examples of famous deaths influenced Paul’s perspective. He had witnessed the martyrdom of the great nascent church leader, Stephen. Jewish folklore spoke of the Maccabean martyrs. The OT had several examples of heroic deaths. In the Gentile world, Socrates’ infamous suicide was discussed and its merits debated. What positive benefit did Paul glean from these valorous voluntary deaths? Popular nomenclature assigns categories such as noble death, martyrdom, and atonement to voluntary premature death. What merit is there in each of these categories of death and how does Jesus’ or Paul’s death square with them? We will connect Paul’s death with Jesus’ death. Jesus’ death has overarching historical and theological significance. Paul was the one who first recognized and explained it. 4 He viewed his own death in close association with Jesus’ death and sought to imitate him. When we overlay redemptive concepts like atonement and, perhaps, martyrdom, reasonable questions could be asked of Paul’s view of his death. To what degree did Paul see Jesus’ or his own death as exemplary or redemptive? While many books are written on Jesus’ death, a gap exists in writings about the theological significance of a believer’s death particularly in imitation of Jesus’. Paul, as a first apostolic witness who talked frequently about his own death, serves as a formational influence for how believers perceive their own death. While many have commented about his stance on topics such as forensic righteousness and substitutionary atonement, less is written about Paul’s personal experience and anticipation of his own death and the merit he assigned to it. This writing will attempt to explore how Paul faced his death in light of a ministry philosophy of imitation: as he sought to imitate Christ in his life, so he would imitate Christ as he faced his death. Christ’s death was his model, his motive, and his message. We will take three modern categories in the discussion of voluntary death and find inherent paradoxes in them that are true for Jesus, true for Paul, and also emphasized by Paul in his letters to 4. Many, for example, place the date of writing of James’s epistle as the first of the NT writings before the bulk of Paul’s writings (with the possible exception of Galatians), but James does not mention Jesus’ death.

Introduction

5

the churches. Paul demonstrated, first, how honor was derived from a death widely regarded as shameful. Second, he shows how obedience to God results in mortal defiance against a godless culture. Obedience produces not safety or divine protection but opposition, persecution, and death. Finally, although the believer has eternal life through Christ’s atoning death and no further sacrifice is needed, Paul models and exhorts believers to live lives characterized by sacrifice and death. His death does not add to Christ’s sufficient work but is a worshipful response to the gift of life received and to the awareness that Christ’s death must be proclaimed to needy peoples, who themselves live in death. Paul’s identification with Jesus’ atoning death models the ultimate value of Jesus’ death for the people he sought to reach. The objective of this study is to show how Paul embraced death as a follower and imitator of Christ because the benefits of a good death supersede attempts at self-preservation. For him, embracing death is gain because it is honorable, because it reflects ultimate obedience to God, and because it is the reasonable response for those who understand that only Jesus’ death provides atonement.

Scope and Method The positive advances in modern technology that serve to prolong life coupled with the negative developments in which death can come quickly and on a massive scale have affected our views of mortality. We need a firstcentury perspective. Much of this work will review cultural background to Paul’s thinking. The next chapter deals with semantics. In successive chapters­, we will look at Gentile and Jewish views of premature voluntary death, at Jesus’ teaching on death and his example, and then at the early church and its reaction given the turbulent changes in culture as it was birthed and grew. Finally, we will look closely at Paul’s story and impact. We will focus on his texts in light of background material and explore how he imitated Christ in his death and challenged his churches to do the same.

Contribution and Limitations The literature on mortality and death numbers in the hundreds and thousands. If one amalgamates historical and theological themes related to mortality—suffering, death, sacrifice, martyrdom, atonement, and resurrection—and begins to dip, even lightly, into eschatological themes of judgment, the intermediate state, messianic woes, or reward and vindication, the books and articles could fill a large library. 5 My discussion and 5. Of special note is I. Howard Marshall (“How Did the Early Christians Know Anything about Future States?” JEBS 9/3 [2009]: 7–23), who analyzes sources about the afterlife, and within his conclusion offers: “There is very little interest in the actual nature of the after-life and we are in fact given very little information about it. With the exception of Revelation, little is to be learned regarding the nature of the after-life whether before

6

Chapter 1

bibliography­are broad enough to treat semantic, historical, and textual issues but will necessarily be limited to my topic, voluntary premature death in Paul conceived as noble death, martyrdom, or atonement. 6 Violence in the atonement, how martyrdom is conceived in Judaism, and postcanonical expressions of martyrdom in the early church are laden with controversy and receive much scholarly attention. They will be addressed only tangentially as they pertain to the specific goal of our study. I hope my bibliography might assist with other related trajectories. I will, however, study the relevant verses in Paul and set their ideas in their historical and occasional context in order to focus on the motive for Paul’s frequent mention of his death in light of Christ’s death. Studying mortality is paradoxically a study of life. When one peers into the prospect of life’s end, life in the present receives an energizing effect. This urgency focuses on living with mission in step with God, the Creator and Sustainer of life who is rightly referred to as Life itself. By focusing on mortality, we focus on Paul’s theology of life in its practical aspects and, in particular, living life qualitatively in light of an awareness of God’s kingdom and mission and with a limited quantity of days. The next chapter focuses on how death and mortality have been discussed in recent decades. After defining death generally, I will define the specific categories of noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice, explore the topics of vicariousness, representation, and imitation, and summarize the virtues of voluntary death. or after the parousia, resurrection and ensuing judgment. This suggests that much biblical religion is concerned with the here and now, even though it has been established that we cannot live without a future hope. This emphasis differs from that of much popular religion which majors on the after-state” (p. 21). 6. Academic discussions of martyrdom, while finding roots in Socrates, the Maccabean martyrs, and Jesus, typically treat events that postdate the canonical Scriptures.

Chapter 2

The Semantics of Mortality Conversing about mortality is more than just conversing about death. Mortality has to do with how death affects one’s self-understanding and definition. Choices are derived from that deeper level of self-perception. When we say we are mortal, we are saying that there is a terminus to our existence. We are limited in the dimension of time. We have a beginning and we have an end. How we choose to live our lives, because we are cognizant of our end, makes us distinct. We Homo sapiens are uniquely conscious of our mortality. Our pending death can be a driving force in the way we live. Our conversation will end in an inquiry about Paul’s mortality, that is, how imitating Christ in his death affected his lifestyle and choices. Our journey begins, however, with a need to have a shared understanding of key terminology surrounding the subject of death, particularly voluntary death in the ancient world. Most of us will not have a choice when or how we will die. We will die of “natural causes,” by disease or accident, or for some other reason that falls outside the purview of our control. 1 When the firstcentury Gentiles, Jews, and Christians pondered death, they did not always share this sense of fatalism. Various opportunities to choose to die were weighed and voluntary death was sometimes valued as good and desirable. I begin then by laying a semantic foundation of technical concepts for voluntary death that will surface throughout this study. They show up in discussions of ancient cultures, whether Gentile or Jewish, secular or religious, and, as I will demonstrate, they are expressions that provoke controversy and sometimes are used without precision. My burden in this chapter is to set definitional limits to certain expressions and defend certain semantic boundaries that, for the sake of clarity, should not be crossed in conversations about mortality in the first century. The three expressions that appear in discussions of voluntary death in the ancient world, particularly in Paul’s of the first century, and that will find frequent expression throughout this study are noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. I will define and discuss each in this chapter. Then with a special discussion of vicariousness, I will conclude with a comparative analysis of the three showing their relative moral merit with an underscoring of the degree of volition involved in each. 1. More than half of us will not be aware of our impending death five minutes before it happens. In other words, more than 50 percent of deaths are sudden, either through heart attacks or accidents that take our lives without advance warning.

7

8

Chapter 2

Before I focus on these three technical expressions for voluntary death, I will do two things. First, I will define death itself. Whereas in popular culture today the subject of death carries a post-Enlightenment and scientific nuance, in the Scriptures death has unique semantic qualities that portray a distinct worldview. 2 But before defining death, I will take a further preliminary step. I turn to a recent example of a semantic faux pas, a serious logical blunder that found broad acceptance, which illustrates modern prejudices about voluntary death. I will seek to demonstrate how blending definitions for voluntary death can reap confusion and moral havoc.

The Dilemma of Definition: A Need for Specificity The problem of terminology is illustrated by looking at a recent work by Arthur Droge and James Tabor, entitled A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. 3 The title alone offers a glaring example of the confusion of terms. Suicide is linked with martyrdom, and Droge and Tabor categorize both under the rubric “noble death.” Linking three technical expressions for death by choice presumes a necessary relationship, which they try to clarify within the first several pages of their book. 4 Their argument is to propose that “killing oneself [as] both a sin and a crime is a relatively late Christian development, taking its impetus from Augustine’s polemics against the ‘self-destructive mania’ of the Donatists in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.” 5 Their first step is to classify suicide as voluntary death, which they deem a less pejorative term, and claim 2. Lloyd R. Bailey (Biblical Perspectives on Death, OBT 5 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 26–28) laments the “bewildering phalanx of terminology” in the area of death in the Bible and lists five senses of immortality (a divine quality, deathlessness, immortal soul, a phantomlike remnant of a person, a legacy) that are often used interchangeably and with varied meanings from one author to the next. 3. Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992). I will interact with Droge and Tabor as a contemporary and influential example of scholarship that both in their reasoning and hermeneutic promote a thesis that I do not share: that selftermination or suicide was value neutral or even promoted in certain situations until it was condemned by Augustine in the fourth century. While my research is focused and has its culmination in Paul’s beliefs and teaching, their research up until Paul has a direct bearing on our study. Jan Willem van Henton and Friedrich Avemarie (Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity [New York: Routledge, 2002]) share Droge and Tabor’s viewpoint. 4. For example, they lament that W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), what they consider the standard English work on martyrdom, in 600 pages makes only three passing references to suicide. They admit that suicide is a relatively late and pejorative term and martyrdom is positive. Their book seeks to question this distinction (Droge and Tabor, Noble Death, 3–4). 5. Ibid., 5.

The Semantics of Mortality

9

that this designation strips the topic of moral connotation: “This definition is intended to be morally neutral, since our enterprise is not one of moral (or clinical) judgment but an attempt to understand the ways in which voluntary death was evaluated in antiquity. For the purposes of our investigation a definition is required that neither glorifies nor condemns the act of taking one’s life for whatever reasons or in whatever circumstances.” 6 Their assumption is that, by introducing a morally neutral expression such as voluntary death in their evaluation of ancient beliefs, their evaluation of ancient belief will be equally morally neutral. In effect, however, Droge and Tabor’s stance is value-ridden. They are committed to counter any view that might oppose voluntary death, particularly suicide. Their book is an apologetic. Augustine condemned suicide as a violation of the sixth commandment against murder. Droge and Tabor claim that his was an unfortunate bias. For them, Augustine’s judgment wrongly became canon and culminated in the modern censure of suicide. 7 Droge and Tabor classify all willful death including suicide as voluntary death. Semantically, this seems to be a logical move, but it masks several subtle but important inferences. All voluntary death is not morally equivalent. Martyrdom, for example, shares voluntary and involuntary features. Atoning sacrifice is a different kind of voluntary death and can involve social coercion by others. Suicide, particularly suicide that bears the marks of psychological strain, has a different kind of underlying motive. The psychological motives can mask other underlying religious or sociological factors that permit one to take the fatal step. 8 Droge and Tabor neutralize this variation of volition and motive by adding: “By this term [voluntary death] we mean to describe the act resulting from an individual’s intentional decision to die, either by his own agency, by another’s, or by contriving the circumstances in which death is the known, ineluctable result.” 9 By combining separate types of voluntary death under one class or heading, voluntary death, Droge and Tabor obscure particular motives and categories: “Suicide is voluntary death.” They then attempt to raise or, perhaps more appropriately, eliminate the ethical boundaries of the class as a whole and go back to isolate suicide within the group that has been stripped of ethical qualification. If all voluntary death is acceptable, then so is suicide. 6. Ibid., 4. 7. Ibid., 5. They offer several anecdotal situations in which laws against suicide reached absurd levels to the extent of the state killing those who had maimed themselves in suicide attempts for crimes against the state. The core thesis of their book is to demonstrate the moral neutrality of ancient society and to argue for a return to the same morally neutral state. 8. Ibid., 9–11. Droge and Tabor offer an excellent discussion contrasting psychological or inward forces and sociological or outward forces as they relate to suicide. Similar polarities bear reflection in other forms of death such as noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. 9. Ibid., 4.

10

Chapter 2

Two fallacies are self-evident: (1) the fallacy of composition, melding the parts into a generalized whole that, aside from the one minor element, can share a positive value; and (2) the fallacy of division, breaking the generalized whole down and ascribing the now positive value of the whole to the parts. Droge and Tabor’s influential book on the topic goes further to muddy definitions. Their book title states that their topic is “noble death,” a concept that usually holds a more restricted technical meaning and is generally viewed positively. In their first chapter, they quickly establish that both martyrdom and suicide fall under the classification of voluntary death establishing an inherent link between that neutral term and the positive, noble death. 10 The two concepts, however, must remain distinct; not all voluntary death is noble, and not all noble death is voluntary. By raising voluntary death as a class, they are left defending a congenial attitude toward suicide (a term they argue is late and laden with moral bias). Mixing voluntary death with noble death risks further ethical confusion. Our point is that individuating different forms of voluntary death is necessary to evaluate motives and morality when discussing death and mortality. Martyrdom and suicide retain essential differences particularly on a moral plane.

Volition and Responsibility Volition and responsibility are a second factor that must be considered as we walk into semantic tagging. The modern debate over assisted suicide perhaps best underscores this problem. Scientific understanding of life issues, statistical probabilities of survival, and technology that permits dying with different degrees of assistance among the terminally ill and the infirm confound traditional ethical standards. How much responsibility do the dying have in the decision-making process for their own deaths? Where does volition enter and whose volition is it? In the contemporary scene, culpability is blended, but reading back into ancient scenarios we discover that equivalent ethical structures are also at work. Did King Saul fall on his own sword or did the Amalekite take Saul’s life at his insistence (1 Sam 31:4–6; cf. 2 Sam 1:3–16)? Does the martyr rush quickly into death promoting and antagonizing the government or does the responsibility for taking the life of one leading an insurrection lie solely on the will of the oppressive state? In acts of heroism and noble death, when is death inevitable and how much of it is willful? As Versnel points out, the soldier, although dying willingly for his country, hopes to survive. “The patriotic death in battle is a form of giving one’s life for the benefit of the community. However, although soldiers might be expected to die, their death is not an inevitable, necessary and 10. Ibid., 3–4. Noble death is the proper phrase normally associated with this GrecoRoman phenomenon. Their book could more accurately be entitled Voluntary Death, the term they ultimately coin for both suicide and martyrdom, instead of Noble Death.

The Semantics of Mortality

11

unnegotiable condition.” 11 Through the factor of choice, noble character is revealed. The question of volition, however, can be subtle and makes labeling particularly difficult. A similar problem of semantic bias surfaces when one examines the motives for death, whether in modern or ancient times. A recent American Islamist was quoted as saying, “We are not terrorists. We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism.” 12 Ethics in death is a matter of perspective. If you are a jihadist, strapping a bomb to your body, walking into a crowded marketplace and blowing up yourself and all those around you, ending your life and the lives of others who may or may not share your religious heritage or belief system, is in fact noble death, holy martyrdom, and worthy of eternal reward and temporal praise. But this is not so for those who do not share your beliefs. For those who are ideologically opposed, you are a terrorist, a “suicide bomber.” Rather than meriting reward, condemnation and eternal damnation are the responses of justice. Similar things could be said about other events in recent history. Kamikaze pilots in WWII, for example, similar to today’s suicide bomber or those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11/2001, viewed themselves as energized by and working for the divine will (kamikaze means “divine wind”); the Americans who fought against Japan, however, saw their voluntary death as barbaric. For most of the watching world, cult members who commit mass suicide die a horribly misguided death. For the cult members, however, theirs is a reasonable escape leading to a better end. Terminology is critical for our discussion and, although posturing and bias are inevitable, transparency is critical and ultimately will be necessary to come to a better understanding of Paul’s thinking. A tendency to interpret meaning subjectively and contextually provides an added impetus for specificity in definition in a world that is in constant flux. At this writing, various forms of war or terrorism are practiced and planned throughout the world. Novel forms of battle, particularly suicide bombing in recent years, require that we add new definitions to old words. A few isolated historical examples mimic what we see today, but for the most part the modern situation does not harmonize neatly into ancient culture. Discussions of elective suicide, euthanasia, and abortion have a historical lens. 13 The subject of what terminally ill signifies in the modern context of scientific objectification and contemporary social structures does not 11. Henk S. Versnel, “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death: The Pagan Contribution,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, WUNT 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 233 (emphasis his). 12. Ramy Zamzam, “Verbatim,” Time ( January 18, 2010): 22. 13. This is not to relegate the topics of euthanasia, abortion, or the like exclusively to the modern era. For more on these topics in the ancient world, see, e.g., Enzo Nardi, “Aborto e omicidio nella civiltà classica,” ANRW 2.13:366–85, which surveys scientific, popular and religious views regarding fetal life, when a fetus is viable, and the moral implications of abortion given the classification of the fetus.

12

Chapter 2

have a one-to-one correspondence with Paul’s world of the first century. We need continuity in our vocabulary. A sophisticated definition of voluntary death requires an awareness of the moral landscape. Modern ideological polarities threaten to distort clear and specific understanding of first-century worldviews. As much as possible, we need to understand and admit our biases. But before I look at these and classify forms of voluntary death, I need to answer the more fundamental question about death itself.

Defining Death The topic of voluntary death is laden with bias, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. Before we consider the controversy and problems of voluntary death, we need to ask a primary question: what is “death”? The answer is necessary to address confusion in biblical interpretation. Weinrich offers us an ominous observation: An ancient and a modern heresy that the church again must combat is the view that death is natural. Such a view regards death as the last act of life, and as such, death is something over which we dispose. Such a view could not be further from a biblical understanding. The Bible begins, not with a living man as though man lived self-evidently, but the Bible begins with the Creator, who speaks into existence man, who is made to exist by being made to live. Life is therefore a gift. Life, therefore, is not, so to speak, “natural” to us. It comes to us from the outside, from God, so that even that which most “belongs” to us, namely our life, is itself not our own proper possession. 14

Life is not self-generated, and death as the withdrawal of life is not, as some might suppose, something entirely personal or based on the subject in isolation. The Bible presents life as a gift from God. Death, although experienced personally, is also a transcendent experience with the Creator of life. Our definition of death must take into account the Creator-creation relationship. Several definitions of death predominate in the Scriptures and Christian theology. One proposed breakdown of the OT’s view of death offers a declining gradation from biological cessation, to a power in opposition to a created order, and finally, “a metaphor for those things that detract from life as Yahweh intends it.” 15 Richards, after mentioning that Israel found meaning in life in relationship to the deity through praise, adds: “The most significant theme for Israel was the understanding that life provided an opportunity for the individual and community to praise Yahweh. Praise of God was the sign of life. The inability to praise was a signal of death, even in life. The Hebrew Bible is replete with the idea that death constitutes silence 14. William C. Weinrich, “Death and Martyrdom: An Important Aspect of Early Christian Eschatology,” CTQ 66 (2002): 328. 15. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 39–40. So C. Clifton Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8,” JBL 103 (1984): 414.

The Semantics of Mortality

13

and that the major characteristic of life is to praise Yahweh.” 16 Life from a Scriptural perspective is more than mere physical existence and death is more than the cessation of physical existence. The terminology surrounding death includes a wide variety of concepts. In brief, there are three or four definitions that serve as reference points. 17 (1) Physical or clinical death is the cessation of biological functioning. Often this is viewed as a transition for the soul from one body to another, and this raises a question of the afterlife. 18 (2) Spiritual death is a theological derivation from situations in the Scriptures in which people are said to die, but their body goes on living. A change is assumed and that change is interpreted as a change in or a cutting off from relationship with Yahweh. Spiritual death is relational death. (3) Eternal death is an expression used to denote finality through judgment. Death is relational and depicts eternal separation from God. (4) Second death is an expression found in Revelation (Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8) and refers to eternal judgment spent in the lake of fire or the place or state of eternal torment mentioned as well by Jesus, inter­testamental and rabbinic literature. 19 For our theme, Paul’s first-century worldview of his mortality, three terms in particular need precise baseline definitions: noble death (and, by contrast, ignoble death), martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. These definitions offer a graded range from the perspective both of volition, how much choice is involved, and valor, that is, what merit, value, or return is found in each form of dying. At this point, our definitions are provisional. They will receive more specific nuance in the subsequent chapters where we look at how they were expressed in the first-century worlds of the Gentiles, Jews, and Christians.

Noble Death Noble death is a common category that for its multiplicity of uses in classical literature is hard to define narrowly, although some have made that attempt. Seeley, for example, offers a very specific and technical definition for 16. Kent Harold Richards (“Death, Old Testament,” ABD 2:109, emphasis mine) goes on to explain that Sheol, the Hebrew place of the dead, is distinct for being a space of silence where praise does not happen. 17. Douglas J. Moo (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 319–29) discusses Paul’s use of death in Rom 5:12 and speaks of physical death; “spiritual death,” that is, “estrangement from God that . . . if not healed through Christ, will lead to ‘eternal’ death”; and “total death,” where physical death is the outward manifestation of a psycho-spiritual reality (p. 320). 18. Bailey (Biblical Perspectives on Death, 100) gives six biblical reasons for the sanctity of biological life: (1) the power of life belongs to God; (2) the power to procreate is a special blessing; (3) taking human life is “such an arrogant usurpation of power that execution must result”; (4) beasts must give their lives if they take a human life; (5) blood, considered the life-force, is a prohibited food ingredient; and (6) domestic food-animals can be slaughtered only after a ritual acknowledging God’s sovereignty. 19. Duane F. Watson, “Death, Second,” ABD 2:111–12.

14

Chapter 2

noble death with five concrete elements: “The five elements of the Noble Death are as follows: (1) obedience, (2) the overcoming of physical vulnerability, (3) a military setting, (4) vicariousness, or the quality of being beneficial for others, and (5) sacrificial metaphors.” 20 It bears noting that Seeley’s definition has no stated rationale other than his personal observation. Seeley does not intend to say that all five characteristics must be present for a death to be considered noble death. He admits, in particular, that the category sacrificial metaphor is less significant in 4 Maccabees (he makes no comment about it in the deaths of Socrates, Cato, or Scipio) but that it is still a significant characteristic. 21 Some define noble death broadly, the death of a noble person, with less regard to motive or circumstance. A noble death would have been a good death that exposed noble character of the one dying. Noble death, whether dying for family, polis, or an ideology, was frequently conceived as altruistic. But noble death was also a self-authenticating gesture of heroism to obtain fame. 22 In an honor/shame culture, an important incentive was to raise the reputation of the one who died. In certain situations, one chose to die prematurely to recover lost honor. The circumstances and the willing submission or heroism of the one who dies demonstrates in his or her last act virtue and values that surpass temporal survival. Thus, we recognize three commonly accepted values of noble death: altruism; heroism, which, as we discuss below, may imply mimesis; and obtaining or recovering honor. One way of defining noble death is to see it as the polar opposite of ignoble death, a concept perhaps easier to define. Some might deny that this sort of death exists, that all death has dignity, and perhaps someone would rush to the defense of anyone who dies even for the most dishonorable of reasons. The appeal here is that any life in itself has dignity and so any death is ipso facto a tragedy. The recent discussions against violence in the atonement adopt an intolerant perspective toward any death. Throughout history, however, certain motives for dying have been recognized as dishonorable or even disgraceful. Extreme examples to make the point include some forms of capital punishment where people are executed 20. David Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation, JSNTSup 28 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 13. Seeley’s definitional argument is somewhat circular. He finds these five characteristics in common with the martyrs’ deaths in 4 Maccabees and in Jesus’ death in Paul’s writings and then claims that this is noble death. By contrast, we understand that noble death has deeper roots and a broader application than these five qualities, and not all five are necessary for noble death. I review his definition of vicarious as “the quality of being beneficial for others” below. See C. Marvin Pate and Douglas W. Kennard, Deliverance Now and Not Yet: The New Testament and the Great Tribulation, StBibLit 54 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 42, as an example of those who use his observations uncritically as a technical definition. 21. Seeley, Noble Death, 134–35. 22. N. T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3: The Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 34) proposes that fame is the ultimate motive.

The Semantics of Mortality

15

for crimes against humanity or where criminals or barbarians face death for selfishly and manically harming others. An archetypical biblical example is the sin and death of Adam, when his decision resulted in death and introduced death through inheritance to the whole human race (Rom 5:12–21). Another example Paul uses is that of those who participate in the Eucharist without proper self-examination. As Paul says, “For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself. That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (1 Cor 11:29–30). We could cite the death of Judas Iscariot (Matt 27:3– 10; Acts 1:18–20), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11) and Paul’s use of negative examples from the OT to warn the Corinthians against presumptuous disobedience, which provoked mortal judgment (1 Cor 10:1–13). 23 Ignoble death is a premature death incurred as the result of divine judgment or as a negative consequence for evil or selfish behavior, the result of disobedience and disregard for God and others. Sometimes this sort of death is voluntary and chosen; other times it lies on the side of consequence, which can sometimes be judicial. Achan died unwillingly as a consequence of defiance. His greed jeopardized the plan of God for the people of Israel ( Joshua 7). In that sense, his death was not his choice or “voluntary” but was the choice of Joshua, the judicial leader of Israel, who executed the divine will. Noble death obtains or recovers honor often through death to evade a shaming incident. Dying rather than succumbing to a life of defeat is frequently construed as a noble death. “Death before dishonor” was widely acclaimed. Carlin Barton cites the legend of Mucius who when caught in a disgraceful situation, an attempt to assassinate the king, is sentenced to burn. He stands before the king, puts his right hand in the fire, and stands impassively while it burns. He redeemed his honor by choosing his own annihilation in the presence of and in defiance of the one having authority over his life. 24 By taking responsibility for one’s inevitable death determined through the justice of an opposing power, a shameful situation could be made noble through self-sacrifice. The courage displayed by the dying captive regains honor and is portrayed as mimetic, that is, meant to inspire others to imitation in a similar circumstance. 23. Droge and Tabor adamantly counter Augustine’s condemnation of Judas Iscariot’s suicide: “Augustine’s condemnation cannot be sustained on the basis of the text. If the Matthean or Lukan account of the death of Judas had contained even the slightest comment, say, that ‘Judas’s act was displeasing to God’ or that ‘his death brought shame upon him,’ then Augustine would have had a case. But the texts do not say this. According to Matthew, Judas’s act of self-destruction was the measure of his repentance” (Noble Death, 114, emphasis theirs). Later on the same page, they make a similar apparently “value-free” evaluation of Jesus: “The death of Jesus is ambiguous. Was it the legal execution of a criminal, an example of heroic martyrdom, or a case of suicide?” 24. Carlin Barton, “Honor and Sacredness in the Roman and Christian Worlds,” in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion, ed. Margaret Cormack, AARSR (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 25.

16

Chapter 2

Noble death is voluntary and “premature”; it is death other than by natural means that often benefits individuals, the polis, or humanity; death that either brings honor or fame for the heroic act; and death represented as worthy of imitation given similar circumstances. It is altruistic. Whereas ignoble death is a shameful death or death for a bad reason, noble death could be defined simply as chosen death for an honorable, good, or philanthropic reason. Noble death is a broad category. Martyrdom and atonement fall within its boundaries. 25 Jesus’ crucifixion, but for the shame of dying on a cross, could be an example of noble death and would be so identified later, but so would the Jewish and Christian martyrs and many military deaths for the state. Certainly there is tension here that I will address when I discuss Paul’s writings in chaps. 7 and 10: Christian deaths, whether Jesus’ first exemplary death or the deaths of his followers, were popularly regarded as shameful, not noble. Middleton notes that the Romans attributed no honor to death on a cross, and the Jews viewed it as a curse. “Pagans simply did not register the martyrdom of Christians as constituting examples of Noble Death; it did not fulfill their criteria.” 26 Jesus’ death, however, recovers honor within Christianity because of its surviving meaning. It finds its honor ultimately in the abject humility of Jesus, who went to such an extent to die on behalf of others. Different degrees of motive and volition find their place in noble death. The soldier tries to defeat the enemy without being killed, but early Christian martyrs sought death. They viewed their deaths as an ideological weapon. When they died, they hoped their deaths would serve to defeat the enemy. The death of Socrates is sometimes compared to the death of Jesus using the shared category “noble death.” 27 To Jesus, however, I will add the more specific values martyrdom and atoning sacrifice. My definition lacks specificity and that has its drawbacks. We could define noble death narrowly using a cultural or a historical example. For example, in the Roman Empire, a prevalent situation existed in which the lives of a conquered people would be spared through the offering of their leader’s life in their place. 28 Others, particularly the ancients, use Socrates as the example of noble death par excellence. His ideological decision to 25. By saying this, I fundamentally disagree with the degree of specificity offered by Seeley (Noble Death, 13). See pp. 13–14 above. 26. Paul Middleton, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, LNTS 307 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 120–23. 27. See Emily Wilson, The Death of Socrates (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 141–69, for an extended summary of the discussion comparing the deaths of Jesus and Socrates. 28. John S. Pobee (Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul, JSNTSup 6 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], 1–12) references this and other forms of persecution mentioned in Pauline literature, including death in the arena, crucifixion, the sword, stoning, burning, imprisonment, expulsion, and corporal punishment.

The Semantics of Mortality

17

drink the hemlock and accept death over renouncing his internal convictions to live as the enemy of the state or in exile, serves as a model for an existential worldview of being true to oneself and, of course, to underscore his perspective that the unseen immaterial soul takes precedence over the material or ideological elements that imprison or constrict it (Plato Phaedo 117–18). A broader definition, however, is more useful because it offers a catchall category for a variety of situations that will come up in this discussion and that are spoken of in the literature.

Martyrdom An example of a narrower category that falls within the scope of noble death is martyrdom. 29 Martyrdom is similar to noble death in that it is death for an honorable reason and for the sake of others, but it has a more specific focus. A general definition for martyr could include and often in modern usage does include anyone who suffers, particularly someone who suffers unjustly. The first dictionary entry states it more narrowly as: “one who undergoes death (more loosely, one who undergoes a great suffering) on behalf of any religious or other belief or cause, or as a consequence of his devotion to some object.” 30 The discussion, however, especially for our purposes needs to proceed in a more detailed and technical direction and consider sociological and theological factors. 31 Martyrdom is loaded with conno­tative value. BDAG lists three definitions for μάρτυς: (1) one who testifies in legal matters, witness; (2) one who affirms or attests, testifier, witness; 29. For a particularly insightful sociological and religious overview of martyrdom, see Samuel Z. Klausner, “Martyrdom,” ER 8:5737–44. Our article here has as its objective to define martyrdom. For a historical explanation of how the Scriptures and early church understood martyrdom in their context, see the background chapters that follow. For a discussion of how martyrdom derives its origins in noble death, see Jan Willem van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees, JSJSup 57 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); and L. Arik Greenberg, “My Share of God’s Reward”: Exploring the Roles and Formulations of the Afterlife in Early Christian Martyrdom, StBibLit 121 (New York: Peter Lang, 2009), 52–57. 30. “Martyr,” OED 9:413–14 (emphasis mine). 31. Jan Willem van Henten (“Das jüdische Selbstverständnis in den ältesten Martyrien,” in Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie, ed. J. W. van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. van der Klaauw, StPB 38 [Leiden: Brill, 1989], 130–31) finds five common features in descriptions of more famous and complex martyrdoms: (1) the hostile and often Gentile king or his officials make a decree; (2) the content of his decree contradicts the religion and tradition of the Jews leading to a struggle of conscience; (3) the decree threatens cruel punishment of torture, then death, should the martyr trespass the decree and not renounce his faith; (4) the martyr chooses torture and death over the decree while explaining his reasons; and (5) the carrying out of punishment and death are often recounted in a detailed fashion. Van Henton offers the examples 2 Macc 6:18–31 and 2 Macc 7 as well as 4 Maccabees and the rabbinic martyrdoms of R. Aqiba and R. Jehuda ben Baba. He also claims that Dan 3 and 6 anticipate this martyrdom formula, except for the fifth point because no one dies.

18

Chapter 2

and (3) one who witnesses at cost of life, martyr. 32 The last definition, however, is disputed. While modern understanding of the word martyr implies, “cost of life,” Trites demonstrated that an explicit link between testimony and death in the μάρτυς word group arose after the establishment of the NT canon. 33 In Paul’s day, the meaning was focused on testimony and the link to death is post-Pauline. 34 I will generally refer to martyrdom with the modern understanding that links testimony with death, but I must exercise care not to be anachronistic when considering the ancient texts. The martyr represents an oppressed powerless minority group. He or she is intended not just to die as a representative of a group, as with noble death, or as a substitution, in the place of or for the benefit of others, but 32. BDAG 619–20. Candida R. Moss (Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions, AYBRL [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012], 2–6) cautions against linking the idea of martyrdom with any single linguistic term: “Martyrdom does not begin where language, practice, and ideology coalesce in a way that approximates our own definition of martyrdom. The idea of martyrdom may predate the formulation of specific terminology and may be attached to linguistic terms that do not present themselves to us in modern parlance as martyrological.” She notes that, if we can divorce the idea from the terminology, we can find archaic versions of the concept in many pre-Christian accounts such as Socrates, the Maccabean martyrs, and Jesus. The ascription of martyrdom postdates their stories. She later adds: “For those scholars who value linguistic origins more highly than conceptual or functional definitions, martyrdom begins with Christianity” (ibid., 24). 33. The original meaning of the Greek word μάρτυς was “witness” or “testimony.” Allison A. Trites (“Martyrs and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse: A Semantic Study,” NovT 15 [1973]: 72–73), in his diachronic study, talks about five stages of meaning for μάρτυς: (1) a witness in a court of law; (2) someone who testifies about his or her faith in court resulting in death; (3) death associated with courtroom testimony; (4) a focus primarily on death, rather than the testimony; and (5) what he considers the modern definition, death without necessary association with testimony. After showing that the fourth and fifth stages are represented in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, he establishes that they are not yet represented in John’s Apocalypse. The association then of μάρτυς with the modern definition of death is postcanonical. Contra Petros Vassiliadis, “The Translation of Martyria Iēsou in Revelation,” BT 36 (1985): 129–34; and BDAG 620, which both cite Revelation and Acts 22:20 (καὶ ὅτε ἐξεχύννετο τὸ αἷμα Στεφάνου τοῦ μάρτυρός σου, καὶ αὐτὸς ἤμην ἐφεστὼς καὶ συνευδοκῶν καὶ φυλάσσων τὰ ἱμάτια τῶν ἀναιρούντων αὐτόν) as examples of martyrdom, that is, “one who witnesses at cost of life.” So Weinrich (“Death and Martyrdom,” 327), who asserts: “Martyrdom entails death; only that one who dies for the faith is called a ‘martyr.’” A clear distinction is made in the second century between “martyrs,” those who die for their confession, and “confessors,” those who suffered but did not die (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl 5.2.3). For further discussion of death and testimony images in Revelation including a consideration of martyr Christology and the image of the Lamb reflecting death, see M. G. Reddish, “Martyr Christology in the Apocalypse,” JSNT 33 (1988): 85–95. “The Lamb figure evokes ideas not only of cultic sacrifice, Paschal Lamb, Suffering Servant, messianic conqueror, but also of the martyr. Jesus the Lamb is Jesus the Martyr” (pp. 88–89). Reddish argues that John presents Jesus as a proto-martyr and as a faithful witness to be imitated (p. 91). 34. Ascribing martyrdom to the “Maccabean martyrs” is thus technically anachronistic, although, as we shall see, they fall under our definition of martyrdom.

The Semantics of Mortality

19

to die to promote the ideology of the group. 35 The martyr’s death shares many qualities, but the main function is testimony. A belief system or conviction, usually religious, is integral with martyrdom. 36 The martyr seeks to demonstrate ultimate allegiance and to bear witness to an ideology. 37 Often the martyr is given an opportunity to renounce his or her beliefs and live. That conflict brings the martyr’s testimony into prominence and renders it effective. 38 When the martyr chooses death over renouncing a belief or set of beliefs, he or she demonstrates the conviction that the belief is transcendently superior and takes absolute precedence over all else, even existence. 39 The identity and integrity of the martyr are intricately tied 35. See Versnel, “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death,” 227–40, for his assertion that dying for an ideology is relatively late, in the first centuries B.C. and A.D., in Roman culture. I address the distinctions of substitution, representation, and imitation below. 36. The rise of martyrdom within a religious context provokes questions of provenience in antiquity. G. W. Bowersock (Martyrdom and Rome, Wiles Lectures Given at the Queen’s University of Belfast [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995]) reacts to van Henten as well as Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, and seeks to demonstrate that Judaism apprehended Christian beliefs, not vice versa. Martyrdom has Gentile, not Jewish roots. So Middleton, Radical Martyrdom, 106–16, who adds, “the theologies of Jewish and Christian martyrdom are so different at the fundamental level— achievement, cause of suffering and purpose—as to demand a more adequate explanation for the development of Christian martyrology” (p. 115). Daniel Boyarin (Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999], 93–126) reacts to Frend and Bowersock and argues that the values raised through Jewish and Christian martyr traditions cannot be identified as originating from neat cultural boundaries—they borrowed from each other. He separates pre-Christian from post-Christian martyrdom and identifies unique elements of the latter, namely, that they were accompanied by “a ritualized and performative speech act,” fulfilled a religious mandate, and contain erotic visionary elements (pp.  95–96). Marie-Françoise Baslez (“The Origin of the Martyrdom Images: From the Book of Maccabees to the First Christians,” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology; Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSup 118 [Leiden: Brill, 2007], 120–22) elaborates that Jewish literature (for example, the Maccabean martyrs) seeks to underscore an emphasis on the gore of the martyrs’ deaths to distinguish them from Greek noble death. 37. Moss (Ancient Christian Martyrdom, 21–22) points out that ancient martyrs had concurrent identities such as priest, woman, philosopher, writer, or soldier. “Even if these other identities were sometimes subsumed by the portrait of the ideal Christian or martyr, their effect is subtly felt. In sum, martyrs are not incarnations of the ideology of martyrdom. The details of their lives shape the idiosyncrasies of their presentations and affect the ideologies of martyrdom themselves” (p. 22). 38. “Martyrdom is a free voluntary act. It is also an altruistic act. The martyr may avoid death by conceding to the adversary, but nevertheless accepts, affirms, or even seeks death” (Klausner, ER 8:5738). 39. “The language of the martyr says something very profound about three fundamental issues: one’s sense of what it means to be a human being, liberty in the face of death, and the prospect of eternal life.” L. S. Cunningham, “Saints and Martyrs: Some Contemporary Considerations,” TS 60 (1999): 536. So Rino Fisichella, “Martyr,” DFT 625.

20

Chapter 2

with that belief. 40 Frequently, but not necessarily in the case of anonymous religion-based killing, the martyr is held up by the minority community as an exemplar, whose life, beliefs, and martyrdom are a model to be imitated. 41 Martyrdom can also be a tool of the minority to vindicate themselves against the ideology of the oppressor. This vindication has two aspects. In the martyr’s present, by dying, the martyr hopes to shame the oppressor through defiance and ultimate sacrifice. To kill someone, one must have a reasoned motive. The oppressing power must evaluate their position to be sure that their ideology is superior, that the minority is a true threat or offense to that ideology, and that the minority opposition merits extinguishing through death. A future vindication is also anticipated. 42 The dying martyr assumes that his or her ideology is correct and that his death will be vindicated in some post-death divine judgment. The martyr has God or gods on his side. In many cases, as in the case of the Jewish prophets, he is God’s representative, and his death is viewed as the people’s response to God himself (see, for example, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, Mark 12:1–12 par.). Martyrs anticipate that they will be vindicated before some transcendent tribunal and their enemies judged, thus, that their actions will wield a negative consequence on their opponents. Not only so, but traditions also exist in which martyrs anticipate personal reward. The church venerated early church martyrs and ascribed prophetic office, powers, and prestige to them. 43 Modern “suicide bombers” or jihad martyrs are promised a paradise for their sacrifice including a large harem and ease. 44 40. Weinrich (“Death and Martyrdom,” 330–35) speaks of martyrdom as allegiance to the life-giving Creator God and, hence, faithfulness to die as a martyr as faithfulness to the one responsible for life and death. To choose not to be martyred is idolatry, a choice to ally with false gods who pretend to hold the power over death and life. 41. The Maccabean martyrs are noted for this, as are the early church fathers. William C. Weinrich (Spirit and Martyrdom: A Study of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Contexts of Persecution and Martyrdom in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature [Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1981], 218) makes the point that the early church fathers quoted from 2 and 4 Maccabees and modeled their martyrdom after the Maccabean martyrs. Stephen’s defiant testimony is likewise exemplary. Whether believers should actively seek to die for their testimony, a value that was developed in early church history and ultimately was distorted into a “cult of the martyrs,” was censored by Augustine and others. The function of an exemplar is to inspire the community to resistance, a function particularly noteworthy for the Hasmonean uprising and for militant Jews afterwards, leading to the revolt of A.D. 67–70. 42. On this point, it is significant to note that possibly Jesus and certainly Stephen, both notable NT martyrs, prayed that their oppressors would not receive judgment but would be forgiven (Luke 23:34, but note the text critical problem; Acts 7:60). Their martyrdoms were not vindictive. 43. See Greenberg, “My Share of God’s Reward,” 2, for his discussion of vindication and reward in the early church focusing particularly on compensatory afterlife. 44. Our intention is not to elucidate Muslim eschatology. Muslim afterlife includes sensual pleasures for all who enter (Qur’an 44:54; 52:20; 55:72; and 56:22). The Qur’an

The Semantics of Mortality

21

Another aspect of martyrdom in the period stretching from the OT through that of the early church is often muddled in academic discussion, but for our purposes is definitional and of fundamental importance: a martyr is not someone who takes his own life; another takes it from him. 45 The distinction is important when discussing voluntary death. The culpable party in martyrdom from the martyr’s perspective is not the martyr but the oppressive opponent. 46 If it were not for the rigid inviolate stance of the oppressor, the martyr would not have to die. The martyr and the martyrmaker cannot coexist, but the oppressor, not the martyr must be held responsible for the death. The Jewish martyrs of the Maccabees did not want to, but were forced to die or renounce their loyalty to the Torah. 47 Because others killed them, they fit into my definition of martyr. Martyrs mentioned in the NT including Stephen, James, and Jesus himself did not seek death or take their own lives. Their lives were taken by another’s hand. Jesus will say: “No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again” ( John 10:18). But his acceptance does not imply agreement. Someone nailed him to a cross. This issue, which some argue as Jesus’ willingness and/or desire to die will be treated in chap. 7, where I will consider Jesus’ death in greater detail. 48 The later church martyrs, Ignatius, Polycarp, Perpetua, and Justin Martyr all were resigned to die for their beliefs, but none of these would have conceived of taking their own lives. 49 In order for it to be martyrdom, the oppressive governing authorities had to take their life. The trigger finger­is responsible for the death no matter what the circumstances. 50 I strictly condemns committing suicide (Qur’an 4:29–30; see also, Sahih al Bukhari 2.23.445; 8.73.73) but affirms reward to martyrs in holy war or jihad (Sahih al Bukhari 4:52:53). 45. Greenberg (“My Share of God’s Reward,” 72) notes that early church fathers made a distinction between martyrdom and suicide. 46. But see the important contribution of Weinrich, “Death and Martyrdom,” 335, where he underscores the role of God in the death of the martyr: “It is therefore the will of God that the martyr die. And by assenting to that will through submission to the judgment of the earthly authorities, the martyr’s will to die becomes the expression of God’s will that he die. In this way the obedience of the martyr to God’s will that he die is the form of the martyr’s rejection of false gods and, as such, is the obedience of faith in that God who, as creator, puts to death so that He might again create by making alive.” 47. On Maccabean martyrdom’s being associated with suicide, see Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, 47, 73 n. 81. 48. Droge and Tabor (Noble Death, 114–15) question Jesus’ complicity. 49. The early church martyrs drew from the example of the Maccabean martyrs, Christ’s death, and Paul’s teaching but notably did not speak of Paul as an exemplary martyr as they contemplated their own martyrdom. Paul’s actual death is obscured in the annals of history. 50. Socrates, for example, is often called a martyr. The ethical lessons surrounding his death concern the fact that he had options not to die, but he chose to die anyway. By our technical definition, his is a noble death, not martyrdom. Contra Martin Hengel

22

Chapter 2

will elaborate and illustrate the factor of volition below in this chapter, but it is an important point to establish here within the context of martyrdom. Within this definition of martyrdom two polarities are evident. Some are active martyrs who seek martyrdom and pursue their death as a stance of aggression against the oppressor who is perceived as the enemy of the minority community and of God or transcendent ideology. Middleton makes a further distinction for “radical martyrdom,” those especially in post-­ canonical early church history who enthusiastically “rushed to death.” 51 Others are passive victims who face death out of integrity to personal convictions and out of identification with the values of the minority community. These passive victims do not seek but accept capital punishment with resignation at the hands of their powerful opponent. The recorded acts of martyrdom in antiquity fall somewhere between these extremes. Today, anyone who dies for religious, ideological, or political reasons can be referred to as a martyr, but to be clear, this usage is often far removed from usage by the Jews or Christians of the Second Temple period or the following centuries. In recent times, we have seen an innocent’s death labeled “martyrdom” to incite a crowd, those who would define themselves as an ideological minority, against a dominant oppressive power. 52 “Martyr” is (The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981], 5), who says that, by not avoiding the unjust death penalty but choosing to drink the poison cup, “he becomes the prototype of the martyr who looks death fearlessly in the eye for the sake of the truth—in the last resort a divine truth— which he represents.” The main point of contention between our definition and Hengel’s is the factor of who “pulls the trigger.” We believe that the possibility of avoiding death always remains until the final moment and that culpability is conveyed at the moment of actual death. So Paul W. Gooch, Reflections on Jesus and Socrates: Word and Silence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), 32: “What the Christian martyr witnesses to are not propositional beliefs so much as faithfulness, commitment, loyalty, and obedience to One who stands in judgment over against all powers and authorities, over life itself.” 51. Middleton, Radical Martyrdom, 23–25. Radical martyrs were condemned by Clement as “hating their creator” along with “cowards” (Clement, Strom. 4.16.3–17.3). Middleton argues that the motive of martyrdom is defined through later discourse of the martyr’s act and how its telling affected others (ibid., 12–13). He borrows a label, “secondary martyrdom,” from Droge and Tabor, Noble Death, 132, where self-disclosure at trial leads to execution. 52. Newsworthy events include the street death of Neda in political conflict in Iran in the summer of 2009 that led to a nation of disgruntled citizens rallying behind her as a point of religious protest. She was quickly labeled a “martyr,” and so her death took on transcendent meaning. She became a rallying point for opponents to perceived politicoreligious oppression. See Nazila Fathi, “In a Death Seen Around the World, a Symbol of Iranian Protests,” The New York Times ( June 23, 2009): A1. Online: http://www.nytimes .com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23neda.html. Consider also the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, the Tunisian fruit-vendor who sparked a revolution in North Africa when he set himself on fire after authorities confiscated his fruit cart and fined him for selling without a license. Rania Abouzeid and Sidi Bouzid, “Bouazizi: The Man Who Set Himself and Tunisia on Fire” Time ( January 21, 2011). Online: http://www.time.com/

The Semantics of Mortality

23

used not so much for its descriptive force, but for its rhetorical effect. It is loaded with connotative weight. Followers or members of a minority group seek to ascribe transcendence or symbolic meaning to a member’s death or to underscore religious devotion, innocence, or piety and move masses to imitate their passion or fight for their ideology. Loved ones yearn for meaning in an otherwise senseless death. Sometimes the link between death and ideological motive is weak. By my definition, a clear distinction is drawn between jihad martyrdom and martyrs of the first century. A martyr is a victim of an oppressor’s sword. Because a jihadist’s death is self-inflicted, his or her death is not technically martyrdom but something else. Also, with jihad or holy war as the motive for death resulting not only in the martyr’s death but the taking of a significant number of unsuspecting innocent lives, a jihad martyr’s death is an act of aggression. If a jihadist’s death can somehow be construed as altruistic (depending on one’s ideological stance), perhaps this sort of death could be considered a variety of noble death. Calling it martyrdom for lack of another adequate lexeme or for the convenient rhetorical impact is a misuse of the term. Passively accepting death for identification with the ideology of a minority group needs to be distinguished from actively using one’s body as a weapon to kill others who do not share your ideology when any category of moral evaluation or judgment is considered. 53 Many other modern examples of public ideological death exist that help refine our definition. Holocausts (a word that derives from the fiery sacrifices God commanded from the Jews but in modern speech refers to a mass slaughter) like the Germans in WWII against the Jews and other ethnic groups, or the Turks against the Armenians in the early 20th century are classified as “genocide” (mass death with the goal of extermination of a race). 54 These, like the Serbian oppression of minority groups, particularly Bosnian Muslims, or the tribal warfare on the African and Asian continents, have a racist component, but often religion is the dominant motive. Oppressive and majority races seek to exterminate or oppress minority races for their religious divergence or perceived ideological threat. The ancient martyrs were sometimes grouped racially (such as the Maccabean martyrs). They were not, however, characterized by aggression. If we call all ideological death martyrdom, we risk blurring the significance of its traditional usage. If we do use it this way, we need distinguish this time/world/article/0,8599,2043557,00.html; Kareem Fahim, “Slap to a Man’s Pride Set Off Tumult in Tunisia,” New York Times ( January 22, 2011): A1. 53. Samson did not have to avenge his and God’s enemies by pulling their temple on them and himself to remain true to his convictions, but he did. He is praised in the Scriptures for “killing more people in his death than he did in his life” ( Judg 16:30. The full story is found in vv. 23–31). 54. This classification is being debated within the United States Congress and other world governments in regards to the Turks’ action against the Armenians in the early 20th century.

24

Chapter 2

sense from how the word has been used before recent times. Unlike modern­ jihadists who take their lives as they kill others, the Jewish Maccabean martyrs and the martyrs of the early church did not seek temporal retribution (killing their opponents), and they were not personal instruments of vindication, electing rather to allow God to judge opponents and on an eternal scale. We might add that many authentic modern martyrs suffer and die for their beliefs, often in seclusion without much publicity or fanfare. These martyrs are passive, nonresistant opponents of a more powerful ideology. They accept death as a consequence of living in a fallen world with governing authorities that defy God’s sovereignty over them. The martyr is then a representative of a group, usually a minority, but definitely a low-power group that is marked by a cohesive ideology, who dies willingly, but at an oppressor’s hand. 55 The martyr anticipates an ultimate vindication for his or her death, a judgment that is eternal and transcendent, not temporal, and often includes a personal reward for faithfulness as well as community benefit whether temporal or eternal. Different degrees of aggression mark martyrdom. There is more to explore on the topic of martyrdom and we will look at it again in the following chapters as it shows up in Gentile, Jewish, and Christian contexts. My intention here is preliminary: to lay down some of the parameters for understanding martyrdom in distinction both from noble death and the concept to which we now turn, atonement.

Atoning Sacrifice To talk about atonement is to talk about what some would argue is the central theme of Paul, the Gospels, and the Bible as a whole. On the other hand, some would argue that atonement shines too strong a spotlight on violence and is theologically and politically motivated. Although our focus will force us for the most part to navigate around these important and thorny themes, I am not naive about the controversies and complexities of the recent discussions regarding atonement. My focus remains on its bearing on our topic of Paul’s view of his own death. My objective here then is to lay down a preliminary definition that will receive further nuance as we progress in our study. Atoning sacrifice is a category most defined by its effect, the reconciliation of opposed parties or the reparation of a wrong. 56 On a scale of virtue, 55. Weinrich, “Death and Martyrdom,” 328, offers three irreducible components of martyrdom: “confession of faith, rejection of idolatry, and judgment to death.” 56. Contra Cilliers Breytenbach (Grace, Reconciliation, Concord: The Death of Christ in Graeco-Roman Metaphors, NovTSup 135 [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 12­–13), who claims that there is no semantic link between atonement and reconciliation. James W. Watts (“The Rhetoric of Sacrifice,” in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. Christian A. Eberhart, RBS 68 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011], 4) correctly points out that

The Semantics of Mortality

25

the one offering him or herself in atonement dies with arguably the highest of motives and results: the one dying a noble death dies for a good reason, that is, for honor, fame, or to save the lives of others. The martyr dies to maintain creedal integrity and to promote an ideology and serves as a representative and example to imitate. The one dying for the motive of atonement views death as a transcendent sacrifice. All these categories presume a reasonable justification for their death, but atoning sacrifice offers the strongest validation. Grayston makes the helpful observation that martyrs often hope their death will have a transcendent reconciling effect for the larger group they represent. 57 He recognizes, however, that Jesus’ death, which he regards as martyrdom, carries a unique atoning effect: “In Paul’s teaching, the death of Christ is less a means of influencing God, and more a means whereby God himself makes salvation possible.” 58 Wright concurs, arguing that Jesus drew on the martyr concept from the Maccabees for what he regarded a “subversive” act of dying as a martyr with an anticipation of the result of redemption, drawing on himself God’s wrath. 59 I will consider whether Jesus consciously sought to imitate a martyr theology in chaps. 7 and 10. The doctrine of atonement presumes themes unpopular in many circles: alienation, offense, guilt, violence, bloodletting in sacrifice, and divine wrath. An overemphasis on the forensic nature of salvation and penal substitution, it is argued, requires God to respond to sin with violence. 60 The “sacrifice is an evaluative term rather than a descriptive one,” that is, meaning within the ambiguity of ritual is determined not by the event in itself but by the consequent story or value placed on it. “Jesus’ crucifixion was obviously not a sacrifice to the soldiers who performed it nor to those who witnessed it, though both first-century Romans and Jews were active participants in blood rituals on other occasions. Only religious reflection on this political execution transformed the evaluation of it by labeling it a ‘sacrifice,’ in fact the ultimate and final sacrifice” (p. 11). So also Jens Schröter (“Sühne, Stellvertretung und Opfer. Zur Verwendung analytischer Kategorien zur Deutung des Todes Jesu,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, WUNT 181 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 51–72), who argues that atonement, victim, and sacrifice are not biblical terms but theological abstractions that suggest a complex history of tradition. Sacrifice is the most likely of the three to be a biblical expression and not a theological construct. He follows van Henten and others in underscoring that “dying for” can refer­merely to dying for the benefit of another, not as a substitute or representative of another. 57. Kenneth Grayston, “Atonement and Martyrdom,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context, ed. John Barclay and John Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 250–63. 58. Ibid., 258. 59. N. T. Wright, “Jesus,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context, ed. John Barclay and John Sweet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 53–55. 60. This argument is as old as Cain and Abel, the former who offered fruit from the ground, the latter, animal sacrifices (Gen 4:2–5). While God’s motive is not specified in the text, Cain’s offering was rejected, but Abel’s was received. The requirement of a blood sacrifice to propitiate God finds its roots here.

26

Chapter 2

discussion surrounding violence in the atonement is complex and the literature copious. Girard posited what has come to be known as a “scapegoat mechanism” where violent rivalries arise not out of wanting the same things but out of imitating the covetousness in others. Violence grows exponentially until it is appeased through a scapegoat that brings peace, a scapegoat that is venerated as a sacred peacemaking victim. 61 Debate continues whether atonement themes are rooted only in a JudeoChristian context or were also present in the Gentile world. Atonement has been considered distinctively Judeo-Christian as an act of divine, not human, initiative. McGrath offers a historical overview of the themes related to atonement and justification. In his discussion of justification in the second half of the 20th century in the fallout of discussion of the new perspective on Paul, he observes: “The ‘new perspective on Paul’ has reinforced a growing perception that systematic theology has lost its moorings in the Bible, and prefers to conduct its disputes with reference to systematic theologians of the past, rather than by direct engagement with biblical texts.” 62 Baker and Green agree that our atonement views derive less from exegesis of the Scriptures, but add that rather than finding their source in 61. For further study, see René Girard, Violence and the Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977); René Girard, Jean-Michel Oughourlian, and Guy Lefort, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, trans. S. Bann and M. Metteer (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987); Ann W. Astell and Sandor Goodhart, eds., Sacrifice, Scripture, and Substitution: Readings in Ancient Judaism and Christianity, CJA 18 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011). J. Denny Weaver (The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001]) offers a “narrative Christus Victor” view. Robert J. Daly (“Images of God and the Imitation of God: Problems with Atonement,” TS 68 [2007]: 36–51) argues from Girard’s hypothesis that those who call themselves Christians but see God as violent will themselves condone violence, which Daly himself condemns. While criticizing this view of atonement, “Bad theology of the atonement leads to bad morality,” he admits, “I have left largely undeveloped, at least in this article, what good theology of the atonement might be” (p. 51). Thus, Daly’s critique appears to argue petitio principii, assuming in his premise that violence is immoral ipso facto without offering a positive objective counter. For an argument that God’s hospitality requires violence, see Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004). For a helpful discussion of views, see John Sanders, ed., Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006). For a conservative view that sees atonement as fundamentally reconciliation, see I. Howard Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (London: Paternoster, 2007). Jarvis Williams (“Violent Atonement in Romans: The Foundation of Paul’s Soteriology,” JETS 53 [2010]: 579–99) argues that “violent atonement is foundational to Paul’s soteriology” (p.  598). Contra Adriana Destro and Mauro Pesce (“Forgiveness of Sins without a Victim: Jesus and the Levitical Jubilee,” in Sacrifice in Religious Experience, ed. Albert I. Baumgarten, SHR 93 [Leiden: Brill, 2002], 151–73), who suggest a nonviolent Jesus who believed in forgiveness without death or blood and see these ideas as a later Christian addition. 62. Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 406–21.

The Semantics of Mortality

27

historical theology, they develop from the current Western cultural narrative. 63 Their book sustains that Christus Victor is the foremost application of the image of Christ’s crucifixion, not penal substitution. Their argument assumes that systemic evil and corporate justice take precedence and are overshadowed by Western values. My focus on Paul’s emphasis on personal death pushes penal substitution into a priority position when considering the doctrine of atonement. Death is personal and individual; Jesus’ death produced ulterior benefits, but its primary impact was on the sin/death question. Baker and Green propose that current atonement theories derive from uncritical postmodern perspectives of individualism, autobiographical justice, and autonomous humanity. 64 I will propose that death is the central problem God is addressing and that a link exists between current and first-century views that serve as the impetus for God’s atoning solution in Christ in response to the human plight. Atoning sacrifice is a mediating death between alienated parties and is recognized as such by both parties. The wrath of God diverted to his innocent Son, the Lamb of God, is a main if not the main point of his act. Jesus’ atoning act reconciles deity and humanity. Thus, the penal substitution view is my primary focus, with ulterior effects such as the defeat of Satan or healing from sin and its consequences. 65 Knox makes the succinct observation that “Paul can speak of Christ’s death as a ‘death to sin’ (that is, sin is overcome) or as a ‘death for sin’ (that is, sin is atoned for).” 66 The believer thus both receives the effect and participates in the atoning work of Christ. Current academic discussion on atonement includes accusations of child abuse within the image of filial sacrifice, whether and to what degree Jesus’ death is presented in the Gospels as atoning, and whether his death is truly atoning. Scholars debate the nature, need, means, and participation in atonement. 67 Our discussion on atonement sidesteps these conversations 63. Mark D. Baker and Joel B. Green, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 42. 64. Ibid., 45. 65. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), offers a contemporary comparison in the “four views” format of the Christus Victor view (atonement as Jesus overcoming Satan’s reign), a penal substitution view ( Jesus’ death reveals God’s holiness and love manifested as a solution for humankind’s sinful state), the healing view ( Jesus’ death as the Suffering Servant heals our sin and its painful consequences), and a “kaleidoscopic view” that argues that no one view should take precedence over the others, but all are equally important. See also J. B. Green, “Death of Christ,” DPL 201–9. 66. John Knox, The Death of Christ: The Cross in New Testament History and Faith (New York: Abingdon, 1958), 146. 67. For a great example of the controversy of filial sacrifice within evangelical circles, which raises the question among others why God would kill his own son, see Derek

28

Chapter 2

to focus on the factor that most pertains to Paul’s imitation of Christ’s death, that is, vicariousness.

Vicariousness: Substitution, Representation, Imitation Jesus’ death is typically characterized as “vicarious,” but the term is not well understood. A popular definition might be something such as “enjoying the benefits of another’s personal experience.” Within the context of vicarious death, the expression “dying in the place of ” is used, but this expression is insufficient and, for some, misleading. We need to understand vicariousness as expressing three different ideas: substitution, representation, and imitation. First, vicariousness as “dying in the place of ” can refer to substitution. Vicariousness as substitution is when someone changes places with another. One could ask how Jesus’ death substitutes for any individual’s death. How has Jesus’ death replaced our death? Everyone still dies. We are still mortal. 68 Part of the answer requires looking at different theological nuance and the courage to wade further into context and the semantic cluster­of nouns and adjectives for more clarity. Perhaps this view necessitates a definition of death that relates to spiritual, eternal death or death as a metaphor. 69 In a judicial context in which death is a penalty or consequence, the death of the one satisfies the legal requirement and serves to compensate an offended party; vicarious death results in the death of an innocent to release another from condemnation. This is fundamentally what lies behind the idea of atonement in Christian theology. Jesus died in the place of all humanity and as a consequence for not his but their sin. He paid the judicial penalty. The traditional theological definition refers very specifically to this substitutionary quality of Jesus’ death: he died in the place of those who merited death as a consequence for sin. 70 Tidball­, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker, eds., The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). 68. Of course, Paul adds the caveat that we will not all die. Those living at the apocalyptic return of Christ will be “caught up together with them [the resurrected dead] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thess 4:17). 69. This conversation would not be complete without also considering Paul’s controversial ὑπέρ formulations. According to Paul, did Jesus die in the place of, for the benefit of, or because of? Peter Lampe (“Human Sacrifice and Pauline Christology,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld, SHR 112 [Leiden: Brill, 2007], 199–203) discusses these possibilities with the argument that Paul views Jesus’ death from a noncultic, nonsacrificial perspective. 70. OED, “Vicarious,” 19:596, lists substitution as the first definition, penal substitution as the second definition, and ideas conveying representation as the third and fourth definitions but does not list anything resembling mimesis in its list of definitions. See also Versnel, “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death,” 226–27, which defines vicarious: “By vicarious or soteriological death I mean any deliberately sought or accepted death that is—or

The Semantics of Mortality

29

Expiation and propitiation are common terms associated in traditional discussions of substitutionary vicarious atonement. By dying in the place of sinful men condemned to die, he expiated sin, that is, he offered reparation for sin resulting in its being dismissed or cancelled, and propitiated God’s wrath through the offering of a gift creating the condition for reconciliation between God and humans. Expiation emphasizes the judicial aspect of sin and punitive consequence, a relationship deriving from the Creator/creation relationship; propitiation emphasizes reconciliation with an emphasis on relationship in light of God’s anger due to the breaking of covenant bonds. Jesus did this in the place of all humanity. Vicariousness as representation carries overtones of what I have covered­ when talking about martyrdom. Representative death is when one person dies in the place of one or more with the added overtone of group identification. The person dying is recognized as a representative of the many and sometimes dies to placate others who for various motives want the entire subgroup to die. The one death, therefore, can be symbolic. In a Roman context, devotio is when a leader of a conquered people offers himself in death as a way of demonstrating the defeat and subservience of his people. Finally, vicariousness can refer not only to substitution or representation but also to a mimetic initiative in which death inspires imitation. The one dying mimetically and vicariously does so to offer an example of how to face certain situations by choosing to die. The one act of death directs, inspires, and emboldens those who follow to take their own lives given similar situations. In vicarious death with a mimetic meaning, the benefits of someone’s death are appropriated through reenactment. The person in this sense who dies vicariously does so merely to mark the way for others to follow. Substitution in the sense that one death can be applied to another releasing others from the need for death is subdued or absent from this model. But Jesus’ death can fall under all three categories of vicariousness. We have already explained how Jesus’ death has been understood as substitutionary. Representative death is well illustrated by Jesus and the early martyrs. Martyrs represent the ideology of a minority group and so are said to die “vicariously,” that is, as a representative of every member of that group. Jesus was the ideal human whom God accepted as the representative for all humanity. He died representing all who align themselves with God and his intruding kingdom. His death was the model par excellence of one who is faithful to God in all things. Representation is tied to a traditional view of substitution in that Jesus died in the place of all sinful humanity. Representation is also closely tied to mimesis. As a representative, Jesus served as a model for others to follow. 71 is a posteriori interpreted as—both unconditionally required and explicitly intended to guarantee the salvation of another or others from present or impending doom or death.” 71. See Henry L. Novello, Death as Transformation: A Contemporary Theology of Death (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011), 63–70, for Novello’s discussion of a further category of

30

Chapter 2

The key difference between substitution and mimesis as a motive for death is whether the death of the representative renders obsolete the need for further death. Those who propose substitution claim that his death served forensically in place of the just death of humanity. His death was not for his own sin but for others’ and is efficacious for all. On a forensic level, it does not need to be repeated. 72 The benefits of Jesus’ death are appropriated passively by faith. On the other hand, those who propose a mimetic motive propose that death must be repeated in a manner similar to Jesus’ death. Jesus’ death requires an active response in order to reap the benefits of that death. Substitutionary death is the ultimate end for a need for death because it turns the favor of the opposing ideology. It defies any need for imitation pointing to the sufficiency of Jesus’ propitiatory work. Reconciliation through substitution is assured and permanent. Mimetic death, on the other hand, might be considered the first of many deaths to follow. It is not an end to dying for a cause but a beginning and a continuation. Representative death sometimes carries substitutionary characteristics when a death ends a need for further death such as the devotio or atoning sacrifices. At other times, it carries a mimetic sense and is best associated with martyrdom, not atonement. A mimetic position presents the martyr as both a representative and an example to imitate in order to appropriate benefits and accomplish a transcendent purpose. The hope of mimetic death lies in its appeal to inspire others. I mentioned Seeley earlier where he features “vicarious” prominently as one of five descriptors for noble death. He distances himself from a forensic context, insisting instead on the language of mimesis. Seeley argues that neither the Temple Cultus, the Suffering Servant, the Binding of Isaac, nor the mystery religions had a direct bearing on Paul’s thinking about the efficacy of Jesus’ death. Instead, examples of noble death in the Greco-Roman world and the death of the Maccabean martyrs demonstrate that vicariousness is mimetic. Cato’s suicide occurs in tandem with his reading of Socrates’ death, thus underscoring the mimetic and, for Seeley, vicarious character of Socrates’ death: “Cato dies along with Socrates, utilizing his example as an enabling, empowering pattern by which to gain freedom from Fortune. Cato’s suicide, performed in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time, renders him immune to Fortune’s efforts.” 73 Human predecessors who die voluntarily embolden Seneca and others to take their own lives at a time deemed appropriate and thus to defy Fortune and experience freedom from participation distinguishing Barth from Anselm. Also David Lauber, Barth, Atonement and the Christian Life, Barth Studies (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004), 20. 72. Paul will, of course, say that individual death is necessary as a precursor to resurrected life (1 Cor 15:35-58). The corruptible, mortal, and earthly dies like a seed and is resurrected incorruptible, immortal, and heavenly. 73. Seeley, Noble Death, 114–16.

The Semantics of Mortality

31

the fear and power of death. The Maccabean martyrs died as models to imitate for the righteous who are persecuted for their beliefs. Jesus died as a model to demonstrate how to die or to give courage to those facing a similar situation of coerced death. He himself told his disciples that if anyone wants to come after him, they must deny themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him. Through reenactment one benefits from Jesus’ noble death. His death is vicarious and benefits others as it is reenacted­. 74 While it is true that expiation is widely accepted as a result of Christ’s vicarious death, Seeley in his discussion of Greco-Roman culture and noble death argues that vicariousness can be understood as solely mimetic and not inherently substitutionary. Vicariousness does not semantically require expiation. 75 Wilson takes a contrary position, demonstrating that the mimetic deaths of Cato, Cicero, and Seneca and the farcical death of Pelegrinus (who catered to a following of naive Christians) far from truly imitating Socrates, used the guise of imitating him for self-aggrandizing and egotistical motives. 76 “Cato is like Socrates only in so far as he kills himself. . . . In all other respects, his death is not merely un-Socratic but anti-Socratic.” 77 Wilson cites Cicero to demonstrate the frivolity of killing oneself merely from the inspiration of Socrates’ death in Plato’s Phaedo. 78 Lucian mocks Pelegrinus, pointing out that “what he wants is not to die well, but to be seen to die well.” 79 A clear example of a representational vicarious death is the martyr Stephen. Stephen was a recognized leader of the Christian community and when confronted directly opposed the Jewish establishment with testimony that led to them stoning him. He died vicariously, not as a substitute for the budding church, but as a martyr and as the church’s representative. His death benefitted members of the church in that he died as the representative for the minority and their oppressed ideology. His death was efficacious in itself, but it also served as a model to imitate should anyone be tested by a similar trial. His death exhibited that it was worth dying for testimony of the new kingdom of God inaugurated by Christ’s death. The ultimate question was whether Stephen regarded Jesus’ death as atoning and, thus, substitutionary, or merely mimetic. Was he imitating Jesus to experience its effects, or was there some other motive, perhaps an understanding of Jesus’ death as uniquely atoning or an allegiance to the ideology of the budding church that motivated him to die voluntarily? We will consider this question in chaps. 7 and 8. 74. Ibid., 13–17, 143–50. 75. Ibid., 83–91. 76. Wilson, The Death of Socrates, 119–40. 77. Ibid., 123. 78. Ibid., 124. 79. Ibid., 140.

32

Chapter 2

Pate and Kennard further extrapolate from Seeley’s discussion of vicarious martyrdom and coin a new expression, “mimetic atonement.” 80 We have already separated the terms noble death, martyrdom, and atonement. Pate and Kennard’s adoption of “mimetic atonement” obscures the uniqueness of atoning sacrifice. While atoning sacrifices were repeated year after year under Moses’ direction, and dying for others or an ideology is frequently and universally attested, atonement itself was not and cannot be imitated. 81 Orthodox Christian doctrine claims that nothing can be added to Jesus’ final atoning sacrifice, nor can it be repeated (Heb 10:10-18). Imitation does not procure atonement; atonement and mimesis ultimately do not mix. Mimesis must be linked with noble death or martyrdom (so Seeley), but care must be given when linking mimesis with atonement. Socrates’ death was mimetic in that, inferring from his action and testimony, consistent adherence to his ideology would lead to a similar decision. It was not, however, substitutionary or atoning. Socrates’ death was not vicarious in this sense. 82 Jesus both died for humanity and urged his disciples that coming after him requires them likewise to “take up their cross.” His death, therefore, was uniquely vicarious and substitutionary, but the question remains what benefits are added through mimesis. Christ’s death was a noble death, a martyrdom, and an atoning sacrifice. According to Paul, Jesus’ death was substitutionary, representational, and mimetic. He was offered as a substitute for the sinful human race alienated from God. He died as a representative of those awaiting God’s deliverance from religious and political oppression. He also died as an example for his disciples to follow. Paul will take up the idea of mimesis both metaphorically and literally. Mimetic death, however, is best categorized with noble death and martyrdom rather than atoning sacrifice to preserve the unique theological meaning of substitutionary atonement. Representative death can be understood as either mimetic or substitutionary. In comparison with every other death in human history, however, Jesus’ death is uniquely substitutionary. His death is both expiatory, removing sin and its consequence, and propitiatory: his death pacified God’s judicial anger. One question in the literature is whether Jesus or his followers sought to die in the train of a previous construct. Was Jesus’ death itself an act of imitation and an attempt to fulfill some ideological expectation? Was 80. Pate and Kennard, Deliverance Now and Not Yet, 22–71. 81. OT sacrifices have no eschatological finality but had to be repeated every year and for the benefit of each generation (e.g., Exod 30:10). 82. But see Greenberg (“My Share of God’s Reward,” 59–60), who uses a mimetic sense of vicariousness in his discussion of “three primary constitutive elements” in his definition of martyrdom based on an effort to combine the death of the philosopher with what he refers to as “Jewish and Noble Death traditions”: (1) “a volitional, willing choice to die”; (2) “an intention or attitude of obedience to God, virtue or state—unto death”; and (3) “vicariousness, for the purpose of instructing humankind, the martyr exemplifying ideal human behavior for the tutelary benefit of others.”

The Semantics of Mortality

33

Figure 1.  Degrees of Virtue in Voluntary Death. he trying to be a martyr in the tradition of the Maccabean martyrs? Was he consciously trying to fulfill OT prophecy about the Messiah or Suffering Servant? How about Paul? Where does our discussion of substitution, representation, and mimesis bear on Paul’s views? Did he view his death as rooted in noble death, martyr theology or atonement? We will pursue answers to these questions in chaps. 7 and 10.

Virtue and Volition We now have base definitions for three types of voluntary death: noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. Noble death is general and inclusive and describes choosing to die for a good reason—I underscore altruism, honor, and heroism, which can imply mimesis. A martyr’s death is a form of noble death but has a narrower application. Martyrdom serves as a testimony to an ideology shared by a minority group within the theater of an oppressive and persecuting majority usually with the idea of ultimate vindication inherent in the act of dying at another’s hand. Atonement is a noble death and often a martyrdom, the value of which rests on its effects, particularly the effect of reparation for sin and thus reconciling deity and humanity. 83 In order to be inclusive we can add to these involuntary death, which is marked by a lack of transcendence and choice, the way that most people die. We can also add ignoble death, which is dying prematurely in disgrace­either by choice or as a consequence of a choice for a motive deemed by God or society as evil, cruel, or selfish. Are these forms of death completely distinct or do they overlap in meaning? Figure 1 considers an 83. A notable exception to atonement as noble death is Phinehas’s atoning act of slaying the adulterous couple that atoned for the nation (Num 25).

34

Chapter 2

ascending virtue in the form of concentric circles (with the addition of the broad topic of involuntary death and ignoble death, or death that lacks virtue). All five are found in Pauline literature or are represented within the nascent church’s story available to Paul in the book of Acts. Now that I have looked at three types of voluntary death and offered provisory definitions for them, I am prepared to define my thesis further. The ancients in the face of death thought about it in terms of their choice over fate or fortune. They recognized situations that merited choosing to die prematurely because circumstances warranted it. Dying for a good cause, dying to promote a good cause, and death, when it itself is a good cause, offer three reasons to choose to die. When Jesus was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before he was crucified, did he have in mind the consequence and hence the motive for his death? Did Paul have any of these values present when he talked about his death? Again, did they imitate a known construct? We are still in the preparatory stages to understand Paul’s view of his mortality and how it affected his theology and praxis. We must examine historical factors that bear on his worldview. In general categories these include, first, the greater Gentile or Greco-Roman world. Paul was both a Roman citizen and an apostle to the Gentiles. He would have developed his thinking and rhetoric within that milieu. More narrowly, Paul was a Jew, and not just a Jew, but a Pharisee. How did his Jewish background inform his understanding of mortality? The greatest impact of all on Paul was his Christian conversion. Debate continues today how much this was an outgrowth of Judaism, but his confrontation first with the nascent church and then with Christ himself and the Holy Spirit introduced radical new perspectives that affected his anticipation of death and his perspective of mortality. By considering how each of these worldviews looked at death in general and at voluntary death, we will have a better context to assess Paul’s frequent reference to death more accurately. In the following chapters, we survey the influences of the Gentiles, the Jews, Christ’s death, and the early Christian community, respectively, and their impact on Paul’s view of death and mortality.

Chapter 3

Mortality among the Gentiles Paul spoke of his own death in the context of ministry and often spoke of it positively. We have examined some positive expressions for voluntary premature death, specifically noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. Confusion and overlap exist in contemporary discussions of these terms so we have appealed for semantic precision in order to understand Paul’s motive and optimism better when it comes to his conversations about his death. We now turn to consider the worldviews that had a bearing on Paul’s thinking. Traditionally, academic conversation on Pauline background turns on cultural polarities such as Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian. The hyphenated terms “Greco-Roman” and “Judeo-Christian” underscore a historical and ideological linkage. For both paired cultures, the second group claims to supplant the first and in some sense fulfill their vision. Caution, however, must be exercised with their use. They represent polarities without strict boundaries. First-century Hellenism was shaped by Rome. Both Palestinian and Diaspora Jews were influenced by Hellenism and Rome. The minority Jewish and Christian groups had less impact on the Roman world, but nevertheless, in view of surviving literature and our discussion of Paul who identified with both groups, they naturally draw our focus. The parameters for Paul’s thought derived from Gentile, Jewish, and Christian worldviews, the latter of which we separate into two—the ministry of Jesus and the nascent church. The following chapters take the categories of voluntary death defined in chap. 2 and apply them to the cultural backgrounds of Paul’s world.

Paul as the Hub of Intersecting Worldviews Paul is the center or hub of many intersecting worldviews. 1 Paul was cosmopolitan. He was a Roman citizen, a Jewish Pharisee under Gamaliel, and a Christian apostle to the church in general, but specifically to the Gentiles. He came from an urban Roman colony, Tarsus, but was at home in rural settings. He began as a partisan and intolerant Jewish Pharisee. His conversion led him to the opposite extreme as the apostle to the Gentiles. He proved 1. Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 3: The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, ed. Bruce W. Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Pater­ noster, 1994), 71–112, contains a helpful historical analysis of Paul’s cultural background.

35

36

Chapter 3

adept at carrying the Christian message over cultural and social barriers. Economically, he claims to have lived at extremes of wealth and poverty. Luke shows him taking the gospel throughout Asia, introducing it to Europe, and sharing it with marked impact with people having a wide range of sophistication. 2 He had a broad ideological background and was adept at speaking to a diverse segment of people. Before conversion Paul had been a Jewish Pharisee and, from the NT record, a zealous activist within those ranks. 3 That was the subgroup with which he most closely identified himself and from which he had received the most influence. But that does not necessitate that this subgroup had the largest sway in Paul’s thinking when he writes about death, particularly in light of his conversion to the risen Christ. The circumstances of conversion, apostolic calling, and subsequent divine revelation promised violent opposition in the train of his new master. Debate continues today over to what degree Paul identified himself as a Pharisee after his conversion. The New Perspective seeks to link Jewish and Christian in Paul (that is, Paul maintained his identity as a Jew and Pharisee while his emphasis shifted to early church apostle), thus highlighting the shared values between the two polarities. Others want to maintain a clear before and after conversion distinctive. I maintain that Paul experienced a clear break from his former identity as a Pharisee when he converted to Christ but remained sympathetic to Jewish concerns both ethnically and politically. His main divergence was his conviction that religious rituals, particularly circumcision, corrupt the content of faith and experience with Christ, a story that clearly created hostility with his Pharisaic contemporaries. 4 After his conversion, his former Jewish allies felt betrayed and tried to kill him (Acts 9:23–25). In one instance, as a defendant in a Jewish court, he identifies himself with the party of the Pharisees (Acts 23:6), but in Phil 3:8 he repudiated the religious identification in which he once boasted. No one disputes that Paul’s formation in Christianity is a derivative of Jewish Scriptures, culture, and background. Both past-looking Christian history 2. He asserts that he is under obligation for the Gospel to the Greeks and the barbarians, the wise and the foolish (Rom 1:14). 3. James D. G. Dunn (The Theology of Paul the Apostle [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 350–54), argues that Paul was zealous for ancestral traditions that led him to oppose Hellenistic Jews violently. He converted out of viewing righteousness as covenant keeping and competitive Torah-keeping. “Paul voices consciousness of separation both of Judaism from the other nations and within Judaism from other Jews” (p. 350, emphasis his). Contra Tom Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2004), 188–92. 4. The literature on the new perspective is vast. Paul famously contended with believing Pharisees who were part of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 and Gal 1–2 about circumcision. Sanders and others relegate circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and food laws to being an issue of “getting in” versus “staying in” and maintain that the law remains in effect after one enters into covenant relationship with God and the community.

Mortality among the Gentiles

37

and future-looking eschatology see the nation of Israel in prominence. Paul is the chief advocate of this melding, or in his terms, “grafting” (Rom 11). Paul discussed mortality in conversations engaging themes such as resurrection, suffering, or martyrdom that are distinct from Judaism or unique to Christianity. Born in Tarsus, his roots would reflect the Diaspora Jew, but his story is grounded in the training in Judaism he received in Jerusalem. His nationalistic and political influences and values are debated. 5 Hafemann asserts that “Paul was clearly a Hellenistic Jew. Nevertheless, the fundamental issue still to be resolved in Pauline studies is the determination of the primary religious and theological context within which Paul’s thought is to be understood. This is the great watershed among students of Paul.” 6 Davies initiated the modern argument that Paul was most influenced by Judaism. 7 Meeks in his insightful essay traces the beginnings of a Hellenism/Judaism conflict in two directions. 8 First, a conflict had a historical basis when the Hasmoneans/Maccabees heroically opposed Antiochus IV Epiphanes. But the Hasmoneans themselves had Hellenistic influence: “The priestly state set up by the Hasmoneans when they succeeded, with Roman help, in freeing Jerusalem from direct Seleucid rule, was very like a typical Hellenistic microkingdom.” 9 Second, the critical work of F. C. Baur and the Tübingen School offered a model that juxtaposed these influences. 10 5. For a history of the Hellenism-Judaism debate, see especially Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, trans. John Bowden, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). 6. S. J. Hafemann, “Paul and His Interpreters,” DPL 678 (emphasis his). Martin Hengel (The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden, [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981], 2–4) poses the problem of how the interpretation of the Palestinian community of the Gospel events became such a strong presence in the “missionary literature,” including the Pauline corpus addressed to the Gentile community. 7. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). 8. Wayne A. Meeks, “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville, KY: West­ minster John Knox, 2001), 17–27. For other modern works that seek a moderating position that acknowledges complex social structures and integration, see Dale B. Martin, “Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 29–61; Philip S. Alexander, “Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical Categories,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 63– 80. Stanley K. Stowers (“Does Pauline Christianity Resemble a Hellenistic Philosophy?” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox] 2001), 81–102) argues that Judean religious communities had structural similarities to Hellenistic philosophies. 9. Meeks, “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity,” 18. 10. Ibid., 18–20.

38

Chapter 3

Meeks’s overview and summary is helpful because it exposes a problem of strategy and priority in our assumptions about Paul. Paul, a self-professed Hebrew and Pharisee, mixed cultures. He wrote only in Greek. He connected with people using sophisticated and original rhetorical strategy but incorporated Jewish interpretation and messages including apocalyptic scenarios in Jewish and Hellenistic communication. “He was, it seems, all these things at once.” 11 The influence of Hellenism on Palestine is pervasive (although the reverse, Judaism’s influence on Hellenism, is negligible) and the dividing lines for the most part untraceable. Porter adds to the discussion by offering a helpful compilation of texts in which Paul identifies himself as a Jew (e.g., Rom 11:1; 2 Cor 11:2; Phil 3:5–6). 12 He admits that Paul’s Greek and Roman roots are more difficult to substantiate and notes Paul’s writing in the Greek language, citing from the Greek Bible and his roots in Tarsus as demonstrating Greek influence, and makes reference to his Roman citizenship and facility with travel under the pax Romana. 13 “Paul, as a diaspora Jew, who had been born in Tarsus, was a person of diverse influences and experiences, including multiculturalism and multilingualism.” 14 Our use of Gentile refers to all non-Jews and might be seen as a racial slur for those outside the Abrahamic covenant. In Paul’s case, the Gentiles were the focus of his gospel ministry, and he above many others recognized the place of the nations in God’s overall salvific strategy. In traditional Pauline letters, the ἔθνος root is used 55 times to refer to non-Jews; Ἕλλην is used 13 times, 11 of these times as a distinct contrast with “Jew” (Ἰουδαῖος). Wright argues for the term pagans as a good term for non-Jews but recognizes that this term can have pejorative connotations. 15 Other ethnic groups, also Gentiles, bear mention in light of our discussion of the Hebrew Scriptures in chaps. 4 to 6. The Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians, as well as nations surrounding Palestine were often antagonists­to the Jews and seen as God’s enemies. The memory of these nations certainly affected Jewish sentiment about non-Jews, including the Romans. Paul as apostle to the Gentiles, found a focus among groups within the Roman Empire, those considered “Greco-Roman,” and that worldview is the main focus of this chapter. Paul, as a Roman citizen, born in Tarsus, educated in Greek, with a mission focused in the northern Mediterranean world would have integrated their views into his theology and gospel. Although Judaism had been the core of Paul’s belief, it is not incorrect to assume that his beliefs were developed within a much larger cultural milieu 11. Ibid., 27. 12. Stanley E. Porter, “Paul as Jew, Greek, and Roman: An Introduction,” in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 1–6. 13. Ibid., 2–4. 14. Ibid., 3. 15. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3: The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), xviii.

Mortality among the Gentiles

39

that included not just religious conservatism but wider influences including secular views, pagan religious influences, Greco-Roman philosophies, and political nationalism. When discussing the cultural influences of any ideology within Paul, a wide gamut of beliefs must be accounted for, examined and weighed.

Cultural Transition in the First Century The first century was a period of major cultural, religious, and political flux. Rome had overturned Jewish politics in the previous century. Hellenism was always a felt presence both in Palestine and among the Diaspora. The major first-century Judaism sociological groupings of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Zealots, and the Essenes were in a state of change as the political and religious environment shifted around them. 16 As we will see in chap. 6, none of these defining cultural identity markers necessarily excluded the others. Many were complementary and inclusive. Not all views contemporary to Paul would have had the same impact, but all probably had some bearing on his thinking. Not only were the world scene and Palestinian culture changing, but also Paul himself changed over his lifetime. Dodd suggested that Paul’s view of his own mortality altered over the span of his writing life. 17 Early on, he was optimistic that he would be alive at the Lord’s return and not die (1 Thess 4:17, ca. A.D. 51), and by 2 Corinthians (ca. A.D. 57) his sense of mortality awakened and an awareness of his death was vivid (2 Cor 1:8–11; 4:12; 5:1–4). 18 Paul led a major cultural shift that turned Jews from rejecting to embracing their Roman oppressors. As a Pharisee, Paul had shared a nationalistic view of exile and oppression by Rome. Foremost in the minds of most 16. We list four of the more frequently observed polarities within Judaism. For discussion and further groupings, see pp. 131–136 and Steve Mason, “Theologies and Sects, Jewish,” DNTB 1221–30; W. J. Heard and C. A. Evans, “Revolutionary Movements, Jewish,” DNTB 936–47; N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1: The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 167–279. 17. C. H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953), 67–128. Richard N. Longenecker, “Is There Development in Paul’s Resurrection Thought?” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, MNTS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 171–202, contains a very helpful analysis of several areas of controversy in Paul’s development and agrees that Paul shifts from expecting to be alive at the parousia to identifying with those who will die before the event. Contra Rainer Riesner (Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission, Strategy, Theology, trans. Doug Stott [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 383–93), who argues convincingly that 1 Thess 4:17 does not make nearly as specific a claim as is often perceived; that is, the tone of Paul’s message when he says “we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord” is not a formal lecture but a personal, timely encouragement. Paul or other Thessalonians might still die. Paul’s eschatological thought does not develop very much from 1 Thessalonians to 1 Corinthians. 18. Dodd, New Testament Studies, 109–13.

40

Chapter 3

Israelites in the first century was their relationship to Rome in light of the recent uprising and then suppression of the Hasmoneans in the previous centuries. They shared a long-standing nationalistic tradition that from their inception in Abraham they were a divinely blessed nation. Now many wondered whether and how they were heirs of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants and blessing and whether they were free from the deuteronomic curse. 19 The question seeps into modern historical and eschatological discussion. What is Israel? Defining choices revolve around categories of political and national allegiance, ethnicity and race, or religious or faith affiliation. Current soteriological categories seek to frame Israel with a deemphasis on boundary lines. Israel is thus absorbed within a broader category of “the people of God,” resulting in Christianity as a derivative and subset of Judaism. The counter position sees both groups as distinct, separate peoples both from the perspective of race, national identity, and belief that extends to the eschaton. Paul affirmed that his identity was both decidedly Christian, but he unrelentingly nests himself within Jewish identity markers (Rom 1:16; 9:3–4; 10:1; 11:1; Phil 3:5–6). Framing the answer to this question is not quickly forthcoming. Before his conversion, Paul shared a Jewish aspiration for a messianic deliverer who would restore Israel to a place of covenant blessing and national independence. When he met the risen Christ, his eschatology had to adjust. He became the apostle to those the Jewish political mind regarded as oppressors, the Gentiles, and worked to form the church, a new entity that within a generation of its inception moved to overcome ethnic boundaries. His vision for messianic deliverance turned from a focus on race, nationalism, and immediate resolve and found its fulfillment in the risen Christ, those united by a common faith, and in eschatology. The church’s Messiah fulfilled an unexpected eschatological mission of tearing down the ethnic walls of division (Eph 2:11–22). The oppressor was embraced. The new people of God were multiracial and Israel’s expectation of deliverance succumbed to a new paradigm. Spiritual deliverance took primacy within a new Kingdom of God, the identity of which Paul had an active hand in forming. Perhaps at first these questions seem to distract from our theme of Paul and his mortality. We will see, however, that the concept of meritorious death is experienced in a collective context. Merit in martyrdom is experienced from the hands of more powerful oppressors over a cohesive minority who through shared belief assign value to action. A sense of us/ them makes martyrdom meaningful. In many ways, Rome as the oppressor and common enemy united Israel, a people with a plurality of internal cultures and values in the first century. Paul’s upbringing was set with this 19. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). See also Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 260–62.

Mortality among the Gentiles

41

understanding of Israel’s national history. After his conversion and calling, his mission as “apostle to the Gentiles” would have motivated him to contextualize his message and work to be relevant in a Roman context, but his heritage whether he embraced or refuted it would always be that of a Jewish Pharisee. He was caught in a world of political and religious tension. Much academic work is being done on the background to Paul’s thought. My focus is on Paul’s view of his mortality, and so this discussion will center on the views and contribution of these various influences on death with a special eye to how they perceived voluntary death given the categories of noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice delineated in the previous chapter. My chapters on background intend to prevent imposing 21st-century values on Paul and to see how his conversation about death derived from his surrounding culture and ideas familiar to him. 20 Where we lack data or are not able to make concrete or specific linking from background material to Paul, we must guard ourselves against overreaching. Paul’s texts hold primacy over the influences we can mark from his surroundings, but background material offers the colors of the palette that Paul would use both to understand death and mortality and to communicate it to others. This conversation will of necessity be conjectural. We cannot with any sort of specificity or concreteness trace Paul’s thinking to only one influence or even with specificity to a conglomeration of influences, events, people, or groups. What I will attempt to do here is analyze cultures and ideas that were circulating around Paul in the first century and assert that Paul drew from this pool of ideas. When he wrote on death, he wrote to an audience likewise steeped in this convergence of cultures. My beginning place is the first-century Gentile influence on Paul. Paul would be aware of other Gentile viewpoints, but the dominant view is Greco-Roman. 21 Paul was a Roman citizen and grew up in a Roman colony, 20. Gene L. Green (“Relevance Theory and Biblical Interpretation,” in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, NTMo 11 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009], 217–40) explains and argues for Relevance Theory. “Relevance Theory offers a pragmatic model of communication which argues that the recovery of contextual information is essential for comprehension and that communication is largely an inferential process, not simply a matter of encoding and decoding” (p. 218). Communication goes beyond code; it is context dependent and finds itself within a cognitive environment. Relevance Theory seeks to determine the author’s intentions—it stands on the side of the author for meaning—within the shared context of author and reader. Correct interpretation is rooted in grasping ancient culture and context and must be distinguished from modern culture and context. 21. Paul may have had access to other views of the ANE world, for example, a cosmology of the world being created in and from water, or the Egyptian views of an afterlife displayed through their burial practices. However, their direct influence on his thinking or on the Jews or pagans of Asia Minor where he served was negligible.

42

Chapter 3

Tarsus. 22 He traveled throughout Asia Minor and Europe and as apostle to the Gentiles was versed in their worldviews. His experience took him to the philosophical heights of Athens where he debated Stoics and Epicureans (Acts 17:18), but we also find him in Lystra having to oppose the town priest who wanted to venerate Barnabas and him as gods (Acts 14:8–18). Paul was acquainted with the range of thinking of the highly cultured Greeks and unsophisticated barbarians (Rom 1:15) and his desire to interact with their worldviews served as part of the impetus for his own thinking and expression. My discussion will consider three aspects of Gentile thought: mythology, philosophy, and religion. I will conclude by asking questions about death and mortality and will apply the three categories of voluntary death to discern what value Paul would have understood was inherent in Gentile culture.

Epistemology, Gentiles, and Death How do we know anything about death and the afterlife? The scientific method has obvious limitations. 23 For example, studies in the last half of the 20th century in Western culture have pieced together the testimonies of a variety of witnesses who have all claimed to have had “near-death experiences”; that is, they have been resuscitated after having been declared clinically dead. Their stories share common elements: their souls leave their bodies, they often see a white light or go through a tunnel, or they have a tremendous sense of peace or feeling of unconditional love and sometimes encounter beings. 24 Many explanations are offered for these events, and they fascinate the public. For our purposes, these stories are anecdotal, but the best-selling books that talk about death demonstrate how interested we as a society are with death and what happens after one dies. Beyond scientific method, we seek consensus with thinkers in history. The ancients were no different from us when it comes to curiosity about 22. See Sean A. Adams, “Paul the Roman Citizen: Roman Citizenship in the Ancient World and Its Importance for Understanding Acts 22:22–29,” in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 309–26. 23. Sigmund Freud (An Infantile Neurosis and Other Works, trans. James Strachey, Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud 17 [London: Hogwarth, 1955], 241–42) comments on the tentativeness of our knowledge of death: “There is scarcely any other matter . . . upon which our thoughts and feelings have changed so little since the very earliest times, and in which discarded forms have been so completely preserved under a thin disguise, as our relation to death. Two things account for our conservatism: the strength of our original emotional reaction to death and the insufficiency of our scientific knowledge about it.” 24. James Mauro, “Bright Lights, Big Mystery,” Psychology Today 25 ( July 1992): 54– 57, 80–82; Bruce Greyson, “Near-Death Experiences and Spirituality,” Zygon 41 (2006): 393–414; Raymond A. Moody, Life after Life, and Reflections on Life after Life (Carmel, NY: Guideposts, 1977).

Mortality among the Gentiles

43

death. They thought about death, imagined what happened in the afterlife, and offered a variety of explanations derived from those who preceded them. According to Wright, development in thinking about death and the afterlife with its consequent implications for immortality occurred in quantum leaps. 25 The primary initial written record was established through the mythology of Homer. 26 The great Greek myths show interaction between immortal gods and mortal humans who in heroic gestures give up their lives for virtuous causes. Several centuries later, philosopher Socrates introduced a new perspective of life and death. His soul longed to be released from the prison of his body, and he chose to drink hemlock and die rather than face banishment. His story as told by Plato advanced ideas about life, death, and mortality and became paradigmatic for discussion within various schools of philosophy. By the first century, a broad base of imaginative thinking was in place and finds a foothold in philosophical and religious practices. The Greeks were nothing if they were not religious. 27 Drawn from their mythology, hundreds of gods dotted their landscape, both literally and figuratively. Besides the popular worship of gods were other religious expressions such as magic and the mystery religions. The many gods served a unique and interesting function, and Greek religion sometimes responded to questions of life’s meaning and offered transcendent answers to the most concrete and earthy questions such as what happens when you die and where the dead are. Our journey will take us in chronological progression from mythology through philosophy to religion and the role of gods in the beliefs and praxis of the Gentile as he or she confronted life as a mortal. These ideas 25. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 32–84. 26. For prehistoric Greek death, see T. W. Jacobsen and Tracey Cullen, “A Consideration of Mortuary Practices in Neolithic Greece: Burials from Franchthi Cave,” in Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death. Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, in June 1980, ed. S. C. Humphreys and Helen King, Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects (London: Academic Press, 1981), 79–101. I focus on Greek culture here for its influence in the stream of knowledge more directly accessible to Paul. For a general analysis of death among the Mesopotamian gods and, in particular, the observation that when Mesopotamian warriors conquered and killed, they cut off genitalia of men and ripped out embryos of pregnant women to prevent biological continuity after death, see Elena Cassin, “The Death of the Gods,” in Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death. Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, in June 1980, ed. S. C. Humphreys and Helen King, trans. S. C. Humphreys, Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects (London: Academic Press, 1981), 317–25. 27. In Acts 17:16–34, Paul is disturbed by the numbers of idols when he comes to Athens and preaches in the Aereopagus proclaiming the God of Christianity as “the unknown god” (Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ) an inscription he had seen on an altar (v. 23). He talks to a variety of Athenians including nonreligious atheistic Epicureans and Stoics (v. 18).

44

Chapter 3

of mythology­, philosophy, and religion, rooted in a civilization that existed more than 3,000 years ago, still have weight in the academy today. Death and Mortality in Mythology Who are we? How did we get here? How do natural forces work? How do we relate to each other and our world? Men and women have asked these questions from the beginning of recorded history. Attempts at answers appear on cave walls and in the earliest writings. Mythology is one of the earliest recorded genres that sought to describe and make sense of the world. 28 As Zimmerman says, “Ineradicably associated with mythology are the three cardinal principles that have actuated humanity through the ages: man’s effort to account for his existence, his endeavor to explain the world in which he lives, and his belief in a place of reward and a place of punishment.” 29 The majority of Western civilization traces the root and structure of its thinking to the ancient Greeks and their earliest stories within the literary expressions of mythology. Mythology consists of stories and legends, typically fantastic, of superhuman beings, human heroes, gods, and common folk acting vividly within different narratives to help explain the world as well as entertain. 30 Their stories seek to respond to the big questions of creation, pain, love, meaning, beauty, and, of course, death and the afterlife. Their images are powerful because they are able to depict in allegorical form the basic forces that impinge on human existence. They respond to the ultimate questions, the confounding realities that plague men and women in the relatively short lifespan spent on earth. They describe the world in archetypical form and, because they are rudimentary and primary, offer timeless perspective of forces at work in our world. These primitive stories are paradigmatic and, 28. Most literate cultures have mythologies. Typically mythology is understood as an invented or legendary story. In higher criticism, the term refers to a pictorial representation of an abstract truth and legend, a historical account used for didactic purposes. See Jean-Pierre Vernant, “Greek Religion [First Edition],” ER 6:3659–63, for a discussion of the problem of determining the religion of the Greeks from the poets, that is, whether they should be regarded more as religious or literary documents. He shows how mythological criticism in the first half of the 20th century shifted to perceive the Greek poets as more literary and to see religion as occurring in local ritual, liturgy, and festivals. To call Jewish religious texts (for example, the OT) mythology (save when it is a clear genre of storytelling within the text) can be a misnomer unless clear from the genre that it is invented. The OT presents itself as divine revelation. 29. J. E. Zimmerman, Dictionary of Classical Mythology (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), xvii. 30. Mythology is the legacy of most all ancient cultures and frequently their stories share similar plotlines and themes. For examples, see Yves Boonefoy, ed., Mythologies, trans. Gerald Honigsblum et al., A Restructured Translation of Dictionaire des mythologies et des religions des sociétés traditionnelles et du monde antique, 2 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991); Richard Cavendish and Trevor O. Ling, eds., Mythology: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (London: Orbis, 1980).

Mortality among the Gentiles

45

because of their transcendent nature, have bled into surrounding cultures and endure to our day. The subject of death and mortality is a prominent theme within mythological stories. 31 Death as a phenomenon is a powerful event and is fertile ground for dramatic scenes of heroism and cowardice, courage and fear, loyalty and betrayal. The gods were immortal and so experienced life without a terminus; the mortal humans were thus, by comparison, vulnerable. In contraposition to the daily reality of the common Greek, the gods provided a personification of immortality. Being a god did not require any kind of moral distinction; when considering Greek mythology, we need to be careful not to impose morality on eschatology. In fact, the gods’ interactions with humans were often capricious and served merely for their entertainment frequently at the mortals’ expense. No link exists between good or virtuous belief or behavior and reward or punishment. The missing link between morality and immortality will be made only beginning with Socrates. The world of mythology is a cause-and-effect universe in which fate rules all, including the gods. The philosophers pick up on this and probe, challenge, and reason whether a virtue in this life has merit for the next. 32 Heroes, mortal men and women, defy the gods and face corporeal punishment. In the interplay between the immortal gods and mortal humans, mortality is portrayed as part of humankind’s tragic condition but also lends weight to the core values of the heroes. What would they die for? This must be really important. Could they anticipate anything positive through death that would make premature death attractive? Apotheosis, the belief that humans could achieve divinity, may have motivated heroic acts, but this idea became popular late in Greek thought. Apotheosis was more a human recognition, a veneration of virtuous men and women. 33 Humans did 31. Anthony S. Mercatante (The Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, ed. James R. Dow, 2nd ed. [New York: Facts on File, 2004], 1:x), on the subject of myth formation mentions that mythologies (and, in context, universal world mythologies) have in common that “evil, disorder, and chaos come from the outside. In the past and today, in spite of all scientific knowledge to the contrary, we still do not want to believe that evil is inherent to the human condition. . . . It is almost always an evil god or goddess, a disorderly figure, or something other than our own human condition that brings on all of the bad things that happen to us.” 32. Robert Garland, The Greek Way of Death (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 13–20. 33. By contrast, the NT portrays Jesus as the “Emmanuel,” God with us. The God of the Bible takes offense at any man that would claim to be God or allow those claims to be made about him save Jesus, God incarnate (Acts 12:20–24). Peter recognized this when he rebuked Cornelius, who mistakenly fell at his feet to worship him (Acts 10:25–26). Paul and Barnabas, when they recognized that the Lycaonians were about to worship them as the Greek gods, Zeus and Hermes, pleaded with the people to recognize the true creator God (Acts 14:11–18).

46

Chapter 3

not die to become divine; they were typically recognized for their divinity postmortem. 34 No hope existed of a return to an afterlife on this earth. 35 Wright, with a limited quest to find ideas of bodily resurrection in Homer, the chief representative of Greek mythology, is absolute. He says, “And in so far as Homer has anything to say about resurrection, he is quite blunt: it doesn’t happen.” 36 Hades was a one-way street. No one came back to tell you what happened after you die. 37 Granted, Wright is looking for evidence specifically of bodily resurrection—there are other examples of the afterlife in Greek mythology—but his conclusion is bleak. 38 Homer did not allow for any concept that the dead return bodily to this life. Ancient Greece had no belief in bodily resurrection and before the age of the philosophers inaugurated by Socrates, no sense of “life after ‘life after death,’” as Wright likes to refer to it, that is, no intermediate state waiting for judgment ushering into a life initiated by bodily resurrection. The final truly significant question is whether the vision of the afterlife has a bearing on how mortal life is lived this side of death. Life for Homer and his adherents was very much focused on this side of the veil. Life was bodily, corporeal. How did this view of death and afterlife affect the human view of mortality, that is, of facing death? Mythological heroes gave their lives in a variety of venues: tragic battles, divinely ordained sacrifices, sometimes misguided acts of vengeance, and willful surrender to transcendent ideology. Their tragedy was often magnified by the absence of meaning of life beyond this life. Nevertheless, the literature is littered with examples in which men and women gave their lives, died for others, for country or for ideological reasons, and died noble deaths. As we survey the mythology, then philosophy, and religion largely rooted in the mythology, our focus is on the forward tra34. Receiving apotheosis while alive did not imply that the god-man would not die. The soul, not the body, was considered his essence. Peter G. Bolt, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, MNTS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 73. 35. Contra Stanley E. Porter, “Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament,” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, John H. Hayes, and David Tombs, JSNTSup 186 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 69. 36. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 32. 37. Garland, The Greek Way of Death, 1–2. Homeric dead have no strength or faculties and are ignorant of worldly affairs. The chasm between death and life impeded communication either way. 38. Jan Maarten Bremer (“Death and Immortality in Some Greek Poems,” in Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and ArabicIslamic world, ed. J. M. Bremer, T. P. J. van den Hout, and R. Peters [Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994], 122) concludes that “the Greeks in various poems spoke with very different voices about ‘after death’: black nothingness or radiant immortality being the two extremes. Neither they nor we can prove the truth of one of the two voices.”

Mortality among the Gentiles

47

jectory. How did their views of mortality morph and develop as we come to the first century? What influence did they ultimately have on Paul’s world? What were the primitive motives and values surrounding premature voluntary death, and how do they fit into our previous discussion of noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice? Mythology, too, is only the literary expression of a worldview. Do the values conveyed in myth correspond with popular belief? Mythological heroes chose to die, but was this a value that was entertained or practiced by the common person? We cannot tell definitively. While recognizing the difficulty in accurately collecting and analyzing data, the average life expectancy in the Greco-Roman world was only 20 to 25 years, and half the children did not make it to age 10. If one survived childhood, a realistic life expectancy was 40 to 50 years of age, although some lived into their 60s and 70s and beyond. 39 Bolt argues that there was a general hopelessness in the face of death. With death so prevalent, fear of death was probably pervasive. 40 Death was a theme of many ancient poets. 41 Garland throws in a caution that the manner in which one lived in this life did not serve to create concern about the afterlife. “There is little evidence to support the claim that the majority of Greeks spent their declining years consumed with guilty foreboding at the prospect of making a reckoning in the hereafter”; 42 and later, “Death in Homer is the consequence of, rather than the punishment for reckless behaviour—and any divine intervention is explicitly ruled out.” 43 A connection between living morally and a long life was not explicitly felt. Many noble deaths particularly in war did not have a specific overtone in mythology or a distinct philosophy or religion for that matter. They were noble deaths, deaths for a noble purpose and voluntary sacrifice for others, but no overt mention of ideological motive besides expediency and a general acknowledgment of a worldview that values volunteer death for others are given. An example among many is Otho the second emperor in the year of the four emperors that followed the death of Nero. Otho became emperor through a coup d’état against Galba. After only three months, Vitellius came from the north and threatened a civil war. Otho recognizes the 39. See Valerie M. Hope, Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 2007), 9–10, both for statistical observations and first-century selections that illustrate the impact of infant death on the culture, particularly the children of the poor. 40. Bolt, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife,” 52. The theme of Bolt’s essay is that the hopeless setting of the Greco-Roman world in the face of death provided the ideal backdrop for the entry of the gospel that offered resurrection hope. Bolt lists Roman violence, magic, and illness as elements that could cause unpredictable death. 41. E.g., “To die is but a debt that all men owe” (Euripides Alc. 419). 42. Garland, The Greek Way of Death, 17. 43. Ibid., 60. Reward or punishment is determined not because one committed moral offenses, but on the basis of whether one had insulted the dignity of the gods or had a good connection with a god.

48

Chapter 3

gods’ choice of Vitellius and to avert civil war chose to commit suicide. “Let Vitellius be victor, since this has pleased the gods; and let the lives of his soldiers also be spared, since this pleases me. Surely it is far better and far more just that one should perish for all than many for one.” 44 According to Cassius Dio, his noble death reversed the disgrace of how he had gained the throne. 45 So mythology offers no distinct hope for the future but shows examples of exemplary figures that live and die in dramatic and heroic fashion. In their stories, a cosmology is developed where dying for noble reasons is regarded with esteem. Death, however, is always a tragedy. Achilles mourns the loss of his friend Patroclus in battle and vows to avenge his death even though in doing so he loses his life (Homer, Il. 18.77–125). Later Odysseus travels to Hades and talks to the mighty warrior and Greek hero Achilles and tries to cheer him—he is a mighty ruler among the dead and should be happy. Achilles replies that he would rather be the servant of a pauper than rule over all the dead who have perished (Homer, Od. 11.477–96). Death and Mortality in Philosophy Greek mythology sees death as a one-way and dead-end street. The dead are silent. Homer’s depictions do speak of Hades but cannot speak with any authority or experience about what lies after death. Death has a this-world perspective with fame as the ultimate legacy that one can leave behind by dying heroically. The general picture is bleak. Everyone in Greek society save the philosophers sees death as a great evil (Plato, Crito 48c; Phaed. 68d). Socrates, however, offers new hope. Socrates, through the writings of Plato, moves the line of imagination about the essence of life and possibilities about the afterlife far forward. 46 The influence of Plato’s writings to change the direction of popular thinking cannot be overestimated. Wright, when speaking of the influential writings of the Gentile world, says, “In so far as the ancient non-Jewish world had a Bible, its Old Testament was Homer,” and later adds, “If Homer functioned as the Old Testament for the Hellenistic world—which by the first century included the entire Middle East—its New Testament was unquestionably Plato.” 47 Socrates draws from the rich literary cultural background 44. Cassius Deo 64.13–15. Caiaphas echoes this reasoning when he argued for Jesus’ death in John 11:49–50: “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” 45. Cassius Deo 64.15. See Henk S. Versnel, “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death: The Pagan Contribution,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, WUNT 181 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 244–53, for his comments on how the events surrounding Otho’s death illustrate devotio pro principe, the conviction that the salvation of the state is linked to the well-being of the emperor. Many of Otho’s soldiers took their lives in devotio for the emperor after his death. 46. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 48. 47. Ibid., 32, 47–48.

Mortality among the Gentiles

49

of Homer’s narratives, but he takes the conversation in a totally different direction. Socrates introduced various novel ideas into civilization and literature, but outstanding among them include forms and the ideal. A corollary of this view is a new sense of human identity. Socrates introduced a body/soul dichotomy and shifted the essence of identity, the core of a person, from the physical, material body to the immaterial soul. The body he viewed as a prison, a confining shell that chained the soul, which he saw as immortal and needing to be freed through death. At his death, his friends grieved his choice to die prematurely; he could encourage them only to be happy for him. He was finally going to be released (Plato, Phaed. 80–85). Because he viewed the body as a prison, he looked forward to noncorporeal immortality and for his soul to be released through death. A new perspective of the afterlife was a natural development of Socrates’ teaching of the soul and death. Homer had offered no hope for knowing anything about those who had died (and they could know little about us), but Socrates painted a picture of the afterlife that included reward and punishment according to how virtuous a person lived his or her life before death. While not all Greek gods were necessarily interested in human behavior, Socrates envisioned three judges who would determine the value of one’s life after one died and reward or punish accordingly. 48 The virtuous go to the Islands of the Blessed, where truth and justice rule, and the wicked go to Tartarus (Plato, Phaed. 63b; 69d–e; 113d-114c; Gorg. 522d–526d; Hesiod, Works 166–73; Plato, Rep. 2.363c–e; Homer, Hymns to Demeter 480f ). The afterlife is more desirable than life here. “The reason people do not return from Hades is that life is so good there; they want to stay, rather than return to the world of space, time and matter.” 49 Regarding death and mortality, Socrates influenced Plato and, through him, Greek culture and us by suggesting that we should welcome death, not regret it. Matter, space, and time are secondary to the forms and ideas and the immortal soul. On a political level, good citizenship, military service, and duty, all that might lead to sacrifice, are founded on the unseen life of the soul. Future judgment made virtue all the more appealing. Socrates’ final apologetic for death was his own end. 50 He had the choice to live in exile or drink hemlock and commit suicide. With his friends surrounding him, he drank the poison and died in their presence, a death that lives in infamy (Plato, Phaed.117–18). His friends at the time urged him not to die. Was his a noble death? Was it martyrdom? His death was exceptional and pivotal for Greek culture. The legacy of his death stretches into our day. As we will discuss in greater detail below, to define noble death as distinct from martyrdom, in which one’s life is taken by another, as I have done in 48. Ibid., 49–50. 49. Ibid., 49. Plato Cratyl. 403d–404a. 50. Ibid., 51.

50

Chapter 3

chap. 2, and thus to classify Socrates’ death as noble death is a more accurate appraisal. Following in the train of Plato, philosophies adhere to or react against this concept of the soul and afterlife, but among the Gentiles he introduced the ideological possibility that death is not the end and that what our souls do in our bodies here has some bearing on an afterlife. 51 Thus, death energizes some, such as Socrates, to live better lives and embrace their mortality with a resigned acceptance or even anticipation of death. Again, noble death does not lean on an afterlife for its own justification. By the first century, there were several philosophies that did not believe in an afterlife and so tried to develop a way of life in accordance with present observable realities. The two dominant philosophies that grew seemingly out of their own polarization were Stoicism and Epicureanism. 52 Epicureanism believed that the soul was material and so at death disintegrated with the body, that there was no afterlife, and so the best way to live was to live for today. “The ‘gospel’ of Epicurus is that there is no life after death, consequently no punishment or suffering after death, so the best we can do is to concentrate on making our present life as happy as possible. Epicurus was both a psychological and ethical hedonist.” 53 The Stoics put an emphasis on reason and natural law. They integrated logic, physics, and ethics and believed in rigid determinism in a purely materialistic universe. They did not regard pleasure as innately good and taught that detachment from life and possessions was healthy, but likewise, with their materialistic understanding, they denied existence in the afterlife. 54 Leading Stoics advocated suicide “when circumstances (chronic illness, external pressure, etc.) prevent one from continuing to live as a wise person.” 55 Paul met philosophers from both camps while in Athens and certainly engaged them in conversation as he preached about his God as the “Unknown God” (Acts 17:18). A final consideration should be made for the practical realities of martial valor and heroic death. While the literature lays evidence for a search for transcendent meaning and religious or philosophical justification in premature voluntary death, a secular understanding of death particularly related to wartime death shows up in the literature. Jacob Wright points out 51. See Ben C. Blackwell, “Immortal Glory and the Problem of Death in Romans 3.23,” JSNT 32 (2010): 304, where he demonstrates how Paul’s use of glory language specifically addresses honor and incorruption. Sin relegates to dishonor and mortality; God’s salvific purpose addresses the Roman value and reassigns honor and incorruptibility to the individual. “Paul calls the Romans from an anthropocentric quest to a theocentric, or rather christocentric, quest for glory” (p. 304, emphasis his). 52. J. C. A. Gaskin, “Epicureanism,” OCP 239. See also Acts 17:18. 53. Anthony Preus, Historical Dictionary of Ancient Greek Philosophy, Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements 78 (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2007), 105. 54. Ibid., 250. 55. Magris, “Stoicism,” ER 13:8740.

Mortality among the Gentiles

51

that procreation, martial valor, and heroic death are ways in which men in particular sought to achieve “immortality,” or rather, a name that extended beyond death. 56 Death and Mortality in Gentile Religion To separate Greek religion from Greek mythology is perhaps a faux pas, because they are intricately linked, but what I have in mind is not so much the beliefs and myths derived from the literature but the beliefs and praxis of the common person in Paul’s world of the first century. This includes the worship of regional and national gods derived from the mythology but also the mysteries on which we have few data. The ancient myths and religions legitimately can be set apart from the philosophical schools beginning with Socrates (ca. 5th century B.C.), who used mythology to bridge into new understandings of truth and praxis. While Socrates opened the door among the philosophical schools to debate the reality of the immortality of the soul and the prospects of existence after death, Gentile religions were late in developing eschatology. “It is assumed that to be human is to be mortal and that immortality belonged only to the gods.” 57 The gods were distant and disinterested. They abandoned the dying (Euripides Alc. 22–23). “Like older Judaism, but unlike medieval Christianity and Islam, Greek life was decidedly directed at this life, not that of the hereafter. In fact, the early Greeks had hardly developed a view of the afterlife.” 58 Religious expression, likewise, had a this-worldly appeal. My interest in this subject lies particularly in sacrifice rituals and whether death itself acquired any merit or benefit for the living or the dead. Perhaps linked to a disinterest in eschatology and in contrast to monotheistic Judaism or Christianity, Greek sacrifice had a temporal motive, and so themes of expiation have a tone decidedly different from those within Judaism or those in Paul’s gospel. 59 Motives for Greek sacrifice included thanksgiving, appeasing an angry god, or requesting a favor (for example, military victory, 56. Jacob L. Wright, “Making a Name for Oneself: Martial Valor, Heroic Death, and Procreation in the Hebrew Bible,” JSOT 36 (2011): 131–62. In contrast to their warring neighbors, personal boasting in Jewish wartime death as reflected in OT writings was less prevalent because the Jews viewed themselves collectively as a group. By contrast, the values in Western Asian and Eastern Mediterranean peoples, led them to distinguish themselves in valuing heroic death as a means for acquiring individual fame. For Jews, procreation took greater prominence as a means of establishing a legacy. Candida R. Moss (Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions, AYBRL [New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2012], 27–29) adds that dying a good, premature, and voluntary death was paired with self-control and virtue and so was regarded as distinctively masculine. 57. Bolt, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife,” 61. 58. Jan N. Bremmer, “Greek Religion [Further Considerations],” ER 6:3678. 59. H. S. Versnel (“Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen über die Herkunft von aspekten des ‘Effective Death,’” in Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie, ed. J. W.

52

Chapter 3

a fruitful harvest, or fertility), and sacrifice occurred within religious festivals. 60 While they used sacrifice to avert the displeasure of the gods or to please or appease the gods so that they would receive temporal favor, atoning sacrifices with an eye to eschatological redemption were not part of their experience. An insulted divinity can require the sacrifice of a person close to the offender, but “it is up to the divinity to claim the sacrifice or to replace it in the last moment by an animal sacrifice.” Appeasing a god’s anger had not reconciliation as its goal but temporal blessing or averting a curse. 61 I have mentioned that first-century culture included apotheosis, the act of conferring on a mortal the status of deity. 62 A person with outstanding qualities would receive posthumously an official cult of worship. Those who died noble deaths as heroes were often but not necessarily accorded this status. Even those living could be consigned divine status. This viewpoint was linked to the belief in the immortality of the soul, not the body—many of those given apotheosis were long dead—and to the belief that the soul ascended to the stars after dying. 63 Romans consecrated their emperors beginning in the early first century A.D. with Caesar Augustus. Paul was surely aware of this. Apotheosis can be witnessed in the book of Acts where the crowd tries to deify Herod Agrippa I, leading God to strike him dead (Acts 12:20–24). Probably not an act of apotheosis, but something that reveals how common folk could view mere mortals, in Lystra the priests called Paul and Barnabas “Hermes” and “Zeus,” respectively. Paul and Barnabas had to protest loudly to keep from being worshiped (Acts 14:8–18). Regarding the mysteries and the afterlife, in his Hymn to Demeter (ca. 7th century B.C.), Homer says, “Happy is he among men upon earth who has seen these mysteries; but he who is uninitiate and who has no part in them, never has lot of like good things once he is dead, down in the darkness and gloom” (Homer, Hymns to Demeter 480). Being initiated is the key to a blessed afterlife. In reference to moral requirements that would benefit in the afterlife, Garland comments, “Nothing is said of the merits of good conduct. . . . while it is possible that the absence of reference in surviving texts to any moral requirements may be due simply to the accident of survival, this seems unlikely.” 64 Ritual was administered by local priests but had universal traits that revealed general belief. 65 Orphism was a religion/ van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. van der Klaauw, StPB 38 [Leiden: Brill, 1989], 182–85) asserts that substitution does not originate in these Greek texts. 60. Joseph Henninger, “Sacrifice [First Edition],” ER 12:8001. 61. See Gabriele Weiler, “Human Sacrifice in Greek Culture,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld, SHR 112 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 40–42. 62. Robert Turcan and Chiara Ombretta Tommasi, “Apotheosis,” ER 1:437–40. 63. See Bolt, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife,” 73. 64. Garland, The Greek Way of Death, 61. 65. Stowers (“Pauline Christianity,” 101–2) suggests that Christianity was a religion that also depended on expert interpreters similar to the pagans.

Mortality among the Gentiles

53

philosophy that had both sacred books and priests that advocated a lifestyle of purification, a vegetarian diet, and formulas for this life and salvation in the next. They spent time preparing for the destiny of the soul after death. “By purifying himself of the ancestral offense by performing rites and observing the Orphic way of life, by abstaining from all meat to avoid the impurity of the blood sacrifice . . . each man, having kept within himself a particle of Dionysos, can return to the lost unity, join the god, and find a Golden Age type of life in the hereafter.” 66 The data for the Eleusinian Mysteries is scarce. Other mysteries existed, but none advocated a belief that would encourage premature death as a means of enhancing one’s own or another’s status in the life to come.

Mortality from a Gentile Mindset We now turn to answer the fundamental question of the last chapter. Without a vision of an afterlife and any sense of eternal repercussion or transcendent justice and in a polytheistic culture, what temporal benefit motivated men and women to die voluntarily? How did Gentiles with a Hellenistic worldview understand noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice? The answer will become especially important as we talk about Jesus’ and Paul’s death. The question raised is whether voluntary premature death imitates a known social construct and, if so, which. Foregoing the discussion of mimetic death until chaps. 7 and 10, we need to lay our ideological understanding, to which we will later refer. Our first consideration is how the Gentiles understood noble death. According to Wright, whose thesis is to trace the origins of the idea of bodily resurrection and not to identify other values of voluntary death, “The only real immortality, many decided, was fame.” 67 And the enduring quality of fame that would outlast the benefits of earthly life had a certain appeal. Garland confirms this when he says, “Faced with a choice between dying on the battlefield and achieving deathless fame . . . or alternatively surviving to inglorious old age, the Homeric hero was in no doubt as to which fate was preferable—and no Greek would have pitied him for having died an aôros [someone who has an untimely death in his prime].” 68 In the last chapter, I explained that salvaging honor through certain self-inflicted death lacks altruism that could potentially disqualify it from 66. Vernant, “Greek Religion,” 6:3674. 67. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 34. See also Homer, Il. 9.413; Polybius, Hist. 6.53.9–54.3. Walter Burkert (Greek Religion, trans. John Raffan [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985], 197) tells of an inscription on a Greek statue of an unmarried woman and comments that it preserves a name and a beautiful image but symbolizes death in that there is no more development and no lamentation for the dead. But avoiding shame or preserving honor, not just the active pursuit of fame serves as a motive in premature voluntary death. 68. Garland, The Greek Way of Death, 77.

54

Chapter 3

fitting­into our technical definition of noble death. Barton, however, points out that, in the Roman culture that so emphasized honor and shame, honorable self-inflicted death in a dishonorable situation was often a way of saving face and regaining respect. He illustrates by citing stories in which conquered villains elected to suffer or die at their own hands for the sake of honor. “In particular, redeeming one’s honor required a contumacious commitment to one’s own annihilation. The vindication of one’s honor—when it did occur—was always a savage miracle.” 69 “Destruction was a superior form of sacrifice. Self-destruction was the supreme form of munificence, the extremes of largesse and deprivation at once.” 70 An act of self-sacrifice, it was hoped, would ennoble the victim and raise him or her from a disgraced state. “The Romans rarely identified with or wanted to be seen as victims, even in their direst circumstances. And so their stories of the vindication of honor are designed not to elicit pity, not to reveal a victim, but to reveal an unconquered will.” 71 Barton links Roman saving face with Christian self-sacrifice and martyrdom in the early church: “For the Roman, as for the early Christian, the victim was conspicuously central and active: the more actively voluntary, the more effective the sacrifice. Sacrifice exalted the victim and rendered him or her divine. For the Roman, sacrificare still emphasized its root meaning, ‘holy making.’” 72 Self-sacrifice blends in later Greco-Roman thought with apotheosis. The fame of self-sacrifice gains an eternal quality and is projected as timeless as the gods. Saving honor through self-destruction reflects a subset of noble death. Dying for patria offers the possibility of immortal glory, a statue, and praise. Eschner points out the antithesis that not dying voluntarily for the polis would result in shame and disgrace. She poses what many would consider a more honorable motive for voluntary noble death: love. 73 In Euripides’ tragedy, “Alcestis,” Alcestis, the wife of Admetus, offers to die in her husband’s stead (Euripides, Alc. 10–20). Heracles’ daughter, Magara, will die to save her family (Euripides, Heracl. 545–61). 74 Creon’s son, Menoeceus, wants to die for city or country (Euripides, Phoen. 999–1028). Iphigenia died 69. Carlin Barton, “Honor and Sacredness in the Roman and Christian Worlds,” in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion, ed. Margaret Cormack, AARSR (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 25. 70. Ibid., 27. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid., 30. Contra Paul Middleton (Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, LNTS 307 [New York: T.  &  T. Clark, 2006], 120–23), who claims that the disgrace of martyrdom was too great an ideological chasm for Gentiles to accept. 73. Christina Eschner, Darstellung und Auswertung des griechischen Quellenbefundes, vol. 2: Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi, WMANT 122 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010), 207–8. Eschner’s thesis is that none of these deaths is atoning. 74. Ibid., 49–51. The plan of Heracles is not only to save his beloved but also to kill

Mortality among the Gentiles

55

to protect and save Greece (Euripedes, Iph. aul.). 75 She serves as an example of one who died for country and was sacrificed to a god. But motives for Iphigenia’s willingness to die may also include familial love, to honor the family name; patriotism, to free the men to sail to Troy to save their women from rape or death; for honor, to be remembered for her sacrifice; or despair, because her father’s bad results in her no longer having a reason to live. 76 Hengel adds several more examples from Euripides’ Alcestis, Phoenissae, and Heracles of Greeks who would die for their homeland, family, friends, and the polis. He adds Socrates as the classic example of dying for “philosophical truth.” 77 Noble death was an accepted value in Greek mythology, philosophy, and religion and a prevalent practice throughout the eras of Greek thought. Hengel offers dying “for the sake of the truth” as not just noble death but a definition for martyrdom and thus classifies Socrates as a martyr. 78 The motives behind Socrates death have been controversial through the ages to today. 79 Various motives have been proposed for his choice to take his life: loyalty to Athenian democracy, to serve as a “scapegoat” and thus resolve political confusion in Athens, or even because he felt old age an unpleasant proposition (Socrates died at the age of 70). 80 Fleeing in exile with sympathetic friends was always an option. Some take the side of the Athenians who sentenced him to death. Was Socrates’ death martyrdom? I place it in the category of noble death. Plato depicts Socrates’ disciples as confused and saddened. They oppose Socrates’ decision to die even though Socrates encourages his followers to see the consistency of his action with his belief that his soul, freed from his body, will go to a blessed place (Plato, Phaed.113–15). My definition of martyrdom includes representative death for the ideology of a minority at an oppressor’s hand with the anticipation of ultimate postmortem vindication and reward. Because Socrates dies for ideological reasons rather than for a utilitarian end and anticipates favorable postmortem judgment, the connection is made with martyrdom, but Socrates’ death was his choice and self-induced. A showdown with an oppressive ideological opponent who chooses to take his life is seen only in muted and penalize Lycus. Instead, Zeus’s wife, Hera, sends Iris and Lyssa to drive Heracles mad so that he kills his wife and children. 75. Robert Graves, The Greek Myths (Mt. Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell, 1988), 291; François Jouan, Euripide et les Légendes des Chants Cypriens: Des origines de la guerre de Troie à l’Iliade, Collection d’Études Anciennes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1966), 292. 76. Ibid., 291–92. Versnel, “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death,” 253, distinguishes between “patriotic death” (protective death for family and friends) and “vicarious death.” 77. Hengel, Atonement, 6–18. 78. Ibid., 16. 79. A great review of interpretations throughout history is found in Emily Wilson, The Death of Socrates (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). 80. Robin Waterfield, Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths (New York: Norton, 2009), 191–204.

56

Chapter 3

form within Socrates’ reasoning through the judgment of the Athenian jury. He dies as an individual opponent to the state not the representative of a group with shared ideals. 81 Later examples of a martyrdom tradition will share features of Socrates’ death but are distinct enough to be categorized separately. Socrates’ was a noble death. 82 Noble death is frequently attested in Greek life. I choose to see martyrdom as at best only foreshadowed by the Greeks. The value of atoning sacrifice is likewise controversial. Hengel is a dominant advocate for the idea that Greco-Roman literature anticipates an expiatory function that provides a background for the Christian gospel. His well-reasoned conclusions are worth summarizing here. 83 He suggests categories for voluntary death that served as interpretive filters: (1) apotheosis, which Hengel defines as “voluntary acceptance of death as the way to divine honour indicated by the gods” and is exemplified by Heracles and Achilles. 84 Surprisingly, he places Socrates on this list; (2) dying for city and for friends, 85 which Hengel sees as unattested in Jewish literature except for 81. So Paul W. Gooch (Reflections on Jesus and Socrates: Word and Silence [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996], 35–40), who after acknowledging many components of Socrates’ death that parallel with martyrdom, yet acknowledging Xenophon’s account where Socrates seeks to avoid the perils of old age through voluntary death, offers two reasons why Socrates is not a martyr: (1) Socrates exercises control over the circumstances of his trial and death; and (2) Socrates does not share a social organization that revered him as a martyr or shared a defined ideology that was agreed as worthy of dying for” (p. 40). 82. Perhaps the value of our subtle distinctions on how we classify Socrates’ death is not immediately obvious. Clearly, his death is unique even within Greek literature and is the mimetic basis for later thought and action. David Seeley (The Noble Death: GraecoRoman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation, JSNTSup 28 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 114–16) mentions Cato, Seneca, and others who source Socrates in their own suicides. Below we will discuss whether Jesus’ or Paul’s deaths were consciously influenced by an earlier tradition. The later martyrdom tradition will be founded in monotheism, clear categories of Law and consequence, and a developing eschatological tradition. 83. The following is a summary of Hengel’s argument found in his Atonement, 4–32. 84. Ibid., 4. 85. To illustrate dying for (ἀποθνῄσκειν ὑπέρ) city or friends, in Euripides, Phoen. 968–69, Hengel translates an expression of deliverer with the very technical, “atoning sacrifice” (ibid., 9). αὐτός . . . θνῄσκειν ἕτοιμος πατρίδος ἐκλυτήριον (“[I myself am ready] to die as an atoning sacrifice for the city.”). I have stressed the need for clarity with these technical expressions, and here, Hengel lacks precision. The Hebrew word generally used for atonement is ‫כפר‬, frequently glossed as “covering” (also “ransom” and “propitiation,” BDB, ‫ )כפר‬and can convey an idea of paying to cover a debt resulting in mercy and restoration (e.g., Gen 32:20; Exod 21:30; 30:12, 15–16). It is rendered with the ἵλεως root in the LXX. Words using the λυτρόω root are best rendered by ideas of deliverer or redeemer typically involving payment, not the technical idea of covering resulting in reconciliation, mercy, or atonement. The modern discussion on atonement makes this distinction important. Hengel’s illustration is better translated “as a deliverer [not atoning sacrifice] for the city.” Gerd Theissen (“Das Kreuz als Sühne und Ärgernis: Zwei Deutungen des Todes

Mortality among the Gentiles

57

very rare situations (Samson, Maccabean martyrs) but very well attested in Greek literature; (3) dying for the law and truth; and (4) atoning sacrifice to expiate the anger of the gods. In his section on atoning sacrifice, Hengel cites examples from Greek myth and drama in which humans are sacrificed for a higher end. These are blood sacrifices; they are voluntary; they are vicarious, that is, one for the many; they are offered due to divine demand, not from human decision; and they result in purification and thus military victory. Two common expressions for this kind of death are the devotio, where the leader sacrifices himself as a ransom for all people and procures atonement resulting in the defeat of the enemies, and pharmakos or “scapegoat,” a tradition in which a representative of a group is either killed or expelled from the city or region for purification. His conclusion is that the Greeks understood the terms of the gospel—vicariousness (one dying for many or all), atonement (the effect of purification), and even reconciliation through their myths and dramas and so could have apprehended the atoning work of Jesus. 86 Versnel weighs in on Hengel’s assumptions of vicarious atonement among the pagans. Besides Hengel, he interacts primarily with Wengst and Williams and traces the argument about where the roots for vicarious atonement, one dying for all, lie. 87 They and Hengel conclude that the origin for this idea is not Jewish but Gentile. After an extensive review of Greco-Roman exempla, Versnel underscores Wengst’s observation that the shift from dying for us (Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) and dying for our sins (Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, 1 Cor 15:3) is enormous. Versnel concludes: “Thus, the notion ‘to die for’ is a Greek legacy, accredited by the Hellenistic-Jewish culture of the diaspora. The idea of atoning (Sühne) for one’s sins (Sünde) against God is the OT contribution and was inherited by Palestinian-Jewish culture.” 88 After concluding that pagan audiences based on their practices would have understood the atoning death of Jesus and that the gospel’s linguistic and religious categories were familiar to them, Hengel adds, “Nevertheless, the primitive Christian preaching of the crucified Messiah must have seemed aesthetically and ethically repulsive to them and to be in conflict with the philosophically purified nature of the gods. The new doctrine­of Jesu bei Paulus,” in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur, ed. Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell, WUNT 198 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 443) agrees that the ancients died for their country, the laws, friends and family, but not for their sins. 86. Hengel, Atonement, 28. 87. Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, SNT 7 (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972); Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975). 88. Versnel, “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death,” 217.

58

Chapter 3

salvation­had not only barbarian, but also irrational and excessive features.” 89 Three things distinguished Jesus’ atonement from Gentile custom: (1) it was universally applied to all human guilt; (2) God was the subject of the saving event, not humans; and (3) it was eschatological in character with an eye toward the imminent judgment of the world. 90 Under the Greek system, the wrath of Greek gods was arbitrary, the plurality of gods resulted in conflict among the divinities and an unpredictable result of the sacrifice, heroes remained mortal, and there was no afterlife. 91 This temporal life was the orientation of sacrifice—usually either for victory in battle or harvest/ fertility. The ultimate goal was not primarily to affect a relationship with the gods but to manipulate or influence divine blessing. Christian sacrifice, on the other hand, is once for all and provides a personal benefit of eternal expiation based on a clear forensic principle and a relationship with the one God that is proleptically experienced in the present. Moreover, God, not humans, initiates it; that is, God is the subject and the object of atonement. Hengel’s confidence is that Greco-Roman human sacrifice provides sufficient context for pagans to understand Christian atonement themes. Paul, however, when he speaks to the Hellenistic philosophical elite at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:16–34) does not elaborate on Christ’s death in terms that Hengel would say are self-evident. His message to them surprisingly lacks the appeal to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus’ death as expiating God’s wrath. Instead, he says that because God raised Jesus from the dead, the people needed to repent in lieu of pending judgment. Jesus’ resurrection introduced the idea of an afterlife that surpasses the meager views of apotheosis where honorable dead become stars. By being raised from the dead, he should be regarded as a worthy and divine judge (Acts 17:30–31). With due respect to Hengel’s research and conclusions, we might say that apprehending many expiatory themes was possible in the Gentile culture but not inevitable.

Conclusion: Mortality among the Gentiles How willing were the Greeks to choose to die and for what reasons? Homer’s heroes did choose death in tragic scenes of battle or out of loy89. Ibid., 31. 90. Ibid., 31–32. 91. See also J. Christopher Edwards, The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew: Its Reception and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels, WUNT 2/327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 51. Greco-Roman religion emphasized the distance between the deity and the worshiper in ransom themes. “As Christianity moves into the Greco-Roman world, it appears to have taken advantage of this lacunae in pagan worship by emphasizing the love of God and of his Son for humanity. The undoubted effectiveness of this motif explains its general inclusion in the social memory of early Christians, and specifically as a rationale for the self-giving element in the ransom logion—Jesus gave himself for us because he loves us.”

Mortality among the Gentiles

59

alty to friends or family. Socrates, when forced to choose between death or banishment, chose death. The concept of noble death, choosing to die prematurely for a good reason because voluntary death is the best of options, is not just witnessed in the literature but becomes pivotal for philosophical conversation. Paul would have been aware of it. What merit was there in dying? While they saw their death as altruistic— someone dear or the polis was the benefactor of the death—little evidence exists of atonement, having the ability to reconcile opposing parties especially in terms of eschatological judgment. Animal sacrifices of religion did not emphasize an atoning quality as much as an effort to appease the gods or win them over for temporal favor. Was martyrdom the emphasis of chosen death? Though it is controversial, I reserve the word martyr for a special kind of death. Minimally, martyrs are those who die for their testimony. Some would say that Socrates’ death was an act of protest and a testimony to the value of truth over the polis and those who opposed him. Perhaps a seed form of martyrdom exists in his story, but martyrdom will receive much more refining and nuance in the centuries that followed through the Jewish and Christian uprising against Rome. Martyrdom becomes something more than noble death when groups clump around ideologies that require bold loyalty, militant opposition, and sacrifice. A martyr’s death is meant to promote and express devotion to an ideology, rebuke a powerful oppressor, and fortify the minority. Also, martyrdom supposes vindication in the afterlife based on a more sophisticated system of reward and punishment. Voluntary death in the Hellenistic world of Paul’s day was noble death, that is, dying for a good reason or for altruistic motives (cf. Rom 5:7). The values inherent in martyrdom or atoning sacrifice are not present there or are at best subdued.

Chapter 4

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah Having defined death and identified categories for voluntary death in chap. 2, chaps. 3 to 8 trace the cultural and historical development of human thought on mortality and death. Chapter 3 considered Gentile views of death and mortality and concluded that noble death is well attested, martyrdom is not, and the idea of atoning sacrifice is, but with some caveats. Many of the concepts that find fuller development in the gospel are present in Greek literature, but the overall impact of the gospel in a polytheistic culture that allows for sacrifices but with an underdeveloped eschatology would be greatly minimized or even negative. Both martyrdom and atoning death presuppose a belief in a divine judge who metes out judgment in the afterlife, a view that first-century Gentile writers mention, at best, only fleetingly. 1 We now prepare to discuss Second Temple Judaism and its influence on Paul’s worldview. Second Temple Judaism was arguably the greatest cultural influence on Paul as he integrated his encounter with the risen Christ against his background as a Jewish Pharisee. The following three chapters explore the Jewish roots of Paul and, in particular, Judaism in the first century. The Jews had two epistemological advantages over the Gentiles regarding death and mortality. First, God gave them the written oracle, divine revelation. As a loyal Pharisee, Paul was steeped in these writings; as a faithful Israelite, he derived his values from its exposition. He affirmed the OT as an authoritative source. 2 He cites frequently from its texts. 3 For personages and events, he references the stories of Sarah and Hagar (Gal 4:21–31), Ja1. We have noted the exception that Socrates does expect his earthly works to be vindicated in an afterlife. See pp. 48–50 above. 2. In Rom 3:2, he refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ translated variously as “the oracles of God” (NET, KJV) or “the very words of God” (NIV), and elsewhere he uses common expressions such as ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, “the Word of God” (Rom 9:6), and γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, “the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2). 3. See, for example, H. H. Drake Williams III, “Light Giving Sources: Examining the Extent of Scriptural Citation and Allusion Influence in 1 Corinthians,” in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Pauline Studies 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 7–37. Paul’s hermeneutics are explored in Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989). A good discussion of Hays’s seminal work is found in the form of several essays including a book abstract in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, JSNTSup 83 / SSEJC 1 (Shef-

60

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

61

cob and Esau (Rom 9:10–13), Pharaoh (Rom 9:17–18), Sodom and Gomorrah (Rom 9:29), the Egyptian magicians (2 Tim 3:8–9), Elijah (Rom 11:2–4), and, of course, Adam and Eve (1 Tim 2:13–15). His most nominated character is Abraham (nine times in Romans, nine in Galatians, and once in 2  Corinthians), followed by Moses (four times in Romans, twice in 1 Corinthians, three times in 2 Corinthians, once in 2 Timothy) Adam (twice in Romans, three times in 1 Corinthians, twice in 2 Timothy), Isaiah (five times in Romans), and David (four times—three in Romans, once in 2 Timothy). 4 His understanding of the Scriptures certainly shaped his ethics of death. The following two chapters seek to discover what Paul might have gleaned on mortality from reading the Hebrew Scriptures. The second advantage was that divine revelation was set in a unique historical context that claimed a sovereign God in covenant relation with Israel guiding them through history. They had an inside understanding of many things including death from the designer and executor of world events. I will trace this history from the Hebrew Scriptures and intertestamental literature and culminate in chap. 6 with a discussion of Judaism, or as Wright affirms, Judaisms, the diverse subgroups contemporary to Paul’s Jewish world of the first century. 5

The Old Testament and Mortality A discussion of OT theology must acknowledge a progression of revelation within its story. 6 While God’s essential nature does not change, his field: JSOT Press, 1993), and continued by Hays in Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 4. See Jeffrey S. Siker, “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity,” in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible, ed. Christian A. Eberhart, RBS 68 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 67–72, for the argument that Paul used OT ritual to lend atoning meaning to Christ’s death. He finds metaphors deriving from Yom Kippur mixed with Passover and the Paschal Lamb blended with the scapegoat. 5. N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1: The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 167–70. 6. My thrust to determine general OT influences on Paul’s thinking does not necessitate broaching compositional theories or many critical arguments of history and nature. I assume that the traditional canonical OT purports to record real space-time events and does so with a reasonable degree of accuracy at least from the perspective of authorial intent. My criticism recognizes late features in the Hebrew text and is aware of the many disputes involved in dating its composition, but assumes a redacted unity of purpose and structure in the narrative, which for convenience and the sake of tradition I recognize as preexilic. My method is to analyze that unity in its natural narrative development with an analysis of the details as they contribute to the greater whole. For a helpful challenge not to overlook literary features in the narrative texts through zeal to maintain their historical accuracy, see Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “History or Story? The Literary Dimension in Narrative Texts,” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), 54–73.

62

Chapter 4

rapport with humans and self-revelation does. The relationship gets more sophisticated over time. The biblical narrative follows a plotline in which God calls out a people from among the nations with whom he can establish a covenant and through whom he can accomplish a global redemptive purpose. That purpose responds to the fundamental problem of humans, sin, and rebellion, and their consequence, separation from God and death. The OT offers three perspectives of death and mortality. 7 First, death is presented as final judgment, the consequence for sin. Second and paradoxically, the OT presents death as normalized, universal, and inevitable. Here the connection between sin and death as consequence is muted or lost. The first chapters of Genesis place these two views in tension and that tension is felt repeatedly throughout the OT. By the time of the writing prophets and the intertestamental period, a third perspective developed based on a budding understanding that some sort of conscious and meaningful life continues after biological death: death serves as a bridge to an ultimate postmortem judgment. 8 By the first century, these ideas blend into a potpourri of perspectives on death and mortality. I will discuss the first two contrasting views first.

The Torah and Mortality But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die (Gen 2:17).

The most fundamental teaching on death in the OT is found in the Pentateuch or Torah. 9 Genesis 1–11 tells the story of the origin of death with 7. For a theological overview of death in the OT, see Nico van Uchelen, “Death and the After-life in the Hebrew Bible of Ancient Israel,” in Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic World, ed. J. M. Bremer, T. P. J. van den Hout, and R. Peters (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994), 77–90, who traces death in the OT through a theological-anthropological line, a literary-metaphorical line, and a personal-emotional line. 8. Richard S. Hess (Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey [Nottingham: Apollos / Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 266), after noting a few references to resurrection of the nation, Yahweh’s servant, and allusions to individual resurrection comments that “The rarity of these texts in the Old Testament suggests that individual life or death was either of little interest to the authors or that it was a gradual and late development in Israelite theology.” 9. I follow the order of the Protestant Bible (Pentateuch, Historical Books, Wisdom Books, Prophets). For each section of the OT, I will list Pauline direct OT citations. Paul quotes extensively from the Pentateuch: Gen 2:7 / 1 Cor 15:45; Gen 2:24 / 1 Cor 6:16 / Eph 5:13; Gen 12:3 / Gen 18:18 / Gal 3:8; Gen 12:7 / Gen 13:15 / Gen 17:7 / Gen 24:7 / Gal 3:16; Gen 15:5 / Rom 4:18; Gen 15:6 / Rom 4:3, 9, 22 / Gal 3:6; Gen 17:5 / Rom 4:17; Gen 18:10 / Rom 9:9; Gen 21:10 / Gal 4:30; Gen 21:12 / Rom 9:7; Gen 25:23/Rom 9:12; Exod 9:16 / Rom 9:17; Exod 16:18 / 2 Cor 8:15; Exod 20:12 / Deut 5:16 / Eph 6:2; Exod 20:13 / Lev 19:18 / Deut 5:17 / Rom 13:9; Exod 20:17 / Deut 5:21 / Rom 7:7; Exod 32:6 / 1 Cor 10:7; Exod 33:19 / Rom 9:15; Lev 18:5 (Ezek 20:11) / Rom 10:5 / Gal 3:12; Lev 19:18 / Rom 13:9 / Gal 5:14; Lev 26:12 (Ezek 37:27) / 2 Cor 6:16; Deut 17:7 / 1 Cor 5:13; Deut 19:15 / 2 Cor 13:1; Deut 21:23 / Gal 3:13; Deut

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

63

Adam and Eve, narrating the first death, Cain’s murder of Abel, listing a genealogy with generation after generation who experience death, and finishing with a story of global judgment where God chooses to destroy much of his creation and start over with Noah. These first chapters offer a base theological perspective that will influence and be worked out in the stories, writings, and prophecies found in the rest of the OT. 10 Several themes related to mortality and death show the link between death and God’s relationship with man. Death at first is linked with moral choice when Adam and Eve sin. This link is tenuous, however. Sin does not always result in death and the righteous die without a direct link to sin. The Origins of Mortality: A Tale of Two Trees Many questions about human mortality surface in the initial story of the creation of the first couple, their fall, and the consequences. Were they ever immortal? What did they know of death before and after they sinned? How are sin and death related? The answers first need to be explored within the narrative and particularly by discussing the two trees. Within their perfect world, consisting of a garden or an orchard, stood two particular trees: the Tree of Life from which they could eat freely and that ensured everlasting life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a forbidden tree that would produce certain immediate death (Gen 2:9, 17). 11 The two trees represent two attributes regarded in antiquity as divine. Acquiring both immortality and moral knowledge would make Adam and Eve gods. That these qualities are not innate but acquired through eating demonstrates contingency. The mere existence of the Tree of Life implies that the first couple was conscious of mortal vulnerability and of limited perpetuity, that is, that they were not innately or independently immortal. After they sinned, God 25:4 / 1 Cor 9:9 / 1 Tim 5:18; Deut 27:26 / Gal 3:10; Deut 29:4 / Rom 11:8; Deut 30:12 (Ps 107:26) / Rom 10:6–8; Deut 32:17 / 1 Cor 10:20; Deut 32:21 / Rom 10:19; Deut 32:35 / Rom 12:19; Deut 32:43 / Rom 15:10. Because of allusions and partial citations plus discrepancies between the MT and the LXX, many are disputed. Moisés Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” DPL 631. 10. For a controversial presentation that dates the composition of Genesis to the Postexilic Period, see Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2012), 9–34. Enns underscores that these Scriptures reflect the theological concerns of the postexilic community. “The Bible, including the Pentateuch, tells the old story for contemporary reasons: Who are we? Who is our God?” (p. 32). So Konrad Schmid (“Loss of Immortality? Hermeneutical Aspects of Genesis 2–3 and Its Early Reception,” in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg, FAT 2/34 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008], 65), who notes that because Gen 2–3 adopts and universalizes the deuteronomic idea of land lost through disobedience (Deut 28:16, 25; cf. Gen 3:22–24), because it critiques knowledge, and especially because its story is not referred to in the early Hebrew Scriptures, it derives from the Persian period. 11. Notably, the first tree did not have a correlating descriptor of innocence in contraposition to the knowledge of good and evil provided by the second tree.

64

Chapter 4

expelled them from the garden and placed an angel as a sentry to guard them from returning to the tree where they could eat and live forever (Gen 3:22–24). Eating from the fruit of that tree was essential for eternal life. 12 The second tree starkly contrasts with the first. If they could freely eat from the first tree and it enabled them to live forever, the second came with a prohibition and stern consequence: eating from its fruit was forbidden and would produce immediate certain death. 13 Although it is described as offering the knowledge of good and evil, the prohibition, certain death on the day its fruit was eaten, was an ominous warning and serves as a negative counterpart to the other tree. 14 “Obedience to this command was to be the form of man’s freedom from death, and in obedience to this command man would manifest his faith that God was his creator, that is, that his life came from God alone.” 15 Life, therefore, came, positively, by eating from the Tree of Life, and, negatively, by abstaining from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God warned them that by eating from the second tree they would die. Two approaches offer two different ways of conceptualizing death: either we look at what happened and call that death, or we take definitions of death understood by later revelation and read that back into this text to see how the first couple died. When they succumbed to temptation and did eat, they incurred several consequences: (1) they lost their innocence and knew good and evil; (2) they experienced shame for their nakedness and tried to hide and cover themselves; (3) when God found them and confronted them, 12. No mention is made in either text whether one bite of the fruit of the Tree of Life garners eternal life or immortality or whether this is an iterative process of continuing to eat from the fruit implying retained immortality. The same might hold true for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Did that one piece of fruit permanently open Adam and Eve’s eyes (and their descendants) to knowledge? In paradise, a place where there is no death (Rev 21:4) and where death itself is destroyed (Rev 20:14; cf. 1 Cor 15:26), but where the Tree of Life is present (Rev 22:2), is continued eating of this fruit a condition for life eternal? For James Barr (The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 21), the couple was not seeking immortality, but in their naiveté, they might have eaten and unwittingly acquired life. Barr’s thesis assumes that Adam and Eve had never eaten from the Tree of Life. For him, the drama is about whether or not the couple would ever eat from this tree. The topic of sin is merely incidental to the story. 13. Sigmund Wagner-Tsukamoto (“The Tree of Life: Banned or Not Banned? A Rational Choice Interpretation,” SJOT 26 [2012]: 102–22) argues that Adam and Eve could not have eaten from the Tree of Life prior to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil because the effect of the one would not just cancel the other but, providing both knowledge and immortality, offer Adam and Eve divine status. He argues that the Tree of Life was thus likewise banned. 14. D. J. A. Clines (“The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh (Psalm XIX),” VT 24 [1974]: 8–9), finds a connection between Gen 2–3 and Ps 19, asserting that Ps 19 draws on the image of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil “to assert the superiority of the law to the tree of knowledge as a means of obtaining wisdom.” 15. William C. Weinrich, “Death and Martyrdom: An Important Aspect of Early Christian Eschatology,” CTQ 66 (2002): 329.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

65

they blamed and deflected rather than taking responsibility for their violation; and (4) they received a great curse. 16 The snake was cursed to crawl and eat dust. He became the enemy of the woman and her offspring. The woman was cursed to have pain in childbirth and to struggle with her husband’s authority. The man’s action brings a curse to the ground. He will now toil to eat from it and will one day return to it when he dies. There is a wordplay going on here. Both Adam (‫ָאָדם‬, ʾāḏām) or “man,” and ground (‫ֲדמָה‬ ָ ‫א‬, ăḏāmā) derive from the same Hebrew root, ‫אדם‬. 17 Man’s name derives from the word for ground. He was formed from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7); he cultivates food necessary for temporal life from that ground; and he will die and return to that ground that now is cursed (Gen 3:17–19). He will again become mere dust (Gen 3:19). 18 Last, (5) they were exiled from the garden and the Tree of Life (Gen 3:22–24). They had become like God, knowing good and evil, but God banishes them to prevent them from obtaining another attribute of divinity, living forever. 19 They had been commanded to not eat of the one tree; now they were forcibly prohibited from eating from either tree. Without the fruit from that tree, they forfeited an unending future. Ironically, they recognized that being like God (“the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil,” Gen 3:22; see also Gen 3:5) does not compare with being with God. 20 The Problem of Death A notorious problem exists trying to reconcile God’s edict with what happened. God warns Adam, “On the day you eat it, you will surely die” 16. Barr (The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 11) argues that many of the popularly understood consequences are not explicit in the text and are anachronistic presumptions. For example, Adam and Eve’s awareness of their nakedness was not necessarily shameful or deriving from guilt, even though the couple covered themselves and hid, but rather a natural consequence of moral knowledge: “Knowledge brings self-­ consciousness.” For him, they hid out of a sense of propriety, not for shame for having done an evil deed. See also ibid., 63–65. But see Gen 2:25, where the text explicitly states that, in their innocence before they ate the fruit, they were naked yet not ashamed. Nakedness and shame are thus linked. Also, Adam will also affirm that his nakedness made him afraid of God (Gen 3:10). 17. See Richard S. Hess, “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ʾādām in Genesis I–V,” in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 7–10, for a discussion of the sense, referent, and denotation of Adam. 18. See Shaul Bar, I Deal Death and Give Life: Biblical Perspectives on Death (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010), 19, for his argument that this expression is not part of the curse but “merely the inexorable force of reality, because everything in nature returns to its source.” He limits the curse to the pain of toil and the pain of childbirth (ibid., 31). A wordplay also possibly exists between dust ‫( ָצפָר‬ʿāpār) and fruit ‫( ְּפִרי‬pərî). Returning to ʿāpār is the result of eating the forbidden pərî. 19. Godlikeness is expressed not through immortality vis-à-vis the Greek writers, but through moral knowledge. 20. John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 110.

66

Chapter 4

(Gen 2:17), but the serpent challenges this warning (“Surely you will not die,” Gen 3:4b) and for many is proved right. 21 Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they ate the fruit. The fruit was not poisonous to their bodies. Adam lived 930 years before he died physically (Gen 5:5). 22 The first recorded human death did not occur until much later in the next chapter when their first son, Cain, kills their second, Abel. 23 A question of death is whether death in Gen 2–3 represents a moment, a state, or a trajectory. Is death the end of earthly existence, a description of a quality of existence, or does it describe a mortalizing trend? Two expressions are critical to resolve this conflict, ‫“( ְּביֹום‬on the day”) and ‫“( מֹות ּתׇמֹות‬dying you will die” or “you will surely die”). 24 Some English Bible versions translate the first expression “when” to resolve the tension created by the fact that Adam and Eve live beyond that 24-hour period. 25 Wenham underscores, “Though this phrase can mean vaguely ‘when’ (cf. 2:4; 5:1), it tends to emphasize promptness of action (e.g., Num 30:6, 8, 9, etc.), especially in the closely similar passage (1 Kgs 2:37, 42).” 26 Something certainly happened, however, at the moment they ate the fruit. We have listed the immediate consequences in the narrative—moral consciousness, shame, blame, curses, and banishment. 27 Perhaps exegeti21. R. W. L. Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” JTS 39 (1988): 1–27; David P. Wright, “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden,” Bib 77 (1996): 305–29. Barr and Moberly debate the point in a series of writings: Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality; Walter Moberly, review of The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, by James Barr, JTS 45 (1994): 172–75; James Barr, “Is God a Liar?” JTS 57 (2006): 1–22; R. W. L. Moberly, “Did the Interpreters Get It Right? Genesis 2–3 Reconsidered,” JTS 59 (2008): 22–40. Moberly rebuts Barr’s critique of his method, arguing that “death” is metaphorical, referring to a diminishing quality of life, and this interpretation is necessary to uphold God’s integrity (ibid., 35–37). Barr refutes the idea that the fall of humanity finds its source in Moses; instead, its source is in Paul. Barr diminishes the catastrophic nature of the story and minimizes the immediate consequences: Adam lives on, and his relationship with God endures. Moberly, citing the presence and opposing voice of the Serpent, claims that Barr’s interpretation makes God out to be a liar, which Barr later refutes. 22. Bar, I Deal Death and Give Life, 15, explains a rabbinic solution that Adam’s 930 years fall within a divine day of one thousand years (from Ps 90:4). So U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, vol. 1: From Adam to Noah, trans. Abraham Israel ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 278. 23. See John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry, TBN 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 219–25, for a discussion of an interpretive tradition that makes Cain, not Adam, the first sinner. “Sin” is first mentioned in Gen 4, and Abel is the first recorded death. 24. Contra James Barr, “Is God a Liar?” 9, who sees no requirement for intensifying in the infinitive absolute. 25. So NET, NIV; contra KJV, AV. 26. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 68. 27. And see Morna D. Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 73–84, where she presents two other consequences from Rom 1: losing the glory of God, and dominion over nature.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

67

cal tension can resolve when we recognize these consequences as death or death’s consequence. 28 Could all the above be the equivalent of the original warning of immediate certain death? Some would find this answer equivocating. Or we could follow Westermann’s lead: some say he capitulates when he suggests that the original prohibition was not a true threat but a warning. 29 He appeals that “God’s dealing with his creatures cannot be pinned down, not even by what God has said previously.” 30 A second alternative to looking at what actually happened and calling that death is to select one or more of our accepted definitions of death based on subsequent revelation in Scripture and try to understand how that was to one degree or another the experience of Adam and Eve. Several definitions of death are offered to resolve the apparent lack of fulfillment including spiritual death, moral death, a shift from immortality to mortality, and other options as well. Let us consider some of these. One of the more popular ways to explain what death means in this passage is the idea of “spiritual death,” the severing of a relationship with God, who is life itself, and its concomitant results. This view says that Adam and Eve died metaphorically or spiritually, which, as a byproduct, guaranteed the eventual death of their physical bodies—death came in two stages. 31 Moberly observes: “What we see is a degree of alienation and fear between the man and God, and the man and his wife, which did not exist previously.” 32 This approach seeks to preserve the integrity of God’s warning and also integrate some of the consequences in the narrative with death the 28. Eugene H. Merrill, “A Theology of the Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck and Eugene H. Merrill (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 19, connects the idea of covenant fidelity, divine image, and death as a consequence of eating of the forbidden tree: “By attempting to reverse roles and assert his independence of limitations, man became a marred and defective image, one who no longer could represent his sovereign in an unhampered and perfect way. Sin had introduced an alienation that affected not only the God-man relationship but also made the man a dying creature who could never hope to fulfill the covenant mandate as long as he remained in that condition.” James M. Hamilton, Jr. (God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010], 78) views death in terms of a divine gift. They are banished from the Garden and the Tree of Life, “but even here there is mercy: they will not have access to the tree of life, whereby they might live forever in a fallen state. God gives the gift of physical death (3:22; 5:5)” (emphasis mine). However, premature death as positive and a gift of God rather than negative and a form of judgment is nowhere attested in the Scriptures. 29. For a refutation, see Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” 9–13. 30. Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 225; cf. A. van de Beek, “Evolution, Original Sin, and Death,” Journal of Reformed Theology 5 (2011): 214. 31. Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” 16–18. Augustine argues that death is both physical and spiritual and Christ’s physical death applies to both (Augustine Trin. 4). 32. Moberly, “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” 17.

68

Chapter 4

forewarned­consequence of eating from the tree. But while the couple does hide in shame and receive a curse and they are banished from the garden, the text does not say that Adam and Eve no longer had a relationship with God. In fact, God clothed the couple and continues to interact with their sons, Cain and Abel. One must assume that prior to his sin, Cain had a relationship with God. The text shows that God interacted with him before he killed his brother to warn him of the danger of sin, rather than talking with him about his sin and the consequences afterward. Cain’s punishment is worth noting here: “So now, you are banished from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. You try to cultivate the ground it will no longer yield its best for you. You will be a homeless wanderer on the earth.” Then Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to endure! Look! You are driving me off the land today, and I must hide from your presence. I will be a homeless wanderer on the earth; whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “All right then, if anyone kills Cain, Cain will be avenged seven times as much.” Then the Lord put a special mark on Cain so that no one who found him would strike him down. So Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Gen 4:11–16)

Cain’s lament that he would need to hide from God’s presence and that he went out from the Lord’s presence implies that he walked in God’s presence before his murderous act. The first allusion to hiding reminds the reader of the reaction to his parents’ knowledge of their nakedness in the previous chapter (vv. 14, 16; cf. Gen 3:8–10). Perhaps we could infer that they, like Cain here, left God’s presence permanently? But the genealogical table of Gen 5 indicates a righteous line of descendants including the seventh in the line, Enoch, who explicitly “walked with God” (Gen 5:22, 24). Noah, the tenth and last of this line also “walked with God” (Gen 6:9) and was saved because of his righteousness when God destroyed the world in a flood. Although they are banished from the garden, God does not remain exclusively in the garden separate from humanity. He does not summarily dispose of Adam and Even after they eat the forbidden fruit. To say that they experienced spiritual death, some form of a severed relationship with God resulting in separation from him, must be defended from something beyond the plain teaching of the narrative. Additionally, this view tends to impose a dichotomous view of man, body/soul or material/immaterial; a spiritual death that does not include physical death is foreign to the Hebrew worldview. Despite the current popularity of this view as an explanation for what happened in Genesis, the original story does not specify a spiritual death outside the consequences we have already highlighted. The theological solution does not derive from the text or from what we know of the Hebrew mindset. A second argument delves into the question of moral death. Van de Beck resolves the exegetical problem by defining human life, which distin-

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

69

guishes it from other species, as “moral consciousness.” Moral consciousness was both awakened and forfeited when they ate from the tree. When she ate the fruit, Eve’s conscience awakened and she knew good and evil, but at the same moment, she recognized her act as moral failure. 33 Ironically, moral awakening arrives with an awareness of imperfection or lack. “Humans in their very humanity [moral consciousness] are dead.” 34 But it is the knowledge of their moral imperfection that makes them human: “Being human means being conscious of good and evil—and knowing that no one is perfect. . . . The true human being is dead from the early beginning of human consciousness.” 35 What makes him alive and self-aware, moral consciousness, is likewise what robs him of the fundamental human norm. Van de Beek inserts Paul’s argument that the way of escape from this predicament is to be found in Christ where the believer discovers that he is a new creation. Jesus is the head of a new humanity, an echo of Adam, a second Adam. But this whole formulation is Pauline and is derived only centuries after the Moses narrative. Van de Beek’s reply to the original question whether Adam and Eve experienced death on the day they ate the fruit is somewhat satisfactory. He clearly explains Paul’s theology of the simultaneous awareness of good and evil (arguably, a divine attribute) and moral failure (which, for Paul, results in death) when they ate from the tree. His conclusion serves as the basis for viewing Jesus as the initiator of a new human order: “Christian faith is not an ideology for changing the present world. It is about participating in a different world.” 36 A third argument for death implies the introduction of mortality. At the moment they ate the fruit, they became mortal or realized that they were mortals and living forever suddenly fell from their reach. 37 This solution 33. Was the death warning with the prohibition in Gen 2:17 an extrinsic incentive for Adam and Eve, who were then innocent and were not yet capable of understanding evil per se? 34. Van de Beek, “Evolution, Original Sin, and Death,” 215. See my discussion of death in relationship and spiritual death on pp. 12–13 above. Van de Beek’s argument may have some merit, but the banishment of the couple that prevents them from eating of the Tree of Life and thus living forever indicates other consequences beyond his moral consciousness view. 35. Ibid., 216. 36. Ibid., 218–19. 37. Contra Gerhard von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis. Übersetzt und erlkärt von Gerhard von Rad, Die Alte Testament Deutsch. Neues Göttinger Bibelwert 2/4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 65; cf. p. 77, where von Rad affirms, “es heist ja nicht ‘wirst du sterblich werden,’ sondern: ‘musst du sterben’!” Their death was not a mere natural consequence but a judicious act. Also, I. Engnell, “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley by the Society for Old Testament Study in Association with the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum, in Celebration of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 24 March 1955, ed. Martin Noth

70

Chapter 4

views death as a trajectory rather than a state, that is, Adam and Eve began a mortalizing trend from the moment they sinned. Death then would not be understood as a moment in time, but as an inner transformation that sets one’s direction. The introduction of mortality as the meaning for death in Gen 2:17, however, is met with critical objection specifically concerning whether the first couple was ever immortal. Ballard disagrees that this is the intent of the Genesis text and affirms, “in the biblical Hebrew tradition there is no inevitable, natural immortality.” For him, Adam and Eve’s temptation was wanting to be like God and includes both immortality and omniscience. 38 Schmid likewise supports original mortality of the first couple and offers five arguments from Gen 2–3 against original immortality: (1) “Dust” is a metaphor for transience and mortality; (2) death is not mentioned in the cursing except as derivative description; (3) Gen 3:22 would then imply that humans could again become immortal; (4) ‫ מֹות ּתׇמֹות‬is formulated similar to other death penalties (e.g., Gen 20:6–7; Exod 21:15–17; Num 26:65; Judg 13:22; Ezek 3:18; and 2 Kgs 1:16); and (5) ANE parallel texts show mortality as always integral to human life. “There was, however, a virtual chance to attain immortality by eating from the tree of life, which was not forbidden before the so-called ‘fall.’” 39 He comments further on Philo’s treatment of Gen 2–3 of a double creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2–3: “Moses reports in Genesis 1 the creation of the immortal idea of humankind, while Genesis 2 relates to the creation of the mortal human body.” 40 Schmid concludes that the prevalent Christian interpretation which sees the primitive status of humankind as immortals is the result of an eschatologizing perspective on the paradise story which was historically alien to it. Genesis 2–3 in its biblical shape is probably one of the most non-eschatological texts of the Bible. . . . The angels with their sword stand for the conviction that the paradise is lost forever.

Schmid concludes the theological assumption of original immortality: “Genesis 2–3 seems to present the wish to become immortal as a real wish only for fallen humanity.” 41 Bailey suggests two etiologies of Gen 2–3: (1) “death as punishment,” better­understood as premature death. And so death would be done away with if the sinful nature could be abolished; and (2) “mortality as the Creator’s and D. Winton Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 117. He juxtaposes “knowledge” and “life” (ibid., 118–19). 38. Paul Ballard, “Death,” EC 325. 39. Schmid, “Loss of Immortality?” 62–64. But perhaps a mitigating view needs to be entertained that notes a difference between inherent and independent immortality and contingent access to perpetual continuing life in dependence on God and his provision of the Tree of Life. 40. Ibid., 72. Philo Opif. 134. 41. Ibid., 74.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

71

design for humans.” Death is disassociated from punitive consequence. The underworld was created with the rest of creation thus anticipating death as part of the world design—death is normalized. 42 Harris considers three views: first, that humans were created immortal and forfeited their immortality; second, that humans were created mortal with the possibility of gaining immortality through obedience; then third, the position he affirms, that humans were created mortal and for immortality (through grace) rather than with immortality. 43 One way of evaluating the origin of mortality is to ask when the first couple first encountered or became aware of their mortality. As a terminus ad quem, they certainly understood death and their mortality when Cain, their first son, murdered Abel, their second son (Gen 4). Was a death-forsin consequence or an expiation theme somehow enacted in Abel’s animal sacrifices that God accepted? 44 Perhaps it was at their banishment that they first realized that eternal life slipped from their grasp. Some note that God’s making them animal skin garments (Gen 3:21) required animal death and provided a lesson for them on their eventual death. 45 Did they first grasp their mortal identity when Adam was cursed with the specific edict that “By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return” (Gen 3:19)? We again turn back to the special trees. Did they realize their mortality on the day they ate the forbidden fruit? But certainly they understood something of the consequence of the prohibition before this when it was given (Gen 2:17). Did they then understand the warning only as a trajectory towards eventual death, that is, mortality, thus, “you will eventually die”? 46 Before that, as they tilled the perfect garden in innocence, they were free to eat from the Tree of Life, which was apparently necessarily to sustain their life. 47 Their understanding of the purpose for this tree is not stated. The 42. Lloyd R. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, OBT 5 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 38–39. 43. Murray J. Harris, “Resurrection and Immortality in the Pauline Corpus,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, MNTS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 162–66. So P. S. Johnston, “Life, Disease and Death,” DOTP 534. 44. Although Abel’s offering is the first mention of blood sacrifice (blood is assumed), no trace of representative or substitutionary death is found this early in the interpretive tradition. 45. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 2005), 18. 46. Barr, “Is God a Liar?” 10–12, raises this same question regarding Moberly’s discussion of spiritual death: did the couple understood the original warning to refer merely to spiritual or metaphorical death? 47. Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 4, 57–58, questions whether Adam and Eve had access to this tree. He does not believe they ever ate from it. Their banishment eliminated that risk.

72

Chapter 4

Tree of Life is also found at the end of the biblical record in John’s paradisiacal city (Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19), a city where death no longer exists (Rev 21:4). Did they have some understanding of their mortality by the very existence of this tree? That is, did they recognize the fruit of this tree as necessary to sustain life because they were mortal? Were they always conscious of their mortality? The addition in Gen 3:22–24 that had they continued to eat from the Tree of Life they would have continued to live forever adds an additional enigma. Would the consequence of not eating of the Tree of Life (death) be the same as eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (certain death)? Did one tree cancel the effects of the other tree? That is, did the fruit of the Tree of Life reverse the effects of the death of the Tree of Knowledge, or vice versa, did the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge cancel the effects of the Tree of Life? Was a consequence for eating from the one tree a prohibition from eating from the other tree? When they were banished from the garden, no mention is made of the consequence of being separated from the Tree of Knowledge. Apparently, their one experience was enough that they were permanently affected by its fruit. Was the result of death the effect of the fruit or a judicial consequence? Would we apply the same answer to the fruit of the Tree of Life, that is, could life be conceived as the result of a judicial act rather than a result of the tree’s nourishment? 48 Regardless, the two trees are linked: life is sourced in one, death in the other. A Tree of Life in the Garden presumes that this tree was needed for life. The couple was mortal. How if they certainly died on the day they ate the forbidden fruit could the Tree of Life have provided an antidote? As we have already noted, Johnston resolves these questions by postulating that the fulfillment of immediate certain death was banishment from the Garden and the Tree of Life. 49 Adam and Eve were created mortal but with the ability to eat from the Tree of Life to sustain them. By being banished, they experienced immediately and finally the sentence of eventual biological death. 50 The antidote for their mortality was no longer accessible. This solution also addresses a current question regarding penal substitutionary atonement. This act of banishment leading to death was divine and judicial. Death was not a mere natural consequence of eating the fruit. Whether the immediate consequences of knowing they were naked, thus shame, is also bundled in a concept of dying, divine justice still must be 48. No edict is given affirming what would happen should the couple eat of the Tree of Life. 49. Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 40–41. So Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 124–25. 50. See my discussion below on the finality of death (pp. 89–92). Those who view Genesis as a postexilic document link Adam and Eve’s banishment from the garden of Eden and consequent death to the Exile from the promised land. Returning to the land is linked with resurrection life, a New Jerusalem, and a new Edenic existence.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

73

reckoned with. Death was the direct decision of the Creator who had forbidden the couple from eating it. So, by pursuing the two directions for resolving the conflict—naming the stated consequences for eating the fruit as a form of death, or taking accepted views of death like spiritual death, moral death, or mortality, and seeking to discover them in the narrative—we are able to more clearly understand the problem and explore solutions. Although many suggestions add light to the conversation and no solution resolves all the questions, banishment from the Garden and the Tree of Life that would lead to the mortal couple’s eventual death seems the most satisfying. 51 The Renaming of Eve Immediately after Adam and Eve eat the fruit that produces death and they receive God’s curse that humans would return to the ground from whence they came, Adam names his wife a second time using a name laden with irony. In Gen 2:23, before the fall, he named her ‫אּשׇׁה‬, ִ which sounds like the feminine counterpart to his own name, ‫אישׁ‬. ִ  52 His emphasis, in contrast to all the animals that he had immediately before named, is likeness to him. She is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” In Gen 3:20, after the fall and the curse, he gives her the new name, Eve (‫) ַחּוׇה‬, “living one” or “life giver” and she is called “the mother of all the living.” 53 Adam’s second naming of his wife after the curse creates a thorny problem on many levels. Source theorists struggle with why this naming passage typical of genealogical genre finds itself inserted in a narrative. 54 Feminist or 51. A caution must be levied with this interpretation, well illustrated by Peter Enns. Enns (Evolution of Adam, 65–70) suggests the argument that Adam represents proto-­ Israel. The banishment of Adam and Eve is equivalent to Israel’s exile. 52. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 136. ‫ ִאישׁ‬is difficult to define more literally than “male” or perhaps “husband.” The two names although similar in sound and form do not share the same root, but in context, without doubt, are set up to evidence a corresponding relationship. The context is clear that the woman is like him: “I have given names to all living beings, but I have not succeeded in finding one among them fit to be called by a name resembling mine, thus indicating its kinship with me. She, at last, deserves to be given a name corresponding to my own.” 53. Adam is never formally named in the narrative, and translations vary as to when “the man” should be called by the proper transliterated name, Adam. The first use of ‫ָדם‬ ָ‫א‬ without the article is Gen 2:20. Cassuto observes that there is a par­allel expression in Gen 2:23 and 3:19: man was taken from the ground; woman was taken from the man (ibid.). Barr (The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 9) underscores that “his death is not the punishment, but is only the mode in which the final stage of the punishment works out. He was going to die anyway, but this formulation of his death emphasized his failure to overcome the soil and his own belonging to it. The death to which Adam will finally fall victim, then, his ‘returning to the dust’ (for the term ‘death’ is significantly not used at this point), is not in itself a punishment, as many scholars have long seen.” 54. See Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 268–69. This verse is widely regarded as an insertion because of its abrupt placement with no genealogy. Westermann links “mother of all living” with Mother Earth.

74

Chapter 4

gender theologians reckon with the mere idea of Adam’s naming his wife, an authoritative act that certainly defines her role in relation to him. 55 While recognizing the volatile possibilities, we discuss this act of Adam from a literary perspective. His first act of naming follows his naming the animals at God’s command followed by God’s unique creation of a companion for him from his own body. She is his equivalent counterpart in contrast to all the other animals. The second act of naming is sandwiched between God’s cursing the serpent, woman, and man and his expelling the couple from the Garden and access to the Tree of Life. Her name is distinct and emphatically states that she is, in opposition to the curse, alive and the mother of all living. Although she ate the fruit that promised certain immediate death, Adam emphatically names her the mother of living beings. Our explanation can only be speculative, but Adam’s act of naming her offers hope against the death curse that immediately precedes and offers an affirmation of life in light of their banishment that immediately follows. Relevant to this discussion is Eve’s subsequent exclamation when she gives birth to Cain that she “created a man just like the Lord did” (NET, lit., “with Yahweh,” ‫אֶת־יְהוׇה‬, Gen 4:1). 56 Although they recognize their mortality and eventual biological passing, through Eve whose creative power imitates God’s creative power, the human race will continue. 57 Eve will bear children that will reverse the effects of the curse of death and following the curse passage, God promises that Satan will attack the heel of Eve’s offspring, but Eve’s offspring will attack Satan’s head (Gen 3:15). 58 In light 55. Cassuto (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 170) considers the placement of Adam naming Eve in light of the curse and asserts that it is a statement of lordship. “Since the Lord God decreed that he (the husband) should rule over her he assigns a name to her as a token of his rulership” (emphasis his). This is the second time he names her. The first views his naming her as the dramatic finish after the God-given assignment of naming all the animals. But if we see the drama of the curse of death being played out, it fits well in this context. Adam and Eve, ʿîsh and ʿîshâ, ʿadam and khawwâ, are waiting for death promised in 2:17. This is the conflict the text is addressing. Adam is promised that he will return to where he came from, the ground, and we will soon see the couple expelled from the garden where there was the Tree of Life to provide eternal life. Adam, however, commemorates Eve as the mother of all living, a life giver in the midst of certain death. 56. Byron (Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition, 12) comments on the ambiguity of the Hebrew expression: “if the ‫ את‬is understood as a direct object marker rather than as a preposition, it is then possible to understand Cain as the fulfillment of the promise made to Eve in Gen 3:15 where God says the woman will have a child who crushes the head of the serpent.” He analyzes historical interpretive traditions that consider whether God is the cause or the instrument or tool of Eve’s pregnancy and other traditions that interpret Satan to be the father of Cain (cf. 1 John 3:12; ibid., 13­–20). 57. See Jacob L. Wright, “Making a Name for Oneself: Martial Valor, Heroic Death, and Procreation in the Hebrew Bible,” JSOT 36 (2011): 131–62, where he emphasizes procreation over heroic death by biblical writers as the means they used to attain an immortal legacy. Through progeny one’s life continues. 58. Genesis 3:15 offers the first mention of persistent hope within the narrative in spite of death’s presence. The woman’s seed, the extension of humanity, will eventually

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

75

of that promise, the falling away of Eve’s first child, who succumbs to sin and murders his brother is especially significant. The reader might be led to expect this seed to be a source of life and hope and fight or even defeat the serpent as per the serpent’s curse (Gen 3:15). Instead, the forces of evil overcome him. Paul will refer to this passage in the highly controversial 1 Tim 2:14–15 and specifically mentions that although deceived into transgression, she will be saved (from death as sin’s consequence?) through procreation. Eve’s seed both defies the idea of human extinction and is the prophesied combatant with the serpent (Gen 3:15); both images, procreation and cosmic warrior, could be understood as salvific. We cannot overlook in Eve’s exclamation of her connection that she is like God in yet another way. 59 (1) The couple was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). (2) According to the serpent and later confirmed by the Lord, eating from the forbidden tree made them like God knowing good and evil (Gen 3:5, 22). (3) Unless banished from the Garden, they would have access to the Tree of Life and thus gain the divine attribute of living forever. And here (4), Eve recognizes her creative ability as similar to the Lord (Gen 4:1). Returning to the problem of the warning of immediate death, no answer resolves all the questions created by the warning and what ensued. We hold with the majority that humankind was not created immortal, but mortal, and that death was not simply a warning of natural consequences from eating the fruit, but punitive. By eating the fruit, Adam and Eve deviated from the divine order and died. As we will see below, humankind now faces a judicial death with moral, relational, and eschatological components. Physical death is assured and the banishment from the garden by divine edict and angelic enforcement indicate a clear and immediate consequence, that humans would no longer have access to the Tree of Life until we see it again in Paradise. 60 Hope is offered through procreation as Eve’s role as mother is highlighted. The stage is set for the continuing drama through their family. crush the serpent. Note that the reference is the serpent himself, not his offspring. The serpent’s life continues. 59. Barr, “Is God a Liar?” 4, argues that Adam and Eve had no desire to become like God. Rebutting Moberly, he says: “The main purpose of this section is to argue that Adam and Eve are not portrayed as humans seeking to assume the place of God. Eve’s motivations were dietetic, aesthetic, and educational. ‘There is nothing here of a rebellion against God, nothing of a titanic will to take over the status of the divine.’” See also idem, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 13–14. I contend that Eve was tempted to acquire an attribute shared by divinity, wisdom. The four parallel notations stated here indicate that, whether or not a desire to become like God was in the heart of the protagonists, this was a theme of the narrator. 60. The image of a Tree of Life is suggested at least metaphorically in Ps 1 depicting the wise man. In Proverbs, wisdom is depicted as a life-producing tree (Prov 3:18), the fruit of the righteous is like a tree producing life (Prov 11:30a), longing fulfilled is a tree of life (Prov 13:12), and healing speech is a life-giving tree (Prov 15:4).

76

Chapter 4

The connection between the two trees, the one that sustained life and the other that brought sudden death, however, merits further exploration. Paul versus Moses The intent of this chapter is to provide a theological overview of the Torah and look for how its teaching on death and mortality might have impacted Paul. What becomes evident as we delve into the Genesis text, however, is that rather than tracing solutions for our modern questions from the Genesis narrative itself, many current theological and exegetical resolutions to textual questions in Genesis do the opposite: they use Paul’s teaching and anachronistically superimpose Paul’s or other’s views on the ancient text. 61 Origins and archetypes are important to Paul. Adam and Abraham provide exemplary anchors for his teaching. But Paul’s handling of these characters in his theological explanations can vary from the Genesis text. Paul’s first figure in Romans is Abraham, “our ancestor according to the flesh” (Rom 4:1). Abraham demonstrates through his first act of faith that he is “the father of all who believe but have never been circumcised” (Rom 4:11) and “the father of the circumcised” (Rom 4:12). He is “the father of us all” (Rom 4:16). 62 In Rom 5, Paul jumps further back behind the Jew/Gentile division to Adam, the first man, to show the universality of the effects of Christ’s work for his gospel “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” 63 Adam is a focused referent in Rom 5, 1 Cor 15, and 1 Tim 2. For Paul, Jesus is a second Adam: he started a new race, he has a new resurrection body and life, he overcame sin and its effects initiated by Adam, and, like Adam, he reigns over God’s creation. 64 61. Enns’s Evolution of Adam stands out among the many discussions of this topic. Enns appeals to evangelicals and sees an irreconcilable gap between modern-scientific and ancient-biblical models of Adam that cannot and need not be breached. His resolution is to honor the two discussions of origins as communicating separate truths using different languages. The biblical Adam serves a theological rather than a historical or scientific function. 62. Ibid., 140–42, notes that some texts trace the origins of Israel to Adam, rather than Abraham. “The primary question Israel was asking was not, ‘Where do people come from?’ (a scientific curiosity), but ‘Where do we come from?’ (a matter of national identity)” (p. 142). 63. Deborah F. Sawyer (“The New Adam in the Theology of St Paul,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, ed. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, JSOTSup 136 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992], 105–7) offers three reasons why Paul used Adam in his theological argument: (1) his eschatological/messianic views contain the idea of a return to paradise leading him to the creation story; (2) the creation story creates a scenario that applies equally to the Gentile as well as the Jew; and (3) he received his Damascus experience as a rebirth and in terms of becoming a new man. 64. God will destroy the world in the flood and start the human race anew with Noah and his descendants. Noah is never identified as a “Second Adam” or as the source of sin or death for the whole human race, although, according to the biblical record, he is the father of a new humanity.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

77

Whereas Adam being the progenitor of all men and women, as a sinner introduced sin and death to the many, whether Jew or Gentile, so Christ, the second Adam, is the origin of a new race of righteous men and women who will never die. We, the community of faith, can trace our origins to the New Man, Jesus. Jesus, the second Adam, reverses and subsumes the work of the first Adam so that transgression is replaced by grace (Rom 5:15) and judgment and condemnation for all people are replaced with justification for all people (Rom 5:16, 18). Death reigns through the first man, but those who receive God’s gift of salvation reign in life (Rom 5:17). Many were made sinners through the work of the first Adam; many will be made righteous through the work of the second Adam (Rom 5:19). Paul’s use of Adam in 1 Cor 15 depicts specifically how Christ, the second Adam, introduces a new reality, a new life through his bodily resurrection and a transformed, glorified, heavenly existence. As Adam was the first ruler of the earth with the mission to subdue it (Gen 1:28), Jesus is also reigning with the mission to subdue everything including death under his feet (1 Cor 15:20–28). Later, Paul will affirm that being in Christ renders one part of a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17). Paul again calls on the first couple in 1 Tim 2 to illustrate the primacy in creation of Adam over Eve and to illustrate Eve as the one who was deceived. Paul explains that her childbearing overcomes her “falling into transgression,” as we have mentioned, a possible allusion to Adam naming her Eve. Through childbearing she overcomes the consequence of her transgression, death, and her seed attacks the deceiving serpent. The Pauline syllogism from Rom 5:12–21 that seeks to prove the universal guilt of all people is as follows: (1) Death is the result of sin. (2) All die. (3) Therefore, all sin. 65 Although this may be true for Paul, it is not the clear or primary teaching of the Genesis text, or any other part of the OT or NT for that matter. Barr points out that this was not the presentation of the rest of the OT as a whole, of Jesus, the Gospels, or the rest of the NT outside Paul. 66 To analyze Paul’s syllogism, we take it point by point. First of all, is death the result of sin? One could claim that death is a final result of sin, but not 65. See Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 214–16, for a discussion of this argument from Rom 5:12 and six possible meanings of the phrase ἐφ᾿ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον: (1) “in which all sinned,” (2) “in whom all sinned,” (3) “because of whom all sinned,” (4) “because in Adam all sinned,” (5) “because all sinned independently,” and (6) “because all sinned in their own persons having been corrupted by Adam.” Hamilton favors view six because it lays emphasis both on the individual as a fruit of being Adam’s descendant, not just through imitation of Adam’s example (view five). 66. Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 4–5. Barr’s thesis is that Adam and Eve’s disobedience brought them the possibility of eternal life, but there is no record that they did not have access to eat of the fruit of this tree until they were banished from the Garden (ibid., 16).

78

Chapter 4

with a generally understood definition of death. We return to the problem how Gen 2:17 works out in the narrative. Ultimately, death is a derivative consequence of banishment from the garden where the Tree of Life grew, whose fruit would have enabled the first couple to have eternal life. Paul underscores the sin/death connection, and we will see below that death is both a natural result of sin and part of God’s judgment for sin, but the connection is not direct or explicit in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. Second, do all die? Paul views death as congenital with the result that Adam and Eve’s descendants follow in their train of sin and mortality. 67 We know of at least two exceptions in the OT: in the immediate context, Enoch (Gen 5:21–24); then, much later, Elijah (2 Kgs 2:1–14). Most exceptional are the lack of fanfare and the lack of explanation in Genesis or the rest of the OT for the account of Enoch’s disappearance. But referring to Paul’s logic that all are sinners, because all are heirs of Adam’s sin, because all die has this one exception that may upset the rule. Was Enoch a descendant of Adam? Did he sin? Was “walking with God” euphemistic for no sin or no guilt? Is there a works-based righteousness in the OT? We have mentioned how “walking with God,” explicitly true of Enoch and Noah, but not Cain, counters the “spiritual death” view. How did he escape death? If he did, does that not argue for a possible exception to inherited sin or death as a necessary consequence? Death as the fruit of sin derives primarily from Paul, not explicitly in Torah. Some might say the exception establishes the rule that sin and death are linked. Certainly, Paul makes the link and it is valid. It is just difficult, though, to see this as a pronounced teaching within the Genesis text. Paul’s conclusion is that all people sin in Adam. Universal death underscores and confirms the problem of universal sin (Rom 5:12). Paul makes a sweeping argument that follows what he has said in Rom 1:18–3:20 that, indeed, the whole world lays guilty before God, the supreme Judge. One could argue that the string of OT verses that he cites to reinforce universal sin (Rom 3:10–12; cf. Ps 14:1–3; Rom 3:13; cf. Ps 5:9; 140:3; Rom 3:14; cf. Ps 10:7; Rom 3:15–17; cf. Isa 59:7–8) do not have a universal emphasis in their original context, but no matter. 68 Paul’s clear doctrine, and by inference, orthodox Christian doctrine argues for universal sin and universal death 67. Paul will observe that death came to all humanity through Adam’s sin, as though to say that his sin, not the sin of his progeny, resulted in their death (Rom 5:12–21). Paul’s term is that death “reigned” (ἐβασίλευσεν, v.  14) from Adam to Moses and his point is that sin resulted in the consequence of death even before Moses gave the law. Before the law was given (ἁμαρτία δὲ οὐκ ἐλλογεῖται μὴ ὄντος νόμου, Rom 5:13), all were made sinners through Adam. So C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 1:282–90. But see Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 345–46, for Moo’s emphasis on the forensic solution, that humankind were declared to be “sinners” or “righteous.” 68. So Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 7.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

79

and an explicit link between the two: “The sting of death is sin” (1 Cor 15:56a). 69 Genesis must stand independently of Paul’s interpretation of the first century A.D. As others have noted, Paul had other sources for his innovative thought. 70 Later theological abstractions may be true—that is another discourse—but first and foremost, good exegesis must strive to understand the original text from the perspective of the original narrator. The original Genesis narration does not connect sin with death as closely as Paul will much later. 71 In fact, as we will see below, death is frequently associated with the righteous. Paul’s view of death assumes a dichotomous view of man appropriate for his era and so with our exegesis of Paul we assume that death implies the separation of the soul from the body. The body is corruptible and returns to dust but is resurrected in a new glorious body (1 Cor 15:42–49, esp. v. 48). Universal death derives from empirical observation, not just biblical revelation. Paul asserts, “For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). Many understand that biological death of all humankind is the consequence of the sin of our first ancestor, Adam. But, again, is this the plain teaching of Genesis? For most who exegete Genesis independent of Paul, the answer is no. 72 Martin-Achard adds that Paul’s assertions that sin and death are linked (Rom 5:12; 7:23) “seem to be utterly at variance with a whole Israelite tradition, according to which man is born mortal and his death is regarded as entirely natural. . . . Neither in His original intention, nor in His purpose of redemption, has the Creator made death necessarily contingent on sin.” 73 Peter Enns recently grappled with this phenomenon in his controversial work, and put it this way: Paul’s Adam is a vehicle by which he articulates the gospel message, but his Adam is still the product of a creative handling of the story. In that sense, 69. See van de Beek, “Evolution, Original Sin, and Death,” 213, for his summary of three senses of κέντρον: “prickle,” as in that which goads the ox on, so sin goads on death; “sting,” “the poison of sin makes men mortal”; and “center,” by focusing on sin we understand what death is. 70. As for Paul’s sources, Hamilton (Genesis 1–17, 212–13) finds more weight in the theology of Judaism than Hellenism or gnostic thought, but adds “his presentation of the Adam-Christ relationship is bold and novel, and may be considered an original concept” (p. 213). 71. Contra Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11:26, NAC 1A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 226–31. Wenham (Genesis 1–15, 90–91) coined the term “protohistorical” to describe Adam and Eve as a model of inheriting sin as more than paradigmatic in that their story describes a reality experienced by the whole human race and thus feasibly of a common origin. 72. For interpretive traditions that clearly separate Cain’s sin from Adam and an idea of inheritance, see Enns, Evolution of Adam, 99–103. 73. Robert Martin-Achard, From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1960), 18–21.

80

Chapter 4 Paul’s handling of Adam is hermeneutically no different from what others were doing at the time: appropriating an ancient story to address pressing concerns of the moment. That has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the gospel. What makes Paul stand out is not his exegetical fidelity to the Old Testament context but how the authority of the risen Christ drives him to read the Old Testament in fresh ways. How Paul does this can be seen more clearly by looking at some examples of how Paul generally handles the Old Testament as bearing witness to Christ. 74

Our ultimate argument is that Paul’s theology that links universal sin and death to the first man, Adam, derives from Gen 2–3, but, as Enns notes, his theology develops the story of the first couple beyond the plain teaching of the text. Paul uses other sources, later revelation and thinking as he considers the story found in Genesis. 75 We are not casting a disparaging eye to either Paul or the author of Genesis. Neither Paul nor the author of Genesis is wrong. Both are inspired and convey the word of God. However, they are saying different things using the same story. It is imperative for the biblical exegete to separate Paul’s theology, set within Second Temple Judaism, from the original story with its unique primitive setting. The Genesis narrative is intended to describe and illustrate the first conflict and losses experienced through disobedience. It uses death language to describe the consequence for Adam and Eve’s sin. It is difficult for us who read the story from the 21st century to understand what he meant by death given that the initial consequence that was promised to be immediate is not biological cessation. Death then appears as a metaphor for something that may include eventual biological cessation but must also include immediate changes that happened on the day Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. That story needs to be observed independently from Paul’s later extrapolation and interpretation. What then does the Genesis story have to do with Paul’s view of mortality? The answer is neither straightforward nor easy. Paul’s hermeneutic clearly differs from ours. Enns’s work belabors the point, but his discussion is astute: to the degree that we have them available, we need to consult contemporary writings and other influential writing within Paul’s day to observe interpretive parameters. We must not force Paul into models that make us comfortable. If Paul reinterprets the Adam and Eve event to serve his theological purpose, we must follow him and allow his reading to stand even if detached from the theology of Genesis. 76 74. Enns, Evolution of Adam, 102–03 (emphasis his). 75. See ibid., 99–103, for a discussion of Jewish sources. 76. Enns contends that Genesis is a postexilic work with a theological motive of defining Israel’s identity through the Adam and Eve story (ibid., 26–32, 65–70). This theological purpose and occasion obviously differ from Paul’s. My work demonstrates core problems with those who contend that the deuteronomic blessing/curse formula is at Moses’ theological center. Obedience or disobedience frequently seem unrelated to God’s blessing or cursing in the narrative.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

81

At this point, it serves as a healthy reminder that our purpose for tracing the background of the Hebrew canon, as we did the Greco-Roman worldviews, is not because these ideas are prescriptive or in any way limiting for Paul and his theology. Paul feels free to draw on their imagery, but he does not feel an obligation to merely expound on their teachings or theology. He is able to use images in innovative ways. His novelty does not imply contradiction or true discrepancy. It is fair to look within the older text to see if any of Paul’s ideas derive from that occasion, setting, or authorial purpose, but, in doing so, we do not need to feel bound to that text or theological purpose. That was not Paul’s hermeneutic. 77 The notable absence of discussion of Adam and Eve’s sin or consequent death as the human origin of either in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures highlights the relative unimportance of this story in Israel’s theology. 78 Death in Paradox: The Example of Cain and Abel Death in Genesis is thus presented within a paradox. We have considered the conundrum of death’s not being linked to sin with Adam and Eve. The enigmatic tension is continued in Gen 4 with a loose link between sin and death in the story of Cain and Abel. The two brothers stand distinct, similar to the two trees of Gen 2: one lives and the other dies. God does not exercise retributive justice even in the case of murder. In fact, the opposite is true: Abel, a righteous man, dies a noble death, but God gives Cain, the first murderer, a mark to prevent anyone else from taking his life. 79 Abel foreshadows some aspects of noble death, dying for a good reason, and prophet-martyr, dying to promote a good cause. 80 Later, Cain’s descendant, 77. On the need to consider other first century literature to understand Paul’s hermeneutic better, see ibid., 98, where Enns says: “understanding something of the interpretive milieu of Judaism is indispensable to having a well-rounded understanding of how the New Testament authors handled their Scriptures—which is no small factor in coming to terms with how Paul handled Scripture, including the story of Adam.” He traces other mentions of Adam in the Apocrypha (Wis 10:1–3; 2:23–24; Sir 15:14–17; 17:1–14; 25:24; 33:10; 2 Esdr 3:4–27; 4:30; 6:53–59; 7:48; 2 Macc 7:28), OT Pseudepigrapha (2 Bar. 23:4; 48:42–43; 54:15; Jub. 3:27–32; LAB 10:7; LAE 13:1­14:3) and Philo (Creation 134­­–35; 141; 151–52; QG 1:81) as exemplars for Paul’s hermeneutic (see Evolution of Adam, 99–103). 78. So ibid., 82–88. 79. Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition, 1–2, underscores the many firsts of Gen 4: the first murder, the first sexual intercourse, the first births, the first choice of occupation, the first deity worship and the first time God rejects worship, the first mention of “sin,” the first mention of blood, and, as we shall discuss here, the first offer of divine protection for a murderer. Other firsts include a genealogy, bigamy, vendettas, exile (God’s expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden in the last verses of Gen 3 can also be likened to an exile), music, and metallurgy. Byron in his monograph addresses in detail many of the same questions and more than we do here only in summary. 80. John Byron, “Abel’s Blood and the Ongoing Cry for Vengeance,” CBQ 73 (2011): 743–56, shows how Abel’s blood that cried for vengeance is a feature of martyrdom. The assumption is that some act of retributive judgment, perhaps suffering or death of the

82

Chapter 4

Lamech, kills without an expectation of punitive consequences because of how God responded to Cain (Gen 4:24; cf. v. 15). Cain hated Abel because Abel offered sacrifices that pleased God and enabled fellowship with him. 81 Jesus warns the religious experts that they will be held accountable for “the blood of all the prophets that have been shed since the beginning of the world” (Luke 11:49–51; cf. Matt 23:34–36) and begins with Abel as the first prophet killed, thus identifying them as Cain’s descendants. 82 Rather than exercising capital punishment on Cain, God made him a homeless wanderer. 83 The narrator never tells us how, when, or if Cain dies. 84 For that matter, no mention is made of the burial of Adam, Eve, or Cain—that will not happen until much later with the burial of Abraham’s wife, Sarah. 85 The same ground that swallowed Abel’s blood rejected Cain’s labor. Again, the wordplay with ground (‫ )אדם‬cannot be ignored. Adam is formed from the ground (Gen 1:27). The ground is cursed for Adam and will produce thorns and receive Adam when he dies (Gen 3:19). Cain is a worker of the ground, but his sacrifices, fruit from the ground, are not acceptable to God (Gen 4:3, 5). The ground, Cain’s domain, receives Abel’s blood, which cries to God from the ground (Gen 4:7). 86 This results in a curse compoundmartyr-maker is in mind. The intertestamental literature transformed Abel into an eschatological judge. 81. Abel’s animal sacrifices were acceptable to God and Cain’s agrarian sacrifices were not. The text does not indicate why. Gen 4 makes no comment on Abel’s righteousness or his faith, but Jesus labels Abel as “righteous” (Matt 23:35), and Heb 11:4 commends Abel’s faith demonstrated through his acceptable sacrifice as making him righteous. Was blood shedding necessary to appease God at this earliest stage? Was Abel’s “righteous” status derived through this sacrifice? The text does not explicitly identify Abel’s sacrifice as a blood sacrifice. The first mention of blood in the Bible is Cain’s shedding Abel’s blood. Abel’s blood cried out to God from the ground (Gen 4:10) prompting him to banish Cain underscoring the function of blood in God’s economy. The concept of blood atonement does not make it into the interpretive tradition this early, but both Abel’s offerings and his own bloody death reflect a later view that shedding blood was required in some sacrifices for reconciliation and covenant making. 82. But the principle of bloodguilt passing to subsequent generations is countered in Deut 24:16. Cf. Deut 5:9. 83. See Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition, 93–122, for a discussion of traditional attempts to resolve the incongruity of Cain’s punishment. 84. For discussion of this discrepancy and historical interpretation, see ibid., 129–40. 85. See below and ibid., 76–82. 86. Byron comments on Heb 12:22–24 that asserts that “you have come . . . ‘to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks of something better than Abel’s does’: As part of his Christological interpretation of biblical history, he presents the blood of Christ as superseding the blood of Abel. While Abel’s voice demands justice, the blood of Christ promotes reconciliation” (ibid., 185–86). Compare this with Matt 23:35 / Luke 11:51, where Jesus himself claims that the martyrs’ blood from Abel to Zechariah (spanning the entire Hebrew Scriptures) will be charged against and condemn the current generation.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

83

ing the one given to Adam, his father (Gen 4:11–12). 87 Now God drives him from the ground to wander the earth (Gen 4:12, 14) with a protective mark that preserved his life (foreshadowing the cities of refuge that protect some murderers from retaliation). Later, Noah is identified as one who will bring comfort from the labor of working the cursed ground (Gen 5:29) and, remarkably, after the flood and Noah’s aromatic offering, God promises to rescind the curse on the ground he had originally given to Adam and establishes seasons and agricultural rhythms (Gen 8:20–21). The mark of Cain thus exhibits guilt and grace. 88 Whereas the typical expectation of a martyr is for ultimate transcendent vindication, this text offers no indication that Abel’s death is avenged with the equal penalty of death and certainly no mention of a consequence in the hereafter. 89 Cain started a family and built a city. A conciliatory position is offered by Sailhamer, who suggests that Gen 4:13 might best be translated that Cain’s “iniquity was too great to forgive,” rather than, that his “punishment was too great to bear.” As such, it would not be a complaint about his punishment but an expression of remorse for his iniquity and would nicely explain God’s restraint, “the Lord’s response of mercy and protection . . . implies that Cain’s words in verse 13 are indeed words of repentance.” 90 Consider, however, that Lamech in his boast to his wives claims that the protection extended to Cain, that his avenger would be punished 7 times, would be multiplied to him, that is, Lamech’s avenger would be punished 77 times (Gen 4:24). 91 Lamech does not understand Cain to be repenting and, rather than repenting himself, he exhibits an attitude of presumption on God’s exponentially greater mercy and protection. Notwithstanding the exile of Cain to wander (cf. God’s banishing Adam and Eve from the garden and the Tree of Life), God does not execute talionic justice, and Cain succeeds at pleading his case for mercy—that he would not die for 87. Ibid., 93–97. 88. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 60. 89. But see Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition, 106–19, for discussion of interpretive traditions including that Cain would not die until he had received all of his punishment. Hamilton (God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment, 78) suggests, as he does with Adam and Eve, that death for Cain would have been a mercy and that, by continuing his life, God perhaps was extending a form of retributive judgment. Again, death is never regarded with such a favorable understanding within ANE history or the Hebrew Scriptures, but as Byron points out, this was one possible interpretation by commentators such as Jerome (Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition, 114–15). 90. Sailhamer, Pentateuch as Narrative, 113–14. Contra David M. Fouts, “Genesis,” in The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study: Genesis-Deuteronomy, ed. Eugene H. Merrill (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 2003), 56; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 160. 91. But see T. Benj. 7:4, which indicates that Lamech would be punished 70 times 7 Cain’s punishment. For insightful discussion of the problem and solutions, see Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition, 106–19.

84

Chapter 4

his sin. 92 Not so for the righteous. In ironic contrast, death is the prominent feature in the genealogical list that follows of Adam’s righteous descendants. Beginning with Adam and Eve’s third son, Seth, 10 generations are listed in Gen 5–9, the “death chapter,” a genealogical section interrupted by the account of the flood. Nine of the 10 end with the ominous conclusion, “and he died” (Gen 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31; 9:29). 93 To all appearances, the account of Gen 4–5 illustrates that the righteous die and the unrighteous escape death. Death as Punishment: God’s Occasional Consequence The earlier ambiguity of mortal consequence as judgment for sin is abandoned in two early cataclysmic acts of divine judgment based on human decadence: the flood and fire from heaven falling on Sodom and Gomorrah. By Gen 6, sin has escalated to such extreme proportions that God is stirred to take notorious action destroying societies. Although the people offend God, however, the Scriptures make it clear that they are unaware of the link to death as a consequence for their actions. The narrator of the flood gives unique insight into God’s thoughts and offense. He links humanity’s sin with their destruction: But the Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth. Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended. So the Lord said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth–everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them” (Gen 6:5–7).

Sin and death are linked and death is more than a mere punitive act, but the culminate result of the creator turning his back on his creation for their abject evil. But the Gospels underscore that as the people in Noah’s day were carrying on their sinful lives, they had no regard for judgment or consequences: “For in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark. And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away. It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:37–39; see also Sir 16:7; Jub. 20:5–6; 1 En. 67:10; 2 Macc 2:4; LAB 3.1–3; Josephus, Ant. 1.72– 76; Apoc. Adam 3:3; 3 En. 45:3). 92. But compare the various later interpretations, many dubious, summarized in ibid., 121–22: (1) Cain was cursed with a loss of agricultural abilities and the opposition of creation; (2) Cain was cursed with a trembling body; (3) Lamech and 77 of his sons died in the Flood to compensate for Abel and his potential offspring that were obliterated through his murder; (4) Cain repented and was forgiven. 93. The notable exception is Enoch (Gen 5:24). Gen 9:28–29 concludes the string of Adam’s descendants through Seth found in Gen 5:1–32 with the death of the 10th descendant, Noah, introduced in Gen 5:29. So Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 474–75.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

85

Drawing from apocryphal literature, 2 Pet 2:5 calls Noah a “herald of righteousness” (δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα). In the Sibylline Oracles (regarded as 2nd- to 5th-century A.D. pseudepigraphy), Noah is clearly a prophet who preached against the various sins of the people, warned of imminent judgment, and ultimately was led by God to build the ark (Sib. Or. 1:128–31, and passim). While postcanonical and rooted in Peter’s writings, early NT interpreters found the story of Noah as a preacher and prophet appealing. In a disputed reference in 1  Pet 3:19–21, a popular interpretive position indicates that Christ preached repentance through Noah to unrighteous humans. Perhaps through his faithfulness in building an ark in preparation for the flood, the people were sufficiently warned to repent or face consequences. Later interpretation includes this element, but this foreboding that links sin and corporeal death is not recorded in the original story or in Jesus’ testimony. 94 God appears to further reverse the principle that the righteous die and murderers are protected in Gen 9:6 when he establishes a principle of capital punishment with Noah after the flood. Taking the life of a human is equated with taking the life of God for man is made in God’s image and from the one who takes, his life also will be required. Death is thus linked to sin, and capital punishment is a repeated theme from this point on in Moses, which is captured in Paul’s discussion of divine judgment and consequence in Rom 5–6. As for Sodom and Gomorrah, sin and death are likewise linked by the narrator of the Genesis story and in Jesus’ and Paul’s theology. As heinous as their immorality was, however, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah themselves appear unaware of that connection. Jesus, in fact, indicates that if he had done his miracles in the region of Sodom in Abraham’s day, they would have made the connection with divine accountability and would have been spared (Matt 11:23–24). Much later, Jonah’s narrative illustrates a city, Nineveh, which repents at the warning of judgment ( Jonah 3) and is spared. The plagues of Egypt, particularly the story of the Passover and the killing of the firstborn Egyptians (Exod 6–13), however, offers an example of how hard-hearted people respond when they are warned about mortal consequence—rather than repenting to preserve life, Pharaoh’s obstinate heart led to Egypt’s downfall and death. 95 The warning of a link between sin and death is arbitrary and the response of those so warned, such as Adam and Eve with the fruit, is unpredictable. The people of God were not immune from mortal judgment, but God demonstrated mercy often through human appeal. Abraham interceded for the few godly who may have lived in Sodom (Gen 18:33). God almost killed 94. So John S. Feinberg, “1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State,” WTJ 48 (1986): 303–36; Millard J. Erickson, “Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death?” BSac 152 (1995): 131–44. Contra Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 138–41. 95. Paul comments on Pharaoh’s hard heart in Rom 9:17–18.

86

Chapter 4

Moses for not circumcising his son, save for the intervention of his wife, Zipporah (Exod 4:24–26). Several times, Moses successfully interceded for the people of Israel to stay God’s wrath from destroying them: the incident with the golden calf (Exod 32; cf. Deut 9:7–20); after the people complain from the spies’ report (Num 13–14); the incident of the rebellious Sons of Korah and Israel’s sympathizers (Num 16:31–50; Deut 11:6); and the incident when people complained about food and drink prompting God to send snakes to kill them (Num 21:4–9). These stories influenced Paul, who uses many of them in 1 Cor 10 to warn the church against treating sin lightly (cf. 1 Cor 11:30). We are to beware of insolence and false confidence and look for God’s provision when tried, and we are to flee idolatry (1 Cor 10:11–14). For Paul, the consequence of sin is death (1 Cor 10:5, 8–11). The above illustrations demonstrate a reality throughout the Torah that death in judgment occurs collectively for groups (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian firstborn, the sons of Korah, the extermination of the Midianites, and so on) but also occurs for the individual (capital punishment, Moses’ judgment, the father of the daughters of Zelophehad, and so on). The daughters of Zelophehad offer an explicit reference for death as a consequence for individual sin (Num 27:1–11). They requested justice in their land inheritance after pointing out a link between sin and death. They state explicitly that their father died for his own sin (v. 3), not in association with groups who had committed heinous sins that had brought God’s judgment (and presumably had disqualified them from sharing in their patristic inheritance). God’s justice and mercy manifest themselves in different ways. Sometimes death is the consequence for sin; at other times, God stays his hand of mortal punishment. 96 Death is thus presented in paradox: sometimes sin and death are linked in a cause-effect relationship; at other times, the link, at least from a human perspective, is muted or nonexistent. Death also occurs naturally without reference to sin. Death occurs as punishment to groups who disobey him, whether or not they recognize the link between their sin and death, and also to individuals. Death as Punishment: Human Agency Executes Divine Will God executes mortal punishment through human agency: for individual offenses, through capital punishment; or nationally, through war. For some, the death penalty is rooted in the initial sin of Adam and Eve, but regardless God later gives specific instructions to Noah of talionic justice, a life for a life (Gen 9:4–6). Two reasons make murder especially offensive: (1) a “human family” exists in which we are all related—it is offensive to kill a fam96. For sin as the cause of death, see Karl-Johan Illman, Old Testament Formulas about Death, Meddelanden fran Stiftelsens för Äbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut 48 (Äbo, Finland: Äbo Akademi, 1979), 83–88.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

87

ily member; and, most importantly, (2) humans are uniquely and distinctly in the image of God (Gen 9:5–6). 97 Killing humanity is equated with killing God himself, for each human carries the stamp of God. God resides uniquely on and through his image bearers. Prohibition to murder will eventually be the sixth commandment, and through Moses God will establish a system of retaliation for murder and refuge for accidental killing. For several other crimes, death is the prescribed legal penalty for outrageous offense (e.g., Lev 20:7–27; 24:13–23). Capital punishment as a means of national atonement is illustrated with Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron the priest. As God’s agent, he kills a couple, an Israelite man who brought a Midianite woman into the camp of Israel to have sex with her, which was an abomination (Num 25:1–18). God stops a plague that killed 24,000 and makes a covenant of peace and a permanent priesthood with Phinehas and his descendants “because he has been zealous for his God and has made atonement for the Israelites” (vv. 10– 13). 98 Capital punishment stays God’s wrath. War occupies much of the OT but finds its roots in the Torah. God’s sovereignty is linked with war, and Israel is the tool of God to displace and destroy the peoples residing in the land they would occupy. 99 Moses warns that, if the people of Israel dishonor their covenant with God, they will be subject to a curse, which includes enemy armies operating as God’s instrument of destruction against them. War is a punitive divine tool. By it, God purges tribes, nations, and races that through pervasive and ostentatious evil are destroyed to prevent their local expression of sin from infecting and corrupting other peoples made in God’s image. 100 Blessing and Cursing Equated with Life and Death A link between sin and death culminates in the deuteronomic blessing/ curse passage: life is God’s blessing; death his curse. Faithful Jews who worship God alone in covenant faithfulness should expect death and mortality to be suppressed and to enjoy a long and happy life. 101 But turn from God and death and destruction will follow (Deut 28:20–29; cf. Lev 26:14–45). 97. Eugene H. Merrill, “Suicide and the Concept of Death in the Old Testament,” in Suicide: A Christian Response. Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life, ed. Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 324–25. 98. The use of the word “to atone” (‫)ּכּפֶר‬ ִ is noteworthy here. Sin was punished and atoned for by the death of the human offenders, rather than an animal substitute. 99. The nation of Israel is commanded to plunder and destroy the Canaanites (Num 21:1–3), the Amorites (Num 21:21–32; Deut 2:24–25) the army of King Og of Bashan (Num 21:33–35; Deut 3:1–11), and the Midianites (Num 25:16–18; 31). 100. God tells Abraham four generations before Israel destroys the Amorites that their sin had not yet reached its limit where they would warrant annihilation (Gen 15:16). 101. See Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 342–53, for a comparison of Paul’s and Josephus’s interpretations of the Law and

88

Chapter 4

The seed for the horrific possibility that God would abandon his plans for his people, destroy them, and begin again is suggested both in the image of the flood with Noah and also with Moses’ intercession for the people. 102 While Moses was receiving the tablets of the commandments from God’s hand, the people of Israel made and worshiped a golden calf in an abominable act of idolatry (Exod 32–34). God was stirred to deep anger and generated a plan to wipe them out and start over with Moses and his family (Exod 32:10). Moses’ intercession stopped God’s hand of destruction (Exod 32:11–14) but infamously resulted in Moses’ breaking the tablets (Exod 32:19); his grinding the idol to powder and making the children of Israel drink it (Exod 32:20); the killing of 3,000 at the hand of the Levites (Exod 32:25–29); Yhwh’s sending a plague (Exod 32:35); and a promise of further delayed judgment (Exod 32:34). 103 Throughout Leviticus and Numbers, we see God intervene with death for disobedience (e.g., Lev 10:1–2; cf. Lev 10:7, 9; 16:1–2; 27:29; Num 15:32– 36). Israel frequently complains, defies, and rebels against God resulting in notorious deaths. When people craved meat, God provided quail but struck those who complained with a deathly plague (Num 11:33–34). After 12 representatives investigated the promised land and reported the fruits of the land as well as the threat of powerful enemies, the people cried out in grief because of the great obstacle wanting to return to Egypt rather than go forward. God threatened to destroy them and begin again. Only Moses’ intercession stayed him, but God promised that the current generation of faithless Israel would wander and die in the wilderness without conquering or entering (Num 13–14; cf. 26:63–65). The sons of Korah defy Moses’ leadership and are swallowed up by the earth. The people cry out in objection to this divine judgment and God again sends a plague that threatens to exterminate them. Moses and Aaron quickly make atonement for the people and so the plague is stayed killing only 14,700 (Num 16). Later, the people complained and wanted to return to Egypt. God sent poisonous snakes killing many Israelites until, under God’s command, Moses made a bronze snake. Anyone looking at the bronze snake was spared (Num 21:1–9). Clearly, God was disappointed with his chosen people who did not respond with faith to his promises of deliverance and blessing. On a more positive note, Balaam, when sought out to curse Israel, cannot and instead concludes, “Who can conclusion that the blessings of obedience include not just a good temporal life but immortality, or “eternal life.” 102. But, as we have mentioned, Adam and Eve’s judgment offers an example of hope within the curse. Although the couple is banished from the garden that contains the Tree of Life, Adam gives Eve the name Mother of All Living, and the banishment is followed with her procreative act in giving birth to a son. It is not stated directly in the text, but that son would succeed her, resulting in the continuance of the human race. 103. Delayed judgment here is noteworthy and perhaps foreshadows a view that will develop by the end of the Hebrew Scripture of judgment being delayed until after death. People will have to answer for their behavior, but not always in this life.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

89

count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the upright, and let the end of my life be like theirs” (Num 23:10). 104 Part of the blessing of the faithful is a positive death. What about the tenuous link between sin and death? Williams makes a similar observation that although deuteronomic blessing and curse teaching pervades the OT world, a counter-teaching emerges and in many texts prevails that suffering and death is independent of evil or good behavior. 105 Good people suffer and die and the godless prosper. By the intertestamental period, divine retribution is pushed off to the afterlife. We will soon see examples where, as Ballard says, “Death is also associated with the remedy for sin, an essential element in redemption and salvation.” 106 But a prevailing Jewish view in Paul’s day was this sense that God’s blessing came through covenant obedience. The Jews of Paul’s day wanted to reclaim the blessing of life through faithfulness. Death as Final Death in the Hebrew Scriptures is presented as final. This is a critical thought especially given where worldviews and assumptions will take us. By the NT and certainly in Paul, death is not final. He speaks of eternal life and is certain of a resurrection life after biological death. The NT also relegates much of judgment to some time after death, a living existence after biological death. But not so for the OT. No conception of an afterlife makes it into any of the story. The Bible’s plot and judgment are lived out among the living. Nowhere in the account of the first couple or of the first recorded death, of Abel, or through the 10 generations of Adam’s descendants in the 104. See the story in Num 22–24. Later in Num 31:8, Balaam is killed by Israel’s armies as God avenged the Moabites and Midianites. Balaam, prophesied positive blessing to Israel, but then allied with Israel’s enemies and instigated attempts to overthrow them through sexual immorality and pagan ritual resulting in God’s judgment of a plague (Num 31:16; cf. Num 25). Joshua ( Josh 13:21–22; 24:9–10), Nehemiah (Neh 13:1–2), Micah (Mic 6:5), Peter (2 Pet 2:15–16), Jude ( Jude 11), and John (Rev 2:14–15) all reference Balaam as God’s enemy from whom Israel was delivered. 105. Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 91–96. Williams adds an insightful observation (pp.  96–102) that “the only significance that the death of an individual has is that it rids the community of the defilement of one who transgresses some law or taboo” (p. 96, emphasis mine). The significance of individual death is muted in the OT, but as understanding of an afterlife develops in the intertestamental period, postmortem judgment that can focus on individual destiny gains greater importance. 106. Ballard, “Death,” 326. Ballard deflects from the idea of paying a price through death to what he considers the thrust of the biblical material that the release of life enables communion. “Somehow through death the alienation of death has been overcome. A new relationship between God and humanity has been inaugurated, guaranteed by God in the faithfulness of his Son.”

90

Chapter 4

genealogical­list in Gen 5, is an afterlife even hinted. Enoch is an anomaly who did not die but “disappeared” (Gen 5:24) and is not heard from again until he becomes a legendary figure in the intertestamental period. 107 His unusual removal implies another state of existence in God’s presence and offers an option of immortality, but it does not imply or promise a post­ mortem existence. From those destroyed in the flood to Abraham and Israel’s­forefathers to those who perish in battle or die natural deaths throughout the OT record, no one offers assurance about what, if anything, follows death. 108 No one is able to speak of its mysteries and no one on this side of the veil has any conceptual framework to speak of that place. 109 The nation may have collective eschatological hope, but death is final for the individual. Sheol is recognized as the place for the dead indicating some existence in the afterlife, but it is described as a place of silence and shadows. 110 Although humans can conceive of immortality or an afterlife, death itself is judgment and death is final. Jewish history, like that of Homer and the Gentiles, offers no data of the dead. This is not to say that the Torah does not recognize a human desire to know about the afterlife or that the people of the OT naively went on without asking questions about the dead; it just forbids pursuing contact with the dead. Prohibition to necromancy, divination by addressing the dead, is found in Deut 18:11, but a variety of references may either offer direct or inferential censure of activities that could include death as a means to know or control destiny (Exod 22:18; Lev 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; Deut 18:9–11; 26:14; 2 Kgs 21:6 / 2 Chr 33:6; 2 Kgs 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13; Isa 8:19; 19:3; 29:4; 65:2–4; and Mal 3:5). Necromancy was not regarded as a big problem in Israel. 111 In107. Johnston (Shades of Sheol, 200) makes the obvious and important observation that “Enoch’s fate does not occasion later theological comment or devotional fervour in Israel’s religious literature.” Neither Enoch nor Elijah becomes a model for other OT saints or prophets to follow. See also Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 6. 108. This worldview, of course, changes with the account of the transfiguration in the Gospels where glorified Moses and Elijah appear and confer with Jesus (Matt 17:1–9; Mark 9:2–10; Luke 9:28–36). The NT views those in covenant relationship with God existing after death. 109. Samuel’s appearance to Saul via Saul’s heinous act of consulting a medium (1 Sam 28) is the only exception. 110. Nicholas J. Tromp (Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, BibOr 21 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969], 212), in his overview of OT views of death, points out that “Sheol is described as a negative counterpart of the earth; being chaotic, it is approached by the via negationis. It is furnished with negative experiences, opposed to the favourable ones on earth and corresponding to the griefs of this life.” Johnston (Shades of Sheol, 199–217) surveys possible texts that offer exceptions but concludes that in the Hebrew Bible “there is no clearly articulated alternative to Sheol” (p. 199). 111. Ibid., 150–66. Contra Theodore J. Lewis (“Ancestor Worship,” ABD 1:241), who claims that from the deuteronomic prohibition we can infer that necromancy flourished

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

91

famously, the only narrative account of necromancy is when Saul seeks and finds a medium who is able to call up the prophet Samuel (1 Sam 28:3–25). Samuel’s postmortem presence implies some postmortem existence, but the text clearly indicates Samuel’s displeasure at being brought back to the land of the living for nefarious purposes. A resulting curse on Israel’s king ensues—on the following day Saul and his sons will join Samuel and the dead. The medium herself fears retribution for her act but is spared. This isolated example casts a negative light on knowledge of the afterlife. I have mentioned that death is frequently equivocated in current discussions with images of banishment or exile, all the express consequences for sin. 112 Life is equated with Eden and the promised land; its forfeiture with death, banishment from the garden, and the national loss of place and temple­. Restoration images that will emerge as Israel seeks to reclaim hope in God’s blessing will be enshrouded with the idea of returning to the land and a recovery of lost glory for the temple and the people. These will further develop into an eschatological vision of return to a New Jerusalem and with images of a return to an Edenic state. This vision emphasizes a collective aspect, a part of national promise. Only much later, by the time of the NT and only after the close of the OT canon, the idea of personal resurrection and eternal life will be paired with these return and restoration images. These images certainly convey ideas that parallel and link. They are all images of judgment and punishment, and death is associated at least metaphorically with both banishment and exile. Adam and Eve’s banishment from the Garden implies death because they are banished from the orchard where stands the Tree of Life. Eventual death is the implication of that banishment. Exile, a concept that is introduced in Deuteronomy, is accompanied by mass destruction and death. Only the fortunate are not exterminated, but merely displaced. As Israel’s eschatology develops to conceptualize an existence after death, banishment and exile become associated with the Hebrew Sheol, equated through the LXX with the Greek, Hades, which develop into many of our modern ideas of postmortem punishment, hell or Gehenna. We must be careful, however, as we see these images in parallel: to equate Israel’s exile to Adam and Eve’s banishment and both of these to death risks obliterating the unique significance of death. People speak of current suffering among the living as “hell,” but the biblical description of hell (whether metaphorical or substantial) distinctively points to a postmortem existence. Death is not a mere exile or even banishment. Death by definition implies cessation and end. It is final. Care must be taken to honor the semantic value of death and not soften its meaning by combining it with the in ancient Israel. Lewis finds necromancy in prophetic literature as well but conspicuously absent in the wisdom literature. 112. This connection is part of the argument that fuels a later date for the finalization of the writing of the Torah.

92

Chapter 4

other images that imply mere loss, transition, process, delay in the expectations of the exilic community, or loss of hope. Death is obliteration. Sacrifice and Death Animals have been killed in sacrifice since the beginning of recorded history (Gen 3:21). Abel was the first in the Scriptures to offer animals to God. Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable to God in contrast to Cain’s offering of the fruit of the ground. Later, we see animal sacrifices with Noah (Gen 8:20–22) and Abraham (Gen 15:9–21) as part of the covenant-making ceremony with God. Shedding blood serves as a covenant seal. The blood serves as a witness of the gravity of the agreement to the testators and seals their word. 113 The most dramatic sacrifice or near sacrifice in the OT is the Aqedah (from ‫עָקַ ד‬, “to bind”; cf. Gen 22:9), where God commanded Abraham to offer­his son of promise, Isaac, on an altar. 114 Abraham submissively obeyed but is spared killing his son when the angel of the Lord produced a ram as a substitute. The meaning of this sacrifice is vigorously debated, but we can minimally affirm that it was a test of Abraham’s faith, a faith embedded in paradox and demanding unswerving faith in a trustworthy God (cf. Heb 11:17–19)—and a test he passed with flying colors. Isaac escapes death through the substitution of the ram, but, in effect, is transformed into a figure of living sacrifice. His life is given back to him, but as one who has been offered to God. The parallels between Abraham offering Isaac and God offering Jesus are many, but the references to Christ do not find direct literary or historical dependence on the Genesis story. McKnight affirms, “The decisive factor is that, regardless of the potential explanatory power of this tradition, there is no evidence that Jesus understood his own death in terms of the Aqedah.” 115 113. O. Palmer Robertson (The Christ of the Covenants [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980], 3–15) defines a covenant as “a bond in blood sovereignly administered,” and underscores the fact that throughout the Bible covenants are sealed by a formalized blood-shedding indicating life-and-death consequences should the covenant be broken (p. 4). 114. The story takes a prominent place describing the faith of Abraham in both Heb 11:17–19 and James 2:21–23. James Swetnam (Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah, AnBib 94 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981], 80–85) suggests Mark 1:11; John 1:29; 3:16; Rom 8:32; 1 Cor 15:4; and 1 Pet 1:20 as other allusions to the story in Gen 22. The Samaritans held this story in high esteem. Believing Mt. Gerizim to be Mt. Moriah (Gen 22:2) where Abraham offered Isaac, the mountain was their holy center of worship. Jesus contended with the woman at the well concerning the proper place for worship in John 4:19–26. Romano Penna (Paul the Apostle: A Theological and Exegetical Study, vol. 1: Jew and Greek Alike, trans. Thomas P. Wahl [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996], 142–68) sees a strong connection between Gen 22 and Rom 8:32 as does Hengel, Atonement, 35. For a summary of interpretations for the Akedah, see Louis A. Berman, The Akedah: The Binding of Isaac (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997), 81–134. 115. Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 55.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

93

The sacrificial system with its rules and regulations instituted by Moses created a daily and routine exposure to the vulnerability of life. Sacrifices were offered routinely each day, in regular festive offerings, and on an occasional basis, but the meaning of sacrifice would not necessarily have always been clear to the average Jew. 116 Gentile religions sacrificed to oblige the capricious will of the gods and as a means of demonstrating obeisance and as a commercial contract—that is, we show our submission through offering a sacrifice; you, god, do something special for us that we really need (typically related to agriculture and fertility). Israel attached a variety of meanings to sacrificial death, but their exclusive covenant relationship made a commercial contract obsolete. They sacrificed primarily because of thanksgiving, vows of obedience, and to seek atonement. 117 Sin and death were linked to forgiveness through sacrifices, which foreshadow propitiation to come through Christ. 118 Sacrifice that atones for sin or uncleanness is a dominant idea in Leviticus. 119 The death of animals as part of the cult might have served to reinforce the concept of the fragility of life before a God who requires a sober awareness of our need to offer life to atone for sin, appease him, or please him. 120 The benefit of sacrifice was conceived as temporal, rather than in postmortem judgment. That death and mortality are linked to accountability with God is reinforced through capital punishment, holy war, the deuteronomic curses, and the divinely ordained sacrificial system. Notorious Deaths The narrative “heroes” of the Torah—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, and their families—experience death not punitively, but as a natural phenomenon. 121 The account of Sarah’s death, the purchase of a burial plot for her and Abraham’s family takes up all of Gen 23. Abraham lived to a ripe old age and has the legacy of a meaningful life well lived and a 116. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 274. 117. Christopher J. H. Wright, “Leviticus,” in New Bible Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 124–25. 118. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 274–75. The author of Hebrews will affirm that the repetitious sacrifices did not offer enduring hope. Christ’s sacrifice will abolish this system and offer one last permanent sacrifice that takes away sins, overcomes God’s enemies, and serves as the basis for a new and abiding covenant (Heb 10:1–18). 119. Jay Sklar (Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions, HBM 2 [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005], 163–82) explains from primarily Levitical texts how blood ransoms and purifies. 120. Cilliers Breytenbach (Grace, Reconciliation, Concord: The Death of Christ in GraecoRoman Metaphors, NovTSup 135 [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 12–19) argues that there is no relationship between atonement and reconciliation and that Paul gets his concept of reconciliation not from the Pentateuch but from the Greek-speaking world. 121. Bailey (Biblical Perspectives on Death, 52–58) underscores that, for ancient Israel, death was normal and an individual death was not an ultimate loss “since the group would survive” (p. 58).

94

Chapter 4

natural death that is set as the positive standard in the Torah (Gen 25:8; cf. Job 5:26). 122 Rachel, Jacob’s favorite wife, dies in childbirth while they were traveling. He marks her tomb with a pillar (Gen 35:19–20). Isaac dies without much narration or fanfare. His sons, Jacob and Esau, bury him in the same place as Abraham, Sarah, and Rebecca, his wife (Gen 35:28–29; cf. Gen 49:29–32). Death of loved ones produces grief but does not raise the question of theodicy or punishment. When Jacob sees Joseph alive in his old age, he exclaims that he is ready to die (Gen 46:30). Only a premature death that could have been avoided is lamented and shunned. Thus, the Egyptians’ appeal to Joseph when during famine: “Give us food! Why should we die before your very eyes because our money has run out?” (Gen 47:15). Patriarchs prepare their successors for life without them, passing on possessions (e.g., Gen 25:5–6; 48:22) and sometimes including a blessing and instructions about their burial. In Abraham’s case, the aging Patriarch makes his servant swear to find a fit wife for his son Isaac after Sarah dies (Gen 24:1–4). Isaac although infamously deceived passes on a blessing first to younger Jacob, then Esau (Gen 27:1–41). Jacob makes a point of blessing Joseph’s sons. He mimics his father Isaac by first blessing the younger son, Ephraim, (Gen 48:8–20) and passing a prophecy on to his 12 sons (Gen 49:1–27). Both Jacob and Joseph die in Egypt but request that their bones be sepulchered in the promised land, Jacob specifying with his ancestors (Gen 47:28–31; 50:24–26). The bones of the dead, the material remains after­ death, represent the dead and need to be interred where they will be remembered. Joseph and his brothers carry Jacob to Canaan in a great procession and bury him with his ancestors as he had requested (Gen 50:1–14). Joseph is embalmed in Egypt, but it was not until the Exodus that Moses was able to fulfill his request and take his bones out of Egypt (Exod 13:19). No mention is made of his burial until Josh 24:32, where they are buried in Shechem. Hebrews 11:22 sees Joseph’s instructions concerning his burial in the promised land as a commendable act of faith. According to Hamilton, they realized that their sojourn in Egypt was only temporary and encouraged their successors that God would move them into the land (Gen 48:21). “Even if represented only by his decayed remains, he wants to be a part of that redemptive act of God.” 123 122. Abraham has several events in his life that serve as firsts on the topic of mortality in the biblical record. He is the first to fear being murdered—twice he has Sarai, his wife, lie, first to the Egyptians (Gen 12:12) and later to Abimelech (Gen 20) so they would not kill him to get her. He was the first to experience war (Gen 13). He struggles through God’s test to sacrifice Isaac, the son of promise (Gen 22:1–18). He is the first to have his spouse die (Gen 23). Sarah’s funeral is the first recorded in the Scriptures (Gen 23). As Abraham faces death, so the reader encounters the blunt reality of death without adornment. Death is seen as a fact of life. Mortality is an accepted phenomenon rather than a tragic interruption. 123. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 624–25.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

95

Moses’ death is controversial. As the founder of the nation of Israel, he is naturally the most prominent figure in the OT. 124 Death surrounds his story: his vigilant family saved him from infanticide, he murdered an Egyptian taskmaster, fled to the wilderness for his life, risked his life confronting Pharaoh through the infamous plagues including the death of the Egyptian firstborn, led Israel in war, repeatedly interceded for Israel against God’s threats to destroy them, exercised capital punishment, witnessed a whole generation of murmuring people die wandering in the wilderness as part of God’s judgment, and, in the end, faced the realization that the people of Israel would ultimately forsake their covenant relationship with God. He was faithful, courageous, obedient, and consistently zealous for God, but in an impatient moment, he wrongfully raged against the people of Israel (Num 20:1–13) and God prohibited him from entering the promised land (Deut 34:4). Over his disappointment and objection, God led him to the top of a mountain to look from that vantage point at the land his people would inherit. He died there (Deut 34:5–8), but his burial place is unknown (v.  6) and his death shrouded in mystery. Traditions arose in the intertestamental period (for example, the assumption of Moses) that he did not die, but Jude 9 mentions that Michael the archangel debates with the devil concerning Moses’ body. Death is thus a central element in the narrative flow for the OT protagonists such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses and their deaths are spotlighted to serve as a means for conveying their legacy. To call notorious deaths in the Torah or, as we will see, in the rest of the OT, “heroic” is anachronistic and belies the overlay of Hellenistic values. Hengel observes that unlike the noble death tradition of the Greeks or a theology of martyrdom that will develop beginning with the intertesta­ mental period, the Jewish dead are not commended for their deaths. Even in the book of Psalms, where death is lamented, the focus is not on the mode of death or the nobility of the one dying but on God who does not intervene particularly when innocents die for God’s glory. He theorizes that later commemoration of the dead rose in prominence in the Hellenistic period and was probably a custom infused from the Greeks who worshiped their heroes. 125 Even exceptional end of earthly life situations, Abel’s martyrdom or Enoch’s translation, receive minimal treatment or focus on the protagonists. Abel dies a victim. Enoch does not die because of the enigmatic brief explanation: he “walked with God” (Gen 5:24). The narrative passes quickly through the terminations of these men as subpoints in a greater plot. It is only in the retelling generations later that their stories become embellished to the point of legend and their individual righteousness commended. As 124. Moses is listed more times than Abraham in the entire NT (Moses, 84 times to Abraham, 80 times). Abraham, however, dominates when one considers in isolation the Pauline Epistles (Moses, 10 times to Abraham’s, 19 times). 125. Hengel, Atonement, 6–8.

96

Chapter 4

Hengel says: “A representative death to atone for the guilt of others can therefore be found at best on the periphery of the Old Testament.” 126

Summary This chapter began by affirming that the OT and, in particular, the Torah, provide the theological roots of Paul’s understanding of his mortality. The narrative quickly addresses the problem of death as a tragic consequence due to human disobedience. The reality of death is peppered throughout its pages from the first chapters forward. The presence of two special trees in the garden of Eden, one defined by life and the other whose consumption would result in death, carry the conversation of mortality to the foreground. To complicate the story, Adam and Eve did not experience physical death on the day they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as they were forewarned. Possible solutions to this disconnect include viewing the various consequences the text mentions as a form of death or by seeking to impose current theological definitions and constructs of death on the Adam and Eve story. The best solution seems to be tied to an immediate banishment that prevents mortal Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Life and so they lived with the awareness that they would die one day. Some hope is found for humankind through Eve, the mother of all living. So, in contrast to prevailing ideas, I have argued that, although death is a judgment for sin, especially in the early chapters of Genesis, disobedience is sometimes disconnected from this immediate consequence. The Genesis narrative does not link sin to death as closely as is popularly conceived. I underscored how many current interpretive expectations derive from anachronistically reading Paul’s teaching about Adam back into the Genesis account. The principle of unlinking sin and death is further illustrated when the life of righteous Abel is taken but murderer Cain is protected by divine edict. God, however, does execute judgment by wiping out societies through direct intervention in cataclysmic acts and in punitive death at the hands of humans either through war or capital punishment. Moses preached a wellknown deuteronomic blessing/curse where a good long life is God’s gift to the obedient, but disobedience brings discipline, destruction, and premature death. Human life is fragile and finite; death is inevitable and final. No record exists of what happens, if anything, after death and investigating a postdeath spirit world is forbidden. Animal sacrifices display the need for death, and as a covenant seal they reflect the solemnity of withdrawing from covenant demands. I concluded by discussing features of notorious deaths especially in Genesis. 126. Ibid., 8.

Mortality among the Jews: The Torah

97

The Torah shows an overall picture of mortality—its origin, its development, and some vivid examples within the divine story. Paul and most Jews in the first century were well aware of these narratives, and they reappear throughout the NT and in his writings to teach how Jesus reversed the curse of death. Paul took liberties to elaborate on the significance of issues of sin and death in Genesis as integral to his salvific theology. Sometimes he used the same narratives but came to different theological conclusions from those of the author of Genesis. I spoke of a need to be careful not to interpret Genesis anachronistically. Having surveyed the Torah, I turn in chap. 5 to the rest of the canonical OT to trace the outworking and development of Torah teaching and example.

Chapter 5

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the Old Testament Canon The Historical Books and Mortality Certainly we must die, and are like water spilled on the ground that cannot be gathered up again (2 Sam 14:14a).

The historical books tell the story of Israel from the death of Moses through the conquest of the land, establishment, division, and fall of the monarchy, their exile, and the return of the remnant. 1 Their narratives include battle accounts, biographies, rehearsal of the Law, prophetic pronouncement, poetic prayers of response to God and historical description. Great leaders­ in Jewish history—judges, warriors, prophets, priests, and royalty—are represented in this time period and their biographies are both entertaining and instructional. The ebb and flow of spiritual and political progress and regress, of internal and external conflict, provide the drama and setting for a host of ethical quandaries and insights. While the genre of historical narrative and archival material restrains explicit theological contributions like those found in the Torah, these works do flesh out God’s working with his people. In general, death in these accounts is seen as natural and in many cases removed from the judgment themes of the Torah. The Hebrews were a warring people and war supposes mortality and a loss of life. While images of noble death are repeated, Hengel cautions that “The exclusive revelation of God to his people does not allow any special cult of ‘heroes’. . . . Belief in Yahweh did not allow any kind of worship of the dead or any cultic or magical dealings with them.” 2 He argues that the biblical authors mute an emphasis on human heroism to instead give glory and fame to God. Likewise, martyrdom comes after the end of the OT: The literary form of the account of a martyrdom is unknown to the Old Testament texts, because it presupposes not only the resurrection hope, which overcomes death, but also a particular interest in the person of the martyr as a heroic witness, and also in his suffering. . . . By contrast, in ancient Israel there 1. Paul quotes the historical books relatively sparingly: 2 Sam 7:14 (1 Chr 17:13) / 2 Cor 6:18; 2 Sam 22:50 (Ps 18:49) / Rom 15:9; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14, 18 / Rom 11:3–4. 2. Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 6.

98

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

99

are hardly any examples of dying for Israel, the Law or the Sanctuary, which are stressed as heroic actions. There was no room here for praise of “the acts of the dead”: the sole concern was for the glory of God. . . . Death, which for Greeks and Romans is so glorious on the battlefield, is without reservation God’s judgment and mystery. 3

For Hengel, both noble death and martyrdom are foreign ideas to the OT writers. Wright speaks of making a name for oneself in the ancient world through military valor, heroic death, and underscores the unique value of procreation. 4 He reviews ANE literature and, when commenting on an Old Babylonian text, points out that fame through dying for military valor had to factor in procreation: “An enduring name is to be made not in the death of the warrior but rather in the birth of a namesake.” 5 Young soldiers worried that they would not leave a wife and male child who could perpetuate their name before going to battle (unlike modern values that bereave a soldier who dies and leaves behind a widow and an orphan). Secular states, however, needed these heroes to advance the cause of the polis and, recognizing the absence of progeny, attempted to immortalize their names in stone, sepulchers, and shrines. Biblical authors, by contrast, were reluctant to glorify fallen war heroes that would deflect glory and fame from God. From this value, a legacy deriving from military valor, procreation, not noble death, was the means by which the Jewish people sought lasting recognition. “While statist concerns may have precipitated the composition of the Bible’s sources, what propelled the redaction and reception of these sources was an interest in creating a form of peoplehood that can withstand the loss of statehood.” 6 The emphasis of the biblical authors on the covenant people of God over a military state elevates the value of procreation to further the faithful race and people. An example of this is Absalom in 2 Sam 18:18, who builds a lasting monument dedicated to himself in the king’s valley because he laments not having a son to keep his name in remembrance. The first historical book, Joshua, serves as a transition as leadership was transferred from Moses to Joshua, Moses’ assistant. Israel under his leadership entered and began occupation of the promised land and as a united nation conquered the native peoples. Distinct and captivating stories include images of death such as Rahab risking her life to protect the spies ( Josh 2) and capital punishment executed against Achan ( Josh 7:24–26). Beginning with Joshua, when a leader dies, the people stop following God and fall into 3. Ibid., 7. 4. Jacob L. Wright, “Making a Name for Oneself: Martial Valor, Heroic Death, and Procreation in the Hebrew Bible,” JSOT 36 (2011): 131–62. See also Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 191. 5. Wright, “Making a Name for Oneself,” 143 (emphasis his). 6. Ibid., 154.

100

Chapter 5

idolatry as Moses had warned ( Judg 2:10, 19; cf. Deut 34:26–29). In Judges, Israel gradually declines morally through a cyclical experience of divine blessing, wandering spiritually, being attacked by their enemies, calling out to God, God raising up and delivering them through a judge, and renewed blessing. The story of Judges ends with tragic stories of horrific violence and war. Within Judges, several stories of willful death are told. Abimelech’s death is a story of assisted suicide, but for our purposes is not that important. When a woman threw a millstone on his head and mortally wounded him, he asked his armor bearer to give a final blow to be saved from the embarrassment of dying at the hand of a woman ( Judg 9:52–55). 7 The controversial story of the burnt offering of Jephthah’s daughter returns to the theme of human sacrifice seen previously in the Akedah (Gen 22). Jephthah, a Judge, vows to God that if he grants him victory, Jephthah will offer a burnt offering of the first one to come from the door of his house to greet him ( Judg 11:30–31). His daughter, to his great chagrin, comes out first in celebration of her father’s victory. The text clearly says that he follows through on his oath and offers her up and her tragic death becomes a time of commemoration for Israeli women ( Judg 11:39–40). Jephthah is condemned for his vow as a tragic and rash oath made out of weakness. He certainly regretted it ( Judg 11:35). Chisholm draws the theological conclusion from this difficult passage that God grants humans the freedom to act against His moral will and typically allows the consequences of those free moral actions to unfold without His intervening. . . . In contrast to Jephthah, believers must make sure they know God’s standards and act accordingly. Otherwise their actions may be horrifying and bring frightening and tragic consequences. 8

The fiery offering of Jephthah’s daughter serves as an example of ignoble death, a death unnecessary but for the foolish vow of her father and his willingness to carry out human sacrifice against God’s will. 7. Yael Shemesh (“Suicide in the Bible,” JBQ 37 [2009]: 157–68) discusses and draws lessons from six suicides in the OT. With Abimelech, he comments on the suicides of Samson, Saul, Saul’s squire, Ahithophel, and Zimri. He contrasts Abimelech’s death at the hand of his squire with Saul’s, whose squire refused to kill him. Shemesh points out that, although Abimelech’s death was a suicide, it was part of the divine plan to punish him. Avoiding shame was his motive, but he was disgraced and became a negative national example. Joab anticipated David’s use of this story to rebuke his military strategy when he reported the death of Uriah (2 Sam 11:20–21). Eugene H. Merrill (“Suicide and the Concept of Death in the Old Testament,” in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life, ed. Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998], 323) mentions that premeditation is missing making the “suicide” label questionable. 8. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “The Ethical Challenge of Jephthah’s Fulfilled Vow,” BSac 167 (2010): 442.

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

101

The story of Samson has particular interest and parallels modern stories of suicide bombing. 9 The story is relevant and important because it offers an OT example of a judge, a man of God, who dies as a judge or military protector for Israel. He leads an infamous life in which, as a Nazirite, God gives him special physical strength, but he trivializes his gift in a host of ways. After giving into the deception of his girlfriend, Delilah, he is taken by the enemy Philistines and humiliated in the Temple of Dagon, their god. There, he cries out for God to restore his strength one last time. God grants his request and he is able to pull down the supporting column of the enemy god’s temple killing all that are in it and committing suicide in the process. His final prayer, “Let me die with the Philistines!” is followed with the text commending his act: “He killed many more people in his death than he had killed during his life” ( Judg 16:30). Samson’s life is a tragedy but his death in the line of service is commended and assisted by God who restores his supernatural strength for the final act. 10 Ruth tells a short story of God’s care for two widows. The story begins with the tragic death of Naomi’s husband and two sons leaving her and her two daughters as widows, helpless and destitute. Ruth is a story of reversal where God redeems tragedy through the heroic kindness of the kinsmanredeemer, Boaz. The death account draws the reader’s immediate sympathy. Death itself is a loss, a sadness, and sanctions pity and narrative conflict that will ultimately find resolution through Ruth’s marriage to Boaz and through procreation when she is able to produce a son that will be the ancestor of Israel’s kingly line in David. Samuel and Kings, while focusing on the story of the rise and fall of the monarchy of Israel and varying degrees of political cohesiveness, ultimately tell the story of the kingdom’s decline to exile. Saul’s assisted suicide, David’s brash act of adultery and murder, and blatant injustices of rulers pepper­this account and portray a world fraught with brutality. King Saul, a man God chooses to lead the people, later proves that he has unfit character and ends his own life in humiliation. By contrast David, with overwhelming trust in God at a young age, overcomes lions, giants, and, in time, the treacherous King Saul himself to gain the throne. The Chronicles, a synopsis of Samuel–Kings, tells the story of an overlapping time period, but from a postexilic perspective, and views Israel in a positive light with an emphasis on the nobility of David and Solomon and the glory of the temple. The story of King Saul’s death bears special mention. The story recounted first by the narrator in 1 Sam 31 (with parallel in 1 Chr 10:4–5) has a controversial difference in 2 Sam 1:1–16 (not told in the Chronicles). In the first account, after Saul’s sons die in battle and arrows strike him, he calls 9. Wright (“Making a Name for Oneself,” 148) finds Samson’s death to be the only example of noble death in the Bible and influenced by Aegean mythology. 10. Shemesh, “Suicide in the Bible,” 160.

102

Chapter 5

on his armor bearer to kill him. His armor bearer cannot because of fear so Saul falls on his own sword, dies, and is followed by his armor bearer who also falls on his sword (1 Sam 31:4–5). In the retelling in 2 Sam 1:1–16, an Amalekite approaches David to report on the death of Saul, but says that he was responsible for finishing off the dying Saul at Saul’s request. In contrast to the narrator’s account in 1 Samuel, where Saul falls on his sword, the Amalekite’s account has Saul leaning on his sword for support, when he asks the Amalekite to kill him. The Amalekite obliges him. In response, David has the Amalekite executed immediately for “destroying the Lord’s anointed” (2  Sam 1:14). Whether this was suicide or assisted suicide, in both stories Saul fears death and wants to die. The question in dispute is who caused Saul’s death, Saul himself or the Amalekite? David believed the Amalekite’s story, and held him morally culpable. The story of Saul’s death is featured in discussion of the ethics of suicide. Droge and Tabor believe that this text offers no censorship for suicide. 11 Exum and Merrill, by contrast, correctly see this narrative as a tragedy. 12 No need exists for the narrator to make an explicit ethical judgment for the reader to understand that the action meets with disapproval. The nature of tragedy is to invoke the sympathy of the reader, to realize the humiliation of King Saul’s end. His bitter death caps a tragic story of a fallen king who, in disobedience, lost God’s favor (1 Sam 28:16). His death at the hand of Israel’s enemies is bitter enough, but his suicide adds disgrace to his tragic life. David’s life is marked by tragic deaths. His best friend and son of King Saul, Jonathan, died with King Saul in battle (1 Sam 31:1–3). He had Uriah, the husband of his lover, put into mortal combat to ensure his death (2 Sam 11:15–21). Later, the baby from this affair died (2 Sam 12:15–23), but so do two of his other sons. 13 Absalom, his son, killed Amnon, his other son from a 11. Arthur J. Droge (“Did Paul Commit Suicide?” BRev 5 [1989]: 16), whose argument discusses the suicide of King Saul as it addresses the voluntary death of the apostle Paul, affirms: “Indeed, their deaths by their own hand are scarcely commented on, leading one to conclude that in ancient Israel the act of suicide was regarded as something natural and, in some circumstances, perhaps even heroic.” Shemesh (“Suicide in the Bible,” 162) notes that rabbinical authorities condone suicide in situations similar to OT Saul’s. Saul’s death had been foretold through the medium he had consulted. His death was to preempt being killed at the hands of the Philistines (who ultimately desecrated Saul’s corpse). 12. J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 16–18; Merrill, “Suicide in the Old Testament,” 323– 24. Merrill reviews the suicidal deaths of Abimelech, Saul, Ahithophel, and Zimri, and observes that none of these suicides were viewed in a favorable light, all died in response to perceived or real crises, and variation exists in their level of preparation and planning. Merrill concludes that suicide is self-murder, which the OT abhors because it is “the permanent destruction of life” and because “it is an assault upon God Himself.” Killing a human is killing a divine image bearer. 13. David A. Bosworth (“Faith and Resilience: King David’s Reaction to the Death of Bathsheba’s Firstborn,” CBQ 73 [2011]: 691–707) explores the motive for David not

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

103

different wife, after Amnon raped Tamar, Absalom’s sister (2 Sam 13). Absalom was then killed after organizing a temporarily successful coup against his father (2 Sam 15–19). All this being said, because David’s heart was devoted to God he was granted a throne in perpetuity (2 Sam 7), and his death was marked by dignity (1 Chr 29:25). Frequent stories show righteousness being rewarded and sin and rebellion resulting in death. Besides the suicides of Abimelech, Samson, the armor bearer to Saul, and King Saul, those of Ahithophel and Zimri are recorded. Ahithophel was a prophet for Absalom after he organized a coup against his father. When his prophecy was not heeded, Ahithophel “set his house in order­and hung himself ” (2 Sam 17:23). Zimri’s story is one of treachery, in which he killed evil King Elah, king of the northern tribes of Israel and son of Baasha, while he was drunk, in a political coup, but in accordance with God’s prophecy through Prophet Jehu (1 Kgs 16:7–14). After­he was king for seven days, the people of Israel rallied under another commander, Omri, who besieged the city where Zimri was. When he saw that his cause was hopeless, “He set the palace on fire and died in the flames” (1 Kgs 16:18). Later, wicked Queen Jezebel of Judah uses Zimri’s name as a taunt against Prophet Jehu implying that although he had a temporary victory, he, too, would die in shame, but Jehu had her thrown from the citadel to her death (2 Kgs 9:30–37). Elijah is a noteworthy character for he is one of two in the OT who never die and so is apparently immortal. The Gospels mention him repeatedly as an anticipated figure that would usher in a new age of deliverance. He prefigured John the Baptist and Paul mentions him for denouncing Israel for killing the prophets (Rom 11:2–4). The OT prophets left a legacy of facing persecution and dying as a public reaction to their confrontational ministries. 14 Elijah, too, courageously put himself in harm’s way and faced death mourning the death of Bathsheba’s infant son. He responds to the view of some that David’s lack of response demonstrates consistency with his character elsewhere—that he is callously indifferent to his son’s death or rejoices in his death because it is substitutionary for a death he himself deserved. Bosworth examines modern resilience theories and suggests that external influences such as death by disease (allowing time to prepare) vs. violent and sudden death, the role of community in David’s life, and the much higher infant mortality rates in the ancient world, would have mitigated his reaction. In addition, viewing his son’s death as punishment and his acceptance of Nathan’s indictment put him in a collaborative position with God that would have made him more resilient. David’s supplication for his child’s life shows hope that God’s judgment might be thwarted through repentance and entreaty, but humility in light of God’s justice led to his later reaction of acceptance of his son’s death. 14. The “prophet martyr” is a theme repeated by Jesus (Matt 23:31–37 / Luke 13:33–34; cf. Matt 5:12; 21:33–46; Acts 7:52) and mentioned by Paul in 1 Thess 2:15. Elijah’s day was a day when many prophets were martyred. Queen Jezebel killed the prophets of Yhwh (1 Kgs 18:4, 13; but Elijah attributes the slaughter to “the people of Israel,” 1 Kgs 19:10, 14). Elijah famously stands down the Baal worshipers but fears for his life after his successful and miraculous confrontation (1 Kgs 18–19). Isaiah by tradition was martyred and

104

Chapter 5

threats from Jezebel, but the Lord protected him. His life and ministry ended when he passed his shawl on to Elisha, his successor, and was caught up in a fiery chariot that whisked him away to heaven. 15 Of the postexilic historical books, Ezra and Nehemiah tell of the return of the righteous remnant to the land. Ezra talks about the need for purifying the people. Nehemiah speaks of his battle to return and defend Jerusalem and of capital punishment. A contrast of joy with a memory of national failure marks the return of the remnant. Esther, the noble queen in an ignoble environment, boldly risked her life purportedly, but not explicitly, under God’s sovereign hand in order to protect the people of Israel from the machinations of Haman who wanted to exterminate them. She succeeded in exposing Haman’s plot saving Israel from becoming genocide victims and leading to Haman’s execution by King Xerxes. The overall lesson finds itself embodied in courageous Mordechai and Esther who faced the possibility of the king’s wrath, a death sentence for disobeying the law as she met with him to confront Haman. Her famous line of resignation and commitment, “If I perish, I perish” (Esth 4:16), demonstrates her willingness to die a noble death to save her people. In summary, the historical books give several narrated examples when characters choose or face death, thus illustrating and developing the categories of voluntary death I have discussed. Stories of death include capital punishment, death in war, death as divine judgment, involuntary death as a natural consequence, shameful ignoble death, suicides, noble death, and martyrdom. Samson’s suicide is explicitly commended even though it appears very similar in form and motive to modern day suicide bombers. Other deaths are recounted as clear tragedies and evoke sympathy in the reader.

The Wisdom Literature and Mortality O Lord, help me understand my mortality and the brevity of life! Let me realize how quickly my life will pass! Look, you make my days short-lived, and my life span is nothing from your perspective. Surely all people, even those who seem secure, are nothing but vapor. Surely people go through life as mere ghosts. Surely they accumulate worthless wealth without knowing who will eventually haul it away. (Ps 39:4–6) Jeremiah’s life was threatened ( Jer 26:36–40). Certainly, the prophets spoke unpopular words and often experienced opposition. Paul perceived his role as an apostle as one of public spectacle and facing death (1 Cor 4:9), but a link to the prophetic office is not well defined. See John J.  Schmitt, “Preexilic Hebrew Prophecy,” ABD 5:487; Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Die jüdischen Prophetenmorde, SymBU 2 (Uppsala: Wretmans, 1943). 15. Whereas the contribution of Socrates yielded an understanding of a distinction of body and soul in which the soul is immortal but the body, the soul’s prison, is shed at death, the earlier Hebrew concept of man was holistic. Body and soul would both survive intact.

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

105

Wisdom literature offers a wealth of thought about human mortality. With the exception of the Song of Solomon, each work contains transparent human reflections about suffering, death, retribution, blessing, and ultimate factors basic to the human condition. Incongruence between attempts at righteous living in harmony with God and the covenant relationship, and unexpected outcomes, especially death, that go against the perspective of the deuteronomic blessing are explored on different levels. In light of injustice, pain, conflict, disappointment, and death, with no awareness of the substance of an afterlife, is life worth living? What recourse exists when the negative consequences of good decisions appear absurd? Within these discussions and the question of theodicy, the theme of the fragility of life and humankind’s mortality is front and center. Tromp lists the well-illustrated condition of the dead as negations of life. In the netherworld, there are no possessions (Ps 49:17), no memory (Ps 88:13; Eccl 9:5), no knowledge ( Job 14:21; Eccl 9:10), no joy (Eccl 14:16), no return ( Job 10:22; 16:22), and no hope (Ps 88:11–13). 16 We consider each work (save the Song of Solomon, which offers no distinct help for our purposes) in canonical order. Job Job is the example par excellence of a righteous sufferer. 17 His persistence under trial is worthy of commendation and is cited by Ezekiel (14:12– 14) and James (5:7–11). He becomes the pseudepigraphical author of the Testament of Job as an exemplary righteous man. God, heavenly and earthly beings, whether sympathetic or adversarial, all recognize him as righteous and consequently worthy of God’s blessing according to God’s normal covenantal working (e.g., Deut 28:1–14). Instead, God allows him to experience a full range of trials, losses, and pain at the hand of a spiritual adversary. His story thus dips into one of the fundamental human questions, the problem of evil, and in Job’s story we are confronted with the purpose for living in light of human fragility and mortality. The story begins with two cosmic scenes where God and Satan speak. 18 God commends Job before Satan twice for his exemplary righteousness using the same words: “There is no one like him on the earth, a pure and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil” ( Job 1:8; 2:3). In both cases, Satan suggests that Job’s righteousness is based on God’s blessing him both materially in chap. 1 and, in chap. 2, with good health. God allows Satan to take away his possessions and destroy his family in chap. 1. When Job responds with faithfulness, Satan takes his health and Job suffers with 16. Nicholas J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament, BibOr 21 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 187–210. 17. Paul quotes Job 5:13 in 1 Cor 3:19, and Job 41:11 in Rom 11:35. 18. For the identification of the adversary and a rebuttal of a traditional interpretation that “Satan” ( Job 1–2) refers to the function of adversary rather than a proper name, see J. H. Walton, “Satan,” DOTWPW 714–17; and J. H. Walton, “Job 1: Book of,” DOTWPW 336–37.

106

Chapter 5

ulcers. God commands Satan only to spare Job’s life ( Job 2:6). In the middle of the first inexplicable loss, Job grieves, but responds with the frequently quoted words: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return there. The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. May the name of the Lord be blessed” ( Job 1:21)! He did not sin or charge God with any fault. After the second curse, his wife tells him to “Curse God and die” ( Job 2:9)! His reply is to chide his wife and mention that God can give good and evil. Writhing in pain, however, soon he is cursing the day he was born ( Job 3). If anyone has ever had just motive to terminate his life prematurely, Job did. In fact, he expresses the desire that God would kill him ( Job 6:9; cf. Job 3:20) but does not yield to thoughts of taking his own life. He endures the pain and the misunderstanding of his closest friends. His endurance is to our benefit, for in his story we observe a man wrestling with one of the more profound human questions and emotions. Through Job, the reader grapples with both the justice of God, the place of human suffering, and the futility of human wisdom (represented by his counselors) and confronts God’s message that we, the created, cannot counsel God, the Creator. 19 Regarding the topic of mortality, we learn first of all that our lives have a cosmic value—witnesses observe our lives and living with the right response has transcendent significance. God commends Job for his endurance even while Job questions God’s role and his justice. Job is ultimately vindicated and restored to his previous state but in the process recognizes that some questions lie beyond the pale of what is comprehensible to finite mortals. God ultimately restores Job in his misfortune and “blessed the second part of his life more than the first” ( Job 42:12). Notably, God’s justice and restoration for Job are meted out in this life, not in an afterlife scenario or in a heavenly location—the cosmic scenario of God and Satan is played out in time and space. According to the record, after his trial he lived a full and blessed life and died “old and full of days” ( Job 42:17). For the reader, the significance of Job’s life is set within a background of ultimate suffering. He sees his days as ordered by the Lord. His death is a natural one and not premature or chosen. Psalms The psalms are experience-based accounts of those who are striving to live within the covenant and seek refuge in God. 20 They share a variety of 19. Regarding Job 19:25–27, a text made popular in the West by Handel’s Messiah: “I know that my redeemer liveth,” that seems to offer resurrection hope, see Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 209–14. After contemplating text-critical and contextual issues, Johnston concludes that Job is asserting a defender in this life and, after his suffering, an opportunity to present his case to God. 20. Paul cites the Psalms frequently (22 times): Ps 4:4 / Eph 4:26; Ps 5:9 / Rom 3:13; Ps 8:6 / 1 Cor 15:27; Ps 10:7 / Rom 3:14; Pss 14:1; 53:1 / Rom 3:10–12; Ps 18:49 / Rom 15:9; Ps 19:4 / Rom 10:18; Ps 24:1 / 1 Cor 10:26; Ps 32:1–2 / Rom 4:7–8; Ps 36:1 / Rom 3:18; Ps 44:22 / Rom

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

107

heart-experiences of distress, joy, or appeals to God in lament for deliverance and are often followed by eruptions of praise and thanksgiving. The psalms are unique in the OT because, rather than emphasizing covenant regulation, God’s interacting in specific historical circumstances, the propositional revelation of wisdom, or oracles of judgment or deliverance, they express unfettered human response to God. They are often personal and emotional. The psalmists’ views of death exhibit an attitude that death is dynamic, not static, that is, that death is not something that awaits us at the end of biological life but is something that enters into our present existence. 21 The psalms are suffused with an awareness of the brevity and frailty of human life (e.g., Ps. 90:3–10; 103:14–16). But what strikes us most is the psalmists’ view that death works its power in us now, during our historical experience. . . . Death’s power is felt in the midst of life to the degree that one experiences any weakening of personal vitality through illness, handicap, imprisonment, attack from enemies, or advancing old age. Any threat to a person’s welfare (Hebrew, shalom), that is, one’s freedom to be and to participate in the covenant community, is understood as an invasion of the empire of death in the historical arena. 22

Drawing from an ancient cosmology that views the earth suspended between great waters, the earliest conceptions viewed Sheol as spatial. Death is thus depicted as chaotic deep waters or the depths, and as encroaching into the land of the living. Anderson, after describing this cosmology and then the beliefs in the gods of the nations that surrounded Israel, Mot, and Baal, demonstrates that the psalms speak about death as a power that encroaches on the world of the living. 23 For the psalmists, the tragedy of death is that it transposes people into another, nonhistorical realm where they can no longer praise God and experience God’s presence in the temple. . . . When a person is separated from a community of people who remember and celebrate the goodness of God, life ebbs to the vanishing point. But when a person is restored to a meaningful place in the believing and worshiping community, when one’s relationship to God and fellow human beings is renewed, then it is possible for life to begin again and for the person to join in the singing of praises with the whole being (nefesh). 24

Anticipating death is a common woe and a frequent theme within the psalms. They warn that angering God, living unjustly, or in disobedience 8:36; Ps 51:4 / Rom 3:4; Ps 62:12 / Rom 2:6; Ps 68:18 / Eph 4:8; Ps 69:9 / Rom 15:3; Ps 69:22 / Rom 11:9–10; Ps 94:11 / 1 Cor 3:20; Ps 110:1 / 1 Cor 15:25; Ps 112:9 / 2 Cor 9:9; Ps 116:10 / 2 Cor 4:3; Ps 117:1 / Rom 15:11; Ps 140:3 / Rom 3:13. 21. Bernard Anderson and Steven Bishop, Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 109–15. 22. Ibid., 111. 23. Ibid., 113–14. 24. Ibid., 115.

108

Chapter 5

may result in death (Pss 2:12; 7:5; 37:19; 73:27). Sheol, the place of the dead, is for God’s enemies and those under his judgment (Pss 9:17; 37:20; 80:16; 83:17; 88:3–5; 92:9). 25 Those in Sheol do not escape God’s presence (Ps 139:8); rather even the dead bow to him (Ps 22:29), but God delivers from Sheol (Pss 16:10; 28:1; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13). 26 Death is shunned as a place where God cannot be praised (Pss 6:5; 30:9; 88:10–12; 115:17; Ps 118:17), where people are forgotten (Pss 9:5; 31:12; 41:5; 88:5), where people go empty-handed (Ps 49:17) and are beyond God’s help (Ps 88:4–5). 27 By contrast, life is found by obeying God’s law (Ps 19:7) or by acting wisely (Ps 34:11–13). God is seen by the righteous as one who sustains life, protects, and saves from death (Pss 9:13; 16:10; 18:4–6; 27:1; 31:5; 33:19; 36:9; 41:2; 56:13; 68:20; 79:11; 86:13–17; 91:1–16; 94:17; 102:20; 103:4; 104:29; 116:1–19; 121:7). Experiencing God’s loyal love, however, is more important than life (Ps 63:3). God is enjoined to intervene and rescue because of the brevity of life (Pss 89:47–48; 103:13– 17). Saving from death is sometimes an act of his mercy and restraint (Pss 30:5, 9–10; 118:18). Enemies can send the innocent to death (Pss 17:9; 31:13; 37:32; 54:3; 56:6; 59:7; 63:9; 64:1; 70:2; 71:10; 94:6, 21; 119:95). Death is often invoked on enemies in imprecation (Pss 55:15, 23; 83:17; 139:19; 143:12). Life is unreliable because of death (Pss 102:26; 146:4). Death is inevitable for all (Pss 49:10–14; 89:47–48), but God by contrast to mortal man is eternal (Ps 102:23–28). God is asked to give the king long life (Ps 61:6) and King David rejoices in a long life (Ps 21:4). Psalm 78 recalls historically how God judged Israel with death for their unbelief (Ps 78:31–33; see also 106:26–29) and Egypt with death (Ps 78:50–51). God also defeated Israel’s enemies by killing them (Pss 135:10; 136:18). Proverbs The Proverbs stand with theological distinctiveness both in some sense from the Psalms, but in a marked way from Job and Ecclesiastes on the sub25. Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 69–97, offers a good description of Sheol and its use by the psalmists. 26. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “A Theology of the Psalms,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck and Eugene H. Merrill (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991), 284– 88. For the psalmists’ views on God’s keeping them from death or expressing eschatological assumptions of a resurrection, see Chisholm’s discussion and conclusion that rising up refers to vindication in this life, a common theme especially in the wisdom psalms, and an expectation that God would keep them from a “violent, premature death and give him continual access to His presence” (p. 287). 27. Lloyd R. Bailey (Biblical Perspectives on Death, OBT 5 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 54–55) speaks of Israel’s special relationship as being the grounds for living and so the termination of that relationship through death is the ultimate tragedy. Sheol is a place where no connection with God exists. “It should be noted that it is not so much the intrinsic loss of the ‘I’ that is being lamented, not so much mortality as such, as it is the loss of relationship: relationship to a community called to serve God, and relationship with the deity himself ” (p. 55).

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

109

ject of retribution: if you are righteous and wise, you will live a blessed life; if you are wicked and foolish, you will be cursed. 28 Job’s central question is why the most righteous man on earth has to endure the most unexplainable and harsh suffering and loss. The psalms sometimes lament that the unrighteous are happy, presumptuous, and powerful, while the righteous are victims (e.g., Ps 10:1–11). In Ecclesiastes, the Preacher’s repeated refrain is that life is meaningless, that there is little or no connection between how one lives and positive outcomes—it all ends in a vapor. Against that backdrop, Proverbs declares that the righteous and wise are rewarded with a long and full life. 29 The wicked and foolish are cursed with a life that is full of disappointment and ends prematurely. Death is a consequence for folly. 30 Being aware of one’s mortality then is motivation to live righteously and so live well and avoid or delay death, that is, lengthen one’s days. Instruction bearing on our theme of mortality is throughout. The wise are instructed in Proverbs to pursue wisdom, which is equated with the fear of the Lord. One motivation is to look at the end of foolish behavior. 31 Being led astray by folly, metaphorically portrayed as the seducing adulteress, Madame Folly, puts one on a path that deceptively leads to death and destruction. Choosing her means choosing a quick death. Mortal men must pursue and heed Lady Wisdom to stay in the path of life. Doing so adds length to one’s days and increases one’s lifespan. 32 Mortality and morality are thus linked and the aversion to death is the motivator for righteous wise living. Ecclesiastes If there is one canonical book that most deals with the topic of human mortality, it is the book of Ecclesiastes. Qoheleth, the sage, ponders the 28. Paul cites Prov 24:12 (cf. Ps 62:12; Matt 16:27) in Rom 2:6 and Prov 25:21–22 in Rom 12:20. 29. Prov 3:2, 16, 18, 22; 4:10, 22; 8:35; 10:2, 27; 11:4; 13:14; 14:27, 32; 19:23; 21:21; 22:4. Time is added to the one who follows wisdom (Prov 9:11). Not only does wisdom lead to life but, the inverse, listening to words that lead to life makes one wise (Prov 15:31). Disciplining a child keeps him from death (Prov 19:18; 23:13–14). Wisdom and folly are put in direct antitheses and, in Proverbs, life and death are seen as pathways leading to different destinations (Prov 6:23; 8:35–36; 10:16–17; 11:19; 12:28; 15:24; 18:21; 19:16). The contrast between Proverbs and the other wisdom literature on the subject of behavior and death is noted by Karl-Johan Illman, Old Testament Formulas about Death, Meddelanden fran Stiftelsens för Äbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut 48 (Äbo, Finland: Äbo Akademi, 1979), 182. 30. Prov 1:19, 32; 2:18–19; 5:5, 11–13, 22–23; 7:21–23, 27; 8:36; 9:18; 10:21; 11:6; 14:12; 15:10; 16:25. 31. Bruce K. Waltke (The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 622) notes that “The irreversible consequence of spurning instruction is eternal death, the severest discipline of all” (emphasis mine). God knows the place most remote from him, the place of the dead, Sheol and the Abyss, death and destruction; and as an a fortiori argument, if he knows that, then he knows human hearts (Prov 15:11). 32. Madame Folly and Lady Wisdom find explicit contrast in Proverbs 9.

110

Chapter 5

meaning of life in light of pending inevitable death. He seems to contradict himself and the teaching of the Proverbs because he discounts the benefit of living wisely as futile (Eccl 2:12–16). Interpreters have pondered apparent internal paradoxes. 33 For example, he asserts that he hates life (Eccl 2:17), but then says, “even a live dog is better off than a dead lion” (Eccl 9:4). According to Seow, its internal inconsistency along with what some view as heretical viewpoints were two arguments that led to it barely passing scrutiny for canonization (b. Sabb. 30b). 34 As Seow points out, however, “pessimistic literature in the ancient Near East often explores contradictory viewpoints deliberately, sometimes by means of dialogues.” 35 One of Qoheleth’s main observations is that death interrupts all human activity and aspiration rendering them ultimately meaningless. Looking at the cosmos from a purely human experiential perspective, all humankind’s ambitions conclude in a vapor because of the inevitable end of death. Generations come and go, but the earth remains (Eccl 1:4). Joy comes from God in the present and no enjoyment exists apart from him (Eccl 1:24–25); God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to the one who pleases him, but to the sinner, only transitory wealth (Eccl 1:26). Because nothing can be carried over after death and even one’s works and name are forgotten (Eccl 2:18–19), Qoheleth recommends living for today and enjoying life now (Eccl 2:24–26; 3:12–13). 36 Humans and animals are alike in one respect: no one knows what happens to either of them after they die and their bodies have the same end (Eccl 3:18–22). You leave the fruit of all your labor to your survivors (Eccl 2:12–17; 6:1–12), but you cannot choose who will be your successor (Eccl 4:15–16). The same fate, death, is for all people, righteous and wicked, rich and poor, good and bad, religious and nonreligious, but life is better than death, because at least the living have hope, while the dead have nothing (Eccl 9:1–10). Death comes when you do not expect it (Eccl 9:12). Living 33. Michael V. Fox (A Time to Tear Down and A Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 1–4) makes the contradictions of Qoheleth the main interpretive factor in his assessment of the key to interpreting this book. 34. For canonicity of Ecclesiastes, see C. L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18C (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 3. He cites Heinrich Graetz’s claim that the Hebrew canon was determined at the Council of Jamnia (ca. A.D. 90), but see D. E. Aune, “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’ Myth,” JBL 110 (1991): 491–93, for the argument that Graetz depended on Spinoza and that the canonization process finds its formation not at the Council of Javneh ( Jamnia) but among the Pharisees in the Second Temple period. 35. Seow, Ecclesiastes, 41. Seow’s argument is that, to Qohelet, “the real world is full of inconsistencies and even flagrant contradictions that cannot be explained away. . . . In many instances, he sets the reader up for the main point in his argument, namely, the very fact of contradiction.” 36. For more on enjoyment in Ecclesiastes, see Matthew S. Rindge, “Mortality and Enjoyment: The Interplay of Death and Possessions in Qoheleth,” CBQ 73 (2011): 265–80.

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

111

for a good name (or for fame as the Greeks would pose it) is futile as well. 37 Seow makes the observation that Qoheleth differs from deuteronomic theology: In Deuteronomic theology the contrast between life and death is stark: life means good and blessings, death means evil and curses. The polarities are well defined. Qohelet’s perspective, by contrast, is tempered by the realities of life’s pain. There is no idealization of life or exaggeration of its blessings or goodness. . . . The contrast between life and death is not between good and evil, or blessings and curses. Rather, it is the difference between possibilities and impossibilities. For the dead, there are only impossibilities. 38

Whereas much Jewish theology assumes a cause-effect relationship between doing good and receiving good in return, Qoheleth observes that everyone dies. The psalmist cries out for deliverance from death and receives it, but deliverance is only temporal and situational. Everyone dies. What is lamented in the book of Psalms is premature death or death at the hand of God’s enemies. Qoheleth observes life as it is and claims that aspirations to overcome death are ultimately futile. Qoheleth affirms, “It is better to go to a funeral than a feast. For death is the destiny of every person, and the living should take this to heart” (Eccl 7:2). Seow says of this verse, “The point seems to be that it is better to face the reality of death than to be caught up in the euphoria of a wedding celebration. Confronting the reality of death would prompt one to live in recognition of life’s ephemerality, whereas one may be deceived by the gaiety of a wedding into thinking that the joy of the moment will last forever.” 39 Qoheleth ends with a poetic picture of youth, old age, and then death and concludes as he began, “‘Absolutely futile!’” laments the Teacher, ‘All of these things are futile!’” (Eccl 12:8). Ecclesiastes thus reinforces the sense of mortality for all. We must all die. Death reduces us all—rich or poor, wise or fool, hard working or lazy— to the same plane. Qoheleth appeals to living aware of life’s uncertainty, but challenges to enjoy life and live responsibly with an awareness of God. His conclusion: “Fear God and keep his commandments, because this is the whole duty of man. For God will evaluate every deed, including every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Eccl 12:13–14). Summary OT wisdom literature has much to offer in terms of mortality. Noted for reflection, transparency, and the courage to question God boldly and not accept easy answers to profound questions when those answers are 37. Qoheleth’s argument against fame is that if that is what you are living for, then the day of your death is better than the day of your birth! See Seow, Ecclesiastes, 243–44. 38. Ibid., 305. 39. Ibid., 245–46.

112

Chapter 5

not discernable­, they offer a wealth of theological perspective on mortality. Their style invites identification and thus carries powerful weight. Perhaps the strongest message of the wisdom books is the reality of a gulf between God and humans that the wise person seeks to bridge. Doing so is both necessary and the most important human activity this side of death. The wisdom books speak of the common experiences of humans striving to live in truth and in relationship with God. They ask the hard questions of theodicy for the well-meaning pilgrim and challenge toward endurance. They affirm that God is aware of our struggles, that they are not hopeless or meaningless. Even though we may not be able to reconcile everything ourselves in our experience and limited understanding as mortals here on the earth, God is sovereign with outcomes. Whether it is Job sitting alone in excruciating pain and loss with bad counselors and no one who truly empathizes, David or one of the great poet-prayers offering representative laments or questions about death in perplexing situations, a sage who offers advice to those less wise or experienced, or a sage honestly proclaiming the futility of looking for cause-and-effect answers in a world where deductive answers for meaning in life are not forthcoming, the wisdom authors provide pathos and several insights on mortality. My intention is not to draw immediate or comprehensive correlation between Paul’s theology and the theology of the wisdom books, but certainly they were known on a popular level and Paul frequently cited from and alluded to them, especially the psalms. Wisdom literature does not advance a substantial eschatological view of postmortem judgment; rather, death is viewed as judgment or the natural consequence of our mortal nature. Many psalms affirm that all the dead end up in Sheol. While his gospel gave him eschatological perspective and hope unforeseen by these authors, they provide a backdrop from which Paul and his peers would have sought guidance in regards to mortality.

The Writing Prophets and Mortality For you say, “We have made a treaty with death, with Sheol we have made an agreement. When the overwhelming judgment sweeps by it will not reach us. . . .” Your treaty with death will be dissolved; your agreement with Sheol will not last. When the overwhelming judgment sweeps by, you will be overrun by it (Isa 28:15, 18). Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded (Isa 53:8). He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” I said to him, “Sovereign Lord, you know” (Ezek 37:3). He will swallow up death permanently. The sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from every face, and remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. Indeed, the Lord has announced it (Isa 25:8)!

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

113

The writing prophets wrote through national crisis. 40 The student of NT backgrounds cannot overestimate the importance of the Assyrian attack on the northern tribes of Israel or the Babylonian exile of the remaining Jews in the south, and the return of a remnant to the land six centuries previous to Paul. The Scriptures present this as a time not just of more powerful secular nations dominating and overcoming a helpless flailing Israel. Israel had many stories of being far outnumbered and winning with God’s help. God used the nations to punish Israel for their spiritual adultery. They abandoned their covenant relationship with God to flirt with gods of the surrounding nations. They lost their distinction as a holy covenant people. God used these foreign nations to punish and purge them. A biblical prophet is one who speaks or in some cases performs an object lesson, lives, or acts out God’s message for his people in crisis. The appeal of the prophets is to the covenant relationship with God, which is being violated through the unfaithfulness of the nation. God linked covenant faithfulness with blessing and covenant unfaithfulness with destruction and death (Deut 28). 41 By disregarding the terms of their covenant, the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah demonstrated that they did not value their special relationship with God or take his warning seriously. They trusted in national alliances with their pagan neighbors and in military strength even though their historical rise to power was based not on physical military strength but on God’s unique blessing. The nation was finally destroyed by Assyria and Babylonia and many died. Exile was itself a form of death. Through this awareness of their mortality, God seeks to woo them back to him and promises restoration and a glorious renewal; and he speaks to his people in this era of national crisis through his prophets. Prophets are identified with eschatological themes, but perhaps that view is overblown. While future judgment is presented through the prophets hailing to the deuteronomic promises of blessing and cursing, their challenge is typically to the current generation of Israelites and the need for a faithful covenant response. Apocalyptic literature envisions sovereign 40. Paul cites the Prophets frequently: Isa 1:9 / Rom 9:29; Isa 8:14 / Rom 9:33; Isa 10:22–23 / Rom 9:27–28; Isa 11:10 / Rom 15:12; Isa 22:13 / 1 Cor 15:32; Isa 25:8 / 1 Cor 15:54; Isa 28:11–12 / 1 Cor 14:21; Isa 28:16 / Rom 9:33; 10:11; Isa 29:10 / Rom 11:8; Isa 29:14 / 1 Cor 1:19; Isa 29:16 / Rom 9:20; Isa 40:13 / Rom 11:34; 1 Cor 2:16; Isa 45:23 / Rom 14:11; Isa 49:8 / 2 Cor 6:2; Isa 52:5 / Rom 2:24; Isa 52:7 / Rom 10:15; Isa 52:11 (+ Ezek 20:34) / 2 Cor 6:17; Isa 52:15 / Rom 15:21; Isa 53:1 / Rom 10:16; Isa 54:1 / Gal 4:27; Isa 55:10 / 2 Cor 9:10; Isa 59:7–8 / Rom 3:15–17; Isa 59:20–21 / Rom 11:26–27; Isa 64:4 / 1 Cor 2:9; Isa 65:1–2 / Rom 10:20–21; Jer 9:24 / 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17; Hos 1:10–2:1 / Rom 9:25–26; Hos 2:23 / Rom 9:25; Hos 13:14 / 1 Cor 15:55; Joel 2:32 / Rom 10:13; Hab 2:3–4 / Rom 1:17 / Gal 3:11; Zech 8:16 / Eph 4:25; Mal 1:2–3 / Rom 9:13. For this section, I am especially indebted to Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002). 41. F. J. Mabie, “Destruction,” DOTWPW 101–2.

114

Chapter 5

intervention in history. The destruction and restoration of Israel is foreshadowed. But nothing close to the sophisticated postmortem judgment that will eventually develop by the first century A.D. is foreshadowed in the canonical literature of the OT. Pre-exile: The Death of God’s Covenant People A typical chronological breakdown of the prophetic books using conservative dates places them into preexilic, exilic, and postexilic categories. Before the exile, the predominant oracle was a mixture of rebuke and plea for Israel to return to God to avoid imminent judgment, combined with sad statements of foreknowledge and insight into the heart of Israel that they were unfaithful to their core. The assumption of mortality served to motivate them to live circumspectly. Many prophetic oracles end on a note of hope for a coming “Day of the Lord” when God will come in judgment, avenge evil, and establish righteousness. Judgment is conceived in a collective, not a personal sense and for those alive at the time of his coming, not postmortem. Amos (8th century B.C.) uses strong words to castigate Israel and then Judah for spiritual complacency. Hosea (8th century B.C.), on God’s command, first marries an unfaithful prostitute, divorces, then remarries her to serve as an object lesson for God’s relationship with Israel, and then he seeks to call the nation back with brokenhearted pleas. Micah (late 8th century B.C.) and Zephaniah (7th century B.C.) likewise prophesy judgment against Judah coupled with a promise that God’s people would one day return. Habakkuk (late 7th century B.C.) looks at wicked Israel and wonders at God’s use of Israel’s enemy, even more wicked Babylon, as his instrument of judgment, but ends with an affirmation of faith in God’s sovereign goodness toward those who faithfully wait patiently for him. His affirmation that “the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness” (Hab 2:4) is cited repeatedly in the NT (“The righteous by faith will live,” Rom 1:17; see also Gal 3:11; Heb 10:38) and served as an anchor for the theology of Martin Luther. Isaiah’s structure and date are controversial. Chapters 1–39 are written after the prophet is commissioned in 740 B.C. 42 The great prophet is called 42. Whether one, two, or three authors wrote Isaiah is debated with the vast majority holding to two or three. From chaps. 40–55 the writing maintains a perspective as though he were writing in the Exilic Period, and from chaps. 56–66, the Postexilic Period. While acknowledging other perspectives, we hold that this was intentional prophetic material by a single author. Robert B. Chisholm Jr. (“A Theology of Isaiah,” in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck and Eugene H. Merrill [Chicago: Moody Press, 1991], 306) underscores that this would prove the Lord’s superiority over Babylon’s pagan gods. “In this regard a highly rhetorical message directed to the exiles by a long dead prophet of the Lord would be especially effective and provide convincing support for the Lord’s argument.” As we are covering the theology of the prophets chronologically to surface a progress of revelation, even though we hold to a single authorship and see Isaiah offering

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

115

to speak to a people who he is warned will never listen to him (Isa 6:9–13). His ministry is one of warning them of imminent calamity if they do not return to honor their covenant relationship with the Lord. Their persistence in sin, in idolatry, in injustice to the poor, in reliance on man, and their rejection of the Lord’s messenger and his message all come together to lead the Lord to come against them in judgment. “Therefore my people will be deported because of their lack of understanding. Their leaders will have nothing to eat, their masses will have nothing to drink. So Death will open up its throat, and open wide its mouth; Zion’s dignitaries and masses will descend into it, including those who revel and celebrate within her” (Isa 5:13–14). 43 No one can cheat death and destruction (Isa 28:15–18), but God promises that he will ultimately do away with death (Isa 25:8). In fact, the Lord will bring his people back from exile and it will be like a resurrection (Isa 26:19). 44 A notable lesson on mortality appears in chap. 38, where the prophet tells Hezekiah that he is terminally ill. Hezekiah does not want to die and pleads for his life. God grants him 15 more years. Hezekiah thus typifies Judah who, too, is given a short reprieve when the Lord defeats the Assyrians. The days of both Hezekiah and Judah are numbered, however. Hezekiah shows the Babylonians his treasures and the Lord prophesies through Isaiah that Babylon will come for his treasure and Hezekiah’s descendants would end up in exile. 45 Jeremiah and Lamentations are written by “the weeping prophet,” who prophesied up until the fall of Jerusalem. His communication was varied and creative, including object lessons, oracles, and testimony, but the people would not listen. He documents Judah’s obstinacy and their downfall, death and destruction. 46 Lamentations are a series of five poems that bemoan unique prophecy as if he was living in the time of the exile, we place Isaiah both here and in the following section. His calling to ministry began “in the year of King Uzziah’s death” (Isa 6:1; ca. 739 B.C.). 43. Six times in Isaiah 5, the prophet pronounces a “Woe!” (‫ ;הֹ֛וי‬v. 8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22), an interjection used as a lament for the dead, and in prophetic literature a frequent threat of death and destruction. See H. J. Zobel, “‫הֹוי‬,” TDOT 3:359–64. 44. The language of Daniel 12:2 is dependent on Isa 26:19. For discussion of whether this refers to literal or metaphorical (deliverance from exile) resurrection, see John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 123–24. Also see Mamy Raharimanantsoa, Mort et espérance selon la Bible hébraïque, ConBOT 53 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006), 409–26; and Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 234–35. Johnston suggests that the text contains overtures of personal resurrection. 45. Chisholm, “A Theology of Isaiah,” 316–17. 46. One interesting prophecy stands out for our mortality theme. King Zedekiah, the evil king in Jerusalem, is sitting under siege from Babylon. Jeremiah offers him a prophecy that he will not die in battle or be executed. “You will die a peaceful death” ( Jer 34:5). Later, Jeremiah’s narrative tells that Zedekiah was forced to watch his sons get killed, then they put out his eyes, bound him in chains and carried him to Babylon where he

116

Chapter 5

the destruction, but affirm the Lord’s ultimate faithfulness. Jeremiah weeps over God’s people who consistently turned their back on their covenant relationship with God. Jonah is notorious for his reluctance to preach God’s message of repentance to Israel’s enemy city, Nineveh. 47 He ran away on a ship, faces death as judgment at sea, but God shows mercy and miraculously rescues him leading him to worship. Later, God likewise shows mercy to Jonah’s enemies sparing their lives, which provokes Jonah to misery and to ask God to go ahead and let him die. 48 Exile: The Suffering of the Righteous unto Death The exilic prophets, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the material in the second part of Isaiah (chap. 40–66; see n. 42 above) speak to a people in exile. Ezekiel was an exiled prophet who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and the surrounding nations from Babylon and anticipates reconciliation of the people with God in a new temple. In chap. 18, he takes up the deuteronomic refrain that, if they stop sinning, they will live and concludes with, “For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the sovereign Lord. Repent and live!” (Ezek 18:32). In a touching story, God takes away the life of Ezekiel’s wife and commands him not to mourn as a prophetic object lesson to the exlied Jews that their relatives who lived in Jerusalem will die, but they were not to grieve (Ezek 24:17–24). Ezekiel offers the famous story of hope, a valley of dry bones representing Israel, which comes to life (Ezek 37), but as Johnston points out this does not have anything to say about personal resurrection: “Ezekiel was proclaiming and pondering God’s message of restoration after destruction, of resettlement after banishment, of national life after death.” 49 As the exile depicts death for the nation, God assures them in this vision that he is not yet through with Israel. He will restore them. 50 In Isa 40–66, the prophet speaks to the people in exile. The passage begins with comfort and the thrust is on encouraging Israel in captivity that died ( Jer 52:10–11). By peaceful death, what the Lord meant was that he would not die in battle. Although he had to live his last years blind and with the memory of his sons’ death and although he died in a foreign land, his death was peaceful. 47. We include Jonah here for the earlier date of the prophet, recognizing that the date of the prophet and the date of the book are not necessarily the same thing (8th century B.C.). 48. Jesus uses this story of Jonah being in the belly of the whale for three days and Nineveh’s repentance as foreshadowing his death and as a rebuke against his unbelieving unrepentant generation (Matt 12:39–42; Luke 11:29–32). 49. Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 222–24. 50. How this will happen in light of the NT claims for covenant fulfillment in the church is a point of controversy. The best response is an “already/not yet” solution. So Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 281: “Just because the Hebrew prophets mention only Israel as the recipient of the covenant does not mean that others could not be recipients as well; just because the New Testament focuses on a present realization through the church does not preclude a future fulfillment for Israel.”

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

117

God has not abandoned them. God is sovereign, controls all nations and fully intends to restore and renew his people. The people need to repent and accept God’s forgiveness for the covenant to be restored and for God to fulfill his promises. Isaiah ends gloriously with an eschatological vision of a new heaven and earth (Isa 65:17), and death will be a relative anomaly: “Never again will one of her infants live just a few days or an old man die before his time. Indeed, no one will die before the age of a hundred, anyone who fails to reach the age of a hundred will be considered cursed” (Isa 65:20). God’s enemies, however, will die and their bodies will rot (Isa 66:24). Throughout this last section of Isaiah is the development of a character, God’s Servant, who will suffer rejection, be opposed, and die, but through his suffering makes a renewed covenant relationship possible. Themes of atoning sacrifice are at the center of the discussion. The identity of this Servant is debated. Some say he is the collective nation of Israel, which suffers to testify to the Gentiles. Others say he represents the righteous remnant, the true Israel within Israel that follows God faithfully. Others see him as an individual because he mediates a covenant and suffers for the nation of Israel. A second question regards whether the death of the Servant is literal or figurative. A final question is, if his death is literal, whether it is a substitutionary sacrifice or mimetic or both. 51 For our topic of mortality, Daniel is particularly insightful. 52 It portrays clear examples of a martyr mentality as well as the only widely recognized OT citation for resurrection. Daniel is divided into two parts. Chapters 1–6 are narratives about Daniel and his friends who are exiled in Babylon but are favored Israelites by Nebuchadnezzar and selected to be groomed for service in the royal court. Chapters 7–12 contain Daniel’s prophetic visions. In Daniel 3, Daniel’s three friends have their loyalty tested. Nebuchadnezzar makes an image of himself and requires his administration to bow down to him with the penalty of death in a furnace (Dan 3:2–6). 53 The three men refuse to bow out of allegiance to God and claim that God can and will protect them. Nebuchadnezzar is enraged and throws the men into the furnace. To Nebuchadnezzar’s amazement, not only do the three men survive, but also a fourth man, whose appearance was “like that of a god!” (Dan 3:25), appears in the furnace with them. They come out of the fire unscathed, with no smell of fire or smoke leading Nebuchadnezzar to praise God and 51. Idem, “A Theology of Isaiah,” 330–33. 52. See Marc Brettler, “Is There Martyrdom in the Hebrew Bible?” in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion, ed. Margaret Cormack, AARSR (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3–22, which argues that only in Daniel do all the factors for true martyrdom as a Jewish ideal coalesce. 53. An interjection was used in the Babylonian court when addressing the king: “O King! Live forever!” (Dan 2:4; 3:9; 5:10; 6:6, 21). Three times God is also said to live forever by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:34), Darius (6:26), and Daniel (12:7). This practice has some similarity to the practice of apotheosis that would be evidenced among the Greeks and Roman Caesars. David too was promised an everlasting succession (2 Sam 7).

118

Chapter 5

to promote the men (Dan 3:28–29). 54 Hengel regards this as the earliest account of martyrdom from pre-Maccabean Judaism. 55 A second incident of near martyrdom occurs when Daniel is framed by jealous fellow-courtiers who want him dead rather than made Prime Min­ ister under King Darius (Dan 6). The courtiers know Daniel prays to his God three times a day and get the king to issue an edict that no one can pray to anyone but him for a month with the penalty of death. Daniel, knowing the edict, continues his habit of prayer and his enemies have him arrested. 56 The king very reluctantly has to honor his own law. He throws Daniel to the lions and seals the den with his signet ring as the law prescribed. Again, God preserves Daniel for the lions do not eat him (Dan 6:19–22). King Darius then throws his enemies and their families to the lions, and they are devoured. In both these stories, martyrdom, the choice to die for a cause held by a minority group with an understanding of ultimate vindication by God, is well illustrated. While not indicating how judgment would occur, the almost-­martyrs all express their confidence in God’s deliverance and the need to do what is right no matter what the consequences. The only widely regarded explicit reference in the OT to personal resurrection occurs in Dan 12:2–3. “Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake—some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence” (Dan 12:2). For our purposes, it is important to note that these verses do not abolish mortality and that there are two destinies for those who die: everlasting life and everlasting abhorrence. 57 Post-exilie: The Restoration of the Remnant The three postexilic prophets seek to rally the remnant nation together to rebuild the temple. 58 God longed for the people to restore the Davidic 54. See J. C. H. Lebram, “Jüdische Martyrologie und Weisheitsüberlieferung,” in Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, ed. J. W. Van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehand­schutter, and H. J. W. van der Klaauw, StPB 38 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 111–16, for discussion of the three witnesses as martyr types and how this foreshadows a later martyr genre. The structure, atmosphere, and the motives reappear in martyr narratives (p. 115). The invulnerability of the confessors anticipates the idea of resurrection and their deliverance is a prototype that will later inspire the Maccabean martyrs to face their secular oppressive opponents. In 2 Maccabees, a preservation of the martyrs is expected—but in their case, only in the New Creation of the eschaton (pp. 113–14). 55. Hengel, Atonement, 61. 56. Daniel is not responsible for his death even though he recognizes that disobeying the king’s edict bears a death penalty. Death is not his choice, but his commitment to prayer is nonnegotiable. 57. See Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 225–27, which observes that this resurrection pertains only to Daniel’s people, is partial, and is written late and therefore did not influence Israel’s eschatological hope. 58. N. T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 4: Paul and the Faithfulness of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013], 151), in promoting the idea that the sense of

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

119

dynasty (Haggai), to restore justice in the land and to receive their victorious Lord (Zechariah), and to be cleansed from foreign wives and from tepid spiritual lives and social injustice (Malachi). Themes of death and mortality are subdued. Three prophets remain that add little to our mortality theme: Nahum (7th century B.C.), prophesied against Nineveh, Israel’s enemy; Obadiah (possibly 6th century B.C.) denounces Edom, Israel’s enemy; and Joel’s prophecy, during a locust devastation, to repent and then believe a promise for the Lord’s restoration and vindication of his people. Summary The prophets return to a retributive stance exemplified by the deuteronomic blessing and curse. Israel’s moral situation moves God to warn about covenant violation and appeal through rebuke and wooing to draw his people back. When they persist in their defiant position, God sends them into exile. His prophets speak to them in exile of hope and encourage Israel to return and be faithful. When a remnant returns, his prophets seek to rally new hope and appeal to covenant purity. While covenant faithfulness trumps death as the all-encompassing theme of the prophets, death is the natural consequence of the broken covenant. A growing sense of hope in restoration developed, a hope that saw images of death and alienation overcome. Premature death was viewed as divine judgment in the prophets. In addition to this literature we can add the nonwriting prophets who provided examples of noble death and martyrdom. The prophet martyr stories from Abel through the period around Elijah, then in Daniel gave examples of other heroes who gave their lives out of loyalty to God and a sense that covenant faithfulness and their message transcend preserving their lives. The Suffering Servant image in Isaiah and the priestly imagery involved in sacrifices offer atonement and foreshadow a path for conclusive atonement to come.

The Afterlife in the Old Testament From our look at the Torah in chap. 4 and the rest of the OT canon in chap. 5, we have seen an inner tension surface repeatedly. The deuteronomic blessing/curse, that God rewards or punishes according to obedience, is a clear protocol (Deut 28). God promised death for disobedience to the first couple. Covenants and laws make death the penalty for transgression. The narrative offers numerous examples of comic reversals of divine rescue when God’s people trust him and obey and tragic consequences when they turn from him and trust themselves or human helps. The Proverbs present a cause/effect universe in which blessing or cursing is dependent on wise exile continues in Israel’s consciousness beyond the traditionally held 70 years, casts a disparaging eye on the term, postexilic.

120

Chapter 5

behavior. The prophets offer warnings and speak into Israel’s disobedience before, during, and after the greatest historical consequence for prolonged disobedience, the exile. Obedience brings blessing; disobedience brings disaster and death. Numerous examples, however, seem to teach or model a contrasting reality. Adam and Eve do not die on the day they eat the fruit. Righteous Abel dies, but the life of murderer Cain is protected. The people of Israel infamously repeatedly seek out other gods or grumble in defiance; God occasionally punishes but often mercifully restrains his punitive hand. The murderer/adulterer David is called a man after God’s own heart and is promised an eternal throne. The other wisdom books present a reality that seems to counter the practical wisdom of Proverbs. God restores Israel in spite of its spiritual passivity and promises restoration in the middle of a period of horrid abdication of its moral and spiritual responsibility. The link between moral behavior and consequence is tenuous. This tension will grow from the end of the OT canon through the intertestamental period into the NT. In some measure, it finds resolution in a new worldview that develops into the first century and is well developed by the advent of Christ. That new worldview is that this life is not all that there is—there is life after biological death. What happens in this life has some carryover into the next. By the time of the Maccabees, clear evidence of a belief in postmortem justice, reward, and punishment for actions in this life, surfaces. The emergence and development of apocalyptic eschatology, which I will speak about more fully in the next chapter, presumes cosmic judgment and an afterlife. Death is not final judgment. OT scholars, however, have concluded that views of an afterlife come very late and are undeveloped in the OT if they are there at all. Routledge points out that part of the rationale for OT silence about the afterlife is a different understanding of life. We must guard against attributing a body-soul dichotomy to the Hebrew mind. “Human personality was thought of as a unity, made up, primarily, of flesh animated by the spirit or breath (ruach) of God. When God withdrew his ruach, life ended and the body returned to the dust ( Job 34:14–15; Ps 104:29; 146:4; Eccl 12:7). As such, the human personality has no immortal component corresponding to the Christian idea of the ‘soul.’” 59 Certainly even a casual reading of the wisdom literature, of Job or the Psalms, underscores the plight of the individual who confronts mortality. The OT is not completely silent about the anguish that an awareness of mortality can create, but its story is largely a national story of collective salvation. Care for what happens to the individual is usurped by the grand drama of the nation that lives in covenant relation with God, witnesses

23.

59. Robin L. Routledge, “Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament,” JEBS 9 (2008):

Mortality among the Jews: The Rest of the OT Canon

121

to this relationship to the surrounding nations, and ultimately succumbs to the worship of the surrounding nations to its own demise. The importance of the individual can get lost in this greater story. Israel’s heroes are heroes not for individual effort, but for how their effort serves to bring the nation to victory, repentance, rescue, restoration, or revival. The meta­ narrative clearly cares about the nation as a whole over the salvation of the individual. 60 The dead, whether good or bad, go to a place called Sheol. 61 Sheol is in the depths under the ground and images of decay, worms, and the grave are intertwined with thoughts of the afterlife. 62 The psalms lament that Sheol is a place of separation from God where no one is able to worship. It is a place of gates and no return, nevertheless it is a place to which God has access. Does the OT anticipate a belief in individual resurrection among the Israelites? 63 Hints of resurrection in texts such as Job 19 or some of the psalms are generally refuted. 64 Johnston mentions Pss 16, 49, and 73 as psalms that affirm communion with God after death but that do not specify how this happens. 65 In the Prophets, Isa 26:19 and Dan 12:1–3 provoke serious discussion, but developed views of the resurrection will wait until the intertestamental period, the subject of the next chapter.

Summary: Death in the Old Testament Canon The story of the Jews in the OT is a story of life and death. Death is presented as both a natural event and a consequence for sin. God shows mercy to some but destroys others for their wickedness. God’s judgment leads to death, but death also happens to all, good or bad. Often the correlation between behavior and consequence is muted. Good people suffer and die; evil people can succeed, prosper, and live long. Two men, Enoch and 60. Jon D. Levenson (Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006]) sees resurrection themes and future hope as a collective, not an individual vision. So Routledge, “Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament.” 61. James Barr (The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 29–30) argues largely from silence that Sheol is a place primarily for evil. He lists Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and David as examples of those who the text does not specifically mention went to Sheol. Contra Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 73–75. 62. For a description of Sheol see ibid., 69–85; Routledge, “Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament,” 24–25. 63. Johnston (Shades of Sheol, 230–37) refutes suggestions that individual bodily resurrection ideas were introduced by foreign influence. 64. E.g., Markus Witte, “‘Aber Gott wird meine Seele erlosen’: Tod und Leben nach Psalm XLIX,” VT 50 (2000): 540–60. For the psalmists’ view of the afterlife, see Chis­ holm, “A Theology of the Psalms,” 284–88. 65. Johnston, Shades of Sheol, 199–217.

122

Chapter 5

Elijah, never die, and by the end of the OT and particularly in the Psalms and the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel, a hint of existence beyond death surfaces. Faithfulness in this life may find reward in a life to come. Heroic war stories and exilic narratives such as Esther and Daniel demonstrate that good people suffer and face death for doing good and serve as a precursor for later martyrdom. While death is sometimes seen as judgment, this link is not always explicit and a sophisticated vision of death leading to a postmortem judgment, an event of accountability that determines one’s state in some postmortem existence, is certainly muted if present at all. The OT is, likewise, largely void of a belief in a resurrection. Jewish views of noble death are usurped from the Gentile values of fame by an emphasis on the nation or state that endures beyond the death of the individual and so supersedes him or her. The individual passes away; the group will survive. With no postmortem judgment, martyrdom is only bleakly shadowed in the stories of Daniel. Images of sacrifices that atone retain solely a temporal meaning. With a monotheistic belief system but a limited view of the after­ life, these aspects of premature voluntary death develop after the end of the writing of the OT canon. Fundamental shifts happen in eschatological thinking through the intertestamental period and into the first century A.D. Whereas the OT portrays physical temporal death as a consequence for sin, by the NT many Jews had an understanding that there is life after death and that sin’s greater consequence lies beyond this life. Whereas the focus on individual death is usurped by the story and good of the community in the OT, a view that differs from contemporaneous Gentile views, this will change. By the NT, with an awareness of an afterlife and the clear introduction of bodily resurrection, individual death takes on new meaning. In the OT, sin may lead to temporal retribution of death often perceived as necessary for the preservation of the community. 66 By the NT and Paul, a shift occurs in which a sense of national and individual accountability before God, the eschatological Judge, becomes the focal point. Justice is pushed beyond the veil of this life. A martyr theology is then free to develop and attract adherents within a world that regards an afterlife. Good people who suffer and evil people who prosper in this life will experience a reversal in the next life. What you do in this life matters for the next. A belief in postmortem judgment grows that requires transcendent propitiatory action. It is to this turbulent period of change leading up to the first advent of Christ and Paul that we now turn. 66. Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 91–102.

Chapter 6

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period From their exile to the first century, Israel was fragmented. Jews inside and outside Palestine struggled to understand their identity. The vast majority of Jews were scattered throughout the civilized world as the Diaspora. A “righteous remnant” had returned to the Holy Land looking for covenant renewal, but secular domination put a damper on the covenant vision. The Jewish Hasmoneans staged a successful uprising, and for about 80 years Israel governed itself independently. But Rome returned under General Pompey in 63 B.C. and finally with the installment King Herod in 37 B.C. definitvely established its reign over this complex people. By the first century A.D., the Jews living in Jerusalem were anxious. The Second Temple did not have the glory of Solomon’s temple and was conceded and financed by secular Rome. Jewish response varied from plots of politicalreligious uprisings to seeking to curry Rome’s favor. False Messiahs rose and fell. Apocalyptic vision developed. The Roman-dominated Jewish scene waited for a deliverer. The way for Jesus was prepared.

Cultural Changes in the Intertestamental Period Paul’s Judaism derives from this time of political and religious turbulence. While the data are often sketchy for the different groups and influences in this period, it is imperative to at least acknowledge the forces that potentially swayed Paul and his Jewish compatriots. Before we look at specific Jewish political and religious responses that led into and through the first century, we first consider three significant cultural shifts within the transitional “intertestamental period” that set up these responses: the covenant crisis, new eschatological hopes, and development in martyrdom theology. Postexilic Covenant Prospects The OT ends with the people of Israel swirling in spiritual crisis. As the turbulent period during and after the exile stretched from months and years into decades and centuries, questions festered whether the scattered nation of Israel had an intact future. The original covenant envisioned them as the salvific center of divine blessing for the whole world (Gen 12:1–3). Jews had collective memory of the promises to their forefathers, of the blessings that 123

124

Chapter 6

had been offered to them, and of the covenant. They had the Law that God had given Moses. A remnant of people had returned to the land and had reestablished residence in Jerusalem. In time, with the help of God’s leaders­ and the prophets, they built an altar for sacrifices to God, a temple, the city wall to protect them, and they began to again build up their economy. But the people of Israel had lost their glory and a big part of their national identity. They paid tribute to and were dominated by secular Rome. Many of the more noble Jews were scattered abroad. In spite of the prophetic voices that assured them that they were still God’s people, God’s words seemed unreal and insufficient in light of the depths to which they had fallen. The nation was not just a bunch of sick or dead bodies but dry bones in a valley of death (Ezek 37). Nothing remained for this broken nation. Only a relatively small remnant returned to the land, and they faced hostile opposition from the current residents. The markers that gave them cohesive identity had been stripped away. It was in this context that a new sense of the future began to develop. The prophets had forecasted not just judgment but, if Israel came back to God in repentance, restoration. Israel’s continuation as feeble and inglorious created a tension among those whose hearts were rooted in such a rich heritage. Daniel and others had offered a picture of God’s ultimate sovereignty over the powerful nations that ruled. Several prophets talked about a miracle restoration. Could it be that God still had a future for his once chosen people? Changes in Eschatological Expectation I could point to Socrates, or Daniel’s prophecy, or the Maccabean martyrs, but there is not a recognized fixed point when the change definitively occurred or entered into the mainstream of human thought. By the first century A.D., however, the view was widely accepted that what we do in this life has some bearing on a life outside and beyond this life; that is, life continues after biological death, and, if so, judgment is postmortem. That one change in emphasis shifted Israel’s self-understanding and the aspirations of what “salvation” means. While a residue of hope continued that blessing for obedience would be applied in this life, this aspiration had to be reconciled with another rising view that death is only a passage to an eternal life, a life inhabited by God, and a life that men and women would ultimately conceive of as their “destiny.” How we live in this life bears consequences not just for our earthly days but has judicial consequences in the life to come. Within Israel, two eschatological polarities thus developed. One eschatological view was traditional and prophetic; the other emerged in a unique genre of literature, apocalyptic eschatology, suggesting a unique form of hope in God. 1 Traditional prophetic eschatology set its hope on collective 1. Apocalyptic theology should be distinguished from apocalytic genre and apocalypticism. See John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period

125

reform. If Israel would return to the covenants of old, surrender to Moses, and keep themselves clean and devoted, God would restore them and bless them. Judgment is meted out in this present life. Moses promised this in Deut 28. Apocalyptic hope was grounded not in Israel’s historical performance or promises of reward for faithfulness, but in the Lord who was faithful to his purposes despite their apostasy. His fidelity could be seen in their past history and promises he had given to their fathers, but as the prophet Hosea taught, Israel was a divorcee from God and estranged. “Rather than being delivered through (or within) history, one must now be delivered from it.” 2 The answer was found not in reform in this life, but from outside intervention, something new and previously unanticipated and in a life to come. God would intervene with a sudden reversal of fortune and redeem, restore, and resurrect his people and God’s prophecies for his people would be fulfilled. Apocalyptic eschatology finds its roots even before the exile. 3 It finds seminal expression in several of the writing prophets and much fuller development in the intertestamental literature leading up to Second Temple Judaism, the arrival of Jesus, and the beginning of the new entity claiming to be a reconstituted people of God, the Church. Paul frequently writes from an apocalyptic perspective and it will have a bearing on how we think of mortality, particularly his teaching that death will ultimately be overcome. 4 The key spokesmen for apocalyptic vision within the literature are often transcendent heroes and, if human, frequently immortal. Enoch is prominent in the intertestamental literature as the pseudonymous author of literature in the apocalyptic genre. Elijah is mentioned in the last verses Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 12–14. Apocalypticism is conceived as a historic movement. Collins argues that the overlap occurs when apocalypses endorse a worlview “in which supernatural revelation, the heavenly world, and eschatological judgment played essential parts” (p. 13). 2. Lloyd R. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, OBT 5 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 70 (emphasis his). 3. In a discussion of sources for apocalyptic literature such as Daniel and Enoch, Collins (Apocalyptic Imagination, 21, 25–29) notes that the genre has close affinities with the mantic wisdom of the Babylonians that may predate them by centuries. 4. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 71–74, lists three implications for mortality in the introduction of apocalyptic eschatology. (1) Death continues as a metaphor for that that hinders full life, especially on a collective level. This patterns what we have seen in the last chapter regarding a general OT definition for death. As Kent Harold Richards, “Death, Old Testament,” ABD 2:109, puts it, life is made for praising God, so “the inability to praise was a signal of death, even in life.” (2) No negative reaction to mortality is evidenced. (3) Death is sometimes seen as a power that will be defeated. So, “he will swallow up death permanently. The sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from every face and remove his people’s disgrace from all the earth. Indeed, the Lord has announced it!” (Isa 25:8). Bailey sees this as potentially “aspiration,” not “affirmation,” that is, he questions whether the author’s intention was to see this as prophecy or whether it was a hyperbolic statement reflecting national desire.

126

Chapter 6

of Malachi (Mal 4:5–6) as being sent in the last days to restore sons to their fathers and later features prominently in the Gospels as an apocalyptic figure and in an appearance with Jesus at his transfiguration (Matt 17:1–9; Mark 9:2–10; Luke 9:28–36). A messiah, or God’s anointed one, became an anticipated apocalyptic figure in the period between the testaments as one who would deliver Israel both politically and spiritually and restore it to its covenant glory. 5 Three passages played a role in developing the messianic idea (Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; and Isa 11:1–6), and about 15 references are found in the Qumran literature. This literature marks the messianic deliverer as the offspring of Judah or the family of Jesse (King David’s father) and envisions a conquering triumphant figure, not a suffering one. Views of mortality during the intertestamental period changed as views of the future changed. 6 Bailey mentions six values toward death that developed: 7 (1) “Death may be a blessing, since it releases one from further suffering. . . . Premature and violent death, previously often regarded as a sign of sinfulness and divine displeasure, now seemed to be the norm for those who remained faithful to Yahwism in the face of pressure to conform to Hellenistic culture.” (2) “Death may be an occasion for witnessing to the faith, especially in the case of martyrdom.” Bailey notes that, whereas a “good” death once meant nonviolent and in advanced years, now it presupposes violence. (3) “Hope of resurrection is explicitly cited as awaiting the righteous who resist apostasy.” 8 (4) “Death is an ultimate threat only to the wicked, who assume that death is the end of meaningful existence.” (5) “Death, apart from the situation of martyrdom, sometimes evokes a reluctance to depart, even fear.” Finally, (6) “Death in all its manifestations (metaphoric and biological) initially resulted from ‘the devil’s spite’ (Wis 2:23–24).” 5. C. A. Evans, “Messianism,” DNTB 698–707. 6. Richard Bauckham, “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, MNTS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 86–88, underscores the continuity between the OT and Second Temple Judaism. Continuous threads include that death is evil, humans are holistic (resurrection must pertain to both body and soul), the theme of future judgment including vindication for the righteous and condemnation for the wicked, and a corporate eschatology. 7. Bailey, Biblical Perspectives on Death, 78–82. 8. For a survey of intertestamental Jewish literature on individual resurrection and its implications for Paul’s thinking, see Hans Clemens Caesarius Cavallin, Life after Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15, vol. 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background, ConBNT 7 (Lund: Gleerup, 1974), 211–15, where Cavallin concludes that Jewish literature sustains belief in the preservation of the individual personality in the afterlife, does not produce a common view of the relationship between body and soul, introduces a radical discontinuity between the old life before death and the new life after death, and promotes righteousness as finally vindicated in the resurrection.

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period

127

As a view to an afterlife and eschatological judgment were birthed and matured, views of voluntary death also changed. This life became expendable. How one lived and also how one died would all be taken into account in the afterlife, in a postmortem judgment. This viewpoint was well illustrated by the Maccabean martyrs. The Meaning of the Maccabean Martyrs Tensions in Judaism under foreign rule provoked resistance. Adela Yarbro Collins speaks of a Hellenizing crisis that first created the choice whether to collaborate with foreign authorities or to resist. If resistance was chosen, then the options were to resist actively in holy war or passively. She illustrates with the active resistance of the holy war generated by the Hasmoneans in 1 and 2 Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes (that later served as a model for the Zealots) versus a passive resistance model that waits for outside rescue. She then discusses two forms of passive resistance: a purely passive approach of endurance and waiting like Daniel’s and a more engaged passive resistance model like that of the righteous sufferer, in which sacrifice arouses the deity to avenge in eschatological battle as found in Assumption of Moses 9. 9 Martyrdom theology developed from an engaged passive resistance model and particularly from the righteous sufferer model. The Maccabean martyrs hoped to arouse the deity to avenge them. 10 Nine people are martyred in the story for not eating pork: Eleazar, a 90-year-old priest, a mother, and her seven sons. They all die heroically after severe torture and mutilation, but they all make clear confession of allegiance to God’s law, of their confidence that God will avenge their deaths, and that they will live after death (2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23, 36). 11 The legacy of the priest is that he died “leaving his death for an example of a noble courage, and a memorial of virtue, not only unto young men, but unto all his nation” (2 Macc 6:31). 12 The last son to die makes the comment that the nation is suffering at the hands of God because of their sins and that eventually God will reconcile with his servants (2 Macc 7:31–33). He asks that in his death God’s wrath against the nation might cease (2 Macc 7:37–38). These words 9. Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Political Perspective of the Revelation of John,” JBL 96 (1977): 241–56. She notes that the deaths of many of the Zealots were likely given atoning and eschatological significance by their followers (p. 244). 10. Ibid., 245. 11. The oppressors will be tormented in this life (2 Macc 7:17, 19, 31, 35, 36), but part of their judgment is that they would not be raised from the dead (2 Macc 7:14). Thus, their judgment is temporal. 12. Jan Willem Van Henten, “Das jüdische Selbstverständnis in den ältesten Martyrien,” in Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie, ed. J. W. van Henten, B.  A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. van der Klaauw, StPB 38 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 137–39, lists three motives for Eleazar’s choice to die: (1) the ruler’s punishment is preferred to divine punishment, (2) fear of God (2 Macc 6:30), and (3) to exemplify a faithful lifestyle to the youth. He chooses martyrdom over an unclean and obscure life.

128

Chapter 6

reflect the language of atoning sacrifice. The critical question is whether this kind of death actually provides atonement. Using the categories developed in chap. 2, the Maccabean martyrs clearly died noble deaths, and in Eleazar’s case, a mimetic death to be emulated by the Jewish nation. Their deaths were, as well, clearly acts of martyrdom complete with the anticipation of divine vengeance on their adversaries and eternal mercy for them. A correlation between martyrdom and atoning sacrifice needs to be more specifically drawn. How were their deaths vicarious, that is, did they have a substitutionary and propitiatory effect on others in the nation; and/or were they mimetic, an example for others to follow? 13 Clearly, at least for Eleazar, their deaths were mimetic and exemplary for Israel. They would have expected faithful Jews to do what they did. In addition, however, the martyrs wanted their sacrificial deaths for their religious ideology (not eating pork) to have transcendent significance and be vindicated. They wanted God to judge their oppressors and reward them both personally and, viewing their death as representative for the nation, nationally. 14 They wanted to appease the angry God who sent Antiochus to judge the nation and so find national reconciliation. They wanted their deaths to be atoning. 15 Williams addresses this question and particularly the prayer of the seventh son that “in me and my brothers the wrath of the Almighty which rightly rests upon our whole nation might be stayed (2 Macc 7:38, ἐν ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου στῆσαι τὴν τοῦ παντοκράτορος ὀργὴν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ σύμπαν ἡμῶν γένος δικαίως ἐπηγμένην). He argues first that “the idea of God using an external instrument (ἐν ἐμοὶ . . .) to stay his own wrath is incongruous.” 16 The ἐν is not instrumental or means, but instead, it “is intended by the au13. Henk S. Versnel (“Making Sense of Jesus’ Death. The Pagan Contribution,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, WUNT 181 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 256–67) concludes “2 Maccabees does not offer any explicit trace of, nor any implicit allusion to, (atoning) vicarious death in the common sense of that word” (p. 267). 14. Collins, “The Political Perspective of the Revelation of John,” 241–56, contrasts the passive resistance of martyrdom, particularly the Maccabean martyrs, with the active resistance of the Maccabean revolt or of the Zealots with specific application to holy war and martyr themes in the book of Revelation. 15. Part of the conversation surrounding the Maccabean martyrs is whether they held to a postmortem vindication in which they would be resurrected and rewarded. See, e.g., Ulrich Kellermann, “Das Danielbuch und die Märtyrertheologie der Auferstehung,” in Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, ed. J. W. Van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. Van der Klaauw, StPB 38 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 51–54, which suggests that the martyrs had Dan 12 in mind and the possibility of resurrection as they faced their deaths. In 2 Macc 7:9, 14, 36, there are literary references to Daniel 12:2. M. Gaukesbrink (Die Sühnetradition bei Paulus. Rezeption und theologischer Stellenwert [Würzburg: Echter, 1999], 76) asserts that the cultic terms point to pagan Greek religion, not to OT thinking. 16. Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 88.

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period

129

thor to mark a fixed point: let the anger of the Almighty end at this point, i.e., with the death of me and my brothers.” Second, the martyrs point out other acts of Antiochus that demand divine vengeance—his desecration of the temple, destruction of the holy city, the murder of infants, and blasphemies against God’s name—with the goal of evoking God’s response. Williams concludes, “There is no suggestion in this prayer that God’s wrath has been averted through the death of Eleazar and the seven brothers.” 17 Atonement is mere conjecture. The story is retold in the first century A.D. in 4 Macc. 1:7–12; 5:1–18:5. 18 4  Maccabees 17:21 says these martyrs have become just like a ransom for the sin of the nation (ὥσπερ ἀντίψυχον γεγονότας τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους ἁμαρτίας), thus presenting that “martyrdom is a substitutionary atonement that expiates the sins of the nation.” In this version the author uses their story with embellished discussion between Antiochus and the martyrs as an apologetic for pious reason over passions—emotions, desires and physical sensations—and that “the reasoning faculty that is trained in the Jewish Torah is able to achieve domination over these passions, enabling the person to live a life full of virtue.” 19 The early church fathers found the story of the Maccabean martyrs inspirational and exemplary. The church venerated them. But whether the church believed that their act was truly atoning, that it pacified God’s wrath or reconciled in light of Christ’s subsequent death, is not clear. For a period, they did see the martyrs’ deaths as mimetic, and a trend grew, the so-called “cult of the martyrs,” that valued martyrdom as a means of obtaining divine reward. Certainly, within Jewish and early Christian history, the Maccabean martyr story was inspirational to prompt the faithful to passive resistance, which led to more martyrdom. Seeley, however, asserts that 2 Maccabees “does not contain examples of vicarious, expiatory death.” 20 For him, 4  Maccabees conveys vicariousness but is “fundamentally mimetic”; imitating their example enacts redemption from Antiochus. “By inspiring their fellow citizens to follow their example, the martyrs make it impossible for Antiochus to enforce his decrees, whereupon he leaves 17. Ibid. 18. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, HTS 56 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 139–40, highlights differences between the telling of the Maccabean martyr stories. 2 Maccabees emphasizes the resurrection of the body, while 4 Maccabees emphasizes the immortality of the soul. In 4 Maccabees, immortality is conceived as a reward for obedience to the Torah. The later date of 4 Maccabees leads many to conclude that its later theological development did not affect as wide an audience. See also Tom Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2004), 160. 19. David A. deSilva, “3 and 4 Maccabees,” DNTB 663. 20. David Seeley, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation, JSNTSup 28 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 145.

130

Chapter 6

(18.5).” 21 Part of Seeley’s­thesis is that reenactment is necessary to benefit from Christ’s work: “the beneficiaries of the vicarious effect of Jesus’ death re-enact his death through a ritualized version of the story [baptism].” 22 Baptism, an imaginary reenactment, prepares the believer for a literal reenactment, that is, martyrdom, should that be necessary. 23 Eschner and others seek to demonstrate that the theological assumptions of the death of the Maccabean martyrs is distinct from NT views. Eleazar’s motive was to appease God. Eschner says this parallels pagan Greek traditions of appeasing gods and turning away their wrath. She notices that the saving effect of his and the other martyrs’ death is dependent on God’s response after their death. 24 Eleazar was pleading with God before his death to turn away his wrath, but God had not taken the initiative in this proposal. He never suggested that he required Eleazar’s death. In addition, for Eschner, the martyrs do not appease God through their death, but through their obedience to the traditions. That their obedience resulted in martyrdom is inconsequential and should not be confused as a motive for Eleazar’s appeal. The martyrs’ goal was to keep the laws or traditions intact, which in this case required active resistance against authority resulting in their death. 25 Eschner’s conclusion is that, for Paul, salvation as a consequence of Christ’s death was clear when he died, but not in Eleazar’s. Eleazar’s death does not serve in Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’ death. 26 Christ did not die as a martyr. Christ’s death and the martyrs’ death differ fundamentally because God’s role and the saving effect intended are both different. Christ’s death was clearly propitiating; Eleazar’s was merely hopeful. Substitutionary death is only effective if it is a prerequisite ordered by the ruling judicial authority. 27 Gaukesbrink looks at the roots of Paul’s views of atoning substitution in Isaiah (the Suffering Servant) and 4 Maccabees and concludes that they differ­because, in 4 Maccabees, (1) several martyrs die, (2) their death is not explicitly God’s plan, (3) the initiative for substitution and atonement comes from the martyrs, (4) the effect is both religious and political, and (5) the effect is restricted to Israel. Gaukesbrink adds that, if Paul got his martyrological or atonement thinking from the Maccabean martyrs, it would be due to the linguistic “dying for” references, not the theological content of 21. Ibid., 146. 22. Ibid., 147. 23. Ibid., 147–48. 24. Christina Eschner, Darstellung und Auswertung des griechischen Quellenbefundes, vol. 2: Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi, WMANT 122 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010), 336–37. 25. Ibid., 339–40. 26. Ibid., 340–42. 27. Ibid., 353.

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period

131

their deaths. He counters Eschner, however, by claiming that Paul’s idea of atonement derives from Hellenistic rather than Jewish sources. 28 The ultimate question, whether humans can initiate atonement, must be answered in the negative. 29 The offended party, God alone, dictates the terms of atonement and provides the necessary offering to atone for the sins of the world (Rom 5:8–11). 30 Seeley’s question of whether or not the Maccabean martyrs’ death was exclusively mimetic rather than expiatory bears little weight on Paul’s perspective of Jesus and thus Paul’s own death, if, as Eschner and Gaukesbrink claim, Jesus’ death had no theological association with their deaths. Jesus’ death has features both of martyrdom and atonement, but, as we will see, his death is distinct.

Ideological Polarities as Expressions of Hope Having surveyed the OT’s view of death and the developments within the intertestamental period, we now turn to look at Paul’s immediate sociological situation. Several political and religious polarities existed within Judaism. Josephus mentions three manifestations: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes ( Josephus J.W. 2.8.14; Ant. 13.5.9; 13.10.6; 18.1.4). 31 To these we could add the Zealots or the Sicarii, messianic sects, and other groups. 32 Our intention­is not really to identify or define these groups, but to talk about factors that would polarize Jews in Paul’s day and speak of Paul’s allegiances. 28. Gaukesbrink, Die Sühnetradition bei Paulus: Rezeption und theologischer Stellenwert, 75–76. 29. Douglas J. Moo (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 234–35) shares the conclusions of Eschner and Gaukesbrink that martyr theology did not influence Paul or the NT. He speaks specifically in the context of Paul’s use of ἱλαστήριον and affirms Paul’s sourcing in the OT (p. 235). See also Versnel, “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death,” 278–79: “we should henceforth refrain from speaking of vicarious (atoning) death in the relevant early Jewish testimonia, at least in the sense of that word as we have defined it and in which it is generally applied to Jesus’ death as a saving event.” 30. Thus, Collins’s model of passivity that encourages waiting and endurance as in Daniel takes precedence over the more assertive righteous sufferer model. Collins, “The Political Perspective of the Revelation of John,” 243. 31. David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, vol. 2: The Jewish Sages and Their Literature, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009), 248–57. 32. B. D. Chilton, “Judaism and the New Testament,” DNTB 603–16, is very helpful for historical background on ideological factions within Judaism. I am also indebted to N. T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1: The New Testament and the People of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 167–214), for his work describing Jewish diversity. See also W. J. Heard and C. A. Evans, “Revolutionary Movements, Jewish,” DNTB 936–47; Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, LEC (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987); and David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period, vol. 1: Qumran and Apocalypticism, trans. Azzan Yadin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009), 214–57.

132

Chapter 6

Each group can be organized around a nationalistic vision and an eschatological perspective. Important definitional boundaries include (1) how they conceived themselves as distinct from Rome and secular society; (2)  how they conceived Israel’s future in God’s plan; (3) how each group within Judaism distinguished themselves from the other Jewish groups; and (4) what human response is necessary in light of their eschatological perspective. Their willingness and motivation to die voluntarily and prematurely are intertwined in each ideological framework. Israel among a Secular Society The people of Israel divided over how to react to Rome and secular society. The Hasmoneans had staged a successful military rebuttal to the Seleucid Rule (Hellenistic) in battles two centuries previous, 166–143 B.C., and obtained national independence for about 80 years until again becoming subject to Rome in 63 B.C. Although this nationalistic stance purportedly opposed Hellenization, it also mimicked many of the Hellenistic values. 33 Regardless, revolutionary upheaval infused the heart of many within Israel with different outcomes. Some sought to engage Rome violently (the Zealots). Some chose passive resistance even to the point of death (for example, the Maccabean martyrs). Others withdrew from society to await apocalyptic deliverance (the Essenes). Only a remnant had returned to Palestine in the centuries since their release by Cyrus. The influence of the diaspora on mainline Judaism and the foreign occupation within Palestine necessitated shifts in religious practice: the centers for instruction and worship moved from the temple to the synagogue; instruction and prayer took the place of sacrifices; rabbis replaced priests as interpreters of Scripture; and rituals (such as Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws) became the defining ethnic essence of the Jew. It is no wonder that, by the first century A.D., Judaism had splintered into factions. Israel in Eschatology We have mentioned some different eschatological views. Of particular importance was where they stood in regard to the covenant relationship with God. What was their vision of restoration in light of their Gentile neighbors? The Abrahamic covenant promised that their blessing would be to the children of Abraham and extend to bless all the families of the earth. How did they conceive this transpiring? Would it be a sudden apocalyptic transition or something drawn out over history? To what degree was the new eschatological kingdom associated with Gentiles? Was this association only political, or were there religious implications? 33. Wayne A. Meeks, “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity,” in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 20.

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period

133

Apocalyptic material projects an insider/outsider mentality and the lines of demarcation are more concentric circles of faithfulness. A faithful Essene, for example, who had withdrawn from society, observed the purification rituals, and who eagerly awaited God’s deliverance had a better chance than, say, a faithful law-abiding Pharisee that chose to mingle in society. Most Gentiles were clearly on the outside, but then there were God-­fearers. To what degree would they be allowed within an eschatological schema where Israel is redeemed? Jewish Factions Information for subgroups within Judaism is notably limited and distorted. A chief source of information on the Sadducees, for example, comes from Josephus, who wrote late and from a politically motivated stance. Flusser observes that Josephus tries to conform the three groups within Judaism to existing Greco-Roman ideology: “The Essenes correspond to the philosophical determinists, the Sadducees to the free-will party, and the Pharisees to the middle position that Cicero (wrongly) identifies with Chrysippus and Stoicism more generally.” 34 That he was seeking to curry Roman favor in light of the war in Jerusalem is widely accepted. His account sought to vilify certain Jews and exonerate others, so his presentation is skewed. I simplify my descriptions of noted polarities in first-century Jewish society for the sake of space. Pharisees and the Popular Majority The Pharisees represented a broad area of Jewish thinking. They were laity, not priests, and were thought to be experts in the law and the brokers of power between the aristocracy and the common people. They developed and lived within a narrow code of traditions and believed in the resurrection and a coming judgment. Maintaining covenant obedience was a premium value for them and prepared them to receive deuteronomic blessing. They also shared a messianic hope, that is, an apocalyptic hope that deliverance would come, but this hope was typically framed in the present and with political overtones. Sadducees and the Secularists The data from Josephus, the Scriptures, and rabbinic literature on the Sadducees are decidedly scant. 35 According to what we can gather, they rejected the concept of fate, immortality of the soul or a resurrection (a 34. Flusser, The Jewish Sages and Their Literature, 221–31, asks further, “Does the similarity between Cicero’s division and Josephus’s representation of the three Jewish ‘sects’ not suggest that the latter was in fact trying to present his account of the three Jewish groups in a way that would appeal to his Greek readers, and that his testimony is not accurate?” (pp. 230–31). 35. G. G. Porton, “Sadducees,” DNTB 1050–52.

134

Chapter 6

source of conflict in the NT), and they denied a future judgment. Their denial of the resurrection ostensibly was because, as we have mentioned, it is not mentioned in the Torah, but also because belief in the resurrection would encourage insurrection. 36 The Sadducees in general are identified as political allies with the local Roman government. They capitulated ethically in order to accommodate the powerful Roman occupation and were rewarded for it both with political and economic favor. Essenes and Other Messianic Groups The Essenes, which we hold to be represented within the Qumran community, believed that withdrawal from the world was the best option for the faithful and righteous Jew. 37 Their community was a community of separatists who developed a sophisticated apocalyptic agenda. They distanced themselves not just from the pagan Roman culture but also from other ethnic Jews who defiled themselves by associating with the Romans. When God restored the nation of Israel and covenant blessing in a grand apocalyptic gesture, they would be the remnant faithfully waiting untarnished from the world. Their motto was to separate and withdraw. Paul exhorts Christians to separate from the defilement of the world to devote themselves to Christ (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). The Essenes were Jewish exemplars of this principle. The Essenes, like other groups with various degrees of militancy, awaited a messianic figure. Zealots, Sicarii, and Israelite Fighters The Zealot view was in some senses the opposite of the Essene. Rather than choose an irenic approach, withdraw and wait for deliverance, their answer was to take matters into their own hands and actively resist the occupation. 38 They were militant and believed that the Jewish nation must stand up and fight against the imperial oppression. The Zealots did not fully manifest themselves as a cohesive party until the tumultuous times of revolt 36. Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 230. 37. For visible traces of Essene influence in Paul, tracing particularly prophetic vision, methods of interpretation, God’s reign, the new covenant, and the Messianic age, see S. F. Noll, “Qumran and Paul,” DPL 777–83. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Truth: Paul and Qumran,” in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 179, affirms an influence of the Essenes on Paul, but see Pierre Benoit, “Qumran and the New Testament,” in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 1–30, for qualifying words of caution against reading too much of the Essene tradition into Paul. 38. William Reuben Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 190, affirms a unity between the Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots on many points of doctrine but sharp division on matters of practice in their national resistance.

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period

135

in A.D. 67–70, but a belief in militant resistance persisted among many as part of national thinking from at least the time of the Hasmoneans (167 B.C.). Waiting for Rescue: The Human Response The tension from being an occupied nation resulted in people asking questions regarding their practical political and religious stance particularly in relation to the foreigners. I have described Collins’s view that the Jew had a choice first to collaborate or resist. If resistance was chosen, then a further choice needed to be made whether to resist actively (holy war) or passively, and if the passive route was chosen, to resist with an endurance and waiting posture (for example, Daniel) or as a righteous sufferer to arouse God to respond with rescue (martyrdom). 39 On a religious level, how were they to respond? Religious and ritual purity was highly valued. The New Perspective movement underscores that the identity markers of circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath keeping were at a premium in the first century and examples of these are traced throughout the NT. Faithful Jews sought to maintain national and covenant identity by ritual observance of Jewish laws. Did the Jews have any sense of mission to try to reach the Gentiles around them and offer them covenant blessing? McKnight argues that the Jews actively engaged Gentiles and sought proselytes through their example, but Judaism was not a missionary religion. 40 Gentile God-fearers were present and welcome in their synagogues throughout the world. Although Jews were predominantly nationalistic, “the predominant reason for negative attitudes by Jews toward Gentiles is an expression of religious and social conviction, arising undoubtedly from the Jewish consciousness of being God’s chosen and holy people. . . . Jews criticized Gentiles for basically one reason: pagan religion led to ethical practices that were unacceptable for those who were members of the covenant of Abraham and Moses.” 41 Paul, the Converted Pharisee Until his conversion, Paul was a zealous and model Pharisee, the largest and most popular of the ideologically based groups (Phil 3:4–6). As a fully inducted member, he shared their views and refuted other ideologies. Questions linger to what degree he remained a Pharisee after his conversion. He did become a mortal enemy to them, however, and faced a lifetime of persecution from the Jews as a Christian apostle. 39. Collins, “The Political Perspective of the Revelation of John,” 242–45. 40. Scot McKnight, A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 116–17. 41. Ibid., 26–27.

136

Chapter 6

Within Second Temple Judaism, many contrasting views existed: collaboration versus offensive engagement, tolerance to Rome that in some ways appeared syncretistic versus cultural defiance, apocalyptic interventionist eschatology versus a more patient strategy looking for gradual reform. Paul engaged many of these polarities. Willingness to die and views of virtuous mortality hinge on views of the future, divine judgment, and whether judgment occurred in the here and now or in some eschatological sphere of vindication and retribution.

Summary: Mortality among the Jews Life is found in God. As the creator, he desired his creation to live and value life, but humans instead chose actions that had death as their consequence. Throughout the OT, death is seen in a range from a punitive interruption of the original design to a normal end to human existence. Alienation from God through disobedience and persistent unfaithfulness leads to ruin and death. This theme is repeated from the story of Adam and Eve, through Noah, the testimony of Moses, and Israel’s rising to be a great nation, to their decline, fall into idolatry, and rebellion. Divinely ordained consequences included destruction, exile, and death. The OT narrative leads the reader and faithful Jew to seek redemption, restoration, and resurrection, that is, to find divine intervention (rescue) for what appears to be a problem without a solution. From the beginning of the story, two views of death were prominent: that death was the punitive consequence for sin or that death was natural and without a direct correspondence to specific sin. By the end of the OT and into the intertestamental period, a third view developed that death is a bridge to eschatological judgment in the afterlife. This view frees the righteous to choose death as part of a faithful response to God with postmortem reward, rather than seeing it as a punitive consequence for sin. The OT story leads to anticipation of the NT message. NT research has given much attention to trying to find a theology of resurrection in the OT. Ezekiel’s dry bones (37:1–14), David’s anticipating that he would not see the corruption of death (Ps 16:10), or the more direct resurrection vision of Daniel of the dead awaking to everlasting life or punishment (Dan 12:2) may indicate resurrection, but resurrection is certainly not an OT emphasis. The individual does not find a place in its eschatological framework. Death is a tragedy, something to be avoided, and sometimes an incentive to wise or righteous living. An ultimate reliance on the creator and covenant making God underlies the text. Jesus’ resurrection will come as an unexpected surprise. Individual postmortem eschatological judgment is late in Jewish thinking. Jesus’ teaching and resurrection cultivate a new theme within Judaism. How you live now will have a bearing on an eternal afterlife. How does Jewish history fit into our categories of noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice In the OT and intertestamental period, many die noble deaths, altruistically laying down or risking their lives for God or

Mortality among the Jews: The Intertestamental Period

137

others. Whether it is Abraham, Israelite warriors, national leaders, Esther, prophets, or martyrs, the willingness to choose death altruistically, for the nation and God’s glory, is illustrated repeatedly throughout the pages of the OT and intertestamental literature. As for martyrdom, according to our technical definition, those who represent a minority view and die out of loyalty to and to promote an ideology, the prophet martyrs would certainly qualify. Jesus claimed that the legacy of prophet martyrs stretches from Abel to Zechariah (Matt 23:34–35; Luke 11:47–51). Although they experience divine rescue, Daniel and his friends provide an example of those who lay down their lives for their testimony of devotion to God irrespective of consequences. 42 They do not bend to the pressure of death out of principle. The hall of faith in Hebrews speaks to many of these honorable heroes in Israel’s history who were tortured, not accepting release, to obtain resurrection to a better life. And others experienced mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, sawed apart, murdered with the sword; they went about in sheepskins and goatskins; they were destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (the world was not worthy of them); they wandered in deserts and mountains and caves and openings in the earth (Heb 11:35–38).

Even non-Jews must admire the resilient commitment of these men and women who gave their lives to promote God’s purposes. The Maccabean martyrs, those nine who resolutely faced torture, mutilation, and death, explicitly serve as models of martyrdom not just for Israel, but for the early church as well. They confessed their allegiance to the Torah to the point of death and offered hope that their deaths would not only be vindicated— Antiochus would face God’s wrath—but that their deaths would have a vicarious effect, that the nation would somehow benefit as God is appeased in his anger toward Israel. Their courageous sacrifice and their interpretation of its significance borders on themes of atonement. Were there atoning sacrifices in the OT? God mandated animal sacrifices. They were a means to forgiveness for the people and provided a form of reconciliation at least as a type. The author of Hebrews asserts that animal sacrifices were insufficient to offer permanent atonement and that their blood was inadequate. These sacrifices served merely as a temporary and representative shadow of Christ’s higher sacrifice (Heb 9–10). Another example of atoning death is offered when Phinehas spears the immoral couple and through their death provides atonement—God 42. Marc Brettler (“Is There Martyrdom in the Hebrew Bible?,” in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion, ed. Margaret Cormack, AARSR [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 3–22) analyzes the OT in light of Droge and Tabor’s definition of martyrdom, particularly under the expectation of vindication and reward, and concludes that only in Daniel, what he considers the last OT book, do the factors for true martyrdom coalesce (p. 16).

138

Chapter 6

stopped a plague because of Phinehas’s courageous action. Unchecked and unpunished sin in a culture violates a life lived in relationship with God. Their deaths protected society. Other stories of human offering are often cited in conversations about atonement. The Aqedah, Abraham’s binding and offering of his son, Isaac, and the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter are sometimes suggested as atoning. These stories are probably best seen from their immediate contexts as not atoning or reconciling. In Abraham’s case, it was a test of faith that he passed with flying colors; the death of Jephthah’s daughter is considered by most to be a tragedy based on an imprudent vow. The groundwork for atonement, however, is laid by Moses and the idea it represents is picked up by the Maccabean martyrs and carried into the NT era with Christ’s sacrifice. My conclusion as I will underscore in the next chapter is that God must provide the terms and means for atonement for his just wrath to be satisfied and for covenant to be restored. The Hebrew Scriptures lay the groundwork for Jesus’ arrival. Paul turned to them to underscore the painful reality of death as the fundamental human problem to which his gospel provided the antidote. While the central conflict of the OT can perhaps best be described as focusing on the Israelite nation and their covenant violation leading to separation from God, judgment, and exile, the original problem valid for all God’s creation is sin leading to death. Paul picks up on this universal human dilemma and explains that God not only addresses the theme of alienation due to covenant violation, but he addresses the more primitive and general problem of death as a consequence of disobedience. He offers eternal life. 43 While a theology of death and mortality can be derived from the OT Scriptures and Hebrew eschatology, it receives a quantum boost with the introduction of the gospel story of Jesus’ teaching, death, and resurrection, to which we now turn. 43. Paul’s willingness to die supposes a primary value that would be even more tragic—separation from God or, collaterally, not living his life fully in view of that covenant relationship.

Chapter 7

Jesus and Voluntary Death In my survey of ideological influences on Paul, we looked at Gentile and Jewish background issues in chaps. 3 through 6. We now tighten our focus and consider aspects more central to Paul’s thinking. Paul’s confession of Jesus Christ trumped his Roman citizenship, his Jewish heritage and training, his understanding of history, and the way he interpreted the OT Scriptures. Jesus is the core of Christianity. Perhaps that is a tautology, but this simple fact can be overshadowed. As we look at Jesus in this chapter, we are looking at the apex, the focal point, and the center of Christian theology and of Paul’s theology. Jesus’ life and teaching serve as the basis for his disciples to know how Christians are to think and live particularly in light of their mortality. No report on him is comprehensive nor, according to John ( John 21:25), can be, but Jesus’ example and teaching on mortality must occupy prime position. Where did Paul get his understanding of Christ? 1 He met the resurrected Jesus in a dramatic encounter on the Damascus road, but did he have access to the Gospel records we hold today that told of Jesus’ life and death? 2 Most feel that these were written or compiled after or late in Paul’s career. 3 What 1. See J. M. G. Barclay, “Jesus and Paul,” DPL 492–503, for discussion of many of the arguments in this paragraph. After surveying the history and complexity of the problem, Barclay concludes, “there is sufficient evidence to show that, whether consciously or otherwise, Paul did develop the central insights of the teaching of Jesus and the central meaning of his life and death in a way that truly represented their dynamic and their fullest significance” (p. 502). 2. Larry W. Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 81–86), in his discussion of the earliest development of Christianity, justifies beginning with Pauline Christianity because this is the first recorded form of Christianity from firsthand sources; Paul’s letters (written in the 50s) reflect Christian traditions from earlier years; Paul was associated with Peter, James, Jesus’ brother, Barnabas and others back to his conversion dated very early for the church (ca. A.D. 32­–34); the conflicts with Jewish Christians exhibited in Paul’s writings reflect the diversity of the early church; his Christ-devotion advances religious expression across cultures; and Christ’s prominence in Paul served to promote Christological beliefs (pp. 85–86). 3. Dating the writing of the Gospels is widely disputed, and the literature on dating is copious. The date placed on the first Gospel in most literature ranges from 60 to 70. The standard for determining dating is largely circumstantial, which offers much room for disagreement. Aside from James, the other epistles and Johannine writings are generally placed after Paul’s writing. James does not speak directly of Jesus’ Passion but offers

139

140

Chapter 7

did Paul actually know of Jesus’ life as a man? According to Luke, Paul spent time after his conversion in Tarsus then taught with Barnabas in Antioch (Acts 9:30; 11:25–27). He had contact with prophets and teachers in Antioch (Acts 11:27; 13:1–3) and the other apostles who had lived with Jesus, particularly Peter (Gal 1:18; 2:6–14). 4 Luke, a Gospel researcher and writer, served as a traveling companion and assumedly was compiling data wherever he could get it. Traditionally, the Apostle John moved with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and became the bishop of Ephesus, a city close to Paul’s heart where he worked for years. 5 Did Paul know John and Mary and was he able to learn their stories of Jesus? Did they interact about Christian eschatological expectation that would eventually appear in John’s Revelation? 6 What of the other epistles—of Hebrews and James, for example? Did Paul know of them? We assume that he was acquainted with the oral tradition of Jesus’ life and teaching. The telling of Jesus’ story within the NT record is not homogeneous. Three of the Gospels are labeled “synoptic” for their obvious similarities, but each of the four tell Jesus’ story with a unique theological slant reflected through material selection, style, and order of presentation. Paul’s presentation is theological and emphasizes the implications of the soteriological and eschatological impact of Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation over his earthly life and ministry. 7 The presentations of the purpose of Jesus’ coming correspond to each author’s view of the primary cosmological two observations on death: sin “gives birth to death” ( Jas 1:15b), and the one who turns the sinner from wandering saves his soul from death ( Jas 5:22). This section assumes that Paul would have had acquaintance with some form of the Jesus narratives. 4. Anthony C. Thiselton (The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle’s Life and Thought [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009], 3–4), in response to claims that Paul knew only the exalted Christ, summarizes Pauline references to the earthly life and ministry of Jesus to substantiate that Paul was aware of the teachings and traditions handed down through Jesus’ first disciples and that they influenced his theology. See also David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). 5. Irenaus, Haer. 2.22.5, 3.3.4; Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.39) cites Papias as saying that a John the Elder lived in Ephesus, but questions linger regarding whether this is the same as John the Evangelist. For various arguments on John the Evangelist’s presence in Ephesus, see Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978), 38–50. 6. Revelation is typically dated long after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which itself occurred three years after Paul’s death in Rome (A.D. 67). On p. 18 in n. 33, I discussed how the meaning of the μάρτυς word group changed rapidly in the first century of the church. I hold with others that the sense of μάρτυς was not yet linked with death even as late as the writing of Revelation. The gloss “witness” is accurate even when that testimony led to death. 7. See Jerry L. Sumney, “‘Christ Died for Us’: Interpretation of Jesus’ Death as a Central Element of the Identity of the Earliest Church,” in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation. Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell, ed. Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker, LNTS 428 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010), 170–72, where he

Jesus and Voluntary Death

141

problem that Jesus addresses. The Synoptics present Jesus’ message as proclaiming the arrival of the kingdom of God and so emphasize messianic deliverance for an oppressed people. This message would have resonated with the exiled remnant awaiting deliverance, but the kingdom of God will be established with a new covenant not limited to Israel alone. John’s Gospel uses the term eternal life for the kingdom of God, and he views the human predicament with a developed eschatology that acknowledges existence outside time. 8 Paul’s gospel message emphasizes forensic justification and recognizes moral culpability before a righteous God. No view is exclusive to any one writer, however, and the meaning of the presented problems and solutions greatly overlaps—the Synoptics speak of life and an ultimate judgment and kingdom of God terminology is found throughout Paul and twice in John. The distinct theological emphases, however, are clear. Although Paul may be accused of creating a biased view of Jesus that overemphasizes the cross and the empty tomb as the defining symbols of Christianity, Paul reported the events and their significance in the way that he deemed best for his world and the expanding church. He interpreted the impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection both within the Jewish context of covenant teaching and within a broader worldview that struggled with an anticipation of death. The facts of the events of the gospel are one thing (1 Cor 15:2–8; 2 Tim 2:8); the import for the lives of believers and unbelievers is another. 9 A good case could be made that the primary problem addressed in the NT is the problem of death. The NT addresses many other critical problems—death is not the only problem—it is, however, the basic human dilemma, the result of the first crisis in human history, and the deepest human conflict that begs for resolution. The focal point of Jesus’ ministry is his life offered as a remedy for the problem of human death. 10 He came to argues that Paul did not originate but used teaching about Jesus that existed before he joined the church. 8. Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 18; M. M. Thompson, “John, Gospel of,” DJG 368–83. D. H. Johnson (“Life,” DJG 469–71) mentions that in the Synoptics the concept of “life” usually refers to future life, whereas in John it is proleptic, eschatological life experienced in the present. The two views of life are not in contradiction: the Synoptics speak of life now and John acknowledges a coming resurrected life in the kingdom (e.g., John 18:36). 9. I. Howard Marshall (New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004], 422–23) places these verses front and center as the central theme of Paul’s theology. 10. We have defined death in both physical terms and in relational or spiritual terms, as separation from God. God is concerned both in connecting with his creation and in restoring his original creative design. N. T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3: The Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 656–59) points out that the Christian teaching of bodily resurrection, that is, the importance of physical and not just spiritual life is one important distinguishing aspect of Christian teaching.

142

Chapter 7

restore life to dead humanity. His ministry and teaching culminating in his death addresses the fundamental problem. Ironically, Jesus was determined to train his disciples to give all, even their lives, for the kingdom. Some of his teaching is admittedly paradoxical—to experience life, one must embrace death. He both taught this and modeled it as he set his face to go to Jerusalem to die. What was the impact of Jesus’ earthly determination to die on the cross and what does this teach about mortality? Christianity is founded on Jesus’ sacrifice of himself on the cross and his bodily resurrection from the dead. The rest of this chapter is dedicated to how Jesus’ teaching on discipleship, his eschatology, and his example affected Paul’s understanding of his mortality.

Jesus’ Teaching: Discipleship and Mortality Jesus’ ministry, especially his ministry of healing, is marked by mingling among those who recognized their frailty, experienced disease and death, and knew they needed divine intervention. Describing his messianic ministry to John the Baptist’s messengers, he sends the message that “the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news proclaimed to them” (Matt 11:5). His practice was to respond to those sick, dying, and powerless and to meet their needs. Perhaps the most dramatic miracle that Jesus performed was raising the dead, an act that demonstrated his power over death and his ultimate mission to give hope to those who grieved (Matt 9:23–26/Mark 5:35–43/Luke 8:49–56). Not only did he raise people from the dead but he also commissioned his disciples to raise the dead as an extension of his ministry (Matt 9:24; 10:8; 11:5). What can be perplexing, however, are the statements that Jesus makes in all the Synoptic Gospels and that get reframed in John that the path to life leads through death. Dying is a requirement of discipleship. The verses that show up almost word for word in the triple tradition are, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt 16:24–25/Mark 8:34–35/Luke 9:23–24; cf. John 12:24–26). 11 An expanded paraphrase might be, “To come after Jesus, to be my disciple, you must renounce yourself, accept a lifestyle of personal death, humiliating public execution, and follow, imitate and obey me.” 12 Follow11. Matthew and Luke agree against Mark with ἐλθεῖν and ἔρχεσθαι respectively instead of ἀκολουθεῖν (ἀκολουθείτω also being the final of the three injunctions in all verses, thus Mark defines “coming after” as “following”). Matthew and Mark have the more intensive, ἀπαρνησάσθω, and Luke adds καθ᾿ ἡμέραν (“daily”). Mark adds the motive of the Gospel in v. 35, thus, “for my sake and the gospel’s.” 12. These along with passages with parallel vocabulary and meaning, Matt 10:37–38 / Luke 14:25–27; Matt 10:39 / Luke 17:33. Here, after warning that love for Jesus must take precedence over family relationships, Jesus says whoever does not take (λαμβάνει—Mat-

Jesus and Voluntary Death

143

ing Jesus requires self-renunciation and whole-hearted devotion. Jesus both modeled and taught that the movement he came to create, his kingdom, is based not on self-seeking, but on sacrificial service to God and others. 13 Discipleship that embraces death embraces humility, suffering, persecution and perhaps literal death. Jesus’ death and the death he required from his disciples was death through crucifixion. 14 The idea conveyed in taking up one’s cross is rich. 15 “Cross-bearing was a visible, public affair that visualized a person’s humility before the state.” 16 Negatively, the cross envisions ridicule, opposition to the state, personalized private pain (take up his cross, ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ), submission, and ultimately death. 17 A cross signifies abandonment, betrayal, humiliation and rejection. 18 Believers­are thew) or bear (βαστάζει—Luke) his cross and follow me is not worthy of me (οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος—Matthew) or cannot be my disciple (οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής—Luke), followed by a similar contrast between losing life to save it. R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (1–12): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 29 (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 473–75, compares and contrasts all three with the close parallel of John 12:24–26, and after noting that all the expressions follow Jesus’ announcing his death, “In vs. 24 Jesus had to die in order to bring others to life; now we see that the follower of Jesus cannot escape death any more than his master but must pass through death to his own eternal life” (p. 474). 13. Jesus’ appeal to take up one’s cross, that is, to die for the kingdom following his example, is definitively not an appeal to choose death randomly. The suggestion that Jesus would condone suicide from this text is absurd. Suicide is an ultimate expression of affirmation of self, that is, that personal pain or life is unbearable. Suicide is escape. Taking up one’s cross implies choosing life, but a life marked by accepting persecution, suffering, and ultimately a willingness to die at others’ hands in identification with the movement that Christ initiated as one follows him. Contra J. Duncan M. Derrett (“Taking up the Cross and Turning the Cheek,” in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study, ed. A. E. Harvey [London: SPCK, 1985], 61–78), who says that taking up the cross does not imply neurotically seeking crucifixion or even taking a risk but is a commendation of asceticism. It implies assuming the penalty for being a sinner and implies disciplining the body with its passions with no thought to martyrdom. 14. Herman Ridderbos (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975], 54–55) observes that Paul consistently relates Jesus’ death as particular because it is the death on a cross: he knows nothing but Jesus and him crucified (1 Cor 2:2); the gospel is “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:17–18; Gal 3:1); Christ’s enemies are enemies of the cross (Phil 3:18). 15. But see Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, WUNT 310 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 303–7, for an argument on the language of crucifixion (σταυρόω root) and that the cross has been overly dramatized, that pre-Christian formulations are nonexistent beyond an idea of punitive suspension, and so the Gospel accounts and their later, more-graphic interpretations do not account for more generalized first-century practice and understanding. 16. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT 3a (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 853. 17. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., The Gospel according to Matthew, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), 2:224. 18. Martin Hengel (Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, trans. John Bowden, [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977], 83, 86–90) depicts crucifixion

144

Chapter 7

not immune from the experiences of feeling betrayed, rejected, or abandoned even by God. Positively, bearing a cross pictures identification with Christ himself. Though in the preceding verses Jesus did not mention how he would ultimately be killed, the image of the cross would not be lost on the apostles as they recalled this teaching. Luke’s addition of “daily” (καθ᾿ ἡμέραν) implies that this is not a once-for-all act, but a habit, a discipline. 19 In John, the version is similar: “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it produces much grain. The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him” ( John 12:24–26). 20 The cross/execution language is replaced with the image of a seed that dies and produces fruit, an image that Paul will also use in 1 Cor 15 to speak of death and resurrection. 21 Jesus in the Upper Room exhorts his disciples with an eloquent command and a teaching concerning death and love: “My commandment is this—to love one another just as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this—that one lays down his life (ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ θῇ) for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you” ( John 15:12–14). The three key words that help us understand where laying down one’s life intersects with discipleship are “commandment,” “love,” and “friend.” First, in context, Jesus is talking about how obedience to God’s commands is the key to remaining in his love—this is a summary commandment. The command is to love one another as Jesus loved them—Jesus is the model that must be followed. And the characteristic that they must note and imitate is love. Jesus’ example of love is dying for his friends. 22 He has sacrificed and will lay down his life for them; they must follow his example and lay down in Greco-Roman culture as cruel and shameful and reserved for hardened criminals and rebellious slaves. 19. Paul Middleton (Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, LNTS 307 [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006], 146–51) argues that Luke’s addition of “daily” emphasizes a metaphorical understanding in his Gospel (possibly used literally by Paul in 1 Cor 15:31), but because there is no evidence that the phrase was common and denoted metaphorical use, the earlier Markan community would have taken it literally. The call to die in Mark is perceived as the end of the eschatological age and is therefore a call to martyrdom. 20. Notable is Thomas’s resigned statement to his fellow disciples when Jesus determined to go to Bethany. Although his friend Lazarus had just died and he would raise him there, the Pharisees had recently sought to stone him and the disciples saw it as a place where his life was at risk. Thomas shows his pessimism and yet loyalty when he says “Let us go too, so that we may die with him” ( John 11:16). 21. Brown, Gospel according to John, 471–75. 22. Dying for friends was a Greco-Roman value and intersects with our previous discussion on noble death. Paul, however, will later underscore that Christ died for his enemies (Rom 5:5–10), a concept clearly contrary to Greco-Roman or Jewish thinking. Even

Jesus and Voluntary Death

145

their lives for each other. Friendship with Jesus is determined through obedience to the command to love, which implies love to the point of death. So, the disciples demonstrate obedience to God, friendship with their fellow disciples and Jesus, and love when they lay down their lives for each other. Jesus commands and expects his disciples to die noble deaths. Discipleship that embraces death does so out of imitation. A disciple is fundamentally someone who conforms to Jesus’ example and seeks to imitate him in faith and obedience. Jesus will take the lead in death; his fol­lowers will also be required to imitate his disposition toward themselves, the world, and God’s mission that make them ready for persecution and death out of ultimate loyalty to Jesus.

Jesus’ Teaching: Eschatology and Coming Judgment Jesus’ ministry was an eschatological ministry. He taught resurrection, a postmortem existence, and saw his mission in life in terms of coming apocalyptic judgment and the need to be prepared (e.g., Matt 24:42; Mark 13:33; Luke 12:35–40). In him eternity and time connected; his ministry would advance after he ascended and into the next life. Life needs to be lived with awareness of coming judgment and of eternity. Jesus’ exhortation to his chosen twelve to sacrificial mission is accompanied with eschatological vision. In each narrative, his command to give up one’s life is preceded by his pronouncement to his disciples that he is heading to Jerusalem to be rejected and killed by the religious leaders, and then he will rise again (in John 12:23, “The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified!”). 23 Jesus both foretells his own death and exhorts those who would follow him to die for him in order to live with him. We are the beneficiaries of Jesus’ death; Jesus and the gospel are the beneficiaries of the disciple’s death. 24 the Maccabean martyrs wanted their deaths to be vindicated by divine judgment against their enemies (2 Macc 7:14, 17, 19, 34–37). 23. On this see especially Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 852–55; and Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 431–35: “Jesus anticipated literal martyrdom for himself and many of his followers by the Romans’ standard means of executing lower-class criminals and slaves; his kingdom was ultimately incompatible with Rome’s claims” (p. 434). Also R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 340–41, for comments on ψυχή, underscoring that the primary meaning here is “life,” not “soul,” and that martyrdom is thus the primary referent. 24. Scott Hafemann, “‘Because of Weakness’ (Galatians 4:13): The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission, ed. Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2000), 135–36, agrees that “neither Christ nor Paul . . . is suffering for his own sins, but each is willingly taking up the cross for the sake of others.” Hafemann argues that, while the Jews claimed that Jesus’ cursed death on a tree and Paul’s suffering and physical ailments might, from the perspective of the Judaizers, make their ministries illegitimate,

146

Chapter 7

Again, in Matt 10, Jesus sends his disciples into mission with eschatological teaching. They are warned that they are entering a dangerous ministry, sent as sheep among wolves (Matt 10:16/Luke 10:3). People, and specifically but not limited to family members (Matt 10:21–22/Mark 13:12–13/Luke 21:16–17), will “hand you over” (παραδίδωμι) for religious and political persecution (Matt 10:17–18/Mark 13:9/Luke 21:12) including death (Matt 10:21/ Mark 13:12/Luke 21:16). Do not fear those who can kill only the body; fear him who can send body and soul into hell (Matt 10:28; Luke 12:5). Again, in this context of an eschatological future with his disciples in mission, he repeats the exhortation to take up one’s cross and the paradox of losing one’s life in order to find it (Matt 10:38–39/Luke 14:27). In Jesus’ eschatological discourse in Luke 17, Jesus says that his return will be like Noah’s flood or Sodom and Gomorrah—people will be unaware of pending death and destruction. By contrast, and in this eschatological moment, the days of the Son of Man, the paradox of losing one’s life will yield the gaining of life (Luke 17:33). 25 In accordance with this eschatological vision, Jesus’ teaching introduces an emphasis from collective salvation of the group or nation—what one might expect given the national hopes for deliverance in a postexilic world—to individual salvation. Death is a personal and individual matter leading to individual judgment. A marked characteristic in the OT is the subjugation of the individual to the group. Individual death is grievous, and Sheol is discussed, but the OT narrative focuses on the continuing story of the surviving group while remaining silent about the afterlife or future judgment for the dead individual. Collective salvation is the eschatological emphasis. 26 By the first century, as eschatological views shift to consider that death is a bridge to judgment in the afterlife, individual accountability for how the temporal life is lived is underscored. Jesus teaches that each individual is accountable for his or her behavior and will face a postmortem judgment bringing both reward and punishment (e.g., Matt 10:41–42; Mark 9:41–50). Salvation is to be embraced on an individual, rather than a collecthe Galatians received Paul as “an angel of God” (Gal 4:14)—his sufferings showed that he belonged to Christ. 25. For the argument that the plural “days” (τῶν ἡμερῶν) of the Son of Man refers to a future day of vindication and “the Messiah’s total rule,” see Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT 3b (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 1426–28. 26. But see Sam K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 93–96, for a demonstration of how suffering as divine retributive justice was challenged when the prophets and wisdom writers increasingly recognized a tenuous relationship between evil and suffering as its consequence. Questions of justice and consequence were increasingly pushed off to the afterlife. Temporal suffering is then either an act of God to discipline, test, or expiatory, that is, to purge sin in the temporal life to forego punishment in the afterlife.

Jesus and Voluntary Death

147

tive, basis; indeed, Jesus teaches that he has come to bring division even to the level of the home. Families will be broken apart because of the choices of individuals to love and show loyalty to Christ even over their own blood (Matt 10:32–39). Jesus himself modeled the primacy of his spiritual family over his biological family (Matt 12:46–50; Mark 3:31–35). Jesus spoke frequently of judgment in response to ethical behavior in this life. What one experiences on this side of death is not an accurate indicator of divine blessing or cursing, God’s approval or condemnation. Frequently, Jesus’ examples of eschatology came in a context about money. The story of the rich man and Lazarus vividly illustrates how justice will be meted out in Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:19–31). A presumptuous wealthy man stores up grain and wealth not reckoning how transient his life is (Luke 12:13–21). Future judgment should regulate our use of possessions. One should be circumspect on this side of life as the hereafter, eternity future, depended on one’s behavior while alive. If you call someone a “fool,” you will be sent to fiery hell (Matt 5:22). If a body part offends you, your right eye or your right hand, cut it off! It is better to enter heaven lame or blind than hell with both hands and eyes. The severity of postmortem judgment should be regarded with great sobriety (Matt 5:29–30; 18:8–9; Mark 9:43–47). Those who did not help the least of Jesus’ brothers will be thrown into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels for eternal punishment; however, those who do help the least of these will enter the kingdom and receive eternal life (Matt 25:31–46). We could say much more regarding Jesus’ teaching on preparing for a judgment to come. An awareness of one’s mortality presupposes an eschatological perspective. Mortality is assumed and will bring either reward or punishment for the individual in a postmortem existence.

Jesus’ Ministry: The March to Calvary Jesus’ view of his life included his mortality. A mission to die marked his entire life. Even his birth and childhood were marked by danger (Matt 2:13– 14). John the Baptist described him in terms of sacrifice—“the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” ( John 1:29). After his first recorded sermon, before he selected his twelve disciples, the crowd who heard and at first received him became offended and wanted to kill him by throwing him off a cliff (Luke 4:16–30). After his baptism and from the beginning of his active ministry, he talked about his pending death with the Jewish leaders ( John 2:18–22), and specifically with Nicodemus ( John 3). 27 Early in Jesus’­ 27. Most harmonies put Jesus’ interview with Nicodemus very early in his ministry. In John’s narrative, it follows the cleansing of the temple, certainly a provocative act against the religious establishment and one that many feel instigated the blasphemy charges against him. See Otto Betz, What Do We Know about Jesus? trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 88–92. Otto Betz (“Jesus and the Temple Scroll,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. James H. Charlesworth, ABRL [New York: Doubleday, 1992],

148

Chapter 7

active ministry, the gospel narrative shows the religious leaders seeking to build a case of blasphemy against Jesus, a crime punishable by death that ultimately served as the accusation the religious leaders used in their case for crucifying him (Matt 9:3/Mark 2:7/Luke 5:21; cf. Matt 26:65/Mark 14:64; See also John 10:31–33). Each Gospel plots his life with his pending death as the narrative climax; the final week of his life with the events leading up to the Passion occupying the last third of their story. Jesus was destined to die. Death was not just the culminating event of his life, but the filter through which each event of his life can be interpreted. Death was his destiny. Jesus was resolute in his will to go to Jerusalem to die (Matt 16:21; 20:18– 19; Mark 10:33–34; Luke 13:32–35; 18:31–33). His own disciples did not understand him ( John 16:17–18), opposed him (Matt 16:22–23/Mark 8:32–33), naively claimed they would die with him (Matt 26:33–35/Mark 14:29–31/Luke 22:33–34/John 13:37–38) or tried to protect him (Matt 26:51–54/Mark 14:47/ Luke 22:49–51/John 18:10–11). The Evangelists told Jesus’ story, though, portraying Jesus with a clear inner sense of mission and determination. Jesus taught and modeled a determination to embrace death as part of discipleship and in light of eschatological promise. His Passion, however, was unique and inimitable. His appeal to his disciples was merely that they would accompany him and witness his death. His nature and the purpose of his death produced unique outcomes.

The Unique and Inimitable Nature and Effect of Christ’s Passion What in Jesus’ death did Paul know he could not imitate? Although Jesus taught and modeled sacrifice to those who would follow him for motives of love, service, and eschatological perspective, it was clear to Paul that Jesus’ death was extraordinary. All people die. Some people die exceptionally, sacrificially, and heroically. Paul’s gospel will ultimately flesh out in Jesus’ passion something that places him on another level, a unique death from all other deaths in humanity. Grayston observes that we tend to separate Jesus’ passion into two discrete events, death and resurrection. However, they are not separate but one double event. “The resurrection is literally improbable but metaphorically attractive; the crucifixion is certainly probable and in all senses unattractive.” 28 After observing a tendency toward imbalance, he argues that in the community, in worship, and in moral behavior, the benefits of Christ’s resurrection must not overshadow his death. While this is 97–99) claims that Jesus’ was view of the temple as a house of prayer where forgiveness was offered independent of sacrifice and ritual and that Jesus’ vision of an eschatological temple not made with hands incited blasphemy charges. So N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 491–93, 522–23. 28. Kenneth Grayston, Dying, We Live: A New Enquiry into the Death of Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 359.

Jesus and Voluntary Death

149

certainly true—both Jesus’ death and resurrection offer benefits in a package of redemption, belief in Jesus’ literal bodily resurrection is essential in Paul’s theological reflection when he talks about death. Jesus’ extraordinary death can be understood only in light of his resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection raises the significance of his death above the morass of religiously motivated noble deaths and martyrdoms and gives it supreme value and unique meaning. Many have died and will die heroically with religious motives. The identity of Jesus and the purpose of his death are brought to light through his bodily resurrection. Paul’s conversations about his ambition to die are linked to Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection infused him with hope that he, too, would rise from the dead. His aspiration to imitate Jesus’ death and resurrection presupposed an event that he regarded as unique, historical, and preeminent over his. Indeed, without Jesus’ bodily resurrection, the manner of martyrdom between Jesus and Paul—crucifixion versus beheading—offers little true distinction. Their zeal for God and self-sacrifice, if Jesus’ resurrection is not literal and historical, might level both their lives to a similar exemplary plane. Based on Paul’s own teaching, Jesus’ bodily resurrection distinguishes him as uniquely God’s Son and sets him apart as true to what the rest of the gospel and canonical text says about him, that he is God’s Messiah, the Lord and Savior, and that in this distinct person and role he is inimitable (Rom 1:2-5). Paul’s perspective on this could not be more blatant than when he chides the Corinthians for their dividing over mixed loyalties even between Paul and Christ: “Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, ‘I am with Paul,’ or ‘I am with Apollos,’ or ‘I am with Cephas,’ or ‘I am with Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul” (1 Cor 1:12–13)? Paul eschews following him independently of Christ because he is a Christ-follower and finds his own sacrificial life significant only to the extent that it points to Christ and points others to imitating and following Christ, whom he regards as unique and preeminent. 29 Hengel recognizes the problem of how the denial of German criticism of the historical Jesus as “Messiah” or “Son of Man” makes the gospel record awkward and impotent: If, as radical German critics maintain, Jesus never spoke of Messiah or Son of Man; if—incomprehensibly enough—he was crucified only as “rabbi and prophet,” as ḥasîd and ṣaddîq, in short as a pious martyr, the appearances of the risen Jesus could be understood only as confirmation of his blameless piety, his exaltation to paradise, to the fathers resting there, and as a demonstration of the proof of his preaching about the kingdom of God, of course with the qualification that the kingdom of God which he had announced was still further delayed. . . . Easter, i.e., the appearances of the risen Jesus mentioned in 29. In Acts 14:8–18, Paul dissuades the citizens of Lystra from worshiping him after God heals a man.

150

Chapter 7

1 Cor. 15.4ff., in no way explains how the alleged “rabbi and prophet” became the Messiah and Son of Man—which also means the exalted Lord, maran, of the community—, in short, how “the proclaimer became the proclaimed.” 30

Because of his resurrection, Jesus’ death has a unique and transcendent quality. Both Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplished much. I could list many outcomes of this double event, but I mention five principal results here: propitiation for a new covenant, a ransom for many, God’s glory, victory over God’s enemies, and, as the Kingdom of God is ushered in, Jesus as the pioneer of our salvation is made Lord of all. 31 Propitiation for a New Covenant A fundamental effect of Jesus’ death is what Paul mentions first in his explanation of his gospel in 1 Cor 15:3—“Christ died for our sins.” Sin is the problem; Christ’s death provides God’s response. Sin alienates people from God, generally, and in terms of the OT Scriptures, sin breaches the divine covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed and evokes God’s wrath and separation. Jesus’ death is the apt response to our sin because it provides the propitiatory response—atonement. Jesus’ blood serves as the basis for a New Covenant that supersedes the old one. Through Jesus’ death, people can now be reconciled and have access to a new relationship with God. 32 The meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3:25 and a debate over the nature of the atonement has heated up particularly in the last decades in the discussion of the New Perspective on Paul. Challengers to the Reformation emphasis on forensic righteousness question the atoning nature of Christ’s death. The term means or at least refers to the “mercy seat” and denotes the place of atonement. 33 Without falling headlong into this theological 30. Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 48. 31. Mark D. Baker and Joel B. Green (Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts, 2nd ed. [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011], 35–38) warn against lists of this sort for the potential distortions they cause through omission of values central to the story of the cross. Admittedly, my list is short and selective. John Driver (Understanding the Atonement for the Mission of the Church [Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1986]) offers a helpful discussion of positive outcomes by reviewing Jesus’ death in terms of archetypal images from vicarious suffering and sacrifice, to reconciliation and adoption. 32. Contra Cilliers Breytenbach (Grace, Reconciliation, Concord: The Death of Christ in Graeco-Roman Metaphors, NovTSup 135 [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 19–25) argues against ideas of propitiation through texts such as Rom 5:7; Gal 1:4; 1 Cor 15:3; and 2 Cor 5:14. Instead, he sees Paul’s emphasis not on God’s wrath but on God’s love when talking about Jesus’ dying for sinners. 2 Corinthians 5:14 does admit to Christ’s dying as a substitution, but he also says that it speaks to much more than the removal of sin; it speaks about the destruction of the sinful existence of the sinner. 33. BDAG 474.

Jesus and Voluntary Death

151

question with its many collateral implications, two interpretive options for ἱλαστήριον and the result of atonement have been formulated. 34 (1) Propitiation. This view accepts that God is angry or wrathful (Rom 1:18). As judge of the whole world, he has condemned all humanity as guilty before him and yet, in his anger, offers mercy. The OT image is that of the cover for the Ark of the Covenant where the blood of a sacrificial bull and goat was sprinkled by the High Priest to atone for the sins of the nation of Israel (Exod 25:17–22; Lev 16:18–19). Jesus then represents the place of mercy where God’s wrath is atoned for and his blood, the means of atonement, is found acceptable. 35 (2) Expiation. Dodd emphasizes the action of covering that ἱλαστήριον evokes and expiation or the forgiveness of sins offered through the cross. Dodd wants to divert attention from a divine attribute of wrath and instead emphasize human sinfulness that needs pardon. 36 Although a “both/and” conclusion is tenable, propitiation is the best view in the context of Rom 3. 37 In Rom 1–2, Paul has argued that the wrath of God has been revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), that all humanity awaits a future judgment, a “day of wrath” (Rom 2:3–8), and that all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, are under sin and thus are silenced and are accountable to God (Rom 3:9, 19). God provides his own sacrifice in Jesus, who is the propitiation of God’s wrath. 38 34. Ibid., and the commentaries. See also Jarvis J. Williams, Maccabean Martyr Traditions in Paul’s Theology of Atonement: Did Martyr Theology Shape Paul’s Conception of Jesus’ Death? (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 89–101; Stephen Finlan, The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors, AcBib 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 123–62. 35. Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions, HBM 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005), 163–82, highlights how blood is the means for atonement in OT sacrifices. 36. C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 82–95. “In any case the meaning conveyed (in accordance with LXX usage, which is constantly determinative for Paul), is that of expiation, not that of propitiation. Most translators and commentators are wrong” (p. 94). 37. For a description of this view, see Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 230–33. 38. For Breytenbach (Grace, Reconciliation, Concord, 117–18), three clear differences exist between Paul and the views of 2 and 4 Maccabees regarding ἱλαστήριον: (1) Paul never saw Christ’s death as appeasement of God’s wrath (cf. Rom 5:8) but as proof of God’s love for us (He views these two as contradictory, not complimentary); (2) according to Paul, Christ died for people, whereas the Maccabean martyrs died for the law; and (3)  ἱλαστήριον language never refers to “dying for” (or atonement). Christ’s death is referred to as ἱλαστήριον only in Rom 3:25, Hebrews, and 1 John, and there they are to be understood against the background of the term mercy seat. The direction of the crucified is downward and the ἱλαστήριον is an act of God toward the sin of the people, not of humans trying to appease God. So Gerd Theissen (“Das Kreuz als Sühne und Ärgernis: Zwei Deutungen des Todes Jesu bei Paulus,” in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur, ed. Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell,

152

Chapter 7

Tied closely to the concept of atonement is the image of Christ as the founder of a New Covenant. 39 At the Last Supper, Christ applied the symbolism of covenant cutting to the wine in the Passover meal, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:25; cf. Matt 26:27–29; Mark 14:23–25; Luke 22:20). 40 Blood shedding is a covenant requirement to seal the terms of the covenant. 41 Christ’s blood initiates a New Covenant between God and people who enter that covenant through faith in Christ and his sacrifice on their behalf. 42 A Ransom for Many One of Paul’s favorite metaphors for the Christian’s new status is that of a redeemed slave. He explains the salvific process in terms of redemption from slavery (Rom 6:12–23) and frequently refers to himself as a δοῦλος of Christ (Rom 1:1; 2 Cor 4:5; Gal 1:10; Phil 1:1). Jesus is identified as the Isaianic Suffering Servant. 43 This image is likewise found repeatedly in the Gospel accounts particularly as characters in parables that speak of Jesus’ message. Mark’s Gospel in a passage where Jesus uses servant/slavery imagery to encourage his disciples to lead through service affirms: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28). 44 In John 8:31–36, Jesus WUNT 198 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 432–36), who adds that the people living in the age of the martyrs did not see God providing atonement for his own wrath as contradictory (p. 435). 39. Finlan (The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors, 211–13) claims that Paul uses martyrdom as his prime and literal model for Jesus’ death attached to which he identifies six cultic soteriological metaphors: sacrifice, scapegoat, redemption, adoption, reconciliation, and justification. By contrast, Tom Holland (Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings [Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2004], 180–81) argues that the NT presents Jesus’ death using OT metaphors, predominantly the Passover, and claims that an emphasis on martyrdom is theological compromise. 40. Paul seems to take this from a Lukan source because he adds Luke’s amendment for the offering of bread, “Do this in remembrance of me,” τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (Luke 22:19; cf. 1 Cor 11:24). 41. BDAG 228; Eckart Otto, “Covenant,” ER 3:2049. 42. For further discussion of Christ’s work initiating a new covenant, see McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 293–321. 43. So J. B. Green, “Death of Jesus,” DJG 161; R. T. France, “Servant of Yahweh,” DJG 744–47. Contra M. D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1959). For a moderating discussion, see C. M. Tuckett, “Atonement in the NT,” ABD 1:520. 44. J. Christopher Edwards, The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew: Its Reception and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels, WUNT 2/327 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), lists 10 uses of the ransom logion in the NT: Mark 10:45 / Matt 20:28; John 10:11, 15; 15:13; Gal 1:4; 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25; 1 Tim 2:6; Titus 2:14; 1 John 3:16.

Jesus and Voluntary Death

153

speaks of slavery to sin and how continuing in his word will result in knowing the truth that in turn will set free from this slavery. As the son, he has the authority to free slaves. 45 Paul will use this same sense of freedom from slavery to sin in Gal 5:1, when he exhorts the Galatians to guard themselves from being subject again to the yoke of slavery to sin, and again in Rom 8:2 when he asserts that “the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” Jesus’ death is the ransom price that provides freedom from slavery, in some texts as a change in ownership to Jesus as the new Master (Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 4:1; 2 Tim 2:24), and further in others as adoption into God’s family (Rom 8:14–17; Gal 4:1–7; Eph 1:5; Phlm 15–16). 46 The source of the ransom logion, “to give his life as a ransom for many,” is debated. That it originated on Jesus’ lips and was accurately cited by Mark’s Gospel comes into dispute because among other things, the Lukan parallel (Luke 22:26–27) omits it. Various arguments have been forwarded regarding its origin or cultural rooting with the biggest point of contention being whether this is a slavery reference evoking a Greco-Roman understanding or a Jewish allusion to atonement. McKnight asks whether from within Judaism Jesus’ words would have conveyed an understanding of atonement and looks to the death of the Maccabeans, Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, and other Jewish allusions for answers. 47 He does not see them there and traces the idea of ransom to the Son of Man tradition of Dan 7, not Isaiah’s Servant tradition. 48 Edwards, too, looks for the background for this phrase in Isa 53, Dan 7 and 9, and then Isa 43 and concludes that all three might be connected, but no one exclusively so. 49 Versnel explores whether the slavery­ imagery derives from Jewish or Gentile slavery backgrounds and wonders 45. See D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 349–50, for a discussion of the title “Son” in relationship to the Jews who presumed that they were sons of Abraham. Carson argues that the reference in John 8:36 is to the Son of God. G. R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 134, emphasizes the offer of a new relationship within God’s household, from slave to son including a divine inheritance. 46. See my discussion on pp. 86–87 in n. 85 of λύτρον depicting not the covering of atonement but the idea of deliverance or ransom, which fits well into a slavery context. 47. Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 168–70. 48. McKnight concludes that, based on the Lukan parallel in Luke 22:27 that omits the logion (ibid., 159–71) and the reasoned conclusion that it follows the Son of Man tradition of Dan 7, not Isaiah’s Servant tradition (ibid., 338), that the ransom logion is a Markan gloss and not a historical citation of Jesus’ words (ibid., 356–60). “If we appeal to Son of man or to Servant of Isaiah, the collective interpretation of Jesus’ death remains fecund: Jesus’ death is the paradigmatic, representative death that others will find true in their own lives” (ibid., 360). 49. Edwards, The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew, 6–10. He ultimately concludes that Isa 53 is most closely associated and Isa 43 and not associated with the logion (p. 161).

154

Chapter 7

about pagan reception. 50 In another place he wonders whether the understanding of ransom terminology is intended to be paraenetic or soteriological, that is, whether it primarily evokes a mimetic and active response of servitude, or whether the passive and receptive idea of being bought from evil ownership is at the forefront. Perhaps both applications are relevant to ransom imagery. God Glorified through Jesus’ Shameful Death The Romans regarded crucifixion as particularly shameful. In fact, that anyone crucified would make it into the annals of history is remarkable. 51 Paul echoes the sentiment when he affirms that the cross is foolishness (1 Cor 1:18) and preaching a crucified Christ is “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23). After affirming their ignorance of the wisdom of God in sending Jesus to be crucified, he affirms, however, that Jesus is “the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8). God is glorified through the shameful crucifixion of Christ Jesus. 52 Jesus serves as God’s ambassador, the Messiah or Christ, and in his death exposes God’s heart and mission—Jesus reveals God and so glorifies him ( John 12:27–28; 17:1–5). Many aspects of divinity are exposed in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and ascension, but principal among them have to be his intense interest in humanity, his love for his creation, and his acts of compassion and healing demonstrating God’s desire to redeem it from the mess of sin and its consequences (Mark 2:12; Luke 5:25–26; 7:16; 19:37–38; John 11:4; Rom 5:6–11). John in particular remarks at Jesus’ divine glory ( John 1:14; 2:11; 8:54; 17:24). Jesus’ Passion shows the extent to which God is involved to redeem his creation and so glorify him ( John 12:27–28; 13:31–32). We naturally tend to view his act anthropologically with the human story as the center of history. Jesus’ death demonstrates that God cares about us ( John 3:16). From a human perspective, we could otherwise imagine a deistic world in which God creates and then retreats, but that is not the view presented in the Scriptures, particularly in the story of the cross. God is intensely interactive with his creation and wants to be known and live in 50. Henk S. Versnel (“Making Sense of Jesus’ Death. The Pagan Contribution,” in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter, WUNT 181 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 292–93) considers whether this phrase originates in Hellenistic Greek ritual, Israelite tradition, or the pagan reception and interpretation of a NT expression. His quest is to find the origin of vicarious death in the NT writings after ruling out OT and noncanonical Jewish scriptures. See ibid., 279–87. 51. For explicit illustrations of how crucifixion was perceived as humiliating in Rome in Christianity’s early centuries, see Baker and Green, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, 19–23. 52. Mark Finney (Honour and Conflict in the Ancient World: 1 Corinthians in Its GrecoRoman Social Setting, LNTS 460 [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011], 88–91) argues for the paradox of shame and honor in the cross of Christ.

Jesus and Voluntary Death

155

loving relationship with us. God has a redemptive heart and took the initiative to fill the chasm and repair the breakdown of covenant conditions. Jesus shows not just that God loves his creation, but to what extent he loves it. Jesus is testimony to God’s sacrificial heart. Jesus glorifies God not just in his act of dying, but also in that act as seen through the perspective of prophecy. Jesus occupies the place and fulfills the conditions of the Suffering Servant described in Isaiah. The Suffering Servant was sent to redeem and restore God’s exiled people. Jesus was marred, despised, rejected, and afflicted, but he was sent from God for this task. “He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed” (Isa 53:5). We do not intend to draw out all the par­ allels from these messianic texts and Jesus’ life and work, except to say that Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic and redemptive prophecy. God has a plan based on man’s plight that stretches back in time to when Adam first sinned. God foretold Satan’s demise through the agency of the seed of Eve and looks forward to a day of re-creation yet to come. God anticipated our need and Jesus is his response. Victory over Satan, World, Flesh, and Death A repeated theme in Paul’s writings is the victory Jesus achieved through the cross. Paul affirms that Christ’s death achieved victory over Satan, worldly and heavenly authorities, world systems, and the flesh. Certainly in Paul “cross” might refer to both the acts of death and resurrection, but his death in particular is the act that conquered. First, Christ’s death defeated evil authorities, specifically Satan and evil principalities (Eph 2:1–5). 53 “Disarming the rulers and authorities, he has made a public disgrace of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col 2:15). The cross is the symbol of victory, the trophy, for all those who now follow Christ because Christ’s death overcame God’s foes. Then, in Galatians, Paul says, “But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal 6:14). For Paul, the cross of Christ has overcome the world, here understood as a world system,that is, everything in the world as hostile to God. 54 Included in this victory is the hostile conflict of opposing parties in the world, particularly the division between Jew and Gentile. Christ’s death “nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees . . . thus making peace, and [reconciling] them both in one body to God through the cross, 53. Middleton (Radical Martyrdom, 132–34) finds the influence of Jewish Holy War in the language of victory in Jesus’ death and in later church history. The enemies changed from the Seleucids to Roman armies to Satan. The NT finds itself in the middle of this ideological transition from Jews to early church. 54. For this rendering of “world,” κόσμος, see BDAG 562.

156

Chapter 7

by which the hostility has been killed” (Eph 2:15–16). Finally, Paul’s use of crucifixion language in Galatians is particularly interesting. In Gal 2:19–20, he says that he has been crucified with Christ and has died to the Law. He lives a life infused by Christ. Later, Paul elaborates using crucifixion vocabulary to exhort the Galatians that “those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24). Christ’s death overcomes the errant desires of the flesh; it frees the believer to not indulge the flesh, but rather, to love (Gal 5:13–14). Those who are aligned with God and his kingdom reap the benefits of his sacrificial death. Death itself is defeated. This victory has been initiated in the resurrection of Christ and awaits a future fulfillment when Christ will eliminate his last enemy (1 Cor 15:26). 55 Believers die, but death is not the end. Pioneer of a New Resurrected Order: Jesus Is Lord God authenticated Jesus’ position as Lord over all creation by raising him from the dead (Rom 14:9; Phil 2:10–11; 2 Tim 1:10). Every story in Jesus’ life can be read in light of his resurrection, that is, that he is now the risen Lord of the Christian movement. Jesus’ resurrection both validated his claims regarding his identity and introduced a different eschatology. Jesus’ bodily resurrection reoriented understanding of what happened after death. Socrates envisioned a bifurcation of body and soul, located identity solely in the soul, and offered hope only for the impalpable part of man. 56 The mystery religions had various conceptions of eternality. Reincarnation, the soul migrating from one body to the next whether through rebirthing or even, as we see with Herod, through some form of transference into someone living concurrently was possibly a popular perception. Certainly anecdotal stories of resuscitation and even resurrection existed. Jesus himself raised several from the dead during his ministry (Matt 11:5/ Luke 7:22; Luke 7:11–17; Matt 9:18–26/Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56; John 11:1–44; cf. Matt 27:52–53) and empowered his disciples to do the same (Matt 10:8). 57 But that we might die physically, then resurrect in a new reconsti55. For an elaboration of this thesis, see Martinus C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, JSNTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). 56. The Stoics and Epicureans famously believed in no life after death. As Paul articulated it when contemplating the possibility of no resurrection, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have also perished (ἀπώλοντο)” (1 Cor 15:17–18). 57. For a helpful comment of how rising from the dead does not in itself give one messianic status, see Betz, What Do We Know about Jesus? 86. A text-critical problem exists in Matt 10:8, where raising the dead (νεκροὺς ἐγείρετε) is omitted in the Byzantine and a few other witnesses (C3 K L Γ Θ 700* al) and the word order changes in others, but the reading adopted by the NA28 has wide Alexandrian and Western support including ‫ א‬B C* (D) N 0281vid ƒ1,13 33 565 700mg 892 al lat. These words do not appear in the same passages in Mark and Luke (Mark 6:13; Luke 9:6). Bruce M. Metzger (A Textual Com-

Jesus and Voluntary Death

157

tuted body, a glorified immortal body, yet still maintain our original identity—that was a radical new idea indeed. 58 Jesus’ bodily resurrection altered understanding of life and death. We are mortals, but destined for immortality. Earthly life has a bearing on the life to come. The implications are profound. Death of the perishable, the dishonorable, the weak, the natural, the earthy, and the mortal is necessary if we are to be resurrected imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual, heavenly and immortal (1 Cor 15:42–58). Death is necessary if we are to be resurrected; Jesus was a pioneer in this process and died first to lead the way into resurrection life. Jesus’ death as God’s supreme sacrifice for the plight of humanity coupled­with his resurrection and ascension give him an exalted status over all: Jesus is Lord. 59 God has given him a name above every name that at the name of Jesus every knee in every place will bow (Phil 2:9–10). Jesus’ faithful and humble obedience on our behalf gives him this unique status. Although in one sense Jesus is our “brother,” that is, he is fully man and sympathizes completely with our plight, he is not our equal—he is the exalted Lord at the right hand of God and worthy of our worship and devotion. Whatever we will say about Paul’s ambition to imitate Christ in his death, we must recognize Jesus’ distinct attributes as reconciler, redeemer, God-revealer, vitcor, and Lord, which will always be inimitable and unique

Jesus’ Death as Voluntary Death At the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus reached the right time and place for his imminent death. Jesus as mortal is underscored and the Passion story reaches its climax. In his prayer and agony, Jesus’ humanity comes to the forefront. He pleads with the father—if there is any other way, could he avoid death? 60 The will of the Trinity is divided. God, the Father, sent mentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994], 22) suggests that the different word order might have been accidental due to similarity of word endings, or deliberate for a stronger emphasis. Perhaps they were accidently omitted, but one could easily draw the conclusion that they were intentionally omitted both to harmonize with the other Gospels or because of their exceptional albeit ambiguous claim regarding the disciples. We agree with Metzger’s committee that they belong. 58. Certainly in the intertestamental period as apocalyptic ideas developed traces of belief in a resurrection developed as well, and we could cite Dan 12:2 as the first roots of this thinking along with apocalyptic expectation for national restoration that included belief in an afterlife. 59. Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 371), with his emphasis on Jesus’ resurrected and honored status as an affront to Rome, will add to the declaration “Jesus is Lord” that “Caesar was not.” 60. This provides further evidence that the Scriptures oppose suicide. Jesus’ mission was to die, but not in the sense taught by modern existentialists. He embraced life but accepted­the transcendent mission that his death would produce. His death was an atoning sacrifice and so was more important than life itself.

158

Chapter 7

him to die; he, the divine man, does not want to die. The cosmic conflict resolves when he resigns with, “Not my will, but yours be done.” The will of the human, mortal son surrenders to his sovereign Father. 61 Unlike the Aqedah where the angel provides a ram substitute for Isaac, Jesus knows that he must die. Two statements of Jesus seem to conflict: “No one takes [my life] away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father” ( John 10:18); and, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will” (Mark 14:36). Did Jesus die willingly or under coercion of God, the Father? 62 Context and Trinitarian theology must deliver the answers. God’s redemptive plan was for Jesus to die for the sins of humankind. As Jesus relates within the Godhead, the Father consigns to Jesus the right to give up his life. Jesus freely does so. In the Garden of Gethsemane he reveals his human reluctance to die. Jesus’ divinity does not overwhelm his humanity to make the act somehow palatable. Nor does Jesus’ humanity seek to act independently of God’s will. Jesus, as God, wills his death to accomplish a transcendent purpose of salvation knowing that he would be raised from the dead; Jesus, as man, retreats from the thought, but ultimately submits to the Father’s predetermined will that he die. Jesus’ willingness to sacrifice himself for the world’s sin demonstrated the utmost devotion both to the Father, and to the redemption of humankind. Droge and Tabor claim, “The death of Jesus is ambiguous. Was it the legal execution of a criminal, an example of heroic martyrdom, or a case of suicide?” 63 They argue from a neoorthodox perspective that the recorded memory of Jesus was of one eager to die. He predicts his death three times in Mark, rebuffs his disciples’ attempt to help him escape, and refuses to call on the intervention of angels. In John’s Gospel he orchestrates the events so that he must die then with full control gives up his life. Was Jesus’ an 61. Theologically, Jesus transitions from mortal to immortal, as will all believers (1 Cor 15:53). He obviously was mortal and he died (Phil 3:8), but the resurrected Jesus transitions to the status of immortal (1 Tim 6:16). Paul will later say that, through his gospel he brings life and immortality to light, the implication being that raised believers will attain immortal status (2 Tim 1:10). 62. Culpability for Jesus’ death has been assigned to different individuals or groups— Pilate, the Romans, the Jewish leaders, the Jews as a race, etc. In chap. 2, I underscored how culpability for a martyr’s death lies exclusively on the hand that takes the life of the martyr, not on the martyr who, for conscience’s sake, refused to capitulate to the oppressor’s demands. Although Jesus’ death was foreordained, the godhead does not release Jesus’ killers from culpability. Jesus explicitly warned of judgment to his betrayer (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21), but then possibly prayed for the pardon of those who crucified him (Luke 23:34, but note the text-critical problem. See p. 20 n. 42 and p. 158 n. 62). 63. Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor, A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 114.

Jesus and Voluntary Death

159

act of suicide? We have insisted that death is the responsibility of the one who takes the life or the one who pulls the trigger. Jesus did come to earth to die, but his death was reluctant and was enacted in light of its redemptive effect and with awareness that he would be raised from the dead. Jesus did not take his own life; others took it. Although he claims that he could have evoked divine authority to stay the executioner’s hand, he chose to sur­render to God’s foreordained purpose to die for the sins of the world. Jesus did not want to die and was not responsible for his own death. Jesus’ Death as Heroic and Noble We conclude this chapter by returning to the categories of voluntary death: noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice and for each must ask whether Jesus in his death was seeking to imitate a known construct that encouraged voluntary premature death. 64 Perhaps the best text to describe the motivation and effect of Jesus’ death is Rom 5:6–11. Jesus’ death is God’s act of reconciliation for us who are sinners and enemies, estranged from God. Noble death is a catchall category for any voluntary death where the motive is altruistic, for the benefit of or in the place of another. In this text, Jesus dies “for” us not only as our representative martyr, but also while we were alienated from God (Col 1:21) for our benefit as the result of divine initiative. 65 Jesus’ death is altruistic and noble. Christ died for us while we were “weak” or “helpless” (ἀσθενής; Rom 5:6), “ungodly” (ἀσεβής), “sinners” (ἁμαρτωλός; Rom 5:8), and “enemies” (ἐχθρός; Rom 5:10). The picture in Rom 5 is the surprising sacrifice that God’s Son makes for his helpless enemies for the purpose of reconciliation. In its pure and technical form, noble death is a death devoid of shame— it is an honorable death. Jesus’ death, however, was the most dishonorable—death on a cross is a humiliating death for the Romans and a cursed death for the Jews. Paul will note that he preaches “about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23). 66 Jesus’ death recovers dignity—his death is noble—because it is vicarious: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13a). And so, “but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human 64. See Emily Wilson, The Death of Socrates (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 142–44, which seeks to demonstrate that Luke in particular sought to adapt his telling of the Passion story to the death of Socrates. Luke puts far less emphasis on Jesus’ pain and humiliation in order to conform better to the model offered by Socrates. 65. McKnight (Jesus and His Death, 337) finds in the Eucharist that his death was representative and, thus, vicarious. 66. David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 252–53, aligns this with the Church Fathers who made this connection to encourage imitating Jesus in endurance.

160

Chapter 7

strength” (1 Cor 1:24–25). 67 The paradox of Jesus’ death is that the extreme shame of his death, because it is vicarious and voluntary, is infused with honor and nobility. 68 Was Jesus trying to imitate a noble death construct, that is, was he seeking fame when he died? According to Paul, his death, which reigns as the most notorious in human history, will result in every knee bowing in submission to him, but Jesus’ primary motive was obedience to God the Father, and in service to the people of the world as one of us. God exalted him for his faithful and selfless act of obedience (Phil 2:5–11). Jesus as Martyr Not only is Jesus’ death heroic and noble, Jesus is a martyr. 69 Jesus, Stephen, Paul, and the author of Hebrews make mention of the prophet-­ martyrs who gave their lives for their testimony. How much influence did the Maccabean martyrs have on Jesus himself or those who recounted his story? Did the Maccabean martyrs, the Prophets, or other figures such as Isaiah’s Suffering Servant offer novel theological ideas on martyrdom or atonement to which Jesus or the NT authors aspired? 70 Jesus promotes identification with and sympathy for the prophet martyrs as those worthy of imitation. 71 When citizens of the kingdom of God are persecuted, they are blessed because they are following the example of the prophets (Matt 5:11–12; cf. Matt 21:33–46). The religious experts are condemned for being the descendants of those who murdered the prophets, 67. Baker and Green, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, 34, as they prepare their discussion of the meaning of atonement, affirm: “In short, in the early decades of the Christian movement, the scandal of the cross was far more self-evident than was its meaning.” 68. See J. H. Neyrey, “The ‘Noble Shepherd’ in John 10: Cultural and Rhetorical Background,” JBL 120 (2001): 267–91, for John’s description of Jesus’ death as noble within the context of the shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. 69. Breytenbach (Grace, Reconciliation, Concord, 23) points out that many align Jesus’ substitutionary death with the martyrdom of the Maccabeans, but there are significant differences: Jesus’ death redeems from the fatal consequences of final judgment, however, Jesus’ death does not save the inhabitants of Jerusalem from a plague, his death does not save his friends or family from physical distress, and Jesus’ death breaks through the cause-effect relationship between sin and final judgment for all. That death follows human sin can be understood only under the rubric of the Jewish tradition. 70. Williams (Maccabean Martyr Traditions, 85–119) argues that Paul interprets Jesus’ death through martyr theology passed down from the OT and Maccabean martyr traditions. He applies martyr theology to various Pauline texts and concludes because of parallel applications that Paul was borrowing from and adopting those theologies. Both the Maccabean martyrs and Jesus died to save others, offered blood as the means of salvation, use soteriological language (ἱλαστήριον, καταλλάσσω) to describe the significance of death, offer a human as ransom, die for and because of the sin of others, die to remove God’s wrath, provide reconciliation, and were sin offerings. The parallels are strong, but the argument that Paul’s thoughts are sourced in the Maccabees remains inferential. 71. John Downing (“Jesus and Martyrdom,” JTS 14 [1963]: 285–86) argues that Jesus was the last prophet and that he came to be rejected by Israel.

Jesus and Voluntary Death

161

from Abel to Zechariah and so, culpable for their deaths (Matt 23:29–37/ Luke 11:47–51; cf. Luke 13:31–35). 72 Green casts doubt on the influence of the martyr tales of Judaism in the passion narratives for two reasons: Jesus shrinks from death in Gethsemane vis-à-vis the open willingness with which the martyrs embrace death; and the reserve in talking about details of suffering in Christ’s passion vis-à-vis the picturesque and detailed accounts of suffering in the martyr tales. 73 De Silva offers an opposing view that Jesus had access to these texts and that whether or not he saw Isa 53 as a messianic paradigm he would reenact, the Maccabean martyrs served as a precedent to view his death as an offering of covenant loyalty that would affect God viewing his people positively. Jesus’ obedience like the martyr’s obedience was essential for God’s acceptance. 74 We take the view that while Jesus does follow in the train of the prophet martyrs, a vast gulf separates the Maccabean martyrs and the prophet martyrs from Jesus. Jesus is a martyr, but so much more—he adds a valid basis for atonement to the historical model of martyrdom. The strongest difference is the nature of Jesus as God’s unique Son. Whereas the martyrs died out of faithful ministry to and for God in the midst of a hostile people, God the Father initiates Jesus’ death as an acceptable sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world. The Maccabean martyrs refuse to disobey their dietary laws against the will of an ungodly tyrant, but the addition of atonement language—seeking by their death to propitiate God’s wrath for the whole nation—is exaggerated and at best a mere human attempt to appeal to God’s mercy. Jesus was God’s unique sacrificial offer. Jesus’ death is more significant than martyrdom, but many elements of martyrdom are present in Jesus’ death according to our definition. 75 72. Noteworthy here is that the period of prophet-martyrs ends with the last canonical prophet, Zechariah. While the Evangelists record that Jesus used current events in his teaching (e.g., Luke 13:1–5), he does not mention the Maccabean martyrs directly or endorse them or their martyrdom publicly in his ministry. 73. Joel B. Green, The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative, WUNT 2/33 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 319–20. 74. David A. deSilva, “Jewish Martyrology and the Death of Jesus,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, ed. Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 4 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008), 51–67. 75. Paul W. Gooch (Reflections on Jesus and Socrates: Word and Silence [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996], 34–35) objects to regarding Jesus as a martyr in the institutional sense, that is, a Christian or Jewish martyr. “There is nothing Christian, in the institutional sense, about the death of Jesus” (p. 34). His executioners did not see themselves as opposing God. Unlike Stephen, whom Gooch regards as the first proto-martyr of the church, Jesus is silent without words of witness to a particular faith. While affirming that Jesus’ death was not martyrdom, he underscores that Jesus’ death is the ground for all Christian martyrdom in that he obeyed the Father in death and so was a faithful, albeit generic witness.

162

Chapter 7

He represents a minority ideology and, although innocent, he is killed for a consistent opposition to the ideology and power of the Jewish religious leaders. Certain martyrdom elements are absent like wishing vindication on his oppressors or gruesome and explicit suffering narratives, but his death sparked a movement and promoted a minority ideology. 76 John Milbank, who does not see martyr theology in Jesus’ death, observes, “He did not die the death of a martyr . . . although later martyrs have died in cause of him.” 77 Jesus’ Death as Atoning Sacrifice Jesus’ death is certainly exemplary, but, as Williams points out, “Paul’s purpose in writing about Jesus’ death was not martyrological but soteriological and theological”; that is, the emphasis is not on imitation, but on its salvific effects. 78 Although Jesus’ death does share many if not all of the characteristics of martyrdom, his death is much more than mere martyrdom. Whereas martyrs appealed to God that their death would be atoning, the martyr’s deaths also brought judgment on those who killed them. While the cause for which they died was promoted through their death, it is God’s prerogative to determine whether sins are atoned for and provide the means of reconciliation for a broken covenant. In this, Jesus’ death is a unique atoning sacrifice. 79

76. We must underscore a text-critical problem with the single verse that testifies that Jesus forgave those who crucified him from the cross, Luke 23:34 (see p. 20 n. 42 and p. 158 n. 62). Many important manuscripts lack this prayer. For its inclusion, it has no other Gospel parallel; against its inclusion, similar language on Stephen’s lips in Acts 7:60 written by Luke might have prompted scribes to append it to Jesus’ Passion. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 154) argues against its inclusion and dismisses the suggestion that copyists may have removed it because the fall of Jerusalem would serve as proof that God had not answered Jesus’ prayer by forgiving the Jews. Although potentially inauthentic literarily, it still may have historical validity. 77. John Milbank, Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon, Radical Orthodoxy Series (London: Routledge, 2003), 95–96. 78. Williams, Maccabean Martyr Traditions, 123. 79. Contra Peter Lampe, “Human Sacrifice and Pauline Christology,” in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld, SHR 112 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 192–203. Lampe refers to Lev 4 and claims, “By slaughtering an animal and sprinkling the altar with its blood, i.e., by offering the animal’s life and vitality to God (17:11), the sacrificing person eliminated the imminent disastrous consequences of sinful behavior.” Lampe views atoning sacrifices through an expiatory grid more typical of Greco-Roman sacrifices, where the sacrifices appeased the gods to purify in order to avert curses or obtain blessings. Lampe shuns the idea that sacrificial animals were representative of deaths in the stead of offensive sinners claiming that this is “reading too much Christian thought into an archaic ritual” (p.  194). Later he denies that Jesus as Paschal Lamb refers to taking away sin (p.  196). He invalidates references to Christ’s death as a sacrifice in Eph 5:2, or Heb 7:27; 9:28 as deutero-Pauline (p. 198). As for the Eucharist as an act remembering an atoning sacrifice,

Jesus and Voluntary Death

163

The author of the Hebrews is explicit that Jesus’ sacrifice was a sufficient, once-for-all atoning replacement for the Levitical sacrifices in the OT. 80 Levitical sacrifices were animal sacrifices and were repeated and did not provide atonement. In Jesus, we move from symbolic to real atonement. 81 Taking on sinful flesh, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh and so provided the correct terms for atoning sacrifice. 82 As Bell notes, Paul is “not only understanding Christ in the light of the sin offering; he is also understanding the sin offering in light of Christ.” 83 In other words, a more substantial ideological shift happened in Paul when he considered Jesus’ death. The new paradigm shifted his thinking from pushing Christ into the “old wineskins” of the OT sacrificial system. The New Covenant offered in Jesus’ blood more than replaced the Old. Jesus died heroically and as a martyr, but his death was also uniquely atoning. 84

Summary: Paul’s Sense of Mortality Grounded in Jesus’ Death The teachings, life, and death of Jesus had the greatest impact on Paul. Paul became a chief interpreter of Jesus, particularly of his death, for the budding church and through his writings, to us today. Jesus in his life and teaching made clear that the Christian way is a way of life and that resurrected life is obtained through personal death. The commitment of his followers to him and his kingdom would lead them to both die to themselves metaphorically and accept death as a possible cost of furthering Christ’s mission. He taught and modeled a life that believes in a bodily resurrection. Lampe underscores that the early community celebrated the risen Christ who “was present in the eucharistic ritual as the host of the meal . . . not as the meal itself ” (ibid., 208). 80. Contra Bradley H. McLean (“The Absence of an Atoning Sacrifice in Paul’s Soteriology,” NTS 38 [1992]: 531–53), who views the belief that Christ’s expiatory death is a Jewish sacrificial idea as a “domain assumption.” He argues that “no theological or textual justification can be found for a sacrificial interpretation of atonement passages in Paul’s letters” (p. 552). 81. Breytenbach (Grace, Reconciliation, Concord, 22–23, 95–126) disagrees. He claims that Paul does not get the idea of atonement from Leviticus and desires to avoid the language of atonement in Jesus’ death (pp. 95–126). He claims that “dying for” terminology is from a Greek origin and sees this as referring to appeasing (pp. 104–15). His agenda is ultimately to divorce atonement language from Paul’s concept of Jesus’ death. 82. Richard H. Bell (“Sacrifice and Christology in Paul,” JTS 53 [2002]: 1–27) asserts that Jesus was a sinner in an ontological or cosmic sense, not a functional or ethical sense. 83. Ibid., 26. 84. Christina Eschner (Darstellung und Auswertung des griechischen Quellenbefundes, vol.  2: Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi, WMANT 122 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010], 362) disagrees and concludes that the thought of substitution is not the focus of Paul’s dying formulations of Jesus’ death.

164

Chapter 7

His eschatology warned of postmortem judgment and as his life mission he marched to Jerusalem to face his own death as a pioneer in dying and rising again. His death was offered as a propitiatory sacrifice that served as the basis for a New Covenant with God and demonstrated God’s purpose and love for humankind that was estranged from him. His atoning death broke the powers that stood against God’s purposes, Satan and evil authorities, the flesh, and death itself. Because of his death, God exalted him as Lord of all. Jesus’ death came at a critical moment in history and redefined and elevated noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice to their pinnacle. All previous noble death foreshadowed his noble death par excellence—he offered the ultimate sacrifice willingly for all humanity. As a martyr, he represented those who aspired for God’s intervention and redemption over the political and religious powers in his day. His death follows in the pattern of many who had been martyred throughout Jewish history and would lead his followers throughout history likewise to offer their lives out of resolved allegiance to Christ. No death before or after his could supersede the theological and atoning significance of his death. Paul recognized Jesus’ death as supreme both for its metaphoric and mimetic value but, more importantly, for its vicarious effect. He was not merely inspired by Jesus to imitate him in death but recognized that, before Jesus’ transcendent act, he could only receive the benefits of his unique death by faith.

Chapter 8

The Nascent Church and Voluntary Death The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus launched a new movement, first within Judaism and later independent of it, that forever changed global consciousness of mortality, death, and life after death. The new covenant relationship inaugurated in Christ shifted the salvific understanding of his followers. The new movement tore down national and sociological barriers, stretched beyond regional borders to encompass the globe, emphasized the individual in addition to the group, and offered a new eschatological paradigm. His first followers emboldened not just by Jesus’ example and command to follow him to the point of death but also by the new experience of God’s Spirit indwelling them and empowering them, created a pulse of spiritual energy that would ultimately reverberate through time and space to the ends of the earth and through the centuries to our day. The story of the nascent church is a story of bold risk-taking. The apostles had little regard for their safety as they confronted the religious and political infrastructure. God’s kingdom was inaugurated and they were the first ambassadors of it. Paul discovered Christianity in the midst of cultural upheaval. His first response was to be virulently opposed to it. Christianity threatened his own heritage as a Jewish Pharisee (Phil 3:6). He converted, however, into a community that had embraced persecution and misunderstanding as part of their status quo. He himself was immediately faced with threats on his life (Acts 9:23–25). In chaps. 3 to 6, we looked at the influence of the Gentiles and the Jews. In chap. 7, we considered how Christ presented a radically new view of death. In this chapter, I will survey some of the examples from the early Christian community and Paul’s early experiences that would have had a bearing on his readiness for facing death as an apostle of his new Lord, Jesus Christ.

Notable New Testament Martyrs The story of the church is a story of bloodshed. It began with the martyrdom of John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, and then, of course, with Jesus. Soon afterwards, the religious establishment, threatened by the rapid advance of the church, rose up and tried unsuccessfully to squelch it. Stephen was the first recorded church martyr, but within the cultural upheaval, King Herod Agrippa I assassinated James and nearly assassinated Peter to 165

166

Chapter 8

curry political favor. Below, we look briefly on these deaths and what Paul may have taken from them. John the Baptist The first martyr mentioned in the Gospels is Jesus’ cousin and messianic forerunner, John the Baptist. Jesus mentioned him as the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, but the end of that era. The least under the dispensation Jesus was inaugurating would be greater than him (Matt 11:11; Luke 7:28). I mention him here within this discussion of the nascent church because he is a key figure in the gospel narrative and because the disciples of John were part of the early church movement. Paul was aware of his ministry of baptism (Acts 13:24–25) and probably, through the apostles’ testimony, of his demise (Acts 19:1–7). His martyrdom within the consciousness of the nascent church was subjugated to Christ’s, but John the Baptist left a mark. 1 All three of the Synoptic Evangelists mention the details of his death under Herod (Matt 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29; Luke 3:19–20; 9:7–9). 2 His disciples circulated throughout Asia years after the Passion story. He figured largely in a world that was anticipating messianic deliverance—both spiritual purging and political intervention. Many interesting observations about Roman and Jewish worldviews surface in the comments within this story. When Jesus’ identity is queried, Herod believes Jesus is the resurrected John. John was only six months older than Jesus. His death was very recent and at Herod’s own hand. Of particular note in this story is that John the Baptist was beheaded. While Jesus raised some from the dead, it is hard to imagine a resurrection of John’s body particularly when the head was removed. What then was Herod’s understanding of the afterlife and the possibility of one soul inhabiting the soul of another? Was his statement intended to be figurative, that he merely represented a continuation of John’s ministry, or literal, that John somehow inhabited or influenced the ministry of Jesus? Herod was not alone in his worldview. Each of the synoptic stories follows John the Baptist’s martyrdom with the story of Jesus’ inquiring privately with his disciples about popular perceptions of his identity followed by Peter’s confession. Among the possible identities circulating about Je1. Christos Karakolis (“Narrative Funktion und christologische Bedeutung der markinischen Erzählung vom Tod Johannes des Täufers (Mk 6:14–29),” NT 52 [2010]: 153–55) argues that John the Baptist’s death may have served a greater purpose than his preaching to prepare Israel for the Messiah’s Passion. 2. While John’s Gospel does not recount John’s death in detail, he identifies him as God’s messianic forerunner who confirmed Jesus’ identity as the Lamb of God and God’s Chosen One for a new era through explicit confession and his witness at Jesus’ baptism ( John 1:6–9, 15, 18–37; 3:27–30; 5:33–36). He recounts Jesus’ short eulogy (“He was a lamp that was burning and shining, and you wanted to rejoice greatly for a short time in his light” John 5:35) and John the Evangelist assumes knowledge that John the Baptist was thrown into prison ( John 3:24).

The Nascent Church and Voluntary Death

167

sus, some suggested that he was Elijah or one of the prophets (Matt 16:14; Mark 6:15; 8:28; Luke 9:19). 3 Elijah had been caught up in a fiery chariot into heaven, and along with Enoch was one of two OT figures who never died. His return was anticipated in Jewish eschatology (Mal 4:5–6). Jesus had equated Elijah and John the Baptist (Matt 11:14; cf. Matt 17:12; Mark 9:13). But then comes the enigmatic response: Jesus was John the Baptist. Was this the response of only the Roman king, or was it also a popular understanding of the Gentiles or even the Jews? The implication would not only be that there is an afterlife but that, in contrast to modern reincarnation ideas happening through physical rebirth, the souls of the dead have interchange and influence with the living in this life. How else could Jesus be so identified with John the Baptist, who was only six months older? 4 Did popular belief hold that the dead have influence after their death? A prominent and influential figure like John the Baptist might have had a particular haunting capability. When Jesus publically identifies John the Baptist as Elijah (Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:11–13; Luke 1:17), a figure that the public also associated in these texts with Jesus and his ministry, might this have been received as something more literal than has been popularly conceived? John the Baptist disassociated himself with Elijah ( John 1:21), and because Elijah appeared with Moses at the Transfiguration (Matt 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30), the association cannot be literal. John the Baptist had conflicted publicly and boldly with Herod. He certainly obtained popular hero status among those looking for spiritual and political deliverance. Jesus’ prophetic ministry was similar to John the Baptist’s. 5 When Jesus spoke with a similar authority, he was identified as 3. In John’s Gospel, the religious leaders query John the Baptist regarding his true identity. Similar to their ideas regarding Jesus’ identity, their suggestions included the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet ( John 1:19–28; cf. Deut 18:15), and John the Baptist rebuts them all. John the Evangelist’s account seemingly contradicts Jesus’ claims that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matt 11:14; cf. Matt 17:12; Mark 9:13), but see C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament, SBT (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967), 70–71 (emphasis his): “We have to ask by whom the identification is made, and by whom refused. The Synoptists represent Jesus as identifying, or comparing, the Baptist with Elijah, while John represents the Baptist as rejecting the identification when it is offered him by his interviewers. Now these two, so far from being incompatible, are psychologically complementary. The Baptist humbly rejects the exalted title, but Jesus, on the contrary, bestows it on him. Why should not the two both be correct?” (p. 70). John the Baptist sheds allusions that he is the Messiah in order to focus on the identity and role of Jesus. 4. Perhaps Jesus’ question regarding identity had less to do with ontology as something akin to a school of belief or philosophy. Jesus was John the Baptist by association, not by essence. Whatever conclusion we reach must take into account that his other suggested identities, Elijah or one of the prophets, refers to those dead. The implication seems to be that, free from the body, the soul is liberated to inhabit or identify with another. 5. See Gary Yamasaki, John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthew’s Narrative, JSNTSup 167 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 130–32, for

168

Chapter 8

embodying the spirit of John the Baptist. Perhaps it was Herod’s guilt that drove him to see John the Baptist in Jesus who had the reputation for a similar ministry. John the Baptist serves as a model NT martyr who challenged the establishment and gave his life in divine service. Stephen The martyr who had the biggest influence on Paul’s early thinking about mortality in light of his Christian commitment was Stephen. 6 Stephen was a righteous standout in the early church. Set apart as a deacon, he had a good reputation and was an effective speaker. When the Jewish leaders who were threatened by his evangelistic success called him out, he responded in defense with the longest speech recorded in Acts. He recounted Jewish history highlighting the consistent stubbornness of Israel to fulfill their covenant obligations. Their hard-heartedness defeated the revitalizing work God’s Holy Spirit wanted to do in them. The implication was that contemporary Judaism had inherited this spirit of rebellion and lay outside of covenant blessing. Stephen accused the Jewish elders of being like their ancestors—they had betrayed and murdered the Righteous One, and they received the law from angels but did not obey it (Acts 7:52–53). Stephen’s audience of religious leaders was incensed at the accusations and ground their teeth at him (v. 54). Stephen had a vision of heaven and glory and Jesus standing at God’s right hand. He had said, “The Most High does not live in houses made by human hands”—heaven is his throne (Acts 7:48–49)! The resurrected Jesus stood alive from heaven at a place of judgment, but also from a place from where he will receive the dying martyr (Acts 7:55–60). Stephen told the vision to the crowd, and the leaders took those words as blasphemy, covered their ears, and tried to drown him out with shouting. They took him out of the city to lynch him through stoning. Stephen’s last move was similar to what Jesus had done from the cross (Luke 23:34)—he prayed that Jesus would receive his spirit and that God would forgive his murderers (Acts 7:57–8:1a). 7 Jesus was in a place of judgment and his argument that the function of the martyrdom of John the Baptist was to prepare the reader for Jesus’ martyrdom as part of the fate of the prophets. 6. Contra Shelly Matthews, Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction of Christian Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). She argues that Stephen’s martyrdom is nonhistorical but serves a narrative purpose toward creating a social class of Christians distinct from the Jews. “The trial proceedings are not formal enough, the ultimatum is not directly given so that the persecuted might directly resist or affirm, and erotic elements so common in later martyr texts are absent. . . . his death might fall more precisely under the taxonomy of the persecuted prophet or the noble death rather than the Christian martyr” (p. 5). 7. This countered the martyrdom tradition that predicted ultimate divine vindication for evil oppressors who kill the righteous martyr. See Shelly Matthews, “Clemency as Cruelty: Forgiveness and Force in the Dying Prayers of Jesus and Stephen,” in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Ra’anan S. Boustan,

The Nascent Church and Voluntary Death

169

was both the living exalted Lord and in a position to both forgive the Pharisees and receive Stephen into God’s presence. The circumstances surrounding his death mirrored different aspects of Jesus’ crucifixion. Stephen’s bold testimony, willful death, and vision of a risen Jesus might have proved unsettling to any observer who failed to understand the basis for the courageous acts of this early church leader. His dramatic death served as a climax to the crescendo of conflict between the budding church and the Jewish temple leaders. Present at his lynching and concordant with Stephen’s accusers stood Saul, the soon-to-be converted Apostle whose name will change to Paul. He shared the sentiment of the Jewish leaders and supported the lynching by guarding the garments of those who threw stones. Luke chose to introduce the protagonist of the second half of Acts here during an event that Paul later confesses to be representative of his most heinous sin—persecuting Jesus himself through the persecution of Jesus’ followers (Gal 1:13). How did Stephen’s death for his testimony affect Paul when he faced the risen Jesus on the Damascus road? The text does not speak explicitly to this. Paul does not refer to Stephen by name in his later testimonies in Acts or in his letters. Our observations can be based only on inference. Minimally, Stephen served as an example of martyrdom and one who faithfully and literally followed through on Jesus’ injunction for his disciples that they must take up their cross to follow him. Certainly, Paul would have recognized this risk and cost as integral to his conversion and calling. Acts 21:28 records Paul’s determined return to Jerusalem after his third missionary journey when, after being warned of pending doom, he tells his supporters, “I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:13). The hostility he faced in Jerusalem including a desire to kill him (Acts 21:31) and a plot on his life (Acts 23:12–13) was triggered by similar themes from the scene that led to Stephen’s martyrdom where he taught against the law and the sanctuary (Acts 21:27–30; cf. Acts 6:11–14). In his public defense to the Jews at Jerusalem, he alludes to his role in the killing of Stephen (Acts 22:4, 20). Stephen’s dramatic death, which served as a climax of the Jewish-Christian conflict, would have given further support that his commitment was not just a choice for Christ and for the church, but against his former tradition. 8 The mortal conflict that he witnessed between the Pharisaic leaders and Stephen as a representative of the Christian community would have made him aware that choosing­ Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin J. Roetzel (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 117–44, which reports clemency as an exercise of power and a Roman virtue. 8. Whether or not Paul continued to accept the designation of Pharisee, the decision where he would need to place ultimate loyalty as a Christ-follower was clear. Based on his immediate argument for Christ at his conversion and subsequent gospel defense in a variety of settings with Jewish opposition, he was pushed to identify completely with the Christian movement and against his religious heritage.

170

Chapter 8

loyalty to the risen Christ would entail conflict with his past colleagues. Ananias gave him a prophetic warning of this (Acts 9:16), and the Jews immediately tried to kill him for his defection (Acts 9:23–26). Given his prominent position as once prosecutor of the Christian movement, Paul knew his life was at risk. He thus began his spiritual journey as a “Christian” facing mortal opposition from his Jewish brothers and former allies. James and the First Attempt at Peter James’s death under the hand of Herod Agrippa I certainly made a mark but did not take a prominent place in the Acts narrative. The text in two verses says simply, “About that time King Herod laid hands on some from the church to harm them. He had James, the brother of John, executed with a sword” (Acts 12:1–2). Within the narrative, the importance of James’s martyrdom seems to focus more on the fact that Agrippa’s action pleased the Jews and led him to arrest Peter. Peter’s story is significant in that, as the leader of the Christian movement, he was arrested and faced death. An angel miraculously helped him escape imprisonment. Although risking death is the obligation of all believers, particularly in this case of the apostolic leadership, God demonstrates that he can miraculously overturn man’s plans. Jesus had evaded premature execution in his life (Luke 4:28–30; John 10:31–39); his followers could anticipate this possibility as they zealously served him.

Death as Temporal Judgment in the New Testament Although God punished his covenant people in the OT through death, it is perhaps surprising to find the same corporal punishment enacted by God in the NT. Several even within the church die at God’s hand. This would fall under our category of ignoble death. Ananias and Sapphira are early examples. They fall dead at Peter’s feet for lying to the Holy Spirit about their gift to the church and fear falls on the church (Acts 5:1–11). Their death serves as a warning that punishment by physical death is a possible outcome for insincere devotion. 9 Another notable death in the early church was that of Judas, Jesus’ disciple who betrayed him. In misery after betraying Jesus, he commits suicide. Jesus had pronounced a “woe” on him and indicated the horrendous judgment awaiting his betrayer—it would have been better for him never to 9. Concurrent apocalyptic literature clearly foretold that judgment awaited a cataclysmic grand finale, a moment of divine intervention at the end of time when justice would finally be served. The evidence of proleptic mortal punishment, punishment that is at least temporal, but with ominous unstated potential implications for a further eternal verdict can appear contradictory to a gospel that teaches that Christ’s death is substitutionary and sufficient as a propitiatory work. Participation in the new salvific community required authentic faith and integrity.

The Nascent Church and Voluntary Death

171

have been born (Matt 26:24; Mark 14:21; cf. Luke 22:22)—and certainly Judas was weighed down as he contemplated his eternal fate. Droge and Tabor do not see the narrative as censoring his suicide, but their position has been widely disputed. 10 King Herod Agrippa I dies a gruesome death after the crowds seek to exalt him to deity (Acts 12:20–23). The practice of apotheosis, in which humans were exalted to divine status, is thus practiced here, but on someone who is living. The result, however, for King Herod is temporal judgment from the angel of the Lord, a divine messenger of the true, exclusive and jealous God. Death is elsewhere seen as temporal judgment in the NT. In 1 Cor 5:1–5, Paul wants to turn an offensive sinner over to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh (εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός) in order that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (v. 5). Many have offered explanations of this verse, but one interpretation understands this to mean turning him over to Satan so that he will die physically resulting in his ultimate salvation. 11 In 1 Cor 11:27–34, Paul warns that those who partake of the Lord’s Supper unworthily “will be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord” (v. 27), and “that is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (v. 30). Here is another difficult verse—what does it mean to partake in an unworthy manner? But the consequence of the Lord’s judgment is ominous as it is clear. 12 Healing from sickness that might be caused by sin through forgiveness administered by church elders is mentioned in Jas 5:15. Likewise, turning a 10. E.g., Darrel W. Amundsen, “Did Early Christians ‘Lust after Death’? A New Wrinkle in the Doctor-Assisted Suicide Debate,” in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life, ed. Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 289–90. 11. But cf. 1 Tim 1:20, where Paul turns two offenders over to Satan with no mention of a mortal penalty. The intention is remedial, that is, “to be taught not to blaspheme.” Several possible interpretations include: (1) excommunication that leads to the man’s physical death and spiritual salvation; (2) destruction of the flesh refers to extreme physical suffering that leads to repentance before death; (3) the “flesh” is the sinner’s carnal nature, which, when excommunicated is destroyed; (4) “flesh” and “spirit” refer to the church community, and the fleshly works destroyed are those of the community when the offender is removed. See Barth Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT,” JETS 36 (1993): 331–42, for an argument for the fourth view. 12. See David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 553–54, for the thought-provoking notion that death here is not a result of divine judgment but a consequence of the Corinthians’ unjust selfishness. Those sick and dead are the deprived poor in their midst. Are the rich dying due to God’s judgment for their reluctance to share with the poor? Are the poor dying of starvation as a natural consequence of the rich’s inequality and division? Paul is concerned because the body is suffering. So Bradley B. Blue, “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply, and the Present Distress,” CTR 5 (1991): 221–39; and Bruce W. Winter­, “Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines,” TynBul 40 (1989): 86–106.

172

Chapter 8

sinner from his way saves him from death ( Jas 5:20). 1 John 5:16 mentions not to pray for those committing a “sin resulting in death,” which most likely indicates opponents in the church John is writing to who went out from the church, but were not truly believers. By denying Christ’s forgiveness, they sealed their fate, and John exhorts the church not to pray for them. 13 Rev 2:23 has the glorified Jesus write to the church in Thyatira that those in the church that commit immorality with the false prophet, Jezebel, will be struck with death to warn the church that God sees into the minds and hearts.

Paul in Acts: Mortal Threat in Ministry Finally, we must consider Paul’s personal life and testimony. While in the act of persecuting the church, Paul himself is confronted with the risen Messiah and his life is changed forever. He is appointed as an apostle to the Gentiles, becomes one of Christianity’s leading spokesmen, and begins a vocation that often placed him in mortal peril. 14 Paul’s personal experience with death had the greatest influence on his thinking. Luke in Acts and Paul in his letters both underscore the repeated situations of persecution, sacrifice, and suffering that Paul experienced as he traveled to carry out his apostolic mission. He is stoned (Acts 14:19), shipwrecked (Acts 27), and bitten by a venomous snake (Acts 28:1–6). He is nearly torn apart by an angry mob in Jerusalem (Acts 21:30–31; cf. 22:22) and escapes a suicide plot intended to kill him (Acts 23:12–35). He faces a capital trial before Caesar (Acts 25:11–12; Phil 1:20). His calling and evangelistic preaching often brought him in conflict with his first target audience, the Jews, who, in the remote Asian and European towns he visited first received and heard him, then rejected him. Frequently, their rejection came accompanied with life threatening responses. A second audience that persecuted him was the pagan Gentiles who, while often hearing Paul with a mixed or passive reception or indifference as seen in response to his preaching at Mars Hill (Acts 17:32–34), sometimes opposed 13. For a discussion of three views that (1) this refers to serious sins as opposed to minor sins, (2) sin resulting in the punishment of physical death, or (3) a sin resulting in spiritual death, see W. Hall Harris III, 1, 2, 3 John, Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis: An Exegetical Commentary on the Letters of John (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 202–4. Christ in his Priestly Prayer ( John 17) makes special mention that he does not pray for the world, those who are not God’s (v. 19). 14. Paul W. Barnett, “Was Paul’s Grace-Based Gospel True to Jesus?” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner, LNTS 420 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 104–5, notes the reversal: “The young Pharisee who inflicted beatings on the disciples of the Lord in Jerusalem (Acts 22.19; 26.11) was himself repeatedly scourged ‘at the hands of the Jews.’ This astonishing reversal of circumstances graphically portrays the radical conversion of Paul. If Paul instigated the beating of the disciples of the Lord for blasphemy it was for blasphemy that he too was beaten, no less than five times.”

The Nascent Church and Voluntary Death

173

him and violently (e.g., Acts 17:4–10, 13). Sometimes the prime motive for their opposition was political, as we have mentioned with the martyrdom of James (Acts 12:2); but other times it was fueled from a threat of commercial losses by merchants in local pagan religion (Acts 16:16–24; 19:23–41). Merchants of religious wares or services viewed Paul’s message as rivaling that of the local gods and taking away revenue from the business of religion. These were stirred to rise up in arms and have Paul persecuted, jailed, or banished. Paul writes letters from prison, a result of unsubstantiated opposition to him and his gospel, and in his writings makes mention of the numerous times he has suffered. We will delve further into the theological aspects of how Paul viewed death and mortality both as a believer and as an apostle, but suffice it to say that his own life was marked by near death experiences.

Summary: Mortality in the Nascent Church Paul’s view of death and mortality was most directly developed within the context of his Christian experience. His dramatic conversion was in the context of mortal persecution of others, but as soon as he converted, the persecution turned on him. He witnessed the martyrdom of Christians before and after his conversion. He faced many death-defying events when opponents sought to kill him for the impact he had as he spread the gospel. But he had met the resurrected Christ on the Damascus road and that vision marked and motivated him. Paul’s writings would help the church understand that the implications of Christ’s death and resurrection lead to risking life in Christian service. From the example of the nascent church, what do we learn about voluntary death? Believers in Jesus were disposed to die. While there is not much discussion or examples of simple noble death in the Acts, the idea of laying down your life for God’s kingdom and out of love for your friends, your brothers and sisters in the community, was clearly commanded and expected ( John 15:13; cf. 1 John 3:16). Jesus’ own death and resurrection demonstrated both that he was dedicated to that extreme and that they could expect a reversal. Dying was not the end. While some might see an aspect of veneration in the telling of the death of Stephen, that interpretation is not necessary, and the relatively terse account of James’s martyrdom could be an indicator that the NT did not venerate those who died for their allegiance to Christ and the gospel. Justice is certainly a theme, however, and not only does Stephen’s death convey images of divine approval of his action and pending judgment on his killers, King Herod’s death at God’s hand following his assassination of James and near assassination of Peter indicates a strong vindication theme in their deaths. The early church will ultimately view the church martyrs as having died after the pattern of the Maccabean martyrs, but there are significant differences. The Maccabean martyrs die to appease an angry God. They appeal

174

Chapter 8

that their deaths might be reckoned vicarious for the sinful nation. They die with the hope of vindication of their enemies and reconciliation. By contrast, Stephen prays specifically that God forgive his assassins. The Christians recognize that reconciliation has already happened in Christ’s unique sacrifice and that its effects are global, even reaching to their and God’s enemies. While Stephen’s death in some ways reflects Jesus’ meekness in his death, his death is not portrayed as atoning, although it is exemplary. The early church will eventually venerate their martyrs because they interpret their deaths as atoning for the church. To what degree, however, do ideas of atonement enter into Stephen’s martyrdom or others in the earliest nascent church? This theme is markedly subdued, if present at all. These ideas cause me to long to delve further into this idea of martyrdom and atonement. Jesus’ death is portrayed as the apex of atoning sacrifice in the NT. How did Paul view his own death in light of the death of the one he so adored and the movement that Jesus’ death created? How did he evaluate his death, and why did he at times speak favorably about dying? How did his theological and cultural understanding of noble death, martyrdom, and atonement affect his anticipation of his death as Christ’s representative? We now turn to look at these questions about death and Paul’s theology of mortality.

Chapter 9

Paul’s View of Death In chap. 2, I defined death and offered three positive motives for voluntary death: noble death as a general category for altruistic and often heroic dying for others; martyrdom, dying to promote an ideology or cause, typically with a hope of postmortem vindication; and atoning sacrifice, where death itself has a reconciling effect. I considered the way that vicariousness has been used to convey ideas of substitution, representation, and mimesis and concluded that, because atonement needs semantic protection, we had best assign representation and mimesis to martyrdom. The categories, however, are not mutually exclusive. Jesus’ death can be categorized as noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. In chaps. 3 to 8, I covered background issues that may be pertinent to one degree or another in Paul’s thinking as he formulated his own view of death. Most notable is a movement in eschatological perspective from ignorance about postmortem existence and premature death perceived generally as a curse—individual voluntary death, however, is noble or heroic to the degree that it helps others—to a concrete vision of an afterlife with an emphasis on the individual facing judgment and looking for personal salvation. The OT makes scant, obscure, and pessimistic reference to the afterlife. Death is conceived as (1) punishment, (2) natural with no direct link to punishment, or (3) as a bridge to judgment. Israel as a nation has divine purpose, and salvation is often conceived collectively. There are exceptions—Enoch and Elijah are examples of those who never die—but the narrative traces a vision that is focused on this life. The thrust of prophecy is on national not individual redemption. Through the intertestamental period and by the time of Jesus, a concrete expectation of life after death with a growing emphasis on individual salvation developed. Although the eschaton promises judgment for the nations (e.g., Matt 25:31–46), a shift happened. Jesus warns individuals to live moral lives in light of a pending day of judgment that will affect one’s status in the afterlife. He teaches a paradox that to live one must die daily. He modeled a pursuit of death in Jerusalem as his mission with the resurrection surprise vindicating his life and message. Those with vision who willingly give their lives for the kingdom mark the early church. We now turn to Paul and his view of mortality. I begin in this chapter with prolegomena. Paul is Christianity’s foremost theologian, but he is accused of skewing history. From the moment of his conversion he is controversial­. 175

Chapter 9

176

We consider death generally in Paul’s writings—how it is central to his theology and how Paul saw death as both bad and good. Finally, in the next chapter, I conclude by probing deeply into Paul’s writings about death, underscoring the repeated theme of imitating Christ and being imitated. I place his letters in three groups based on the occasion of each epistle and the needs of his recipients. For each group, Paul demonstrates a different motive for talking about death and imitation that can be viewed in terms of paradox. We turn now to look at Paul’s role as historian and theologian.

Prolegomena: Paul as Controversial Witness and Theologian Paul’s primary influence on the development of Christian thought is undisputed. From the time of his conversion until the present, however, he has been the center of controversy. The Jewish leaders of his day were threatened and offended when he converted and preached Christ and they attempted to do away with him. Today’s critical environment applies rigorous scrutiny to all things Paul. I wish to talk freely about Pauline texts, but before I do so and as a matter of prolegomena, I must establish my presuppositions about the ancient and modern controversies about Paul. Conversion into Mortal Conflict Paul converted into a very unusual situation. We do not know the true order­of how he came to apprehend Christ, but it is possible that the conflict of the Sanhedrin with Stephen, when Stephen publicly confronted them, was the first time Paul fully grasped the import of the Christian message and how contrary it was to the Pharisaic tradition. 1 Paul’s response as one who then sided with the Pharisees and served as an accomplice to the stoning of Stephen was to oppose the underground church, and he opposed it with full-blown zeal and vengeance (Phil 3:6; Acts 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 22:4–5; 26:9–11). 2 Then, in the midst of his campaign to persecute believers in Damascus, he was confronted with the risen Christ and his life was upended (Acts 9:1–35; 22:1–21; 26:1–23). He changed sides and now embraced the faith that he once despised. He did so knowing the risks his conversion 1. In a trial before the Jewish council, Paul identified himself as a Pharisee who believed in the resurrection and so created a division in the assembly between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who do not believe in the resurrection (Acts 23:1–10). If Paul did remain a Pharisee after his conversion, his Pharisaical beliefs before his conversion certainly led him to oppose Christians and, when he converted, the Jews in Damascus saw him as a mortal enemy. His identity as a Pharisee lost its distinctive anti-church, antiChrist stance when he met Jesus on the Damascus road. 2. See Simon Légasse, “Paul’s Pre-Christian Career according to Acts,” in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, vol. 4: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 365–90.

Paul’s View of Death

177

would have for his life. Not only had he personally witnessed Stephen’s martyrdom for his testimony but he also had a direct message from the oncecrucified Jesus through a personal vision and another through Ananias, a man God sent to help Paul recover his sight. Ananias assured Paul that he would suffer­for the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:10–19a). The effect of reversing his allegiances was as extreme as life and death. The oppressor was now the oppressed. The risen Christ whom he knew as having been crucified by his people, whose death he applauded, was the very one who called Paul to risk his own life to follow him. Life and death were clearly in the balance as he surrendered to Christ. The example of Stephen dying willingly, courageously, and even joyfully must have had an impact on him. From the start, Paul proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God (Acts 9:20) and that he was the Christ (Acts 9:22). And from the start in Damascus, the Jewish leaders tried to kill him (Acts 9:23–25). As he further meditated on the Scriptures and learned and developed his gospel message, he grew to understand more and more that this message of life ironically neither denies nor avoids, but rather embraces death. Resurrection hope was the destiny of anyone called by Jesus like he had been; that hope emboldened him to pursue Christ and his mission over and above physical survival. Jesus’ resurrection undergirded him as he formulated his personal commitment and ministry strategy. He developed a sophisticated understanding of life’s purpose and meaning, what living truly was, and how death for the right motive was not just honorable but was the natural integration of the gospel message within the believer. Paul through his conversion became a controversial apostle of a radical gospel and the leader of a movement set against popular religious structures. Critical Problems with Paul Paul still faces trial and opposition. The historical scrutiny applied to Jesus’ life by higher criticism is also applied to Paul. His experience as recorded by Luke in Acts is frequently set against his testimony within his letters. Bruce Fisk summarizes the controversies surrounding Paul saying, “The quest of the historical Paul has never been more vigorous, more variegated, nor, arguably, more bewildering.” 3 He lists eight points of debate in current scholarship: “(1) the struggle to establish a Pauline corpus; (2) development and contingency in Paul’s thought; (3) Paul and politics; (4) the Paul of Acts and the Paul of Paul; (5) Paul’s Jewish and Hellenistic cultural 3. Bruce N. Fisk, “Paul: Life and Letters,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 283. The question is rarely asked what Greco-Roman influences there were on Jesus, even though Jesus spent some time in his infancy in Egypt and was raised in Galilee where many Gentiles lived. Many studies on Paul have Greco-Roman background as a, if not the central tenet to Paul’s thinking, but decidedly, the shift in scholarship has turned to Jewish studies.

178

Chapter 9

contexts; (6) Paul’s knowledge of Jesus; (7) Pauline communities and contemporary models; (8) Paul’s letters and their first recipients.” 4 Many of these issues intersect our discussion, but the question of a Pauline corpus needs to be addressed briefly, particularly whether Paul authored the pastorals. 5 The most poignant of Paul’s writings regarding his anticipation of imminent death, 2 Timothy, is lumped into what many consider pseudonymous Pauline writing. 6 The text is framed as his last letter written soon before his death to prepare Timothy, his disciple. Due to linguistic, theological, and historical factors, many scholars find it pseudonymous. 7 I hold the minority and conservative view that it was written by Paul. 8 My position is rooted in an understanding of canon development that assumes that the early church was both scrupulous and more sophisticated than many current scholars accept in their evaluation of Pauline material. Certainly, some ascribe the authorship of this material to a later church or Pauline school that used Paul’s name pseudonymously to address issues of a later and developed church. 9 Criteria for historical validation apply to any 4. Ibid. For studies that dispute Paul’s historicity, see, for example, Robert Paul Seesengood, Paul: A Brief History (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 223–27. For a treatment that postulates that modern views of Paul are highly distorted and seeks to correct them, see Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary behind the Church’s Conservative Icon (New York: HarperOne, 2009). 5. I do not offer a substantial analysis of the other Pauline epistles whose authorship scholars debate (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and Titus), but the arguments and issues overlap. I hold to Pauline authorship for all these epistles. See helpful arguments in NT introductions, such as Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990); D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005). For an exemplary brief argument for pseudepigrapha in Ephesians, see James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 1106–9. 6. N. T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 4: Paul and the Faithfulness of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013], 56–63) challenges current authorship trends particularly for Ephesians and Colossians as “dogma-driven prejudices” (p. 57) based on the philosophical outlook of the times, “fashion and prejudice” (p. 58), rather than scrutiny of the evidence. He argues that Colossians is certainly Pauline, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians are “highly likely” to be Pauline, and promotes 2 Timothy of the Pastorals as possibly Pauline. 7. Dunn (Beginning from Jerusalem, 1053–55) speculates that 2 Timothy was written 20 or 30 years after Luke’s Acts written “in the spirit of Paul” and included material from Paul or traditions about Paul. 8. Frequently the argument that the majority of scholars hold to one position or another is used to persuade for a position. This sort of argument is made, for example, for the authorship of Ephesians. Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 6–20, refutes Raymond Brown’s claim that 80% of scholars hold that Paul is not the author of Ephesians. 9. A. T. Hanson (“The Theology of Suffering in the Pastoral Epistles and Ignatius of Antioch,” in Studia Patristica. Vol. XVII in Three Parts, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone

Paul’s View of Death

179

study of Paul’s story or perspective. The early audience verified the canonicity of these epistles and had means of validating authorship. The argument for pseudonymity, in particular, falls short of being culturally acceptable. Although pseudepigraphical writing was practiced in the first century, the import of Pauline letters, which internally defend their apostolic authorship as essential for their authority in a world of heresy and imposters (e.g., Col 4:18; 2 Thess 2:2; 3:17; cf. 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Phlm 19), tips the scales in favor of their being authentically from Paul’s hand. The church understood the importance of apostolic authenticity when they circulated these letters as Pauline. 10 Paul as Theological Interpreter of History Paul is the apostle par excellence. He analyzed in depth the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection and became its chief interpreter and advocate for the nascent and missional church. 11 He would call the gospel his gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Cor 4:3; 1 Thess 1:5; 2 Thess 2:14; 2 Tim 2:8), and that gospel had as its focal point the death and resurrection of Jesus as the core for individual, collective, and global salvation. Paul is the first post-resurrection believer to articulate the Christian’s aspiration and hope in light of Christ’s person and work. He was called to be an apostle long after Jesus’ Passion and ascension; nevertheless, his is one of the earliest surviving postresurrection products of Jesus’ person and work. As a late apostle contemporary to the events from which the gospel sprung, he was able to investigate and articulate the practical implications of Jesus’ death and resurrection for Christ’s new followers within the Christian community, most of whom, too, had never known Jesus in his earthly ministry. He exhorts, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Paul had worked out his theology into practical terms. It worked for him and that gave it relevance and authenticity. When he spoke about mortality or any other subject within the realm of Christian theology, his position and authority were foundational. His analysis and exposition on the effects of Jesus’ death provide a core theological base. While, by his admission, he was the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9), he serves as a primary source as one who met the risen Jesus [Oxford: Pergamon, 1982], 2:694–96), for example views the theology of Ignatius (died ca. 113) as closer to Paul than the Pastoral Epistles. 10. E. Earle Ellis, “Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents,” in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige, JSNTSup 87 (Sheffield: Sheffield JSOT Press, 1992), 212–14. 11. Scot McKnight (“Jesus vs. Paul,” Christianity Today [December 8, 2010], 24–29) highlights the need to harmonize the gospel according to Jesus, a kingdom vision, and Paul, who championed justification. He concludes through 1 Cor 15:1–11 that the unifying element between the two is Jesus as the center of God’s story.

180

Chapter 9

and was transformed by that experience. Paul is both an early witness to the historical data of Christianity, a historian, and he is an authoritative interpreter of the Christian gospel. He received the gospel, in many ways created and articulated it, and, of course, proclaimed it. Jesus is the center­ of the divine plan within all history. When Paul makes mention of his own death, it is frequently linked with the death of Christ. Christ’s death trumps Paul’s. We do not know precisely when or how Paul died. Even though a martyr tradition eventually developed around his death that honors him for his life of sacrifice, his death did not add anything to Christ’s finished work of dying for sin. He spoke of an eagerness to die, but unlike Jesus he was unaware when the day of his death would transpire, who would take his life, or how. His death carried no symbolic significance. 12 McKnight asks the question how much Jesus’ attribution of meaning to his death matters: “How did Jesus understand his own death?” Jesus anticipated his death and was able to pass its meaning on to his disciples. 13 I am asking the same question of Paul. Within a few generations of his death, many in the church sought martyrdom, and those who were martyred were venerated within the church. While I will leave postcanonical work to the church historian, a valid question in light of where history led is how Paul would want us to view his death. Did it bear special meaning? He talked about dying and his mortality frequently. Why did Paul make dying central in his ministry? That is the focus of the next chapter.

Death in Paul’s Life and Writings In this section, I underscore the centrality of the theme of death in Paul’s writings and demonstrate why for Paul death was both bad and good. Death is central in Paul’s writings both as a metaphor and as a literal reality. It creates the primary need his gospel proposes to address. Death Near the Hub of Paul’s Theological Center Controversy rages over what the center of Paul’s theology might be and whether one can be found. 14 Schreiner warns us that a danger exists in seeing Paul’s center as a bull’s eye, a canon within a canon. Vital teaching might be minimized if perceived as conceptually distant from a proposed theo12. Paul Middleton (Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, LNTS 307 [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006], 12–13) says that martyrdom is validated through discourse: “A martyrdom is, therefore, a type of narrative which describes a death which reinforces a group’s (whether religious, political or national) view of the world” (p. 13). 13. Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 3. 14. Helpful is the historical review of attempts to find a center in S. J. Hafemann, “Paul and His Interpreters,” DPL 674–78.

Paul’s View of Death

181

logical center. 15 Some say the attempt to find a center is futile and based on faulty theological and historical assumptions. 16 The benefit of proposing and grasping a theological center is not to exclude or marginalize teaching but, as Beker argues, to offer cohesion to all the parts while allowing for hermeneutic contingency. 17 Various proposals for Paul’s center include justification (Käsemann, Stuhlmacher, Kertelge), reconciliation (Martin), the doctrine of being “in Christ” (Schweitzer, Deissmann), salvation history (Ridderbos, Pate), or the apocalyptic triumph of God (Beker). 18 Dunn generalizes and says it is simply “Christ,” and Schreiner counters many of the above arguments to push for 15. Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2001), 16–17. 16. Heikki Räisänen (Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme, 2nd ed. [London: SCM, 2000], 187–88, 200) argues against transcendental categories such as revelation, preferring experience as a substitute, and thus sees meaning lying in the reader rather than the NT author. Douglas A. Campbell (The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy, JSNTSup 274 [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005], 29–30) puts Räisänen, who traces what he believes are inherent contradictions in Paul, as the leading contemporary advocate of an “anti-theological” stance but adds that Donaldson and Longenecker are guilty of viewing Paul as “causal,” that is, in a quest to understand what and why Paul wrote they seek to resolve apparent contradictions by looking behind Paul’s words to his motives or the occasion of his words. They do not see a clear, coherent Pauline center but see Paul’s views as unconcerned with coherent integration, “beliefs are not related to other beliefs but to underlying causes” (p. 30), rendering an evasion of rational accounting. By analyzing Paul’s potential motives, more weight is placed on the interpreter than on Paul himself and, for Campbell, leans to an antirational or antisystematic assumption. He accuses N. T. Wright of being borderline in this regard. “The critical point to grasp here is that a causal explanation is, in fundamental explanatory terms, the same in its outcome as a charge of confusion or contradiction within Paul’s thought” (p. 30, emphasis his). “The centre of Paul is almost certainly not actually a conceptual and linguistic construct at all. It is the set of relationships and divinely conditioned experiences to which that construct points. Christ himself (in some sense), rather than Paul’s conceptual and linguistic construction of Christ, is at the centre of Paul” (p. 32). 17. J. Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought, trans. Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 113. 18. Karl Kertelge, ‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus: Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs, 2nd ed., NTAbh 3 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1967), 295–304; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey William Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); Peter Stuhlmacher, Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 55–73; Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1956); Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); Adolf Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History, trans. William E.  Wilson (Gloucester, MA: Smith, 1972), 137–42; C. Marvin Pate, The End of the Age Has Come: The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 22–34; Beker, Triumph of God, 113–16; Ralph P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 1–6.

182

Chapter 9

his position of “God in Christ.” 19 Campbell tries to predict the trends and after establishing Romans as central in Paul’s theology, breaks the models into three categories (plus the antitheological [AT] approach that says there is no center): justification by faith ( JF), represented by Rom 1–4; pneumatologically participatory martyrological eschatology (PPME), represented by Rom 5–8, where the Spirit incorporates us into the Son’s trajectory that includes both martyrological descent and participation in the cross, and eschatological ascent; and salvation-history (SH), represented by Rom 9­­–11. Paul’s center can be generalized to something as broad as “God in Christ” as Schreiner does, but more can be said about this God to define Paul’s view further. God in Christ is not static but active and purposeful. He is working in human history, and while God’s glory or self-revelation and a desire for his creation to respond to him are primary, God’s biggest opponent, his last enemy that seeks to thwart his plan, is death. Paul emphasizes that God is the living God who generates life. When Paul speaks about the lordship or reign of Christ in his kingdom, he underscores that life comes through a relationship with him. Paul introduces the expression “eternal life” (Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; Gal 6:8; 1 Tim 1:16; 6:12; Titus 1:2; 3:7), a consolation for the believer who must experience death because of sin. He offers the clearest articulation of the resurrection body (1 Cor 15). Eternal life means that Jesus’ death propitiated God’s wrath. There is no more condemnation now or after death and the life-giving Spirit has set us free from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:1–2). Life is part of an eschatological future, but it is eternal and realized proleptically in the present. Life and death are basic and near the hub of Paul’s theological wheel that feeds his whole theology. Campbell’s argument agrees that the Spirit leads us into a trajectory where we both receive and participate in Christ’s descent into death and rise up through his resurrection.  20 The Implication of a Focus on Death: Salvation of the Individual That death is near the center of Paul’s theology is perhaps most evident in his explanation of his gospel in Romans. 21 A primary task of Romans 19. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, 15–35, lists and counters the above positions. He concludes that Paul’s center is God in Christ: “The passion of Paul’s life, the foundation and capstone of his vision, and the animating motive of his mission was the supremacy of God in and through the Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 35). 20. Campbell, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel, 17–28. His table on p. 40 summarizes this stance as “The Spirit incorporates us . . . into the Son’s trajectory.” The trajectory is first martyrdom, then resurrection and ascension into the eschatological age (ibid., 42). His mediating view, PPME, besides being a mouthful (!) seems to serve as a catchall for anything that is not justification oriented or salvation-history oriented, but it does represent well the core of Paul’s teachings and, by his own stated methodology, best integrates the justification by faith and salvation-history models (see his discussion on pp. 48–52). 21. While recognizing the theological import of Ephesians as a general circular letter­ to his churches that emphasizes Paul’s core teachings, I concur with both Dunn, The

Paul’s View of Death

183

is to address salvation by association with a group. In broad strokes, Jews were redeemed collectively through association with the covenant community. Gentiles were outsiders and excluded from the path of salvation. Paul’s gospel counters this assumption, and by addressing death rather than old covenant inclusion as the primary problem, his emphasis shifts from group identifiers or requirements to the responsibility and experience of the individual. Everyone dies for him or herself; everyone must find a covenant relationship and walk the journey of identifying with Jesus in his death and resurrection individually. Salvation is individual and personal. 22 Of course, the capstone of Paul’s understanding of the gospel is a new redeemed community, the church, but that community finds its primary link not through collective ritual but through personal belief and confession, an experience in which the Holy Spirit regenerates and adopts the individual into God’s family. Certainly, the church is a family and is not devoid of rituals such as baptism and the Eucharist, which serve to identify those who have entered into and are maintaining their covenant relationship with God, but the process of sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection necessarily emphasizes the individual. Whereas confusion about Jewish identity is wrapped around certain polarities such as nationality, religious ritual, faith or praxis commitments, or physical bloodline—all communal considerations—Paul’s Christian has a relationship with God through independent affiliation, the work of God’s regenerative act that seals the believer into a covenant relationship. And this regenerative act occurs independently from other human or institutional associations. Theology of Paul the Apostle, 25–26; and Campbell, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel, 22–26, in this focus on Romans. The Roman church had never had an official visit from Paul and was not familiar with his writings. They served as the ideal audience for his message that he gave in person to the churches represented in his other letters. 22. E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977], 497–511), of course, emphasizes participatory language in Paul and so dissuades from an emphasis on forensic righteousness. For Sanders, the plight to which the gospel responds is a collective plight—that of finding oneself outside the covenant community of God. Certainly, the community aspect is present in Paul, and he recognizes Jews and Gentiles as separate entities in Romans, Paul’s most articulate gospel presentation (Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 3:9, 29; 9:24; 10:12). Paul also recognizes an awareness of the cultural offense of his gospel to the two cultures (1 Cor 1:18–31) and demonstrates cultural sensitivity when presenting the gospel to both cultures (1 Cor 10:31–33). When he evangelizes, Paul modifies his presentation to be more winsome depending on his audience (1 Cor 9:19–22). But Paul emphasizes, often vehemently, that cultural barriers are torn down by the gospel and that believers are one in Christ (1 Cor 12:12–14; Gal 2:11–16; 3:28; Eph 2:11–22; Col 3:11). Paul’s core problem in Romans is sin and the consequence of death and condemnation, which are experienced not collectively but individually. Each man and woman will be held accountable before God, and salvation is no longer viewed as purely collective in the nationalistic way Jews understood the covenant. Entering or staying in a covenant relationship with God is presented in terms of individual faith response to new covenant terms.

184

Chapter 9

Romans 1:18–4:25 sets up the universal need for salvation for both Jew and Gentile. Paul underscores in particular the spiritual deficit among the Jewish community and affirms that this need is addressed through God’s own provision of a propitiating sacrifice. The initial focus of salvation is not collective deliverance from exile except understood purely metaphorically—Paul later addresses the parallel concept of slavery to sin in chap. 6 and Israel’s continuing exile especially in chap. 11—but instead presses on the imminence of judgment due to sin with the consequence of oppressive mortality, a sense of pending death, and condemnation that inevitably follows. All stand guilty before God and face death as individuals. Personal culpability is the focus. Each person must give a reckoning for whether he or she receives God’s offer of salvation through the propitiatory work of Christ by faith alone. Finally, Paul ties his argument to Jewish theology by underscoring the role of Abraham as the pioneer believer and father of all who believe, both Jew and Gentile. Abraham is the father of both the circumcised and the uncircumcised (Rom 4:11–12, 16). 23 David is coopted to confirm the necessity of faith apart from works. Because salvation is by personal faith, not by works, anyone can affirm that Abraham is their rightful father. Salvation is primarily individual, not collective. Paul’s repeated emphasis on death thus shapes our ultimate perception of Paul’s soteriology. Paul’s gospel not only addresses the problem of sin and human powerlessness, but Rom 5–8 emphasizes that “salvation” means deliverance from death, the consequence of sin, and the victory of life, eternal life. We are led to value a deeper reality than biological survival—union with God for eternity. His plight is focused on death, the consequence of human sin; his solution is Christ’s death and resurrection that inaugurate eternal life. Eternal life pertains to both a now and a not-yet understanding. The believer experiences the benefits of salvation now but anticipates a post-mortem reality in which he or she is delivered from the burdens of a corrupt body and a fallen world groaning in decay and awaiting a deliverance. Paul in 1 Cor 15 will later describe a resurrection life using the illustration I have mentioned in chap. 7 that Jesus also used of a seed that dies to produce a glorious new plant. The life to come, which is arrived at through biological death and resurrection, will be infused with incomprehensible glory. Paul’s soteriological emphasis on the plight of death requires individual salvation, but it does not preclude a consequence that the gathered elect 23. Both here and later, Paul explains that it is not enough to be a biological son or daughter of Abraham alone; one must also be a descendant of Sarah. When both Abraham’s and Sarah’s bodies were dead to reproduction, they miraculously reproduced. Paul emphasizes Abraham’s great faith in conceiving notwithstanding his and Sarah’s physical inability given their age. In Gal 4:21–31, Paul will make the added distinction that we are children of Sarah, not Hagar. True sons and daughters of Abraham are sons and daughters because they share his faith (Rom 4:16), not blood. They share belief with Abraham “in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom 4:24).

Paul’s View of Death

185

form a new redemptive community, the church. Paul’s eschatology finds explicit expression in Rom 9–11, where he speaks of God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel as proof that his love is stronger than death (Rom 9:35–39). The gathering of believers in loving unity is God’s eschatological response to Jewish consciousness of exile, a type of collective death, underscored by Wright and others. 24 Paul presents his gospel argument and lays out his eschatological discourse, and he will affirm that he is a “descendant of Abraham” (Rom 11:1; there understood as race and biology, not merely a faith descendant), but his soteriological vision tears down dividing racial or national walls and underscores the individual faith experience. In the last chapters of Romans, Paul addresses the community of redeemed individuals. They are joined by Christ and out of worshipful gratitude are to lay down their lives as living sacrifices for Christ and his body (Rom 12:1–2). This manifests itself in serving one another with supernatural gifting (Rom 12:3–8), overcoming and distinguishing themselves through nonhypocritical love (Rom 12:9–21), integrating in the world of secular government with respect recognizing the state as God’s servant to accomplish his purposes (Rom 13:1–7), and “wearing” Christ and thus imitating and reflecting him with love as their ethical distinction (Rom 13:8–14). In the new community that has died to the law but lives in the Spirit, individual issues of conscience create conflicts of offending or being offended. The “weak” believer needs to recognize that God has accepted the one with a strong conscience and will keep him from falling (Rom 14:3–4). Everyone lives and dies not for him or herself or for another’s conscience or benefit, but for the Lord (Rom 14:7–9). Likewise, out of love, the Spirit-filled believer is careful not to offend knowingly and should pursue peace within the believing community (Rom 14:16–19). Therefore, Paul’s counsel is: do not judge and, do not offend. By doing so, the new spiritual family will experience unity and “with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:5–6). An awareness of salvation as a personal and individual decision frees the community not to impose rules or issues of conscience on each other but to trust God’s sanctifying work in all those joined together in God’s family. To recap, the prominence of death in Paul’s theology underscores a critical conflict in current theological discussion. While the Abrahamic covenant appeals to the election of a community of people within God’s purposes, the initial emphasis of the gospel is on the individual. Eternal life as God’s gift through Christ is a personal appeal to individuals who face death. 25 While Paul offers an eschatological vision of the redeemed 24. Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and Titus emphasize Paul’s ecclesiology, the collective body of believers without ethnic barriers, and with a minimal focus on the individual. 25. Contra Paul Ballard (“Death,” EC 327), who affirms: “The early church was not primarily interested in life after death but in getting ready for the coming of the kingdom in which the faithful would participate.”

186

Chapter 9

gathered together into one body, the Church, under one head, the exalted Christ (Eph 1), and he speaks of salvation of the Jews and the grafting of the Gentiles in God’s salvific plan (Rom 9–11), his argument begins by refocusing away from collective salvation of the group as the focal point in the metanarrative plotline and to the individual as the one facing death and thus needing salvation. Paul then affirms the impact of salvation in constructing a community of love in Rom 12–15. Saved individuals are marked by sacrifice, service, forbearance, and love, and this is experienced most in the Spirit-led community, the church. Where the Spirit reigns and, as Paul has argued, the Law is dead, peace is obtained by not offending the weak in faith or judging the strong (Rom 14:1–15:7). The Spirit community is characterized by mutual respect and by righteousness, peace, and joy. Paul’s gospel culminates in an eschatological vision in which redeemed individuals gather together into Christ’s body, the church. 26 He promotes the budding perception begun in the intertestamental period of the afterlife and postmortem judgment within human and specifically Jewish salvationhistory (cf, Acts 24:15). Preparing for death and what follows is Paul’s primary emphasis. In death, each individual dies for him- or herself. Culpability is personalized. Paul’s gospel resolves the problem of death by focusing on resurrection life and by doing so focuses on personal and eschatological salvation. His attention to the afterlife offers the most powerful retort to the problem of mortality. Only after he resolves the individual’s plight does he turn to speak of the communal benefits of salvation, which, of course, are many. The Church is one body but is made up of many members, individuals who share in Christ’s death and resurrection. The barriers that separate the Jews, as those who historically are in the central stream of God’s plan and through whom came God’s Messiah, and the Gentiles, who benefit equally from God’s plan of redeeming the world, have been torn down. Paul reaches behind the salvific vision of his fellow Jews that had a narrow nationalistic end to underscore God’s global plan and a more fundamental problem to which his gospel directly responds. Everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, sins; everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, dies. Jesus came to save everyone from sin and death and create a new people of God without borders or cultural boundaries. Christ’s work secures a relationship with God with its immediate spiritual effect of eternal life, an experience shared together by all who surrender to him. An Overview of Death in Paul Let us summarily review the texts on death strewn throughout Paul’s letters. We have just looked at Romans and traced Paul’s presentation of death 26. Jesus’ teaching on collective postmortem judgment of a class (e.g., Matt 13:24–30) or the nations (e.g., Matt 25:31–46) is particularly significant. Of course, Jesus also spoke of judgment in terms of the individual.

Paul’s View of Death

187

as the impetus for his gospel. Almost half of Paul’s references to death are in Romans with the largest concentration in chaps. 5 to 8. 27 Here, Paul explains with pungent force how identification with Jesus in his death and resurrection leads to a new “law of the life-giving Spirit” (Rom 8:2). Jesus’ death and resurrection resolve humanity’s problem of separation from God that leads to repeated moral failure, condemnation, and death (Rom 5:9–11; 6:4, 14, 22; 7:24–8:2; 8:11, 37–39); provide the basis for a personal relationship in life or death with the Lord (Rom 14:7–9); and motivate toward sacrificial service (Rom 12:1; 15:31; 16:3–4). The Corinthian letters are rich with Paul’s personal reflections on death. He underscores the primacy of the cross in his proclamation (1 Cor 1–2), lists his ministry experiences of mortal risk (1 Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 1:8–11; 2:14–17; 6:9; 7:3; 11:23–27), and offers extended teaching on death and resurrection (1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 4:7–5:10). Galatians focuses particularly on the σταυρόω root, cross images, and sharing in Christ’s crucifixion. (Six of Paul’s nine uses of death use this root: Gal 2:19–20; 3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14. See also Gal 3:13, 27; 6:17.) Philippians is a letter written from prison where Paul faces possible execution to a church facing opposition and possible death. Colossians underscores the primacy of Christ over his creation, his victory over evil through death, and how, in response, Paul has been entrusted with this ministry. By association with Christ in death, believers are to live transformed lives. Paul comforts the persecuted, faithful Thessalonians and those grieving the death of believing loved ones (1 Thess 1:6–10; 2:13–16; 4:13–5:11) and then offers parting words to his protégé, Timothy, in his final letter before facing his own death (2 Tim 1:6–14; 2:8–13; 4:6–8). Death is a repeated theme and emphasis in Pauline material. Why Death Is Bad Does Paul mute the horror of death? He says that dying is gain (Phil 1:21). He boldly proclaims to believers that they are already dead and he seems enthusiastic about that fact (Col 3:3). He wants to be conformed to Christ’s death (Phil 3:10). At times, he seems utterly fearless in the face of his own death and, both by word and example, appears to not only tolerate, but to exhort his readers to welcome death. Is he out of touch? Does he not recognize the universal human fear of death? Is Paul in denial? There are many ways to respond to this. 28 Paul is seen elsewhere asking for prayer for rescue from his opponents (Rom 15:31), and facing his own 27. Paul uses words with the θνῄσκω or νεκρός root 153 times in 122 verses. Of those uses, 68 are in Romans, in 52 verses. See Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8,” 413–33, for Paul’s treatment of death in this section. Black argues that Paul develops a theology of death beyond that of Hellenic or Jewish thought in at least three ways (pp. 432–33): it is distinctively Christological, it goes beyond anthropology to consider all material creation, and mortality is linked to morality. 28. Ibid., 418–19, summarizes Paul’s view of death into categories of “completion” or “depletion.” Under completion, he lists that death is a part of the natural order, a payment toward God, a release from suffering, an occasion for hope or glory, and an incentive­for

188

Chapter 9

death with foreboding and a sense of crisis (2 Cor 1:8–11). When he lists how he has suffered in his apostolic ministry to advance the gospel, near death experiences show up as one of the many negative situations of opposition or suffering (2 Cor 6:9; 11:23). Sure, as he approached Jerusalem where it was prophesied that he would be bound, he responds that he is willing to die for the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 21:10–14). But when he faces the inevitable persecution, he takes evasive maneuvers such as identifying himself as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:23–29) and alerting the Roman guard of an assassin’s plot to avoid death (Acts 23:16–24). He did not seek death; he only accepted it as a possible consequence for being a faithful witness and apostle. In Paul’s frequent discussion of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the fundamental assumption is that death is the consequence of sin and intrinsically bad. For Paul, death is fundamentally bad, not good, for at least three reasons: death is an abrupt stop that produces loss and grief; it is God’s final enemy—an enemy that will be defeated, but his enemy nonetheless (1 Cor 15:26), and it is both punishment and a bridge to greater pending judgment. 29 Death as Final and Loss Paul’s letters of Philippians (where he anticipated the possibility of execution) and 2 Timothy (where Paul anticipated his imminent death) share a common central theme of preparing loved ones for death. In both cases, Paul speaks tenderly about his relationships (e.g., Phil 1:2–5; 2:23–24; 4:1; 2 Tim 1:2–5; 2:1; 4:9, 21). Paul grieves over the near death of Epaphroditus (Phil 2:27) and his final exhortation to Timothy brims with emotion (2 Tim 4:9–11, 18). Paul recognized that death is the loss of relationship, which produces grief—even for believers. He did not censor sadness in response to loss; he shared with those who suffered. He addresses Christian hope as a response to grief in both 1 Thess 4:13–18 and 1 Cor 15. In 1 Thessalonians, he speaks repeatedly of eschatological hope and comforts those believers who had loved ones who died (1 Thess 1:10; 2:19–20; 3:12–13; 4:13–18; 5:23). Certainly, he qualifies grief. Believers should not grieve “like the rest who have no hope” (1 Thess 4:13b). But grief is still appropriate and Paul himself shares in their sorrow. The resurrection vision should bring them encouragement (1 Thess 4:18). a righteous life. Under depletion, he lists that death is a terrible thing to be feared, a loss of life’s richness, an intrusion into the Creator’s design, a tyrannous power, and derived from or punishing sin. 29. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 94–95. S. J. Hafemann (“Paul’s Argument from the Old Testament and Christology in 2 Cor 1–9,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer, BETL 125 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996], 288) argues that καταργέω has eschatological implications, that is, that it anticipates the implications of the Second Advent of Christ into the world. Earlier, Paul affirmed that the wisdom and rulers of this age are rendered inoperative (τῶν καταργουμένων; “perishing,” NET; “being dethroned,” [Garland, 1 Corinthians, 94]) by the cross of Christ (1 Cor 2:6). Here, death itself is “rendered inoperative,” “abolished” or “dethroned” (not “destroyed.” See ibid., 710–11).

Paul’s View of Death

189

Death as God’s Enemy Another way to view death is as a reigning power. In my first chapter, I made reference to the cultural icon Death pictured as a skeletal figure in a black shroud with a sickle that visits unremorsefully and often without warning. Death is seen as a power that has a dominating effect on our lives. For the Greeks, Death is Thanatos, the merciless and indiscriminate god of death. Paul, too, personifies death and sees it as a reigning force. Death is God’s enemy, the last enemy to be defeated (1 Cor 15:26). Beker articulates a vision of Paul from the perspective of realized eschatology, that is, that Paul felt that Christ defeated sin and awaits the defeat of death, his final enemy. Paul was influenced by Jewish apocalyptic views and saw sin and death ultimately defeated by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Sin has already been defeated, but death awaits its defeat: The disjunction between statements about sin and death is due to their distinct spheres; sin is an anthropological reality, whereas death is as well a cosmological reality. The cosmic order is not “sinful” according to Paul. It has been subjected to “death” because of humanity’s sinfulness (Rom. 8:20). The power of sin, then, is anthropological, but it has cosmic consequences (Rom 5:12–21; 8:18–27). 30

Beker places great weight on the transformation already enacted in the believer, calls sin “the impossible possibility,” and separates the defeat of sin from the defeat of death. The defeat of sin is past; the defeat of death is future and will be experienced by all creation, not just Christians. 31 Paul is direct in 1 Cor 15:26: “The last enemy to be eliminated is death.” Death as Punishment and Bridge to Greater Judgment Death itself is God’s judgment and the consequence of sin (Rom 1:32; 6:23) and a bridge that leads to a day of judgment (Rom 2:5, 16; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 4:1; cf. Acts 24:15), some future day when our works will be ultimately evaluated and our eternal state determined. 32 The starting point for Paul’s gospel is judgment. 30. J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 221–22. Beker places the whole created order, not just Christians, as benefitting from the defeat of death. “As all groan together, so all will be redeemed together in a final and completed way. In this context, there is therefore no ground for Christian privileges or egoistic privatistic bliss immediately after death” (ibid, 230). 31. Beker sees internal contradictions in Paul’s theology: “A systematic doctrinal view of Paul’s thought on sin and death is impossible. To be sure, the often contradictory char­ acter of his particular emphases is held together by the central conviction that because the Christ-event has brought the end of sin for those in Christ, the end of death as a physico-spiritual power is impending, for ‘death no longer has dominion over [Christ]’ (Rom 6:9)” (ibid., 229, emphasis mine). 32. See S. H. Turner, “Judgment,” DPL 517, for the observation that Paul is reticent about concrete descriptions about eternal destiny and judgment but prefers abstract terms such as death.

190

Chapter 9

Paul’s argument in Romans is that death is the just consequence for sin and that all deserve that consequence because all, as Adam’s offspring, have inherited his sin and all themselves sin (Gen 2:17; cf. Rom 5:12, 15; 6:23). 33 Death is the deserved judgment for those who rebel against God (Rom 1:32). Sin is seen as a power, a master who enslaves us, and sin when it invades produces death. Death then is seen as undesirable, but inevitable for us humans who are in Adam’s line (Rom 5:12, 15). We will die. Law, sin, and death are linked—Christ Jesus and “the life-giving Spirit” depose all three (Rom 8:2). Many consider the idea of judgment and God’s wrath repugnant—particularly the type of judgment described in the Bible even by Jesus himself. Eternal sulphurous fiery torment with gnashing of teeth and worms eating flesh (Mark 9:42–49; Matt 18:6–10) seems extreme and severe for the proportionally small crimes that we could possibly commit on this earth. 34 Biblical judgment seems more horrendous and God can appear as a worse tyrant in his “justice” than some of the most evil and capricious dictators in human history. On the other hand, the moral argument is made for God’s justice and wrath. How can God as the Creator and in his holiness allow the horrors of evil and sin and injustice that surround us go unpunished? Philosophers anf theologians debate these important issues. 35 The honest exegete is not given an evasive maneuver in the texts. 36 Paul affirms that we are awaiting “the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed” (Rom 2:5; cf. 1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:10; 2:16; 1 Thess 5:2). While Jesus’ warnings of judgment are laced with metaphor and hyper­ bole, the reality that lies behind the images is not easily equivocated or rendered impotent. Judgment is imminent, permanent, and painful. There is 33. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 25–26. Dunn’s weighty theology of Paul is relevant here. Dunn argues that Paul’s letter to the Romans is the best starting point for working out his theology because it is less occasional and represents Paul when his thought was mature. Romans reflects careful composition and is congenial to a church that he did not personally start. Its central theme is to describe and defend his gospel. Accordingly, Dunn follows Paul’s lead by first grounding his discussion in the God of Israel, then quickly shifting to anthropology, man, sin, and death. 34. But see the chapter entitled “Why Would a Good God Send People to Hell,” in Paul Copan, “That’s Just Your Interpretation”: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 101–9, for a view that points out a contradiction between Jesus’ descriptions of hell as both fire and darkness and thus claims the language is figurative. Douglas T. Holden, Death Shall Have No Dominion: A New Testament Study (St. Louis, MO: Bethany, 1971), 133, notes that hell is conspicuously absent in Paul’s writings. The image of judgment by fire is mentioned only in 1 Cor 3 and 2 Thess 1. 35. Very helpful is Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). 36. James M. Hamilton Jr. (God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010], 37–65) argues that judgment is the theological center of the Bible.

Paul’s View of Death

191

no escaping God’s omniscience—he knows our minds and hearts. Even if we try to hide under rocks (Rev 6:15–17) or behind fig leaves in the trees of his garden (Gen 3:7–10), his judgment will find us. The doctrine of judgment might cause us to put an inordinate amount of attention on our future or on “eternity” rather than the present, and live in fear instead of love. Jesus emphasizes love and life, and we have talked about Paul being an advocate of life. Where then does death and judgment enter? Sin, death, and judgment provide the springboard for Paul to present the remedy offered in his gospel. Jesus’ death and resurrection provide a more than adequate response to the human dilemma. The focus Paul puts on moral accountability has served as the basis for how the church has discussed and proclaimed themes relating to Jesus’ life and work throughout its history. Ultimately, his resolution of some of these issues provides the basis for Paul to embrace his mortality with alacrity, to long for rather than repel death and embrace his mortality. While death in itself is bad, Paul suggests positive outcomes and offers hope through death. Why Death Is Good Paul both embraces the thought of death (Phil 1:21) and tells his followers­ that they, too, should embrace their own deaths (Col 3:1–4). Death is certainly a loss, God’s enemy, and a consequence for sin, but Paul also finds reasons to welcome death. He sees death as deliverance, an investment, and the pathway to experience all for which the believer ultimately hopes. Death as Liberation What is Paul’s solution to sin, corruption, the forces of a fallen world, and evil powers? Death liberates from all of these. If you are dead, you are no longer bound to contractual relations, you are no longer a slave, and you are released and given freedom. Paul often uses death language metaphorically and the point of the figure is that death is a final end that leads to a fresh beginning. Paul illustrates the finality of death in Rom 7:1–6, where he talks about marriage. When a spouse dies the contractual vow is rendered obsolete and the surviving spouse is free to remarry. In context, the law is a nagging spouse and the believer is relieved to discover that she is freed from a binding contract to the nagging of the spouse that continually points out her moral failure. Paul, of course, did not intend to make any comment here on the comfort of being freed from a bad marriage through death. His illustration serves as a metaphor to help us understand how through dying to law and sin in identification with Christ, we are now free from bondage to the law’s demands. We are dead to the obligation to the Law through the Spirit of Christ. Similar uses of death as a metaphor for finality include how death frees permanently and totally from slavery to sin (Rom 6:2–4, 12–14; cf. 8:12–13), abolishes an old system and creates a new system (2 Cor 5:14–17), and creates

192

Chapter 9

a proleptic experience of glorious life in Christ (Col 3:3–4). 37 Paul was not naive about death’s permanent finality, but saw the benefit of how death tears us from those old forces of evil that can dominate. Life through Death Paul speaks of how life is produced through death. We can be raised to a new life having died to the old life (2 Cor 5:17; Col 3:1–4). This idea stems from Jesus’ explanation of how a seed must die to produce more seeds ( John 12:24–25; cf. 1 Cor 15:35–44). He saw his death as a missional investment— he accepted the cost of facing death in this life in order to produce life in others (2 Cor 4:12). He explains how the path to immortality and a glorious resurrection life comes through death; we must receive a transformed glorified body and that can happen only by the present body dying and the mortal body putting on immortality (1 Cor 15:53). So Dragas: “Death is not seen in the New Testament as a disappointment of eschatological hope, but as an aspect of that hope, implying a death to sin and a new life to righteousness.” 38 Paul saw the path of spiritual victory, that is, overcoming death, not through avoiding it but by embracing it. He finds complete victory in death and not even death can overcome God’s love (Rom 8:36–39). Death as Bridge to Eschatological Hope Most importantly, death is the key to experiencing Paul’s eschatological hope. Death brings him into God’s kingdom (2 Tim 4:18), into God’s presence (Phil 1:23–24), and into resurrection glory including immortality (Rom 6:5; 8:18; 1 Cor 15:43; 2 Cor 4:17–18; Col 3:3–4). In short, for Paul the be­liever­’s hope is set in this eschatological victory that is proleptically anticipated in this life. Death for Paul is gain (Phil 1:21). That death can both be the consummate clash of all that is most horrible and all that is most glorious can be most vividly seen in the death of Jesus. His death as a Roman criminal instigated by an angry mob who themselves were incited by Jewish religious leaders who wanted him dead appears one of the more horrible tragedies of human history. The Gospel reader is led to understand that this Jesus is no mere or ordinary man and certainly not worthy of such a tragic and scandalous death. He is God’s Messiah, the Son of God, a divine representative on a mission to call people to faith and repentance. His death then at first blush is the death of human hope and God’s attempt at righting all that is wrong in his created world. All that is left when God’s man is destroyed is godless banal existence. In hindsight, however, after his resurrection and the subsequent reinterpretation of his life and teaching in light of that resurrection, the meaning of his death is transformed. Death itself takes on new meaning. Under our categories of 37. G. R. Beasley-Murray, “Dying and Rising with Christ,” DPL 218–19, for the assertion that the association of dying and rising with baptism did not originate with Paul. 38. G. Dragas, “Martyrdom and Orthodoxy in the New Testament Era,” GOTR 30 (1985): 289.

Paul’s View of Death

193

noble death, dying altruistically or for honor, martyrdom, dying for an ideology, or atoning death, dying as a propitiatory sacrifice, we see redemptive reasons for his death. Paul will reflect on and seek to imitate Jesus’ death in light of his transformed understanding. Death, that most horrible of human events, was transformed by Jesus into Paul’s highest aspiration. Paul as the prominent theologian of the nascent church and first interpreter of Christianity faced death from his conversion onward. Paul created conflict and faced opposition with his contemporaries, and remains controversial among today’s Bible interpreters and theologians. His role as interpreter of Christian theology is foundational for the church. He was the first post-resurrection believer to explain the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection soteriologically and eschatologically as well as practically and ethically. One of humankind’s biggest predicaments is death. Paul addressed this frequently and as a focal point in his writings—it is the beginning point for his redemptive theology. We looked, first, at why for Paul death was bad. Death is final and produces loss; it is God’s enemy. It is both in itself judgment and leads to a day of judgment. We then suggested reasons why, for a Christian, Paul paradoxically and surprisingly saw good in death: death liberates us from slavery to sin, sin’s consequences, and evil; like a seed, death is necessary to produce more and better life; and death leads to a glorious eschatological future. The horror of death is transformed through Christ’s Passion and his invitation to participate in and with Christ into glory. Paul’s world was experiencing an eschatological awakening. Because of his encounter with the risen Christ, he envisioned a way of living differently with a different set of values and expectations. Jesus offered an example of one who lived a life of humility and sacrificial obedience, a life that led to a premature death and to God raising and glorifying him. Paul, too, longed to understand Christ’s death and imitate him in his life, death, and resurrection. We turn now to address the question of how Paul faced his mortality in light of this longing to so imitate Christ.

Chapter 10

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death For we who are alive are constantly being handed over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal body (2 Cor 4:11). Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ (1 Cor 11:1).

Paul’s death rests in the shadow of the light of Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul sees the answers to humanity’s ultimate questions regarding life and death not in an analysis of his own life and death and contemplating his mortality, but by focusing on Christ’s death and resurrection, the transcendent act and example of Jesus. He views and values his own death to the degree that it points to, exposes, and glorifies Christ’s death. So when Paul talks about his death or his mortality fundamental questions of his relationship with Jesus’ death are raised. 1 How could he best give his life for Jesus? He finds his answers in identification and imitation. He imitates Christ, dies for Christ’s sake, claims to experience the benefits of the resurrected Christ, and then exhorts his followers to likewise die for Christ and imitate him in this passionate enterprise. 2 Paul uses “imitation” (μιμητής) language to speak of using Jesus as a model for behavior; Jesus repeatedly calls to his disciples to “follow” (ἀκολουθέω) him. When he exhorts the Corinthians to imitate him, he urges them to 1. Paul Middleton, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, LNTS 307 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 143, finds imitation of Jesus as one of several aspects of Paul’s death that reflect later values of Christian martyrdom. His thesis leads him to pursue seed thoughts of “radical martyrdom,” enthusiastic pursuit of death, in Paul. His conclusion demonstrates appropriate restraint that Paul is neither a radical martyr nor an advocate for radical martyrdom but one whose theological presentation allowed for radical martyrdom to develop. Three Pauline teachings promote radical martyrdom: suffering as a means to demonstrate authenticity of faith, Jesus as a model of suffering, and his participation theology that was readily transformed into cosmic war imagery of later martyrology (ibid., 146). 2. For an argument that the author of Hebrews exhorts to identify with Christ and share in his shame and cross to the extent of martyrdom with reference to the Maccabean martyrs, see William L. Lane, “Living a Life of Faith in the Face of Death: The Witness of Hebrews,” in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, MNTS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 247–69.

194

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

195

imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1). He identifies with, participates in, connects with, and seeks more experiential understanding to imitate and be filled with Christ. Paul was not seeking anyone to follow him—he wanted all who heard him to become a follower of Christ—and he offered an imitable and accessible example of what it means to follow Christ. 3 Paul exhorts believers to imitate him just a few times (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 2 Thess 3:7–9). His focus was that they should follow Christ and to imitate his passion for imitating Christ. Occasionally, he ran into the problem that those to whom he ministered would misunderstand his purpose and divert their attention from the message to the messenger. Rather than turning their focus to Jesus, the object of Paul’s gospel, they worshiped Paul instead. One story in Acts shows the village of Lystra mistakenly thinking Paul and Barnabas were gods after Paul healed a man. They abated in their desire to offer sacrifices to them only over much protest (Acts 14:8–18). 4 Perhaps not surprisingly, this group proves to be fickle. When some of Paul’s outside opponents come to Lystra to oppose him, the people rise up and stone him nearly to death (Acts 14:19–20). This was only one of many times when Paul nearly died in his gospel ministry.

Paul as Imitator This conversation will end with an examination of how Paul longed for his churches to imitate his example of imitating Christ. The logical first move, though, is to ask about Paul’s imitation of Christ. In particular, we need to explore how Paul conversed about death and mortality, both in anticipation of his own eventual death and, in retrospect, how the historical event of Christ’s death and resurrection affected him. When he looked back at that event he made general theological conclusions and was often overwhelmed with a personal awareness of how his own life had been transformed by his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus road. That reflection defined his life and ministry. Paul’s imagination was captured by Jesus’ death 3. S. E. Fowl, “Imitation of Paul/of Christ,” DPL 428–31, observes that “the language of imitation is closely associated with the cross. . . . Paul seems to have grasped that it was only through imitating one who already had sought to embody—with some degree of success—the cruciform life of a disciple that new disciples could hope to embody the cross in the various contexts in which they found themselves” (p. 431). Victor A. Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the Imitation of Paul with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual Direction, PBM (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), offers contemporary approaches to spiritual formation adopting Paul’s dominant philosophy of imitating his example. 4. Later, on the island of Malta, the islanders again suspect Paul was a god when he is bit by a serpent but defies inevitable death (Acts 28:1–6). They assumed Paul was immortal, an exclusive attribute of the gods. Paul healed many sick there including the father of Publius in a scene reminiscent of Jesus in his healing ministry (Acts 28:7–10).

196

Chapter 10

for him and he wanted to be so engulfed by that truth that every aspect of his life and anticipation of his death were experienced in light of it. Understanding how he imitated Christ in many ways determines how he wants his readers to imitate him. The careful exegete and theologian will quickly recognize that Paul’s references to dying with Christ enjoy a wide degree of literalness in meaning. In this section we discuss an example from Luke’s writing in Acts of Pauline imitation, consider ambiguity in the concept of imitation, then consider Paul’s aspiration to voluntary premature death in light of our previous discussion of the paradigms of noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. Paul Imitates Jesus in Lukan Material Luke’s narrative offers an example of how Paul is willing, even eager to die. He imitates Jesus in death with a martyrological mindset. As he journeys through Asia Minor back to Jerusalem, he receives a prophecy in Caesarea that he would be persecuted when he gets there. The believers try to stop him. Paul replies: “‘What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.’ Because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, ‘The Lord’s will be done’” (Acts 21:13–14). Paul underscores his willingness to die in devotion to the Lord. Talbert makes the observation that Paul’s journey to Jerusalem to die parallels that of Jesus. 5 Agabus’s prophecy that Paul will be handed over to the Gentiles (παραδώσουσιν εἰς χεῖρας ἐθνῶν, Acts 21:11) is paralleled in Luke’s Gospel in Jesus’ prophecy about his pending death (παραδοθήσεται γὰρ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, Luke 18:31–33). 6 The conclusion that “the Lord’s will be done” (τοῦ κυρίου τὸ θέλημα γινέσθω, Acts 21:14b) parallels that of Jesus at Gethsemane 5. Paul is ready (ἑτοίμως ἔχω) to die in Jerusalem. Richard I. Pervo (Acts: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009], 539) points out that manuscript D adds βούλομαι, “I am willing,” and concludes, “This text, which is not grammatically secure, expresses a longing for martyrdom reminiscent of Ignatius (and Montanism).” David P. Moessner (“‘The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the Jesus— Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke–Acts,” in The Composition of Luke’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum, ed. David E. Orton, Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 1 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 117–53) observes that Jesus, Stephen, Peter, and Paul fulfill Moses’ pattern of prophet in receiving the voice of the Lord in “glorious” light, the place of the temple as place of worship, and the temple as a place of suffering and rejection. 6. Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke–Acts, SBLMS 20 (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974), 15–23, after observing parallels between Jesus’ and Paul’s ascent to Jerusalem, concludes that “where modifications were necessary to achieve a loose correspondence of content and sequence between persons and events in the Third Gospel and those of the Acts, they were made without hesitation” (pp. 22–23). Talbert observes that the journey to Jerusalem of both Jesus and Paul receive focused attention, both are initially welcomed, both go to the temple, both divide the Sadducees from the Pharisees over the question of the resurrection, both are victims of mob violence, both have four trials, and both are declared innocent by govern-

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

197

facing his imminent death (πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω, Luke 22:42). 7 The response of Paul’s friends to his determination to go to Jerusalem could parallel the disciples’ response to Jesus when he told them that the Son of Man was going to Jerusalem to die—they objected. 8 Did Paul have an inner sense that death was his destiny like Jesus did when he marched to Jerusalem to his death? Does Paul have a choice to surrender to the prophecy or can he choose to avoid persecution? 9 Why does he want to go back? Does he have a death wish? 10 Paul lived with a sense of inner determination to do whatever it would take to advance God’s purposes. Paul is not a mere Jewish convert; he is a Christian apostle. His desire to go to the seat of his oppressors, Jerusalem, may at first seem a bit presumptuous. The believers at Caesarea clearly do not want him to follow what he understands as the Spirit’s leading. 11 The image of Peter rebuking Jesus for determining to go to the cross comes to mind (Matt 16:21–22; Mark 8:31–32) and further confessions where he claimed noble loyalty, as did the rest of the disciples (Matt 26:33, 35; Mark 14:29, 31). Jesus both rebuked Peter (Matt 16:23; Mark 8:33) and warned him of his pending act of betrayal (Matt 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34), but he also sought to prepare and comfort the other disciples ( John 14–17). In a similar way, Paul’s reaction to his friends could be explained in one of two opposing ways: either he grieves because his fateful mission burdens them (grief/comfort); or he is broken-hearted because they advise him to go against the Spirit’s leading (rebuke/shame). Barrett’s conclusion from the context is that Paul is rebuking rather than comforting the believers. 12 ment officials. Contra David Robert Adams, “The Suffering of Paul and the Dynamics of Luke-Acts” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1980), 110–11. 7. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 639; I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 341. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, 538, contrasts Paul with Peter, who expressed a similar willingness (Luke 22:33) but lacked follow through. 8. Luke’s Gospel, however, notably omits Peter’s objection to his anticipated Passion. C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 2:997, notes that, as at Gethsemane where Jesus’ prayer request is that the cup of suffering passes from him, so here the will of the believers is that Paul not suffer. See also Bock, Acts, 638. 9. John Stott, The Spirit the Church and the World: The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 333, argues for a distinction between prediction and prophecy. 10. Paul appealed to Caesar, is transported to Rome, and later, when he arrives in Rome, explains clearly to the Jewish leaders there that the Jews in Jerusalem had no worthy accusation against him, especially for a case that would require capital punishment (Acts 28:17–20). He did not seek death, but was willing to die. 11. See Rom 15:31. Paul was aware of the risk of his Jerusalem visit when he wrote Romans from Greece. For date and provenance of Romans, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 2–5. 12. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 997; J. Bradley Chance, Acts, SHBC 23 (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2007), 384–85.

198

Chapter 10

They, like Peter, did not reflect a correct view of death in light of Christian ministry. Paul is compelled by his apostolic duty and what Luke portrays as his vision of the “heroic missionary.” Paul’s motive is stated in the text, “for the name of the Lord Jesus,” and the believers reluctantly concede to his acceptance of apostolic suffering for the gospel. 13 Tannehill sees this as a resolve based on the political and religious conflict created by breaking down the cultural barrier of Jew and Gentile, but Peterson offers the more fundamental reason: Paul is persecuted “because of his theological claim that the resurrection hope of Israel is fulfilled only through Jesus.” 14 A longing to imitate and promote Christ guided Paul’s ministry choices. Paul faced death because he was an apostle. Sometimes God led him into suffering as part of his apostolic calling (“God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to die,” 1 Cor 4:9) either in imitation of Jesus’ death or certainly for his name and for his cause (“the sufferings of Christ flow toward us,” 2 Cor 1:5; “always carrying around in our body the death of Jesus, . . . for we who are alive are constantly being handed over to death for Jesus’ sake,” 2 Cor 4:10a, 11a; “I bear the marks of Jesus on my body,” Gal 6:17). The apostolic ministry was a ministry of mortal risk, inconvenience, and suffering. He represented the church, and he represented Christ, who also was opposed by the religious and political leaders of his day. Both Luke and Paul illustrate overt depictions of Paul imitating Christ in death. Death by Imitation We turn now to a complicated argument we began in chap. 2 when we began a discussion about the term vicariousness. I demonstrated that vicarious can refer to substitution, representation, or mimesis. Authors like Seeley posed the question we need to ask whether reenactment is necessary to enjoy the benefits of Jesus’ passion. This topic is entwined and often muddled in the current heated conversation over atonement theory and whether or not blood sacrifice is necessary to propitiate God’s wrath and procure human salvation. My position throughout has been traditional: Paul taught that Christ’s bloody death was God’s required sacrifice to atone for the sin of humanity. This is consistent with the transmitted teaching both of Jesus and of the church through its earliest centuries. His death was a sufficient sacrifice both in degree and extent: it fully satisfied God’s righteous demands; fully atoned or covered humanity’s sin and procured forgiveness, redemption, and reconciliation; and his lone death was expedient for all humanity. Jesus 13. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 997–98. 14. David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, PiNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 582; Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991), 2:266.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

199

died for the sins of every person as a forensic substitute. In this sense, his death was uniquely vicarious and, as such, inimitable. What do we do then with Jesus’ teaching and example where he urged his followers to imitate him by laying down their lives for others and for the advance of his kingdom, and by denying themselves and taking up their crosses? His offer of eternal life is acquired through the choice of surrender unto death: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it” (Luke 9:24). By dying, the believer follows his Master and, in a surprising reversal, through the path of death experiences a resurrected “eternal” life that previous to that personal death is incomprehensible. John’s Gospel clearly adds that the believer proleptically, before death, has eternal life in the present, has escaped condemnation, and has passed from death to life ( John 5:24). Paul closely associates himself with that sentiment and assures the believers in Rome that there is no condemnation for those in Christ and that not even death can defeat God’s love and purpose for the believer (Rom 8:35–39). But Jesus’ charge in Luke is that we are to take up our crosses daily (Luke 9:23). Paul, too, claims to die daily (1 Cor 15:31). That can prove a confusing exhortation. How can we die daily? Is not death a once and for all event? How do we make sense of the language of death in regard to experiencing Christ and our salvation? Is death past, present, or future? Paul offers us some help. The relationship between Paul’s death and Jesus’ death requires nuanced observation. Paul’s attitude toward death varies: some passages speak of literal death sometimes viewed with apprehension and “despair” (2 Cor 1:8–11) and other times with apparent eagerness (Phil 1:20–26). His use of imitation language depicts a variety of meaning. In Gal 2:19–20, Paul speaks of dying as spiritual infusion of Christ. Other times the reference is to personal suffering as a Christian or as a gospel minister (1 Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 2:14–17), or to putting his life in mortal risk (1 Cor 15:30; 2 Cor 6:9), and sometimes facing physical death (2 Cor 1:9–10; 7:3; 11:23–27; Phil 1:20–26; 2 Tim 4:6–7). 15 Each situation must be analyzed in its context. Some references reflect multiple senses (for example, suffering and putting life at risk), and for some texts (e.g., Phil 3:10), answering this question is the crux interpretum. 16 Paul said that he died daily (1 Cor 15:31), that he was “always carrying around in [his] body the death of Jesus,” that “we who are alive are constantly being handed over to death for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor 4:10–11), that he bore the marks of Jesus on his body (Gal 6:17), that he wanted to be conformed to Christ’s death 15. Michael J. Gorman (Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 120–24) describes Paul’s language of dying with Christ as “cruciformity,” which he explains as faith, hope, and love. Love, he further explains, is “conformity to the pattern of Christ’s self-giving, sacrificial love on the cross” and “less a feeling than an action” (p. 123). 16. See, for example, G. Walter Hansen, The Letter to the Philippians, PiNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 246–47.

200

Chapter 10

(Phil 3:10), that if we died with him, we will also live with him” (2 Tim 2:11), and that he filled up in his physical body what was lacking in Christ’s sufferings (Col 1:24). Imitation can mean many different things, for example, symbolic representation, his suffering reflects that Christ suffered; mimetic identification, he suffers as Christ would have given the same situation; or representative participation, he is Christ’s literal representative and experiences Christ’s suffering in his place. 17 Good exegesis requires us to understand the degree of imitation and literalness in death language. Sometimes Paul speaks about death with a range of literalness and meaning within the same passage. In 2 Cor 4:7–5:21, Paul first appears to be identifying figuratively with Christ in death (2 Cor 4:11–12), but follows this with talk about how his physical body is literally decaying—“Therefore we do not despair, but even if our physical body is wearing away, our inner person is being renewed” (2 Cor 4:16–17) and quickly transitions to express a longing to transition to an immortal state (2 Cor 5:4–5). 18 Let me use a controversial verse from Paul in Galatians to further illustrate: “From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear the marks of Jesus on my body” (Gal 6:17). We assume by marks of Jesus, Paul is referring to the marks Jesus received before and during his crucifixion. Does Paul bear the stigmata of Christ, his literal scars? Do his physical wounds and scars derived from persecution in ministry bear witness to his sufferings for Christ? Or is he speaking only metaphorically—he has no real scars? Is Paul’s imitation of Christ merely symbolic, that is, for Christ; identification, that is, with Christ; participation, that is, in Christ; or maybe representative, that is, as Christ, or something else? For this verse, most commentaries hold that Paul refers neither to a literal sharing of Christ’s scars, the stigmata, or to eye trouble or tattoos, but that he had genuine scars 17. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (Jesus and Paul: Parallel Lives [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007], 87–105) mistakenly argues that Paul’s life paralleled Jesus’ and seeks to find patterns in their deaths in a chapter entitled Execution by the Romans, but perhaps the point of Rome as executioner is the only point in common that can be stated with certainty. That Paul attempted to die in a similar manner as Christ is unsubstantiated. 18. See the commentaries for a variety of interpretations for outer man (ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος) vs. inner man (ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν). Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 359–60, says, “Because Paul’s anthropology is aspectival not partitive, and synthetic not analytic, when he speaks of ‘our outward self ’ and ‘our inward self ’ he is not thinking of two distinct entities, ‘the body’ (σῶμα) and ‘the soul’ (ψυχή), with the former as the receptacle for the latter. He is, rather, contemplating his total existence from two contrasting viewpoints. The ‘outer self ’ is the whole person from the standpoint of one’s ‘creaturely mortality,’ the physical aspect of the person.” Some in Corinth who sought to undermine his authority probably viewed Paul’s physical wear as dishonorable. Paul viewed this perspective as worldly and superficial. David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC 29 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 240–41.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

201

from gospel opponents and that “the marks on his body authenticate his apostolic ministry.” 19 He sees dignity in paying a physical price for his gospel ministry and finds honor in it by comparing his physical suffering with Jesus’ when he suffered altruistically, unjustly, and sacrificially in his Passion. Paul uses the figure of dying with Christ in baptism in Rom 6 to underscore three different levels of imitation. 20 Through the sacrament the believer shows decisive commitment and receives the benefits of Christ’s work of dying and rising from the dead. He or she identifies by imitating or ritualistically copying Christ’s example of dying and rising from the dead in water baptism. But this identification goes still deeper. Not only is there a symbolic identification through ritualistic imitation, the believer is to recognize a new and very real change in spiritual status reflected in the sacrament. The believer has died with Christ and risen again. In some very real sense, the authority and even presence of sin has died in the believer: “We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin” (Rom 6:6). Paul affirms a change of status and he anticipates a consequential change in behavior. The believer reckons him or herself as truly dead to sin and alive to God (Rom 6:11), to put to death the deeds of the flesh, and to recognize that having crucified the flesh he or she has been raised to new life free from bondage to the flesh. The old fleshly person is dead; the new spiritual person has come to life, released from slavery to sin and owned by God. The baptized believer can now reckon his or her body as dead, buried, and raised and no longer a slave to the law leading to sin and death, but alive to God and righteousness leading to sanctification and life (Rom 6:12–23). Christ’s death and resurrection is thus appropriated by identification in the sacrament and beyond. Christ’s work is the believer’s substitute, an act that is received in the symbolic act of baptism; but it is also a model, an example, which is appropriated by comprehending, reckoning, and obedient follow-through. Paradoxes in Voluntary Death What aspects of Christ’s death did Paul seek to emulate and why? What were his followers to take from this? Our categories help provide the answers. Jesus’ death was noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice: he died altruistically; he died to promote a good cause, to overcome evil and inaugurate his reign of righteousness; and his death itself was a good 19. Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 384. 20. See also Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005), 338–39, for a discussion about the Last Supper in which Christ viewed his death as representative and also “vicarious and protecting” (p. 339).

202

Chapter 10

cause—Jesus’ death was the unique atoning sacrifice that propitiated God’s wrath, ended our hostility toward him, and offered the forgiveness for sin to reconcile us to God (Rom 5:8–10; Eph 2:16). 21 The cross of Christ is noble death, an ironic confluence of honor and shame. Jesus’ death was certainly ignoble and shameful. The Romans regarded crucifixion as the most disgraceful form of death; the Jews looked to the Law and recognized that anyone hanging on a tree is cursed. Paul recognized Jesus’ death as a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23). Jesus’ death is at first glance ignoble, but for Paul it regains noble character because it is vicarious. 22 The fact that Jesus was innocent and completely undeserving yet died on the cross for the sins of the world makes his choice of ultimate disgrace and humiliation account paradoxically in his favor. God recognizes Jesus’ extreme humility and obedience to the point of death on a cross as motive to assign him extreme glory. What at first blush looks like ignoble death for Paul reverses to be regarded as the most noble of deaths in human history (Phil 2:5–11; Rom 5:6–11). Did Paul view Jesus as a martyr? Current research is divided on the issue. 23 Jarvis Williams finds similarities between “martyr theology” and Paul’s conception of Jesus’ death. He makes atonement integral to “martyr 21. John R. W. Stott (God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians, The Bible Speaks Today [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979], 102–4) underscores that beyond the hostility between Jew and Gentile and the hostility provided through God’s wrath, the cross demonstrated God’s great love and thus slew man’s hostility to him expressed in rebellion. “The hostility in both directions having been decisively dealt with, the result is reconciliation” (p. 102). 22. Middleton (Radical Martyrdom, 36–38) argues, “radical martyrdom, that is, enthusiasm for death, was prevalent among the earliest Christians to the point where the faithful would willingly give themselves up” (p. 36). To the Romans, the Christians had an unnatural lust for death (p. 37). He sees Jewish and Christian martyr traditions deriving from Jewish sources, not the Greco-Roman noble death tradition: (1) pagans considered Christian martyrdom vulgar, dramatic, and unreflective; (2) Jesus showed lack of courage in the Garden of Gethsemane; (3) there was no honor in martyrdom; and (4) martyrdom emphasizes graphic torture and suffering the pagans would find repulsive (ibid., 120–23). 23. Tom Holland (Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings [Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2004], 180–81) has an either/or perspective of Paul’s view of Jesus and feels that we concede too much if we admit martyrdom elements in him. Instead, we should see Christ as only our Passover, not our martyr. “If it is true that Paul’s understanding of the death of Jesus is that he is the great example of the Jewish martyr, then it means that his death is of no more ultimate significance than the death of any innocent sufferer. . . . Without realizing what has been surrendered, evangelical scholars have abandoned the historical doctrine of the uniqueness of Christ’s atoning suffering and have replaced it with a doctrine that has no distinct Christian content. It fails to uphold the uniqueness of the sufferings of Jesus. This outcome is the result of embracing pseudepigraphal writings as the key to New Testament interpretation rather than taking seriously the statement of Paul that the redemption Christ has achieved was witnessed to by the Law and the Prophets.” So Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 234–35.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

203

theology”—I have argued for keeping atonement separate—and concludes, “Paul presents Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice and as a saving event for Jews and Gentiles.” 24 While his analysis of the Maccabean martyrs is impressive, the correlation between them and interpretations of Jesus’ death establish a connection only by inference. Holland counters that because 4 Maccabees is late and probably unknown to the Roman audience, Paul’s use of themes from a martyr theology drawing from the Maccabean martyrs is doubtful. His main argument is to separate Jesus’ death from atonement as I do, but he argues against any ties in Paul’s theology to the Maccabean martyr­ story. 25 In my definition of martyrdom, dying to promote a minority ideology, Jesus’ death is martyrdom. Atonement and propitiation, however, which are also true of Jesus, need not be confused with this category and we classify these effects separately. I also affirm that his martyrdom is vicarious. Bringing forward my argument from chap. 2, he died as a substitute for us, as a representative of us, and as an example to us. Jesus’ death has both qualities that are inimitable, but other qualities that Paul commands believers to imitate as he does (humility, obedience, sacrifice, service, etc.). 26 Martyrdom as a public spectacle draws attention and sympathy to the martyr’s cause, defies the oppressor, and expects eschatological vindication. All these qualities are true of Jesus’ death and are imitated by Paul. Jesus in obedience to God defied oppressive earthly powers and so died as a martyr. We have repeated that it is important to maintain theological precision when discussing Jesus’ death and atoning sacrifice. Jesus’ death uniquely propitiates God’s wrath and so alone atones for sin. But what is often cited as “martyr theology” combined with an unusual Pauline text, Col 1:24, creates some controversy. The Maccabean martyrs appealed that their death might atone for the nation’s sins. Those who use language such as “mimetic atonement” take up their appeal. 27 Behind this is a popular belief in Jewish apocalyptic writings 24. Jarvis J. Williams, Maccabean Martyr Traditions in Paul’s Theology of Atonement: Did Martyr Theology Shape Paul’s Conception of Jesus’ Death? (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 119–20. Williams sees Paul’s purpose as not primarily martyrological (that is, to urge imitation) but soteriological and theological (ibid., 123). N. T. Wright (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2: Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996], 582–83) appears to share Williams’s conclusion by implication. 25. Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology, 160. So Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 234–35 n. 74. 26. For a discussion of Paul’s focus on Christ’s Passion in his imitation texts rather than the texts of the Jesus Tradition, see Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 88–102: “(1) Paul’s role was not that of an official eyewitness to the events of Christ’s life. (2) Paul’s role as apostle was to proclaim the gospel, which focused on the central and defining event of the life of Christ—his death and resurrection. (3) This central event would have been placed within the assumed and shared framework of the JT [ Jesus tradition], which apostle and fledgling community held in common” (p. 102). 27. C. Marvin Pate and Douglas W. Kennard, Deliverance Now and Not Yet: The New Testament and the Great Tribulation, StBibLit 54 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 42–52.

204

Chapter 10

that a prescribed amount of affliction is necessary before the messianic age is inaugurated (1 En. 47:4), the so-called “messianic woes.” O’Brien brings this background into his understanding of Col 1:24. Paul says, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical body—for the sake of his body, the church—what is lacking (τὰ ὑστερήματα) in the sufferings of Christ” (Col 1:24). O’Brien points to a limit of days in suffering (Mark 13:20), the so-called “messianic woes,” and argues that the article in the expression τὰ ὑστερήματα, signifies a well-known entity, a defined limit of time and affliction that God’s people must suffer before he brings rescue: “There are still deficiencies (τὰ ὑστερήματα) which Paul through his sufferings is in the process of completing.” 28 When the prescribed amount of suffering is reached (according to Dunn, in Paul’s lifetime), God will bring rescue through the return of his Messiah. 29 O’Brien’s interpretation has wide support and an idea of a limit in time for suffering is rooted in the Jewish apocalyptic literature. O’Brien also correctly notes that Paul teaches that we as believers must suffer with Christ to be glorified with him (Rom 8:17). But does Paul believe that Paul’s or the church’s suffering results in atonement, that is, that our suffering somehow satiates God’s wrath or hastens the return of the Messiah? I question the implications of O’Brien’s conclusion. O’Brien does acknowledge that his solution must factor that Christ’s sufferings were sufficient to redeem. And we acknowledge that a messianic woe tradition as O’Brien describes exists where, for example, the Maccabean martyrs are used by the narratives as examples to promote imitation as a means to atone for the nation’s plight. 30 We also must agree that suffering is the lot of believers who share in Christ’s sufferings (Rom 8:17; Phil 1:29; 2 Tim 3:12). O’Brien puts a lot of focus on the Greek article implying a wellknown quantity of suffering. 31 He cites 1 En. 47:1–4, 2 Bar. 30:2, and Mark 13:19–24 as texts that substantiate that “God has set a limit to these sufferings, prescribing a definite measure for the afflictions which the righteous and the martyrs must endure.” 32 I object to the idea that Paul would promote a vision of God waiting for a quantity of suffering that would mark the completion of suffering before 28. Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, WBC 44 (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 75–81. 29. James D. G. Dunn (The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996], 114–17) argues that Paul himself uniquely is the one mandated to complete Christ’s sufferings. He finds Colossians pseudonymous but written in Paul’s lifetime and with his approval and thinks that eschatological expectancy was high—Paul felt the end would happen while he was alive. 30. And so individual salvation affects the salvation of the group. 31. If this was such a well-known concept, it is surprising that it does not show up explicitly in such texts as Rom 8:18–25. Also, it is unlikely that this tradition was prominent particularly among Gentiles and that the Colossian believers would have known about it. 32. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 79.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

205

the Messiah’s return. As for quantity of martyrs, we could argue that all believers are already martyrs. Paul says in Col 3:3 that “you are dead and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” The delay of the parousia is not based on the Jewish apocalyptic idea of messianic woes or the fact that there has not been enough suffering but on God’s patience toward unbelievers whom he desires to hear his mysteries and repent (Col 1:27; cf. 2 Pet 3:9–16). 33 The text in Mark and 1 Enoch talk about God cutting short the days, but his basis for delay and our need to wait is not a quantity of suffering that must be endured. If God is counting anything before he ends the present age, he is counting those who still lie outside the kingdom whom he longs to bring in. He desires that all people repent (2 Pet 3:9). This is confirmed both in Jesus’ apocalyptic texts (Matt 24:14; Mark 13:10) and in his final commission of his disciples (Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:47–49; Acts 1:8) as well as in Revelation (Rev 5:9; 7:9; 14:6). Paul affirms that he completes Christ’s suffering (Col 1:24) and in Rom 9:3 offers that he is willing to bear the curse of the Jews, but in 1 Cor 1:13 he clearly distances himself from the idea that he died for others. 34 He completes Christ’s suffering in the sense that he must suffer in his apostolic ministry as he travels to proclaim the gospel to those who have not heard because God wants “to make known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). 35 That mission evokes a variety of apostolic sufferings. Again, I believe that Christ accomplished full atonement on the cross (Col 2:13–14; Rom 3:21–26). 36 Jesus’ death was a complete and model sacrifice for the church. Paul’s and others’ deaths and sacrifices are certainly associated with Jesus’ death and sacrifice. Paul’s death did not add to its efficacy, but he draws a link. Paul says he imitates Jesus and longs to be conformed to him in his death, and, as we will see, he models his death after Jesus’.

Paul as Imitated A key to understanding Paul’s death in light of Christ’s is to recognize that although he uses the same expression of dying in all his letters, he does 33. 2 Peter 3:9–16 is particularly important in this regard because Peter says clearly that the Lord’s delay is based on his patience toward unbelievers that they might repent (v. 9), that we can hasten the end (v. 12), an emphasis on the believer’s ethical response for salvation—holiness, godliness and righteousness (v.  11, 13–14), and the fact that all this teaching possibly derived from Paul (v. 15). 34. Gerd Theissen, “Das Kreuz als Sühne und Ärgernis: Zwei Deutungen des Todes Jesu bei Paulus,” in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur, ed. Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell, WUNT 198 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 446–47. 35. So S. J. Hafemann, “Suffering,” DPL 920. 36. Contra Anthony Tyrrell Hanson (The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St Paul, JSNTSup 17 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987], 34–36), who says, “we cannot avoid the conclusion also that Paul regarded the sufferings and possible death of the apostles as possessing an atoning, reconciling, salvific value,” but claims that it does not take away from Christ’s work because their suffering was in Christ (p. 36).

206

Chapter 10

not use it in the same sense. 37 Paul subtly shifts his meaning from when he talks to the Corinthians to when he talks to the Philippians. When he speaks to the Romans he is thinking in one way; when he speaks to the Galatians he is thinking in another. Each sense has a particular application based on each group’s specific situation and need. Paul presents death as identifying with Christ but he does so with three identifiable emphases: (1) Paul’s followers need to embrace Paul as their spiritual father and esteemed apostle; (2) they need to embrace Paul’s gospel; and (3) they need to accept their role in advancing the gospel. In this section, I will trace Paul’s conversations that relate to mortality and death. I will break the Pauline correspondence into three groups based on similarities in the occasion and settings of the letters to help illustrate my point. These groups are not mutually exclusive—their situations overlap and Paul has similar messages for all three—but by grouping them I hope to emphasize how Paul teaches that imitating Christ in death responds to a contextual need. Group one consists of the Corinthian correspondence and Galatians, where Paul’s reference to dying underscores dying as noble death. Group two consists of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Thessalonian correspondence, which emphasize death as martyrdom. 38 The final group is made up of Romans and the pastorals, with their emphasis on dying out of an understanding of atonement. Identification with Christ’s Death as Noble Death: Shame versus Honor The Corinthian and Galatian correspondence have elements in common. Both churches have opponents to Paul’s apostolic authority. My purpose is not to identify or define the opposition or to explain Paul’s defensive stance and refutation of errors. Instead, I want to look at how Paul uses noble death imagery to project himself positively as these churches’ legitimate apostle and father. Both churches struggle with Christian praxis. Immaturity and errors in theology mar the Corinthians and Galatians. In all three letters Paul emphasizes the authority of his message, his credibility as an apostle, their need to reciprocate loyalty to him, and the need to imitate him. For these churches, Paul emphasizes noble death. His “shameful” sacrificial service serves as a model for their spiritual values and provides the basis for their loyalty and honoring him as their apostle because it is in imitation of the crucified Christ and because it is altruistic, that is, because it is exercised for their benefit. Both letters of correspondence to the Corinthian church demonstrate a problem with cliques and division. The congregation was divided over 37. For this section, see the insightful observations of the practical implications of imitating Paul through death in Rodney Reeves, Spirituality According to Paul: Imitating the Apostle of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011). 38. See pp. 178–179 for my views of pseudepigraphy and Paul’s disputed letters.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

207

which earthly leader to follow and boasted in party allegiances. 39 In 1 Corinthians, at least four subgroups can be identified under four legitimate leaders in the international church—Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ (1 Cor 1:12). Within a year when he writes what became 2 Corinthians, he faces a church that is still divided. Infamous opponents to his authority threatened to sway church loyalty away from Paul as their founding apostle. 40 In the situation of the first letter, he reminds the Corinthians that he “decided to be concerned about nothing among [them] except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). Proclaiming a message of the cross as he himself laid down his life for them, Christ crucified became his theme. 41 He encourages unity, humility, and spiritual maturity—not following and dividing over human leaders, but laying one’s foundation on and following Christ alone (1 Cor 3:11). 42 The cross of Christ marks his gospel—a symbol of ignoble death, but paradoxically, of noble and glorious death. The ministers who work for the gospel likewise suffer affliction in their work to establish God’s kingdom. While asserting that no rivalry exists among these ministers (1 Cor 3:21–23), Paul does not equivocate on the Corinthians’ need to imitate him as their true spiritual father (1 Cor 4:15–16). Imitating him, however, has following Christ as its ultimate goal (1 Cor 11:1) and following Christ means following him into his ignoble/noble death. In 2 Corinthians, he defends his apostolic authority and ministry and refutes rivals and pseudo-apostles with transparent, heartfelt, and vulnerable testimony of his ministry trials. Paul holds those things that some claimed undermined Paul’s authority—pain, opposition, rejection, danger, weakness, and near death experiences—as badges of authenticity that prove his devotion to Christ, love for the Corinthians, and validation as an apostle and their spiritual father. 43 Central in Paul’s exhortations and defense in both letters is his imitation of Christ in death. Paul presents dying for them and sharing in Christ’s death as credentials for their trust (1 Cor 4:9; 9:15 [cf. vv. 1–3, 12]; 13:3; 15:30; 2 Cor 1:3–10; 2:14–17; 4:7–12; 6:9; 7:3; 11:22–26). Theissen­ 39. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 33. 40. The problems of the constitution of this letter, whether it is one letter or several joined together, are notorious. See the commentaries for discussion. 41. But Paul never portrayed his sacrifice in ministry as a rival to Christ’s death. So he says in 1 Cor 1:13: “Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul?” Christ’s death is unique and preeminent in Paul’s proclamation. 42. Theissen, “Das Kreuz als Sühne und Ärgernis,” 445–46, asks whether Christ’s death not only atoned for sin but also secured ownership. He offered a ransom (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). In 1 Cor 1:13, Paul argues that he was not crucified for the Corinthians and they were not baptized into his name. Jesus’ death not only atoned for the sins of the Corinthians but also became the price paid for their lives and loyalty. The Corinthians were thus foolish to argue over other human leaders. 43. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 151, argues that Paul is defending himself not against questions about his competence or legitimacy as an apostle but against those who question his bold style as an apostle.

208

Chapter 10

argues that Paul claims no rights to ownership from the Corinthians in their internal strife over which church leaders they follow (1 Cor 1:13), but he goes too far by saying that Paul did not share Christ’s suffering on the Corinthians’ behalf. 44 Theissen argues from 1 Cor 1:13 (“Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he?”), but in 1 Cor 4:6–13 Paul offers his sacrificial suffering in the gospel ministry in imitation of Christ as the basis for the salvation of the Corinthians and as an example worthy of their imitation (1 Cor 4:16). Paul’s death in ministry shares the humiliation and glory of Christ’s death. The Galatians had a problem similar to the Corinthians’ because false teachers had mingled with them with an unholy influence toward Judaism. Paul is outraged that some of the Galatian believers entertained their message, a false gospel that enslaved them to following Jewish codes, specifically circumcision. Paul is adamant that his gospel, the only true gospel, is diametrically opposed to religious rituals to know Christ. As part of his vitriolic gospel defense, he uses crucifixion language and identifies himself with the crucified Christ both to teach and model authentic Christian praxis and as evidence that he is God’s authentic and authoritative apostle (Gal 2:19–20; 3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14, 17). For both churches and in all three letters, Paul uses his suffering in ministry as a means to demonstrate honor and the need for respect through what might be considered dishonorable situations. He connects his suffering to Christ in order to help these followers make the association that suffering for the gospel ministry is as honorable as it was for Christ himself to be crucified. 45 Paul likens his sufferings and near-death experiences to Jesus dying a noble death. Public disgrace should be regarded as paradoxically honorable. We illustrate here with a few texts. In 1 Cor 4:6–16, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for a false sense of spirituality based on misplaced values. “Already you are rich! You have become kings without us!” (v.  8) he chides, then mentions that in a great reversal God has placed the apostles as a spectacle to people and angels by making them as men condemned to die (v. 9). The image is an arena where Paul, the apostle, is thrown to be killed for sport and as a social event. 46 Paul’s public 44. Theissen, “Das Kreuz als Sühne und Ärgernis,” 446–47. 45. See Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 31: “To enter the symbolic world of the gospel is to undergo a conversion of the imagination, to see all values transformed by the foolish and weak death of Jesus on the cross.” So Robert Jewett, “Paul, Shame, and Honor,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), 558: “The new age brought by Christ crucified grants honor to the lowly and brings shame to the boastful, eliminating the social system of ‘challenge and response’ in the competition for honor. The gospel addresses the wounds of ‘toxic unwantedness’ experienced by those who failed to gain or maintain honor.” See Stephen Pattison, Shame: Theory, Therapy, Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 182–83. 46. V. Henry T. Nguyen, “The Identification of Paul’s Spectacle of Death Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 4.9,” NTS 53 (2007): 489–501; V. Henry T. Nguyen, “God’s Execution of

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

209

shaming connects him to the cross and a death that paradoxically brings honor. Paul admonishes the Corinthians to regard his sacrifice with esteem and join him in public disgrace for God and for others. A similar image is found in 2 Cor 2:14–17, where Paul likens himself to a conquered enemy being led as a captive in a triumphal procession, a victory parade, where he is destined for death. 47 God has captured him, however, and he gives off a fragrance of the knowledge of God. To those who are seeking life he is a sweet aroma; to those who are on the path to death, he is the stench of death. Dying in the arena or as a captive facing death in a triumphal procession as a public spectacle could be most humiliating for a Corinthian believer. Paul shows how this abasement in gospel ministry is paradoxically a badge of honor. In 1 Cor 4, after listing more abuses and shameful situations he experiences, he concludes, “we are the world’s dirt and scum, even now” (v.  13). This kind of suffering is necessary for spiritual reproduction. There is great honor in this kind of shame. His suffering for the gospel ministry was necessary to father the Corinthian church. Because they are his children, they should humble themselves and imitate him (v. 16). In a later context Paul offers a caveat where otherwise noble death performed without love profits nothing. The Corinthians were comparing their spiritual gifts and evaluating each other’s worth to the body of Christ. Paul says that all parts of the body are honorable and important, the most dishonorable parts must be held in higher honor (1 Cor 12:22–23). Then to underscore his point he says that giving one’s body in order to boast—if rendered without love—is futile and profits nothing (1 Cor 13:3). 48 Even sacrificial death for Christ and others must be engaged with humility. In 1 Cor 15:30–32, he speaks of death when he argues for the resurrection of the dead. 49 He is in danger every hour; he dies every day (1 Cor 15:30– His Condemned Apostles: Paul’s Imagery of the Roman Arena in 1 Cor 4.9,” ZNW 99 (2008): 33–48. 47. In the latter image of procession, God conquered Paul. His suffering is reinterpreted not as a motive for shame, but of glory (cf. 3:7–4:6) and having God as his conqueror implies ultimate mercy. See the commentaries and in particular David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 139–52. 48. A text-critical problem exists in the text: does Paul give his body so that he might boast or so that it might be burned? The manuscript evidence weighs slightly to the former. As Metzger’s committee concludes, the idea of a body being given to be burned, although it might be derived from the story of Daniel’s friends and the furnace, could also have been copied into the text later due to martyrdom in the early church. Although both readings speak of self-sacrifice, I agree that the former, to boast, is more probable, especially in the greater context where Paul argues to the Corinthians associating self-sacrifice with boasting and honor language (cf. 1 Cor 4:6–16; 15:30–32). So Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994), 497–98, with a “C” rating. 49. Joel R. White (“‘Baptized on Account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1  Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context,” JBL 116 [1997]: 487–99), offers another interpretation for

210

Chapter 10

31a)! Again, he reminds the Corinthians that they are his motive for sacrifice as he swears—“as sure as my boasting is in you!”—and goes on to say that he faced deadly peril because he believed in the resurrection (v. 32). 50 Paul lives with a perspective of the resurrection and puts himself in harm’s way so that he can reach the Corinthians with the gospel. Risking death is part of an honorable gospel ministry. Another dying text is found in 2 Cor 1:8–11, where Paul reports that he had recently faced death but that God had delivered him. Death as metaphor is dropped as Paul confesses that he was afflicted, despairing for his life, and had given himself up for dead, but that God intervened and spared him. As a result of afflictions like that and the rescue and comfort he received from God, he is able to comfort others who are afflicted and offers this as a principle: “For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow toward us, so also our comfort through Christ overflows to you” (2 Cor 1:5). Paul suffers­, faces death, and receives comfort all for the Corinthians’ benefit. Paul speaks of the glory of Christ displayed in the suffering apostles in 2  Cor 4:7–15. He affirms that “we are always carrying around in our body the death of Jesus” (ministry suffering), and “constantly being handed over to death for Jesus’ sake” (risking death) with the result in both cases, “so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our body” (vv. 10–11). The principle is that the gospel displays God’s glory and power the most when the apostles are weak, suffering, and encountering death. Whereas in 1 Cor 4:9–13, Paul exhorted his followers to imitate him in his humility, here Paul offers an apologetic for his apostolic ministry to the Corinthians: “As a result, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you” (2 Cor 4:12). Not only does Paul have personal resurrection hope (2 Cor 4:14), but God uses his suffering to death uniquely to produce life in the Corinthians who receive his message. 51 His death in ministry is thus transcendently meaningful. Paul mentions dying as part of his ministry for the Corinthians in the context of several lists (1 Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 4:8–10; 6:9; 7:3; 11:22–26). These lists are offered as a résumé of suffering that he intends to validate his ministry in response to challenges to his apostolic authority. In his list in 1  Cor 4, he uses hyperbole to challenge the Corinthians for their misguided sense this disputed verse with multiple explanations for the obscure “baptism for the dead.” The apostles are taken as the referent for τῶν νεκρῶν suggesting that groups of Corinthian believers were being baptized “on account of ” some of the apostles, the dead. “If ‘truly dead’ persons are not raised, what sense does it make for the Corinthians to be baptized on account of those who are ‘dying all the time,’ namely the apostles?” (p. 498). The apostles would thus be viewed on a separate level of suffering and responsibility due to their mortal risks for the gospel. 50. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 720–22, explains the wild beasts at Ephesus as possibly a metaphor for human passions, but more likely, “bloodthirsty human antagonists” he encountered in Ephesus. 51. Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 63–64.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

211

of spirituality. His lists in 2  Corinthians underscore how much he went through in his gospel ministry and, therefore, how much he merits their respect. His opponents speak of their wisdom, accomplishments, gifts, and strengths; Paul sizes himself up using their standards in “foolish boasting” and demonstrates superiority in every area, particularly in his sufferings. Based on the standards they have set, “he can outboast them because he has outdone them.” 52 Paul matches his opponents point by point with his strengths and then switches to talk about his weaknesses. “The strengths prove that he is equal to the superlative apostles. The weaknesses, however, prove ‘the power of God evident in his ministry.’” 53 In Gal 3:1, 4:14, and 6:17, Paul views the marks of suffering in ministry as a badge of authenticity. Paul claims that Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified before the Galatians’ eyes (Gal 3:1). Given the distance in space and time from the Galatian church and the Passion events in Jerusalem, what did Paul mean? Through the image of Paul himself, his scars he received in his ministry, they saw the death of Christ. In an aside on his article on Mark’s composition of the Passion narrative where he reflects on and counters Crossan’s proposed dichotomy that the Passion narrative is either prophecy historicized or history scripturalized, Goodacre briefly reacts to Hengel’s observation that Paul must have told the Passion story as an explicit narrative. He counters: “There is no need for a narrative of Jesus’ death. Martin Hengel’s intriguing suggestion that Paul must have presented a vivid narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion is less likely than the alternative explanation that Paul’s own flogged and persecuted body was the occasion of the ‘public portrayal’ of Christ’s crucifixion before the Galatians (Gal 3:1).” 54 The marks on Paul’s body are to him the marks of Christ Jesus, to be compared to the scars Jesus received as a result of his scourging, nails driven in his hands and feet, and sword piercing his side—all part of his crucifixion. Physical disfigurement and scarring in the line of ministry duty rendered vivid his explanation of the Passion narrative as the basis for his gospel and validated rather than disqualified Paul. The Corinthian opponents disagreed—they questioned his authority because of his scars. The Galatians, however, received him and Paul attests that by receiving him, they were also receiving his gospel (Gal 4:13–16). Paul’s 52. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 490–92. Contra Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, AB 32A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 511–12; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 528–29. 53. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 490–92. 54. Mark Goodacre, “Scripturalization in Mark’s Crucifixion Narrative,” in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark, ed. Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd, CBET 45 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 35. Goodacre finds Hengel’s comment in Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1997), 17. Crossan’s argument is found in John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998).

212

Chapter 10

suffering as an apostle had the same kind of dignity that Christ had when he was crucified. Rather than abandoning him, the Corinthians should revere him. As he sent his disciples out, Jesus told them that how others received them, they also received him and the one who sent him (Matt 10:40). As the people’s response to Jesus, the Son, indicates how they received God, the Father ( John 5:22–23; 6:45; 8:42; 12:44–50), so how people received Paul indicates how they received God and his message. Paul commends the Galatians for receiving him in spite of some weakened condition but is concerned that they are now listening to those who are courting their allegiance (Gal 4:13–20). The Corinthians questioned his authority: Paul’s suffering was dishonorable. Paul agrees that under normal circumstances the cross is dishonorable, but because it is altruistic, for God, them, and the gospel, it paradoxically receives great honor as a noble death. Paul faces dishonor on behalf of the Corinthians and Galatians, but Paul’s death is a noble death. 55 He identifies his suffering and near death experiences with Christ in his death to show how humiliating and disgraceful experiences are not disqualifiers, but rather, as with Jesus in his death, badges of honor in God’s kingdom. Paul hopes to demonstrate that, because his humiliation is altruistic, dishonor particularly for their benefit should paradoxically provoke their greater esteem. Noble death is the death of an individual for the good of another or a group. Paul identified with Christ and saw his death as part of a necessary 55. Morna D. Hooker (From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990], 13–17) wrestles with two texts she considers the most controversial in Paul’s writings: Gal 3:13 and 2 Cor 5:21. The concept in dispute is to what extent Christ became sin or a curse for us. For many, that idea is theologically untenable. She refutes the arguments of Ernest deWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 171–75, and explains Paul’s reasoning that Christ came under the curse and, in doing so, set free Jews and Gentiles from the curse of the Law through Paul’s formulaic “in Christ” language: “Christ has set men free from the curse because the judgement of the Law has been overruled; he has brought blessing to the Gentiles because he himself has become a blessing” (p. 15). And later, “It is not that Christ is cursed and we are blessed. Rather he enters into our experience, and we then enter into his, by sharing in his resurrection” (p. 16). In her discussion of 2 Cor 5:21, she comments, “In some unfathomable way Christ is identified with what is opposed to God, in order that man should be reconciled to him” (p. 17). Her argument points out the paradox of death when applied to the believer’s “interchange in Christ,” but it is also this perspective of noble death to which Paul appeals, the paradox of Christ’s shameful death that for its altruism that effects blessing is thus honorable. Paul shares in Christ’s crucifixion and appeals through model and exhortation for the Galatians and Corinthians to do the same. Hooker asks the question whether Paul’s theology sees the exchange in the crucifixion or the incarnation. While appealing to Christ’s incarnation would provide a theological out for Christ being identified with sin, Paul’s language certainly directs us to look at Jesus on the cross and thus the paradox of noble death.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

213

sacrifice for the benefit of others. 56 Paul uses language not of aggression but rather of humility when he speaks of the situations where God puts him as a testimony in death so that others may experience life. He exhorts them to imitate him in the shame and honor of dying for, with, and in Christ. As Garland says, “Jesus’ death on the cross, however, gives new meaning to the suffering of his followers. No longer is it merely the suffering of the righteous. It is becoming like Christ in his death (13:4)!” 57 Identification with Christ’s Death as Martyrdom: Defiance vs. Obedience Paul’s second group consists of Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and the letters to the Thessalonians. What holds this group of recipients together? Besides being relatively healthy churches, they are united by the theme of persecution. Paul writes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon both from Roman imperial prison, but also as “the prisoner of Christ Jesus” (Eph 3:1), that is, because of his binding commitment to gospel ministry. The Philippian and Thessalonian churches in particular were experiencing unusual persecution. Paul uses the language of death and identification with Christ to under­ score the theme of martyrdom with these churches facing persecution. Death as a Christian and in the gospel ministry is associated with publicly dying to associate with an ideology or a cause. 58 These believers and Paul are persecuted because they are associated with Christ and his church. As Paul’s explanation of death for the first group was laid out in paradox, shame vs. honor, so in martyrdom Paul presents a different paradox to group two: defiance vs. obedience. The church, like Jesus, defies the world’s system and idolatry to obey the one true God. Surrendering to the one Lord results in mortal conflict with the other lords. Whereas the obedient believer might anticipate some sense of commendation, approval, and reward for obedience, faithfulness, love, vision, and sacrifice, Paul warns instead of the present world’s hostility to obedience. Defiance to world pressures is required and results in opposition in the present but vindication in an eschatological day of reckoning to come. Obedience, even obedience to the point of death, ultimately is rewarded with honor, resurrection life, and more; and opposition to God brings destruction (ἀπώλεια, e.g., Phil 1:28; 3:19). Jesus is Paul’s supreme model of how obedience results in death, but he also demonstrates that his own suffering models that death is the consequence of obedience in ministry to God. Imitating Christ in loving ministry does not 56. Paul speaks of suffering and risking his life for the gospel’s advance as “death.” Here it is conceived as suffering and continually risking his life for the advance of the gospel. 57. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 234. 58. Themes of shame and honor are inherent in a martyr’s death and are not to be seen as mutually exclusive. Martyrdom is a subset of noble death.

214

Chapter 10

result in circumstantial blessings, but in opposition and death, suffering that will ultimately be vindicated. Jesus, Paul, and faithful believers must put on a martyr mindset. Ephesians has much overlap with Colossians and was probably written at the same time as Colossians, but the writing of Colossians has more of a local situation in mind. 59 Ephesians speaks generally of the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection leading to his exaltation (Eph 1:20), raising dead sinners to life (Eph 2:1–2) and uniting the divided Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:16). The Colossians faced false teachers. The Colossian church, in fact, could be linked to the Corinthian and Galatian churches in group one because all three face the common problem of a heretical affront to Paul and his gospel. The difference is that the Colossians do not show signs of challenging Paul’s apostolic authority. I have discussed the problem of Col 1:24, where I concluded that Paul’s filling up in his body what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings refers to his evangelistic and teaching ministry as an apostle. He is compelled to suffer in order to fulfill his stewardship “to complete the word of God” and to make known to the saints and the Gentiles the “glorious riches of this mystery . . . Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:25–27). Two other important texts regarding death are in Colossians. The first is Col 2:20: “If you have died with Christ to the elemental spirits of the world, why do you submit to them as though you lived in the world?” and mirrors the teaching of Gal 2:19–20 (“I have been crucified with Christ”) and Rom 6 and 7 (for example, “So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus,” Rom 6:11). Christians have died to sin, the Law, and here, elemental spirits, and are freed from slavery to the earthly powers. 60 Surrendering to the gospel is pictured as joining Christ in his death, specifically, dying to the influence of world spirits with their prohibitions who themselves are perishing (Col 2:22). Joining with Christ in his triumphant victory over rulers and authorities results in a necessary defiance against their false ideologies. Likewise, Col 3:3, “you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God,” is followed by a statement of expectation of the parousia and a hortatory section. Based on their status as already dead and a hidden life with God in heaven that awaits an apocalyptic appearance, they 59. Because Ephesians lacks personal references and contains a text-critical problem in which the name of the recipients (ἐν Ἐφέσῳ) is absent from Eph 1:1 in early important manuscripts, many believe it was an encyclical. Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians, ZECNT 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 29. For the defense of Pauline authorship of Ephesians, see Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 2–61. For the occasion of Ephesians and Colossians, see Arnold, Ephesians, 53, and Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, PiNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 8–21. 60. So F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 125.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

215

are to kill their earthy passions (Col 3:5) and anger (Col 3:8) and put on the “new man” (Col 3:10). They must act in defiance to the world and to their own earthy passions in order to obey God in their new crucified state. The Thessalonian correspondence was chronologically Paul’s first recorded letter. Paul writes to praise the Thessalonians because they became imitators of Paul, his fellow workers, and of the Lord having received his gospel with joy in spite of great affliction (1 Thess 1:6). They imitate Paul and they imitate God’s other churches in Judea (1 Thess 2:13–16). They, too, are imitable examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia (the Greek peninsula) for their faith and turning from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thess 1:7–10). A tradition of persecution existed in the first Christian churches in Judea. Paul links the opposition with those who killed Jesus and persecuted the prophets and the apostles (1 Thess 2:15) and so complements Jesus’ teaching in the Beatitudes (Matt 5:10), in parables (e.g., Matt 21:33– 46), and in his rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:29–36): God’s people get persecuted. Rather than causing doubt or wavering, persecution should reinforce their confidence. They are being persecuted in identification with Christ who, too, was persecuted, and for an ideology, “the message of the Lord” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου, 1 Thess 1:6, 8; 2:13). A connection is made between this kind of suffering and martyrdom including a sense of eschatological vindication. Every chapter of his letter offers an eschatological promise of the Lord’s coming to encourage them to persevere (1 Thess 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13–18; 5:1–11, 23). Paul offers comfort to those grieving the death of believing family and friends with the eschatological hope of Christ’s return (1 Thess 1:10; 4:13–18) and the Day of the Lord (1 Thess 5:2), a day of accountability before God. The Philippians, like the Thessalonians, experience persecution. 61 Paul feels close fellowship with them and shares his attitude about his imminent capital trial candidly from prison. Philippians provides Paul’s most frank statements on facing death. He encourages the Philippians that his imprisonment has served only to further the gospel and that his trial can lead only to a desired outcome, whether death and entering Christ’s presence or life and more fruitful ministry (Phil 1:21–26). He exhorts the Philippians to maintain “one spirit” and “one mind,” deep fellowship, and selfless love all within the context of opponents, suffering, and conflicts (Phil 1:27–2:4). Their sharing in death evokes an expectation of vindication—their opponents face destruction—but for believers, salvation (Phil 1:28). In a rich comprehensive­ 61. Steven J. Kraftchick (“Abstracting Paul’s Theology: Extending Reflections on ‘Death’ in Philippians,” in Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of Jouette M. Bassler, ed. Calvin J. Roetzel, Robert L. Foster, and Jouette M. Bassler [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007], 208–11), after agreeing that Paul’s death imagery varies in meaning across his epistles, suggests that Paul’s motive in Philippians was to help the Philippians live life fully and to counter an attitude that denies death. He denies that Paul had a wellformed “theology of death.”

216

Chapter 10

passage that well reflects all three of our paradoxes in death—honor/shame, obedience/defiance, and temporal sacrifice/eternal life—he exhorts the Philippians to imitate Christ’s attitude exemplified in his death. This creedal hymn underscores the qualities of that death: humility, obedience, and sacrifice (Phil 2:5–11). Paul highlights Jesus’ humility when, sharing God’s honor, he emptied himself, took on humanity and the “form of a slave” (μορφὴν δούλου), and humbled himself to obey and die on a cross. Jesus’ abject humility, his humiliation in obedience, was reversed by God’s response of exalting him, giving him a name above every name resulting in universal worship. Jesus’ death is noble death, dying altruistically, but not merely noble death. His death was martyrdom, dying to promote an ideology with an expectation of ultimate vindication and exaltation (Phil 2:9–11). In the context of Phil 2:1–4, where Paul is concerned about the church’s unity and love, having Jesus’ mind means putting others first in sacrificial deference (v. 4), a mind that will, thus, humble itself in obedient death. Phil 2 goes on to underscore examples of service including Paul with the Philippians themselves (Phil 2:17–18), Timothy (Phil 2:19–23), and their apostle, Epaphroditus, who nearly died of illness as he served together with Paul (Phil 2:25–30). This sacrificial suffering for the cause of advancing the gospel anticipates our third category, a paradox that Christ’s sufficient death provokes the willing death of his followers, more of which we will discuss in the section below. In Phil 3, Paul begins with a refutation of foolish boasting in pedigree and achievement echoing the problems so evident in the Corinthian church. He then tells of the primacy of righteousness through faith in Christ and expresses his ambition to know Christ in his resurrection power and suffering, which is achieved through dying and rising with Christ. 62 Contextually, the honor/shame paradigm of vv. 3–9 might indicate that Paul emphasizes noble death and that is certainly a part of his presentation. His discussion, however, leads to an emphasis on obedience and ethical conformity in vv. 12–16. Hansen offers three interpretations for being conformed to Christ in his death: (1) literally, Paul’s martyrdom (which in context is pending); (2) figuratively and ethically, as the inward experience of dying to sin; or (3) figuratively and evangelistically, “Paul’s obedience in his faithful proclamation of the gospel of Christ.” 63 While these interpretations are not opposed to each other and might all be true, he refers to the hymn in 2:5–11 and underscores that Paul’s main focus is obedience in the context of suffering that leads to reflecting Christ (1:27–30; 2:12, 15–16). 64 A few verses later, he urges the Philippians, like he had the Corinthians, to imitate him (Phil 3:17). An attitude of conforming to Christ’s death, specifically the cross of Christ, 62. Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 163. 63. Hansen, Philippians, 246–47. 64. Ibid., 247.

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

217

was the sign of what made a Christian leader worth following. He warns against false workers who do not embrace Paul’s sacrificial and ambitious example to embrace and imitate Christ in his suffering, death, and resurrection. They are, in fact, opponents and enemies of the cross. They are enemies because they focus on their physical needs (“their god is the belly”), exult in their shame (instead of the shame of dying with Christ that brings ultimate glory), and focus on earthly things (Phil 3:19). Their end is the vindication that a martyr expects for his opponent—destruction (v. 19a; cf. Phil 1:28), whereas the faithful sufferer awaits coming glory (Phil 3:20–21). Paul offers an eschatological vision of our ultimate transformation when, as citizens of heaven, our bodies will be transformed into the likeness of his body. Paul encourages the Philippians of the Lord’s nearness (Phil 4:5) and that, as they follow Paul’s example, the God of peace will be with them (Phil 4:9). Our present suffering and death in ministry derives from the paradox of defiance against an ungodly culture and obedience to God and has transcendent meaning because of what awaits us. Perhaps surprisingly, obedience provokes opposition and death rather than that honor or evidences of blessing espoused long before in Deuteronomy. Paul imitates Christ in his death and exhorts the Philippians to do the same. Paul’s description of his and Jesus’ death underscore martyrological features. His death is as a representative of a group that adheres to a minority ideology, it stands in defiance against the reigning ideology, and it expects to be vindicated both with reward for the martyr and transcendent judgment for the oppressor. Identifying with Christ’s Death As Atoning Sacrifice: Temporal Sacrifice vs. Eternal Life Imitating Christ in death stresses the contrast of humility and glory. Jesus’ death was culturally regarded as shameful, but paradoxically because it was altruistic, it was a noble death. Jesus’ was not just a noble death, however, but also martyrdom reflecting the paradox of obedience to God that leads to defiance against world structures resulting in mortal opposition. While public defiance leads to temporal persecution, the martyr anticipates destruction for his opponents and the reward of being exalted with Christ. Paul’s final paradox represented in his letters to group three speaks of life and death in the context of atonement. Perhaps uniting Romans with the pastorals for group three is a stretch, but their link is found in that they explore the practical implications of a life surrendered to the cross. Romans explains how a living sacrifice works in the community generally; the pastorals give specific instructions to Paul’s friends and protégés on how to lead in light of their ministry under the cross. 65 In Romans, he gives the rationale for offering one’s life to God as a 65. Moo (The Epistle to the Romans, 22–30), after considering themes such as justification and Jews and Gentiles in salvation history, concludes that the theme of Romans is “gospel.”

218

Chapter 10

sacrifice; in the pastorals and, in particular, 2 Timothy, Paul fleshes out what that looks like by personal example and in candid exhortation to his close companion. 66 We have been careful throughout to assign to Christ alone the work of atonement. We do not waver here. What prompts Paul’s talk of the cross in Romans is either an explanation of how Christ’s death is God’s sufficient sacrifice to propitiate his wrath (Rom 3:21–26) or how the believer should appropriate this teaching. Christ’s sufficient atoning sacrifice provides eternal life but at the same time obligates Paul to live as a worshipful sacrifice and to challenge believers to present their bodies as a sacrifice, that is, to die for Christ to promote his atoning work for all men (Rom 12:1). His followers offer their lives as living sacrifices and become living martyrs because Christ first sacrificed for them. The motive for sacrifice is not to add to Christ’s atoning work. Mimesis does not supplement. Rather, mimesis is a reasonable response of humility, wonder, worship, surrender, love, and mission. 67 Death, whether merely metaphoric or actual, points to the ultimate example of Christ’s passion. By imitating him in living martyrdom, his followers testify to the overarching significance of the unique atoning sacrifice of their Master. 68 Was the atoning nature of Jesus’ sacrifice substitutionary or mimetic? Jesus says that a condition for coming after him, for following him, is to take up one’s cross. We have spoken of Rom 6:3–11, where Paul speaks of baptism as an act of imitation and participation with Jesus in his death and resurrection. Paul’s exhortation in Rom 12:1 is that believers as a reasonable service in response to God’s mercy should present their bodies as living offering or sacrifice (παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ). Θυσία can but does not necessarily evoke images of a place for offering such as an altar (θυσιαστήριον) or a cross. The fact that this is a living offering implies that death is not involved, but the act of sacrifice mimics the life of Christ as portrayed in the Gospels. In Phil 3, Paul 66. I focus on 2 Timothy because as Paul’s final letter it has frequent references to suffering and death in his gospel ministry, and in it Paul speaks directly about his pending death and his desire for Timothy in light of his imminent passing 67. See Hooker (From Adam to Christ, 36–37), who recognizing Paul’s longing to imitate Christ in Phil 2–3 and the dangerous idea that mimesis could indicate some sense of selfreliance, underscores that the righteousness Paul longs for through resurrection is not received, like forgiveness, but is a new status entered into independent of his behavior or attainment. “God’s righteousness is given to those who have none of their own, but who are ‘in Christ’: it is theirs only because it belongs to Christ and they are in him” (p. 37). 68. See G. Dragas, “Martyrdom and Orthodoxy in the New Testament Era,” GOTR 30 (1985): 287–96, where Dragas demonstrates a connection between a martyr’s testimony and Jesus’ death as martyr in Johannine literature. The development of a martyrdom tradition is not connected to ideas of a delay of the parousia, but was present from the very beginning in the pattern Christ set (p. 293).

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

219

says that he wants to be conformed to Christ’s death (συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ). Rom 6:8; 8:17 and 2 Tim 2:11–13 convey the same idea, a slogan that was probably repeated in the church and is regarded by many to be part of early church hymnal material, that if we die with Christ we will live with him. 69 Paul adds that his life is being poured out as a drink offering (2 Tim 2:11; 4:6). Mimetic terminology cannot be overlooked. Recall that I argued to place the terminology of imitation with martyrdom, not atonement, to prevent the unique vicariousness of Jesus’ sacrifice from being tarnished. The question can be posed in this way: did Jesus’ death end the need for death (vicariously, he sufficiently satisfied God’s wrath and reconciled man to God), or was his death exemplary with the corollary suggestion that the benefits of his death are appropriated through reenactment? While both aspects are true—Christ-followers are both to receive the benefits of his death and to imitate his sacrifice—the clear teaching of Scriptures and orthodox Christianity emphasizes the former and warns against self-righteous acts or claims. Christ’s death is sufficient for our salvation. The effects of his death are received and appropriated through faith alone. When the believer apprehends this, however, he or she is ironically compelled to imitate Jesus’ sacrifice out of solidarity, mission, and worshipful gratitude. Faith engenders surrender and sacrifice. Jesus’ death is both efficacious and inspirational. In other words, Jesus’ death is uniquely vicarious, but shares mimetic qualities. Followers of Christ are invited to experience him through mimesis, to imitate his example of death, take up their crosses, and, like Paul, by being conformed to his death, experience his resurrection. The semantic distinction we raise in chap. 2 is intended to accentuate that the motive for this imitation is not salvific. Christian martyrs do identify with Jesus in sacrificing themselves for the transcendent purpose of testifying to Christ and out of faithfulness to kingdom ideology. I emphasize only that a believer’s death should not be confused as it sometimes is in modern writing with atonement. Christ’s sacrifice sufficiently propitiated God’s wrath. Paul in Rom 12:1 clearly states that “in view of God’s mercy,” in view of what has been done in Christ, the proper response is grateful worship, worship that sees present physical life as expendable in light of the transcendent value of eternal resurrection life provided through Jesus’ unique vicarious death. Semantic precision underscores Paul’s view that Jesus’ death is distinct in reconciling God and man, but Paul’s death can also imitate martyrological components of Jesus’ death and so draw the world to God. 70 69. The fact that it is cited almost verbatim in more than one place (εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνομεν σὺν Χριστῷ, πιστεύομεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσομεν αὐτῷ, Rom 6:8; εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν, καὶ συζήσομεν, 2 Tim 2:11) in Pauline material is noteworthy. 70. Karl Olav Sandnes (“A Missionary Strategy in 1 Corinthians 9.19–23?” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner,

220

Chapter 10

Paul’s death was noble death, altruistic, mimetic, and representational, but not substitutionary or in any way adding to Christ’s sufficient work of atonement. Paul recognized Christ’s death as God’s acceptable provision— God is both the subject and object of atonement—and the only hope for the human plight of sin and its universal consequence, death. Because of this, he was motivated to sacrificially face death to bring this gospel to the world. 71 The paradox is that Paul’s assurance of eternal life freed him to embrace temporal death for Christ’s glory so his world could believe his gospel. The proper response in a sin-cursed world where death as a consequence abounds is not to squelch or avoid death but to embrace it, mirroring Christ’s attitude with the awareness that resurrections life awaits. I have previously covered many of the themes in Rom 1–11 of judgment and atonement with particular focus on Rom 5–8, where Paul talks metaphorically about death. In Rom 5, death is our negative inheritance, the consequence for sin inherited from Adam and overcome by Christ’s advent. Rom 6–7 offer a welcome break as we join Christ in death through baptism, are released from bondage to the Law and sin, are adopted into God’s family and empowered by the new life of the Spirit (Rom 8:1–17). In Rom 8:18–25, Paul returns to the plight of all creation that pines to be set free from the bondage to decay. We groan and suffer but live in hope of the realization of the freedom of our redemption. Rom 8:26–39 speaks of our new relationship of reconciliation and atonement. God is for us. His Spirit indwells us and intercedes for us. We are in God’s image and are adopted as Christ’s brothers and sisters and our glorification is assured. Our righteousness is inevitable. He has given us his son; surely he will give us all things. Nothing, particularly death, can ever separate us from God’s love. The obvious historical challenge particularly for Paul’s Jewish audience is that the nation of Israel likewise received these promises of God’s faithfulness. They too were the adopted sons of God. In light of Israel’s exile because of idolatry and disobedience and the possibility of our own unfaithfulness, can God truly be trusted to always be for us? Rom 9–11 serves as Paul’s apologetic for God’s resilience with his covenant people. God is not finished with Israel in his redemptive program. The church has been grafted in, but he remains faithful to his covenant plans through believing LSNT 420 [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011], 130–32) underscores that Paul’s model for sacrifice in mission is “Christ’s paradigmatic self-giving love.” 71. J. Ayodeji Adewuya (“The Sacrificial-Missiological Function of Paul’s Sufferings in the Context of 2 Corinthians,” in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner, LSNT 420 [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011], 97–98), after underscoring that Paul’s mention of apostolic suffering is used both polemically and to edify (ibid., 88–89), concludes, “Paul understood that when our suffering is united with Christ’s suffering it is a redemptive privilege. Paul does not separate his own personal afflictions from the cause which he represented and its ministry . . . his hardships were for the cause of Christ.”

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

221

Israel. The believer recognizes God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel and extrapolates that God will likewise be faithful to his promises to the collective body of those who believe the gospel, the church. Now, in light of our salvation, it is reasonable service to “present your bodies as a sacrifice—alive, holy, and pleasing to God” (Rom 12:1). Not just Paul the apostle, but all who understand and have experienced God’s mercies are to sacrifice in true worship. 72 Our sacrifice is a living one—we hear the echo of Christ’s injunction to all who want to come after him to deny themselves, take up their cross daily, that is, be living sacrifices, and follow him. We are living martyrs, living sacrifices, with our lives devoted to him in sacrifice and service. Our sacrifice is to be holy and acceptable to God. Paul further applies the image of a sacrificial offering to underscore the ethical nature of our offering. We are set apart with God’s pleasure and his will as our focus (Rom 12:2). We offer ourselves not to atone, but as a reasonable response of worship and to promote the atonement already procured. Christ’s death, which is sufficient to atone and is the basis for eternal resurrected life, when embraced, thus paradoxically serves to release the believer and energize to selfless worshipful sacrifice. The removal of the need to die because of Christ’s substitutionary work results in the willful offering of life in living sacrifice. Paul sprinkles a few references to death as he concludes Romans. Paul reminds the Romans of Christ’s Lordship in life and death: we live and die for the Lord (Rom 14:7–9). In context of his apostolic ministry, he prays for rescue from the disobedient in Judea (Rom 15:31) and commends to the churches Prisca and Aquila for “risking their own necks” (τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν) for Paul’s life (Rom 16:3–4). The context of this sacrifice at the end of Romans is Paul’s mission to bring the gospel to the world. His understanding of the atonement offered through Christ’s death motivates him to give his life to promote the gospel. Paul exhorts Timothy to a similar attitude of sacrificial service. In 2 Tim 1:6–14, he tells Timothy to “rekindle God’s gift” (τὸ χάρισμα) and reminds him that God has not given a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and self-control. Paul addresses a correlation between shame and suffering: “do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, or of me, a prisoner” but “accept your share of suffering for the gospel” (v. 8); and in v. 12, “Because of this (God’s grace, v. 10), in fact, I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed” (2 Tim 1:12). Paul mentions shame in relation to “the testimony about our Lord” and Paul’s suffering and imprisonment, a theme he will raise again in 2 Tim 1:16 when he points out that Onesiphorus was not ashamed of Paul’s imprisonment. The honor/shame language reminds us of the first death paradox of noble death. Timothy is not to shrink back in cowardice or shame but choose to suffer as Paul himself has done. Shameful suffering in God’s 72. In contrast to the world who worship the creation, not the Creator (Rom 1:25).

222

Chapter 10

mission­of spreading his good news, because it is altruistic, is honorable. The idea of shame for “the testimony about our Lord” harks back to Rom 1:16, where Paul asserts, “I am not ashamed of the gospel,” and his discussion at the beginning of 1 Corinthians where he discusses how “the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Cor 1:18). Paul does not make a direct link between his suffering and noble death as he did with the Corinthians, but the same thought is conveyed. Embedded within his discussion is that, through the gospel, God “has broken the power of death” and “brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim 1:10). Paul is in prison and facing imminent death. 73 In that context he reminds Timothy that because death’s power is broken, living, suffering, and dying for the gospel is the reasonable thing to do. “Regardless of opposition, suffering, and shame, [the gospel] is nothing to be ashamed of; rather it invites participation.” 74 In light of eternal life and the hope for the world found in the gospel, sacrificing oneself for the ministry is the proper response. Paul continues the theme of suffering throughout this personal letter. Paul mentions that “everyone in the province of Asia deserted him” (2 Tim 1:15), and that Onesiphorus “eagerly searched for me and found me” (2 Tim 1:17), indicating that Paul’s imprisonment was secluded. He exhorts Timothy to “Take your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 2:3) with the three comparisons of tasks that require self-denial: a soldier through refusing distractions, an athlete through disciplined training, and a farmer through hard work (2 Tim 2:4–7). He reminds Timothy that he suffers­hardship and imprisonment as a criminal for the gospel (2 Tim 2:8– 9). He endures all things for the elect “that they too may obtain salvation” (2 Tim 2:10). His suffering is missional. 75 Paul then offers a poetic citation to exhort to faithful suffering, with the first couplet stating, “If we died with him, we will also live with him” (2 Tim 2:11). Paul exhorts Timothy to share in his sufferings, risk his life, and even die for the gospel because of the eschatological promise: Jesus was raised from the dead and that salvation has “eternal glory” (2 Tim 2:8, 10). Death now will be vindicated, the martyr’s aspiration, and we will live with Jesus. 76 73. See William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC 46 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), lxii–lxiv, for discussion of the historical situation and critical problems of 2 Timothy. 74. Ibid., 480. 75. This further confirms our interpretation of Col 1:24, that Paul’s motive in suffering comes from his evangelistic calling as an apostle. So ibid., 514. 76. Contra ibid., 516, where Mounce ties this text to Rom 6 and claims that dying with Christ always refers to conversion/baptism. Particularly in this context, Paul is not offering assurance of “the perseverance of the saints” (although Paul will raise this theme in 2 Tim 2:19). This series of couplets is intended to encourage and motivate Timothy to suffer as Paul does for the gospel. Death, whether seen literally (as Paul was anticipating)

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

223

In 2  Timothy, we see references to the honor/shame paradox of noble death (2 Tim 1:6–14) and the defiance/obedience paradox of martyrdom (2  Tim 2:8–13). Paul uses honor/shame language as he raises the issue of gospel opponents and the need for Timothy to cleanse himself so that he can be a vessel for honorable, not ignoble use (2 Tim 2:20–21). He lists behaviors and attitudes that will be prevalent in the last days that make those days difficult (2 Tim 3:1–9). Timothy has and must continue to obey God and follow Paul’s example of godly character against cultural values, which, as Paul demonstrated, provokes persecution and suffering. Indeed, “all who want to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:10–12). Paul exhorts Timothy to suffer sacrificially for the gospel ministry. Paul closes his letter with a final image of the third paradox, life and sacrifice, as he anticipates his impending death. Using sacrificial imagery, he says, “I am already being poured out as an offering, and the time for me to depart is at hand” (2 Tim 4:6). His personal example of a lifetime of faithful godly suffering for the gospel within a context of direct personal opposition (Paul is in prison), his general persecution that comes from living in an evil culture in an evil age, and his challenge to Timothy to imitate his example as he himself faces imminent death vividly display the image of living sacrifice. 77

Death for Paul or Death for All? A natural question arises as we look through Paul’s texts and particularly his exhortation to imitate him as he imitates Christ. Paul often identifies dying with Christ with his apostolic office. Is there a hierarchy of leadership in the church in which some of the death Paul talks about is for him as an apostle or for leaders but not for everyone? Does a distinction lie between Paul as apostle, other international leaders, shepherds of the local church, and then mere believers when it comes to death? 78 In 1 Cor 4:9 he says that God has exhibited apostles last of all, as men condemned to die. In context it is not clear whether he is speaking literally, only of himself with his particular office, or, ironically, to underscore the folly of the Corinthians for being “puffed up” in false spirituality (1 Cor 4:6). His exhortation immediately follows: “I encourage you, then, be imitators or metaphorically (Paul is exhorting Timothy to give his life for the gospel ministry) has distinct martyr overtones. 77. Timothy was with Paul when he was in prison facing a capital trial in Phil 2:19–24. 78. Hanson (Paradox of the Cross, 25–37) speaks of a three-tier process of suffering: Christ, Paul, then all baptized Christians (p. 27). He affirms that all three tiers identify in God’s saving activity first through the Messiah’s redemptive death, which serves as a perfect pattern first for the apostolic community, then for “every new generation of Christians” (pp. 36–37). Hanson views the death of Christ’s followers as extending atonement, but not as supplemental to Christ’s death or as a separate work from the death of Christ, but as part of, or in Christ (p. 36).

224

Chapter 10

of me” (1 Cor 4:16). 79 The Corinthians as Paul’s spiritual children should share his attitude of humility, sacrifice and spectacle. Paul is not only to be imitated, but he imitates Christ. 80 Paul imitates Christ’s death, but his death is contiguous with a life of sacrificial ministry. 81 Paul lists near death experiences as qualification for his authority as an apostle particularly in 2 Cor 11:22–26, but this is in a context in which his opponents are boasting in their qualifications and setting up terms for their validation. Paul demonstrates that he excels them by their own standards, but repeats that this kind of boasting is foolish. He is not saying that only apostles suffer this way. 82 One passage that does link Paul’s office with special suffering is 2 Tim 1:11–12, where Paul associates his calling as a preacher, apostle, and teacher as the cause for his suffering. Further help lies in Phil 2, where four levels of authority—Jesus, Paul, Epaphroditus, and the Philippian believers—face death. 83 Jesus is the supreme model, who humbled himself and served to the point of death (Phil 2:5–11). Paul, their spiritual father and apostle, faced an imminent death and held himself as an example (Phil 1:20–21, 30; 2:16–18). Epaphroditus, their missionary and representative sent from Philippi, faced death through sickness as an extension of the church and in service to Paul (Phil 2:25–30). 84 79. For the argument that suffering is the core paraenetic of this section, see William David Spencer, “The Power in Paul’s Teaching (1 Cor 4:9–20),” JETS 32 (1989): 51–61. 80. So Willis Peter de Boer, The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (Kampen: Kok, 1962), 139–54. “Paul refers to his ways in broadest terms, but in view of the situation in Corinth he obviously has in mind especially his ways of humility, self-giving, toiling, blessing, enduring, entreating” (p. 151). Contra D. M. Stanley (“‘Become Imitators of Me’: The Pauline Concepton of Apostolic Tradition,” Bib 40 [1959]: 872), who observes that Paul is sending Timothy to show the Corinthians how to imitate Paul, but apparently to the exclusion of the verses that immediately precede his exhortation. Also contra Scott J. Hafemann (“Letters to the Corinthians,” DPL 178), who fails to see the link between vv. 9 and 16: “Although there is no call for all Christians to suffer in either 1 or 2 Corinthians, nor any sign of a martyrdom theology, Paul affirms that whenever God’s people are brought into the same kinds of sufferings to which he was called as an apostle, they too will become vehicles for the manifestation of the power of God in the midst of their adversity (cf. 2 Cor 1:7).” 81. Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 141–42. 82. So Hooker, From Adam to Christ, 23–25, who says, “it is very doubtful whether Paul would have distinguished between one type of suffering and another, or would have separated ‘apostolic’ suffering and persecution from ordinary everyday suffering” (p. 24). She concludes, “The fact that in [2 Cor] 1.6f Paul says that the Corinthians share the ‘same sufferings’ suggests that the experience belongs to all who are in Christ” (p. 25). 83. See ibid., 120–21, for a similar discussion of hierarchy in 1 Cor 4:14–17 (Christ, Paul, Timothy, Corinthians) with the argument that Paul proposes Timothy not as a pedagogue (παιδαγωγός) but a true surrogate parent (πατήρ) coming in the place of Paul. Minimally, Timothy serves as Paul’s model son “in the Lord” and as an example of imitation for the Corinthians. 84. Hansen (Philippians, 189–90) makes the observation that the Philippians suffered through the offering one of their own for service. Epaphroditus was their missionary

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

225

Paul holds him up as an example of someone that imitates Christ in facing death (note the common expression μέχρι θανάτου, Phil 2:8, 29–30). The Philippian believers both observed ministry death and potential death around them and suffered possibly mortally for their faith (Phil 1:27–30). 85 Paul exhorted the Philippians to take on Christ’s sacrificial attitude (Phil 2:5), offers other models of sacrifice, then praised them for the sacrifice and service of their faith (Phil 2:17–18). 86 He holds out an ambition to share with Christ in death as an example in light of his eschatological vision (Phil 3:10–21). 87 All four levels of church hierarchy are exhorted to imitate Christ in his humility, obedience, sacrifice, and death for the purpose of sanctification and mission. 88 Paul views Christ’s death as supreme and in one sense (Paul calls him their apostle, ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον, Phil 2:25) sent to Paul. He nearly died in his service to and with Paul (Phil 2:25–30). Epaphroditus’s deathly illness distressed Paul (Phil 2:25–27); Epaphroditus, on the other hand, was distressed because they had heard of his sickness and were obviously worried (Phil 2:26). Whereas a few verses before Paul is longing for death (Phil 1:21) and tells the Philippians to rejoice if he dies (Phil 2:17–18), here he would have “grief on top of grief ” were he to lose his friend (Phil 2:27). 85. J. Hugh Michael (The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, MNTC [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928], 110–11) observes from the preceding context, “since you are encountering the same conflict that you saw me face and now hear that I am facing” (Phil 1:29–30), that the Philippians too may be risking their lives and suggests this as the context for his libation in Phil 2:17–18. “He declares that he himself rejoices in his own sacrifice even if it should mean the outpouring of his very life-blood. He also takes for granted that they too rejoice in their sacrifice and tells them that he participates in their joy.” While Michael’s is the minority position, his argument could perhaps be bolstered by considering Phil 2:12–13 where Paul mentions his “absence” (a euphemism for death?) and that they should work out their own salvation (τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν; from physical death?) with “awe and reverence” or fear and trembling (μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου). 86. I object to Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 301–12, where O’Brien sees Paul’s martyrdom as adding to the Philippians’ sacrifice understood generally, “their financial assistance to the apostle, their own missionary exertions, and their intercessions on his behalf ” (p. 310). O’Brien introduces an unusual idea given my discussion on imitation that Paul’s sacrifice is necessary to make theirs acceptable: “Accordingly, if one thing remains to make the Philippians’ sacrificial service perfectly acceptable to God, he is willing that his own life be sacrificed as a libation and credited to their account” (p. 301). Paul’s death would thus serve as some kind of seal of authentication. Gordon D. Fee (Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 252–54) questions that by drink offering Paul is referring to death but concedes that, if it does not refer to death, then the meaning of the passage is uncertain. 87. So Xavier Léon-Dufour, Life and Death in the New Testament: The Teachings of Jesus and Paul, trans. Terrence Prendergast (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 246–47. 88. See also Scott Hafemann, “‘Because of Weakness’ (Galatians 4:13): The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission, ed. Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2000), 131–46, which argues from Gal 4:12 that Paul urges the Galatian believers to become like him specifically in his conversion-call and its consequence. Paul shifted at

226

Chapter 10

inimitable­for its atoning value, but in another very sure sense, Christ’s death is the highest model in life and in death and that model is not just for Paul, the apostles, or some other church hierarchy, but for all (Phil 2:5–11). 89

Summary and Conclusion Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved children and live in love, just as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God (Eph 5:1–2).

Paul’s view of his mortality and his frequent appeals to death are linked with imitating Christ. Luke portrays Paul as consciously imitating Christ’s sacrifice for the advance of God’s glory and kingdom. He who once was the persecutor of those who imitated and proclaimed Christ, now is the persecuted as he imitates and proclaims Christ. Paul uses death language with a range of meaning from a metaphor for suffering to physical death. Imitation in Paul carries different nuances of meaning from passive identification to active participation and so care must be taken when we consider what it means to imitate Christ in his death. I reviewed Jesus’ death in light of the categories I previously discussed: noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice. Jesus’ noble death combined shame and honor, as he died a humiliating, but altruistic and vicarious death. As a martyr, he expressed defiance against evil oppressors in his obedience to God that drew attention to his message leading to his death with an expectation of ultimate vindication. I argued against a popular view for some exhibited in Col 1:24, that God is waiting for a quantity of suffering before his eschatological purposes are fulfilled. Jesus’ death was sufficient and uniquely atoning. I then looked throughout the Pauline corpus to trace how he talked about death in identifying with Christ. I suggested that Paul’s death language varied in meaning according to the situation of his epistles. To help illustrate this, I broke the Pauline corpus into three groups. The Corinthians and the his conversion from persecuting to being persecuted. Living free from the works of the law in the freedom that Christ provided through the cross puts one on the side of persecution for one’s faith in the crucified Messiah (p. 132). Elsewhere, however, Hafemann (“Suffering,” 920) reacts to martyrdom theology of later centuries and makes a distinction between a believer and an apostle: “Paul stops short of teaching that all believers are called to suffer in the same way that he was as an apostle. Rather, Paul recognizes that all Christians simply will suffer as a result of identifying themselves with Christ.” Although Paul was told he would suffer at his conversion (Acts 9:16), Paul felt that suffering was not a calling but a gift (Phil 1:29) that accompanies godliness (2 Tim 3:12). 89. Peter T. O’Brien (“The Gospel and Godly Models in Philippians,” in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin, ed. Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige, JSNTSup 87 [Sheffield: Sheffield JSOT Press, 1992], 283) notes that “Christ is not only the first model mentioned in the letter (at 2.6–11); he is also the archetypal example to whom all others are to conform their lives” (emphasis his).

Paul’s Mortality in Imitation of Jesus’ Death

227

Galatians shared problems of false leaders and gospel opponents who challenged Paul’s authority and his message. Paul talked about his death in ministry in order to underscore the dignity and honor of suffering and risking his life as Christ himself did in order to bring them the gospel. Suffering authenticated his apostleship. What unites Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon and 1 and 2 Thessalonians is persecution. Several of these letters were composed while Paul was in prison. The Philippians and Thessalonians in particular were facing strong adversaries. Paul offered himself as an example of one who mirrored Christ in martyrdom. He adopted a “martyr theology,” defiance against culture in obedience to God with the expectation of eschatological vindication, to encourage, motivate, and give believers direction. Finally, in Romans and 2 Timothy, Paul concludes that the practical application, the believer’s reasonable response to Jesus’ unique atoning work is to respond as a living sacrifice, offering one’s life in worship and missional service. Paul’s last letter to Timothy is especially moving as he encourages Timothy to suffer as Paul himself did without shame and recognizing the evil conditions and opposition of the last days. The last words we have of Paul are of a man grateful for having lived and fought well in service for and in imitation of Christ. My final reflection asked whether death was for Paul alone or for all believers. I concluded that Paul’s references to his apostleship are in contexts of either irony or defense. His office did not preclude others from imitating him in death. He offered Jesus as the model to imitate and so all believers who have experienced the benefits of his death should imitate him in sacrificial worship and in missional service, both of which lead to voluntary premature death, with the eschatological expectation that we will be raised with Christ to new life and glory.

Chapter 11

Conclusion: Paul and His Mortality When anyone dies for any reason, it is typical to seek to eulogize the person and find meaning in his or her life and death. Some people expend tremendous effort seeking to make sure their life is meaningful and honorable and that they have both lived well and “die well.” They want a good eulogy. Paul’s standard for evaluating his life’s meaning and goodness was how well he imitated the life of Christ. Jesus’ life and death were thus his fixation and inspiration, particularly when he faced his own death. Jesus’ death had transcendent significance on several levels. As the preexistent Son of God he was sent to earth to die a death of atonement to reconcile humanity with God. The eschatological schema pivoted when God sent him as his kingly ambassador to overcome a world filled with evil ruling powers, both seen and unseen. Whereas humankind as descendants from Adam lived in a hopeless sinful state enslaved to their fleshly passions, Jesus’ death and resurrection broke that powerful hold, freed men from condemnation, and inaugurated a new kingdom, a heavenly family, empowered by his Spirit to do good works. After Jesus, nothing, no evil, no sin, not even death, can overturn his victory or separate us again from his love (Rom 8:36–39). Jesus humbled himself, took on the form of a man, a servant, and obeyed to the point of death on a cross. As a result, God highly exalted him to the position of highest honor. Every knee will bow to him for his sacrificial death. Paul uses this story, the central story of his gospel, as the model attitude to which the Philippian believers should aspire (Phil 2:5–11). For Paul, living was Christ, and he also longed to be conformed to his death (Phil 1:21; 3:10). For the Philippian believers, his charge was that they imitate him as he so imitated Christ and to avoid leaders who lived for this life and so were “the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil 3:18). The question I have been asking is about Paul imitating Christ in his valorous death. Jesus’ death clearly set him apart from all humanity as God’s favored one. We are the beneficiaries of that sacrifice. Through his vicarious suffering we have overcome all opposition and accusation (Rom 8:31– 32), we have been reconciled with God, we are redeemed from sin, and we experience God’s resurrection power in this life. Ultimately, Paul promises that, like Jesus, we will be resurrected from the dead to spend eternity with him in glory (Col 3:3–4). Paul would evaluate the significance of his life and encounter death from the perspective of identification with and imitation of Christ in his life and death. Jesus’ death has value. The question rests whether Paul’s death or the death of anyone else has any intrinsic value. How does Paul find value in identification with Jesus in death? 228

Conclusion: Paul and His Mortality

229

Our discussion began with a discussion of the modern problem, the confusion in much literature of our day when discussing issues of premature voluntary death. Suicide and ignoble death are confused with noble death. The semantic range of martyrdom has broadened significantly over the centuries at the risk of the erosion of a valuable original meaning. Substitutionary atonement, especially in which God requires a bloody sacrifice as a forensic response to abate his wrath is eschewed as primitive and unworthy of a God who loves life and peace. Essential concepts to distinguish forms of voluntary death such as volition, vicariousness, and virtue often are used without precision, and therefore meanings become muddled and the impact of stories lose their power or interpretive value. Chapter 2 attempted to address some of this semantic imprecision and contradiction to help us as we set our course toward a better understanding of Paul’s view of his mortality. Having addressed the potential semantic confusion, I pursued Paul’s mindset on mortality in chaps. 3 to 8. Beginning with the more distant Gentile influences in Paul’s thought and spiraling through Jewish history, Christ, and the nascent church into which he was ultimately inducted, I traced a development of thought through history culminating in the influence of Christ’s ministry and message on Paul’s thinking. These are the data from which Paul dipped in his own formation. In our journey through world history and Gentile and Jewish literature and culture, I noted that the Gentiles, unlike the Jews, had a well-developed concept of noble death. Greco-Roman death was ascribed honor because it was done altruistically and sacrificially for the polis or for another. The motive for this death was often to obtain a legacy of fame or recover lost honor. This was noble death and those so dying were esteemed in society and often became cultural legends and sometimes eventually deified. The lack of development of views of the afterlife or its outright denial (for example, Stoicism and Epicureanism) and a polytheistic framework limited the aspirations of those who died nobly. Without a developed cosmology of an afterlife, the value of death had a this-world focus. Paul’s upbringing grounded him in the Hebrew Scriptures. In his writings he quotes or alludes to the lessons of the ages both in its characters and narrative and the moral conclusions derived from them. Paul’s theology derived from God’s Word. I reviewed death and mortality in the OT canon and discovered some variance between the story of Adam and Eve as recorded in Genesis and Paul’s later theological derivatives. The link between sin and death as the consequence is not as prominent in the Genesis story as it is in Paul’s writings. In fact, surprisingly, the story of the Hebrew Scriptures seems to present opposing cosmologies, one in which sin leads to death and another in which sin and death do not share a cause-effect relationship. Neither the Genesis story nor Paul’s presentation is false, but Paul’s later teaching is often read back into and superimposed over natural

230

Chapter 11

readings of the Genesis text. The question of death in Genesis independent of Paul merits further conversation. The subsequent outworking of a presentation of death in the rest of the OT canon, the historical books, the wisdom, or prophetic literature, only serve to confirm a tension that both affirms the deuteronomic blessing that obedience brings life and blessing and disobedience brings curses and death and also reports its opposite, that the righteous suffer and the disobedient endure. This tension finally finds some resolution after the end of the OT canon, when the idea of postmortem judgment awakens and is embraced. While hints of postmortem judgment can be found in Socrates, the Jewish prophets, particularly Isaiah and Daniel, sparked a new eschatology that was fanned into a flame during the Jewish intertestamental period. A growing understanding that redemption encompasses life after death provided an ideological context for apocalyptic visions to form. The story of the Maccabean martyrs advanced an idea of vicarious suffering for others, a suffering that would have implications for judgment in the afterlife. Martyr theology developed and some claim that influenced Jesus as he contemplated his death or Paul as he both contemplated his death and interpreted Jesus’ death. Paul’s gospel addresses the forensic issue largely because he shared a cosmology that embraced a postmortem judgment. His telling of Adam’s story and relating that to death as sin’s consequence does so with the perspective that postmortem judgment awaits. We through disobedience have become God’s enemies. His gospel, with a focus on Jesus’ death and resurrection, provides the antidote that, when it is received by faith, it provides forgiveness. The application of Jesus’ death and resurrection provides that same resurrection power that overcomes sin and defeats death. Paul’s gospel thus addresses first the individual, then lays out God’s bigger plan of uniting saved individuals into the greater body of the church and the new society. Finally, I claimed that in Christ, a legacy of value in death reached its apex. Jesus taught that following him required dying for him. Jesus’ death is a preeminent death. In one sense, his death is inimitable, it is uniquely atoning in its effects, but in another sense, it is the highest exemplar of both sacrifice (an act of worship and obedience to God) and altruism (selfless and beneficial), and thus begs to be both received passively by faith and actively imitated. I spoke briefly of the effect of Christ’s death in history to establish and expand the church. His death inspired others to die in identification with him including notable martyrs such as Stephen and James. It was an accepted and integral part of an apostolic commission. The pivotal point in Paul’s story was his calling and conversion when confronted by Christ on the Damascus road. That moment changed everything. That experience, followed by Ananias’s counsel that he was God’s “chosen instrument to carry [ Jesus’] name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel” (Acts 9:15), followed by immediate attempts on his life, prepared him for a ministry in which his mortality was front and center. I

Conclusion: Paul and His Mortality

231

contend that Paul uniquely developed the idea of death as the central plight of the gospel and the prime reason for which Christ came. I assume that the information of Jesus’ life and death presented in the Gospels was also available to Paul and that his gospel was compatible with these Jesus stories. The topic of death had a prime influence on Paul’s theology and was applied both redemptively and mimetically in his preaching. Paul tried to imitate the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ life and death. He drew from Christ’s death all three categories of noble death, martyrdom, and atoning sacrifice as a quintessential example of how to face life as a mortal and as a point of reference to seeing value in death. Christ’s teaching, mission, death, and resurrection permanently altered human understanding of mortality, death, and the anticipation of an afterlife. Based on Jesus and the personal revelation surrounding his conversion, Paul affirmed that he wanted to be conformed to Jesus’ death. He wanted his life and death to reflect Christ. He taught that his life had meaning to the degree that he participated in Christ and Christ in him. He wanted to imitate Christ in his death so he could also experience the resurrected life Jesus came to provide (Phil 3:10-11). My thesis has sought to ask the question how Paul related his death to Jesus’ and, in light of his many references to death in his writings, how imitating Christ in death affected his life as an apostle, gospel minister and church founder. A corollary to that question concerned Paul as mentor. He called on his followers to imitate him in his following of Christ. To what degree do all believers need to find value in their life and death through imitation of Christ in his? Paul frequently ascribed honor to suffering through persecution and opposition in ministry by connecting it with Jesus’ death. This association was not simply an attempt to recover lost dignity. He made that connection to rebuke the false spirituality of opponents who were ashamed of his sufferings and discredited him. By associating his suffering and mortal risk with Jesus’ death, Paul sought to help others see the dignity of humble service, disruptive obedience, and altruistic and worshipful living. It was in his weakness that the Lord’s power was perfected (2 Cor 12:9). “For indeed he was crucified by reason of weakness, but he lives because of God’s power. For we also are weak in him, but we will live together with him, because of God’s power toward you” (2 Cor 13:4). Jesus’ death by crucifixion was paradoxically ignoble, but noble because it was voluntary and altruistic. Paul appeals to this motive in his mortal suffering and sacrifice and urges this model for imitation. Paul identified Jesus’ death with his sufferings and mortal risk-taking for the gospel’s advance for another positive reason. He hoped to motivate his spiritual children to imitate his suffering and death in times of peril. By connecting his death with Christ and expressing his ambition to live Christ (Phil 1:21), produce spiritual fruit (Phil 1:22), let his life serve as a libation to the Philippians’ faith and service (Phil 2:17–18) and to know Christ to the

232

Chapter 11

point of dying with him so he can experience his resurrection (Phil 3:10–11), he presented a model of self-abandonment and love based on an eschatology that says that what really matters is not what is on earth in this life but what awaits us in heaven after Christ transforms our humble bodies into the likeness of his glorious body (Phil 3:20–21). Paul was a living martyr. In addition, Paul as a minister saw his calling as one where he needed to risk his life in order for his gospel to advance. In Acts, he repeatedly faced perilous situations as a missionary. To the Corinthians, he lists his frequent near-death experiences as an apostle. He wrote his inner thoughts to the Philippians as he faced the possibility of execution for his gospel ministry. Finally, as he faced imminent death, he wanted to pass on the torch of his gospel ministry to his friend, coworker, and protégé, Timothy. He reminded him of his teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, “as well as the persecutions and sufferings that happened to me. . . . I endured these persecutions and the Lord delivered me from them all. Now in fact all who want to live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:10–12). He prepared Timothy for his pending death by saying, “I am already being poured out as an offering, and the time for me to depart is at hand. I have competed well; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith! Finally the crown of righteousness is reserved for me. The Lord, the righteous Judge, will award it to me in that day—and not to me only, but also to all who have set their affection on his appearing” (2 Tim 4:6–8). He pointed Timothy to the ultimate value of a life lived with eschatological hope as his guiding beacon. Paul evaluated his life and death in light of Jesus’ death and resurrected life. He recognized a future postmortem judgment, poured out his life as an offering (cf. Phil 2:17–18), and lived his life as a sacrifice that required suffering, devotion, and dedication in order to receive the praise from the Lord for a life well lived. Jesus offered his life for him. Paul’s response was to offer his life back to the Lord and for the advance of his kingdom, a kingdom that through death promotes eternal life. He urged his churches and Timothy and through them, his readers, to follow his example.

Appendix A: The Date of Paul’s Death The record for the date and circumstances of Paul’s death are late and conflicting. Two dates are attested: A.D. 64 with Peter in Rome during the Neronian persecution, and A.D. 67 or 68 after more ministry travels, perhaps to Spain, but before Nero’s death in the summer of A.D. 68. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. A.D. 263­­–339) says that Nero had him beheaded (Eusebius Chron. 2.154–57), and that he was martyred with Peter. He cites a letter from Caius to Proclus, the leader of the Montanists, where Caius claims that he could show Proclus Peter and Paul’s graves on the via Ostia. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, confirms this in a letter to Rome mentioning that both Peter and Paul taught in Corinth and were martyred together in Rome (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.5–8). Hoehner notes that the tradition that Paul was beheaded, which was considered civil and appropriate for Roman citizens, would mitigate against Paul’s dying in A.D. 64 during the Neronian persecution of Christians when Peter was possibly martyred (without the privilege of Roman citizenship) and when Christians experienced cruel torture. Nero’s death on June 9, 68, puts that date as a terminus. Hoehner thus sets a general date of Paul’s death in the spring of 68 and suggests that he traveled in the intervening years. The earliest record of Paul’s death is 1 Clement 5 (ca. A.D. 96), where Clement says: “having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony (or “suffered martyrdom,” μαρτυρήσας) before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance” (Lightfoot). The allusion to a trip to the west gives weight to a later date of Paul’s death. 1 1. For the later date and apostolic chronology, see Harold Hoehner, “Chronology of the Apostolic Age” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965), 333–37; Otto F. A. Meinardus, St. Paul’s Last Journey, In the Footsteps of the Saints (New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas, 1979), 134–45; for the earlier date, H. W. Tajra, The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends, WUNT 2/67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 27–32; Robert Jewett, Dating Paul’s Life (London: SCM, 1979), 45–46; George Ogg, The Chronology of the Life of Paul (London: Epworth, 1968), 194–200. For a thorough review of the data for Peter’s death, which corroborates that no firm tradition puts his death during the Neronian persecution, see Richard J. Bauckham, “The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature,” ANRW 2.26.1:539–95; and Daniel W. O’Connor, Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical, and Archeological Evidence (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969). For a discussion of a Pauline martyrdom tradition in the early church focusing on two locations south of Rome, the Ostian Road and the Appian Road, see

233

234

Appendix A: The Date of Paul’s Death

Wallace offers a novel historical reconstruction when discussing anomalies in 2  Peter that suggest that Paul died before Peter. 2 Peter is regarded as the most dubious of all the books in the NT canon due among other things to anomalies that render it appearing pseudepigraphical. Wallace suggests that these anomalies derive from the historical situation of Peter in prison. Peter and Paul shared a prison cell in Rome and Peter died shortly after Paul. 2 This would correspond with Dionysius’s testimony. Peter, thus, wrote 2 Peter­in his own hand from prison before his own but after Paul’s death to help Paul’s churches cope with his recent execution and to address fears of false teachers creeping into the churches of Asia Minor that Paul had planted. 3 Hoehner, however, observes that Peter is not mentioned in any of Luke’s or Paul’s accounts when Paul is in Rome, particularly in 2 Timothy when Paul is facing death. 4 A strong tradition says that Peter visited and was martyred in Rome, but Hoehner shows how Peter could have visited between Paul’s first and second imprisonment. Hoehner, therefore, sets the date of Peter’s death around the time of the first Neronian persecution (ca. A.D. 64), and Paul’s death near the time of Nero’s death in the spring of A.D. 68. David L. Eastman, Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West, WGRWSup 2 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). 2. See James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 1055, which places Paul’s death under Nero in 62 or possibly 64. He places Peter’s death in 64 (ibid., 1074). 3. Daniel B. Wallace, “Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline” (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2000), 14–15. Online: http://bible.org/seriespage/second-peter -introduction-argument-and-outline. 4. Hoehner, “Chronology of the Apostolic Age,” 357–61.

Bibliography Aageson, James W. Written Also for Our Sake: Paul and the Art of Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Abouzeid, Rania and Sidi Bouzid. “Bouazizi: The Man Who Set Himself and Tunisia on Fire.” Time, Jan 21, 2011, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ 0,8599,2043557,00.html. Adams, David Robert. “The Suffering of Paul and the Dynamics of Luke–Acts.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1980. Adams, Sean A. “Paul the Roman Citizen: Roman Citizenship in the Ancient World and Its Importance for Understanding Acts 22:22–29.” Pages 309–26 in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Adewuya, J. Ayodeji. “The Sacrificial-Missiological Function of Paul’s Sufferings in the Context of 2 Corinthians.” Pages 88–98 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011. Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. Jesus’ Death in Early Christian Memory: The Poetics of the Passion. NTOA/SUNT 53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Freiburg: Academic Press, 2004. Alexander, Philip S. “Hellenism and Hellenization as Problematic Historiographical Categories.” Pages 63–80 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Amundsen, Darrel W. “Did Early Christians ‘Lust after Death’? A New Wrinkle in the Doctor-Assisted Suicide Debate.” Pages 284–95 in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life. Edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998. Anderson, Bernard, and Steven Bishop. Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today. 3rd, revised and expanded edition. Louisville: John Knox, 2000. Anderson, Charles C. “The Concept of Life after Death in Judaism from the Close of the Writing of the Old Testament Canon to the Close of the Writing of the Talmud.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1963. Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians. ZECNT 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Astell, Ann W., and Sandor Goodhart, eds. Sacrifice, Scripture, and Substitution: Readings in Ancient Judaism and Christianity. CJA 18. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011. Atkinson, Kenneth. “Noble Deaths at Gamla and Masada? A Critical Assessment of Josephus’ Accounts of Jewish Resistance in Light of Archaeological Discoveries.” Pages 349–71 in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method. Edited by Zuleika Rodgers. JSJSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Augustine. “The Correction of the Donatists.” In Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy. Translated by J. R. King. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. Aune, David E. “Anthropological Duality in the Eschatology of 2 Cor 4:16–5:10.” Pages 215–39 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-­Pedersen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

235

236

Bibliography

Aune, David E. “Apocalypticism.” DPL 25–35.    .  “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’ Myth.” JBL 110 (1991): 491–93. Bailey, Lloyd R. Biblical Perspectives on Death. OBT 5. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Baker, Mark D., and Joel B. Green. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Balasundaram, Franklyn Jayakumar. “Martyrdom in the History of Christianity.” Bangalore Theological Forum 25 (1993): 18–36. Ballard, Paul. “Death.” EC 324–32. Bar, Shaul. I Deal Death and Give Life: Biblical Perspectives on Death. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010. Barclay, J. M. G. “Jesus and Paul.” DPL 492–503. Barmash, Pamela. Homicide in the Biblical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Barnes, Arthur Stapylton. The Martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul. London: Oxford University Press, 1933. Barnett, Paul W. “Was Paul’s Grace-Based Gospel True to Jesus?” Pages 99–111 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011.    .  The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Barr, James. “Is God a Liar?” JTS 57 (2006): 1–22.    .  The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. HNTC. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.    .  A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Bartlett, Anthony W. Cross Purposes: The Violent Grammar of Christian Atonement. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. Barton, Carlin. “Honor and Sacredness in the Roman and Christian Worlds.” Pages 23–38 in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion. Edited by Margaret Cormack. AARSR. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Baslez, Marie-Françoise. “The Origin of the Martyrdom Images: From the Book of Maccabees to the First Christians.” Pages 113–30 in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology; Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June, 2005. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 118. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bauckham, Richard. “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 80–95 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.    .  “The Martyrdom of Peter in Early Christian Literature.” ANRW 26.1:539– 95 in Part 2 Principat, 26.1. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Bauks, Michaela. “The Theological Implications of Child Sacrifice in and beyond the Biblical Context in Relation to Genesis 22 and Judges 11.” Pages 65–86 in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. SHR 112. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Bibliography

237

Baumeister, Theofried. Die Anfänge der Theologie des Martyriums. Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie 45. Münster: Aschendorff, 1980.    .  Genèse et évolution de la théologie du martyre dans l’Eglise ancienne. Traditio Christiana 8. Bern: Peter Lang, 1991. Beasley-Murray, G. R. “Dying and Rising with Christ.” DPL 218–22.    .  John. WBC 36. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Death of Christ as a Sacrifice in the Teaching of Paul and Hebrews.” Pages 130–35 in Sacrifice in the Bible. Edited by Roger T. Beckwith and Martin J. Selman. Carlisle: Paternoster / Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Beek, Abraham van de. “Evolution, Original Sin, and Death.” Journal of Reformed Theology 5 (2011): 206–20. Beilby, James, and Paul R. Eddy, eds. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.    .  The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought. Translated by Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Bell, Richard H. “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul.” JTS 53 (2002): 1–27. Benoit, Pierre. “Qumran and the New Testament.” Pages 1–30 in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Berman, Louis A. The Akedah: The Binding of Isaac. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1997. Bernstein, Alan E. The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993. Berthelot, Katell. “Jewish Views of Human Sacrifice in the Hellenistic and Roman Period.” Pages 151–73 in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. SHR 112. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Betz, Otto. “Jesus and the Temple Scroll.” Pages 75–103 in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1992.    .  What Do We Know about Jesus? Translated by Margaret Kohl. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Black, 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. Blazen, Ivan T. “Death to Sin according to Romans 6:1–14 and Related Texts: An Exegetical-Theological Study with a Critique of Views.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1979. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Blocher, H. A. G. “Adam and Eve.” NDBT 372–76. Bloomquist, L. Gregory. The Function of Suffering in Philippians. JSNTSup 78. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Blue, Bradley B. “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply, and the Present Distress.” CTR 5 (1991): 221–39.

238

Bibliography

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. BECNT 4. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.    .  Luke 1:1–9:50. BECNT 3a. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.    .  Luke 9:51–24:53. BECNT 3b. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Boehm, Omri. The Binding of Isaac: A Religious Model of Disobedience. LHBOTS 468. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. Boer, Martinus C. de. The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. JSNTSup 22. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Boer, Willis Peter de. The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1962. Boersma, Hans. Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Bolt, Peter G. “Life, Death, and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World.” Pages 51–79 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Boonefoy, Yves, comp. Mythologies. Translated by Gerald Honigsblum et al., A restructured translation of Dictionaire des mythologies et des religions des sociétés traditionnelles et du monde antique. Edited by Wendy Doniger. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Borg, Marcus J., and John Dominic Crossan. The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary behind the Church’s Conservative Icon. New York: HarperOne, 2009. Bosworth, David A. “Faith and Resilience: King David’s Reaction to the Death of Bathsheba’s Firstborn.” CBQ 73 (2011): 691–707. Bowersock, G. W. Martyrdom and Rome. The Wiles Lectures Given at the Queen’s University of Belfast. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Brandt, Sigrid. Opfer als Gedächtnis: Auf dem Weg zu einer befrienden theologischen Rede von Opfer. Altes Testament und Moderne 2. Münster: Lit, 2001. Brawley, Robert L. “From Reflex to Reflection? Identity in Philippians 2.6–11 and Its Context.” Pages 128–46 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation; Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. LNTS 428. London: T. & T. Clark, 2010. Bremer, Jan Maarten. “Death and Immortality in Some Greek Poems.” Pages 109– 24 in Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic world. Edited by J. M. Bremer, Th. P. J. van den Hout, and R. Peters. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994. Bremmer, Jan N. “Greek Religion [Further Considerations].” ER 6:3677–87.    .  “Myth and Ritual in Greek Human Sacrifice: Lykaon, Polyxena and the Case of the Rhodian Criminal.” Pages 55–79 in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. SHAR 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Brettler, Marc. “Is There Martyrdom in the Hebrew Bible?” Pages 3–22 in Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion. Edited by Margaret Cormack. AARSR, 3–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Breytenbach, Cilliers. Grace, Reconciliation, Concord: The Death of Christ in GraecoRoman Metaphors. NovTSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

Bibliography

239

Brondos, David A. Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 29. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1971.    .  Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.    .  The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Edited by James Luther Mays and Patrick D. Miller Jr. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Bruggen, Jakob van. “The Martyrdom of Paul.” Pages 105–13 in Hearing Visions and Seeing Voices: Psychological Aspects of Biblical Concepts and Personalities, Edited by Gerrit Glas, Moshe Halevi Spero, Peter J. Verhagen and Herman M. van Praag. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007. Bryant, Robert A. The Risen Crucified Christ in Galatians. SBLDS 185. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Edited by Erich Dinkler. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985.    .  Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1951. Burer, Michael H., W. Hall Harris III, and Daniel B. Wallace. New Testament: New English Translation, Novum Testamentum Graece. Diglot ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / Dallas: NET Bible Press, 2004. Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Translated by John Raffan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985. Burkes, Shannon. Death in Qoheleth and Egyptian Biographies of the Late Period. SBLDS 170. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999.    .  God, Self, and Death: The Shape of Religious Transformation in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 79. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Burton, Ernest DeWitt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC 35. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921. Butterweck, Christel. “Martyriumssucht” in der Alten Kirche? Studien zur Darstellung und Deutung frühchristlicher Martyrien. BHT 87. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Byrnes, Michael. Conformation to the Death of Christ and the Hope of Resurrection: An Exegetico-Theological Study of 2 Corinthians 4,7–15 and Philippians 3,7–11. TGST 99. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2003. Byron, John. “Abel’s Blood and the Ongoing Cry for Vengeance.” CBQ 73 (2011): 743–56.    .  Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry. TBN 14. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Callahan, Allen Dwight. “Dead Paul: The Apostle as Martyr in Philippi.” Pages 67– 84 in Philippi at the Time of Paul and after His Death. Edited by Charalambos Bikirtzis and Helmut Koester. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998. Callan, Terrance. Dying and Rising with Christ: The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2006.

240

Bibliography

Campbell, Barth. “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT.” JETS 36 (1993): 331–42. Campbell, Douglas A. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. JSNTSup 274. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Campenhausen, Hans Freiherr von. Die Idee des Martyriums in der alten Kirche. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Carroll, John T., Joel B. Green, Robert E. Van Voorst, Joel Marcus and Donald Senior. The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Cassidy, Richard J. Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of St. Paul. New York: Crossroad, 2001. Cassin, Elena. “The Death of the Gods.” Pages 317–25 in Mortality and Immortality: The Anthropology and Archaeology of Death; Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, in June 1980. Edited by S. C. Humphreys and Helen King. Translated by S. C. Humphreys. Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects. London: Academic Press, 1981. Cassuto, U. From Adam to Noah. Part one of A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by Abraham Israel. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Castelli, Elizabeth A. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. Gender­, Theory, and Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Cavallin, Hans Clemens Caesarius. Life after Death: Paul’s Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15, vol. 1: An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. ConBNT 7. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1974. Cavendish, Richard, and Trevor O. Ling, eds. Mythology: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. London: Orbis, 1980. Chalke, Steve, and Alan Mann. The Lost Message of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. Chance, J. Bradley. Acts. SHBC 23. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2007. Chapman, David W. Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983.    .  The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1985.    .  Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor. PSB 16 (1995): 260–62. Cherian, Kunnel Kurien. “Paul’s Understanding of Diakonia as Proclamation according to 2 Corinthians 2:14–7:4.” Th.D. diss., Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1986. Chilton, B. D. “Judaism and the New Testament.” DNTB 603–16. Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. “A Theology of Isaiah.” Pages 305–40 in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Edited by Roy B. Zuck and Eugene H. Merrill. Chicago: Moody, 1991.

Bibliography

241

   .  “A Theology of the Psalms.” Pages 257–304 in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Edited by Roy B. Zuck and Eugene H. Merrill. Chicago: Moody, 1991.    .  Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.    . “History or Story? The Literary Dimension in Narrative Texts.” Pages 54–73 in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts. Edited by David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.    . “The Ethical Challenge of Jephthah’s Fulfilled Vow.” BSac 167 (2010): 404–22. Clark-Soles, Jaime. Death and the Afterlife in the New Testament. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006. Clement of Alexandria. “1 Clement.” Pages 5–21 in The Apostolic Fathers. Justin Martyr. Irenaeus. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1913. Clemons, J. T. “The Shape of a Noble Death: Suicide among Jews and Christians.” Christian Century 110 (1993): 369–73. Clines, D. J. A. “The Tree of Knowledge and the Law of Yahweh (Psalm XIX).” VT 24 (1974): 8–14. Clinton, Kevin. “Sacrifice at the Eleusinian Mysteries.” Pages 69–80 in Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26–29, June, 1986. Edited by Robin Hägg, Nanno Marinatos, and Gullög C. Nordquist. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen 4/38. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1988. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. LEC. Philadelphia: West­ minster, 1987. Coleman, K. M. “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments.” JRS 80 (1990): 44–73. Collins, John J. Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule. JSJSup 100. Leiden: Brill, 2005.    .  The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Collins, Raymond F. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002.    .  The Power of Images in Paul. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.    .  ‘That’s Just Your Interpretation’: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Copan, Victor A. Saint Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the Imitation of Paul with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual Direction. PBM. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Cousar, Charles B. A Theology of the Cross: The Death of Jesus in the Pauline Letters. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

242

Bibliography

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979. Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Crouch, Walter B. Death and Closure in Biblical Narrative. StBibLit 7. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Cummins, Stephen Anthony. Paul and the Crucified Christ in Antioch: Maccabean Martyrdom and Galatians 1 and 2. SNTSMS 114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Cunningham, Lawrence S. “Saints and Martyrs: Some Contemporary Considerations.” TS 60 (1999): 529–37. Dales, Douglas. Living through Dying: The Spiritual Experience of St Paul. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1994. Daly, Robert J. “Images of God and the Imitation of God: Problems with Atonement.” TS 68 (2007): 36­– 51.    .  Sacrifice Unveiled: The True Meaning of Christian Sacrifice. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2009. Davids, Peter H. “Death.” EDT 324–26. _________. The First Epistle of Peter. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Davies, W. D. “Canon and Christology in Paul.” Pages 18–39 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNTSup 83; SSEJC 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.    .  Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. The Gospel According to Matthew. 3 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Deissmann, Adolf. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. Translated by William E. Wilson. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1972. Reprint, n.p.: Harper and Row, 1957. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Taking up the Cross and Turning the Cheek.” Pages 61–78 in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study. Edited by A. E. Harvey. London: SPCK, 1985. DeSilva, David A. “3 and 4 Maccabees.” DNTB 661–66.    .  “Jewish Martyrology and the Death of Jesus.” Pages 51–67 in The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Edited by Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 4. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008. Destro, Adriana, and Mauro Pesce. “Forgiveness of Sins without a Victim: Jesus and the Levitical Jubilee.” Pages 151–73 in Sacrifice in Religious Experience. Edited by Albert I. Baumgarten. SHR 93. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Devor, Richard Campbell. “The Concept of Judgment in the Epistles of Paul.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1959. Dio, Cassius. Dio’s Roman History. Translated by Earnest Cary. LCL 8. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961. Dodd, C. H. New Testament Studies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1953.    .  The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935.

Bibliography

243

Donfried, Karl Paul. “The Theology of 1 Thessalonians as a Reflection of Its Purpose.” Pages 243–60 in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Downing, John. “Jesus and Martyrdom.” JTS 14 (1963): 279–93. Dragas, G. “Martyrdom and Orthodoxy in the New Testament Era.” GOTR 30 (1985): 287–96. Driver, John. Understanding the Atonement for the Mission of the Church. Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1986. Droge, Arthur J. “Did Paul Commit Suicide?” BRev 5 (1989): 14–21. Droge, Arthur J., and James D. Tabor. A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992. Du Rand, Jan A. “The Ethical Response of an Alternative Community in a Critical Situation: Marturia and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 565–93 in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and François S. Malan. BZNW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Dunn, James D. G. “Adam in Paul.” Pages 120–35 in The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Edited by Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 4. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2008.    .  Beginning from Jerusalem. Christianity in the Making 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.    .  Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988.    .  Romans 9–16. WBC 38B. Dallas: Word, 1988.    .  The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996.    .  The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Durkheim, Emile. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Edited by George Simpson. Translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1951. Eastman, David L. Paul the Martyr: The Cult of the Apostle in the Latin West. WGRWSup 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Edwards, J. Christopher. The Ransom Logion in Mark and Matthew: Its Reception and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels. WUNT 2/327. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Edwards, Mark J. “Martyrdom and the First Epistle of John.” NT 31 (1989): 164–71. Efroymson, David P. Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor. JAAR 61 (1993): 594–96. Elledge, C. D. Life after Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus. WUNT 2/208. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Ellingsworth, Paul. “The Marturia Debate.” BT 41 (1990): 138–39. Ellis, E. Earle. “II Corinthians V.1–10 in Pauline Eschatology.” NTS 6 (1959–1960): 211–24.    .  Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.    . “Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents.” Pages 212–24 in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige. JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield JSOT Press, 1992.

244

Bibliography

Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ed. Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Engnell, I. “‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story.” Pages 103–19 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley by the Society for Old Testament Study in Association with the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum, in Celebration of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, 24 March 1955. Edited by Martin Noth and D. Winton Thomas. VTSup 3. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2012. Epstein, I., ed. Shabbath. Translated by H. Freedman. Vol. 1 of Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. New York: Soncino, 1971. Erickson, Millard J. “Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death?” BSac 152 (1995): 131–44. Eschner, Christina. Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi. Vol. 2 of Darstellung und Auswertung des griechischen Quellenbefundes. WMANT 122. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010. Euripides. Euripides. Translated by Arthur S. Way. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959–62. Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. 2 vols. LCL. London: William Heinemann / New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1926. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005.    .  “Messianism.” In DNTB 698–707.    .  Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992. Evans, Craig A., and James A. Sanders, eds. Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. JSNTSup 83; SSEJC 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Exum, J. Cheryl. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Fahim, Kareem. “Slap to a Man’s Pride Set Off Tumult in Tunisia.” New York Times, January 22, 2011, A1. Falcetta, Alessandro. “From Jesus to Polycarp: Reflections on the Origins of Christian Martyrdom.” CNS 27 (2006): 67–98. Farmer, William Reuben. Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Fathi, Nazila. “In a Death Seen Around the World, a Symbol of Iranian Protests,” New York Times, June 23, 2009, A1, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/ world/middleeast/23neda. Faw, Chalmer E. “Death and Resurrection in Paul’s Letters.” JBR 27 (1959): 291–98. Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. NIBCNT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988.    .  The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.    .  Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.    .  Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Feinberg, John S. “1 Peter 3:18–20, Ancient Mythology, and the Intermediate State.” WTJ 48 (1986): 303–36.

Bibliography

245

Ferguson, Everett. “Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity and its Environment.” ANRW 23.2:1151–89 in Part 2, Principat, 23.2. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Figura, Michael. “Martyrdom and the Following of Jesus.” Comm 23 (1996): 101–9. Finlan, Stephen. The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors. AcBib 19. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.    .  Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005. Finney, Mark. Honour and Conflict in the Ancient World: 1 Corinthians in its Greco-Roman Social Setting. LNTS 460. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011. Finsterbusch, Karin. “The First-Born between Sacrifice and Redemption in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 87–108 in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. SHR 112. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Fiore, Benjamin. “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation.” Pages 228–57 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Fisichella, Rino. “Martyr.” DFT 620–30. Fisk, Bruce N. “Paul: Life and Letters.” Pages 283–325 in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Fitzgerald, John T. Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence. SBLDS 99. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 32. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.    .  Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Flemington, W. F. “On the Interpretation of Colossians 1:24.” Pages 84–90 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. Edited by William Horbury and Brian McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Flusser, David. The Jewish Sages and Their Literature. Vol. 2 of Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009.    .  Qumran and Apocalypticism. Vol. 1 of Judaism of the Second Temple Period. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Jerusalem: Magnes, 2009. Forbes, S. Russell. The Footsteps of St. Paul in Rome: An Historical Memoir from the Apostles Landing at Puteoli to his Death, A. D. 62–64. London: Nelson / Rome: Forbes, 1882. Ford, J. M. “Persecution and Martyrdom in the Book of Revelation.” TBT 28 (1990): 141–46. Fouts, David M. “Genesis.” Pages 39–63 in The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study: Genesis–Deuteronomy. Edited by Eugene H. Merrill. Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 2003. Fowl, S. E. “Imitation of Paul/of Christ.” DPL 428–31. Fox, Michael V. A Time to Tear Down and A Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

246

Bibliography

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.    .  “Servant of Yahweh.” DJG 744–47. Fredrickson, David E. “Paul, Hardships, and Suffering.” Pages 172–97 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965.    .  “Persecution: Christian Experience.” ER 10:7057–62. Freud, Sigmund. An Infantile Neurosis and Other Works. Translated by James Strachey. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud 17. London: Hogwarth, 1955. Frey, Johannes. Die letzten Lebensjahre des Paulus: Eine Studie zur Geschichte des apostolischen Zeitalters. Biblische Zeit- und Streitfragen 6. Berlin: Runge, 1910. Freyne, Seán. “Jesus the Martyr.” Pages 49–58 in Rethinking Martyrdom. Edited by Teresa Okure, Jon Sobrino, and Felix Wilfred. Concilium 1. London: SCM, 2003. Frier, Bruce W. “Roman Demography.” Pages 85–109 in Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire. Edited by D. S. Potter and D. J. Mattingly. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians. AB 32A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984.    .  “Paul the ΜΑΡΤΥΣ.” Pages 73–88 in Witness and Existence: Essays in Honor of Schubert M. Ogden. Edited by Philip E. Devenish and George L. Goodwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Gafni, Isaiah M. “Josephus and I Maccabees.” Pages 116–31 in Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988. Galpaz-Feller, Pnina. “‘Let my Soul Die with the Philistines’ ( Judges 16.30).” JSOT 30 (2006): 315–25. Gane, Roy. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT 7. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.    .  2 Corinthians. NAC 29. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.    .  “Philippians 1:1–26: The Defense and Confirmation of the Gospel.” RevExp 77 (1980): 327–36. Garland, Robert. The Greek Way of Death. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985. Garrett, Susan R. “The God of This World and the Affiction of Paul: 2 Cor 4:1–12.” Pages 99–117 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Gaskin, J. C. A. “Epicureanism.” OCPh 239–40. Gaukesbrink, M. Die Sühnetradition bei Paulus. Rezeption und theologischer Stellenwert. Würzburg: Echter, 1999. George, Timothy. Galatians. NAC 30. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994. Gillian, Claro. “Bodies and Blood: Late Antique Debate on Martyrdom, Virginity, and Resurrection.” Pages 99–115 in Changing Bodies, Changing Meanings: Studies

Bibliography

247

on the Human Body in Antiquity. Edited by Dominic Montserrat. New York: Routledge, 1998. Girard, René. The Girard Reader. Edited by James G. Williams. New York: Crossroad, 1996.    .  Violence and the Sacred. Translated by Patrick Gregory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Girard, René, Jean-Michel Oughourlian, and Guy Lefort. Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Translated by Stephen Bann and Michael Metteer. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987. Glas, Gerrit et al., eds. Hearing Visions and Seeing Voices: Psychological Aspects of Biblical Concepts and Personalities. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007. Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on John’s Gospel. 1886. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978. Gold, William Jason. Sacrificial Worship: I. in Genesis and Exodus; II. in the Temple; III. in the New Testament and the Christian Church. New York: Longmans, Green, 1903. Gooch, Paul W. Reflections on Jesus and Socrates: Word and Silence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Goodacre, Mark. “Scripturalization in Mark’s Crucifixion Narrative.” Pages 33–47 in The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark. Edited by Geert Van Oyen and Tom Shepherd. CBET 45. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Goodman, Martin. Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 66. Leiden: Brill, 2007.    .  “The Place of the Sadducees in First-Century Judaism.” Pages 139–52 in Redefining First-century Jewish and Christian Identities: Essays in Honor of Ed Parish Sanders. Edited by Fabian E. Udoh et al. CJA 16. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.    .  Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.    .  Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Grabbe, L. L. “1 and 2 Maccabees.” DNTB 657–61. Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. Complete and unabridged edition. Mt. Kisco, NY: Moyer Bell, 1988. Grayston, Kenneth. “Atonement and Martyrdom.” Pages 250–63 in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context. Edited by John Barclay and John Sweet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.    .  Dying, We Live: A New Enquiry into the Death of Christ in the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Green, Alberto Ravinell Whitney. The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. ASORDS 1. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Green, Gene L. “Relevance Theory and Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 217–40 in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. NTMo 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Green, Joel B. “Death of Christ.” DPL 201–9.

248

Bibliography

   .  “Death of Jesus.” DJG 146–63.    .  The Death of Jesus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion Narrative. WUNT 2/33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988.    .  “‘Witnesses of His Resurrection’: Resurrection, Salvation, Discipleship, and Mission in the Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 227–46 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Greenberg, L. Arik. “My Share of God’s Reward”: Exploring the Roles and Formulations of the Afterlife in Early Christian Martyrdom. StBibLit 121. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. Greyson, Bruce. “Near-Death Experiences and Spirituality.” Zygon 41 (2006): 393–414. Grieb, A. Katherine. Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor. BRev 10 (1994): 12. Griffiths, J. Gwyn. “Hellenistic Religions.” ER 6:3900–13. Grisé, Yolande. Le suicide dans la Rome antique. Collection d’études anciennes; Collection Noêsis. Montréal: Bellarmin / Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “Intolerance and Martyrdom: From Socrates to Rabbi ’Aqiva.” Pages 7–29 in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Guardini, Romano. The Death of Socrates. An Interpretation of the Platonic Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo. Translated by Basil Wrighton. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1948. Gulley, Norman R. “Death, New Testament.” ABD 2:110–11. Gupta, Nijay K. Worship that Makes Sense to Paul: A New Approach to the Theology and Ethics of Paul’s Cultic Metaphors. BZNW 175. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. Downers Grove, IL: Inter­ Varsity, 1990. Güttgemanns, Erhardt. Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr: Studien zur paulinischen Christologie. FRLANT 90. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Haag, Ernst. “Die drei Männer im Feuer nach Dan.” Pages 20–50 in Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie. Edited by J. W. Van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. Van der Klaauw. StPB 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Hafemann, S. J. “Paul and His Interpreters.” DPL 666–79.    .  “Paul’s Argument from the Old Testament and Christology in 2 Cor 1–9.” Pages 277–303 in The Corinthian Correspondence. Edited by R. Bieringer. BETL 125. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.    . “Suffering.” DPL 919–21.    .  “‘Because of Weakness’ (Galatians 4:13): The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul.” Pages 131–46 in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission. Edited by Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2000.    .  “Letters to the Corinthians.” DPL 164–79.    .  Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 81. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.

Bibliography

249

   .  Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14–3:3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Hagner, Donald A. “Gospel, Kingdom, and Resurrection in the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 99–121 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS 99–121. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Hahn, Scott W. “Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: Διαθήκη in Galatians 3:15–18.” CBQ 67 (2005): 79–100. Haleem, Harfiyah. “What is Martyrdom?” Pages 49–75 in Witnesses to Faith? Martyrdom in Christianity and Islam. Edited by Brian Wicker. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006. Hallote, Rachel S. Death, Burial, and Afterlife in the Biblical World: How the Israelites and Their Neighbors Treated the Dead. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001. Hamerton-Kelly, Robert G. Sacred Violence: Paul’s Hermeneutic of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Hamilton, James M., Jr. God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.    .  The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hansen, G. Walter. The Letter to the Philippians. PiNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.    .  “Resurrection and the Christian Life in Paul’s Letters.” Pages 203–24 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. “The Theology of Suffering in the Pastoral Epistles and Ignatius of Antioch.” Pages 694–96 in vol. 2 of Studia Patristica. Vol. XVII in Three Parts. Edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone. Oxford: Pergamon, 1982.    .  The Paradox of the Cross in the Thought of St Paul. JSNTSup 17. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Harding, Mark. Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context: A Reader. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003. Harran, Marilyn J. “Suicide.” ER 13:8828–33. Harris, Murray J. “Paul’s View of Death in 2 Corinthians 5:1–10.” Pages 317–28 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.    .  “Resurrection and Immortality in the Pauline Corpus.” Pages 147–70 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.    .  The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Harris, W. Hall, III. 1, 2, 3 John, Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis: An Exeget­ ical Commentary on the Letters of John. Dallas: Biblical Studies, 2003. Harrisville, Roy A. Fracture: The Cross as Irreconcilable in the Language and Thought of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Harvey, Anthony, Richard Finn, and Michael Smart. “Christian Martyrdom: History and Interpretation.” Pages 33–48 in Witnesses to Faith? Martyrdom in Christianity and Islam. Edited by Brian Wicker. Hampshire: Ashgate, 2006.

250

Bibliography

Hawthorne, Gerald F., and Ralph P. Martin. Philippians. Revised ed. WBC 43. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.    .  Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989.    .  First Corinthians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Head, Peter M. “The Self-Offering and Death of Christ as a Sacrifice in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 111–29 in Sacrifice in the Bible. Edited by Roger T. Beckwith and Martin J. Selman. Carlisle: Paternoster / Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Heard, W. J., and C. A. Evans. “Revolutionary Movements, Jewish.” DNTB 936–47. Heim, S. Mark. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by Conrad H. Gempf. WUNT 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Hengel, Martin. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Translated by John Bowden. 1st American ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.    .  Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. Translated by John Bowden. 1st American ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.    .  Judaism and Hellenism. Translated by John Bowden. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.    .  The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. Translated by David Smith. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989. Hengel, Martin, and Anna Maria Schwemer. Paul between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1997. Henninger, Joseph. “Sacrifice [First Edition].” ER 12:7997–8008. Henten, Jan Willem van. “Das jüdische Selbstverständnis in den ältesten Martyrien.” Pages 127–62 in Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie, edited by J. W. Van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. Van der Klaauw. StPB 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989.    .  “Jewish Martyrdom and Jesus’ Death.” Pages 139–68 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.    .  The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. JSJSup 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997.    .  “Martyrdom, Jesus’ Passion and Barbarism.” Pages 235–59 in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Ra’anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin J. Roetzel. Leiden: Brill, 2010.    .  “Noble Death in Josephus: Just Rhetoric?” Pages 195–218 in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, edited by Zuleika Rodgers. JSJSup 110. Leiden: Brill, 2007.    .  “The Reception of Daniel 3 and 6 and the Maccabean Martyrdoms in Hebrews 11:33–38.” Pages 359–77 in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer. Edited by Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper. SHR 127. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Henten, Jan Willem van, and Friedrich Avemarie. “Martirio e morte nobile nel giu­ daismo e nelle fonti dell’antico ebraismo ellenistico.” CNS 27 (2006): 31–65.

Bibliography

251

   .  Martyrdom and Noble Death: Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity. New York: Routledge, 2002. Hesiod. “Works and Days.” Pages 2–63 in Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Translated by Hugh G. Evelyn-White. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964. Hess, Richard S. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Nottingham, England: Apollos / Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.    .  “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ʾādām in Genesis I–V.” Pages 1–15 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Heyman, George. The Power of Sacrifice: Roman and Christian Discourses in Conflict. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Hirzel, Rudolf. Der Selbstmord. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967. Hoehner, Harold. “Chronology of the Apostolic Age.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965.    .  Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Holden, Douglas T. Death Shall Have No Dominion: A New Testament Study. St. Louis, MO: Bethany, 1971. Holl, Karl. “Die Vorstellung von Märtyrer und die Märtyrerakte in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung.” Pages 68–102 in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 2: Der Osten. Edited by Karl Holl. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1928. Holladay, Carl R. “1 Corinthians 13: Paul as Apostolic Paradigm.” Pages 80–98 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Holland, Tom. Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings. Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2004. Holmes, Michael W., ed. and rev. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Holtz, Traugott. Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes 2nd ed. TUGAL 85. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1971. Homer. Homer: The Iliad. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press / London: William Heinemann, 1965.    .  Homer: The Odyssey. Translated by A. T. Murray. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press / London: William Heinemann, 1946.    .  Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Translated by Hugh G. EvelynWhite. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964. Hooker, Morna D. From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.    .  “Interchange and Suffering.” Pages 70–83 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. Edited by William Horbury and Brian McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.    .  Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1959.    .  Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

252

Bibliography

   .  “Philippians: Phantom Opponents and the Real Source of Conflict.” Pages 377–95 in Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Edited by Ismo Dunderbert, Christopher M. Tuckett, and Kari Syreeni. NovTSup 103. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Hope, Valerie M. Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 2007. Hoppe, Rudolf. Der Triumph des Kreuzes: Studien zum Verhältnis des Kolosserbriefes zur paulinischen Kreuzestheologie. SBB 28. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994. Horne, Milton P. Proverbs–Ecclesiastes. SHBC 12. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2003. Hughes, Dennis D. Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge, 1991. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Hwang, Jin Ki. Mimesis and Apostolic Parousia in 1 Corinthians 4 and 5: An ApologeticMimetic Interpretation. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2010. Illman, Karl-Johan. Old Testament Formulas about Death. Publications of the Research Institute of the Äbo Akademi Foundation 48. Äbo, Finland: Äbo Akademi, 1979. Jacobsen, T. W., and Tracey Cullen. “A Consideration of Mortuary Practices in Neolithic Greece: Burials from Franchthi Cave.” Pages 79–101 in Mortality and Immortality: the Anthropology and Archaeology of Death; Proceedings of a Meeting of the Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects Held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, in June 1980. Edited by S. C. Humphreys and Helen King. Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects. London: Academic Press, 1981. Jacquette, J. L. “A Not-so-noble Death: Figured Speech, Friendship, and Suicide in Philippians 1:21–26.” Neot 28 (1994): 177–92. James, E. O. Sacrifice and Sacrament. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1962. Jersak, Brad, and Michael Hardin, eds. Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Jewett, Robert. Dating Paul’s Life. London: SCM, 1979.    .  “Paul, Shame, and Honor.” Pages 551–74 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J. Paul Sampley. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Johnson, Alan F. 1 Corinthians. IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. Johnson, D. H. “Life.” DJG 469–71. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington. SP 5. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992.    .  The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 35A. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Johnston, Gordon H. “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Gallows: Irony, Humor, and Other Literary Features of the Book of Esther.” Pages 380–406 in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts. Edited by David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003. Johnston, Philip S. “Afterlife.” DOTWPW 5–8.    .  “Death and Resurrection.” NDBT 443–47.

Bibliography

253

   .  “Life, Disease and Death.” DOTP 532–36.    .  Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2002. Jonge, M. de. “Jesus’ Death for Others and the Death of the Maccabean Martyrs.” Pages 142–51 in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn. Edited by Tjitze Baarda. Kampen: Kok, 1988. Josephus. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston; commentary by Paul L. Maier. Revised and expanded ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. Jouan, François. Euripide et les Légendes des Chants Cypriens: Des origines de la guerre de Troie à l’Iliade. Collection d’Études Anciennes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1966. Kaiser, Otto, and Eduard Lohse. Death and Life. Translated by John E. Steely. Biblical Encounters Series. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1981. Karakolis, Christos. “Narrative Funktion und christologische Bedeutung der markinischen Erzählung vom Tod Johannes des Täufers (Mk 6:14–29).” NovT 52 (2010): 134–55. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey William Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Kattenbusch, F. “Der Märtyrertitel.” ZNW 4 (1903): 111–27. Keener, Craig S. 1–2 Corinthians. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.    .  A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kellermann, Ulrich. “Das Danielbuch und die Märtyrertheologie der Auferstehung.” Pages 51–75 in Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie. Edited by J. W. Van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. Van der Klaauw. StPB 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Kennedy, Charles A. “The Cult of the Dead in Corinth.” Pages 227–36 in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good. Guilford, CT: Four Quarters, 1987. Kertelge, Karl. ‘Rechtfertigung’ bei Paulus: Studien zur Struktur und zum Bedeutungsgehalt des paulinischen Rechtfertigungsbegriffs. 2nd ed. NTAbh 3. Münster: Aschendorff, 1967. Kessler, Edward. Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice of Isaac. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Kim, Soo-Young David. “Paul’s Eschatology in Acts in View of His Epistles.” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995. Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul’s Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011. Kistemaker, Simon J. “1 Corinthians 5:5. Deliver This Man to Satan: A Case Study in Church Discipline.” Pages 171–83 in The Master’s Perspective on Difficult Passages. Edited by Robert L. Thomas. The Master’s Perspective Series 1. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.    .  New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. Kittel, Gisela. Befreit aus dem Rachen des Todes: Tod und Todesüberwindung im Alten und Neuen Testament. Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Klausner, Samuel Z. “Martyrdom.” ER 8:5737–44.

254

Bibliography

Klijn, A. F. J. “1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 and Its Background in Apocalyptic Literature.” Pages 67–73 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. Knox, John. The Death of Christ: The Cross in New Testament History and Faith. New York: Abingdon, 1958. Koester, Helmut. “Paul and Phillipi: The Evidence from Early Christian Literature.” Pages 49–65 in Philippi at the Time of Paul and after His Death. Edited by Cha­ ralambos Bikirtzis and Helmut Koester. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998. Kolarcik, Michael. The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1–6: A Study of Literary Structure and Interpretation. AnBib 127. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Kowalski, Beate. “Martyrdom and Resurrection in the Revelation to John.” AUSS 41 (2003): 55–64. Kraemer, David Charles. The Meanings of Death in Rabbinic Judaism. London: Routledge, 2000. Kraftchick, Steven J. “Abstracting Paul’s Theology: Extending Reflections on ‘Death’ in Philippians.” Pages 194–211 in Impartial God: Essays in Biblical Studies in Honor of Jouette M. Bassler. Edited by Calvin J. Roetzel, Robert L. Foster and Jouette M. Bassler. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007.    .  “Death in Us, Life in You: The Apostolic Medium.” Pages 156–81 in Pauline Theology, vol. 2: 1 and 2 Corinthians. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.    .  “Death’s Parsing: Experience as a Mode of Theology in Paul.” Pages 144–66 in Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel. Edited by Janice Capel Anderson, Philip Sellew, and Claudia Setzer. JSNTSup 221. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Kreitzer, L. J. “Eschatology.” DPL 253–69.    .  “Intermediate State.” DPL 438–41.    . “Resurrection.” DPL 805–12. Krentz, Edgar. Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by A. J. Droge and J. D. Tabor. CurTM 20 (1993): 303–4. Kruse, C. G. “Afflictions, Trials, Hardships.” DPL 18–20. Kyle, Donald G. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1998. Lambrecht, Jan. Second Corinthians. SP 8. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999. Lampe, Peter. “Human Sacrifice and Pauline Christology.” Pages 191–209 in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. SHR 112. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Lane, William L. “Living a Life of Faith in the Face of Death: The Witness of Hebrews.” Pages 247–69 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message­of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS 247–69. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Laneri, Nicola, ed. Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean. OIS 3. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2007. Lanzillotta, L. Roig. “The Early Christians and Human Sacrifice.” Pages 81–102 in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. SHAR 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

Bibliography

255

Lash, Nicholas. “What Might Martyrdom Mean?” Pages 183–98 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. Edited by William Horbury and Brian McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Lattimore, Richmond. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1962. Lauber, David. Barth, Atonement and the Christian Life. Barth Studies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004. Le Moyne, Jean. Les Sadducéens. Études bibliques. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1972. Lebram, J. C. H. “Jüdische Martyrologie und Weisheitsüberlieferung.” Pages 88–126 in Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie. Edited by J. W. Van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. Van der Klaauw. StPB 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Lee, Michelle V. “A Call to Martyrdom: Function as Method and Message in Revelation.” NovT 40 (1998): 164–94. Légasse, Simon. “Paul’s Pre-Christian Career according to Acts.” Pages 365–90 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Life and Death in the New Testament: The Teachings of Jesus and Paul. Translated by Terrence Prendergast. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986. Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.    .  The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. Leventhal, Barry R. “The Masada Suicides: The Making and Breaking of a Cultural Icon.” Pages 269–83 in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life. Edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998. Levering, Matthew. Sacrifice and Community: Jewish Offering and Christian Eucharist. Illuminations, Theory and Religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Levine, Amy-Jill, Dale C. Allison, and John Dominic Crossan. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton Readings in Religions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Levison, John R. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism: From Sirach to 2 Baruch. JSPSup 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998. Lewis, Alan E. Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Lewis, Theodore J. “Ancestor Worship.” ABD 1:240–42.    .  Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. HSM 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Lightfoot, J. B., ed. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers. Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Lincoln, Andrew T. “‘I Am the Resurrection and the Life’: The Resurrection Message of the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 122–44 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

256

Bibliography

Lindgaard, Fredrik. Paul’s Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 4:16–5:10. WUNT 2:189. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Lockwood, Gregory J. 1 Corinthians. ConcC. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2000. Lods, Marc. Confesseurs et martyrs: Successeurs des prophètes dans l’Église des trois premiers siècles. CahT 41. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1958. Lohse, Eduard. Märtyrer und Gottesknecht: Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu Christi. FRLANT 64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. Longenecker, Richard N. “A Realized Hope, a New Commitment, and a Developed Proclamation: Paul and Jesus.” Pages 18–42 in The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.    .  Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas: Word, 1990.    .  “Is There Development in Paul’s Resurrection Thought?” Pages 171–202 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Longman, Tremper, III. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Louth, Andrew. “Martyrdom.” EncCT 2:993–95. Lüdemann, Gerd. “Paul, Christ and the Problem of Death.” Pages 26–43 in Origins and Method: Towards a New Understanding of Judaism and Christianity; Essays in Honour of John C. Hurd. Edited by Bradley H. McLean. JSNTSup 86. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Ludlow, Jared W. Abraham Meets Death: Narrative Humor in the Testament of Abraham. JSPSup 41. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Lunceford, Joe E. “An Historical and Exegetical Inquiry into the New Testament Meaning of the ἱλάσκομαι Cognates.” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1979. Mabie, F. J. “Chaos and Death.” DOTWPW 41–54.    . “Destruction.” DOTWPW 99–102. MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2005. Maccoby, Hyam. “Martyrdom: Theological and Psychological Aspects. Martyrdom in Judaism.” Pages 93–104 in Hearing Visions and Seeing Voices: Psychological Aspects of Biblical Concepts and Personalities. Edited by Gerrit Glas, Moshe Halevi Spero, Peter J. Verhagen and Herman M. van Praag. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.    .  The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1982. Magris, Aldo. “Stoicism.” ER 13:8740–44. Marshall, I. Howard. Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity. London: Paternoster, 2007.    . “How Did the Early Christians Know Anything about Future States?” JEBS 9.3 (2009): 7–23.    .  “Luke’s Portrait of the Pauline Mission.” Pages 99–113 in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission. Edited by Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2000.    .  New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

Bibliography

257

   .  The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Leicester: Inter-Varsity / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Marshall, I. Howard, and Philip H. Towner. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Marshall, P. J. “The Enigmatic Apostle: Paul and Social Change. Did Paul Seek to Transform Graeco-Roman Society?” Pages 153–74 in Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond. Vol 2. In Ancient History in a Modern University. 2 vols. Edited by T. W. Hillard, R. A. Kearsley, C. E. V. Nixon and A. M. Nobbs. Sydney: Macquarie University / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Martin, Dale B. “Paul and the Judaism/Hellenism Dichotomy: Toward a Social History of the Question.” Pages 29–61 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Martin, Luther H. Hellenistic Religions: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Waco, TX: Word, 1986.    .  Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1989. Martin-Achard, Robert. From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the Old Testament. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33A. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Mason, Steve. “Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts.” Pages 115–77 in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995.    . “Pharisees.” DNTB 782–87.    .  “Theologies and Sects, Jewish.” DNTB 1221–30. Matera, Frank J. II Corinthians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003.    .  Galatians. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington. SP 9. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007. Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1–11:26. NAC 1A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996. Matthews, Shelly. “Clemency as Cruelty: Forgiveness and Force in the Dying Prayers of Jesus and Stephen.” Pages 117–44 in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Ra’anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, and Calvin J. Roetzel. Leiden: Brill, 2010.    .  Perfect Martyr: The Stoning of Stephen and the Construction of Christian Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Matthews, Shelly, and E. Leigh Gibson, eds. Violence in the New Testament. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Mauro, James. “Bright Lights, Big Mystery.” Psychology Today 25 (1992): 54–57, 80–82. McEntire, Mark Harold. Dangerous Worlds: Living and Dying in Biblical Texts. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2004.    .  The Blood of Abel: The Violent Plot in the Hebrew Bible. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999.    .  The Function of Sacrifice in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1993.

258

Bibliography

McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. McKnight, Scot. A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.    .  Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005.    .  “Jesus vs. Paul.” Christianity Today, December 8, 2010, 24–29. McLean, Bradley H. “The Absence of an Atoning Sacrifice in Paul’s Soteriology.” NTS 38 (1992): 531–53.    .  The Cursed Christ: Mediterranean Expulsion Rituals and Pauline Soteriology. JSNTSup 126. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. McRay, John. Paul: His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Meeks, Wayne A. “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity.” Pages 17–27 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Meinardus, Otto F. A. St. Paul’s Last Journey. In the Footsteps of the Saints. New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas Brothers, 1979. Melloni, Alberto. “Nota bibliografica sul martirio volontario.” CNS 27 (2006): 335–51. Mercatante, Anthony S. The Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend. Revised by James R. Dow. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: Facts on File, 2004. Merrill, Eugene H. “A Theology of the Pentateuch.” Pages 7–87 in A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Edited by Roy B. Zuck and Eugene H. Merrill. Chicago: Moody, 1991.    .  “Suicide and the Concept of Death in the Old Testament.” Pages 314–26 in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life. Edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994. Meyer, Roland. La vie après la mort: Saint Paul, Défenseur de la Résurrection. Collection: La Pensée chrétienne. Lausanne: Editions “Belle Rivière,” 1989. Michael, J. Hugh. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. MNTC. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928. Middleton, Paul. Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity. LNTS 307. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2006. Milbank, John. Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon. Radical Orthodoxy Series. London: Routledge, 2003. Millauer, Helmut. Leiden als Gnade: eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Leidenstheologie des ersten Petrusbriefes. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23; Theologie 56. Bern: Herbert Lang, 1976. Miller, Barbara. Tell It on the Mountain: The Daughter of Jephthah in Judges 11. Interfaces. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005. Miller, David L. “The Development of the Concept of Immortality in the Old Testament.” Ph. D. diss., New York University, 1977. Moberly, R. W. L. “Did the Interpreters Get It Right? Genesis 2–3 Reconsidered.” JTS 59 (2008): 22–40.    .  “Did the Serpent Get It Right?” JTS 39 (1988): 1–27.    .  Review of The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, by James Barr. JTS 45 (1994): 172–75. Moeser, A. G. “The Death of Judas Iscariot.” TBT 30 (1992): 145–51.

Bibliography

259

Moessner, David P. “‘The Christ Must Suffer’: New Light on the Jesus—Peter, Stephen, Paul Parallels in Luke–Acts.” Pages 117–53 in The Composition of Luke’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum. Edited by David E. Orton. Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 1. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.    .  The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. PiNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Moody, Raymond A. Life after Life, and Reflections on Life after Life. Carmel, NY: Guideposts, 1977. Morgenstern, Julian. The Rites of Birth, Marriage, Death, and Kindred Occasions among the Semites. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press / Chicago, IL: Quadrangle, 1966. Morris, Leon. “The Use of ἱλάσκεσθαι etc. in Biblical Greek.” ExpTim 62 (1951): 227–33.    .  The Wages of Sin: An Examination of the New Testament Teaching on Death. Tyndale New Testament Lecture for 1954. London: Tyndale, 1954. Morrison, Karl F. The Mimetic Tradition of Reform in the West. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Moss, Candida R. Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University, 2012.    .  The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Moule, C. F. D. The Phenomenon of the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Implications of Certain Features of the New Testament. SBT 2/1. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1967. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. WBC 46. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Muirhead, Lewis Andrew. The Terms Life and Death in the Old and New Testaments, and Other Papers. London: Andrew Melrose, 1908. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “‘Even Death on a Cross’: Crucifixion in the Pauline Letters.” Pages 21­– 50 in The Cross in Christian Tradition: From Paul to Bonaventure. Edited by Elizabeth A. Dreyer. New York: Paulist, 2000.    .  Jesus and Paul: Parallel Lives. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007.    .  Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.    .  The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.    .  “Truth: Paul and Qumran.” Pages 179–230 in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Nardi, Enzo. “Aborto e omicidio nella civiltà classica.” ANRW 2.13:366–85. Part 2, Principat, 2.13:366–85. Edited by H. Temporini. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Nash, Robert Scott. 1 Corinthians. SHBC 25a. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2007. Ndaro, Lucas Burenga. “The Nature of Human Death: The Case for Prefall Mortality.” Th.M. thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2006. Newsome, James D. Greeks, Romans, Jews: Currents of Culture and Belief in the New Testament World. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992. Neyrey, J. H. “The ‘Noble Shepherd’ in John 10: Cultural and Rhetorical Background.” JBL 120 (2001): 267–91. Nguyen, V. Henry T. Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians, Epictetus and Valerius Maximus. WUNT 2/243. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

260

Bibliography

   .  “God’s Execution of His Condemned Apostles: Paul’s Imagery of the Roman Arena in 1 Cor 4.9.” ZNW 99 (2008): 33–48.    . “The Identification of Paul’s Spectacle of Death Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 4.9.” NTS 53 (2007): 489–501. Nichols, Terence. Death and Afterlife: A Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.    .  Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. Expanded ed. HTS 56. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. Nicole, Roger R. “C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation.” WTJ 17 (1954): 117–57. Noce, Celestino. Il martirio: Testimonianza e spiritualità nei primi secoli. Rome: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1987. Noll, S. F. “Qumran and Paul.” DPL 777–83. Noort, Edward. “Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel: The Status quaestionis.” Pages 103–25 in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. SHAR 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Norris, Frederick W. Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor. CH 62 (1993): 544–45. Novello, Henry L. Death as Transformation: A Contemporary Theology of Death. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. WBC 44. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.    .  The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.    .  “The Gospel and Godly Models in Philippians.” Pages 273–84 in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin. Edited by Michael J. Wilkins and Terence Paige. JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: Sheffield JSOT Press, 1992.    .  The Letter to the Ephesians. PiNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. O’Connor, Daniel Wm. Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical, and Archeological Evidence. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. O’Hagan, Angelo. “The Martyr in the Fourth Book of Maccabees.” SBFLA 24 (1974): 94–120. O’Mathúna, Dónal P. “But the Bible Doesn’t Say They Were Wrong to Commit Suicide, Does It?” Pages 348–66 in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life. Edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.    .  “Did Paul Condone Suicide? Implications for Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia.” Pages 386–97 in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life. Edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998. O’Neill, J. C. “Did Jesus Teach That His Death Would Be Vicarious As Well As Typical?” Pages 9–27 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. Edited by William Horbury and Brian McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Bibliography

261

Oesterley, W. O. E. The Jews and Judaism during the Greek Period: The Background of Christianity. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 1941. Ogg, George. The Chronology of the Life of Paul. London: Epworth, 1968. Origen. Prayer. Exhortation to Martyrdom. Translated and Annotated by John J. O’Meara. ACW 19. Westminster, MD: Newman / London: Longmans, Green, 1954. Otto, Eckart. “Covenant.” ER 3:2047–51. Palmer, D. W. “‘To Die Is Gain’ (Philippians i 21).” NovT 17 (1975): 203–18. Pate, C. Marvin. Adam Christology as the Exegetical and Theological Substructure of 2 Corinthians 4:7–5:21. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991.    .  The End of the Age Has Come: The Theology of Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Pate, C. Marvin, and Douglas W. Kennard. Deliverance Now and Not Yet: The New Testament and the Great Tribulation. StBibLit 54. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Pattison, Stephen. Shame: Theory, Therapy, Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Penna, Romano. Jew and Greek Alike. Vol. 1 of Paul the Apostle: A Theological and Exegetical Study. Translated by Thomas P. Wahl. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.    .  Wisdom and Folly of the Cross. Vol. 2 of Paul the Apostle: A Theological and Exegetical Study. Translated by Thomas P. Wahl. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996. Perriman, Andrew. “The Pattern of Christ’s Sufferings: Colossians 1:24 and Philippians 3:10–11.” TynBul 42 (1991): 62–79. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Hermeneia— A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. PiNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Petropoulou, M. Z. Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 B.C.–A.D. 200. OCM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by C. D. Yonge. New updated ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993. Pickett, Raymond. The Cross in Corinth: The Social Significance of the Death of Jesus. JSNTSup 143. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Plato. Plato. Translated by Harold North Fowler et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914–80.    .  Trial and Death of Socrates. Translated by F. J. Church. Deluxe ed. The Works of Plato 3. New York: Nottingham Society, n.d. [1900]. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1915. Pobee, John S. Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul. JSNTSup 6. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Pokrifka, J. “Life, Imagery of.” DOTWPW 431–37. Polhill, John B. Acts. NAC 26. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1992.    .  Paul and His Letters. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999. Polybius. The Histories. Translated by W. R. Paton. Revised by Frank W. Walbank, and Christian Habicht. 2nd ed. 6 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.

262

Bibliography

Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “Ritual Killing and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 3–33 in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. SHR 112. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Porter, Stanley E. “Did Paul Speak Latin?” Pages 289–308 in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 2008.    .  “Paul and His Bible: His Education and Access to the Scriptures of Israel.” Pages 97–124 in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SymS 50. Leiden: Brill, 2008.    .  “Paul as Jew, Greek, and Roman: An Introduction.” Pages 1–6 in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 2008.    .  “Resurrection, the Greeks and the New Testament.” Pages 52–81 in Resurrection. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, John H. Hayes, and David Tombs. JSNTSup 186. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Porton, G. G. “Sadducees.” DNTB 1050–52. Powers, Daniel G. Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology. Biblical Exegesis and Theology 29. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Preissler, Holger. “Martyr.” BDR 3:1158–61. Preus, Anthony. Historical Dictionary of Ancient Greek Philosophy. Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements 78. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2007. Proudfoot, C. Merrill. “Imitation or Realistic Participation? A Study of Paul’s Concept of ‘Suffering with Christ’” Int 17 (1963): 140–60. Quéré, France. “The Unity of Martyrdom and Communion with Christ.” Evangelical Review of Theology 24 (2000): 41–49. Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Rad, Gerhard von. Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis. Übersetzt und erlkärt von Gerhard von Rad. Vol. 2 of Die Alte Testament Deutsch. Neues Göttinger Bibelwert. Edited by Volfmar Herntrich and Artur Weiser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. Raharimanantsoa, Mamy. Mort et espérance selon la Bible hébraïque. ConBOT 53. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006. Räisänen, Heikki. Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 2000. Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994. Reardon, Patrick Henry. “Sacraments, Martyrdom and the Sons of Zebedee: Two Gospel Texts in the Tradition.” Touchstone (US) 11 no. 5 (1998): 38–42. Reddish, M. G. “Martyr Christology in the Apocalypse.” JSNT 33 (1988): 85–95. Reeves, Rodney. Spirituality according to Paul: Imitating the Apostle of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Reis, David M. “Following in Paul’s Footsteps: Mimēsis and Power in Ignatius of Antioch.” Pages 287–305 in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic

Bibliography

263

Fathers. Edited by Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Reiss, Moshe. “Jephthah’s Daughter.” JBQ 37 (2009): 57–63. Reitman, James S. “A ‘Wisdom’ Perspective of Advocacy for the Suicidal.” Pages 368–85 in Suicide: A Christian Response; Crucial Considerations for Choosing Life. Edited by Timothy J. Demy and Gary P. Stewart. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998. Richards, Kent Harold. “Death, Old Testament.” ABD 2:108–10. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission, Strategy, Theology. Translated by Doug Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Rindge, Matthew S. “Mortality and Enjoyment: The Interplay of Death and Possessions in Qoheleth.” CBQ 73 (2011): 265–80. Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark / New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1914. Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980. Roetzel, Calvin J. “Sacrifice in Romans 12–15.” WW 6 (1986): 410–19. Rosenberg, Ruth. “The Concept of Biblical Sheol within the Context of Ancient Near Eastern Beliefs.” Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1981. Rosenblatt, Marie-Eloise. Paul the Accused: His Portrait in the Acts of the Apostles. Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1995. Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Routledge, Robin L. “Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament.” JEBS 9 (2008): 22–39. Royston, Lindley G. “The Old Testament Concept of Life After Death.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1962. Rupprecht, Arthur A. “Interpreting the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 191–216 in The Literature and Meaning of Scripture. Edited by Morris A. Inch and C. Hassell Bullock. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Sabou, Sorin. Between Horror and Hope: Paul’s Metaphorical Language of Death in Romans 6:1–11. PBM. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005. Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington, DE : Michael Glazier 1988. Salisbury, Joyce E. The Blood of Martyrs: Unintended Consequences of Ancient Violence. New York: Routledge, 2004. Sampley, J. Paul, ed. Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Samuelsson, Gunnar. Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion. WUNT 2/310. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977. Sanders, John, ed. Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006.

264

Bibliography

Sanders, Steven. “An Exploration of Humility in the First Century World and Its Application to Philippians 2.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2009. Sandnes, Karl Olav. “A Missionary Strategy in 1 Corinthians 9.19–23?” Pages 128–41 in Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice. Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner. LNTS 420. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011. Sawyer, Deborah F. “The New Adam in the Theology of St Paul.” Pages 105–16 in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer. JSOTSup 136. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Schenker, Adrian. “‘Et comme le sacrifice de l’holocauste il les agréa’: Les premiéres comparaisons du martyre avec un sacrifice dans l’ancien testament.” Pages 351–56 in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom; Festschrift M. Gilbert. Edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Schmid, Konrad. “Loss of Immortality? Hermeneutical Aspects of Genesis 2–3 and Its Early Reception.” Pages 58–78 in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History. Edited by Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg. FAT, 2/34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Schmitt, John J. “Preexilic Hebrew Prophecy.” ABD 5:482–89. Schneider, Sebastian. “Glaubensmängel in Korinth: Eine neue Deutung der ‘Schwachen, Kranken, Schlafenden’ in 1 Kor 11,30.” Filología Neotestamentaria 9 (1996): 3–19. Schoeps, Hans-Joachim. Die jüdischen Prophetenmorde. SymBU 2. Uppsala: Wretmans, 1943. Schrage, Wolfgang. “Leid, Kreuz und Eschaton: die Peristasenkataloge als Merkmale paulinischer theologia crucis und Eschatologie.” EvT 34 (1974): 141–75. Schreiner, Klaus. Märtyrer, Schlachtenhelfer, Friedenstifter: Krieg und Frieden im Spiegel mittelalterlicher und frühneuzeitlicher Heiligenverehrung. Otto von FreisingVorlesungen der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt 18. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2000. Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.    .  Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity / Leicester: Apollos, 2001.    .  Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Schröter, Jens. “Sühne, Stellvertretung und Opfer. Zur Verwendung analytischer Kategorien zur Deutung des Todes Jesu.” Pages 51–71 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by J. Frey and J. Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William Montgomery. New York: Macmillan, 1956.    .  The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Translated by W. Montgomery. London: A. & C. Black, 1910; reprint, New York: Macmillan Company, 1959. Scott, J. J., Jr. “Immortality.” DPL 431–33. Seeley, David. The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation. JSNTSup 28. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Seesengood, Robert Paul. Paul: A Brief History. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Segal, Alan F. “The Akedah: Some Reconsiderations.” Pages 99–116 in Judentum. Vol. 1 of Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Ge-

Bibliography

265

burtstag. 3 vols. Edited by Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger,Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.    .  “‘He who did not spare his own son . . .’: Jesus, Paul, and the Akedah.” Pages 169–84 in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Bear. Edited by Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984.    .  Life after Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the West. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Seow, C. L. Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 18C. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Shemesh, Yael. “Suicide in the Bible.” JBQ 37 (2009): 157–68. Shimodate, Masao. “Nature and Significance of Christ’s Death as Reflected in Selected General and Pauline Epistles.” Th.D. diss., Concordia Seminary, 1985. Shultz, Gary L., Jr. “The Reconciliation of All Things in Christ.” BSac 167 (2010): 442–59. Siker, Jeffrey S. “Yom Kippuring Passover: Recombinant Sacrifice in Early Christianity.” Pages 65–82 in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible. Edited by Christian A. Eberhart. RBS 68. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Silva, Moisés. “Old Testament in Paul.” DPL 630–42.    .  Philippians. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Sklar, Jay. Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions. HBM 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. Smith, Carl B. “Ministry, Martyrdom, and other Mysteries: Pauline Influence on Ignatius of Antioch.” Pages 37–56 in Paul and the Second Century. Edited by Michael F. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson. LNTS 412. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011. Smith, Lacey Baldwin. Fools, Martyrs, Traitors: The Story of Martyrdom in the Western World. New York: Knopf, 1997. Snyder, Graydon F. Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor. Chicago Theological Seminary Register 84 (1994): 32. Sonnet, Jean-Pierre, and André Wénin. “La morte di Sansone: Dio benedice l’attentato suicida? Sulla necessità di leggere meglio.” CNS 27 (2006): 17–29. Spencer, William David. “The Power in Paul’s Teaching (1 Cor 4:9–20).” JETS 32 (1989): 51–61. Spronk, Klaas. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. AOAT 219. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004.    .  Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stanley, D. M. “‘Become Imitators of Me’: The Pauline Concepton of Apostolic Tradition.” Bib 40 (1959): 859–77. Stepp, Perry Leon. The Believer’s Participation in the Death of Christ: ‘Corporate Identification’ and a Study of Romans 6:1–14. Mellen Biblical Press Series 49. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1996. Sterling, G. “Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke.” HTR 94 (2001): 383–402. Stettler, Hanna. “An Interpretation of Colossians 1:24 in the Framework of Paul’s Mission Theology.” Pages 185–208 in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and

266

Bibliography

Gentiles. Edited by Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein. WUNT 127. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Stiewe, Martin, and François Vouga. Bedeutung und Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament: ein theologischer Essay. Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie 19. Tübingen: Francke, 2011. Stökl, Daniel Johannes. “The Christian Exegesis of the Scapegoat between Jews and Pagans.” Pages 207–32 in Sacrifice in Religious Experience. Edited by Albert I. Baumgarten. SHR 93. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Stolle, Volker. Der Zeuge als Angeklagter: Untersuchungen zum Paulusbild des Lukas. BWA(N)T 6/102. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973. Stone, I. F. The Trial of Socrates. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1988. Stott, John R. W. God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians. The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979.    .  The Spirit the Church and the World: The Message of Acts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990. Stowers, Stanley K. “Does Pauline Christianity Resemble a Hellenistic Philosophy?” Pages 81–102 in Paul beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Strom, Mark. Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace and Community. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001. Sumney, Jerry L. “‘Christ Died for Us’: Interpretation of Jesus’ Death as a Central Element of the Identity of the Earliest Church.” Pages 147–72 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation. Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. LNTS 428. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2010.    .  “‘I Fill Up What Is Lacking in the Afflictions of Christ’: Paul’s Vicarious Suffering in Colossians.” CBQ 68 (2006): 664–80. Swartley, Willard M., ed. Violence Renounced: René Girard, Biblical Studies, and Peacemaking. Studies in Peace and Scripture 4. Telford, PA: Pandora, 2000. Sweet, J. P. M. “Maintaining the Testimony of Jesus: The Suffering of Christians in the Revelation of John.” Pages 101–17 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar. Edited by William Horbury and Brian McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Swetnam, James. Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah. AnBib 94. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981. Tabor, James D. Review of The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation, by David Seeley. JBL 111 (1992): 544–46. Tajra, H. W. M. “Spiritual, Human, and Psychological Dimensions of St. Paul’s Martyrdom.” Pages 115–24 in Hearing Visions and Seeing Voices: Psychological Aspects of Biblical Concepts and Personalities, Edited by Gerrit Glas, Moshe Halevi Spero, Peter J. Verhagen and Herman M. van Praag. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.    .  The Martyrdom of St. Paul: Historical and Judicial Context, Traditions, and Legends. WUNT 2/67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Talbert, Charles H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke–Acts. SBLMS 20. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974.

Bibliography

267

   .  Romans. SHBC 24. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Tambasco, Anthony J. A Theology of Atonement and Paul’s Vision of Christianity. Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament. Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1991. Tannehill, Robert C. Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology. BZNW 32. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967.    .  The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991. Tasker, R. V. G. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. Theissen, Gerd. “Das Kreuz als Sühne und Ärgernis: Zwei Deutungen des Todes Jesu bei Paulus.” Pages 427–55 in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur. Edited by Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell. WUNT 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.    .  The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle’s Life and Thought. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Thompson, Clinton Ralph. “Relation of Physical to Spiritual Death.” Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary and Graduate School of Theology, 1941. Thompson, M. M. “John, Gospel of.” DJG 368–83. Thrall, Margaret E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Tidball, Derek, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker, eds. The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Tomlin, Graham. The Power of the Cross: Theology and the Death of Christ in Paul, Luther and Pascal. Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. Ton, Josef. Suffering, Martyrdom, and Rewards in Heaven. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997. Toynbee, J. M. C. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971. Travis, Stephen H. Christ and the Judgement of God: The Limits of Divine Retribution in New Testament Thought. Revised and updated ed. Milton Keynes: Paternoster / Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2008. Trites, Allison A. “Martyrs and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse: A Semantic Study.” NovT 15 (1973): 72–80.    .  The New Testament Concept of Witness. SNTSMS 31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.    .  “Witness and the Resurrection in the Apocalypse of John.” Pages 270–88 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Tromp, Nicholas J. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament. BibOr 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969. Tson, Joseph. “Towards a Modern Protestant Theology of Martyrdom.” Evangelical Review of Theology 24 (2000): 50–62. Tuckett, C. M. “Atonement in the NT.” ABD 1:518–22. Turcan, Robert, and Chiara Ombretta Tommasi. “Apotheosis.” ER 1:437–40.

268

Bibliography

Turner, G. A. “John, the Apostle.” ZPEB 3:637–41. Turner, Kenneth J. The Death of Deaths in the Death of Israel: Deuteronomy’s Theology of Exile. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Turner, S. H. “Judgment.” DPL 516–17. Uchelen, Nico van. “Death and the After-life in the Hebrew Bible of Ancient Israel.” Pages 77–90 in Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic World. Edited by J. M. Bremer, Th. P. J. van den Hout, and R. Peters. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994. VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. Vassiliadis, Petros. “The Translation of Martyria Iēsou in Revelation.” BT 36 (1985): 129–34. Vermes, Geza. “New Light on the Sacrifice of Isaac from 4Q225.” JJS 47 (1996): 140–46.    .  Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. 2nd ed. StPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Vernant, Jean-Pierre. “Greek Religion [First Edition].” ER 6:3659–76. Versnel, Henk S. “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen über die Herkunft von aspekten des ‘Effective Death’.” Pages 162–96 in Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie. Edited by J. W. Van Henten, B. A. G. M. Dehandschutter, and H. J. W. Van der Klaauw. StPB 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989.    .  “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death. The Pagan Contribution.” Pages 213–94 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Viagulamuthu, Xavier Paul B. Offering Our Bodies as a Living Sacrifice to God: A Study in Pauline Spirituality Based on Romans 12,1. TGSS 7. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002. Vining, Peggy A. “A Comparison of Moral Transformation in Paul and Lucius Annaeus Seneca.” M.A. Thesis, Abilene Christian University, 2003. Vogel, Manuel. Commentatio mortis: 2Kor 5,1–10 auf dem Hintergrund antiker ars moriendi. FRLANT 214. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Wagner-Tsukamoto, Sigmund. “The Tree of Life: Banned or Not Banned? A Rational Choice Interpretation.” SJOT 26 (2012): 102–22. Wallace, Daniel B. “Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” (Dallas: Biblical Studies, 2000), 14–15. Online: http://bible.org/seriespage/second -peter-introduction-argument-and-outline. Wallace, Ronald S. The Atoning Death of Christ. Foundations for Faith. Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1981. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Walton, J. H. “Job 1: Book of.” DOTWPW 333–46.    . “Satan.” DOTWPW 714–17. Waterfield, Robin. Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009. Watson, Duane F. “Death, Second.” ABD 2:111–12. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004. Watts, James W. “The Rhetoric of Sacrifice.” Pages 3–16 in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible. Edited by Christian A. Eberhart. RBS 68. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

Bibliography

269

Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement. 2nd revised and expanded ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Wedderburn, Alexander J. M. The Death of Jesus: Some Reflections on Jesus-Traditions and Paul. WUNT 299. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Weiler, Gabriele. “Human Sacrifice in Greek Culture.” Pages 35–64 in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by Karin Finsterbusch, Armin Lange, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. SHR 112. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Weiner, Eugene, and Anna Weiner. The Martyr’s Conviction: A Sociological Analysis. BJS 203. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. Weinrich, William C. “Death and Martyrdom: An Important Aspect of Early Christian Eschatology.” CTQ 66 (2002): 327–38.    .  Spirit and Martyrdom: A Study of the Work of the Holy Spirit in Contexts of Persecution and Martyrdom in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1981. Weitzman, Steven. “Josephus on How to Survive Martyrdom.” JJS 55 (2004): 230–45. Wengst, Klaus. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums. SNT 7. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972. Wenham, David. Paul and Jesus: The True Story. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Westerholm, Stephen. “Pharisees.” DJG 609–14. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. White, Joel R. “‘Baptized on Account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context.” JBL 116 (1997): 487–99. White, L Michael. Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor. JBL 113 (1994): 358–60. Whitters, Mark F. “Martyrdom as Cultic Death in the Book of Maccabees: Antecedents and Later Developments.” Pages 97–119 in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 44. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008. Wiens, Devon H. “Mystery Concepts in Primitive Christianity and in its Environment.” ANRW 23.2:1248–84. Part 2, Principat, 23.2. Edited by Wolfgang Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Wilkin, Robert L. “The Lives of the Saints and the Pursuit of Virtue.” First Things 8 (1990): 45–51. Williams, Demetrius K. Enemies of the Cross of Christ: The Terminology of the Cross and Conflict in Philippians. JSNTSup 223. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Williams, H. H. Drake, III. “Light Giving Sources: Examining the Extent of Scriptural Citation and Allusion Influence in 1 Corinthians.” Pages 7–37 in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Pauline Studies 5. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Williams, James G. The Bible, Violence, and the Sacred: Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned Violence. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.

270

Bibliography

Williams, Jarvis J. Maccabean Martyr Traditions in Paul’s Theology of Atonement: Did Martyr Theology Shape Paul’s Conception of Jesus’ Death? Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010.    .  “Violent Atonement in Romans: The Foundation of Paul’s Soteriology.” JETS 53 (2010): 579–99. Williams, Sam K. Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 2. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Wilson, Emily. The Death of Socrates. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Winter, Bruce W. “Secular and Christian Responses to Corinthian Famines.” TynBul 40 (1989): 86–106. Witherington, Ben, III. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998. Witte, Markus. “‘Aber Gott Wird Meine Seele Erlosen’—Tod und Leben nach Psalm XLIX.” VT 50 (2000): 540­– 60. Wolff, Christian. “Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus’ Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul.” Pages 145–60 in Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays. Edited by A. J. M. Wedderburn. JSNTSup 37. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Wright, Christopher J. H. “Leviticus.” Pages 121–57 in New Bible Commentary. Edited by Gordon J. Wenham, J. Alec Motyer, Donald A. Carson, and R. T. France. 4th ed. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1994. Wright, David P. “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden.” Bib 77 (1996): 305–29. Wright, Jacob L. “Making a Name for Oneself: Martial Valor, Heroic Death, and Procreation in the Hebrew Bible.” JSOT 36 (2011): 131–62. Wright, John Wesley. Review of A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews In Antiquity, by Arthur J. Droge and James D. Tabor. AUSS 31 (1993): 139–41. Wright, N. T. “Jesus.” Pages 43–58 in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context. Edited by John Barclay and John Sweet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.    .  Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.    .  Paul and the Faithfulness of God in 2 vols. Vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.    .  Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: HarperOne, 2008.    .  The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.    .  The Resurrection of the Son of God. Vol. 3 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Yamasaki, Gary. John the Baptist in Life and Death: Audience-Oriented Criticism of Matthew’s Narrative. JSNTSup 167. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 21–50 in Life in the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New Testament, edited by Richard N. Longenecker. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Yarbro Collins, Adela. “Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus.” JR 78 (1998): 175–96.    .  “From Noble Death to Crucified Messiah.” NTS 40 (1994): 481–503.

Bibliography

271

   . “The Political Perspective of the Revelation of John.” JBL 96 (1977): 241–56. Yerkes, Royden Keith. Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism. The Hale Lectures. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1952. Young, Frances M. Sacrifice and the Death of Christ. London: SCM, 1975.    .  The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom. Patristic Monograph Series 5. Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979. Young, Norman H. “‘Hilaskesthai’ and Related Words in the New Testament.” EvQ 55 (1983): 169–76. Young, Robin Darling. “Martyrdom as Exaltation.” Pages 70–92 in Late Ancient Christianity. Edited by Virginia Burrus. A People’s History of Christianity 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Zamzam, Ramy. “Verbatim.” Time, January 18, 2010, 22. Zedda, Silverio. “Christo confixus sum Cruci (Gal. 2,19).” Pages 481–92 in Testimonium Christi: scritti in onore di Jacques Dupont. Edited by Maria Grazia Angelini, Giuseppe Barbaglio, and Cesare Bissoli. Brescia, Italy: Paideia, 1985. Zimmerman, J. E. Dictionary of Classical Mythology. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Zobel, H. J. “‫הֹוי‬.” TDOT 3:359–64. Zwiep, Arie W. Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles. WUNT 2/293. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Index of Authors Abouzeid, R.  22 Adams, D. R.  197 Adams, S. A.  42 Adewuya, J. A.  220 Alexander, P. S.  37 Allison, D. C., Jr.  143 Amundsen, D. W.  171 Anderson, B.  107 Arnold, C. E.  214 Aune, D. E.  110 Bailey, L. R.  2, 8, 12, 13, 71, 93, 108, 125, 126 Baker, M. D.  27, 150, 154, 160 Ballard, P.  70, 89 Barclay, J. M. G.  139 Barnett, P.  211 Barnett, P. W.  172 Barrett, C. K.  197, 198 Barr, J.  64, 65, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 121 Bar, S.  65, 66 Barton, C.  15, 54 Baslez, M.-F.  19 Bauckham, R.  126, 233 Beasley-Murray, G. R.  153, 192 Beek, A. van de  67, 69, 79 Beilby, J.  27 Beker, J. C.  181, 189 Bell, R. H.  163 Benj, T.  83 Benoit, P.  134 Berman, L. A.  92 Betz, O.  147, 156 Bishop, S.  107 Blackwell, B. C.  50 Blenkinsopp, J.  40 Blue, B. B.  171 Bock, D. L.  143, 145, 146, 197 Boer, M. C. de  156 Boersma, H.  26 Boer, W. P. de  224 Bolt, P. G.  46, 47, 51, 52 Boonefoy, Yves  44 Borg, M. J.  178 272

Bosworth, D. A.  102, 103 Bouzid, S.  22 Bowersock, G. W.  19 Bremer, J. M.  46 Bremmer, J. N.  51 Brettler, M.  117, 137 Breytenbach, C.  24, 93, 150, 151, 160, 163 Brown, R. E.  143, 144 Bruce, F. F.  214 Brueggemann, W.  83 Burkert, W.  53 Burton, E. de Witt  212 Byron, J.  66, 74, 81, 82, 83 Campbell, B.  171 Campbell, D. A.  182 Carson, D. A.  153, 178 Cassin, E.  43 Cassuto, U.  66, 72, 73, 74 Cavallin, H. C. C.  126 Chapman, D. W.  159 Chilton, B. D.  131 Chisholm, R. B,. Jr.  61, 100, 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121 Clines, D. J. A.  64 Cohen, S. J. D.  131 Collins, A. Y.  124, 125, 127, 128, 131, 135 Collins, J. J.  124 Conzelmann, H.  207 Copan, P.  190 Copan, V. A.  195, 203, 224 Cranfield, C. E. B.  78 Crossan, J. D.  178 Cullen, T.  43 Daly, R. J.  26 Davids, P. H.  85 Davies, W. D.  37, 143 Deissmann, A.  181 Derrett, J. D. M.  143 deSilva, D. A.  129, 161 Destro, A.  26 Dodd, C. H.  39, 151

Index of Authors Downing, J.  160 Dragas, G.  192, 218 Driver, J.  150 Droge, A. J.  8, 9, 10, 15, 21, 22, 102, 158 Dunn, J. D. G.  36, 178, 181, 182, 190, 204, 234 Eastman, D. L.  234 Eddy, P. R.  27 Edwards, J. C.  58, 152, 153 Ellis, E. E.  179 Engnell, I.  69 Enns, P.  63, 73, 76, 79, 80, 81 Erickson, M. J.  85 Eschner, C.  54, 130, 131, 163 Evans, C. A.  39, 60, 126, 131 Exum, J. C.  102 Fahim, K.  23 Farmer, W. R.  134 Fathi, N.  22 Fee, G. D.  225 Feinberg, J. S.  85 Finlan, S.  151, 152 Finney, M.  154 Fisichella, R.  19 Fisk, B. N.  177 Flusser, D.  131, 133 Fouts, D. M.  83 Fowl, S. E.  195 Fox, M. V.  110 France, R. T.  152 Frend, W. H. C.  8, 19, 21 Freud, S.  42 Garland, D. E.  171, 188, 200, 207, 209, 210, 211, 213 Garland, R.  45, 46, 47, 52, 53 Gaskin, J. C. A.  50 Gaukesbrink, M.  128, 130, 131 Girard, R.  26 Godet, F. L.  140 Gooch, P. W.  22, 56, 161 Goodacre, M.  211 Gorman, M. J.  199 Graves, R.  55 Grayston, K.  25 Greenberg, L. A.  17, 20, 21 Green, G. L.  41 Green, J. B.  27, 150, 152, 154, 160, 161

273

Greyson, B.  42 Guthrie, D.  178 Hafemann, S. J.  37, 145, 180, 188, 205, 210, 224, 225, 226 Hamilton, J. M., Jr.  190 Hamilton, V. P.  77, 94 Hansen, G. W.  199, 216, 224 Hanson, A. T.  178, 205, 223 Harris, M. J.  71, 200 Harris, W. H.  172 Hays, R. B.  60, 208 Heard, W. J.  39, 131 Hengel, M.  21, 22, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 90, 92, 95, 96, 98, 99, 118, 143, 211 Henninger, J.  52 Henten, J. W. van  17, 19, 25, 127 Hess, R. S.  62, 65 Hilborn, D.  28 Hoehner, H.  214, 233, 234 Holden, D. T.  190 Holland, T.  152, 202, 203 Hooker, M. D.  66, 152, 212, 218, 224 Hope, V. M.  47 Hurtado, L. W.  139 Illman, K.-J.  86 Jacobsen, T. W.  43 Jewett, R.  208, 233 Johnston, P. S.  71, 72, 90, 99, 108, 115, 116, 118, 121, 134 Karakolis, C.  166 Käsemann, E.  181 Keener, C. S.  145 Kellermann, U.  128 Kennard, D. W.  14, 203 Kertelge, K.  181 Klausner, S. Z.  17, 19 Knox, J.  27 Köstenberger, A. J.  141 Kraftchick, S. J.  215 Lampe, P.  162, 163 Lane, W. L.  194 Lebram, J. C. H.  118 Lefort, G.  26 Légasse, S.  176 Léon-Dufour, X.  225

274

Index of Authors

Levenson, J. D.  121 Lewis, T. J.  90, 91 Longenecker, R. N.  39 Mabie, F. J.  113 MacArthur, J.  71 Magris, A.  50 Marshall, I. H.  5, 26, 141 Martin-Achard, R.  79 Martin, D. B.  37 Martin, R. P.  181 Mason, S.  39 Mathews, K. A.  79 Matthews, S.  168 Mauro, J.  42 McGrath, A. E.  26 McKnight, S.  92, 135, 152, 153, 159, 177, 179, 180, 201 McLean, B. H.  163 Meeks, W. A.  37, 132 Meinardus, O. F. A.  233 Mercatante, A. S.  45 Merrill, E. H.  67, 83, 87, 100, 102 Metzger, B. M.  157, 209, 210 Michael, J. H.  225 Middleton, P.  16, 19, 22, 54, 144, 155, 180, 194, 202 Milbank, J.  162 Moberly, R. W. L.  66, 67, 71, 75 Moessner, D. P.  196 Moo, D. J.  13, 78, 131, 151, 178, 202, 203, 217 Moody, R. A.  42 Moss, C. R.  18, 19, 51 Moule, C. F. D.  167 Mounce, W. D.  222 Murphy-O’Connor, J.  134, 200

Penna, R.  92 Pervo, R. I.  196, 197 Pesce, M.  26 Peterson, D. G.  198 Pobee, J. S.  16 Porter, S. E.  38, 46 Porton, G. G.  133 Preus, A.  50 Rad, Gerhard von  69 Raharimanantsoa, Mamy  115 Räisänen, Heikki  181 Rapske, B.  35 Reddish, M. G.  18 Reeves, R.  206 Richards, K. H.  3, 13, 125 Ridderbos, H.  143, 181 Rindge, M. S.  110 Robertson, O. P.  92 Ross, A. P.  83 Routledge, R. L.  120, 121

O’Brien, P. T.  204, 214, 225, 226 O’Connor, D. W.  233 Ogg, G.  233

Sailhamer, J. H.  65, 83 Samuelsson, G.  143 Sanders, J. A.  26, 60 Sandnes, K. O.  219 Sawyer, D. F.  76 Schmid, K.  63 Schmitt, J. J.  104 Schoeps, H.-J.  104 Schreiner, T. R.  181, 197, 201 Schröter, J.  11, 25 Schweitzer, A.  181 Schwemer, A. M.  211 Seeley, D.  13, 14, 16, 56, 129, 130, 131 Seesengood, R. P.  178 Seow, C. L.  110, 111 Shemesh, Y.  100, 101, 102 Siker, J. S.  61 Silva, M.  216 Sklar, J.  93, 151 Spencer, W. D.  224 Stanley, D. M.  224 Stott, J.  197, 202 Stowers, S. K.  52 Stuhlmacher, P.  181 Sumney, J. L.  140

Pate, C. M.  181, 203 Pattison, S.  208

Tabor, J. D.  8, 9, 10, 15, 21, 22, 158 Tajra, H. W.  233

Nardi, E.  11 Neyrey, J. H.  160 Nguyen, V. H. T.  208 Nickelsburg, G. W. E.  129 Noll, S. F.  134

Index of Authors Talbert, C. H.  196 Tannehill, R. C.  198 Thacker, J.  28 Theissen, G.  151, 205, 207, 208 Thiselton, A. C.  140 Tidball, D.  28 Tommasi, C. O.  52 Trites, A. A.  18 Tromp, N. J.  90, 105 Tuckett, C. M.  152 Turcan, R.  52 Turner, S. H.  189 Uchelen, N. van  62 Vassiliadis, C. P.  18 Vernant, J.-P.  44, 53 Versnel, H. S.  10, 11, 19, 48, 51, 55, 57, 128, 131, 153, 154 Wagner-Tsukamoto, S.  64 Wallace, D. B.  234 Waltke, B. K.  109 Walton, J. H.  105 Waterfield, R.  55 Watson, D. F.  13 Watson, F.  87 Watts, J. W.  24

275

Weaver, J. D.  26 Weiler, G.  52 Weinrich, W. C.  12, 18, 20, 21, 24, 64 Wengst, K.  57 Wenham, D.  140 Wenham, G. J.  66, 79 Westermann, C.  67, 73, 84 White, J. R.  209 Williams, H. H. D.  60 Williams, J. J.  26, 151, 160, 162, 203 Williams, S. K.  89, 122, 146 Wilson, E.  16, 55, 159 Wilson, W. E.  181 Winter, B. W.  171 Witte, M.  121 Witt, J. R. de  181 Wright, C. J. H.  93 Wright, D. P.  66 Wright, J. L.  51, 74, 99, 101 Wright, N. T.  14, 25, 38, 39, 40, 43, 46, 48, 53, 61, 93, 118, 131, 141, 148, 157, 178 Yamasaki, G.  167 Zamzam, R.  11 Zimmerman, J. E.  44 Zobel, H. F.  115

Index of Scripture Genesis 1 70 1–11  62, 67, 73, 79 1–15  66, 79 1–17 79 1:26–27 75 1:27 82 1:28 77 2 70 2–3  63, 64, 66, 70, 80 2:7  62, 65 2:9 63 2:17  62, 66, 69, 71, 72, 74, 78, 190 2:20 73 2:23 73 2:24 62 2:25 65 3 81 3:4 66 3:5  65, 75 3:7–10 191 3:8–10 68 3:10 65 3:15  74, 75 3:17–19 65 3:19  65, 71, 73, 74, 82 3:20 73 3:21  71, 92 3:22  65, 66, 70, 75 3:22–24  63, 64, 65, 72 4  66, 71, 81, 82 4–5 84 4:1  74, 75 4:2–5 25 4:3 82 4:7 82 4:10 82 4:11–12 83 4:11–16 68 4:12 83 4:13 83 4:24  82, 83

Genesis (cont.) 5  68, 90 5–9 84 5:1–32 84 5:5  66, 67, 84 5:8 84 5:11 84 5:14 84 5:17 84 5:20 84 5:21–24 78 5:22 68 5:24  66, 84, 90, 95 5:27 84 5:29  83, 84 5:31 84 6 84 6:5–7 84 6:9 68 8:20–21 83 8:20–22 92 9:4–6 86 9:5–6 87 9:6 85 9:28–29 84 9:29 84 12:1–3 123 12:3 62 12:7 62 12:12 94 13 94 13:15 62 15:5 62 15:6 62 15:9–21 92 15:16 87 17:5 62 17:7 62 18:10 62 18:18 62 18:33 85 20 94 20:6–7 70 276

Genesis (cont.) 21:10 62 21:12 62 22  92, 100 22:1–18 94 22:2 92 22:9 92 23  93, 94 24:1–4 94 24:7 62 25:5–6 94 25:8 94 25:23 62 27:1–41 94 32:20 56 35:19–20 94 35:28–29 94 46:30 94 47:15 94 47:28–31 94 48:8–20 94 48:21 94 48:22 94 49:1–27 94 49:10 126 49:29–32 94 50:1–14 94 50:24–26 94 Exodus 4:24–26 86 6–13 85 9:16 62 13:19 94 16:18 62 20:12 62 20:13 62 20:17 62 21:15–17 70 21:30 56 22:18 90 25:17–22 151 30:12 56

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 30:15–16 56 32 86 32–34 88 32:6 62 32:10 88 32:11–14 88 32:19 88 32:20 88 32:25–29 88 32:34 88 32:35 88 33:19 62 Leviticus 4 162 10:1–2 88 10:7 88 16:1–2 88 16:18–19 151 17:11 162 18:5 62 19:18 62 19:26 90 19:31 90 20:6 90 20:7–27 87 24:13–23 87 26:12 62 26:14–45 87 27:29 88 Numbers 11:33–34 88 13–14  86, 88 15:32–36 88 16 88 16:31–50 86 20:1–13 95 21:1–3 87 21:1–9 88 21:4–9 86 21:21–32 87 21:33–35 87 22–24  88, 89 23:10 89 24:17 126 25  33, 89 25:1–18 87 25:16–18 87

Numbers (cont.) 26:63–65 88 26:65 70 27:1–11 86 30:6 66 30:8 66 30:9 66 31:8 89 31:16 89 Deuteronomy 2:24–25 87 3:1–11 87 5:9 82 5:16 62 5:17 62 5:21 62 9:7–20 86 11:6 86 17:7 62 18:9–11 90 18:11 90 18:15 167 19:15 62 21:23 62 24:16 82 25:4 63 26:14 90 27:26 63 28  113, 119, 125 28:1–14 105 28:16 63 28:20–29 87 29:4 63 30:12 63 32:17 63 32:21 63 32:35 63 32:43 63 34:4 95 34:5–8 95 34:26–29 100 Joshua 2 99 7 15 7:24–26 99 13:21–22 89 24:9–10 89 24:32 94

277 Judges 2:10 100 9:52–55 100 11:30–31 100 11:35 100 11:39–40 100 13:22 70 16:30  23, 101 1 Samuel 28 90 28:3–25 91 28:16 102 31 101 31:1–3 102 31:4–5 102 31:4–6 10 2 Samuel 1:1–16  101, 102 1:3–16 10 1:14 102 7  103, 117 7:14 98 11:15–21 102 11:20–21 100 12:15–23 102 13 103 14:14 98 15–19 103 17:23 103 18:18 99 22:50 98 1 Kings 2:42 66 2:37 66 16:7–14 103 16:18 103 18–19 103 18:4 103 19:10  98, 103 19:18 98 2 Kings 1:16 70 2:1–14 78 9:30–37 103 21:6 90 23:24 90

278 1 Chronicles 10:4–5 101 10:13 90 17:13 98 29:25 103 2 Chronicles 33:6 90 Nehemiah 13:1–2 89 Esther 4:16 104 Job 1–2 105 1:8 105 1:21 106 2:3 105 2:6 106 2:9 106 3 106 3:20 106 5:13 105 5:26 94 6:9 106 10:22 105 14:21 105 16:22 105 19 121 19:25–27 106 34:14–15 120 41:11 105 42:12 106 42:17 106 Psalms 1 75 2:12 108 4:4 106 5:9  78, 106 6:5 108 7:5 108 8:6 106 9:5 108 9:13 108 9:17 108 10:1–11 109 10:7  78, 106

Index of Scripture Psalms (cont.) 14:1 106 14:1–3 78 16 121 16:10  108, 136 17:9 108 18:4–6  105, 108 18:49  98, 106 19 64 19:4 106 19:7 108 21:4 108 22:29 108 24:1 106 27:1 108 28:1 108 30:3 108 30:5 108 30:9 108 30:9–10 108 31:5 108 31:12 108 31:13 108 32:1–2 106 33:19 108 34:11–13 108 36:1 106 36:9 108 37:19 108 37:20 108 37:32 108 39:4–6 104 41:2 108 41:5 108 44:22 106 49:10–14 108 49:15 108 49:17  105, 108 51:4 107 53:1 106 54:3 108 55:15 108 56:6 108 56:13 108 59:7 108 61:6 108 62:12  107, 109 63:3 108 63:9 108 64:1 108

Psalms (cont.) 68:18 107 68:20 108 69:9 107 69:22 107 70:2 108 71:10 108 73:27 108 78 108 78:31–33 108 78:50–51 108 79:11 108 80:16 108 83:17 108 86:13 108 86:13–17 108 88:3–5 108 88:4–5 108 88:5 108 88:10–12 108 88:11–13 105 88:13 105 89:47–48 108 90:3–10 107 90:4 66 90:12 1 91:1–16 108 92:9 108 94:6 108 94:11 107 94:17 108 94:21 108 102:20 108 102:23–28 108 102:26 108 103:4 108 103:13–17 108 103:14–16 107 104:29  108, 120 106:26–29 108 107:26 63 110:1 107 112:9 107 115:17 108 116:1–9 108 116:10 107 117:1 107 118:17 108 118:18 108 119:95 108

Index of Scripture Psalms (cont.) 121:7 108 135:10 108 136:18 108 139:8 108 139:19 108 140:3  78, 107 143:12 108 146:4  108, 120 Proverbs 1:19 109 1:32 109 2:18–19 109 3:2 109 3:16 109 3:18  75, 109 3:22 109 4:10 109 4:22 109 5:5 109 5:11–13 109 5:22–23 109 5:27 109 6:23 109 7:21–23 109 8:35 109 8:36 109 9 109 9:11 109 9:18 109 10:2 109 10:21 109 10:27 109 11:4 109 11:6 109 11:19 109 11:30 75 12:28 109 13:12 75 13:14 109 14:12 109 14:27 109 14:32 109 15:4 75 15:10 109 15:11 109 15:24 109 15:31 109 16:25 109

Proverbs (cont.) 18:21 109 19:16 109 19:18 109 19:23 109 21:21 109 22:4 109 23:13–14 109 24:12 109 25:21–22 109 Ecclesiastes 1:4 110 1:24–25 110 1:26 110 2:12–16 110 2:12–17 110 2:17 110 2:18–19 110 2:24–26 110 3:12–13 110 3:18–22 110 4:15–16 110 6:1–12 110 7:2 111 9:1–10 110 9:4 110 9:5 105 9:10 105 9:12 110 12:7 120 12:8 111 12:13–14 111 14:16 105 Isaiah 1:9 113 5 115 5:13–14 115 6:1 115 6:9–13 115 8:14 113 8:19 90 10:22–23 113 11:1–6 126 11:10 113 19:3 90 22:13 113 25:8  112, 113, 115, 125 26:19  115, 121

279 Isaiah (cont.) 28:11–12 113 28:15 112 28:15–18 115 28:16 113 28:18 112 29:4 90 29:10 113 29:14 113 29:16 113 40–66 116 40:13 113 43 153 45:23 113 49:8 113 52:5 113 52:7 113 52:11 113 52:15 113 53  153, 161 53:1 113 53:5 155 53:8 112 54:1 113 55:10 113 59:7–8  78, 113 59:20–21 113 64:4 113 65:1–2 113 65:2–4 90 65:17 117 65:20 117 66:24 117 Jeremiah 9:24 113 26:36–40 104 34:5 115 52:10–11 116 Ezekiel 3:18 70 18:32 116 20:11 62 20:34 113 24:17–24 116 37  116, 124 37:1–14 136 37:3 112 37:27 62

280 Daniel 2:4 117 3  17, 117 3:2–6 117 3:9 117 3:25 117 3:28–29 118 4:34 117 5:10 117 6  17, 118 6:6 117 6:19–22 118 6:21 117 7 153 12 128 12:1–3 121

Index of Scripture Daniel (cont.) 12:2  115, 118, 128, 136, 157 12:2–3 118 12:7 117 Hosea 1:10–2:1 113 2:23 113 13:14 113 Joel 2:32 113 Jonah 3 85

Micah 6:5 89 Habakkuk 2:3–4 113 2:4 114 Zechariah 8:16 113 Malachi 1:2–3 113 3:5 90 4:5–6  126, 167

New Testament Matthew 2:13–14 147 5:10 215 5:11–12 161 5:12 103 5:22 147 5:29–30 147 9:3 148 9:18–26 156 9:23–26 142 9:24 142 10 146 10:8  142, 156 10:16 146 10:17–18 146 10:21 146 10:21–22 146 10:28 146 10:32–39 147 10:37–38 142 10:38–39 146 10:39 142 10:40 212 10:41–42 146 11:5  142, 156 11:11 166 11:14 167 11:23–24 85 12:39–42 116 12:46–50 147

Matthew (cont.) 14:1–12 166 16:14 167 16:21 148 16:21–22 197 16:22–23 148 16:23 197 16:24–25 142 16:27 109 17:1–9  90, 126 17:3 167 17:12 167 18:6–10 190 18:8–9 147 20:18–19 148 20:28  152, 153 21:33–46  103, 161, 215 23:29–36 215 23:29–37 161 23:31–37 103 23:34–35 137 23:34–36 82 23:35 82 24:14 205 24:37–39 84 24:42 145 25:31–46  147, 175, 186 26:24  158, 171 26:27–29 152 26:33 197

Matthew (cont.) 26:33–35 148 26:34 197 26:51–54 148 26:65 148 27:3–10 15 27:52–53 156 28:18–20 205 Mark 1:11 92 2:7 148 2:12 154 3:31–35 147 5:21–43 156 5:35–43 142 6:13 157 6:14–29 166 6:15 167 8:28 167 8:31–32 197 8:32–33 148 8:33 197 8:34–35 142 9:2–10  90, 126 9:4 167 9:11–13 167 9:13 167 9:19 167 9:41–50 146

Index of Scripture Mark (cont.) 9:42–49 190 9:43–47 147 10:33–34 148 10:45  152, 153 12:1–12 20 13:9 146 13:10 205 13:12 146 13:12–13 146 13:19–24 204 13:20 204 13:33 145 14:21  158, 171 14:23–25 152 14:29 197 14:29–31 148 14:30 197 14:31 197 14:36 158 14:47 148 14:64 148 Luke 1:17 167 3:19–20 166 4:16–30 147 4:28–30 170 5:21 148 5:25–26 154 7:11–17 156 7:16 154 7:22 156 7:28 166 8:40–56 156 8:49–56 142 9:6 157 9:7–9 166 9:19 167 9:23 199 9:23–24 142 9:24 199 9:28–36  90, 126 9:30 167 10:3 146 11:29–32 116 11:47–51  137, 161 11:49–51 82 11:51 82 12:5 146

Luke (cont.) 12:13–21 147 12:35–40 145 13:1–5 161 13:31–35 161 13:32–35 148 13:33–34 103 14:25–27 142 14:27 146 16:19–31 147 17 146 17:33  142, 146 18:31–33  148, 196 19:37–38 154 21:12 146 21:16 146 21:16–17 146 22:19 152 22:20 152 22:22 171 22:26–27 153 22:27 153 22:33 197 22:33–34 148 22:34 197 22:42 197 22:49–51 148 23:34  20, 158, 162, 168 24:47–49 205 John 1:6–9 166 1:14 154 1:15 166 1:18–37 166 1:19–28 167 1:21 167 1:29  92, 147 2:11 154 2:18–22 147 3 147 3:16  92, 154 3:24 166 3:27–30 166 4:19–26 92 5:22–23 212 5:24 199 5:33–36 166 5:35 166 6:45 212

281 John (cont.) 8:31–36 152 8:36 153 8:42 212 8:54 154 10:11 153 10:15 153 10:18  21, 158 10:31–33 148 10:31–39 170 11:1–44 156 11:4 154 11:16 144 11:49–50 48 12:23 145 12:24–25 192 12:24–26  142, 143, 144 12:27–28 154 12:44–50 212 13:31–32 154 13:37–38 148 14–17 197 15:12–14 144 15:13  153, 173 16:17–18 148 17 172 17:1–5 154 17:24 154 18:10–11 148 18:36 141 21:25 139 Acts 1:8 205 1:18–20 15 5:1–11  15, 170 6:11–14 169 7:48–49 168 7:52 103 7:52–53 168 7:55–60 168 7:57–8:1a 168 7:60  20, 162 8:1–3 176 9:1–2 176 9:1–35 176 9:10–19 177 9:16  170, 226 9:20 177 9:22 177

282 Acts (cont.) 9:23–25  36, 165, 177 9:23–26 170 9:30 140 10:25–26 45 11:25–27 140 11:27 140 12:1–2 170 12:2 173 12:20–23 171 12:20–24  45, 52 13:1–3 140 13:24–25 166 14:8–18  42, 52, 195 14:11–18 45 14:19 172 14:19–20 195 15 36 16:16–24 173 17:4–10 173 17:16–34  43, 58 17:18  42, 50 17:30–31 58 17:32–34 172 19:1–7 166 19:23–41 173 21:10–14 188 21:11 196 21:13 169 21:13–14 196 21:14 196 21:27–30 169 21:28 169 21:30–31 172 21:31 169 22 172 22:1–21 176 22:4 169 22:4–5 176 22:20  18, 169 22:22 172 22:22–29 42 22:23–29 188 23:1–10 176 23:6 36 23:12–13 169 23:12–35 172 23:16–24 188 24:15  186, 189 25:11–12 172 26:1–23 176

Index of Scripture Acts (cont.) 26:9–11 176 27 172 28:1–6  172, 195 28:7–10 195 28:17–20 197 Romans 1:1  152, 153 1–2 151 1–4 182 1–11 220 1:2 60 1:14 36 1:15 42 1:16  40, 183, 222 1:17  113, 114 1:18 151 1:18–3:20 78 1:25 221 1:32  189, 190 2:3–8 151 2:5  189, 190 2:6  107, 109 2:7 182 2:16 179 2:24 113 3  50, 151 3:2 60 3:4 107 3:9  151, 183 3:10–12  78, 106 3:13  78, 106, 107 3:14  78, 106 3:15–17  78, 113 3:18 106 3:21–26  205, 218 3:25  150, 151 4:1 76 4:3 62 4:7–8 106 4:11 76 4:12 76 4:16  76, 184 4:17 62 4:18 62 5  76, 159, 220 5–6 85 5–8  12, 182, 184, 220 5:5–10 144 5:6 159

Romans (cont.) 5:6–11  154, 159, 202 5:7  33, 59, 150 5:8  151, 159 5:8–10 202 5:8–11 131 5:10 159 5:12  13, 77, 78, 79, 190 5:12–21  15, 77, 78, 189 5:13 78 5:15 77 5:16 77 5:17 77 5:19 77 5:21 182 6  201, 214, 222 6–7 220 6:2–4 191 6:5 192 6:6 201 6:9 189 6:11  201, 214 6:12–23  152, 201 6:21–23 3 6:22–23 182 6:23  189, 190 7:1–6 191 7:7 62 7:23 79 7:24 3 8:1–2 182 8:1–17 220 8:2  153, 187, 190 8:12–13 191 8:14–17 153 8:17  204, 219 8:18 192 8:18–25  204, 220 8:18–27 189 8:20 189 8:26–39 220 8:31–32 228 8:32 92 8:35–39 199 8:36 107 8:36–39  192, 228 9–11  185, 186, 220 9:3 205 9:3–4 40 9:6 60 9:7 62

Index of Scripture Romans (cont.) 9:9 62 9:10–13 61 9:12 62 9:13 113 9:15 62 9:17 62 9:17–18  61, 85 9:20 113 9:25 113 9:25–26 113 9:27–28 113 9:29  61, 113 9:33 113 10:1 40 10:5 62 10:6–8 63 10:11 113 10:13 113 10:15 113 10:16 113 10:18 106 10:19 63 10:20–21 113 11 37 11:1  38, 40, 185 11:2–4  61, 103 11:3–4 98 11:8  63, 113 11:9–10 107 11:26–27 113 11:34 113 11:35 105 12:1  218, 219, 221 12:2 221 12:19 63 12:20 109 13:9 62 14:7–9  185, 187, 221 14:9 156 14:11 113 15:3 107 15:9  98, 106 15:10 63 15:11 107 15:12 113 15:21 113 15:31  187, 197, 221 16:3–4  187, 221 16:25 179

1 Corinthians 1:8 190 1:12 207 1:13  205, 207, 208 1:17–18 143 1:18  154, 222 1:19 113 1:23  154, 159, 202 1:24–25 160 1:31 113 2:2  143, 207 2:6 188 2:8 154 2:9 113 2:16 113 3 190 3:7–4:6 209 3:11 207 3:19 105 3:20 107 3:21–23 207 4  208, 209, 210 4:5 189 4:6 223 4:6–13 208 4:6–16  208, 209 4:9  2, 104, 187, 198, 199, 207, 210, 223 4:9–13 210 4:9–20 224 4:14–17 224 4:15–16 207 4:16  195, 208, 224 5:1–5 171 5:5  171, 190 5:13 62 6:16 62 6:20 207 7:23 207 9 219 9:1–3 207 9:9 63 9:12 207 9:15 207 10 86 10:1–13 15 10:5 86 10:7 62 10:11–14 86 10:20 63 10:26 106

283 1 Corinthians (cont.) 11:1  179, 194, 195, 207 11:24 152 11:25 152 11:27–34 171 11:29–30 15 11:30 86 12:22–23 209 13:3  207, 209 14:21 113 15  76, 77, 144, 156, 182, 184, 187, 188 15:1–11 179 15:2–8 141 15:3  57, 150 15:4 92 15:9 179 15:17–18 156 15:20–28 77 15:22 79 15:25 107 15:25–26 3 15:26  64, 156, 188, 189, 190 15:27 106 15:29 209 15:30  199, 207, 208 15:30–31 209 15:30–32 209 15:31  2, 144, 199 15:32 113 15:35–44 192 15:42–49 79 15:42–58 157 15:43 192 15:45 62 15:53  158, 192 15:54 113 15:55 113 15:56 79 16:21 179 2 Corinthians 1–9 188 1:3–10 207 1:5  198, 210 1:7 224 1:8–11  39, 188, 199, 210 1:9–10  3, 199 1:14 190 2:14–17  207, 208, 209

284 2 Corinthians (cont.) 4:3  107, 179 4:5 152 4:7–5:21 200 4:7–12 207 4:7–15 210 4:8–10 210 4:10 198 4:10–11 199 4:11 194 4:11–12 200 4:12  2, 39, 192, 210 4:14 210 4:16–17 200 4:17–18 192 5:1–4 39 5:4–5 200 5:10 189 5:14 150 5:14–17 191 5:17  77, 192 5:21 212 6:2 113 6:9  188, 207, 208, 210 6:9–10 2 6:14–7:1 134 6:16 62 6:17 113 6:18 98 7:3  187, 199, 207, 210 8:15 62 9:9 107 9:10 113 10:17 113 11:2 38 11:22–26  2, 207, 210, 224 11:23 188 11:23–27  187, 199 12:9 231 13:1 62 13:4  213, 231 Galatians 1–2 36 1:4  150, 153 1:10 152 1:13 169 1:18 140 2:6–14 140

Index of Scripture Galatians (cont.) 2:19–20  156, 187, 199, 208, 214 2:20  2, 3, 153 3:1  143, 187, 208, 211 3:6 62 3:8 62 3:10 63 3:11  113, 114 3:12 62 3:13  62, 159, 187, 212 3:16 62 4:1–7 153 4:12 225 4:13  145, 225 4:13–16 211 4:13–20 212 4:14 146 4:21–31  60, 184 4:27 113 4:30 62 5:1 153 5:11 208 5:13–14 156 5:14 62 5:24  156, 187, 208 6:8 182 6:11 179 6:12  187, 208 6:14  2, 155, 187, 208 6:17  187, 198, 199, 200, 208, 211 Ephesians 1:1  186, 214 1:5 153 1:20 214 2:1–2 214 2:1–5 155 2:11–22  40, 183 2:15–16 156 2:16  202, 214 3:1 213 4:8 107 4:25 113 4:26 106 5:1–2 226 5:2  153, 162 5:13 62 6:2 62

Philippians 1:1  152, 153 1:2–5 188 1:10 190 1:20 172 1:20–21 224 1:20–26 199 1:21  1, 2, 187, 191, 192, 225, 228, 231 1:21–26 215 1:22  3, 231 1:23–24 192 1:27–2:4 215 1:27–30  216, 225 1:28  213, 215, 217 1:29  204, 226 1:29–30 225 1:30 224 2  216, 224 2–3 218 2:1–4 216 2:5 225 2:5–11  202, 216, 224, 226, 228 2:5–12 160 2:8 225 2:9–10 157 2:9–11 216 2:10–11 156 2:12 216 2:12–13 225 2:15–16 216 2:16 190 2:16–18 224 2:17–18  2, 216, 225, 231, 232 2:19–23 216 2:19–24 223 2:23–24 188 2:25 225 2:25–27 225 2:25–30  216, 224, 225 2:26 225 2:27  3, 33, 188, 225 3 216 3:3–9 216 3:4–6 135 3:5–6  38, 40 3:6  165, 176 3:8  36, 158

Index of Scripture Philippians (cont.) 3:10  2, 187, 199, 200, 228 3:10–11  3, 231 3:10–21 225 3:17  195, 216 3:18  143, 228 3:19  213, 217 3:20–21  217, 231 4:1 188 4:5 217 4:9 217 Colossians 1:21 159 1:24  200, 203, 204, 205, 214, 222, 226 1:25–27 214 1:27 205 2:13–14 205 2:15 155 2:20 214 2:22 214 3:1–4  191, 192 3:3  187, 205, 214 3:3–4  192, 228 3:5 215 3:8 215 3:10 215 4:1 153 4:18 179 1 Thessalonians 1:5 179 1:6  195, 215 1:7–10 215 1:8 215 1:10  188, 189, 215 2:13–16 215 2:14 195 2:15  103, 215 2:19 215 2:19–20 188 3:12–13 188 3:13 215 4:13 188 4:13–18  33, 188, 215 4:17 39 4:18 188 5:1–11 215

1 Thessalonians (cont.) 5:2  190, 215 5:23  188, 215 2 Thessalonians 1 190 2:2 179 2:14 179 3:7–9 195 3:17 179 1 Timothy 1:16 182 1:20 171 2  76, 77 2:6 153 2:13–15 61 2:14–15 75 5:18 63 6:12 182 6:16 158 2 Timothy 1:2–5 188 1:6–14  187, 221, 223 1:10  156, 158, 222 1:11–12 224 1:12 221 1:15 222 1:16 221 1:17 222 2:1 188 2:3 222 2:4–7 222 2:8  141, 179, 222 2:8–9 222 2:8–13  187, 223 2:10 222 2:11  200, 222 2:19 222 2:20–21 223 2:24 153 3:1–9 223 3:8–9 61 3:10–12  223, 232 3:12  204, 226 4:1 189 4:6  219, 223 4:6–7 199

285 2 Timothy (cont.) 4:6–8  187, 232 4:9 188 4:9–11 188 4:18  188, 192 4:21 188 Titus 1:2 182 2:14 153 3:7 182 Philemon 15–16 153 19 179 Hebrews 7:27 162 9–10 137 9:28 162 10:1–18 93 10:10-18 32 10:38 114 11 1 11:4 82 11:17–19 92 11:22 94 11:35–38 137 11:39 1 12:22–24 82 James 1:15 140 2:21–23 92 5:7–11 105 5:15 171 5:20 172 5:22 140 1 Peter 1:20 92 3:18–20 85 3:19–21 85 2 Peter 2:5 85 2:15–16 89 3:9 205 3:9–16 205

286 1 John 3:12 74 3:16­  153, 175 5:16 172 Jude 9 95 11 89

Index of Scripture Revelation 2:7 72 2:11 13 2:13 1 2:14–15 89 2:23 172 5:9 205 6:15–17 191 7:9 205

Revelation (cont.) 12:11 1 14:6 205 20:6 13 20:14  13, 64 21:4  64, 72 21:8 13 22:2  64, 72 22:14 72 22:19 72

Deuterocanonical Literature 2 Baruch 23:4 81 30:2 204 48:42–43 81 54:15 81 2 Esdras 3:4–27 81 4:30 81 6:53–59 81 7:48 81 2 Maccabees 2:4 84 6:18–31 17 6:30 127

2 Maccabees (cont.) 6:31 127 7 17 7:9  127, 128 7:14  127, 128, 145 7:17  127, 145 7:19 145 7:23 127 7:28 81 7:31 127 7:31–33 127 7:34–37 145 7:35 127 7:36  127, 128 7:37–38 127 7:38 128

4 Maccabees 1:7–12 129 5:1–18:5 129 17:21 129 Sirach 15:14–17 81 16:7 84 17:1–14 81 25:24 81 33:10 81 Wisdom of Solomon 2:23–24  81, 126 10:1–3 81