The Spirit Helps our Weakness: Rom 8:26a in Light of Paul's Missiological Purpose for Writing the Letter to the Romans (Biblical Tools and Studies) 9789042936386, 9789042937024, 904293638X

Table of contents :
Cover
Halftitle
Title
Copyright
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27
THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS
ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT
THE REFERENT OF
THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A
THE SPIRIT HELPS
THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS
CONCLUSION
INDEXES

Citation preview

Biblical Tools and Studies 

“T

he Spirit Helps our Weakness” ROM 8,26A IN LIGHT OF PAUL’S MISSIOLOGICAL PURPOSE FOR WRITING THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Thomas A. Vollmer

PEETERS

“THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS”

BIBLICAL TOOLS AND STUDIES Edited by B. DOYLE, G. VAN BELLE, J. VERHEYDEN KU Leuven

Associate Editors G. BAZZANA, Harvard Divinity School – A. BERLEJUNG, Leipzig K.J. DELL, Cambridge – J. FREY, Zürich – C.M. TUCKETT, Oxford

Biblical Tools and Studies – Volume 36

“THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS” ROM 8,26A IN LIGHT OF PAUL’S MISSIOLOGICAL PURPOSE FOR WRITING THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

BY

THOMAS A. VOLLMER

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2018

Cover: T±v kain±v Diaqßkjv †panta. Eûaggélion Novum Iesu Christi D.N. Testamentum ex bibliotheca regia. Lutetiae: ex officina Roberti Stephani, 1550. in-folio. KU Leuven, Maurits Sabbe Library, P225.042/F° Mt 5,3-12

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher. A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN 978-90-429-3638-6 eISBN 978-90-429-3702-4 D/2018/0602/80 © 2018, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

PREFACE

This study is a revised version of my 2015 KU Leuven doctoral thesis. Revision has been limited to stylistic elements, along with some deletions and additions of material, along with a number of additional bibliographical additions. Appreciation is given to the Faculty of Theology at KU Leuven where I encountered a welcoming and academically challenging environment that allowed me to research and explore this work. A special note of appreciation goes to the Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO) for its partial funding of my part in the research project New Perspectives on Paul and the Jews. I thank my colleagues on the project, Emmanuel Nathan and David Bolton, for all the insights given during our time together. With exceeding gratitude, I acknowledge my supervisor, Reimund Bieringer, who helped shape the project in a number of ways. Your constant encouragement and expecations of excellence taught me a great deal about research and writing. I also appreciate my doctoral examiners, William Campbell, Ekaterini Tslampouni, and Gilbert Van Belle, who provided careful and constructive comments that enriched the scope and content of the study. A special note of thanks to Cincinnati Christian University where I currently teach, for allowing me the time to finish the project. Additionally, I am thankful for my students who ask the questions that cause me to research more and dig deeper to find answers to their questions. Thanks also goes to my graduate assistant, Jessica Griggs, who provided invaluable help during the final stages of the manuscript. To my parents, Howard and Linda Vollmer and my parents-in-law, the late George and Carol Hudnall, I offer my gratitude for their constant love and encouragement. In particular, I am so appreciative of my son Matthew, who walked with me during this project from its inception to completion. Finally, to my beloved wife, Patricia, words cannot express my appreciation for all the help and encouragement you provide on a daily basis. We have been on a number of interesting journeys during our marriage and I look forward to the next one.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XV

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

PART ONE INTRODUCTORY ISSUES CHAPTER ONE: A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

9

1.1. History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1. Social Scientific Considerations of Rom 8,26-27 . . . . 1.1.2. The Spirit Helps Overcome Weakness. . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3. Religious Experience in Rom 8,26-27 . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.1. The Spirit’s Intercession as Evidence of Glossolalia in the Roman Christ Follower Community. . 1.1.3.2. The Spirit’s Intercession as Evidence of Glossolalia in the Personal Life of the Roman Christ Follower Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3.3. The Spirit’s Intercession as Not Evidence of Glossolalia in the Roman Christ Follower Community 1.1.3.4. Conclusion on Religious Experience . . . . . . 1.1.4. The Relationship Between Rom 8,26-27 and Other Texts 1.1.4.1. The Flood Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4.2. The Exodus Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4.3. Ezekiel as Backdrop to Rom 8,26-27 . . . . . . 1.1.5. Eschatology: Dawning of a New Age . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.6. Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.6.1. Ecological Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.6.2. Imperial Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 10 13 15 17

20 21 22 22 22 25 27 29 30 31 34 39

X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TWO: THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

2.1. Overview of Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1. Romans as a Summation of Pauline Theology. . . . . . 2.1.2. Jerusalem Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3. Spanish Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4. Apostolic Foundation for the Church . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5. Lack of a Situation at Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6. Apologetic Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.7. Romans as a Letter to Either Jewish or Gentile Christians 2.1.8. The Aftermath of the Edict of Claudius . . . . . . . . . 2.1.9. As a Response to the Situational Contexts of Corinth and Galatia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Rom 8,26a in Dialogue with the Purpose of Romans . . . . . . 2.2.1. Paul’s Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2. Missional Language in Paul’s Letter to the Romans . . . 2.2.2.1. Subjects of Missionary Work . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2. Addressees of Missionary Work. . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.3. The Place of Missionary Work . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.4. Sending and Position of Missionaries. . . . . . 2.2.2.5. Proclamation by Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.6. Content of the Proclamation . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.7. Goal of the Proclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.8. Execution of the Missionary Task . . . . . . . 2.3. Rom 8,26a and Paul’s Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 42 44 48 50 53 56 57 58 64 66 67 67 72 72 80 85 89 89 91 92 93 94 95

PART TWO EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATIONS CHAPTER THREE: ROMANS 8,26A

IN

CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . .

99

3.1. Translation of Rom 8,26-27 and Text-Critical Issues in Rom 8,26a 3.1.1. The Text of Rom 8,26-27 with Translation . . . . . . . 3.1.2. Textual Issues in Rom 8,26a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Pericope Delimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Rom 8,14-30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Rom 8,18-27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99 99 100 101 102 104

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.2.3. Rom 8,17-30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4. Rom 8,18-30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Rom 8,26-27 in the Context of the Letter to the Romans . . . 3.3.1. Romans 1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. Romans 5-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Romans 9-11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4. Romans 12-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Rom 8,26a in Its Immediate Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. An Exegetical Analysis of τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. An Exegetical Analysis of ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3. An Exegetical Analysis of ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4. An Exegetical Analysis of ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

106 107 110 111 115 119 122 126 126 126 134 138 141 144

CHAPTER FOUR: THE REFERRENT OF ὡσαύτως δὲ καί . . . . . . . . 147 4.1. Grammatical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Semantical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. Interpretation of ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in Rom 8,26 . . . . . 4.2.2. Considerations on ὡσαύτως and ὡσαύτως δὲ καί . . . . 4.2.2.1. Pauline Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.1.1. 1 Cor 11,25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.1.2. The Pastoral Epistles . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.1.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.2. Outside of the Pauline Corpus . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.2.1. ὡσαύτως in the Septuagint . . . . . 4.2.2.2.2. The New Testament . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2.3. ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in Light of Paul’s Mission: The Relationship Between Hope and Spirit . . . . . 4.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER FIVE: THE SPIRIT

IN

147 151 152 157 157 157 159 161 161 162 165 167 169

ROM 8,26A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

5.1 Paul’s Understanding of τὸ πνεῦμα . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 5.2. Contemporary Discussion of τὸ πνεῦμα . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

XII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.3. Jewish Backgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1. Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2. Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2.1. The Rule of the Community (1QS) . . . . . . 5.3.2.2. The Hodayot (1QH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3. Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4. Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. τὸ πνεῦμα in Pauline Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1. 1 Thessalonians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2. 1 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3. 2 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4. Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.5. Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.6. Philippians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

176 177 182 182 185 186 187 188 190 191 192 195 199 200 201 203

CHAPTER SIX: THE SPIRIT HELPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 6.1. The Spirit Helps: The Background of τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1. Torah Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1.1. Gen 30,8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1.2. Exod 18,22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1.3. Num 11,17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1.4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2. Psalm 88LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3. Concluding Remarks on LXX Usage . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. New Testament Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Extra-Biblical Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5. The Spirit Helps: An Analysis of Rom 8,26a in Light of Paul’s Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

205 208 208 209 210 213 214 216 217 220 220 221

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS . . . . . . . . . 225 7.1. An Analysis of ἡ ἀσθένεια in Light of Paul’s Argumentation in Rom 8,26-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. Who Is Referred to with the First Person Plural in Rom 8,26? . 7.2.1. The Use of the First Person Singular in Rom 8,18-30 . . 7.2.2. The Use of the First Person Plural in Rom 8,18-30 . . .

225 227 228 229

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.2.3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. The Use of ἡ ἀσθένεια in the LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4. The Use of ἡ ἀσθένεια in Extra-Biblical Literature . . . . . . . 7.5. The Use of ἡ ἀσθένεια in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1. The Gospels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2. Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3. Hebrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6. The Role of ἡ ἀσθένεια in Pauline Literature . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1. Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2. 1 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3. 2 Corinthians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.4. Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

230 230 231 233 233 237 238 244 245 247 252 256 260

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 INDEXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABD ABS AGaJU AnBib ANL ANTC AOTC AsSeign ASM Series AThANT AUSS BBR BCOTWP BDAG BECNT BETL BevT BHS Bib BibInt BiTr BiTS BSac BTB BZ CBET CBQ CC CrINT CTJ CUP DJD DSS ECC EcumRev EDNT EKKNT

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary American Bible Society Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta Biblica Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia Abingdon New Testament Commentary Abingdon Old Testament Commentary Assemblées du Seigneur American Society of Missiology Series Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Andrews University Seminary Studies Bulletin for Biblical Research Baker Commentary on the Old Testament, Wisdom and Psalms A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bible Translator Biblical Tools and Studies Bibliotheca Sacra Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Concordia Commentary Compendium rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Calvin Theological Journal Cambridge University Press Discoveries in the Judean Desert Dead Sea Scrolls Eerdmans Critical Commentary Ecumenical Review Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Evangelisch katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

XVI

ET ETS EvQ EvTh ExpT FB FRLANT G&BP HBT HKAT HtKNT HTR HTS HzNT IBS ICC IKZ INT IVP IVPNTCS JBL JBQ JDTh JEEV JETS JJS JPT JPT Supp JQR JSNT JSNTSS JSOT JTS KD KHCAT KNT LCL LNTS LSTS LXX MF MNTC MTZ NAC NASB NBBC NC

ABBREVIATIONS

Evangelical Theology Evangelical Theological Studies Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschung zur Bibel Forschungen zue Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gregorian & Biblical Press Horizons in Biblical Theology Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Internationale Katholische Zeitschrift Interpretation InterVarsity Press Intervarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Biblical Quarterly Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie Jeevadhara Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplemental Series Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemental Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal of Theological Studies Kerygma und Dogma Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Loeb Classical Library Library of New Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies Septuagint Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen Moffatt New Testament Commentary Münchener theologische Zeitschrift New American Commentary New American Standard Bible New Beacon Bible Commentary Narrative Commentaries

ABBREVIATIONS

NCB NCC Neot NIBC NICNT NIDOTTE NIGTC NouvRT NovT NovTSup NRSV NTD NTM NTS OUP OTL PBM PCNT PTR RB RExp ResQ RevQ RTR SBL SBLDS SBLSymS SBS SBT ScE SCS SD Sem SNT SNTSMS SPS ST StBL STDJ SVC TBS TDNT ThBü THzNT TNTC TWNT TynBul

XVII

New Century Bible New Century Commentary Neotestamentica New International Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis New International Greek Testament Commentary Nouvelle revue théologique Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplement Series New Revised Standard Bible Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Message New Testament Studies Oxford University Press Old Testament Library Paternoster Biblical Monographs Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament Princeton Theological Review Revue Biblique Review Expositor Restoration Quarterly Revue Qumran Reformed Theological Review Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology Society of Christian Ethics Septuagint and Cognate Studies Studies and Documents Semitica Studien zum Neuen Testament Society for the New Testament Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Series Studia Theologica Studies in Biblical Literature Studies on Texts of the Desert of Judah Supplements to Vigilae Christianae Tools for Biblical Study Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theologische Bücherei Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament Tyndale Bulletin

XVIII

TZ UBS VSpir VT WBC WEC WMANT WUNT ZNW ZThK

ABBREVIATIONS

Theologische Zeitschrift United Bible Society Vie spirituelle Vetus Testamentum World Biblical Commentary Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirch

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the history of New Testament scholarship Paul’s Letter to the Romans has received considerable attention that continues to the present. Scholarship through the years has noticed the value of the eighth chapter, especially the role πνεῦμα plays therein. The heightened sense of the Spirit in chapter 8 brings the issue of Pauline pneumatology to the forefront. Finally, Rom 8,26-27 forms an important element in the history of scholarship and analyzing it yields significant results for Paul’s understanding of the work of the Spirit in the Christ following community. The focus of this thesis narrows to Rom 8,26a and investigates the nuances of ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν. The work progresses in the following manner.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The project proceeds methodologically as a work of historical criticism consisting of two parts. Part one encompasses two chapters that consider introductory issues relevant to the text. Chapter one surveys scholarly interest in the text thematically. Chapter two investigates the purpose of the Letter to the Romans and asks how that purpose interacts with Rom 8,26a. Part two focuses attention on the exegetical issues related to Rom 8,26a with chapter three considering Rom 8,26a in its contexts, chapter four examining what ὡσαύτως δὲ καί refers to, chapter five undertaking a study of the Spirit, chapter six considering how the Spirit helps, and chapter seven focusing on weakness.

HISTORICAL CRITICISM One of the benefits to taking a historical-critical approach to reading a text is the broad trajectory from which it can follow. It is not our intention to explore all the intricacies of the historical critical method, considering that

2

INTRODUCTION

many such treatments exist.1 Of utmost concern is the way Paul uses the text historically, where he derives his information, and how he relates to the Roman community along with the self-categorization2 he lays out of himself in the letter.3 Udo Schnelle’s work on historiography provides helpful parameters for constructing a realistic history of Paul that takes seriously the text while at the same time recognizes the worldview of the interpreter and admits as the “Gegenwart verliert mit ihrem Übergang in die Vergangenheit unwiderruflich ihren Realitätscharakter.”4 Schnelle’s model is followed as it provides a helpful articulation of the historical task being considered. HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Schnelle’s methodology wraps around historiography with subsections dedicated to understanding the way history is brought to being, how history forms meaning, Paul’s role as history maker (Sinn- und Geschichtsbildung bei Paulus); how meaning forms with Kontinuität und Wandel with a discussion of how meaning impacts identity; and as Schnelle puts it the Grenzen des Konstruktivismus.5 The final section presents a number of criteria used for interpreting Paul, which will be discussed as they set helpful parameters for Pauline exegesis.6 1. Cf. Werner G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965); David A. Black and David S. Dockery, Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues (Nashville, TN: Broadman Holman, 2001); Antonio Piñero & Jesús Peláez, The Study of the New Testament: A Comprehensive Introduction (TBS; David E. Orton and Paul Ellingworth, trans.; Leiderdorp: Deo Publishing, 2003) from the orig Spanish, El Nuevo Testamento: Introducción al estudio de los primeros escritos cristianos (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1995); Stephen C. Barton, “Historical Criticism and Social-Scientific Perspectives in New Testament Study,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (2nd ed.; Joel B. Green, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), 34-64. 2. Self-categorization speaks to the research developed around the topic by John C. Turner with Michael A. Hogg et al., Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987). Self-categorization theory grew out of Social Identity Theory (cf. Henri Tajfel, Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations [London: Academic Press, 1978]) that focuses on how and why individuals form groups and relate to them. Self-categorization theory (SCT) differs from Social Identity Theory (SIT) in that SIT speaks of intergroup behavior and how groups differentiate themselves from other groups and thus form a salient social identity. While SIT focuses mainly on the group, SCT is concerned with the self and how it relates to the group to which it finds itself a part. 3. Matters of socialization and identity relate not only to Paul, but to his audience. In this regard, the socialization would have been most felt with those considered Christ followers. 4. Udo Schnelle, Paulus: Leben und Denken (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 27. 5. Schnelle, Paulus, 2-18. 6. Schnelle, Paulus, 18-25.

INTRODUCTION

3

THE HISTORICAL TASK Schnelle points out that the quest for absolute objectivity is not possible given the propensity of interpreters to inject their own biases into the interpretive process, rendering a completely objective enterprise untenable. Instead, the exegete brings a litany of items to the enterprise of reading texts.7 The recognition of subjectivity in the interpretive process enables exegetes to admit and recognize them all the while striving for objectivity. History and exegesis of the past is not reconstruction so much as a sort of construction as the past is read from the standpoint of the interpreter’s present. What this means for Schnelle is that interpreters create meaning, which is accomplished by the way they order and structure material to be studied.8 Because interpretation occurs within language, the language used by the interpreter aids in the creation of meaning, and thus it behooves interpreters to be attentive to the way that language impacts meaning.9 The way forward is found in the tension of interpreting within subjective frameworks, for an interpreter who is aware of her ideological starting points can address these frameworks and work to keep them in check to some extent.10 Schnelle points out that the presuppositional biases brought by interpreters are not exclusive to contemporary interpretation, but also formed the way Paul constructed meaning, for Paul “schreibt … Geschichte und konstruiert eine eigene neue religiöse Welt.”11 Paul did not live life removed from society, but was directly affected by it, including his religious experience of coming to faith in Christ. This forces interpreters to reckon with how “die christliche Sozialisation des Apostels” impacted his work in the churches and his writings.12 Proper exegesis of Paul then provides a double-pronged problem for the interpreter; in that, not only does the worldview of the interpreter need to be reckoned with, but also the worldview projected by Paul. Because of this a historical-critical read of Paul struggles between the tension of objectivity and subjectivity, which causes a search for criteria to help read in an appropriate manner without moving too far from historical and exegetical work. 7. Schnelle, Paulus, 3, “Die Sozialisation des Historikers/Exegeten, seine Traditionen, seine politischen und religiösen Werteinstellungen prägen notwendig das, was er in der Gegenwart über die Vergangenheit sagt.” 8. Schnelle, Paulus, 6. 9. Schnelle, Paulus, 6. 10. Schnelle, Paulus, 6-7. 11. Schnelle, Paulus, 8-9, it. orig. 12. Schnelle, Paulus, 9.

4

INTRODUCTION

TOWARD ESTABLISHING CRITERIA

FOR INTERPRETING

PAUL

Given that history and exegesis tend to be modern constructions of current situations does not excuse interpreters from attempting a historical-critical reading of a text that strives to be as objective as possible in order to understand what a given text meant in its historical setting. Schnelle sets out seven criteria that relate to this project.13 A snapshot of the criteria is as follows: 1) the need to read Paul’s letters chronologically taking into consideration his thought and life; 2) the necessity to examine textual information of individual letters to extrapolate whether they are constant principles or items conditioned by individual situations; 3) the historical and theological situation of Paul should be considered as complex and unique; 4) Paul’s influence on early Christianity should be considered as well as early Christianity’s influence on Paul’s thought; 5) the understanding that Paul possessed a unique Christian identity; 6) the act of interpretation is a negotiation of the interpreter’s context and the world of Paul, filled with the understanding that the present interprets the past and in some ways determines the interpretation; and 7) Paul must be seen as multifaktoral and not monokausal, wherein interpretation needs to continually think of him in his various contexts: Jewish, Greco-Roman, early Christian, and as one who brought new thinking to his world, which forces interpretation to take seriously chronology and history that links diachronic and synchronic analyses.14 Schnelle’s criteria are important in the exegesis of Rom 8,26 for the following reasons. First, Romans read chronologically interacts with his thought derived in part from his earlier work, particularly 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians. In order to understand the meaning of Rom 8,26a and its various nuances one needs to grapple with similar texts and thought lines in his previous work. Additionally, one needs to investigate the circumstances occurring around him historically and how other biblical and extra-biblical texts impacted his thinking. Second, building upon the first point, an investigation of the text will be undertaken in a way that looks for either the constant principle idea laid out by Schnelle or if it is motivated by the unique situation of the Roman church. Third, the historical and theological questions surrounding the writing of Paul’s letter are difficult. In order to get into the discussion, an investigation will commence pertaining to the debated question of Paul’s purpose in writing 13. Schnelle, Paulus, 18-25. 14. Schnelle, Paulus, 18-25.

INTRODUCTION

5

Romans. A proper understanding of his rationale for sending the letter directly impacts how Rom 8,26a is exegeted. Fourth, again connected to the earlier points, Paul’s identity as a Christ follower is an important element of the letter and this will be explored. How he presents himself as one whose identity is forged by Christ serves the purpose of calling the Roman believers to model his example.

PART ONE

INTRODUCTORY ISSUES

CHAPTER ONE

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

1.1. HISTORY OF RESEARCH In Rom 8,26, Paul writes to the members of the Roman church and encourages them that “the Spirit aids or helps our weakness” (τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν). A direct result of the weakness is not knowing (οὐκ οἴδαμεν) how to pray (προσευξώμεθα). Due to the inability to pray, the Spirit intercedes (ὑπερεντυγχάνει) with groans that are inarticulate (στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις). What Paul unfolds in one verse provides a picture of his understanding of weakness, prayer, and the intercessory Spirit who aids God’s people. With the adverbial clause ὡσαύτως δὲ καί factored in, Paul constructs a structure around three points.1 Paul continues the theme of the Spirit’s work in v. 27.2 Someone who searches the hearts (ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας) knows (οἶδεν) the mind of the Spirit (τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος). In addition someone intercedes (ἐντυγχάνει) for the holy ones (ἁγίων) in accordance with God (ὅτι κατὰ θεόν). One cannot help but notice the dependency of vv. 26 and 27 on each other with both points of comparison and contrast. This will be explored more below but a few examples include the relationship between ἡμῶν (v. 26) and ἁγίων (v. 27),3 ὑπερεντυγχάνει (v. 26), and ἐντυγχάνει (v. 27), οὐκ οἴδαμεν (v. 26) and οἶδεν (v. 27) and τὸ πνεῦμα. These verses, like nearly every verse in Romans have been scrutinized through the years. What follows is a thematic survey of the history of research of the verses. 1. This is the structure of the verse followed here: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν (8,26a), τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν (8,26b), and ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις (8,26c). 2. The twofold breakdown of v. 27 here: ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος (8,27a), and ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων (8,27b). 3. To the point: Are the “holy ones” of v. 27 the same as the “our” of v. 26?

10

CHAPTER ONE

1.1.1. Social Scientific Considerations of Rom 8,26-27 Philip Esler argues that the verses form the third section of Paul’s argument (Rom 8,19-22; 23-25; 26-27).4 The faithful are presently encumbered with weakness, which points back to vv. 18, 23, and 25. “Paul is now focusing entirely on the present experiences of his addressees but is bringing them the good news that the Spirit, no less, is supporting them, in the sense of sharing their adversity and articulating it in prayer.”5 Of importance for Esler is Paul’s construction of the verses in social identity terms, and more to the point of Paul’s move to formulate a group identity within the Roman community. This is where Esler engages with the meaning of ἀλάλητος. The groans of the Spirit stand in relationship to the groans of the Christ followers and show that the Spirit understands and relates to their hardships since the Spirit works in tandem with the will of God, ensuring that prayers reach God.6 God searches the heart, a particularly poignant point situated within Jewish backgrounds.7 The Spirit’s intercession in prayer “greatly amplifies the cognitive, emotional, and evaluative dimensions of belonging to this group. Indeed, Rom. 8:26-27 constitutes a magnificent statement of one particular way in which God expresses solidarity with his people that brings out the exalted nature of his identity.”8 In this way, Paul speaks an in-group language that the Roman Christ follower community would thoroughly understand. Ben Holdsworth posits that Paul constructs a familia-relations approach to the passage building on the work of other social scientific readings.9 He maintains that the word familia makes sense with the role of the Spirit as intercessor in the passage.10 He traces familial relationships in the Roman world then begins to apply a familial reading to Romans 1-7, providing the basis for its application to Romans 8.11 From the Greco-Roman world, he examines the relationship between all members of a household (father, immediate family, and slaves), then focuses considerable attention to slaves, from their 4. Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 264. While he speaks of suffering and refers back to the weakness in Rom 8,18, he does not include Rom 8,18 within the matrix of the pericope. 5. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 264. 6. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 264. 7. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 264. Cf. 1 Sam 16,7; 1 Kgs 8,39; Ps 139,1-2.23. 8. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 264. 9. Ben Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor: The Holy Spirit as Familia-Petitioner for the Father’s Filiusfamilia in Romans 8:26-27,” AUSS 42 (2004): 325-346. 10. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 326. 11. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 327-331 on familial relations in Rome, and 332334 on Romans 1-7.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

11

precarious condition within slavery12 to the process of manumission under Roman law.13 Manumission was an important element in the process, in effect, granting to the slaves of Roman masters a form of Roman citizenship in a father and son relationship. It spoke of an act of generosity as the master granted freedom to the slave.14 It is from the Greco-Roman context that Holdsworth applies the familia image to Romans 1-8 in general and Rom 8,26-27 in particular (cf. Rom 6,111 as language of slavery, Rom 6,12-18 as freedom from slavery, Rom 7,1-6 dying to slavery, Rom 7,7-13 law reveals sin, Rom 7,23-25 war imagery leading to slavery).15 The theme of familia relations becomes pronounced in 12. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 327. “Under servus law, the slave owner had absolute power (dominium) over the slave, who was considered part of the extended household possessions. Slaves were considered not only property or objects, but tools for fulfilling their owner’s desires and accomplishing household needs. The owner had the power of punishment; beating, whipping, branding, and even death were methods of punishing a slave, often swiftly and severely carried out by masters for the most minor infractions. Thus slaves usually lived in regular fear of punishment for offending their owners.” 13. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 327. Manumission occurred either from the slave purchasing his freedom, the master freeing the slave through another agent, or by being freed through the will of the master upon death. 14. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 328. This is a debated notion though for there has been discussion that masters did not act generously toward their slaves. See for example, Richard A. Horsley, “The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity and Their Recognition by Modern Scholars,” in Slavery in Text and Interpretation (Semeia 83/84; Allen Dwight Callahan, Richard A. Horsley, and Abraham Smith, eds.; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 1998), 19-66. He notes that insecurity by the slave-holding elite put pressure on the relationship between master and slave, which was further exacerbated by slave resistance such as attempting to escape (36-37). In addition, he points out that the slave trade itself dehumanized slaves to the point that a master would have no sense of loyalty to a slave (38-46). Speaking of manumission, Horsley contends that regular manumission did not always occur with the frequency some classical scholars argued in the past, and a consensus shows that manumission was not for altruistic reasons when it did happen (49). When slaves were manumitted, they had a degree of self-respect, but could actually be worse off than when enslaved, from a socio-economic perspective (50). He concludes that masters used manumission as leverage to get slaves to obey them, but they were not going to be freed. “Manumission thus served as an incentive for obedient servitude mainly for domestic slaves, most of whom never attained their freedom” (53). For other perspectives on slavery in the ancient world see J. Albert Harrill, The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); idem., Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006); idem., “The Psychology of Slaves in the Gospel Parables: A Case Study in Social History” BZ 55 (2011): 63-74; idem., “The Slave Self: Paul and the Discursive ‘I’” in The English Bible, Kings James Version, Volume 2: The New Testament and the Apocrypha (eds., Gerald Hammond and Austin Busch; Norton Critical Editions; New York: W.W. Norton, 2012), 1448-1459; “Slavery and Inhumanity: Keith Bradley’s Legacy on Slavery in New Testament Studies” BI 21 (2013): 506-514. See also the work of Jennifer A. Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006). 15. It is outside the bounds of the work here to consider his proposal in detail, but he does offer some items to consider relative to Romans 1-8. The motifs of slavery (Romans 6-7) and freedom (Romans 6-8) become an important image whereby he sets the whole language of

12

CHAPTER ONE

Romans 8, for one sees that Paul speaks of the Spirit as the manumitting agent in vv. 8,2-13, the Spirit as the adopter in vv. 8,14-15, the Spirit as benefactor in vv. 8,26-27, and Christ as benefactor in vv. 8,28-39.16 Holdsworth connects συναντιλαμβάνομαι (8,26) to συμμαρτυρέω (8,16) considering it in terms of Roman social relations with the translation therefore being “gains benefaction for.”17 “Thus the Spirit is gaining benefaction for believers ‘in our weakness (ἀσθενείᾳ)’ (8:26). In context, ἀσθένεια seems better translated ‘our capacity, limitations, or disability.’”18 Because the person cannot pray, the Spirit intercedes, but that intercession does not describe some sort of sin affecting the person. Instead, the Spirit interceding works in concord with God’s will, and thus the Spirit acts as God’s agent as the believer’s petitioner, who reveals the will of God to believers.19 He concludes that the family structure is the best way to understand what the Spirit is doing in Romans. The family imagery continues in 8,27 where the Spirit acts in accord with the Roman social context of the Roman familia by presenting requests to God on behalf of believers, thus the Spirit is the ultimate benefactor.20 Holdsworth points out that the idea of the Spirit working in the “inner man” can be seen in DSS literature (1QS IV.2-8, 20-22, 1Q28b II.22-25, 4Q521 II.6), but given the situation of the Roman church is more likely in line with Stoic philosophy (cf. Seneca, Letters, Epistle 83).21 He points out that the Roman Christ following community would have been versed in Stoic philosophy and the idea of the Spirit working within them would be prominent in their thought. As an example, he points to Seneca Epistles 41, “God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it.”22 As a consequence, the Roman church would have heard in Rom 8,26 an allusion to Stoic philosophy, slavery and manumission in social terms and applies them to Paul’s rhetoric (Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 332-334). 16. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 334-345. 17. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 341. He bolsters his case with the appeal to ἀντιλαμβάνομαι, a synonym that has the idea of being to the benefit of something by means of the actions of individuals or groups. 18. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 341. 19. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 342. 20. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 342. 21. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 342. 22. Seneca, Epistles (LCL; Epistles 1-65; Richard M. Gummere, transl.; Cambridge, MA/ London: Harvard University Press, 1917), 272-273. “Prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est. Ita dico, Lucili: sacer intra nos spiritus sedet, malorum bonorumque nostrorum observator et custos. Hic prout a nobis tractatus est ita nos ipse tractat.”

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

13

would have grounded it in their Roman context, and would have applied it to a point of benefaction, whereby the Spirit acted as a benefactor for them as the family of God.23 He concludes the matter by stating: “Thus, in Rom. 8:26-27, the divine agent appears to function as the familia-petitioner, who requests and grants the Father’s benefaction, who extends benefaction to the Father’s household, based on a Greco-Roman model of adoptive kinship and familia relations.”24 1.1.2. The Spirit Helps Overcome Weakness While not his primary concern, Douglas Moo addresses the importance of συναντιλαμβάνομαι in 8,26 and notes that it occurs in the LXX three times and in the NT twice.25 Rom 8,26 differs from the other texts, for in Ex 18,22, Num 11,17, Ps 89,21 and Lk 10,40, “the person to whose aid one comes is denoted with the dative, while in Rom 8:26 the situation which the aid is needed is stated in the dative.”26 For Moo, the passage unfolds the work of the Spirit in bearing the burdens brought on as a result of weakness.27 Similarly, Joseph Fitzmyer points out that the best intentions are flawed, and what we see in this passage shows the weakness of the flesh associated with sin and death.28 Connecting the verses together, Horst Balz sees the Spirit as both the one who aids and acts as advocate for the believer.29 He compares the relationship between πνεῦμα, συναντιλαμβάνομαι, and ἀσθένεια.30 While ἀσθένεια has been attributed to other Christological texts (1 Cor 1,18; 2,6.14; 2 Cor 12,2.5.9; 13,3-4; Rom 6,5) there is a noticeable absence of Christological motivation in 8,26-27.31 The point for Balz is that the Spirit is the activating agent for overcoming the weakness. “Das πνεῦμα leistet an den Glaubenden etwas, 23. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 343. 24. Holdsworth, “The Other Intercessor,” 343. 25. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 523. The usages are Ex 18,22; Num 11,17; Ps 89,21; Lk 10,40. 26. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 523. 27. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 523. 28. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1993), 517. 29. Horst Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung: Strukturen der paulinischen Eschatologie nach Römer 8,18-39 (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1971), 69. “Paulus behauptet einen Zustand der Schwachheit der christlichen Existenz, in welchem der Geist helfend eingreift. V. 26b legt dar, worin diese Schwachheit besteht und wie sich das Wirken des Geistes bekundet. V. 27 deutet das Wirken des Geistes als ein Eintreten für die Glaubenden vor Gott.” 30. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung, 69-71. 31. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung, 70.

14

CHAPTER ONE

wozu sie selbst nicht in der Lage sind, aber es leistet das auch nicht ohne ihre eigene Beteiligung.”32 His focus is not so much on the weakness, but on the role of the Spirit in overcoming any weakness. John Murray interprets ασθένεια along the lines of infirmity whereby the Spirit comes to the aid of people suffering some form of infirmity.33 He interprets infirmity in broad strokes seeing it as “a comprehensive term in itself that can cover the whole range of weakness which characterizes us in this life. We need not suppose that the infirmity in view is restricted to the matter of prayer.”34 Rather, the emphasis is not so much on the infirmity, but the Spirit’s help in finding relief in whatever the infirmity might be.35 He draws a connection between hope and the Spirit in that “hope sustains us in suffering, so the Holy Spirit helps our infirmity.” 36 Paul therefore constructs his argument along the twin lines of hope and the Spirit working together to sustain and help those who follow Christ. Focusing attention on the aspect of “not seeing,” Brendan Byrne interprets the verse from the perspective that the Spirit helps overcome a weakness attributed to a lack in perseverance in prayer.37 The person praying can pray in general terms, but given the future’s uncertainty, the person cannot see what is to come, therefore limiting effective prayer. To overcome this problem, the Spirit, who knows the mind of God steps in and helps with effective prayers.38 As such the Spirit “is both intercessor and interpreter for us before God.”39 The impetus for this comes from the reality of the eschatological tension currently felt by those following Christ. For Byrne, the future aspects of the passage become central in its individual appropriation. A future that lacks clarity needs a guide, one who can navigate its difficulties, and Paul offers the Spirit as the guide who knows God’s purpose for the future. James Dunn centers attention on the Spirit helping in weakness as he argues its strong imagery reminds the reader of other materials in the ancient world focused on shouldering the burden of another or aiding in weakness.40 He links the idea of the Spirit aiding the believer with that of Ps 89,21 (LXX 88,22) and 32. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung, 71-72. 33. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Vol 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 310. 34. Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 311. 35. Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 310-311. 36. Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 311. 37. Brendan Byrne, Reckoning with Romans: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Gospel (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986), 172. 38. Byrne, Reckoning with Romans, 172. 39. Byrne, Reckoning with Romans, 172. 40. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1988), 476.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

15

thus Paul builds on his Jewish tradition.41 He also places ἀσθένεια in its context linking it to 8,3 where Paul uses ήσθένει derivative of humanity’s present condition “as creature and not creator, with all that implies for man’s need of transcendent support.”42 The need for help in overcoming weakness forms an integral part in the text, for Dunn contends that the perspective not only includes external temptations or lacking the ability to pray, but speaks to the entire problem of the human condition which limits a believer’s ability to pray because they are still affected by their humanity.43 Gordon Fee focuses on the role the συν- compound συναντιλαμβάνομαι plays in the passage and asserts that the weakness affecting people “refers to the weakness associated with present suffering like 2 Cor 10,10-12,10.”44 For Fee, τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ serves as a distributive singular in similar fashion to τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν in 8,23 (cf. 1 Cor 6,19; Gal 6,18) and “refers not so much to our general corporate weakness as believers, as to the weakness each believer knows in association with the suffering of this present age.”45 As a result of the suffering, the believer then does not know what to pray for and how to pray.46 The inability of effective prayer arises directly from the weakness and suffering that the believer confronts. This leads Fee’s interpretation into more of a religious experience occurring within the believer, a point considered next. 1.1.3. Religious Experience in Rom 8,26-27 C. K. Barrett considers the reason why Paul used the example of the Spirit aiding in weakness and praying for the believers. While prayer normally is a rudimentary and elementary aspect of religious experience, those Paul writes to in Rom 8,26 find it difficult to pray.47 Barrett sees the problem as a deeper one, however, and advances that the “believer does not know the secret prayer which alone can give him access to God.”48 He admits this interpretation straddles the fence of gnostic religion, a notion he deems untenable in understanding Paul, for Paul did not see prayer as formulaic or unintelligible; rather, Paul uses the idea of the indwelling God expressed by the Spirit to 41. Dunn, Romans, 476. 42. Dunn, Romans, 476. 43. Dunn, Romans, 476. 44. Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 578. 45. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 578. 46. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 578-579. 47. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1957), 168. 48. Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 168.

16

CHAPTER ONE

show that prayer is an activity of the Spirit.49 He speaks of a type of initiation into knowing God for believers and as a result, “the divine Spirit speaks through his mouth the correct formula, which may never be communicated to, and indeed would not be understood by the public.”50 Matthew Black argues that the work of the Spirit as intercessor undergirds the passage and maintains that Paul had divine help in mind when constructing the passage. He defines prayer as “the inner strivings of the human spirit to transcend its weakness, strivings manifested in conduct,” and as a result the religious experience being described is not a complete work of the Spirit, but a joint intercession with the believer.51 He emphasizes the distinction between the action of God and that of the Spirit.52 Considering the passage as religious ecstatic discourse, Colleen Shantz posits that Paul’s understanding of the Spirit’s intercession resembles pneumatic participation.53 She contends exegeting the passage along catechetical lines is misplaced, and should instead focus on the text at face value, highlighting the non-cognitive and inarticulate aspects of prayer and intercession.54 She understands Paul to be making an enthusiastic and exuberant statement in Rom 8,26 whereby the Spirit works phenomenologically as one possessing the people. She connects the groaning of 2 Corinthians 5 to Romans 8 and considers both as examples of “fervent expectation.”55 The groaning found in 2 Corinthians 5 and Romans 8 “is indicative of ecstatic union.”56 She concludes that the “combination of groaning language so weighted with participation creates a passage that is saturated with knowledge of ecstatic religious experience.”57 Shantz anticipates a problem with the approach for admittedly she states that whether the Roman audience would have understood Paul from a religiously ecstatic approach would be difficult to know.58 She answers the 49. Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 168. 50. Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 168. 51. Matthew Black, Romans (NCC; London: Oliphants, 1977), 123. 52. Black, Romans, 123-124. 53. Colleen Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy: The Neurobiology of the Apostle’s Life and Thought (Cambridge: CUP, 2009), 130. 54. Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy, 130. 55. Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy, 130. 56. Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy, 131. “The examples include the spirit bearing witness with our spirit (v. 16); being heirs together with Christ (v. 17); suffering with Christ (v. 17); being glorified with Christ (v. 17); groaning with and suffering with creation (v. 22); the Spirit that takes our part with us in our weakness (συναντιλαμβάνομαι, 26); and being conformed to the image of the risen Christ (v. 29).” 57. Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy, 131. 58. Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy, 131.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

17

problem by focusing on the “Abba” prayer language (8,15), though she does not explain how it resolves the problem.59 Her approach does highlight the role of the community and the emphasis on the σύν compounds is noted, and one needs to take seriously the role of the community in understanding the overall flow of the passage. Barrett, Black, and Shantz tend to see the text in broader religious terms, but this is not an overall perspective. Others expand on the idea of religious experience and posit a more nuanced view of the Spirit’s activity in either the church or in individual persons. 1.1.3.1. The Spirit’s Intercession as Evidence of Glossolalia in the Roman Christ Follower Community Within the experience of the Spirit, Henning Paulsen focused on the role of στεναγμὸς ἀλάλητος in the verse, noting glossolalia stands behind the type of intercession offered by the Spirit.60 Additionally, Paulsen highlights the eschatological emphasis projected by Paul, therefore, the glossolalia in the text brings an experience that projects eschatological hope to the community.61 In a similar but more detailed manner, Ernst Käsemann posited that glossolalia was exercised in the community and formed Paul’s interest in Rom 8,2627.62 The Spirit acted as an eschatological gift, marked by ecstatic and miraculous manifestations, to post-Easter Christianity that enabled Jewish Christianity to move to the gentiles.63 For Paul, the Spirit acts ecclesiastically in salvation history under the rubric of Christology.64 The close proximity of the identity of Christ and the Spirit becomes problematic, but Paul was aware of the dilemma and set forth safeguards to overcome the difficulties. Käsemann lists three safeguards: 59. Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy, 131. 60. Henning Paulsen, Überlieferung und Auslegung in Römer 8 (WMANT 43; Düsseldorf: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974). “Handelt es sich bei den στεναγμοί ἀλάλητοι um glossolalische Äußerungen, so kann man die Gemeinde als jenen Bereich bezeichnen, in dem diese Äußerungen Raum gewinnen.” 61. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 127. “Sie werden von Paulus aber sofort charakteristisch ausgelegt und erfahren dabei vor allem im Kontext eschatologischer Hoffnung eine tiefgreifende Änderung.” 62. Ernst Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1969), 211-236. Cf. H. Lietzmann, An die Römer: Einführung in die Textgeschichte der Paulusbriefe an die Römer (HNT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933), 86. It is also important that Lietzmann perceived Hellenistic mysticism as background to the passage. 63. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 213-214. 64. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 214.

18

CHAPTER ONE

(1) Er hat den Geist als die Kraft des auferstandenen Christus derart interpretiert, daß sie als Macht der nova oboedientia täglich im Christenleben bewährt werden muß. 2. Er hat von der Identität des Auferstandenen mit dem Gekreuzigten aus den Geist die Kraft der Bewährung in Anfechtung und Leiden sein lassen. 3. Er hat wie die Judenchristenheit den Geist also „Angeld“ des Künftigen verstanden und deshalb die Pneumatologie ebenso wie die Christologie und Anthropologie unter den eschatologischen Vorbehalt gestellt.”65

Out of the context of Christology and ecclesiology of the Spirit, Käsemann turns his attention to Rom 8,26-27. For Käsemann, the way to understanding the work of the Spirit depends on keeping the sufferings of Christ in view, extending this understanding to the eschatological sonship of believers and ultimately to fully realizing that obedience to Christ leads one back to the imago dei.66 He takes an apocalyptic stance on the text, for the present forms an eschatological period filled with birth pangs (Rom 8,19-22) where the children of God emerge to their God given potential.67 The passage serves as a corrective against Hellenistic enthusiasts, for Paul brings together the work of the Spirit with that of a waiting period, something the enthusiasts would not have reconciled with one another.68 Käsemann argues that Paul ran into conflict with the Palestinian tradition simply because his ministry diverted away from a Jewish audience and moved toward a Hellenistic one.69 The tension between Paul and the Palestinian tradition arose over his downplaying of the Law, but he does not accept the Hellenistic enthusiast perspective fully since he opposes their bent toward a realized eschatology.70 Instead, Paul offers a continuous thread of understanding 65. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 214-215. 66. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 215. 67. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 215. 68. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 215-216. 69. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 216. “Die antijudaistische Polemik des Apostels darf primär nicht aus dem Streit innerhalb des Judenchristentums verstanden werden. In Konflikt kommt der Judenchrist Paulus mit denen, die in palästinischer Tradition stehen, weil er Vorkämper der sich bildenden gesetzesfreien und enthusiastischen hellenistischen Gemeinde geworden ist.” 70. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 216. This line of argumentation has received considerable attention over the years with many scholars leaning toward a realized eschatology in Paul. Of course, with the advent of the New Perspective on Paul, Käsemann’s understanding of the Hellenistic form of Pauline understanding would also be downgraded. What can be derived from Käsemann, though, is that he pushed Paul into an opposing role against the Hellenistic enthusiasts, a point that becomes all the more important when he exegetes Rom 8,26. He places Paul firmly in an already articulated Christ camp and therefore in continuity with the Jewish tradition because Hellenists focused on the possession of the Spirit and in the Spirit of hope, whereas Paul agreed with the Jewish-Christ believing community that saw the Spirit in an anticipatory and future perspective. At the same time, Käsemann does maintain novelty for

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

19

the Spirit on the one hand by focusing on the Spirit’s possession and sacramental dimension. On the other hand, Paul innovates as he places emphasis on the eschatological nature of the Spirit by linking the Spirit’s work to hope. What comes out fully is an anthropological interpretation that aligns the Spirit’s work with that of the revealed children of God.71 For Käsemann, anthropology finds extreme importance in the exegesis of Rom 8,18-30, but does not hold the central place therein. Like ecclesiology, Paul’s anthropology relates to Christology and can be considered as the earthly outflow of Christology. “Der Kampf um die Weltherrschaft Christi vollzieht sich in der Sendung und Bewährung der Gemeinde und ihrer Glieder.”72 The life lived in Christ therefore is eschatological, tied to the dialectic of the “already” and “not yet” and linked to the parousia, a point that elevates the role of anthropology but continually subordinates it to Christology. Käsemann summarizes this thusly: “Die neue Welt ist Welt im Zeichen der Freiheit der Gotteskinder, weil sie Welt im Zeichen der Herrschaft des Sohnes ist.”73 What the children of God do then connects to the will of God and reflects the lordship of Christ over the church and by default the world. This moves Käsemann into deeper analysis of Rom 8,26 and the intercession of the Spirit. Instead of focusing first on the beginning of Rom 8,26, he centers attention on στεναγμός ἀλάλητος as it directly impacts the reason why believers do not know how to pray.74 He concludes that the sighs expressed by the believer are noticeable by others and are therefore not practices of private prayer, but located in corporate worship.75 The sighs or cries of believers are a product of the Spirit and not the human spirit, a point one gathers when αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα factors into the discussion, in similar fashion to what occurs in 8,15.76 This God-inspired ecstatic speech comes in the Paul given that he speaks of a Spirit of hope and does not just keep the Spirit in sacramental terms. For Paul, the object of the hope comes through the mediating work of the children of God. 71. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 216. 72. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 217. The struggle for the world-wide kingdom of Christ takes place in the church’s missionary activity and in the preservation of the Christian community and its members 73. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 218. The new world is the world under the insignia of the liberty of the children of God, because it is the world under the insignia of the lordship of the Son. 74. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 221-222. 75. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 222. 76. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 223. Käsemann argues for a corporate worship setting in Rom 8,15-17 as well as in 8,26, and shows that the Spirit mentioned in 8,16 works in similar fashion as in 8,26.

20

CHAPTER ONE

worship context as the community gathers together, thus, linking Rom 8,26 with earlier Pauline writings, especially 1 Corinthians 14 and 2 Corinthians 12.77 Once Käsemann proves that a worship setting underlies the passage, he moves into defining what entails the cries and sighs produced by the Spirit through believers. For him, the solution is glossolalia, as the praying in the Spirit in 1 Cor 14,7-12.22 not only happens in the liturgical function of the church, but also manifests in speaking in tongues. From this parallel, Käsemann concludes that Rom 8,26 happens in similar liturgical context and the στεναγμός ἀλάλητος is when the Spirit intercedes through the believers in glossolalic utterance. The rationale for tongues from a Pauline perspective was to signify to unbelievers that the end-times had arrived, making it an eschatological polemic in Paul.78 1.1.3.2. The Spirit’s Intercession as Evidence of Glossolalia in the Personal Life of the Roman Christian Community Coming back to the discussion on Fee begun above, the Spirit as intercessor becomes vitally important because the believer, due to the weakness encountered, does not know what to pray for and so the Spirit appeals to God on that person’s behalf.79 This leads Fee into the interpretive issue of στεναγμός ἀλάλητος. He holds to a minority position and claims that στεναγμός ἀλάλητος pertains to private prayer, against Käsemann’s view of communal prayer, that is glossolalic in orientation.80 He sees Rom 8,26 within the shadow of 1 Corinthians 14 and therefore posits that Paul speaks of a private prayer in tongues; a conclusion based on a discussion of ἀλάλητος, a word Fee translates as inarticulate instead of wordless or unspoken.81 He contends that if Paul meant inexpressible it would have been better to use ἀνεκλάλητος, a word that more fully expresses that level of inexpression.82 77. Cf. Cosmin-Constantin Murariu, “Impermissibility or Impossibility? A Re-Examination of 2 Cor 12:4,” in Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians (BiTS 16; Reimund Bieringer et al., eds.; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 379398. 78. Käsemann, Paulinische Perspektiven, 226. 79. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 579. 80. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 580. 81. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 583. See also Murariu, “Impermissibility of Impossibility?” 385-394. 82. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 583. He points out that ἀνεκλάλητος as inexpressible has precedent and points to passages such as 1 Pet 1,8 and Polycarp Phil 1,3 to back his case.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

21

1 Corinthians 14 becomes crucial for Fee’s exegesis at this point as he contends that “there is no other phenomenon, either in Paul or in the early church, apart from the prayer in the Spirit described in 1 Corinthians 14, that even remotely resembles what Paul now describes in such a matter-offact way.”83 Most interpreters downplay the significance of 1 Corinthians 14 to that of Rom 8,26, a point that Fee sees as a missed phenomenological point where an embedded spiritual concept comes out of Paul almost naturally, manifested in Spirit-directed prayer expressed by glossolalia.84 Religious experience therefore hovers around Fee’s exegesis of Rom 8,26, an experience of spirituality demarcating a common Pauline practice that roots itself in his writings.85 The idea of what might be termed embedded spirituality enables Fee to see a connection between 1 Corinthians 14 and Rom 8,26, in particular how the Spirit initiated prayer manifests, a prayer that is private, audible and marked by glossolalia. 1.1.3.3. The Spirit’s Intercession as Not Evidence of Glossolalia in the Roman Christ Follower Community A majority of scholars disagrees with proponents of glossolalia being the manifestation of στεναγμός ἀλάλητος. Dunn points out the most glaring problem with the view when he writes that had Paul “wished his readers to think of glossolalia he would have probably written with greater care.”86 Instead, Dunn ties Rom 8,26 back to the thought of 8,22-23 and in this way maintains that ἀλάλητος in 8,26 provides the opposite meaning of λαλητός, a meaning marked by speech used to highlight the difference between humans and animals (Job 38,14 LXX).87 He concludes, “The thought is therefore of groans not formulated in words. This means that a specific allusion to glossolalia is unlikely.”88 Instead of a religious type experience posed by proponents of glossolalia, Dunn sees a reworking of apocalyptic motifs whereby both creation and believers long for eschatological release and therefore the inarticulate groans are understood as the voice of the Spirit and the downgrading of the human condition.89

83. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 584. 84. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 584. 85. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 584. 86. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 479. 87. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 478. 88. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 478. 89. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 479.

22

CHAPTER ONE

1.1.3.4. Conclusion on Religious Experience What one sees in this section is the pursuit to read the text in light of some sort of religious experience with focused attention on the role prayer held in the text along with στεναγμός ἀλάλητος. Some interpreters conclude that glossolalia refers to the Spirit’s intercession either in the community or individual experience of the member, while others focus attention on how the Spirit works within the community at large. What surfaces is a bent toward an experience augmented by the work of the Spirit in the lives of the community. Advocates of glossolalia base their conclusions on limited evidence, holding to strong links to other Pauline texts, but in the end find it difficult to prove without doubt their position. At the same time, the text does show some sort of ecstatic experience set forth by Paul that enables members of the Christ community to restore a somewhat fractured prayer relationship to God. 1.1.4. The Relationship Between Rom 8,26-27 and Other Texts In recent decades, a number of scholars have turned their attention to biblical traditions and their relationship to New Testament texts.90 Those who advocate reading Paul within the context of other biblical and extra-biblical texts posit that he had an understanding of the Scriptures and his world.91 This plays into the exegesis of Rom 8,26 and a number of primary motifs surface.92 1.1.4.1. The Flood Tradition Proposing that Paul worked from the flood tradition, Olle Christofferson points out that parallels exist between the pericope in Romans 8 and the so-called flood tradition particularly in Genesis 6-9 and 1 Enoch 6-11.93 90. Cf. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT/ London: Yale University Press, 1989) on intertextuality, which has been used by many, and the work upon which they built their paradigms. Hays’ purpose is to uncover the hermeneutical reflections of Paul and through his exegesis he bases much of his work on ecclesiological backgrounds to Pauline literature. 91. William S. Campbell, “‘All God’s Beloved in Rome!’ Jewish Roots and Christian Identity,” in Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology: Essays in Honor of Robert Jewett (Sheila E. McGinn, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005), 67-82, 69,71-74. 92. For an overview of possible biblical sources in the pericope see Laurie J. Braaten, “All Creation Groans: Romans 8:22 in Light of the Biblical Sources,” HBT 28 (2006): 131-159. She argues that lament and intercessory texts formed the background for Paul’s understanding of στεναγμός (Gen 3,16; Exod 2,24; 6,5; Judg 2,18; Isaiah 21; Jer 4,23-28). While her interest pertains to Rom 8,22 in particular she notes that Rom 8,26, with its emphasis on groaning rests within the lament texts. She sees the possibility of the exodus being a connection. 93. Olle Christofferson, The Earnest Expectation of the Creature: The Flood Tradition as Matrix of Romans 8:18-27 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990).

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

23

One of Christofferson’s main problems with comparing the flood tradition and Rom 8,18-27 comes from his own work when he states: “Admittedly, Paul’s allusions are not made in words which can be proved to be dependent on any known specific text which represents the Flood tradition.”94 To resolve this dilemma, he argues that the “vagueness of the allusions” happens often, especially in 1 Enoch 1-36.95 Since the tradition was around during Paul’s time, and because of its prevalence in other texts, one can conclude that it stands as a background to Paul’s material in Romans 8. Rather than maintain that the pericope combines a number of motifs, as other scholars propose, Christofferson collapses the pericope under the rubric of the one tradition, and assigns it to a flood tradition matrix.96 The one tradition parallel shows that within the flood tradition matrix, Rom 8,18-27 material fits well and brings out the themes of the tradition. This includes the problem affecting creation (vv. 19-22; i.e., the enslavement of creation to destruction), the Spirit as groaning and interceding for believers (vv. 26-27), the existence of an angel as the one subjecting creation to futility (v. 20), that the sons of God are parallel to the archangels who will be revealed at the last day and therefore Paul is not speaking of believers, but angels as the sons of God (2224; 1 Enoch 10), and the creation reaching the freedom of the children of God (v. 21; cf. Gen 8,21-9,17; 1 En 10,7-11,2).97 Focusing attention on Rom 8,26-27, Christofferson argues that the Spirit groaning and interceding for believers “is paralleled in the Flood tradition by the element of the archangels who intercede on behalf of suffering, crying and praying Creation (1 En 9).”98 He points out that the motif of angels praying was not uncommon in both Jewish and Christian literature; however, he stresses the idea that Paul’s understanding of this type of intercession was more in line with the Flood tradition: First: according to Paul the believers do not know how to pray aright. In the Flood tradition we encounter the motif that Creation is not able to express its situation in such a way as to reach God directly. Second: the believers reach God by their prayer through intercession by the Spirit. Similarly Creation reaches God with its prayer only through intercession by the angels. The transition from angels to the Spirit is not far-fetched. Angels were often called spirits … Third: Paul speaks of a groaning of believers and of the Spirit. In the Flood tradition the angels express the groaning of Creation before God.99 94. Christofferson, The 95. Christofferson, The 96. Christofferson, The 97. Christofferson, The 98. Christofferson, The 99. Christofferson, The

Earnest Earnest Earnest Earnest Earnest Earnest

Expectation, Expectation, Expectation, Expectation, Expectation, Expectation,

138. 138. 139. 139-141. 139-140. 140.

24

CHAPTER ONE

Christofferson attempts to locate the entire pericope together, taking seriously the interconnecting pieces of creation, believers, and the Spirit. The intercession of the Spirit, acting in concord with the Flood tradition’s use of angels becomes the activating agent for Paul’s rhetorical strategy in helping creation and believers. It is a given that weakness exists, but that weakness is overcome by the Spirit’s intercession, who bridges the gap between the weak and God. He points out that a connection exists between the groaning of believers and the Spirit’s intercession: “In the present time of weakness the believers groan, but the Spirit intercedes for them, bringing even their groaning before God as an intercession.”100 Paul takes his cue for overcoming weakness through the way the Flood tradition presents creation overcoming its weakness. Finally, Christofferson presents an approach to understanding how 8,1920 fit into a Flood matrix, arguing that submission (see Rom 8,20) does not refer to God, Satan, or Adam (humanity), but to the angel Azael (1 En 9,6; 10,4.8-9) who was responsible for sin’s entrance into the world.101 Through the works of Azael and his teachings, the whole earth had been corrupted, and 1 Enoch places the blame for sin squarely on Azael (1 En 10,8-9). If one agrees with Christofferson’s read that the Flood tradition is behind Paul’s thinking, then it can be argued that Azael is the referent to the “one who subjected creation to futility (8,20).” The problem of course with this is what to do with ἐφ᾿ ἑλπίδι, because it makes one wonder why Azael would be the instrument Paul uses to subject creation to the futility in hope?102 One questions the veracity of the point that the angel responsible for such destructive sin as presented by Enoch would in some way be doing this work in hope. Romans 8,19 states that the sons of God will be revealed. Christofferson takes this to be a reference to angels and not believers.103 This is a parallel to 1 Enoch 10 where the archangels announce judgment would come against all those who acted sinfully, and as a result, the earth would be cleansed and 100. Christofferson, The Earnest Expectation, 140. 101. Christofferson, The Earnest Expectation, 140. Azael’s character is important in 1 Enoch, being the perpetrator of many problems (cf. 1 En 8,1-3) with the result that much havoc was wreaked upon the earth (1 En 9,1). Azael and his other cohorts drew the ire of God though and were consigned to a place of great darkness in the desert, bound hand and foot, covered with rocks where he would spend eternity in darkness (1 En 10,4-8). Enoch points out that Azael would never have peace, because a severe sentence had been placed upon him for all that he had done (1 En 13,1). 102. One sees the point if somewhere along the textual history ἐφ᾿ ἑλπίδι was inserted or changed, but the history is strong that it is there. The only major issue is whether it is ἐφ᾿ or ἐπ᾿, but this in no way affects the idea of creation being subjected by one in hope. 103. Christofferson, The Earnest Expectation, 140. “Thus in this verse Paul primarily thinks not of the Christians but of the angels.”

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

25

blessed (1 En 10,18-22).104 Paul borrows the terminology to state that in the eschaton, creation would be freed from its bondages by the message of the sons of God, heralds who call to an end the deleterious effects of sin upon the world. From Christofferson’s perspective, these heralds, or sons, acting in the place of archangels coincide with the eschatological message proclaim by 1 Enoch. Paul continues the thought found in the Flood tradition and presents it to his audience in Rome. 1.1.4.2. The Exodus Tradition A proposal has been put forth that the Exodus tradition serves as the backdrop to Rom 8,26-27.105 Using the results of intertextuality, Sylvia Keesmaat places Rom 8,26 within the context of the Exodus tradition by focusing on the role ἀσθένεια plays in the passage; a role marked by suffering which connects it to the suffering with Christ Paul elucidates in 8,17.106 She posits that the Spirit of God suffers with the people of God, interprets this in light of texts in Exodus (2,23-25; 3,7-8), and maintains that this type of suffering with people marks a characteristic of God in the LXX (cf. Jer 3,1920; 38,20 [31,20 MT], Hos 11,8.10-11).107 She makes the case that volumes of echoes occur in Romans 8, both verbal and thematic.108 She shows the interrelationship of Rom 8,26 with that of Rom 8,17.19-22.23-25, a 104. Christofferson, The Earnest Expectation, 140. 105. Cf. N. T. Wright, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3-8,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 26-35; Campbell, “‘All God’s Beloved in Rome!’ 67-81, esp. 70-71. Campbell notices that in accord with the Exodus narrative, Rom 8,14-39 has the common themes of being “led by the Spirit,” the “spirit of slavery,” and “freedom from fear.” 106. Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition (JSNTSS 181; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 116, 121. 107. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 117-118. For the idea of suffering, Keesmaat depends upon the work of Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984), as she states, “The themes of God suffering because of, with and for the people are discussed in detail in chs. 7-9 of Fretheim 1984. I am dependent on his work for much of this section” (117, n. 49). 108. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 118. For this, Keesmaat uses one of the criteria established by Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture. Hays’ seven criteria for an echo are 1) availability, 2) volume, 3) recurrence, 4) thematic coherence, 5) historical plausibility, 6) history of interpretation and 7) satisfaction (29-32). For her part, Keesmaat develops the work of Hays and attends to the question of tradition and how it plays out in actual practice (16-22, 48-53). She points out that “Tradition allows the past to explain the present and the future; it provides a framework which has endured, which makes sense of the present and which gives shape to a possible future. The tradition of the past is valued because it enables a culture to relate meaningfully to the present and the future” (18).

26

CHAPTER ONE

point that factors στεναγμός into the discussion for the groaning of creation, whereby the people of God and the Spirit form an important link with the traditions to which Paul appeals.109 She points out that a verbal echo occurs between Rom 8,21 (τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς) and Gen 6,11 (ἐφθάρη δὲ ἡ γῆ ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ), a point that undergirds the possibility of an allusion to the flood narrative in Rom 8,19-22.110 Keesmaat does not limit the intertexual treatment of Rom 8,18-27 to the flood tradition, but shows that it might just form a part of Paul’s hermeneutical strategy. This comes out in the travailing of birth passage in 8,23, a passage she links to other Second Temple literature that in effect speaks to “the eschatological ordeal, the trials of the end of the age.”111 The brief reference to 8,23 forms an important part of her argument as she bridges that passage with 8,26 and Paul’s use of vocabulary, particularly in how ἀσθένεια functions in the verse. While not completely discounting the interpretation of ἀσθένεια as weakness, she claims that another interpretative option exists; namely, that of suffering.112 In order to make this plausible she relies on the work of Michael Barré, who focused on how ἀσθένεια functioned in 2 Cor 11,29.113 In 2 Cor 11,29, Barré pushed for an interpretation of stumble, and argued from the Second Temple literature that the stumbling resulted from persecution that was a type of eschatological trial.114 The struggles Paul confronted were not esoteric in nature, but actual “concrete events”115 that came about from some sort of hostility directed toward him that resulted in a lack of strength on his part. Keesmaat takes Barré’s findings and applies them to Rom 8,26 where her argument centers on an eschatological struggle taking place with sufferings being inflicted upon the Roman Christ followers.116 This engages the Spirit into the struggles faced by the community, an engagement that aids them in their suffering and helps them overcome to the promised eschatological age.117 109. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 119. 110. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 119. For more on the flood narrative context, see Christofferson, Earnest Expectation of the Creature, 117. Keesmaat, however, does not hold to Christofferson’s claim that the groaning of creation comes from 1 En 9,3 where the angels intercede in the flood tradition (Keesmaat, 119, n. 52). 111. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 120. 112. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 120. 113. Michael Barré, “Paul as ‘Eschatologic Person’: A New Look at 2 Cor 11.29,” CBQ 37 (1975): 500-526. 114. Barré, “Paul as ‘Eschatologic Person’,” 510-512. The basis of this rests heavily on 1QS 3.21-24 and the Theodotion recension of Daniel 11.33-35, 12.10. 115. Barré, “Paul as ‘Eschatologic Person’,” 513. 116. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 121. 117. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 121.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

27

This view coheres with what follows in Rom 8,35-39, the veritable trial list that one can see in a backdrop of a persecuted community.118 Keesmaat theorizes that the weakness of 8,26 could be a weakness brought about by persecution and as such the community’s inability to pray comes about from actual circumstances hindering them.119 Keesmaat builds up the exegesis in a suffering context to conclude that Paul constructs the argument intertextually from the Exodus tradition, a departure from Christofferson’s thesis of the flood narrative, and sees the Spirit leading the people in similar fashion as in the exodus. The Spirit who groans in Rom 8,26 leads the people of God to their destination, but Paul shows that this leading of the Spirit is marked with the path of trial and suffering, a path that in its own right is a wilderness similar to that of the Exodus tradition.120 She summarizes her findings when she states: Paul clearly indicates that the Spirit who is leading the people of God through this wilderness of trial is a Spirit who participates with believers in this suffering walk. So we discover that underlying the various narratives of suffering, of groaning and bondage and liberation, lies the narrative of God, the God who felt the oppression of the Israelites in Egypt and liberated them, who grieved and mourned their disobedience and unfaithfulness throughout the prophetic literature, who continues to groan with her broken creation and people.121

The Spirit serves the role of being the one who helps people overcome their weakness, a motif that can be traced back into Jewish tradition. Paul lays this tradition into his interpretation of the Spirit’s work and reinforces this traditional idea. 1.1.4.3. Ezekiel as Backdrop to Rom 8,26-27 The prophet Ezekiel played a large role in the literature of the Second Temple period.122 John Levison presents a detailed overview of what being filled with the Spirit entails in a number of texts relative to the ancient world (from Israelite and Jewish literature to Christian literature and other literature of the first centuries CE). The prophet Ezekiel plays a prominent role in Levison’s work and is shown to exert considerable influence on the literature 118. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 121. 119. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 122. 120. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 133. 121. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 133-134. 122. Ezekiel’s prominence has been thoroughly traced in John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009). For a treatment of an Ezekielian background to Romans 8 see John W. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul (WUNT 2.251; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 143-156, particularly 152-153 in discussion of Rom 8,18-25.

28

CHAPTER ONE

of the day.123 Of particular interest to Levison is how the valley of the dry bones functioned within Ezekiel and other early literature, as well as the idea of the Spirit and new creation. While Levison does not apply the Ezekiel language specifically to Rom 8,2627, what he does do is to show that the rubric was in place in the first century to use Ezekiel as the backdrop for the Spirit, new creation, overcoming weakness, and resurrection. John Yates does spend time developing the thesis that Paul had Ezekiel in mind in Rom 8,18-30. Yates homes in on the use of Ezekiel in Romans 8, a point that has been commented on by other scholars, but as Yates notes this is not pressed due to the lack of direct citations of Ezekiel 36-37.124 Yates maintains that Paul does indeed have Ezekiel 36-37 in mind and this is expressed most in Rom 8,4 (see Ezek 36,26-27) and in Rom 8,9-11 (see Ezek 37,1-14). Yates admits that the allusions to Ezekiel refer to distant echoes in Romans 8, particularly the first part of the chapter, and maintains that while the audience in Rome might not have picked up on the echo, “certain texts and traditions shaped the way Paul thought about the work of the Spirit in an identifiable way.”125 Yates therefore argues that the line of thought in Romans 8 is a selfpresentation of the undergirding framework for Paul’s thought, and as such one of the primary motivating factors in his construction of reality is the prophet Ezekiel. Moving into Rom 8,18-27, Yates continues to see the themes present in Ezekiel 36-37 in the text. The suffering of creation (Rom 8,19-22) and its eventual liberation are similar to Ezek 36,26-38.126 Of utmost importance is the way the Spirit acts in both Ezekiel 36-37 and Rom 8,18-27. The Spirit is seen as the agent used by God to bring about the life-giving aspects longed for by believers and creation (cf. Rom 8,2.11.23-27). “The spirit is the agent of a new creation who has begun his work in the lives of those whom he indwells, and will carry on that work to its completion in the resurrection (glorification) of those human bodies and in the freeing of creation from its bondage to decay. It is Paul’s belief in the creative agency of the spirit that ties together the logic of the whole chapter.”127 The Spirit as the agent comes out fully in Rom 8,26-27 where it is involved in helping overcome weakness 123. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 29, 44 n. 11, 87-105, 117, 162-165, 188-189, 197, 202-221, 234, 253-255, 260-267, 271, 291, 304, 307-308, 371-372, 375-378, 381, 423425. 124. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, 143. 125. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, 146. 126. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, 153. 127. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, 154.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

29

and interceding for the holy ones. As the Spirit brought life to national Israel (Ezekiel 37) and the entire created world (Ezekiel 36), so it would also bring life and act as God’s agent in the lives of Christ followers (Romans 8) and the entire created world (Rom 8,19-22). Therefore, the prophet Ezekiel provided the backdrop for Paul’s understanding of the work of the Spirit, and while the Roman community might not have seen this connection, it was an undergirding principle in Paul’s theology. 1.1.5. Eschatology: Dawning of a New Age Barrett, in his unfolding of the work of the Spirit argues that a new age dawns for those who follow God: a point encapsulated by the Spirit’s presence in the world who is the firstfruits of believers and will bring into eschatological fruition the delayed consummation of God’s plan.128 Thomas Tobin aligns an interpretation around an eschatological framework in addition as he sees the entire chapter in eschatological terms.129 This interpretive framework highlights the connection between the firstfruits of the Spirit, the groaning of the sons as they await the redemption of their bodies (8,23), the hope for those who are saved (8,24-25), and the intercessory work of the Spirit (8,26-27).130 Tobin argues that in the pericope, Paul builds upon traditional motifs found in the Old Testament131 and his other writings most particularly 1 and 2 Corinthians and “weaves them together in such as way as to emphasize the mysterious, incomprehensible character of God’s providence.”132 The resurrection of the dead becomes an important motif for Tobin as he maintains its meaning is tied to the eschatological resurrection of the dead, and as a consequence it pulls the themes of 8,1-17 into the eschatological grid of 8,1830.133 Two ideas surface as most important. First, the expectation of hope sets 128. Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 168. 129. Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 288-292. 130. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 292. 131. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 292. For example, Rom 8,23 builds upon Deut 26,15, a reference to the firstfruits idea. It is at this point that Tobin suggests that the use of ἀπαρχή in 8,23 relates to Paul’s use of ἀρραβών in 2 Cor 1,22 and 5,5. He asserts that the connections point to the ritual of baptism. As far as Rom 8,24-25, he sees the expectation of hope in the unseen related to 2 Cor 4,18 and Heb 11,1. Finally, God as a searcher of hearts (8,27) finds expression in the Old Testament in such passages as 1 Sam 16,7; 1 Kgs 8,39; 1 Chr 28,9; Ps 7,9; 17,3; 26,2; 139,1.3.23. 132. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 292. 133. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 292.

30

CHAPTER ONE

the stage for God’s work (8,24-25), and second, the role of the Spirit in the expectations of believers brings the plan of God to pass (8,26-27). “The result is a combination of confident hope that God will ultimately accomplish for those who love God what has been promised through the possession of the Spirit as firstfruits and the realization that the ways in which God will bring this about go beyond human weakness and surpasses human comprehension.”134 Of utmost concern for Tobin is how the weakness shown in Rom 8,26 relates to what Paul unfolded in 1 Cor 15,43-46. The Spirit helps deliver people from weakness and “stands in contrast to their weakness, a contrast similar to that found in 1 Cor 15,43-46, where the body that was sown in weakness (ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ) will be raised as a ‘spiritual body’ (σῶμα πνευματικόν).”135 The eschatological fulfillment of God’s plan impacts the sons of God and all of creation (Rom 8,19-22). Tobin’s exegesis of Rom 8,18-30 stands in relation and tension to that of 1 Corinthians 15 and undergirds the rhetorical strategy Paul sets forth to the Roman audience.136 Tobin argues that the rationale for such Pauline rhetoric in Romans 8 serves to introduce the critical theme of the fate of Israel laid out in 8,31-11,36.137 1.1.6. Future Directions This section considers the interpretive models of ecological and imperial criticism as they relate to Rom 8,18-30. While both approaches have concentrated on the first part of the pericope, in particular 8,18-22, one sees that both will eventually take a closer look at the entire pericope given the groaning connections in the passage and the role of the Spirit therein. Below is provided a brief introduction to each and how they interface with the pericope.

134. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 293. 135. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 294. 136. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 292-294. 137. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 294. Tobin sees Romans 8 connected to the fate of Israel and ties 8,31-39 into the discussion of Israel as a sort of segue into it. Rom 8,2328 form a rhetorical bridge into the Israel question for “Paul’s emphases in 8:23-28 – on hope as the expectation of things seen, the convictions that God’s ways surpass weak human comprehension, and that God works in all things for the good of those who love him – establish for his Roman Christian audience the kind of mind-set and disposition that would be receptive to his anguished reflections on the ultimate inclusion of Israel, who are his brothers according to the flesh (9:3). This is especially the case since the Roman Christians worried that his previous views in Galatians seemed to point in the opposite direction” (294).

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

31

1.1.6.1. Ecological Criticism In recent years, a number of biblical scholars have been turning to ecological criticism to exegete ancient texts.138 Given the place of creation in Rom 8,19-22, a number of readings focus on the role of ecological criticism in the pericope as a whole.139 David Horrell turns attention to what he terms an ecotheological narrative reading of biblical texts.140 Horrell collaborates with Cherryl Hunt and Christopher Southgate in several contributions that seek to map out a hermeneutical framework for the narrative ecocritical read.141 They put forth an exegetical ecocritical read based on a narrative reading of what they call the ecotheological mantra texts in the Pauline corpus (Rom 8,19-23; Col 1,15-20). They find some ecological interpretations of the texts forced and argue that one needs to understand the texts in her 138. Earth Bible Team, “Guiding Ecojustice Principles,” in Readings from the Perspective of the Earth (Vol 1; Norman C. Habel, ed.; Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press/Pilgrim Press, 2000), 38-53. For more on the Earth Bible project see, Norman C. Habel, ed., Readings from the Perspective of the Earth (Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press/Pilgrim Press, 2000); Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst, eds., The Earth Story in Genesis (Vol 2; Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Idem., The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions (Vol 3; Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Norman C. Habel, ed., The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets (Vol 4; Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Norman C. Habel and Vicky Balabanski, eds., The Earth Story in the New Testament (Vol 5; Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger, eds., Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics (SBLSymS 46; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008). The Earth Bible Team developed six principles to consider ancient texts within ecological perspective: 1) intrinsic worth, 2) interconnectedness, 3) voice, 4) purpose, 5) mutual custodianship, and 6) resistance. 139. Cf. Brendan Byrne, Romans (SPS Vol 6; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996), 254-262; Brendan Byrne, “Creation Groaning: An Earth Bible Reading of Romans 8.18-22,” in Readings from the Perspective of the Earth (Vol 1; Norman C. Habel, ed.; Sheffield/ Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press/Pilgrim Press, 2000), 38-53; Marie Turner, “God’s Design: The Death of Creation? An Ecojustice Reading of Romans 8.18-30 in the Light of Wisdom 1-2,” in The Earth Bible: The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions (Vol 3; Norman C. Habel and Vicky Balabanski, eds.; Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 168-178; Sigve Tonstad, “Creation Groaning in Labor Pains,” in Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics (SBLSym 46; Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger, eds.; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008): 141-149; Brendan Byrne, “An Ecological Reading of Rom 8.19-22,” in Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives (David G. Horrell et al., eds.; New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 8393. 140. Cf. David G. Horrell, The Bible and the Environment: Towards a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology (Biblical Challenges in the Contemporary World; Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2010); idem., “A New Perspective on Paul? Rereading Paul in a Time of Ecological Crisis,” JSNT 33.1 (2010): 3-30. 141. Cf. David G. Horrell, Cherryl Hunt, and Christopher Southgate, Greening Paul: Rereading the Apostle in a Time of Ecological Crisis (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010). See also David G. Horrell, Cherryl Hunt, Christopher Southgate and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, eds., Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives (New York: T&T Clark, 2010).

32

CHAPTER ONE

own context before imposing contemporary ecological criteria upon them.142 The narrative ecological reading they suggest takes seriously the situational and historical contexts of the passages under consideration, all the while constructing a Pauline hermeneutical lens that argues for a responsible understanding of creation that includes eschatology and God’s saving action in Christ as applied to the whole of creation.143 The approach the authors set forth avoids what they see as the extremes of various approaches to ecological criticism.144 Going against readings of recovery that interpret difficult texts (cf. Gen 1,28) ecologically in the attempt to rediscover the positive meaning of texts, resistant readings that either a) resists and escape difficult texts by downplaying the biblical authority of the text and focusing instead on hermeneutically resistant readings (Earth Bible Team, feminist hermeneutics), or b) read biblical texts as the locus of authority and thereby resist and oppose ecological application to the texts, Horrell, Hunt, and Southgate advance a revision, reformation, and, reconfiguration approach to reading biblical texts that moves toward an ecological hermeneutic that rests between a recovery and resistant reading approach.145 Building on the work of Ernst Conradie,146 Horrell, Hunt, and Southgate argue for what might be termed a moderate approach to the issue that takes seriously the ancient and contemporary context.147 Because the approach proceeds cautiously toward an ecological hermeneutic, a constant feature the writers employ is one of a hermeneutics of suspicion. The hermeneutic of suspicion causes a continual reassessment of the reading process to occur that constantly challenges assumptions toward an ecological hermeneutic.148

142. Horrell et al., Greening Paul, 121-126. 143. Horrell et al., Greening Paul, 128-129. 144. Horrell et al., Greening Paul, 11-39. 145. Horrell et al., Greening Paul, 39-46. 146. Ernst M. Conradie, “The Road Towards an Ecological Biblical and Theological Hermeneutics,” Scriptura 93 (2006): 305-314; idem., “Interpreting the Bible Amidst Ecological Degradation,” Theology 112 (2009): 199-207; and “What on Earth is an Ecological Hermeneutics? Some Broad Parameters,” in Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives (David G. Horrell, Cherryl Hunt, Christopher Southgate and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, eds.; New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 295-313. 147. Horrell et al., Greening Paul, 41. “What Conradie’s model of the process of biblical interpretation highlights is that meaning is made in the encounter between the text (and its ancient context) and the reader (and their contemporary context). Doctrinal ‘keys’ represent the kind of central idea or motif that emerges from a reading of the text in a particular situation with particular pressing priorities.” 148. Horrell et al., Greening Paul, 43-44.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

33

How then does an ecological read consider texts like Rom 8,26-27? Given that Rom 8,18-27 contains one of the Pauline key “mantra” texts, it would seem self-evident that ecological critics focus attention therein to discover how Paul felt about creation. At the same time, given the connections between “creation,” “ourselves,” and “spirit” in the pericope, one would expect that a detailed analysis would occur throughout the pericope. This, however, is not the case, for most ecological readings of the pericope deal with vv. 19-23, and in particular the role of κτίσις.149 Marie Turner does engage the text of Rom 8,26-27 briefly in her ecological reading of the pericope (delimited at 8,18-30). Paul depended upon the Wisdom of Solomon as he constructed Rom 8,18-30, a point of comparison Turner argues for as she studies the passage from the principle of voice posited by the Earth Bible Project.150 She maintains that a theology of life and death forms an important element in Romans, and this is readily seen in the tension of Rom 8,18-30, a theology Paul derived from the Wisdom of Solomon (Wis. 1,13-14; 2,23-24).151 A number of parallels exist between Wisdom and Romans (Wis 2,23 and Rom 1,18; Wis 2,24 and Rom 5,12; Wis 3,13 and Rom 8,22). While she focuses on the entire pericope of Rom 8,1830, her comments on the Spirit in Rom 8,26-28 are noteworthy. Wisdom and spirit are a motif in the Wisdom writing (cf. 1,7; 7,27; 12,1) and are similar to Paul’s treatment of the Spirit in Romans 8. Wisdom 1,6-8 accords well with Rom 8,26-28 where “the Spirit is a lover and helper of humankind, God searched what is innermost in human beings and God hears whatever is said. Both texts are ambiguous about the agent of ‘holding all things together,’ or ‘working all things together.’”152 While she admits that no singular argument 149. Cf. John Bolt, “The Relation between Creation and Redemption in Romans 8:1827,” CTJ 30 (1995): 34-51; Brendan Byrne, “Creation Groaning,” 193-203; Marie Turner, “God’s Design,” 168-178; Byrne, “An Ecological Reading of Rom 8.19-22,” 83-93. 150. Turner, “God’s Design,” 168. The principle of purpose “states that the universe, the Earth and all its components are part of a dynamic cosmic design within which each piece has a purpose and place in the overall telos of that design.” 151. Turner, “God’s Design,” 168-169. 152. Turner, “God’s Design,” 176-176. She parallels the texts of Wis 1,6-8 and Rom 8,2628 using the NRSV: “For wisdom is a kindly spirit but will not free blasphemers from the guilt of their words because God is witness of their inmost feelings and a true observer of their hearts and a hearer of their tongues. Because the spirit of the Lord has filled the world and that which holds all things together knows what is said (Wis 1,6-7). “Likewise the spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very spirit intercedes for us with unutterable groanings. And God who searches the heart knows what is the mind of the spirit because the spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. We know that for the ones loving God all things work together for good” (Rom 8,26-28).

34

CHAPTER ONE

connects the Wisdom of Solomon with Romans, she maintains that cumulatively enough echoes exist to connect the writings. She extrapolates from this an ecological, and for her an ecofeminist, reading that takes into consideration the purpose destined for creation in tandem with life lost and restored in Christ for Paul. “Using Wisdom as his inspiration, Paul constructs his own metaphor in Rom 8.18-30 to depict a creation that depends upon the life won in the resurrection of his son.”153 What Turner tries to show is that the parallel of Wisdom to Paul opens the door for an ecocritical read based on the principle of purpose for creation. Highlighting this principle enables her to see creation as a higher strand and import that view into Pauline thought. In conclusion, while the merits of ecological criticism have been debated in other formats and regards to other texts, their contribution to biblical criticism can be understood and seen. When applied to a biblical text, the hermeneutical suspicion proposed by Horrell, Hunt, and Southgate should be heeded, otherwise an application of texts becomes too loosely defined. Approaching it from a hermeneutics of suspicion is the way forward as the challenge in the text against the ideological reading can in itself resist certain reads. The approach takes seriously the inner dimensions of the text and asks pertinent questions relative to the environment of the text for one and how creation interacts with exegesis. The way forward in this pericope is to engage in the hermeneutical and exegetical work relative to the Spirit and its role in creation if any. Comparisons of the groaning of creation, ourselves, and Spirit in ecological perspective could indeed open up new vistas of understanding the breadth of Paul’s meaning in Rom 8,18-30. 1.1.6.2. Imperial Criticism Over the last few decades, a growing trend has arisen to examine biblical texts in light of what might be termed imperial theology.154 The approach 153. Turner, “God’s Design,” 178. 154. For imperial theology or what can be called imperial criticism, see John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 42-58; Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 295-298; William L. Lane, “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1988), 196-244, esp. 196199, 202-207; Richard A. Horsley, ed., Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000); James R. Harrison, “Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki,” JSNT 25.1 (2002) 71-96, esp. 88-96; John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom: A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 2004); Richard A. Horsley, ed.,

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

35

has not been without its critics who argue it forces an interpretation on the text that is unfounded.155 It has been argued elsewhere that the hermeneutical underpinning of the approach opens it for criticism, as its rhetoric towards the pax Americana is seen in light of the pax Romana.156 While it remains on the periphery of exegesis, its influence continues to grow and should be examined in light of biblical texts, especially related to Jesus and Paul.157

Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg, PA/London/New York: Trinity Press, 2004); Paul Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 30-33; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007); and Justin K. Hardin, Galatians and the Imperial Cult (WUNT 2.237; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); J. Albert Harrill, “Paul the Empire: Studying Roman Identity After the Cultural Turn” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 281-311. 155. Cf. Denny Burk, “Is Paul’s Gospel Counterimperial? Evaluating the Prospects of the ‘Fresh Perspective’ for Evangelical Theology,” JETS 51 (2008) 309-337. Burk’s sustained criticism of the counter-imperial interpretation of biblical texts, of which he adapts the similar phrasing as N.T. Wright as the Fresh Perspective, comes in seven directions. 1) He lays out a caution toward a too free use of parallels, and points out the problems of too easily linking κύριος to Jesus and Caesar; 2) he cautions about meaning and implication, in that verbal meaning is what the author intended, but the implications drawn do not necessarily represent the author’s intention; 3) he raises caution flags regarding the hermeneutics of imperial criticism, with its use of reader-response methodologies applied to biblical texts indiscriminately in Burk’s opinion; 4) he cautions against a too narrow application of the approach to the Roman Empire, especially in seeing the imperial cult in light of Pauline literature especially. Even if the Caesar cult was the fastest growing religion in the areas of Paul’s mission, it does not automatically mean that Paul was countering this religion in his writings. 5) He cautions readers against imperial criticism’s use of Scripture, and in particular the disputed letters of Paul. These writings are discarded as incidental to Pauline thought for one, though the disputed letters are not the only problem pointed. Burk shows that texts that run against an imperial context are discounted, and he points specifically to the way 1 Cor 14,33-36 is seen as inauthentic given its anti-egalitarian nature. His point is that those working in imperial criticism do not take seriously enough the full breadth of the Pauline corpus. 6) Of utmost concern are the parallels drawn between America and Rome, which betrays in many respects the hermeneutical underpinnings of the approach. Burk questions whether America and Rome are so analogous, an effort that proponents take great strides to prove, and instead sees greater discontinuity between the two nations. 7) Lastly, Burk cautions the way Rom 13,1-7 has been interpreted by proponents of imperial criticism. Due to the positive tone of Rom 13,1-7 toward governmental authorities, proponents need to counter that tone in their interpretation. Burk again, cautions against such an approach and questions the validity of such an endeavor. 156. Cf. Thomas A. Vollmer, “The Hermeneutics of Imperial Criticism,” in Provoked to Speech: Biblical Hermeneutics as Conversation (Reimund Bieringer, Roger Burggraeve, Emmanuel Nathan, and Martijn Steegen, eds.; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 275-291. 157. For work on imperial criticism and Jesus see Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003); Warren Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (New York, London: T&T Clark, 2008); Tom Thatcher, Greater than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2010).

36

CHAPTER ONE

John Crossan and Jonathan Reed argue that Paul wrote with imperial theology in his mind, a point that was unavoidable given the pervasiveness of the divine status of the Roman emperors during the first century CE.158 They contend Paul replaced Caesar with Christ, saw the imperial civilization as unjust, and subverted the normal order of first century CE civilization by proposing an alternative world from that of the Caesars.159 Pointing to the lack of attention given to imperial studies they state: “It is a profound if standard mistake to dismiss Roman imperial theology as empty rhetoric, poetic hyperbole, or pragmatic flattery. It was, actually, the ideological glue that held the empire dynamically together.”160 What is at stake is the vision of the world, and in Paul’s case an alternative vision. Whereas the Caesars projected a world personified by peace through victory; Paul set forth a vision of peace through justice in keeping with Jesus’ strategy.161 Paul found himself in a delicate situation as he “stood astride the line between Judaism and paganism, between Jewish covenantal eschatology and Roman imperial eschatology, between Christian and Augustan utopian visions, each announcing not just the imminent advent of the Golden Age, but proclaiming it had already begun.”162 One needs to consider the imperial cultic background when reading Paul’s letters, for he injects an alternative worldview opposed to the Roman system of his day. Neil Elliott maintains that imperial ritual and propaganda and Paul’s response to them were all negotiations of power.163 In similar fashion to Crossan and Reed, Elliott sees Paul as a rival to the powers of the day and takes the metaphorical language of “fighting wild beasts” in 1 Cor 15,32 as that of confronting ruling authorities.164 Additionally, Paul’s military imagery (cf. Rom 6,13; 2 Cor 10,1-6) serves as a call away from Roman might to service 158. Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul. 159. Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, x-xi. 160. Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 10. One of their primary concerns is to show the pervasiveness of the imperial cult in the life of first century CE peoples, from considering how Caesars were deified with terminology (dei filius, divi filius, θεοῦ υἱός) to the spread of imperial theology (11, 17, 27-28, 43-45, 57-59, 76, 142-144, 241, 249-250). The authors maintain that everywhere a person went in the Roman world images of the emperors were seen casting them in deified positions. Speaking of Augustus they write: “His statues stood deity-like in temples, his busts represented imperial justice in law courts, and his images were paraded through imperial cities on various anniversaries, a tradition that continued for later emperors” (144). 161. Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 74. 162. Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, 129. 163. Neil Elliott, “The Apostle Paul’s Self-Presentation as Anti-Imperial Performance,” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Richard A. Horsley, ed.; Harrisburg, PA/London/New York: Trinity Press, 2004), 67-88, 67. 164. Elliott, “The Apostle Paul’s Self-Presentation,” 78-79.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

37

in Christ’s cause.165 Therefore, Paul continually reacts to the culture around him and subverts in a way the imperial theology permeating culture. Christ acts as the foil to the Caesars, and Paul asks his communities to join Christ instead of Caesar. Elliott also argues that Paul’s incorporation of εὐαγγέλιον into his theology borrows “a technical term for ‘news of victory; from the Hellenistic and Roman vocabulary of international diplomacy.”166 Elliott points out that this εὐαγγέλιον put forth by Paul in the Letter to the Romans occurred during the early part of Nero’s reign, a time of high hopes and when the Golden Age was seen as realizable; a point that Paul takes to task as he argues against the supposed Golden Age.167 Wright agrees with Elliott about the imperial nature of εὐαγγέλιον and adds to that the place of κύριος, given that Paul takes the lordship of Caesar and places it upon Jesus Christ.168 James Harrison continues the terminological comparison approach by arguing that κύριος, παρουσία, ἐπιφάνεια, and σωτηρία are imperial propaganda terms that Paul takes over and applies to Christ and the gospel.169 Robert Jewett extends the imperial theological read to Rom 8,18-23.170 Focusing in on ή κτίσις in Rom 8,19-23, he posits that Paul is writing in response to the allusion that the Caesars would be the ones who bring the Golden Age to all of creation.171 Augustus was the bearer of the Golden Age, the one in whom the prophecies of happiness on the earth would be realized. Since this had not happened totally during Augustus’ reign, upon Nero’s ascension to the throne there was a real sense that the longed for peace would finally come.172 Contra the idea that the Caesars would bring about the redemption 165. Elliott, “The Apostle Paul’s Self-Presentation,” 79. 166. Neil Elliott, “Paul and the Politics of Empire: Problems and Prospects,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (Richard A. Horsley, ed.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000), 17-39, 24. 167. Elliott, “Paul and the Politics of Empire,” 37. 168. N. T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (Richard A. Horsley, ed.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000), 160-183, 167-169. 169. Harrison, “Paul and the Imperial Gospel,” 71-96, 78, 82-83. 170. Cf. Robert Jewett, “The Corruption of Redemption of Creation: Reading Rom 8:1823 Within the Imperial Context,” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Richard A. Horsley, ed.; Harrisburg, PA/London/New York: Trinity Press, 2004), 26-46; Jewett, Romans, 508-511. 171. Jewett, “The Corruption of Redemption and Creation,” 26-31. He points to the poet Virgil to show that the golden age envisioned for all creation occurs through the Caesars, particularly Augustus. Virgil would support Augustus and in him saw the prophecy of the glorious age coming, via the Pax Romana (Ecl 4.11-41). 172. Jewett, “The Corruption of Redemption and Creation,” 31. “Since the ‘madness’ of non-Roman warfare and the corruption of barbaric impiety had ruined the world, Nero’s reign brings peace that is blessed by the gods. His magical ‘victory’ allegedly restores nature to its

38

CHAPTER ONE

of creation, Paul argues instead that this is a flawed project, one that will not happen under the world’s current system. Romans 8,18-23 therefore serves as a polemic against the utopic vision set forth by the Roman imperial cult. Jewett remarks: Whereas the Roman cult touted piety and conquest as the means whereby the golden age was restored, Paul’s letter rejects salvation by works in all its forms. Whereas the Roman premise was that disorderly barbarians and rebels caused the corruption of nature, Paul argues that all humans reenact Adam’s fall. In place of imperial celebrations and administration as the hinge of the golden age, Paul touts the power of the gospel to convert the world. Moreover, as the wording of Rom 8,18-23 indicates, the natural world is far from idyllic, and it has certainly not been restored by the Roman imperium.173

Jewett brings this out in several ways. First, the present nature of suffering and future glorification (Rom 8,18) will not come through the mediation of the imperial cult, but will be accomplished through the prophetic tradition of Israel (cf. Exod 24,9-10; Is 24,23; 40,5).174 Second, Paul’s use of ἀποκαραδοκία (Rom 8,19) goes against the imperial understanding of Mother Earth waiting in a relaxed manner for its glorification, and instead casts ή κτίσις as eagerly expecting or even longing for the sons of God to be revealed.175 Third, by stating that creation waits for the sons of God to be revealed directly opposes the idea that Caesar was the one that would bring about the Golden Age: Paul in effect reverses the process by showing that the sons of God are the ones to bring the Golden Age.176 Fourth, Paul’s allusions were directed to biblical traditions, which would have brought to his audience’s remembrance “how imperial traditions, military conflicts, and economic exploitation had led to the erosion of the natural environment throughout the Mediterranean world, leaving ruined cities, depleted fields, deforested mountains, and polluted streams as evidence of this universal human vanity.”177 Fifth, against the view that creation would find joy and freedom from the Caesars, Paul instead points out the groaning and travail of creation in its current situation, and its birth pangs emphasize its brokenness in the era of the Caesars.178 original state in the primeval Age of Saturn, when beasts of the field were so tame that they herded themselves, and when the earth brought forth its harvest without the use of the plow.” 173. Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,” 31. 174. Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,” 33. 175. Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,” 34-35. Jewett points out the allusion to a personified creation that rails against injustice stands in the Jewish tradition (Gen 4,10; Deut 4,26; 30,19; 31,28; Josh 24,27; 1 Enoch 7,6). 176. Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,” 35. 177. Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,” 37. 178. Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,” 41.

A THEMATIC HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF ROM 8,26-27

39

Jewett puts forth an interesting thesis, unfortunately he limits his discussion to Rom 8,18-23 and not the entire pericope. The reference to Rom 8,2627 is somewhat veiled in the context of the Spirit sustaining believers.179 The Spirit guides believers in the ways in which they interact with the world, with a special focus on their prayer.180 Because the believers are facing some sort of weakness related to living in the fallen world, they need the aid of an external force to help them, which Paul defines as the Spirit.181 While one could anticipate the connections between the Spirit helping in the fallen world and imperial theology, Jewett does not explore this further. If his thesis holds, that Rom 8,18-23 forms an anti-imperial polemic, then it would seem likely that Paul continues the theme throughout the entire pericope. 1.2. CONCLUSION As seen throughout this survey, a number of different approaches have been undertaken to understand Paul’s meaning in Rom 8,26-27. One readily recognizes both the positives and negatives from the approaches as each undertakes a careful exegesis of the texts and seeks to extrapolate Paul’s meaning in the texts. What one is left with, however, is simply a reading that tries to grapple with Paul’s meaning in the text and the pericope itself. Whether it is to investigate the social background behind the text, the way the community structured itself, to see how the text manifests itself religiously, or within biblical traditions; interpreters tend to read the text in isolation from other material in Romans and within his overall purpose for the letter. This work sets out to investigate what Paul meant in the text in light of his greater purpose for the letter. How does Rom 8,26-27, particularly 8,26a, fit within Paul’s overall project? What role does the Spirit aiding in our weakness have with what Paul brings out in Romans 1-8, 9-11, 12-16? Paul did not haphazardly write or dictate his letters,182 but wrote purposely in order

179. Jewett, “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,” 44. 180. Jewett, Romans, 521. 181. Jewett, Romans, 521. 182. Cf. John D. Harvey, Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters (ETS; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), which considers questions relative to oral patterning in the ancient world. Harvey shows the complexity involved in oral patterning that would then be written. This can be seen in the structures throughout Paul’s letters in line with other ancient oral and rhetorical texts in the ancient world (35-59, 119-154). The articles in Stanley E. Porter and Sean

40

CHAPTER ONE

to get his message across. As a result, his overall purpose would surface at different points in the letter. This begs the question as what his purpose for writing Romans was, and how that purpose intersects with a passage like Rom 8,26-27. In the next chapter, the question of Paul’s intention in writing the letter will be explored.

A. Adams, Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2010), show the complexity to which the Pauline letters exhibit.

CHAPTER TWO

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

Before commencing on the exegesis of Rom 8,26-27, a comment made by Gordon Fee forces engagement with the question of why Paul wrote the letter in the first place. Because τὸ πνεῦμα plays such a large role in the verses, Fee points out: “How one understands the Spirit material in this letter, therefore will be affected considerably by one’s overall understanding of the letter itself, its purposes and the development of the argument. But herein lies a major exegetical crux. What is the aim of Romans, and how does the argument accomplish that aim?”1 The question Fee posed has garnered considerable attention for over thirty years. The Romans Debate as it is aptly called centered attention on this issue and a monograph by Alexander Wedderburn attempted to answer it in depth.2 More recently, A. Das purported to have solved the debate.3 Richard Longenecker has given an in-depth analysis of the issues related to the topic in his book on the introductory issues in Romans.4 2.1. OVERVIEW

OF

APPROACHES

The intention here is to provide an analysis of the main points of the debate as a number of studies have explored it in-depth,5 and then consider 1. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 472-473. 2. Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). His opening chapter encapsulates the problems facing interpreters who seek to know why Paul wrote the letter. His first sentence sums up the task: “Why Paul wrote Romans is still something of an enigma” (1). See also Karl P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (Rev. and exp. ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991). With the revised and expanded edition, thirteen additional essays have been added beyond the original ten. Cf. Karl P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977). 3. A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007). 4. Richard J. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011). 5. Walter Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem (SNT 9; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1975), 24-52; Otto Kuss, Paulus: Die Rolle des Apostels in der theologischen

42

CHAPTER TWO

Fee’s point above to see how the themes of Rom 8,26a fit into the overall strategy of the letter. The territory covered by the Romans debate is immense, and Das makes a poignant remark when he writes in reference to Karl Donfried’s 1991 volume The Romans Debate: “The sheer array of interpretive possibilities in this volume exposes the difficulty specialists have had reaching any sort of consensus. Not a year passes without the appearance of at least a handful of essays and a monograph or two.”6 The discussion over the purpose of Romans is not limited to the contemporary scene though, for Ferdinand Christian Baur engaged the issue in 1836.7 Baur argued against the view that Romans was a general letter in the form of a doctrinal treatise; instead, he maintained that the purpose of Romans had to be considered in light of its historical situation in the same way that Paul’s other letters are read.8 He contended that Paul did not have a comprehensive message to all churches, but developed the writings in light of circumstances within a specific church. In some respects, Paul did not have a distilled gospel in place that crystallized in Romans; rather, he reacted to events occurring within and around the church in Rome, thus, making the letter uniquely geared toward the Roman church. Baur maintained that Paul’s dialogical partners were those Jewish Christians who were not convinced of his universal message incorporating gentiles.9 2.1.1. Romans as a Summation Pauline Theology Throughout the years many scholars have considered the Letter to the Romans as a theological treatise of sorts, or more to the point as a doctrinal statement of Paul’s gospel against those who opposed him.10 While not holding to a traditional perspective of theological reflection, and incorporating the conflicts of Corinth and Galatians, T. W. Manson does conclude that Romans is not a self-introduction of Paul to the church in Rome, but “a manifesto Entwicklung der Urkirche (2nd ed.; Auslegung und Verkündigung 3; Regensburg: Pustet, 1976), 178-204; Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans, 1-21; Donfried, The Romans Debate; Michael Theobald, Der Römerbrief (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000), 27-42; and Angela Reichert, Der Römerbrief als Gratwanderung: Eine Untersuchung zur Abfassungsproblematik (FRLANT 194; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 13-75. 6. Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 9. 7. Ferdinand C. Baur, “Über Zweck und Veranlassung des Römerbriefs und die damit zusammenhängenden Verhältnisse der römischen Gemeinde,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 3 (1836): 59-178. This article was reprinted in Baur’s Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben (5 vols.; Klaus Scholder, ed.; Stuttgart: Frommann, 1963-1975); 1:147-266. 8. Baur, “Über Zweck,” 60-64. 9. Baur, “Über Zweck,” 59-61. 10. Cf. Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1949), 4-9.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

43

setting forth his deepest conviction on central issues.”11 Günther Bornkamm agrees with Manson that the letter was born out of the controversies of previous letters though he does not see the controversies as the main reason for its composition, but diverges from Manson on the issue of Paul’s selfintroduction to the Roman church.12 Bornkamm saw the letter in terms of a last will and testament and his views can be summarized in this much-quoted statement: This great document, which summarizes and develops the most important themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and which elevates his theology above the moment of definite situations and conflicts into the sphere of the eternally and universally valid, this letter to the Romans is the last will and testament of the Apostle Paul.13

Therefore, as Paul’s last will and testament it constituted his theological reflections given to the church in Rome. A number of problems arise when viewing the letter as a summary of Paul’s theology. First, as Das points out, a number of theological teachings are missing from the letter including an understanding of what the church meant for Paul, the Lord’s Supper, the resurrection, and a detailed Christology.14 If Paul meant for this to be a summation of his theology, one would expect to see more treatment on fundamental issues that are found in his other letters. Second, when considering the letter as a last will and testament in the lines of Bornkamm, one wonders why Paul would have written such a letter in the first place, especially given that his knowledge of the Roman community is rather limited? It would be understandable to write such a letter to a church that Paul directly founded or one in which he had deeply invested his life 11. T. W. Manson, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans – And Others,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 1-16. Manson’s thesis works around the premise that Paul did not write the letter to the Roman church exclusively, but also to the Ephesian church. He argues that the references to Rome in 1,7.15 are missing in the Graeco-Latin manuscript G (3). Additionally, he saw a number of divergences in the closing doxology (Rom 16,25-27) and in Romans 14-16. 12. Günther Bornkamm, “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 17-31. Bornkamm writes, “I cannot follow Dr. Manson in rejecting the old common notion that Romans was a letter of ‘self-introduction’ of Paul to the church in Rome. Indeed, as a matter of fact, this word says too little, for ‘self-introduction’ in this case is intended to mean nothing less than the presentation of Paul’s message itself including also the exposition of his deepest convictions in view of the impending discussions at Jerusalem. Yet perhaps most important of all, it seems to me very inadequate to understand Romans as a mere report and record of former controversies.” 13. Bornkamm, “The Letter to the Romans,” 31. 14. Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 27.

44

CHAPTER TWO

(Corinth or Philippi), but to send a last will and testament to a church he did not have direct contact with does not seem likely.15 In the end, while there are theological themes in the letter it does not mean that this was the ultimate purpose for its writing. In conclusion, one can hardly dispute that the letter to the Romans contains Paul’s theological reflection, but that can be said for all his letters. Given that the situational context drives the purpose on the other letters with theological reflection as part of the purpose, it seems best to adopt a strategy that looks for the context and then discern the theological thought patterns involved in resolving the situation. The lack of an overall theological summary of Paul’s thought shows that he did not intend for the letter to be a synthesis of his theological beliefs. Instead, theological positions were taken to underscore the overall purpose of his writing. Therefore, theology is part of the purpose but is not the driving concern. 2.1.2. Jerusalem Trip A number of writers contend that Paul wrote the letter to the Romans with Jerusalem primarily as his motivation.16 Douglas Moo summarizes this view when he writes “that Paul’s letter to Rome embodies the speech he anticipates giving in Jerusalem when he arrives there with the collection.”17 Jack Suggs maintains that the intended visit to Jerusalem was on Paul’s mind, how nonChristian Jews in Jerusalem might receive him, and how Christian Jews in Jerusalem would fare if they received Paul in a positive manner.18 The concern arises from a statement Paul made in 15,30 asking the Roman church to partner with him in prayer that he would be rescued from opponents in Judea (15,31).19 He would need the support of the Roman church as he 15. For more on this see William S. Campbell, “Why Did Paul Write Romans?” ExpT 85 (1973-1974): 264-269, 265. 16. Cf. M. Jack Suggs, “‘The Word is Near You’: Romans 10:6-10 Within the Purpose of the Letter,” in Christian History and Interpretation (W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr, eds.; Cambridge: CUP, 1967), 289-312; Jacob Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 61-74. 17. Douglas Moo, Romans 1-8 (WEC; Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991), 18. See also D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 250. 18. Suggs, “Word is Near You,” 296-297. 19. One notes that Paul asked for prayers from other churches. See, for example, 2 Cor 1,11. A comparison between Romans 15,30 and 2 Cor 1,11 shows some connections, but also divergences. In Romans, Paul uses the aorist middle infinitive συναγωνίσασθαί to ask the Romans to “strive together with” him, while in 2 Corinthians he uses the genitive absolute present participle συνυπουργούντων to ask the Corinthians to “join with” or “help with” him through

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

45

answered those critical of him in Jerusalem, especially in his proclaiming his gospel to the gentiles and what some might perceive as disparaging the Mosaic Law and Israel.20 He presents to the Roman church a letter that would satisfy the Jewish Christians and make his visit to Jerusalem less hostile. In a similar vein, Jacob Jervell puts forward the idea that Paul had in mind his visit to Jerusalem when composing Romans, and more to the point when he would deliver the collection. Jervell’s thesis is as follows: The essential and primary content of Romans (1:18-11:36) is a reflection upon its major content, the “collection speech,” or more precisely, the defense which Paul plans to give before the church in Jerusalem. To put it another way: Paul sets forth and explains what he, as the bearer of the collection given by the Gentiles for the mother congregation in Jerusalem, intends to say so that he as well the gift will not be rejected. In Jerusalem he expects to be confronted by two parties: non-believing Jews and the Christian congregation (15:30-33). Therefore, Paul has only one objective: to ask the Roman congregation for solidarity, support, and intercession on his behalf.21

As with some purposes espoused by others, the crucial point arises in Romans 15 and more to the point for Jervell, 15,30-32. He downplays the Spanish mission and argues that Paul does not ask the Roman church to support his missionary endeavors there.22 Instead, he points to the situation in Jerusalem as the primary focus for Paul’s letter. The collection to Jerusalem would in fact authenticate Paul’s ministry to the gentiles and serve as validation for what he has worked so hard to accomplish (Rom 15,27; 2 Cor 9,1214). This serves as the context behind the letter to the Romans: In effect, it was written for Paul himself to validate the message being proclaimed to the gentiles.23 (ὑπέρ) prayers. He also uses different words for prayers (προσευχή, Rom 15,30; δέησις, 2 Cor 1,11). On the surface, one could argue that any allusion to the passages together is not appropriate given the different language issues, but it does seem to relate at a deeper level. Consider the use of συν-compound verbs for one and the appeal for common sharing in the prayer load. Additionally, factoring in Rom 15,31 in the use of the aorist passive subjunctive ῥυσθῶ with ἵνα and 2 Cor 1,10 uses of the aorist ἐρρύσατο and two futures ῥύσεται provide a glimpse into Paul’s mindset. In both passages, Paul is facing a dilemma (affliction and suffering in 2 Corinthians 1 with his interplay of θλῖψις and πάθημα throughout 1,3-11 of some event that occurred in Asia, and the problem of unbelievers in Rom 15,31). 20. Suggs, “The Word is Near You,” 297-298. 21. Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” 64-65. 22. Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” 66. He does not dispute that Paul might be looking for “some aid,” most likely with food and lodging (cf. 15,24), but he does maintain that Paul does not ask for explicit support for his mission. 23. Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” 68, 74. Jervell’s exegesis takes the reader primarily through Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, and Romans showing how important the collection would be to the Paul’s overall strategy. Going against the idea that the relationship between Galatians

46

CHAPTER TWO

For Jervell, Romans concentrates on the impending trip to Jerusalem, which impacts its content, form, and structure. From the standpoint of form, he notices that the constant changing between first, second, and third persons is an intentional move to a didactic treatise that has apologetic speech tendencies and polemical undercurrents.24 The main theme of the letter is found in 1,16-17, and it pertains to God’s righteousness toward both Jews and Greeks. The theme fills the letter to 11,36 with digressions laid throughout.25 The digressions include Paul’s numerous questions posed on the situation faced by the Jerusalem church rather than the Roman one, which incorporate such weighted questions as what is a Jew (chapter 2), what is circumcision (chapter 2), should evil be done so good results (chapter 3), is the law sin (chapter 7), and among many others is there injustice with God (chapter 9)?26 Paul was writing to prepare himself for the questions he would face when he reached Jerusalem. The obvious question arises then as to why write to the Roman church in the first place and not to the Jerusalem church? This question does not escape Jervell’s notice. While admitting that Paul did not found the church in Rome, he did know of its existence, as it is likely that individual congregations were aware of each other. The reason Paul wrote to the Roman church was that it had become a central congregation to the entire church. “Paul does not mention in his letter that Rome is the center of the Gentile world. He does stress, however, that this Roman congregation has taken on a central position on behalf of the entire church.”27 Thus, Paul wrote the letter to Rome in order to solicit support from them and to have them place their stamp of approval on him. This would carry weight for him as he journeyed to Jerusalem to not only deliver the collection, but also to garner support for his missionary activity with those who he thought would oppose him in Jerusalem. Jervell’s thesis is not without its problems. First, that Paul solicits prayer support from the Roman church in preparation for his visit to Jerusalem (15,30-33) does not mean that his visit to Rome is not his pressing concern. As Moo has pointed out, this position does not take into consideration Paul’s desire to visit the Roman community, which forms a crucial part of and is necessary to show that Romans has a toned-down polemic toward certain issues pertinent to Galatians, Jervell posits that Galatians is a more detached letter and Romans a “more excited and temperamental” one (69). 24. Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” 70-71. 25. Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” 71. 26. Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” 71. 27. Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” 74.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

47

both the introduction and the conclusion to the letter (1,8-15; 15,22-29).28 Paul spends an inordinate amount of time in the introduction telling the church how much they are on his mind and in his prayers, how he longs to visit them, spend time with them, encourage and be encouraged by them, and reiterates that he has been prevented from coming to them (1,13).29 A problem for advocates of a Jerusalem purpose concerns the issue of Paul’s desire to visit the church in Rome, which means Paul sees them less as a church to help substantiate his authority, but as a church that he genuinely wants to get to know better. Second, as Das points out the writing in Rom 2,17-29 would not allay any criticisms lodged by Jewish Christians, but would exacerbate them given the highly polemical nature of the pericope.30 This argues against the idea that Paul was presenting himself or preparing himself for the visit to Jerusalem, as the polemical language in the second chapter would only intensify the division between Jewish Christians and himself. Instead of giving him a platform to bring the gentile mission into dialogue with Jerusalem it would enflame rivalries against him and prove to be counter-productive. Finally, to conclude that Paul’s concern in writing Romans is the Jerusalem situation does not account for the bulk of the material in Romans and places too high a priority on 15,30-33. Leander Keck convincingly has shown that to place such weight on the Jerusalem situation undermines the overall intention of the letter. Keck notes that if Paul were dealing with Jerusalem related issues in Romans 12-15 then he made a mistake since those chapters do not fit into a Jerusalem related scheme.31 In conclusion, one has to admit that the Jerusalem visit was on Paul’s mind, given that toward the end of the letter he mentions it and asks for the Romans’ support in prayer as he engaged opponents in Judea. To say that it is a purpose for writing the letter becomes more challenging, as one would 28. Moo, Romans 1-8, 18. 29. Notice the intensity of 1,13 and Paul’s desire to be with them: οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι πολλάκις προεθέμην ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο, ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν. 30. Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 30. 31. Leander Keck, “What Makes Romans Tick?” in Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans (Number 23; David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds.; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2002), 3-29, 17. “In other words, if Romans 12-15 was too part of what Paul was preparing to say in Jerusalem in order to make the collection for the poor acceptable, one can hardly avoid saying that he misread the situation, and so ‘laid the egg beside the nest.’ If one says that ‘Jerusalem’ controlled Romans 1-11 but “Rome” determined chaps. 12-16, then the coherence of Romans is undermined, making the validity of our question problematic. That Jerusalem was on Paul’s mind is undeniable; however, the claim that it shaped the letter to Rome is a remarkably apt instance of the proverbial red herring” (17).

48

CHAPTER TWO

expect its prevalence to permeate the letter, a point that simply does not happen. At best, one concludes that it was a subsidiary motivation to the letter’s purpose; at the least it might be an appendage to Paul’s thought as he was wrapping up the letter. The approach has not been accepted by a majority of scholars. 2.1.3. Spanish Mission Those that propose that the Spanish mission stands behind the letter’s purpose focus attention on Paul’s personal situation and his need to build a coalition for future missionary activity.32 Paul explicitly mentions the trip to Spain in 15,24 and Moo puts forward that the verb προπέμπω constitutes an appeal for material support for his future missionary endeavors.33 The letter serves as an introductory salvo to the Roman church in order to solicit support from the church so that Paul can fulfill what he greatly desires; namely, to take his gospel to Spain. From this perspective, the theological tenor of the letter makes sense, given that Paul wants to establish himself as a viable candidate for the church’s support, who was in synch with the theology of the Roman church.34 William Greathouse and George Lyons, picking up on Jewett’s thesis, see the letter as of the ambassadorial type arguing that such a genre places Paul in a unique role as “spokesman for the foreign policy of God.”35 As an ambassador, Paul would ask the Roman church to support him via theological arguments and ethical admonitions. “His theological arguments identify the message they would proclaim as the ‘power of God.’ His ‘ethical admonitions’ show how the gospel is to be lived out in a manner that would ensure the success of this mission.”36 The double character of the gospel, theological arguments, and ethical admonitions are attempts to answer problems for those who hold to this position; namely, the lack of specific mentions of the Spanish mission earlier and more often.37 If both the theological reflections brought forward by Paul in the early chapters and the ethical demands in the 32. Udo Schnelle, Paulus, 305. “Veranlassung und Zweck des Römerbriefes hängen eng mit der Situation zusammen, in der Paulus sich befindet. Der Apostel benötigt die personelle und materielle Unterstützung der römischen Gemeinde, um seine geplante Spanienmission durchzuführen. Deshalb stellt sich Paulus, den meisten römischen Christen persönlich noch unbekannt, mit seiner Theologie so ausführlich vor.” 33. Moo, Romans 1-8, 17. 34. Moo, Romans 1-8, 17. 35. William M. Greathouse with George Lyons, Romans 1-8 (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 2008), 24. 36. Greathouse and Lyons, 24. 37. Cf. Moo, Romans 1-8, 17.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

49

latter chapters connect to Paul’s desire to solicit support for the Spanish mission, then this thesis can be seen as viable. The problem to discuss is that it seems rather subjective to state that theological and ethical concerns form the foundation of Paul’s future missionary activity. Dieter Zeller also held that Paul wrote the letter in order to secure support for his mission,38 a thesis with which Jewett would concur and build upon. Jewett contends that attaining support for the Spanish mission lies behind Paul’s purpose for sending the letter to the Roman church,39 and argues against the tendency of some scholars to see multiple reasons for the letter. Instead, he maintains that letter writers normally had a central goal in mind in their writing.40 To narrow the interpretive possibilities, Jewett focuses on the rhetoric of the letter, the greetings at the end of the letter, cultural situations in Spain, and Phoebe as a patron of the Spanish mission.41 The key for Jewett is that Romans serves as an ambassadorial letter whose basic intention is to introduce Paul to a church he does not know well, nor had a hand in founding.42 At the same time, he was not just introducing himself but was soliciting the church in Rome to support the mission to Spain; and to accomplish this goal Paul uses a number of literary devices to make his appeal: the ambassadorial letter as the primary means of communication along with the subgenres of parenetic letter, hortatory letter, philosophical diatribe, and epideitic rhetoric.43 The idea that Paul had the Spanish mission in mind when writing the letter has come under critical scrutiny. Longenecker’s criticism of it reflects the skepticism lodged toward it by critics.44 First, he takes to task Jewett’s 38. Dieter Zeller, Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien zum Römerbrief (FB 1; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973), 38-77. It must be pointed out though that Zeller did not come up with the idea, for the idea that Paul was writing with Spain in mind has been around for some time. 39. Jewett, Romans, 80, 83-91. 40. Jewett, Romans, 80. He has no problem with secondary objects being mentioned, just that multiple purposes as primary would be implausible. 41. Jewett, Romans, 80. The purpose of Romans has been a subject important to Jewett for a number of years. He has articulated in-depth the issues in the following: “Romans as An Ambassadorial Letter,” Int 36 (1982): 5-20; “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (Jacob Neusner, Peder Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley, eds.; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988), 142-161; and “Ecumenical Theology for the Sake of Mission: Romans 1:1-17 + 15:14-16:24,” in Pauline Theology: Romans (Vol 3; David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds.; Minneapolis, MN: Fotress, 1995), 89-108. 42. Jewett, Romans, 44. 43. Cf. Jewett, “Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter,” 5-20 where he articulates his thought in detail. 44. At the same time, Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 106, finds a number of helpful points in the thesis including Paul introducing himself to the Christians in Rome, sets out an overview of his thinking, and asks the Romans to help support his Spanish mission.

50

CHAPTER TWO

classification of an ambassadorial greeting to introduce Paul to the Romans.45 There is no need to see the letter as a form of embassy letter or diplomatic correspondence written to garner support for the Spanish mission. Second, Longenecker questions “the identity, character, and theological orientation of Paul’s Christian addressees at Rome,”46 as presented by Jewett. This deals with Paul’s doctrinal and ethical formulations, and argues that the letter is not limited to just a support raising mission. In conclusion, this approach has merit in that Paul wrote to an audience he did not know to appeal for his Spanish mission. It forms an element to why Paul wrote the letter, but is not the sole basis for its composition. It seems that it was on Paul’s mind, otherwise, why would he have brought it up, but at the same time, if it was a pressing issue for him, it likely would arise more in the letter itself, instead of being confined to the latter chapters. 2.1.4. Apostolic Foundation for the Church Given that Romans 1-15 lacks references to ή ἐκκλησία, some advance that Paul saw the need for an apostolic foundation in the church at Rome.47 Paul, in Rom 15,20 asserts that his goal was εὐαγγελίζεσθαι οὐχ ὅπου ὠνομάσθη Χριστός, ἵνα μὴ ἐπ᾿ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ. Günter Klein maintains that in actuality this was exactly what Paul was doing when he sent this letter to them.48 The ambiguity of 15,20, coupled with the apostolic intentions declared in 1,5.11-15 and 15,15 cause Klein to conclude that “on the one hand, Paul unmistakably makes known to us his intention to preach the gospel to the Romans; on the other hand, he states his principle of noninterference.”49 For Klein, it seems likely that a person (Paul) who states: ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν (1,5), and ἐπιποθῶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς (1,11) with the stated purpose: ἵνα τι μεταδῶ χάρισμα ὑμῖν πνευματικὸν εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι 45. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 106-107. Letters of introduction were common in the ancient world, and for Paul, therefore, one derives that while Paul included letters of introduction this does not argue that in Romans it is an ambassadorial type. Rather, it would seem that the letter of introduction to the Christians in Rome was similar to those presented in his other letters. 46. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 108. 47. Cf. Schnelle, Paulus, 337, Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 34-37. 48. Günter Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 32-49. The original text of the article was published as, “Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes,” in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (BevT 50: Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969), 129-144. 49. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 36.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

51

ὑμᾶς (v. 11). Further, Paul writes boldly to the church in Rome (15,15),50 a point Klein cannot dismiss as important to how one understands 15,20.51 In his missionary strategy, Paul perceives the Roman church as in need of something from him; thus, “Paul turns to the Romans because he wants something for them, and not from them.”52 This is expressed early on in the letter as Paul’s interest is to present the gospel of God (1,1). Coupled with 1,15, Paul shows a great desire to preach the gospel in Rome. Klein pulls the first and fifteenth chapter together and maintains that Paul’s declaration to not preach Christ in places where it has already occurred (15,20) necessitates an understanding that building on another foundation (15,20) requires an apostolic foundation; a point that Paul shows has not happened in the church in Rome. Therefore, Klein turns the argument around, showing that Paul’s gospel to the Romans is the key apostolic foundation he saw necessary for a church.53 At this point, Klein anticipates a problem; namely, the tension between regarding the “Romans both as Christian brothers and as missionary objects.”54 If those comprising the Roman church were Christ followers, then why would Paul write an apostolic letter to them in the first place; a point that Klein himself considers as defying “all psychological explanation.”55 In order to answer this claim, he shows that Paul tends to retract and make statements on a regular basis, thus, heightening the tension in the letter. Klein points out that Paul does not list a co-sender in the prescript, a point that goes against a “personal theology” being given by the apostle;56 rather it shows the importance Paul placed on establishing the theological base of the church. When considering his role in the founding of a church, he stands as a “father” and thus claims an authority based on that relationship (cf., 1 Cor 4,15).57 Therefore, he intentionally withheld the names of associates in order to establish an apostolic foundation in the church. 50. τολμηρότερον δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἀπὸ μέρους ὡς ἐπαναμιμνῄσκων ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ. 51. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 36. 52. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 39. As an aside, this is one the reasons Klein goes against the Spanish motivation for the letter. See above in 2.3. 53. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 46-47. 54. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 40, 45. One of his tenets relates to the audience of the letter, whom he argues are Gentile Christians. “Paul, when addressing the Romans directly, calls them without qualification ‘Gentile Christians’” (40). 55. Klein, “Paul’s Purposes in Romans,” 45. 56. If “personal theology” were the issue, this would downplay the importance of his other writings, a point that Klein is not willing to concede given that the other letters are not seen as inferior to this one. Cf. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 46. 57. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 46-47.

52

CHAPTER TWO

The most poignant issue for Klein is the lack of ἐκκλησία terminology in Romans 1-15. This is no accident for it reflects the crucial issue of the founding of the church, and that the Christ community in Rome needed an apostolic foundation to validate it.58 Paul, therefore, was compelled to send a “theological treatise” to establish the validity of the Roman church and give it its proper apostolic foundation. Klein’s thesis has not been met without its detractors, who point out a number of problems they perceive as making this approach unfeasible. Udo Schnelle, when considering the point of the continued need εὐαγγελίζω, points out that “Dagegen ist einzuwenden, dass Paulus die römischen Christenheit vorbehaltos anerkennt und sich im Brief kein Hinweis auf einen Mangel der römischen Gemeinde findet.”59 Taking Schnelle’s argument further, Das points out in response to the lack of ἐκκλήσια terminology that why would Paul speak so highly of the Roman church if they did not have the proper apostolic foundation (cf., 1,8.12; 15,14-15). The identity of the Roman church as part of the in-group of what Paul considers as Christian does pose problems for the thesis espoused by Klein. Paul’s reflections toward the community in favorable ways show that they were not in need of missionary activity, nor in need of apostolic foundations. Klein’s position is problematic also when factoring in that ἐκκλησία does occur in Rom 16,1.4.5.16.60 As Das points out a lack of reference to ἐκκλησία early in the letter is not completely foreign to Paul given that it happens in Philippians too (4,15).61 Additionally, Paul refers to the Romans as beloved of God and called ones (1,7), which evidences a thought line that could be argued as being toward an understanding of them along the lines of ἐκκλησία. It seems Paul had them in mind as part of the in-group of early Christ followers with his terminology. It seems more likely that Paul had community organization issues over apostolic foundation in mind, therefore, he perceived them as part of the Christ movement already, just needing more structure in line with his gospel.62 58. Klein, “Paul’s Purpose in Romans,” 47-48. “Paul does not artificially construct the Romans’ need; instead, for him it results from their objective situation, which shows them still lacking the fundamental kerygma” (48). 59. Schnelle, Paulus, 337. 60. One notices that Rom 16,1 does not address the Roman church specifically, but the one in Cenchrea. This is also the case for 16,4 where the address is to churches in general. Rom 16,16 revolves around the same issue, for the churches outside of Rome were sending greetings to Rome. There is a reference to the church in Rom 16,5, which prompts Jewett to conclude that there was at least one house church in the city (Jewett, Romans, 958). 61. Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 36. 62. This will be developed more below in the section on the missional nature of the letter.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

53

Finally, as Karl Donfried pointed out it seems unlikely that Paul would have had time to establish an apostolic foundation in the church with his short visit to Rome on his way to Spain (15,24).63 Paul emphasized the passing through aspect of his visit to Rome, meaning that he was not anticipating a prolonged visit. One could argue that if his intention was to establish an apostolic center or give an apostolic blessing to the church, it would seem likely that his visit would be longer in order to provide the necessary foundation needed to establish it. At the same time, it must be admitted that Paul did not state a specific time frame to be with them, and additionally how much time would actually be needed to validate the community with his apostolic authority? 2.1.5. Lack of a Situation in Rome At the point when the letter was written Paul had not visited Rome. This has prompted some interpreters to posit that the point for writing the letter was less about the church in Rome and more about Paul’s life and ministry.64 Paul alludes to this in 15,14-24 by focusing on his own ministry, the emphasis of which cannot be disputed for he stresses that he is εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη (15,16),65 that he speaks of the efforts Christ has accomplished through him (15,18, κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς) in his efforts with the gentiles (15,18), that his work was done ἐν δυνάμει σημείων

63. Karl Paul Donfried, “A Short Note on Romans 16,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 50-60, 51-52. 64. See Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 37-42, for a summary. Cf. Wayne A. Meeks, “Judgment and Brother: Romans 14:1-15:13,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament (Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 290-300; J. Paul Sampley, “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1-15:13,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough, eds.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 40-52. 65. Paul uses λειτουργός here and not διάκονος, a use that has prompted consideration over why he did this. Some focus on the liturgical aspects of the word and see it cultically as Paul places himself in the form almost of a priest (cf. H. Strathmann, “λειτουργέω, λειτουργία, λειτουργός, λειτουργικός,” in TDNT IV [Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967], 215-231, 229-231); while others see it in terms of a public functionary or some type of ambassador (cf. Jewett, Romans, 906-907). When considering Rom 15,16’s use of λειτουργός with that of Rom 13,6 (διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε· λειτουργοὶ γὰρ θεοῦ εἰσιν εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο προσκαρτεροῦντες), one can argue that a more civic role was in mind. This does not mean though that this idea can be forced onto 15,16 as Paul could have been concentrating on the priestly aspect. What it boils down to is that Paul is making a distinction between λειτουργός and διάκονος because διάκονος is not foreign to Romans and occurs within close proximity to λειτουργός (Rom 13,4; 15,8; 16,1).

54

CHAPTER TWO

καὶ τεράτων, ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος θεοῦ66 (15,19), and puts the final stamp on the matter by stating πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ (15,19).67 Because of Paul’s concern for his own ministry, proponents of this view maintain he does not address any particular circumstances in Rome. Therefore, they downplay any situational context within the Roman community that might be the purpose for the letter, and instead focus on Paul’s purpose of preaching the gospel, his upcoming trip to Spain, and his visit to Jerusalem to drop off the collection.68 In a similar vein, Robert Karris maintains that the “strong” and the “weak” discussion in Rom 14,1-15,13 does not address a situation occurring in Rome, but offers a general statement of Paul’s view of the “weak” and the “strong.”69 He sets out to prove this thesis by examining Rom 14,1-15,13 with 1 Corinthians 8, 9, and 10,23-11,1. What he notices is that in Romans, Paul only uses one circumstantial “if” clause, but in Corinthians there are a number of them (two circumstantial clauses in 1 Cor 8,10.13, and three in 1 Cor 10,2311,1), which causes Karris to conclude that the circumstantial clauses in 1 Corinthians speak to a specific and concrete situation, while the single circumstantial clause in Romans shows that “Paul is not addressing himself to a concrete situation within the Roman community.”70 Proving his point further, Karris compares the verbs of Rom 14,1-15.13 with those of 1 Corinthians 8-9, and 10,23-11,1. He comes to the conclusion that many parallels exist between the writings he argues that Paul developed themes in Romans that were found in 1 Corinthians.71 Unlike 1 Corinthians though, Paul takes out personal references and removes the circumstantial “if” clauses in Romans, which causes Karris to conclude that Paul’s intention is not to address a concrete situation in Romans; rather, he uses the Corinthian material as a basis for general paraenesis concerning “strong” and “weak.”72 He concludes that 66. It must be noted that this reading follows NA28 and inserts θεοῦ. The question of the variant is noted. For more on this see Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd rev ed.; New York: Hendickson, 2005), 473 where he notes that the inclusion with brackets was a compromise between those holding firm to B and the rest of the committee who were “unwilling to adopt a reading based on such slender Greek evidence.” 67. In his argumentation, Paul puts the proclamation of his gospel in a geographical context, stating that he has fully preached from Jerusalem to as far as Illyricum. 68. For more on this see Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 38 where he provides an overview of the theory. 69. Robert J. Karris, “Romans 14,1-15,13 and the Occasion of Romans,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 75-99, esp. 83, 94-95, 99. 70. Karris, “The Occasion of Romans,” 84-85. 71. Karris, “The Occasion of Romans,” 86-88. 72. Karris, “The Occasion of Romans,” 88.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

55

“Rom. 14,1-15,13 is better explained as general Pauline paraenesis, which is adapted and generalized especially from Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and is addressed to a problem that may arise in any community.”73 From this view Paul was not involved in the situational context of the Roman community; instead, he was writing from his own personal experiences, in this regard, from the situation that arose in Corinth. This position, like the others, is not without it problems. First of all, while Paul does project to the Roman church his record of accomplishments, albeit through Christ and the Spirit (Rom 15,16-29), this does not mean he was not aware of the situational context of the Roman church, nor does it mean his purpose in writing the letter was to summarize his ministry. It could be that Paul wants to celebrate his accomplishments and show the church how God used him to accomplish the goal of proclaiming the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum. Second, to argue that Paul does not have a situation in mind when writing of the “strong” and the “weak” is problematic on several fronts. As Donfried has pointed out, all of Paul’s letters reflect a certain situational context, and thus the burden of proof against the situational context idea would have to be irrefutable, of which one cannot prove completely.74 Donfried argues that Karris has not sufficiently proven that in Rom 14,1-15,13 Paul has general paraenesis in mind; instead, Donfried sees that Paul has the particular situation of the Roman church in mind.75 He shows persuasively that the circumstantial “if” differences between 1 Corinthians 8, 9, 10,23-11,1 and Rom 14,1-15,13 do not prove that Paul was writing in a general way to the Roman church while in a specific and concrete manner to the Corinthian one.76 He turns the circumstantial “if” argument against itself by stating that in these clauses Paul uses both the indicative and subjunctive moods, which represent a wide range. His conclusion that “the so-called circumstantial ‘if’ 73. Karris, “The Occasion of Romans,” 99. 74. Karl Paul Donfried, “False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977), 120-148, 122. It must be admitted that this criterion rests upon a projected methodological principle established by Donfried. Under Methodological Principle I Donfried writes: “Any study of Romans should proceed on the initial assumption that this letter was written by Paul to deal with a concrete situation in Rome. The support for such an assumption is the fact that every other authentic Pauline writing, without exception, is addressed to the specific situations of the churches or persons involved. To argue that Romans is an exception to this Pauline pattern is certainly possible, but the burden of proof rests with those exegetes who wish to demonstrate that it is impossible, or at least not likely, that Romans addresses a concrete set of problems in the life of Christians in Rome.” 75. Donfried, “False Presuppositions,” 126-132. 76. Donfried, “False Presuppositions,” 128.

56

CHAPTER TWO

clauses by themselves do not support the assertion that 1 Corinthians is addressed to a concrete situation and Romans is not”77 remains the preferable option. In conclusion, while Paul did project his ministerial credentials to the Roman church in Romans 15, this does not hold enough weight to be a thorough purpose of the letter. Additionally, while Karris’ exegesis of 1 Corinthians 8, 9, 10,23-11,1 and Rom 14,1-15,13 provides insights into how Paul thought, his thesis does not meet the principles espoused by Donfried, which is the way to measure such an argument. The use of circumstantial “if” clauses do not bring enough merit to the point that Paul was not addressing an actual situation in Romans. Instead, upon careful exegesis of the letter as a whole, Paul does indeed seem to be wrestling with a number of situations in the letter. 2.1.6. Apologetic Purpose It has been argued that since Paul wrote to concrete situations in his other letters, then the letter sent to Rome was precipitated by a particular situation. Peter Stuhlmacher proposed that the opponents Paul faced in the past were now in Rome, and thus the argumentation in the letter was focused upon them (cf. Rom 3,8; 16,17-20).78 Angelika Reichert, in advancing a reading that focused on Paul’s hopes for Jerusalem and Spanish travel, argued that opposition could arise that would keep him from realizing his dream, which forms a reason for writing to the Romans.79 She sees a double purpose where on the one hand Paul wants the Romans to support him in his missionary endeavors and on the other, he sees that opposition will arise and the letter addresses concerns that opponents would lodge against him.80 Douglas Campbell argues that Rom 16,17-20 shows that opponents were behind problems arising in the Roman community.81 Those interested in their own appetites (Rom 16,18) are to be read with Rom 14,1-15,13 in mind, focusing upon the issue of the food laws and their divisiveness in the community. 77. Donfried, “False Presuppositions,” 129. 78. Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Purpose of Romans,” in The Romans Debate (Karl P. Donfried, ed.; Reginald and Ilse Fuller, trans.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 231-242. Orig., Peter Stuhlmacher, “Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes,” ZNW 77 (1986): 180-193. 79. Reichert, Römerbrief, 77-82. 80. Reichert, Römerbrief, 77-110 for full treatment of the issues. 81. Douglas Campbell, “Determining the Gospel Through Rhetorical Analysis in Paul’s Letter to the Roman Christians,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker (JSNTSS 108; L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, eds.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 320-331.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

57

The basic problem with this approach is the lack of pronounced language toward opponents. As Dunn points out, “The vagueness of the allusion tells against the view that Paul was directing his comment against particular individuals among the Roman congregations. The evidence of his other letters is that Paul was much more direct in his address to those who criticized his teaching.”82 If Paul were arguing against a segment of the community, or directed his attention to opponents who had come from another location, then he would have pointed this out in more direct language (cf. 2 Corinthians 11-12). While this argument arises in Romans 14,1-15,13, especially given the problems associated with bringing up the food law issue, it does not necessitate that Paul wrote against a faction either in the community or from another area that had come into the community. Again, if this is valid it would not serve as a primary motivation for the writing; it would be at most a subordinate one. 2.1.7. Romans as a Letter to Either Jewish or Gentile Christians This and the next point grapple with similar issues, but will be dealt with separately. Francis Watson posited that the situation behind the writing of the letter was the matter of separate worship assemblies for Jewish and gentile Christ followers; something that Paul wanted to see end, and therefore he wrote the letter to bring the two groups together.83 Watson builds on Peter Lampe’s thesis of multiple Roman Christian communities meeting in different locations around Rome;84 and adds that the strong are the gentile Christians and the weak are the Jewish Christians.85 Watson considers the instruction to welcome the “weak in the faith” in 14,1 and “welcome one another” in 15,7 to show that Paul’s concern was to bring together different parties, in this case the Jewish and gentile Christ followers.86 Standing as 82. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 137. 83. Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: CUP, 1986), 94-105. See also, William S. Campbell, “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1-15:13: The Obligation of Humble Obedience as the Only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God,” in Pauline Theology III: Romans (David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995), 259-286; William S. Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House Churches and Synagogues,” in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9-11 (Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner, eds.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 171-195. 84. Cf. Peter Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zue Sozialgeschichte (WUNT 2.18; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987). 85. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 178. 86. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 178.

58

CHAPTER TWO

the backdrop to the letter, the writing to bring the two groups together in Christ is the purpose of the letter itself. While an interesting thesis, it is one that is difficult to prove with any certainty. One could as easily argue that Paul meant that both the weak and strong groups were in the Christ community itself, and thus, were not seen as two separate groups but one group that had a number of conflicting problems within it.87 Against Watson, Das points out that the house church listing in Romans 16 does not differentiate between Jewish and gentile Christ following groups, something that would have made sense to emphasize if Paul’s purpose was to bring together these groups.88 With this in mind, it seems difficult to prove that this was Paul’s purpose in writing the letter. 2.1.8. The Aftermath of the Edict of Claudius The role of the edict of Claudius has been a debated item in the history of scholarship. The relationship between when the Jewish community arrived in Rome to the edict expelling them from Rome has been seen as the backdrop to Romans. Proponents of this view capitalize on the edict and the expulsion to show that Paul wrote to an audience that was separated for a time, but has now come back together. The Jewish contingent in the Christ community would have left during the expulsion, causing the gentiles to take over leadership of the community. When the edict was ended by Nero the Jewish Christ followers returned only to find the community run by the gentile majority. The tension that followed would concern Paul, and therefore, he would write the letter as a response. While it is difficult to pinpoint an exact time when the Jewish community arrived in Rome,89 it is likely they were there in the middle of the second century BCE.90 Cicero and Philo refer to the Jews, showing there 87. Cf. Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 50 who says the groups could be seen as two factious groups in the same gathering. 88. Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 50. 89. Cf. Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin, Andrew Lintott, eds., The Cambridge Ancient History: The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C. – A. D. 69 (2nd ed.; Vol X; Cambridge: CUP, 2005), 774-781. 90. Cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135) (Vol III Part 1; Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, eds.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 73-79. During this time, Judas Maccabeus sent an embassy to the Roman senate that established an alliance with Rome (1 Macc 8,17-32). Schürer, History of Jewish People, 74, shows that not only did Judas enlist support from Rome, but his brothers Jonathan (1 Macc 12,1-4,16) and even more so Simon (1 Macc 14,24; 15,15-24), where an alliance was established. Admittedly, the Maccabean account does not detail any official contact between Jewish embassies and Jews living in Rome, but that a prior relationship existed does

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

59

was a community by the first century BCE.91 The Jewish community in Rome experienced good relations under emperors Augustus92 and Caligula, but tensions arose during the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius.93 In 19 CE, during the reign of Tiberius, the Jewish community was expelled from Rome, which took the form of two actions: banishment and military impressment (cf. Tacitus, Ann 2.85.4-5; Suetonius, Tib 36.1; Josephus, Ant 18.63; Dio Cassius 57.18.5a; Philo, Emb 159-161; Ag Flac 1).94 While the reasons for the decrees are unclear,95 Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius agree that the expulsion occurred and how it took place.96 The aftershocks of the expulsion are difficult to gauge, but we can derive with some measure the come out when Lucius, consul of the Romans brings greetings and speaks to them as φίλοι ἡμῶν καὶ σύμμαχοι ἀνανεούμενοι τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς φιλίαν καὶ συμμαχίαν (1 Macc 15,17). Thus, one can tentatively conclude that an amicable relationship existed between the Romans and the Jewish people of this time, which would blossom into a large community of Jewish people living in Rome by the first century BCE. 91. While Cicero inflates the historical accuracy of the account for his own purposes, Pro Flacco 28,66 does show a number of Jewish people living in Rome by 58 BCE. Detailing events in a trial, Cicero notes that the Jewish people amass in a large crowd and show how their influence had grown. Additionally, Pompey’s invasion and subsequent conquest of Palestine in 63 BCE brought a large wave of captives to Rome. Important for the Jewish community was the manumission of these captives at a later time as illustrated by Philo in Legat 155. Instead of returning to Palestine, they settled into a Roman district and remained a viable part of Roman life. 92. Helpful to the Jewish cause was the Roman assistance provided during military engagements in Egypt during both the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus. The primary source of information for this is Josephus (Ant 14.127-139; 15:183-218; Wars 1.187-194; 1.386-397, 431-434). The Jewish people in Rome during the reign of Augustus numbered in the thousands, and Josephus points out that eight thousand Roman Jews backed the embassy sent to Rome in 4 CE (Ant 17.299-302). 93. Cf. Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 75-79. 94. There is the question of whether or not Philo refers to one or two expulsions. Cf. E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 208. 95. Dio Cassius blames the expulsion on religious conversions whereby the Jewish people were making many converts of native Romans (Hist Rom 57.18.5). Tacitus and Suetonius, however, suggest that it was a wider project aimed at foreign cults in general (Tacitus Ann 2.85.4; Suetonius Tib 36). Josephus gives a more detailed answer blaming it on a certain Jew, along with three others, who fled to Palestine after swindling money from a certain Fulvia, a Roman of some wealth. The money was intended for the Jerusalem Temple as Fulvia had adopted the Jewish way of living. Josephus, in equating this incident to the expulsion, hoped to downplay its significance to a certain group of rogues. For an overview of the issues see Leonard Victor Rutgers, “Roman Policy Toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C. E.,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1988), 93-116, 98105. 96. Tiberius sent four thousand Jews who were military age to Sardinia to fight against bandits, while the rest of the people involved were expelled from Rome. These points have general agreement between the historians.

60

CHAPTER TWO

effects given by the large number of young men pressed into military service. How many others came under expulsion is not known, and Philo states that the long-term ramifications of the expulsion decrees were limited (Legat 159161).97 Some time around 31 CE or after, the status of the Jewish community was restored.98 Philo does not enter into protracted discussion on how many of the Jewish community returned to Rome, which has spawned speculation from scholars that this means many never left.99 As mentioned above, Gaius Caligula’s reign (37-41 CE) was marked by relative calm for the Jews living in Rome.100 The tranquil environment changed under Claudius, when in 49 CE,101 he issued an edict expelling all of the Jewish community from Rome (Suetonius, Claud 25.4).102 While one notes that the value of Suetonius’ historical reconstruction can be questioned,103 discussion in scholarship over his statement in Claudius revolves around the dispute between the Jews and one Chrestus.104 Erich Koestermann contends 97. Philo: The Embassy to Gaius (Vol X; F. H. Colson, trans.; Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1962), 81-82. 98. This was after the death of Sejanus, who was arrested and executed for undermining the Roman Empire. The request for execution was by Tiberius, which seems to have eased his views on the Roman populace in general. 99. Cf. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts, 19. This thesis does not appear out of bounds, for when considered alongside the bureaucratic difficulties encumbering the Roman Empire it would have not been an easy task to enforce the decrees nor one of high priority given all the other issues impacting Roman politics in the first century. 100. This was far from the situation of the Jewish communities located in Alexandria and Jerusalem. Between anti-Jewish riots in Alexandria and Caligula’s attempt to erect a statue in the Jerusalem Temple, the tenor for the Jewish community outside of Rome was quite anxious. This must have in some way affected the psyche of the Roman Jewish settlements, as protracted engagements against the imperial overlords outside of Rome would eventually trickle down to the Jews living in Rome. Caligula’s rather brief reign did not allow for these anti-Jewish sentiments to foster increasingly in the Roman capital, but one wonders whether or not they set the stage for the sentiment to follow during the reign of Claudius? 101. This date has been disputed, as there is ranging opinion from 49-52 CE on the edict’s expulsion. For details see Schürer, History of the Jewish People, 77. The reason for a later date comes from a statement made by Tacitus, Ann 12.52, “De mathematicis Italia pellendis factum senatus consultum atrox et irritum.” As Schürer notes, “mathematicis” cannot be used to designate the Roman Jewish community. The date of 49 CE comes from a statement by Orosius who proves the date as the ninth year of Claudius’ reign. While again the historical reliability is questioned, this date coincides with that of Acts 28,17-28, which one could argue corroborates the date. 102. “Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit.” 103. For an overview of the issues related to Suetonius and historical reconstruction see Craig S. Keener, “Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius’s Biography and Tacitus’ History, with Implications for the Gospels’ Historical Reliability,” BBR 21.3 (2011): 331-356, 335-347. 104. The issues related to the expulsion are complex, particularly in trying to determine what group was expelled. For an overview of the issues see Esler, Conflict and Identity, 98106.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

61

that the person is simply an unknown person.105 Peter Lampe goes against Koestermann and advances that Christ is the one Suetonius referred to, and therefore the tension occurred as a consequence of the preaching of Christ.106 Lampe concludes that the difference between Christus and Chrestus was negligible given that Chrestians as a derivative of Christians is found in Tacitus.107 His conclusion is simply, “Die Erklärung für die Lautverschiebung liegt auf her Hand: Chrestus war für heidnische Ohren ein allsets bekannter Personenname, Christus nicht.”108 Tobin agrees with Lampe and maintains that this was a disturbance between the Jewish majority and Christ follower minority in Rome.109 Acts 18,1-2 alludes to the event,110 which makes it more likely that the conflict erupted between the Jewish community and Christ followers.111 Paul arrived in Corinth around 51 CE where according to Acts (18,2) he met Aquila and Prisca, who are likely to have been part of the ones expelled from Rome, which from the Acts chronology shows the expulsion took place some time 105. Erich Koestermann, “Ein folgenschweres Irrtum des Tacitus (Annals 15.44.2f.)?” Historia 16 (1967): 456-469. 106. Lampe, Die Stadtrömischen Christen, 6. 107. Lampe, Die Stadtrömischen Christen, 6. Lampe refers to Tacitus Ann 15.44, “Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat.” From this Lampe concludes, “Die i/e-Verschiebung Chrestus/ Christus bei Sueton bereitet keine Schwierigkeit,” and “Im Zusammenhang mit der stadtrömischen Christenverfolgung Neros erscheint Chrestianer als Benennung durch das stadtrömische Volk” (7). Finally, in concluding that Chrestians referred to Christians, Lampe appeals to Tertullian (Ad Nationes 1.3), “cum corrupti a vobis chrestiani pronuntiatur a vobis.” 108. Lampe, Die Stadtrömischen Christen, 6. 109. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Contexts, 20. This of course is heavily disputed. What is interesting is the emergence of the Christ community at this time. With this said, it is not automatically given that the Chrestus referred to is Christ, for one would expect it to be Christus, although it could have been an error made on the part of Suetonius when he wrote the name. 110. Acts as a historical source and the problems therein are noted. Much discussion has centered on the overall trustworthiness of Acts as a source. For more see Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1-2:47 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 116-220. Keener offers an extensive overview of the issues of a) ancient historiography and b) approaching Acts as a historical source. He concludes that Acts is a historical monograph, but is not purely historical, as the author was “free to construct speeches, infer private scenes, fill in dramatic details, and so forth, although reconstructing them in the most plausible (as well as compositionally) manner consistent with what was known” (219). After an extensive survey of the ancient sources of Suetonius and Dio Cassius, Keener conludes that Ac 18,1-3 coheres with the Jewish expulsion by the edict of Claudius in 49CE (Craig S. Keener, Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Vol 3: 15:1-23:25 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014], 2684-2711). 111. Μετὰ ταῦτα χωρισθεὶς ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηνῶν ἦλθεν εἰς Κόρινθον. καὶ εὑρών τινα Ἰουδαῖον ὀνόματι Ἀκύλαν, Ποντικὸν τῷ γένει προσφάτως ἐληλυθότα ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ Πρίσκιλλαν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, διὰ τὸ διατεταχέναι Κλαύδιον χωρίζεσθαι πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἀπὸ τῆς Ῥώμης, προσῆλθεν αὐτοῖς.

62

CHAPTER TWO

toward the end of the 40s. The complete history behind Acts is dubious for it maintains that “all the Jews” were expelled, a point which seems highly unlikely given the bureaucratic morass of Roman politics in the first century as it would be difficult to enforce such a decree. Proponents who hold that the political conflicts of the day stand behind Paul’s purpose assume that however it is interpreted, the Jewish community did suffer under Claudius and this culminated in the expulsion in 49 CE.112 Those who propose this approach113 maintain that the emperor Nero came to power in 54 CE114 and reversed the policy toward the Jews bringing them back into favor and lifting the expulsion (Suetonius, Nero, 33.1; Cassius Dio, Epitome, 51.2-4).115 If Romans 16 belongs to Romans rather than Ephesians116 then the mention of Prisca and Aquila in Rom 16,3-5a 112. Dio Cassius shows a continuing feeling of animosity toward the Jewish community by Claudius in Hist Rom 60.6.6. While noting the number of the Jewish community as large, the historian points out that Claudius did not expel them during this time, but restricted them from holding meetings. For the issues related to the edict and its challenges see Brian W. Jones, “Claudius,” in ABD 1 (David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992), 1054. 113. The intention is not to argue for or against the merits of this approach, just to show how scholars argue that the historical setting of the Roman period was behind Paul’s purpose in writing the letter. The issues related to the Edict of Claudius are far from certain, along with the issues related to historical period itself. 114. For more on Emperor Nero see Michael Grant, Nero (New York: Dorset Press, 1970), 17-41, who signals the controlling influence of Nero’s early years as his mother and shows his development as a man and emperor. Miriam T. Griffin, Nero: The End of a Dynasty (New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 1984), 37-49, shows the complexity involved in reconstructing Nero’s early life with portraits given by Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Suetonius that often conflict, along with the ambitions of Nero’s mother Agrippina, who influenced the young Nero in his early years; Martin Goodman, The Roman World: 44BC-AD180 (Routledge History of the Ancient World; London/New York: Routledge, 1997), 55-57, who points out that one of the moderating influences on Nero’s early years who helped keep his appetites at bay was Seneca. See Edward Champlin, “Nero Reconsidered,” New England Review 19 (1998): 97-108 and Edward Champlin, Nero (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), who focuses attention more on Nero’s dramatic self-identification, but his work provides an introduction to the early years as well. What he shows is that Nero’s image was conflicted and grew in turmoil as his reign entered into the 60s CE. 115. Suetonius paints a negative view of how Nero perceived Claudius and purposely opposed Claudius after his death, while Dio’s view is a softened one showing a more deliberate Nero in the beginning of his reign. Julian Krüger, Nero: Der römische Kaiser und seine Zeit (Köln/ Weimar/Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2012), 15-61, esp. 21-23, 29-30, 35-42. Krüger traces the early years of Nero’s accession to the throne and the transition from Claudius. He shows the particular importance Seneca played in Nero’s formulation. See also, Miriam T. Griffin, “Nero,” ABD (Vol 4; David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992), 1076-1081, esp. 10761077. Griffin discusses the presentation of Nero recorded by Suetonius, Dio, and Tacitus, along with noting the influence Seneca played in Nero’s early years. 116. The question of Romans 16 and its placement (either where it is or as part of Ephesians) has garnered considerable attention through the years. Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

63

shows that they had returned to Rome. Paul, who wrote the letter some time between 56-57 CE,117 could be writing it for the purpose of bringing together the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Those who hold this proposition as the purpose of the letter maintain the most likely audience of the Roman church was a mixture of Jewish and gentile Christ followers.118 Upon their return, if they were expelled, the Jewish Christians would have faced unique challenges. The return of the contain the ending of Romans in the current letter. Marcion, however, opted to keep only fourteen chapters, a formulation picked up by Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts that ended at Rom 14,23. In addition, P46 structures the material in a different format, placing the doxology after Rom 15,33 with 16,1-23 following the doxology. Codex Alexandrinus places the doxology after both 14,23 and 16,23. The conflicting textual data precipitated a skeptical response from some scholars, who would argue that the ending of Romans had been interpolated, but was still considered Pauline. They would instead argue that the material fit better in Ephesians. For more on the Ephesian Hypothesis see Harry Gamble Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (SD 42; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 36-55. A growing suspicion of the letter’s authenticity arose in the late 19th century and continued into the middle of the 20th century when the majority of scholars held the chapter should belong to Ephesians. This consensus was challenged in the late 20th century by the text-critical studies of Gamble (Textual History, 56-97, 127-142) and Kurt Aland, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe (ThBü; München: Kaiser, 1979), 284-301. Significant for exegesis has been the results of the Romans Debate, that moved attention away from the Ephesian hypothesis toward a situational context for the letter that argues for the inclusion of chapter 16 into the remainder of the letter (Donfried, Romans Debate, 44-52). 117. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (AB Reference Library; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1997), 559-564. Brown’s chronology fits the date of the letter within the broader contours of Paul’s ministry in Corinth (winter of 57/58). Important for the matter of chronology pertains to the Jewish collection (Rom 15,26-33) which Paul intended to take back to Jerusalem. Coupled with Ac 20,2-21 one can situate Paul in Corinth during this period of time. Brown points out that the issue of Paul writing from Corinth in the winter of 57/58 is accepted by a majority of scholars: “Thus there is virtual scholarly unanimity that Paul wrote to Rome from Corinth (in 57/58)” (560). 118. There are three primary lines of thought pertaining to who comprised the Roman Christ community. First, there are those who believe it was a gentile audience to which Paul was writing (cf. Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994]; Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995]; Runar M. Thorsteinson, “Paul’s Missionary Duty Toward Gentiles in Rome: A Note on the Punctuation and Syntax of Rom 1.13-15,” NTS 48 [2002]: 531-547; Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography [ConBNT 40; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003]; and Das, Solving the Romans Debate). Second, Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), maintains that Paul wrote from a Jewish standpoint that in time would be picked up and read by gentile subgroups. This has been his developing theme for a number of years (cf. Mark Nanos, “The Jewish Context of the Gentile Audience Addressed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” CBQ 61 (1999): 283-304. Contra. Nanos, cf. Robert A. Gagnon, “Why the ‘Weak’ at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews,” CBQ 62 (2000): 64-82. Third, there are those who hold that Paul was writing to a mixed audience of Jewish and gentile Christians (cf. Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans; Moo, Romans).

64

CHAPTER TWO

Jewish Christ followers into the Roman Christ community would introduce a number of problems, therefore, those who see this purpose behind the letter maintain Paul addressed the problems in the course of his letter.119 While one can understand how the argument goes regarding the aftermath of the edict of Claudius and the potential it had on Paul and the church, to say that it was the reason Paul wrote the letter in the first place poses a number of problems. First, the edict and the extent of its implementation are by no means as settled as might be imagined. It is doubtful that the Romans would have had the critical apparatus in place to enact such an expulsion, so the likelihood of a massive Jewish expulsion is dubious. Also, Suetonius does not state emphatically that Chrestus is Christus and therefore, even if the dispute was between the Jewish and Christ following community it does not resolve the existence of doubt. Finally, if Paul’s purpose was to bridge the divide between Jews and gentiles one would expect for him to be more explicit in describing this. Rather, what one finds is anything but language calling for reconciliation between opposing parties. If it was his intention, then it was veiled, which would prove counterproductive. 2.1.9. As a Response to the Situational Contexts of Corinth and Galatia Trying to grapple with the intricate issues involved in the Jew and gentile sections of Romans, there are those who maintain that Romans serves as the distillation of material worked out in the course of Paul’s struggles with Judaizers in both Galatians and 1 and 2 Corinthians.120 The argument contends that after resolving the conflict in churches pertaining to the gospel, Paul stayed in Greece for three months prior to commencing another missionary journey.121 From this perspective, Paul writes about the issues involved in the conflict and the resolution of the main challenges he faced. It has been pointed out that the tone Paul uses in Romans differs significantly from some of the language found in both Corinthians and especially Galatians.122 Therefore, Paul was able to exercise freedom in writing the letter to the Romans, without the polemical pressure of addressing specific situations in both Corinth and Galatia. Longenecker provides a succinct overview of the issues involved, and points out that the main thrust of this argument rests in Paul’s continued 119. Cf. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 44-46. 120. For an overview of this perspective see Moo, Romans 1-8, 17. 121. Moo, Romans 1-8, 17. 122. Moo, Romans 1-8, 17-18.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

65

critique of the Judaizers, in similar fashion as Galatians, but with a more conciliatory and reflective tone.123 A number of similar topics arise (law, sin, righteousness, justification, and faith/faithfulness), which have “led most interpreters to posit that something of the same ‘judaizing’ agenda of Paul’s opponents in the churches of Galatia also underlies the apostle’s statements in his letter to the Christians at Rome.”124 He points out that a long tradition of interpreters has seen this as the purpose of Romans, stretching all the way back to Martin Luther and John Calvin.125 The prominent view that Galatians and Romans are tied together has been a constant through the years.126 Wedderburn espouses this view as well, arguing that a mild Judaizing influence had arisen in Rome, impacting the thought and praxis of Roman Christians.127 While this has been a strong approach through the years, it is not without its problems. First, one does not have to interpret the topics of law, sin, righteousness, justification and faith/faithfulness in terms of an apologetic, but could see them more as theologizing. Paul considers these terms from his previous letters, particularly Galatians in order to not argue polemically against a Judaistic faction within the Roman church; rather, he presents them as the fountainhead of his theological concern, which is the reason why the terseness of his writing is not the same in Romans as it is in Galatians.128 Second, Longenecker points to the work of E. P. Sanders who views the writings as situationally based and not opposed to covenantal nomism; therefore Romans should not be interpreted in light of Christian Judaizers in Rome, but rather, as the broader category of opponents against Paul.129 Paul therefore was not 123. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 113. 124. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 113. 125. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 114. Luther saw both Galatians and Romans in similar terms and as a result “for Luther, Romans and Galatians dealt with the same issues and proclaimed the same message, with the theme of that message found in Rom 1:17 but the details spelled out most clearly and graphically in Galatians.” In similar fashion, Calvin spoke of the “judaizing” effect upon Paul and saw both writings as polemically charged documents against the “judaizing” influence upon the churches. 126. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 114-115, traces its influence that includes Baur, Lightfoot, Lake, and Wedderburn. 127. Wedderburn, Reasons for Romans, 55. 128. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 116. 129. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 116. Cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983), 148. Sanders work is invaluable for this point, let alone others in matters relative to covenantal nomism. As a result of his work, along with a number of precursors, James Dunn put forth the idea of the New Perspective on Paul that reexamines Paul’s Jewishness. The New Perspective on Paul has generated an enormous response from both proponents and detractors. In part, cf. Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective (PBM; London: Paternoster, 2007).

66

CHAPTER TWO

polemically arguing against Judaism, but against those who were opposing his gospel, which then makes the connection between Galatians and Romans less of an issue. Third, Wedderburn, although going with the read that a Judaizing Christian element was present in the Roman church, points out some problems himself including the hypothetical nature of the thesis given that it is historically difficult to reconstruct with any accuracy a Judaizing element in the church.130 At best it is a speculative thesis and while it has been pervasive through the history of interpretation, it does not completely address the issue of Paul’s purpose in writing the letter. 2.1.10 Conclusion One readily sees the diversity of opinion reflected by scholars when trying to understand Paul’s purpose for the Letter to the Romans. Various options exist with both strengths and weaknesses behind them. One notes that the options presented tend to focus on certain areas of the letter, including the first chapter, chapters thirteen and fourteen, or chapter fifteen. The question arises as to how Paul’s purpose interacts with the other parts of the letter, and one would expect to find that purpose undergirding his main arguments. For works on the precursors of the NPP see among others, Claude G. Montefiore, “Rabbinic Judaism and the Epistles of Paul,” JQR 13 (1900-1901): 161-217; George F. Moore, “Christian Writers on Judaism,” HTR 14 (1921): 197-254; Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1976), 78-96 in particular as he lays the groundwork for what would come by examining the whole issue of “justification by faith” and what is called the introspective conscience of the west; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM Press, 1977), 543-556 provides an overview of Sanders’ conclusion that the bifurcation between Paul and Judaism was not as great as some propose; rather, Pauline thought in general follows the flow of Judaism in the first century; contra. Sanders, see Jacob Neusner, “Other Readings of Judaism in Tannaite Times: Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism,” in Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), 405-419. For studies on and relating to the NPP see in part Brendan Byrne, “Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-‘New Perspective’ Perspective,” HTR 94.3 (2001): 227-241; James A. Meek, “The New Perspective on Paul,” ExpT 114 (2003): 383385; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (WUNT 140; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), esp. 1-35 where Kim provides a brief overview of Dunn’s proposal and a critique of the same; Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003); Michael Bachmann, ed., Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive. Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion (WUNT 182; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); and James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (WUNT 185; Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 1-81. 130. Wedderburn, Reasons for Romans, 54. His criteria of plausibility, compatibility, and fit are helpful in trying to locate the community in Rome, as well as the purpose Paul wrote the letter (64). While others focus on either the beginning or ending of the letter to understand its purpose, Wedderburn does investigate the overall tenor of the letter in making his claim.

67

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

The contention here is that the options listed prior are additionally weakened by not engaging the letter as a whole. The next section interacts with how Paul’s purpose would project itself across the entirety of the letter. As a result, the approach offered combines and nuances several of the ones previously mentioned. 2.2. ROMANS 8,26A IN DIALOGUE WITH THE PURPOSE

OF

ROMANS

Returning to Fee’s initial query at the beginning of the chapter, one wonders how Paul’s purpose in writing the overall letter works when applied to individual texts within the interior of the letter? The passage under discussion here is Rom 8,26, which serves as a good entry into discussing how Paul’s purpose comes out in this text. As will be discussed in subsequent chapters, πνεῦμα occupies a central role in chapter 8 and one wonders as to how that term relates to Paul’s overall purpose in writing the letter? The idea of the Spirit aiding in weakness reinforces this idea, for this serves in some ways to engage directly in why Paul wrote the letter. Why would the Spirit be necessary in overcoming weakness? Building upon the ideas of the Spanish mission, the apostolic foundation for the church, and the aftermath of the edict of Claudius, the position advanced here is that Paul wrote the letter to convince the Roman believers that his gospel was the correct one (cf., 2 Cor 11,12-16; Gal 1,6-9; 2,4; Phil 1,15; 3,2 also, Ac 20,30; Tit 1,10-16).131 Paul as missionary stands at the forefront of this approach and the question of the letter being missional (from Paul missionizing the Romans, from him projecting his missionary call into the letter, and from him encouraging the Roman believers to participate with him in mission) will be explored. The following sections consider issues of Paul’s mission and the particular language of mission he uses. 2.2.1. Paul’s Mission Paul’s sense of mission impacted his ministry and writing forming the basis for his thought in many ways. Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller 131. That Paul confronted issues and felt his gospel superseded his opponents form a consensus in scholarship. See in part, Bruce W. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 25-34; Volker Rabens, “Paul’s Rhetoric of Demarcation: Separation from ‘Unbelievers’ (2 Cor 6:14-7:1) in the Corinthian Conflict,” in Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians (BiTS 16; Reimund Bieringer et al., eds.; Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2013), 229-253.

68

CHAPTER TWO

state: “The theology of mission is practically synonymous with the totality of Paul’s awesome reflections on Christian life.”132 The sense of mission therefore, undergirds his ministry and impacts his view of Christ. Examining Paul from a missional perspective has a long history behind it.133 Adolf von Harnack offered a full-length treatment on early Christian 132. Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983), 161. 133. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Volume One: Jesus and the Twelve (Downer’s Grove IL/Leicester: IVP/Apollos, 2004), 6. Schnabel contends that concentrated research on the missional aspects of early Christianity is lacking and he calls for a more integrated history of research on the topic. He writes that the lack of missionary attention “is true even of Paul’s missionary activity – a fact that may be traced back to the conviction that ‘Paul is important for us today as a theologian’ while being ‘primarily a missionary; for the early church.” Work on early Christian mission though exists in abundance, which counters Shnabel’s assertion. His point however, revolves more around the missionary nature of early Christian mission, which has not been a major focus. For other work on Pauline mission see Albrecht Oepke, Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus. Eine biblisch-theologische und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (MF 2; Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1920); Gottlob Schrenk, “Der Römerbrief als Missionsdokument,” in Studien zu Paulus (AThANT 26; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1954), 81-106; Otto Haas, Paulus der Missionar. Ziel, Grundsätze und Methoden der Missionstätigkeit des Apostels Paulus nach seinen eigenen Aussagen (Münsterschwarzach: Vier-Türme-Verlag, 1971); Matthäus F.-J. Buss, Die Missionpredigt des Apostels Paulus im Pisidischen Antiochien: Analyse von APG:13.1641 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980); Klauss Haacker, “Urchristliche Mission und kulturelle Identität. Beobachtungen zu Strategie und Homiletik des Apostels Paulus,” Theologische Beiträge 19 (1988): 61-72; William S. Campbell, “Paul’s Missionary Practice and Policy in Romans,” IBS 12 (1990): 2-25; Paul W. Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” JSNT 44 (1991): 89-111; Peter T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995); Daniel J.-S. Chae, Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and its Influence on the Soteriological Argument in Romans (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997); Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? A Study of the Church in Four Provinces (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001); Dean E. Fleming, “Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus Address as a Paradigm for Missionary Communication,” Missiology 30 (2002): 199-214; B. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary (CBET 34; Leuven: Peeters, 2003); John P. Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities (WUNT 2.159; Tübingen: Mohr, 2003); Roger S. Greenway, “Success in the City: Paul’s Urban Mission Strategy: Acts 14:1-28,” in Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context (R. L. Gallagher and Paul P. Hertig, eds.; ASM Series 34; Maryknoll, MD: Orbis, 2004), 183-195; Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004); Dean E. Fleming, Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005); Christopher R. Little, Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twentieth-First Century (SBL 80; New York: Peter Lang, 2005); James P. Ware, The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism (NovTSup 120; Leiden: Brill, 2005); Christopher Wright, The Mission of God (Leicester: IVP Academic, 2006); Robert L. Plummer, Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission (PBM; Bletchley: Paternoster, 2006) Brian S. Rosner, “The Missionary Character of 1 Corinthians,” in New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall (Jon C. Laansma, Grant Osborne, and Ray Van Neste, eds.; Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 181-196.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

69

mission, considering the topic in the first three centuries.134 Harnack focused on the influence first century diaspora Judaism had on the literature of the New Testament.135 Additionally, he maintained that the success of early Christianity was its move away from a narrow Jewish model to a more universal worldview akin to Hellenism.136 Finally, he pointed out that Paul’s strategy was to preach the gospel to various centers in which he founded and then allowed the gospel to spread to surrounding regions.137 James Ware contends that “Paul’s understanding of his mission is integral to his self-understanding and thought as a whole.”138 The idea of mission stands firmly in Paul’s thinking, as his ministry was to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. This serves as the foundation for Paul’s motivational strategy. Ware however, points out that scholarship has not consulted enough to how the mission unfolded in Pauline groups.139 He notes that Paul never specifically told his people to “spread the gospel,”140 but concludes that “despite the negative cast of evidence and the lack of an explicit mission command, there is striking evidence in Paul’s letters indicating he expects his churches will have a missionizing impact on outsiders.”141 He considers a number of 134. Adolf von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (2 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1924). 135. Harnack, Die Mission, 5-39. This comes out clearly in the first paragraph of the work: “Die Synagogen in der Diaspora sind nich nur … sondern zugleich auch die wichtigsten Voraussetzungen für die Entstehung und das Wachstum christlicher gemeinden im Reiche. Das Netzwerk der Synagogen stellt die Linien und Mittelpunkte der christlichen Propaganda im voraus dar. Die Mission der neuen Religion, im Namen des Gottes Abrahams und Moses’ unternommen, fand bereits ein für sie bestelltes Feld” (5). 136. Harnack, Die Mission, 23-29. 137. Harnack, Die Mission, 73-74. Others picked up and expanded on Harnack’s thesis, for example Nils A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zum Kirchenbewusstsen des Urchristentums (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963), 241; John Knox, “Romans 15:14-33 and Paul’s Conception of His Apostolic Mission,” JBL 83 (1964): 1-11; Lietaert Peerbolte, Paul the Missionary, 250. 138. Ware, The Mission of the Church, 2. Ware contends that while the issue of Paul’s mission has been an important area of study directed to Paul himself, the focus on his churches has not received the attention is deserves. Ware’s purpose is to analyze how Paul’s mission translated to his churches. 139. Ware, Mission of the Church, 4. “Until recently, even in literature devoted to early Christian mission, very little attention had been given to the role played in extending the gospel, not by apostles, missionaries and evangelists, but by the congregations themselves.” 140. Ware, Mission of the Church, 5. 141. Ware, Mission of the Church, 7. Ware responds to critics who do not see any evidence for Paul’s mission translating to individual churches (cf. Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” 110; Luke Timothy Johnson, “Proselytism and Witness in Earliest Christianity: An Essay in Origins,” in Sharing the Book [John Witte Jr. and Richard C. Martin, eds.; Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999], 145-157, 154; Dickson, Mission-Commitment, 311).

70

CHAPTER TWO

texts in the context of how the church lives out its faith in its practices (1 Thess 1,5-8; 1 Cor 10,31-11,1; 11,2-14,40; 14,20-25).142 Martin Goodman examines mission and proselytization, and categorizes mission into four areas: informative, educational, apologetic, and proselytizing of which only proselytizing encouraged changing outsiders way of life and brought them into a particular group.143 He concludes that early Christian mission was not interested in turning non-Christians into Christians, therefore was not involved in proselytization.144 First, since Jesus, Peter, and Paul were Jews themselves, any mission to other Jews would not necessitate a call into a new group, but would be more in line with other aspects of mission.145 The main question for Goodman is whether Jewish people brought into the Christ community were considered converts. He leans toward the Jewish people running in continuity with the old religion (cf. Phil 3,3); therefore, did not need reorientation to a new faith, just the addition of Christ to their own. The problem of the gentiles is more pronounced and on the surface it seems that the NT and early Christian literature argue for proselytization (Matt 28,28-20; 1 Cor 9,16-23; Ac 11,19-20; 1 Clement 5,7; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1.2.17).146 Goodman points out though that the issue at stake is not so much that the message was proclaimed, but what the content of the message was and its effect on those who heard it. He notes that proponents of proselytizing mission read the biblical texts that are actually more educational than missional.147 He concludes: “So far as I know, no early Christian text states explicitly that it is desirable to turn non-Christians into Christians by converting them or enrolling them as members of their local churches.”148 Instead, the primary mission at stake for early Christians was the educational mission (cf. Matt 5,16; Ac 14,46-47; 1 Pet 2,2). 142. Ware, Mission of the Church, 7-8. “Paul clearly envisioned his churches as integrally involved in the gentile mission, not only through their prayer and provision on behalf of the apostolic mission of Paul and his coworkers, but also by drawing others to the faith through their life, conduct and worship.” 143. Martin Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 3-4. The others focused on disseminating information (informative mission), challenging others to become more moral or content in life (educational mission), or showing the power of a particular deity to a given audience without requiring the audience to be devoted to the deity (apologetic mission). 144. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 94. 145. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 91. “As Jews one would expect the apostles to believe that their interpretation of God’s will should be preached to their fellow Jews for the sake of all Israel, who had jointly entered a covenant with God.” 146. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 92-93. 147. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 93. 148. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 94.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

71

Goodman refers to the lack of institutional structure, direct speech advocating proselytization, and fluid nature of early Christianity that make the early church not interested in proselyting.149 He questions Christian proselytization on two fronts: First, he does not assume that early Christians saw themselves as a self-defined group; and second, even if they did see themselves in such a manner, he raises the question of whether or not they wanted to draw others into their group?150 In the end, Goodman admits that Christians did search out new members as it extended itself, but “they did not necessarily therefore also expect them to become part of a local Christian community.”151 There was the allowance of accepting people into the churches, but proselytizing was not a priority. When a person would associate with the church they would adhere to the rigorous demands setup by early Christianity, but would be fully accepted the moment they converted.152 To conclude, Goodman sees conversion as possible in early Christianity, but the outward push to proselytize is not a part of the Christian mission in the first centuries of the movement. While Goodman examines material spanning the first few centuries CE, Eckhard Schnabel dedicates his research to the first century church. He serves as a good dialogical partner with Goodman, for Schnabel maintains that Christian mission to convert others was an essential ingredient in the early church. He provides an in-depth analysis of early Christian mission and Paul’s mission in several volumes he has written. He defines mission as: The term “mission” or “missions” refers to the activity of a community of faith that distinguishes itself from its environment in terms of both religious belief (theology) and social behavior (ethics), that is convinced of the truth claims of its faith, and that actively works to win other people to the content of faith and the way of life whose truth and necessity the members of that community are convinced.153 149. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 94-95. He defines proselytization as “the approval by the members of a self-aware organization of efforts to bring as many people as possible into that organization, when by so doing they expected to change the lives of the newcomers in such a way that they would conform more closely the attitudes and beliefs of existing members.” 150. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 95. 151. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 103. 152. Goodman, Mission and Conversion, 105. “Converts were given immediately a status equal in theory to that of existing members of the community: people were either entirely outside the Church or entirely inside it. No extant early Christian text refers to sympathizers on the fringe of Christianity.” 153. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2008), 22 (it. orig). See also Wright, Mission of God, 67 who broadens the definition: “Mission then, in biblical terms, while it inescapably involves us in planning and action, is not primarily a matter of or activity or our initiative. Mission, from the point of view of human endeavor, means the committed participation of God’s people in the purposes of God for the redemption of the whole creation.”

72

CHAPTER TWO

The definition above forms the basis for Schnabel’s understanding of what mission refers to in early Christianity, but he adds several dimensions to the definition in applying it to the first century. First, he claims that mission has elements of intentionality and movement behind it; meaning, mission occurs when a group sends someone from one geographical location to another.154 Mission in this sense functions in a similar manner to that of an envoy sent by the Roman emperor from one place to another, and therefore “has nothing to do with traveling to ‘foreign’ countries or with crossing cultures.”155 Second, Schnabel examines the nature of missionary work in early Christianity focusing attention on the terms associated with sending. Third, Schnabel describes a threefold reality of missionary work found in the NT: 1) the communication of the message of Jesus as Messiah and Savior to people who have not heard it, 2) the establishment of a new way of life for those who follow Jesus, and 3) integrating new people into the community of faith.156 In order to evaluate Schnabel’s proposal, an analysis of how his paradigm of language works will be considered in Romans. In many ways, he provides a way forward in understanding Paul’s purpose in writing the letter. 2.2.2. Missional Language in Paul’s Letter to the Romans This section considers various terms that relate to mission. This forms an essential part of the overall structure posited by Schnabel.157 There are twelve categories developed related to missional language to be addressed briefly below. 2.2.2.1. Subjects of Missionary Work Paul’s purpose in presenting the subjects of his missionary work is threefold: To establish his authority as ἀπόστολος, lend credibility to his overall 154. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 22-23. 155. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 23. The representative of intentionality and movement is Jesus, whom God sent into the world and who moved from one area of ministry to another (cf. Jn 1,1-17; 6,38; 7,8; 8,29; 12,49). For a representative view of contemporary mission and missiology see Stanley K. Skreslet, Comprehending Mission: The Questions, Methods, Themes, Problems, and Prospects of Missiology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012). Skreslet defines missiology in the broader framework of linguistic and cultural contexts, along with the engagement with other religions. He also addresses the tasks of the contemporary missionary, and argues that missiology is multidimensional: crossing boundaries, interacting with religious pluralism, and engaging in cultural exegesis (195-198). In this way, Schnabel shows more concern with historical and geographical contexts, limiting the discussion to the way mission in the early church commenced, and therefore, showing a more limited approach to ancient missiology. 156. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 22-29. 157. Cf. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 36-37.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

73

mission, and draw the Roman church into a missional impulse themselves.158 Paul refers to ἀπόστολος three times (1,1; 11,13; 16,7159), all in strategic locations that highlight the missionary aspect of the gospel.160 The first (1,1) is similar to the introductions in his letters (cf. 1 Cor 1,1; 2 Cor 1,1; Gal 1,1; see also Eph 1,1; Col 1,1; 1 Tim 1,1; 2 Tim 1,1). The term ἀπόστολος has the meaning of one being sent (cf. Jn 13,16),161 and it has been argued that it has the meaning of a church representative or a missionary (2 Cor 8,23; Phil 2,25).162 It is a technical term that forms an important part of the Christian mission (Ac 14,14; Rom 16,7). The meaning of the word ἀπόστολος has been the subject of protracted debate, particularly in Paul’s writings. Fitzmyer points out that the NT usage of the term departs from extra-biblical usage where it was not seen in religious terms.163 F. Agnew concludes that the term has multiple usages and posits 158. Drawing them into a missional impulse themselves refers to a) believing in the gospel consistent with Paul’s views of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 2,1-5.10-13; 4,1-21; 2 Cor 3,1-3; 4,512; 10,12-18; 11,12-29; Gal 1,6-24; 2,11-21; 3,1-5; Phil 1,12-20.27-30; 1 Thess 1,2-10; 2,1-8.13; 4,1-8; Philemon 19), and b) proclaiming the message of Christ to others. 159. One notes that 16,7 is not a reference to Paul but to two people he refers to as συγγενής. At the same time, one notes that the apostolic designation has been given to them in a titular aspect. Also, one derives that their function was in service to the Christ followers. Paul also mentions they were πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ, emphasizing their prominent position among the apostles. 160. There has been broad discussion on ἀπόστολος in Paul and his understanding in relation to other literature. Cf. Hans Dieter Betz, “Apostle,” in ABD (Vol 1 A-C; David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992), 309-311. In condensed fashion, Betz provides the contours of the meaning focusing on apostles as missionaries, Jesus’ disciples as apostles, Paul as apostle, false apostles, and Christ as apostle. His broad stroke demonstrates how the term compares and contrasts particularly in biblical literature. He points out that ἀπόστολος in connection to missionary work was important, for the messengers sent acted as envoys and representatives of the message of Christ to particular areas (2 Cor 8,23). For more on the overview of the word see Paul K. Moser, “Apostle,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (David Noel Freedman, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000), 78-79 Scott Hahn, ed., Catholic Bible Dictionary (New York et al.: Doubleday, 2009), 58-61. 161. Cf. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω κτλ ” in TDNT 1, 398-447, 421. 162. Cf. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω,” 427.431-437; Grant R. Osborne, Romans (IVPNTCS; Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 2004), 29; E. J. Schnabel, “Apostle,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.; Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL/Nottingham: IVP, 2013), 34-45, 34-35. 163. Fitzmyer, Romans, 231-232. In his examination of materials, he notes the word related to being sent, but in terms of naval expeditions, colonies, trade, and envoys. Paul then works from a different angle, as his usage of the term casts a religious standpoint, which causes Fitzmyer to conclude that Paul was working in line with Palestinian Judaism when using the term. He goes against a LXX background as well, given the paucity of its usage therein. While not explicating it completely, Fitzmyer does make a case that the NT takes the meaning of the term into a missional context, namely, the preaching of Christ to others. For more on the extra-biblical usage see F. Agnew, “On the Origin of the Term Apostolos,” CBQ 38 (1976): 49-53. Agnew notes the relative paucity of the term in secular Greek, both classical and koine. The amount of its use in the NT causes Agnew to reflect on the nature of the term. Important too for the conversation

74

CHAPTER TWO

that the NT understanding of it can be derived from Herodotus’ idea of the apostle as “one sent to act authoritatively in the name of another.”164 In a later study, Agnew considered the current research on the term and found that its connections to ‫לוּח‬ ַ ‫ ָשׁ‬could not be discounted.165 While he notes the disagreement over whether to consider apostle in a nontechnical or solemn sense, what does come out is that the apostle in the NT has been commissioned by Christ to preach the gospel in a fundamental manner.166 P. Barnett notes that regardless of the social origins of the word, Paul’s use of it is based in his appeal for authority over the gentile churches in which he ministered.167 He traces the way scholarship has viewed the term, and notes that Paul’s understanding was rather broad, incorporating both solemn and nontechnical aspects.168 To the Romans, a church that Paul had not met yet, the establishment of his ministry would be crucial.169 After making mention to them that he is that Paul uses the term 35 times and Luke 34 times. If there is a connection between the writer of Luke-Acts and Paul then the term occurs abundantly in what might be termed Pauline perspective. This of course presupposes that the writer of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul (we passages of Acts) and that Paul influenced the thought of that writer. Ceslas Spicq, “ἀπόστολος,” in Theological Lexicon of the New Testament: Vol 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 186-194, points out that ἀπόστολος serves both a religious and non-religious function (187-193). The religious aspect would become pronounced in the New Testament, particularly in the relationship between sender and sent (cf. Jn 13,16; 1 Cor 9,2; Gal 2,7; Rom 11,13). See also J.-A. Bühner, “ἀπόστολος,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament: Vol 1 (Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (eds.); Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978-1980), 142-146, who notes that “the Pauline concept of apostle becomes clear when one inquires after the particularity of the one who sends him, the message, and the recipients. Since the power of the commissioning Lord shows itself in earthly reality as the weakness of the cross, so also the power of the message lies in the foolishness of the word of the cross (1 Cor 4:9-13; 1:23); in his mission the apostle of the crucified Lord stands under the reality of the cross; his renunciation of his own rights and honor (1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 11:2; 12:9) because the power of the Lord which provides the messenger with protection reveals itself in weakness” (144). This shows that the term relates more to a religious context whereby the relationship between the sender (the Lord) and the sent (Paul) concerns the mission of God in the world. 164. Agnew, “Origin of the Term Apostolos,” 53. He notes that Herodotus’ understanding of the term relates to an official of some kind acting in a capacity that underscores his authority. He notes that the apostle was specifically sent in order to address an issue and that the authority of the office was behind the title. 165. F. Agnew, “The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research,” JBL 105 (1986): 75-96. 166. Agnew, “Origin of NT Apostle-Concept,” 77. 167. P. W. Barnett, “Apostle,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Gerald Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 1993), 47-48. 168. Barnett, “Apostle,” 47-48. 169. Paul addresses his audience in v. 7, πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 68, emphasizes πᾶς, concluding that it includes all Christians in Rome, not just leaders or people who Paul knew from chapter 16. Contra Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HtKNT 6;

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

75

has been called to be an apostle, he additionally tells them in v. 1 that he was set apart for God’s gospel (κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ).170 A comparison with his other letters shows that Paul adds detail in Romans that differs from the others, with the exception of Gal 1,1.171 Additionally, Gal 1,15 uses ἀφορίζω as well in a similar manner. Hultgren maintains that the aorist passive participle in Rom 1,2 should be treated as a divine passive, therefore Paul was set apart by God for the cause of the gospel.172 Paul’s call as an apostle therefore is conditioned upon God’s decision, and his separation to the gospel concerns his work as apostle. Galatians 1,1 uses apostle in a way that causes interpreters to see Paul arguing for a level of authority that seeks to establish his apostolic position. Ben Witherington notes that the way Gal 1,1 modifies normal Pauline introductions attests freedom in epistolary convention.173 Theodor Zahn notes that a Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 31, who contends that to conclude that all the people were included would be difficult to substantiate given Paul does not lay it out explicitly, nor make it a matter of concern. 170. This verse is reminiscent of Paul’s descriptive enunciation of his call in Gal 1,11-17, particularly 1,15 where he describes being set apart (ἀφορίζω), a word used in the LXX to separate clean from unclean (Lev 13,11.21.26; 14,38.46; 20,25). For more on this see Jan W. Doeve, “Paulus der Pharisäer und Galater 1:13-15,” NovT 6 (1963): 170-181. 171. Considering the texts from canonical rather than chronological perspective shows the following: Rom 1,1: Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ 1 Cor 1,1: Παῦλος κλητὸς ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ καὶ Σωσθένης ὁ ἀδελφὸς 2 Cor 1,1: Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ σὺν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ Gal 1,1: Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν Phil 1,1: Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις 1 Thess 1,1: Παῦλος καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη Philem 1: Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν What one notices from the above is that apostle occurs in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. Philippians ties Paul and Timothy together using slaves of Christ Jesus while in Philemon Paul addresses himself as a prisoner. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul dispenses with using a title. Upon further inspection, 1 and 2 Corinthians focus on the apostleship in relation to God’s will, though 1 Corinthians does add called into the phrase. Galatians and Romans though add details that substantiate their claims of apostleship. 172. Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011), 43. 173. Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 69. “In some respects this is one of the more unusual beginnings to a Pauline letter. Paul starts with two negations about his apostolic status and

76

CHAPTER TWO

comma should be placed before ἀπόστολος in Gal 1,1 which places it in apposition to Paul’s name.174 Hans-Dieter Betz leaves the question of the placement of the comma open, but notes that the care and attention Paul devotes to the title in this context, adding detail to derive a clear definition of what the term meant.175 Paul states that he is ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου to which Betz emphasizes Paul drives home that his authority is not based on other men’s attestation.176 Rather, his basis as an apostle originates from Jesus Christ and God the Father, which Betz sees as the positive part of the statement.177 With a divine basis for his authority Paul acts as apostle, which authenticates his mission. In similar fashion as Betz, Timothy George argues that Paul’s use of apostle in Gal 1,1 further authenticates his ministry and sets the stage for his arguments in chapters 1 and 2 where his authority was being challenged.178 Paul needed the additional authority due to his opponents’ constant assault on his authority, so in Galatians the title of apostle served more than a technical aspect, but reinforced his role as Christ’s messenger to the Gentiles.179 Turning attention to Rom 1,1, while the argumentation differs between Gal 1,1 and Rom 1,1, Paul works in similar fashion in order to further convince his audience. In Galatians, he was reacting to those who would either reject or undermine his authority in some manner; while in Romans, he projected to an audience that did not know the basis of his authority. Romans exhibits unique characteristics in its opening.180 Building upon the he concludes this section not by moving on into a thanksgiving prayer, but with a doxology followed by Amen. This demonstrates, if we needed any demonstration, that Paul felt free to modify the epistolary conventions of his day, and it is also the case that there is a certain flexibility in the way he handles the rhetorical conventions of his day.” 174. Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (KNT 9; Leipzig: Deichert, 1905), 34 n. 2. 175. Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1979), 38. Betz ties the discussion into Gal 1,17 as he explores the origin of the term apostle. He concludes that it is difficult to reconstruct the origin with complete certainty, but a certain tension existed in nascent Christianity between the Jerusalem leaders and Paul (75). This serves as the underpinning of the Galatian controversy. 176. Betz, Galatians, 38. 177. Betz, Galatians, 38. 178. Timothy George, Galatians (NAC 30; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 79-80. 179. George, Galatians, 80. See also F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 72-73; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC 41; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 2-5; and Frank J. Matera, Galatians (SPS 9; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 37-39. 180. Frank J. Matera, Romans (PCNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010), 24-29. Matera points to three specific distinctive elements of the text: “First, it presents its audience with the most elaborate greeting of any Pauline letter. Second, it contains an extended section that

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

77

unique nature of the introduction, Byrne argues that Paul constructs the beginning part of the letter in order for the Roman community to accept his message, which would be a rhetorical challenge given that they did not know him.181 Frank Matera notes that Paul presents in the introduction of the letter a keen sense of who he was and the message he preached.182 Leander Keck notes that Paul’s use of apostle in 1,1-7 is more than simply being called an apostle, rather, “This ‘call’ is neither an invitation nor a summons but God’s sovereign action, God’s deliberate choice (as in 8:28). Paul neither volunteered to be an apostle, nor did he view himself as the church’s apostle.”183 Keck pulls the argument of ἀπόστολος into the broader flow of 1,1 where Paul’s self-presentation shows that he was called and set apart for the gospel.184 Paul further reinforces this with the appeal to the plan of God (1,2-4), the particular mission Paul was set to do (1,5), and the inclusion of the Roman κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1,6-7). For Keck, the designation of apostle in 1,1 is more than a title, but speaks to a vocation, one that God specifically called Paul to fulfill.185 Paul was set apart (cf. Gal 1,15; Rom 1,1) for missionary service, and the letter to the Romans only underscores his missionary endeavors. The pointed language in Rom 1,1-7 shows that as an apostle Paul’s ministry was authenticated by Jesus Christ and God, and as a result the Roman community should accept him. The Roman community would be in accord with God’s will if they accept Paul as messenger along with his message. Similarly, Byrne posits that Paul’s apostleship was of vital concern, given that he consistently had to defend his apostleship against opponents (1 Cor 9,1-2; 2 Cor 11,5, 13; 12,11-12).186 Like Keck, Byrne also maintains that κλητός ἀπόστολος exudes a meaning more than just as a title, but as a vocation.187 The vocation would be articulated in Rom 1,2 where the prophet’s role is alluded to in the text. Paul then stands in the prophetic tradition, deals with Paul’s proposed visit to Rome. Third, it concludes with a concise and powerful summary of the gospel that Paul will develop in the body of the letter.” 181. Byrne, Romans, 37. 182. Matera, Romans, 29. 183. Leander Keck, Romans (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005), 40. Keck bases the call on divine operation in Paul’s life (Gal 1,1). 184. Keck, Romans, 41. 185. Keck, Romans, 41. 186. Byrne, Romans, 38. 187. Byrne, Romans, 39. He maintains that Paul saw himself in the prophetic tradition of such prophets as second Isaiah (49,1) and Jeremiah (1,5) in that he was set apart for God’s purpose. The mission Paul set himself upon was divinely commissioned and continued in the stream of prophets. One sees continuity between Paul’s mission and the overall plan of God in the world.

78

CHAPTER TWO

which would make it incumbent upon the Roman audience to take his message and ministry seriously.188 The thought is complemented by the assertion that the Son reinforces the apostolic nature of Paul’s mission (Rom 1,3-4). What arises in Rom 1,1-7 is a developed understanding of Paul’s role in God’s plan, and his expansion of this topic in the section reinforces his missionary task that now is being passed to the Roman community. In 11,13, Paul focuses his attention on the gentiles, as he deals with the problem encountering his brethren, the Israelites. He reiterates to his audience, that he is ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, showing his calling and emphasis on those outside of Israel. Debate commences over whether Paul means an apostle to the Gentiles189 or the apostle to the Gentiles.190 The former is preferred due to the lack of article and the context. Moo contends that the anarthrous ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος makes it indefinite.191 Jewett agrees with Moo on the indefinite nature of ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, but disagrees with him regarding the possible titular aspect, instead seeing it as more of a focal relationship.192 This is important, for the focus of the apostolic call does not belong to Paul alone, but he “places his task alongside others and implies that the service to the cause of the Jewish mission is a generic obligation to every Gentile apostle.”193 Paul sees himself as an apostle to the gentiles, but recognizes that others are involved in this apostolic ministry. Paul frames his discussion in the contrast between Israelites and gentiles. Many see 11,13 as beginning a new section.194 The conjunction δέ195 does not necessarily warrant an adversative interpretation, but can be developmental continuing the argument of vv. 11-12.196 While the conditional clause in v. 12 finishes in that verse, v. 13 does continue the thought line, so Paul interacts with both an Israelite and gentile audience. His purpose is to not shirk responsibility to his fellow Israelites, but by seeing what God is doing 188. Cf. William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (5th ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 4-5; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 45. 189. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, Epistle to the Romans, 324; Barrett, Romans, 199, Cranfield, Romans, 553; Byrne, Romans, Moo, Romans, 691. 190. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Epistle to the Romans (MNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1932), 177; Morris, Romans, 409; Fitzmyer, Romans, 612. 191. Moo, Romans, 691. 192. Jewett, Romans, 678-679. 193. Jewett, Romans, 678-679. 194. Schlier, Römerbrief, 326-327; Otto Kuss, Der Römerbrief übersetzt und erklärt (Regensburg: Pustet, 1978), 3.792. 195. It is noted that some witnesses do not have δέ in the verse, opting for οὖν (C) or γάρ (D F G L, etc.). While it would fit the overall argument for γάρ, δέ has better support (‫ א‬A B P, etc.). 196. Jewett, Romans, 678.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

79

with the gentiles then the Israelites would come to salvation. With this Paul intends to show his missionary impulse to those whom he tries to reach. Reinforcing the point, the conditional clause in v. 14 is predicated on the gentiles fulfilling some sort of missiological discharge, thus he directed the statement to them in v. 13 (ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Finally, with ἀπόστολος, 16,7 becomes important for Paul to show that other apostles existed for the service of the church. Paul states that Andronicus and Junia are noteworthy apostles197 themselves (οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις).198 Paul refers to them as apostles for one, but also provides the impetus for the church in Rome to work in tandem with God’s mission in the world. The long greeting section in chapter 16 invites the Roman church to consider all the work being done by others. Rom 16,7 serves as a reflection on the existence of other apostles and a recognition that God’s missionary work extends to all believers. The second word Paul uses for missionary service is συνεργός also found in Romans 16 (vv. 3, 9, 21). His fellow workers included Prisca and Aquila, Urbanus, and Timothy.199 The appeal to fellow workers showed the continuing mission Paul was engaged in and that others were also involved in mission.200 197. For a contrary interpretation of Junia as noteworthy see Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91. Burer and Wallace advance the thesis that Junia should not be considered an apostle in the text, but should be considered as being known to the apostles and not among the apostles (esp. 86-88). They base this reading on the dative that they argue has this exclusive sense in the NT and other literature. Contra Linda Belleville, “ Ἰουνίαν … ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials,” NTS 51 (2005): 231-249. She contends that the interpretation by Burer and Wallace is not correct, noting that Greek grammars go against such an exclusive reading (242-243). Additionally, she argues that ἐπίσημος should be taken in the more literal sense of “having the mark, inscription,” therefore, Junia is counted among the noteworthy apostles and is not just known to them (243). Both articles appeal to NT and extra-biblical evidence to support the case, but ultimately Belleville makes a better case that not only in literature, but in context, Junia is counted among the noteworthy apostles. 198. The question of whether to read the text as Junia or Junias has been raised. For more on the issues related to whether the text should be read as Junia or Junias see Eldon Jay Epp, “Text-critical, Exegetical, and Socio-cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16,8,” in New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel (Adelbert Denaux, ed.; BETL 161; Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 227-291. See also Epp’s expansion on the article, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), 26-31.69-78. 199. See the discussion in Otto Bardenhewer, Der Römerbrief des Heiligen Paulus (Freiburg: Herder, 1926), 212-214.217, who sees the personages as both companions and coworkers in Paul’s mission. Walter Henning Ollrog, Paul und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission (WMANT 50; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 63-72 maintains that Urbanus worked in the capacity of itinerant missionary. 200. Cf. P. Joseph Huby, Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains (Paris: Beauchesne, 1957), 498499.500-501; Käsemann, Römer, 396-400; Byrne, Romans, 450-454;

80

CHAPTER TWO

Paul used συνεργός in relation to those laboring with him in the cause of proclaiming the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 3,9; 2 Cor 8,23; Phil 2,25; 4,3; Philem 24; also Col 4,11).201 It is difficult to assert with any degree of certainty what the listing of names accomplished, but one can gather that this appeal to others links arms with them so to speak as a way for Paul to establish further his credentials, but also to solicit support from the Romans to become fellow workers themselves.202 While the distance between chapter 1 and 16 is great, it seems this would solidify Paul’s statements in 1,11-15 where Paul wants to visit the Romans to impart a gift to them (1,11), encourage them (1,12), preach the gospel to them (1,15), but also to be encouraged by them (1,12) and obtain fruit from them (1,12). Thus, Paul’s intention is not just to invest in them, but for them to invest in him, and for them to invest in the mission of God to the world. In conclusion, the missionary language of ἀπόστολος and συνεργός serves to validate Paul’s apostolic authority, bring others into apostolic ministry, and link Paul’s work with others as fellow workers. It is an introductory salvo into the missionary purpose of the letter, whereby Paul as apostle to the Gentiles expands his reach to other parts of his world. 2.2.2.2. Addressees of Missionary Work There are strong currents of the missionary addresses that fill Paul’s mind, and thus the addressees of missionary work are strewn throughout the letter. Paul refers on several occasions to the circumcised (περιτομή, 2.25-29,3,1.30; 4,9-12; 15,8) and uncircumcised (ἀκροβυστία, 2,25-27; 3,30; 4,9-12).203 In 2,25-27, circumcision becomes a point of contention between those 201. For more on Paul and his coworkers see Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012), 559. 202. The question of whether Romans 16 is original to the letter is noted. This issue was dealt with earlier. For more see fn. 313. 203. The New Perspective on Paul has spent considerable time on the topic. For more on the issues specific to circumcision and uncircumsion relative to the NPP see James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, Eerdmans, 1998), 117, 356, 422, 454-455; Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 79-80, 81, 132, 149, 158; Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 352-407, esp. 384-401; James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Rev ed.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005), 153-171; N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2009), 95, 98, 115, 142-143, 190-191, 197-198; Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt, and Michael F. Bird (eds.), God and the Faithfulness of Paul (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2017), 42, 313-319, 323, 348-350, 575, 611.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

81

who are and are not circumcised. Esler maintains that Paul redefines the boundaries of ethnic identification, forcing his readers to the point that inward reality of circumcision over the external appearance of a person or the act of circumcision is what God desires.204 Similarly, Barrett argues that Paul brings a new conviction apart from Judaism, focused on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus that causes a reevaluation of what it means to be circumcised.205 Jean-Noël Aletti builds on the theme and maintains that Paul intentionally uses the language of circumcision and uncircumcision to reconfigure the category of who is a Jew and a pagan.206 Paul stresses that circumcision is only beneficial with following the requirements of the law, and if one does not follow the requirements of the law then their circumcision has become uncircumcision (v. 25).207 He then goes on to state that if the uncircumcised fulfill the requirements of the law they can be regarded as circumcised (v. 26-27). This points to Paul’s greater conclusion that a true Jews is not one who has been circumcised outwardly (v. 28), but is one that has an inward circumcision (v. 29, περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι). This coincides with Paul’s letter/Spirit contrast in 2 Cor 3,1-11 where the contrast occurs between those who are followers of the Spirit and those who are followers of the law.208 In Romans, Paul’s 204. Esler, Conflict and Identity, 153. 205. According to Barrett, Romans, 59, Paul “had not merely had new faith, and a new theology; in the light of these he came to the conclusion that the old faith – the Old Testament and Judaism – meant something different from what he had thought. It was not a closed system, complete in itself, requiring only strict and unimaginative obedience; for those who had eyes to see it pointed forward to Christ, and the Gospel which was the power of God unto salvation – for everyone who had faith.” 206. Jean-Noël Aletti, Justification by Faith in the Letters of Saint Paul: Keys to Interpretation (Trans. Peggy Manning Meyer; Rome: G&BP, 2015), 133. “The vocabulary of circumcision and uncircumcision, which serves to determine the differences between Jew and non-Jew, is intentionally used, for as it is known, since the prophets, circumcision of the heart permits the determination of what is just and what is not. And Paul is really going to arrive at an ultimate reversal of the status when he affirms that, if the non-Jew has a circumcised heart and the Jew an uncircumcised, God, by virtue of his impartiality, will treat the Jew as a pagan and the pagan as a Jew.” 207. Murray, Romans, 85, points out that Paul’s purpose here is not to disparage the advantages of circumcision (cf. Rom 3,1-2), but to show the limited effects it has and that it was itself was based on grace and mercy. “The practising of the law, therefore, which makes circumcision profitable is the fulfillment of the conditions of faith and obedience apart from which the claim to the promises and grace and privileges of the covenant was presumption and mockery. The practising of the law is thus equivalent to the keeping of the covenant. In like manner, the transgression of the law which makes circumcision uncircumcision is the unfaithfulness to covenant obligations which in Old Testament terms is called the breaking of the covenant.” 208. The Spirit serves as the gift of the new age found in the Old Testament (Joel 2,2829; Is 44,3; Ezek 11,10; 36,26-27).

82

CHAPTER TWO

contention that those outside of ethnic Judaism can be accepted as being in God’s family through following the requirements of the law shows his desire for all to know God. For John Dennis, the argument of circumcision and uncircumcision along with the letter/Spirit contrast of 2 Cor 3,1-11, grounds Rom 2,25-29 with an overall goal directed to the Roman house churches, in order to dislodge any biases existing between gentiles and Jews in those churches.209 The language then calls for a rapprochement between the gentile and Jewish Christ followers, which is the goal of the pericope.210 In 3,30, Paul collapses the distinction further by stating that both the circumcised (περιτομή) and the uncircumcised (ἀκροβυστία) are justified by faith/through faith or by faithfulness/through faithfulness (ἐκ πίστεως/διὰ τῆς πίστεως). As M.-J. Legrange points out, Paul downplays the role of circumcision and highlights the role of faith/faithfulness so that Christ is the one that needs people’s focus.211 This follows Paul contending that justification occurs through faith/faithfulness (v. 28), not from works of the law, and that both Jews and gentiles are the objects of God’s concern (v. 29, ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν).212 He concludes that since God is one (v. 30, εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεός),213 justification comes to both 209. John Dennis, “The Letter and the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3,6 and Romans 2,29,” in Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians (Reimund Bieringer et al. (eds); Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2013), 109-129, 127. 210. Dennis, “The Letter and the Spirit,” 127. “Paul’s overall goal in Rom 2,25-29 is to devise an argument that will strip away all Gentile and Jewish arrogance and boasting in the Roman house-churches, a situation that is causing great tension in the Christian community.” 211. M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul Épitre aux Romains (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1931), 7980. “Ce qui établit l’égalité entre les hommes par rapport à Dieu, c’est encore qu’ils sont au même point touchant la foi en Jésus, principe de la justification.” 212. The question of works righteousness has been a topic of debate since the Reformation. For an overview of issues see Schreiner, Romans, 200-208. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 33-34, challenged the notion that Paul was arguing against a Jewish legalism and posits that Judaism exhibited a covenantal nomism that was grace-centered. The perspective here would be salvation-historical where Paul criticizes an attitude of superiority exhibited by the Jews over against the gentiles. 213. Paul alludes to the unity of God (cf. Deut 6,4) in several places (1 Cor 8,4.6; Gal 3,20; cf. Eph 4,6; 1 Tim 2,5; also other NT writings Mk 12,29-31; Jas 2,19). See Paul Gerhard Klumbies, “Der Eine Gott des Paulus: Röm 3,21-31 als Brennpunkt paulinischer Theo-logie,” ZNW 85 (1994): 192-206 for an analysis of Paul’s understanding of the one God. “Mit seinem Bekenntnis zum christologisch-rechtfertigungstheologisch interpretierten Gott gelangt Paulus zu einem Neuansatz im Reden von Gott. Er entwickelt seine Theo-logie aus der Erkenntnis des dem Christusgeschehen innewohnenden Heils heraus. Zu ihrer Entfaltung greift er traditionelle Motive und Vorstellungen sowohl aus dem Bereich des Judentums als auch aus dem des frühen Christentums auf, ohne die damit verbundenen theologischen Konzepte zu teilen. Er führt sie vielmehr seinem christologisch-rechtfertigungstheologischen bzw. soteriologischen Ansatz zu. Eins dieser Motive ist die Rede vom εἷς ὁ θεὸς. Sie stellt eine

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

83

the circumcised and uncircumcised via the same faith. This opens the gospel to everyone,214 but as Richard Thompson argues justification for Paul is found in one having faith/faithfulness in Christ.215 Paul is convinced that though God is one, for either the circumcised or uncircumcised to be justified, this must be done through Christ. Finally, 4,9-12 makes Abraham the test case to prove Paul’s point: circumcision has its benefits as σημεῖον περιτομῆς (v. 11), but Paul emphasizes again that Abraham’s faith/faithfulness was predicated on belief (v. 12). To further enunciate this point, Paul mentions τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως for Abraham occurred while ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ. Hultgren emphasizes this, pointing to Abraham being “declared righteous before he had been circumcised.”216 Paul’s articulation of this statement is careful for it shows that his mission was not to minimize the value of the Law, but to show that faith in God was the precursor to being made righteous by God, thus allowing room for others (gentiles) to receive the gift that his people enjoyed. The true Jew, the example of Abraham, and the entrance of the gospel to the gentiles showed that faith/ faithfulness comes from God through Jesus Christ (4,13-16).217 Paul appeals to Abraham as both the father of the Jewish people and believing gentiles. Ausdrucksmöglichkeit neben anderen dar, die Paulus zur Explikation seines Gottesverständnisses heranzieht. Tragende Bedeutung für die paulinische Theo-logie kommt ihr als solcher nicht zu. Daher verwundert es nicht, daß diese Ausdrucksweise bei Paulus so selten begegnet” (206). 214. For an overview of Paul and universalism see Eung Chun Park, Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003). 215. Richard W. Thompson, “The Inclusion of the Gentiles in Rom 3,27-30,” Bib 69 (1988): 543-546, 546: “From our Jewish faith we learn that God is one; from the new revelation in Christ we learn that God justifies all persons on the basis of faith. The oneness of this God, whom we now know (3,21: nyni) to justify by faith, becomes a reason for saying that this God is indeed the God of the Gentiles.” See also Jan Lambrecht, “Paul’s Logic in Romans 3:29-30,” JBL 119 (2000): 526-528. 216. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 182. 217. Cf. Caroline Johnson Hodge, “The Question of Identity: Gentiles as Gentiles – but also Not – in Pauline Communities,” in Paul Within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, eds.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015), 153-173. Johnson Hodge considers the identity of the gentiles, who for her, were Paul’s primary audience, but also maintained a rather complex identity, as being neither Jew nor Christian, but in a category she labels as gentiles-in-Christ (153-154). These gentiles-in-Christ maintain a special space for Paul, and ultimately their identity is fixed as holy bodies in relation to Christ. By appealing to temple language relative to the body in 1 Corinthians, Paul constructs a space for the body to become holy, which is where the gentile identity resides. “This architectural metaphor suggests bodies are protected, sanctified, and bounded from other types of space; yet they are also inhabited by God’s pneuma (6:19; 3:16) and are therefore holy (3:17)” (165). Finally, the gentiles become part of Israel’s story, which infused them into God’s kingdom as full participants (169-173).

84

CHAPTER TWO

Pamela Eisenbaum’s work on Paul and Abraham helps to clarify this, for Paul’s biography resembles that of Abraham, in that Paul’s mission to others moves him out of a Jewish worldview, for “Paul may be Jewish but he no longer lives among Jews, partly because his own mission and partly because of their hostility.”218 Barrett brings this out, showing that Abraham was seen readily as the father of the Jewish people, but he is according to Paul considered as the father of the gentiles who share in his faith/faithfulness.219 The emphasis once again is on Paul setting forth a message that fits into his mission. The missional impulse drives his understanding of Abraham, who Paul interprets in light of his missionary purpose. Another important missional term is ἁμαρτωλός (5,8.19; 7,13; cf. Gal 2,15.17). In 5,8, Paul establishes that Christ’s death works for those who were weak (v. 6), ungodly (v. 6), and sinners (v. 8). In vv. 9-10, Paul’s intention becomes clear, showing that salvation occurs through Christ. That sinners need forgiveness is a recurring theme in the NT (cf. Mk 2,15-16; Matt 11,19; Lk 7,34). Paul deepens the divide by pointing out that death came through one man’s sin (v. 12), but Christ broke that curse and set about freeing humanity from the effects of sin (v. 15). Paul’s solution to sin is Christ’s death, and as a result the message to be proclaimed to all people is that through Christ, God sent salvation. Paul’s mission was specifically to the gentiles (ἔθνος, 1,5.13; 2,4.24, 3,29; 4,17.18; 9,24.30; 10,19; 11,11.12.13.25; 15,9-12.16.18.27; 16,4.26; βάρβαρος, 1,14; Ἕλλην, 1,14.16; 2,9.10; 3,9; 10,12) but his interest was also in the Jews/Israelites ( Ἰουδαῖος, 1,16; 2,9-10.17.28.29; 3,1; 9,24; Ἰσραήλ, 9,6.27.21; 10,19.21; 11,2.7.25-26) and to people (ἄνθρωπος, 1,18.23; 2,1.3.9.16.29; 3,4.5.28; 4,6; 5,12.15.18.19; 6,6; 7,1.22.24; 9,20; 10,5; 12,17.18; 14,18.20; λαός, 9,25-26; 10,21; 11,1-2; 15,10). He therefore, acts as a missionary to all people (1 Cor 9,19-23; Gal 2,7; cf. Ac 16,13-15; 22,15) for all people need to be reconciled to God (Rom 3,19-26).220 The intention here is not to delve deeply into the exegetical issues relative to Paul’s relationship to the different people groups mentioned above, rather, to show that in the Letter to the Romans, Paul’s missionary concern to each group comes 218. Pamela Eisenbaum, “Paul as the New Abraham,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (Richard A. Horsley, ed.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000), 130145, 135. 219. Barrett, Romans, 90-91. “(i) Abraham is not the father of the Jews first, and then, in a derivative way, the father of the Gentile proselytes also. He is first of all the father of believing Gentiles. (ii) He is their father not on the ground of their circumcision but on the ground of their faith.” 220. For an integrated study on Paul’s ministry to all people see Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 156-183.210-220.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

85

through, which reinforces the idea that the sense of mission was one of the reasons Paul wrote the letter.221 What comes out is Paul’s concern for people, encapsulated in 9,1-5: ὅτι λύπη μοί ἐστιν μεγάλη καὶ ἀδιάλειπτος ὀδύνη τῇ καρδίᾳ μου (v. 2). This concern for his own people causes him to reflect on their situation by stating he would be willingly accursed for them (9,3),222 then he lists a number of benefits and privileges enjoyed by his people (9,4-5).223 Paul however, does not stop at the privileges and benefits enjoyed by the people of Israel as he argues that simply is not enough (9,6-9) and that faith/faithfulness for them has to be involved just like the gentiles (10,5-13). Paul’s point is that the belief that Jesus is Lord (v. 9)224 is a necessary requirement for salvation (v. 10).225 This type of message permeates the letter showing that Paul cannot separate his mission from his purpose for living and writing. 2.2.2.3. The Place of Missionary Work The missionary nature of Romans continues when the language of place is considered. For Paul, place or space played an important role in his missionary call. For example, Paul uses γῆ in 9,17.28 and 10,18, each time in a mission context.226 In 9,17 and 10,18 the mission represented God’s 221. In-depth analyses have been done on all the groups listed above. Cf. Hans Windisch, “βάρβαρος,” TDNT 1 (1964), 547-548; Sigfred Pedersen, “Theologische Überlegungen zur Isagogik des Römerbriefes,” ZNW 76 (1985): 47-67, 47-48; Martin Hengel, Judentum, Griechen und Barbaren: Aspekte der Hellenisieruing des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (SBS 76; Stuttgart: KBW, 1989), 78-93; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 246-249; Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11 (WUNT 2.63: Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 108-125; Byrne, Romans, 328-348; Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 609-613; Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 218-220; Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 389-392. 222. Jewett, Romans, 560, shows that the construction is complex, using the imperfect verb in a way that pushes the wish to the past, a past that simply cannot be realized and thus will never be fulfilled. 223. For more on the privileges listed see Richard H. Bell, The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel (WUNT 184: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 205; Brian J. Abasciano, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis (LNTS 301: London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 145. Both Bell and Abasciano consider the covenant issue relative to the passage, either Mosaic or Abrahamic, feeling in the end that the Abrahamic covenant more closely aligns to Paul’s argument. 224. There are some differences in the witnesses to the entire phrase, but this does not affect the reading of Jesus as Lord. 225. For more on the confessional nature of Lord Jesus Christ see Werner Führer, “‘Herr ist Jesus’: Die Rezeption der urchristlichen Kyrios-Akklamation durch Paulus Römer 10,9,” KD 33 (1987): 137-149, 139-142. 226. Hermann Sasse, “γῆ, ἐπίγειος,” TDNT 1, (1964), 677-681, traces the development of γῆ, seeing it as the dwelling place of humanity, but also in relation to God as its creator.

86

CHAPTER TWO

desire that his name be proclaimed in all the world; while 9,28 carries a message of sentence upon those who will not be saved. Paul appeals to Pharaoh as an example in 9,17, a reference to Exod 9,16227 where Pharaoh acts as God’s instrument whereby God’s name would be proclaimed in the earth.228 Schreiner argues that Paul’s use of ἐξεγείρω is in line with ‫ה ֱע ַמ ְד ִתּיָך‬, ֶ and emphasizes “that Pharaoh’s appearance in history was in accordance with and determined by God’s will.”229 The point is that God’s purpose will be realized, and his name will be known throughout the earth. God involves himself with mission, a point that Paul continues to emphasize throughout the letter. In similar fashion to 9,17, Paul argues in 10,18 that the message has gone into all the earth, citing Ps 18,5LXX. Unlike 9,17 where God’s name would go into the earth, Paul focuses attention on the role of messengers in the preaching of Christ (10,14-15.17). The emphatic μὴ οὐκ refers to the previous question of whether or not they have heard, reinforcing that of course they had. The question of who they are, either Israelite or gentile has attracted attention,230 but the point is that the message has spread to the whole earth (εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν).231 What is important is that Paul uses place (γῆ) as an 227. See the agreements between Rom 9,17 and Exod 9,16 LXX: Exod 9,16, καὶ ἕνεκεν τούτου διετηρήθης, ἵνα ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν μου, καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ. Rom 9,17, εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξήγειρά σε ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου καὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ. Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 485-486 argues the beginning closely aligns with the MT and has a purpose idea in it. Jewett, Romans, alludes to the change of the passive verb to the active is significant for it “strengthens the impression of the sovereign quality of ‘God’s elective purpose.’” 228. Witherington, Romans, 256: “Pharaoh was raised up to demonstrate God’s saving power on behalf of Israel and thus to show the glory of God throughout the earth. That he was judged or hardened is a by-product, but God acted to redeem his people. It is a regular feature of God’s work that redemption of one person may require or involve judgment on another person. Liberation of the oppressed requires judgment of the oppressor. Nothing is said about Pharaoh’s eternal state, but rather only how he was used by God during the exodus.” 229. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 509. See also Hultgren, Romans, 367, “God made use of Pharaoh – otherwise an opponent of his will and purpose – as an instrument of his purpose. And in order to do so, he had mercy on Pharaoh (‘he has mercy on whomever he wills,’ 9:18).” The idea of purpose and intentionality is strewn throughout the pericope (vv. 14-18). 230. There are those who point out that the lack of specific reference to Israel raises the question of to whom Paul is speaking, and thus there has been attention paid to the possibility that the gentile mission is on his mind. For discussion of the issues see Schreiner, Romans, 570-571. 231. Jewett, Romans, 643. He notes the text has been considered as “prophetic, as hyperbolic, or as an expression of Paul’s missionary enthusiasm.” He also notes that the issue if it did refer to a Jewish audience then it would restrict the whole earth to a smaller area. He

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

87

expression of the message of Christ being proclaimed, involving others in the task of that proclamation (both senders and ones sent, vv. 14-15), and the mission of those who proclaim it (v. 18). This underscores Paul’s purpose in writing, exhibiting a high degree of concern that his message would go forth, enjoining others to support and participate in its dissemination. Another word for place Paul uses is κλίμα. He uses this word in 15,23 in a particularly important missional context. Paul longs to see the Romans (1,11-13; 15,23-29), and now readies himself to see them. The occasion for his visit though surfaces from the completion of his task in other places. Note in 15,23 that he states he has no other place to work where he is currently (νυνὶ δὲ μηκέτι τόπον ἔχων ἐν τοῖς κλίμασιν τούτοις). The sentence (vv. 23-24) is incomplete causing Moo to speculate Paul intends to visit Rome (Paul alludes to this in v. 24), but becomes sidetracked as other ideas come to him.232 Even with the awkward construction noted, Paul does refer to his ministry being finished for some reason.233 Paul references regions or places specific to his ministry (cf. Gal 1,21; 2 Cor 11,10).234 Even the reason he feels he can now visit the Roman community pertains to the accomplishment of his mission in other places. The use of κόσμος only reinforces the point of Paul’s missionary impulse. While not as prevalent as in his other letters, it does surface at key moments (1,8.20; 3,6.19; 4,13; 5,12.13; 11,12.15). The beginning of the letter provides a strong point for the missionary nature of the letter, for Paul compliments the Roman church ὅτι ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν καταγγέλλεται ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ (1:8). This is situated in the thanksgiving section of the letter where Paul is thankful to God,235 and for all of them.236 As mentioned, Paul commends them for the display of their faith/faithfulness in the world. While the phrase ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ has been shown to be hyperbolic,237 it must contain a concludes that the explanations offered fail to take into consideration the rhetorical effect of the statement. Paul responds to the question of if they have heard with a biblical citation in full, and simply emphasizes the universal aspect of the gospel. 232. Moo, Romans, 899. 233. What Paul refers to when saying that no more place exists for him is unknown, whether he had finished the task he felt God called him to do, or the places where he ministered no longer needed his oversight, or even hindrances that might have been encountered. 234. See Betz, Galatians, 79, who discusses Paul’s ministry in the context of Galatia. 235. Paul uses εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ in typical fashion (1 Thess 1,2; 1 Cor 1,4; Phil 1,3; Phlm 4; cf. 2 Thess 1,3). 236. The referent of περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν points back to 1,7 (πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ). Some witnesses do not contain “in Rome” (G 1739mg 1908mg Or1739mg), though Metzger, Textual Commentary, 446, comments that it was most likely “a deliberate excision, made in order to show that the letter is of general, not local, application.” 237. Cranfield, Romans, 75; Fitzmyer, Romans, 244; Witherington, Romans, 42.

88

CHAPTER TWO

measure of truth, for the church is referred to elsewhere (Acts 18,2). Of importance is Paul’s presentation of the faith/faithfulness of the church being known to the world. This is significant for Paul desired that faith/faithfulness be lived out now as part of the missional nature of the Roman church. The idea of God initiating the mission continues in 4,13 where the promise given to the world comes by faith/faithfulness. Abraham is seen as the heir of the world, not on his own account, but as a result of what God does.238 Moo points out that a bifurcation exists between law and promise, that Abraham did not find favor διὰ νόμου, rather διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως.239 The contrast is between faith/faithfulness and law, where the law results in wrath, but faith/ faithfulness results in promise. While the phrase τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου does not appear in the Genesis narratives relative to Abraham (Gen 12,17; 13,14-17; 15,1-6; 17,1-8),240 the idea of Abraham’s offspring and the myriads of them that will follow does arise. Paul’s point is that for Abraham and his descendants, the key to accessing God’s promise is through faith/faithfulness (Rom 4,17-22), which Paul extends to those who believe in Jesus (4,2325). Osborne stresses that the participle τοῖς πιστεύουσιν signals the reader’s attention to God as the focus of faith/faithfulness; a significant point for Paul normally focuses faith/faithfulness on Jesus, which Osborne takes as intentionally connecting Abraham’s faith/faithfulness in God to those who believe in Jesus also seeing that God is central in the faith/faithfulness process.241 The focus on God’s role naturally leads to Jesus’ resurrection (v. 24),242 and to the conclusion that Jesus παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν, however, it resulted in ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. Those who believe in Jesus are then counted with Abraham in that they will also realize the promise given for them and to be credited as righteous/just (vv. 22.23.25). In summary, Paul uses place in a way that the gospel impacts the entirety of the earth and world. Paul sees himself as an emissary for God’s message 238. For more on Paul’s treatment of Abraham see in part Klaus Berger, “Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen,” MTZ 17 (1966): 47-89; Richard B. Hays, “‘Have We Found Abraham to Be our Forefather According to the Flesh?’ A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 (1985): 76-98; Anthony J. Guerra, “Romans 4 as Apologetic Theology,” HTR 81 (1988): 251270, esp. 258-265; Michael Cranford, “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe,” NTS 41 (1995): 71-88; 239. Moo, Romans, 272-273. 240. Cf. Jean-Nöel Aletti, “Romains 4 et Genèse 17: Quelle énigme et quelle solution?” Bib 84 (2003): 305-325. Paul cites Gen 15,6 to which Aletti points out is significant for it is the first time the word believe is used in Genesis (318). 241. Osborne, Romans, 122. 242. When Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection he does so in the context of God raising him from the dead (Rom 4,24-25; 6,4.9; 7,4; 8,11.34; 10,9; 1 Cor 6,14; 15,4.15; 2 Cor 4,14; 5,15; Gal 1,1; 1 Thess 1,10).

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

89

to the world and positions himself to proclaim that gospel everywhere that avails itself to him. He signals the importance of a missional life not only for himself, but for all those who consider themselves followers of Christ. The message begins to refine itself, and he brings this out via Abraham who believed God and as a result received God’s δικαιοσύνη. This was not meant for Abraham alone, but for all those who believe in Jesus and have faith in God. 2.2.2.4. Sending and Position of Missionaries To be sent concerns those charged to take the gospel to other places. In 10,15, Paul expresses that kerygma occurs only as those tasked with preaching are sent (ἀποστέλλω). This verse is set within the confines of a series of rhetorical statements in vv. 14-15a, followed by a reference to Is 52,7 (cf. Nah 1,15MT, 2,1LXX). The particle πῶς frames the questions with the natural response being in the negative.243 The question in 10,15 naturally arises as to who is the sending agent? He uses the aorist passive verb form here (ἀποστέλλω), which means that either God or Christ authorize the sending.244 Whether God or Christ does not remove the fact that Paul appeals to a higher authority as being the one who sends the one who preaches. He emphasizes the necessity for the message to be preached in order for belief to occur (v. 14). The success of the mission stands in direct relationship to the message being believed and heard. 2.2.2.5. Proclamation by Word The ideas to make known, confess, persuade, and convince permeate Romans and validate the missional nature of the letter. Paul did not see himself just as a missionary with a message, or going to places where the message 243. Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC: Waco, TX: 1988), 620. The intended response would simply be that it is not possible to call on him who they have not believed in, cannot believe if they have not heard, cannot hear without a preacher, and cannot preach without being sent. 244. Paul explicitly states that Christ is the one to whom he derived his apostleship (1,5; cf. 1 Cor 1,1; 2 Cor 1,1; Gal 1,1.11-17). This has caused a number of commentators to see Christ as the sending agent (Dunn, Romans 9-16, 621; Jewett, Romans, 638, Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 417) while others see the agent as God (Schreiner, Romans, 568; Moo, Romans, 664) seeing that 15b cites a text that would be more concerning God. Christ as the sending agent is preferred, for Paul does consider his calling to preach in light of Christ in other passages, and when v. 17 is factored in, the hearing comes διὰ ῥήματος Χριστοῦ. A reading of the entire chapter shows Paul’s preoccupation with Christ (vv. 4-7.9-10.17).

90

CHAPTER TWO

needed to be preached; rather, he felt compelled to write to a group of Christ followers and convince them that his message was from God, and thus it was his mission to persuade them to his side.245 Paul’s entire life was dedicated to proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ (Rom 1,15; 10,15). The use of εὐαγγελίζω in 1,15 and 10,15 shows a committed preacher who longs to preach a message of which he is thoroughly convinced (Rom 1,1617; 15,20; 1 Cor 1,18-25; cf. Acts 9,20-22). Paul committed his life to preaching to Greeks and non-Greeks (1,14), which οὕτως τὸ κατ᾿ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ (1,15). The seeming contradiction between 1,15 and 15,20 where Paul does not want to preach where Christ has already been proclaimed is overcome with a few points. First, as Jewett points out, 1,15 refers back to 1,13 where Paul desired to visit Rome in the past in order to obtain fruit from them, a fruit that does not necessarily mean to preach to nonbelievers.246 Second, the preaching could be akin to furthering the discipleship in the community rather than evangelizing nonbelievers.247 Paul refers to several words related to convincing and persuading that correlate with the missional intention of the letter (καταγγέλλω, κηρύσσω, λαλέω, ὁμολογέω). Paul uses καταγγέλλω in 1,8 with πίστις to show the impact the Romans’ faith/faithfulness has on those who hear of it. The communal dimension is of utmost importance and shows the growth of the gospel in Rome. Jewett concludes that the passage refers “not merely to theological doctrine or the presence of believers in Rome, but to converts’ participation in the charismatic process of proclamation, acceptance, transformation, and creation of new communities of faith.”248 Coming in the first chapter, the emphasis on the scope of the knowledge of their faith/faithfulness ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ reinforces the missional purpose underlying the letter. Early on the Roman audience would recognize the weight of the gospel’s importance for dissemination.

245. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 32-33, sees Paul’s missionary work as fivefold. His main points are summarized as follows: First, Paul knew he was called to preach the gospel of Christ (Rom 1,1; 1 Cor 2,2); second, he was to preach to the gentiles (Rom 1,14.16; 1 Cor 1,23); third, he desired to reach as many people as he could (Rom 1,14; 15,19.23-24); fourth, he focused on individuals to convince them to believe in Jesus Christ (1 Thess 1,9-10; 1 Cor 1,18-2,5); and fifth, he established new churches that would represent the gospel of Christ to the areas where they were located (Col 1,25-29). 246. Jewett, Romans, 134. 247. Pedersen, “Isagogik des Römerbriefes,” 47-67. Pedersen analyzes the text in tandem with 15,20-21. 248. Jewett, Romans, 119-120.

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

91

The mission of Christ is realized when one believes in the heart and confesses with the mouth (10,9-10). The correlation between confessing with the mouth (10,9, ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί) and believing in the heart (10,9, πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ) contributes to the missional understanding of the letter. These actions form the basis for Paul’s missionary strategy, whereby acceptance of his message is predicated by confession and belief. Byrne sees the order as not completely logical, given that one would think belief in the heart would occur before confession by the mouth, but maintains Paul had Deut 30,14 in mind when constructing the text.249 Werner Führer contends that the use of Lord Jesus is an early Christian formula calling for people to be loyal to Christ (cf. Phil 2,11; 1 Cor 1,2).250 This brief survey again validates the opinion that the missional context of the letter comes through in its proclamation language. Paul wrote the letter to persuade the audience that the mission given to him by God is the one they need to follow. Paul serves as the prototypical missionary, set upon increasing the number of Christ followers in Rome and aligning them in common mission with his purpose to preach the gospel everywhere. 2.2.2.6. Content of the Proclamation Paul continually refers to the actual content of his message. The basic element of Paul’s message lies in the truth (ἀλήθεια), and early on (1,18) he shows that those who live godless and wicked lives downgrade the truth via their wickedness (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων). It involves the worship of the creation rather than the Creator. Paul argues that those people should have known better for they μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει (1,25). The truth explicated then runs counter to God’s truth for one, and can be extrapolated as opposing Paul’s truth for another. This similar theme continues in 2,2 where the truth is based on God’s judgment, distinguishing God’s truth from those opposed to him (cf. 2,8.20; 3,7). Paul brings out what he means by the truth in 15,8 that reflects a missional impulse, combining the content of his proclamation with the addressees of mission work (15,7-12). Christ acts as a servant of the circumcision representing God’s truth. The truth extends to Gentiles as well as the Jewish people, showing the missional impulse of its purpose. 249. Byrne, Romans, 321. Deut 30,14, ἔστιν σου ἐγγὺς τὸ ῥῆμα σφόδρα ἐν τῷ στόματί σου καὶ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου καὶ ἐν ταῖς χερσίν σου αὐτὸ ποιεῖν. 250. Führer, “‘Herr ist Jesus’,” 139-142.

92

CHAPTER TWO

In similar fashion, Paul sees the truth in terms of the gospel he proclaims. This gospel informs his call (1,1.9.16), reinforces the message that Christ is its central feature (1,9; 2,16), and argues that one must accept the content of the gospel (10,16). Paul commits himself to the gospel and fully proclaims to anyone willing to hear and believe (1,16-17; cf. 16,25). Paul further elucidates the content of his proclamation by using the language of reconciliation in relation to Jesus Christ. In 5,11 he makes this clear stating: ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δι᾿ οὗ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν. Christ counters the deleterious effects inaugurated by the one man (5,12) who brought sin into the world, and therefore, Christ is the means or the content of the message who brings justification (5,1), peace (5,1), access (5,2), and hope (5,3-4) to those who are powerless (5,6). At one time, we were enemies of God, but through Jesus Christ and his death, we have been reconciled (5,10). The scope of the mission that Paul posits holds no bounds, for its availability reaches to all humanity in tandem with the universal scope ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν (5,6). From this Paul appeals to the Roman community to accept the content of his missional message. The conclusion of the content matter, synthesized in Jesus Christ finds full expression in 10,8-9 where the word that is near (ῥῆμα) is the word Paul proclaims (τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν); none other than confession and belief in Jesus Christ (10,9-10). As mentioned before, the missional character of 10,9-10 shows the driving concern Paul had for people to accept his message of Christ. In summary, the truth holds a central concern for Paul, in that it would be proclaimed in a manner pleasing to God. This truth, not detailed explicitly comes out in the context of his argumentation as revolving around the work of Christ, his death and resurrection, consisting of Paul’s own message, and predicated on its acceptance by those listening to Paul’s appeal. The content of his proclamation concerns being in right standing with God, found through the medium of Christ’s work of reconciliation. 2.2.2.7. Goal of the Proclamation The kerygmatic nature of the message is not the only point for Paul, for his goal is that people would hear and apply his message. Paul differentiates true hearers from those who are not, highlighting the role of faith/faithfulness that results from hearing the word of Christ (10,16-17). Referring to Isaiah and Moses, Paul contends that everyone has heard, but not everyone has believed

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

93

(10,16-21). The crucial point concerns hearing through faith/faithfulness. Hearing becomes more than listening to the words being spoken or written, but actually applying those words and accepting their demands (10,5-15). Those who truly hear are those who believe what has been heard. True hearing results in repentance (2,4) with the tangible marks of baptism (6,3-4). The baptism occurs in Jesus Christ, pointing again to the content of the proclamation, and serves as the transference from one way of life (in sin) to another (in Christ). Baptism moves those who hear to those who identify with a community of like-minded people (ἐκκλησία), which serves as the grounds for Paul’s concern in the letter (1,7-13; 16,1-19.23). Paul writes to a community of people who he admonishes to hear his message, believe its tenets, and live out its implications. Paul’s ultimate missional desire is that people will be saved. Strewn throughout the letter, salvation language forces the readers to come to grips with Paul’s message, and impresses them to accept Christ. Salvation through Christ helps believers escape God’s wrath (5,9-10), narrows the number to a remnant (9,27) focuses on those who confess and believe (10,9-10.13; cf. 11,14.26), and points to the hope awaiting those who believe (8,24). Salvation proceeds to those who follow God’s plan in Christ (10,1-4) and is an anticipation of a future promise (13,11). As with the other language, salvation points to the work accomplished in Christ, augments Paul’s message, and brings the missional impulse to the forefront. 2.2.2.8. Execution of the Missionary Task Paul not only saw himself in terms of mission regarding the content and goal of the proclamation, but also in the execution of the missionary task. In Romans 10, Paul justifies his preaching ministry in light of the promises given beforehand (10,14-15.16-18.19-21). In order to accomplish the goals of the proclamation, those proclaiming it need to be sent, therefore, executing the proclamation and expanding its influence. It remains the responsibility of the community of faith to see that the preachers are sent forth, are supported in their work, and are aided in accomplishing their task. This becomes crucial in how the task is executed. Paul applies this to himself in 15,28 where he sets before the Roman community that upon completion of his task in other places, his goal is to take the message to Spain, and via segue he would visit them on that journey. The task concerns the Jerusalem collection (15,25-27), but is set within the broader framework of Paul’s overall missional strategy; namely, that he would take his message to Spain (15,24).

94

CHAPTER TWO

2.3. ROM 8,26-27 AND PAUL’S MISSION Because the argument prior contended that the purpose of Paul’s letter would naturally be integrated into the greater flow of the letter, and since it has been argued that a purpose for Paul’s Letter to the Romans revolved around a missiological impulse that flowed from Paul’s own experience as well as his desire for others to join in the missional cause, then it becomes incumbent to consider how that missiological impulse manifests in a certain text. With this in mind the question arises as to what are the missiological implications derived from Rom 8,26-27 and in particular 8,26a. First, Romans 8 has been the subject of a number of studies through the years.251 Käsemann considered it an essential text in Paul’s understanding of πνεῦμα, heightened by the deliberate and clear structure throughout.252 Balz would consider it in terms of eschatological theology, particularly Rom 8,1839 where Paul was navigating between realized eschatology and enthusiasm.253 Franz Leenhardt notes the disjunctive nature of chapter 8, which directs the reader’s attention before 7,7-25, but at the same time connecting and finishing the thought of 7,25.254 Dunn sees it as the necessary conclusion from the argument Paul began in chapter 5.255 Colin Kruse moves it forward from chapter 5, noting that the discussion of the flesh (7,5) returns in chapter 8.256 251. Cf. Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1975); Jewett, Romans, 476-478. See also Robert H. Mounce, Romans (NAC 27; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 174-175 who notes, “With chap. 8 we arrive at what may be called the inspirational highlight of the Book of Romans. Here the apostle is swept along in a way of spiritual exaltation that brings with God’s provision of the Spirit for victory over the old nature, breaks through the sufferings that mark our present existence, and crests with a doxology of praise to the unfathomable love of God revealed in Christ Jesus. Nowhere in the annals of sacred literature do we find anything to match the power and beauty of this remarkable paean of praise. Although the pinnacle of this exalted prose awaits our arrival at vv. 28-29, the earlier sections provide the setting against which the culminating truths will break forth with an even greater brilliance. We are not dealing here with mere theology. As Paul wrote, his pen gave evidence that he was caught up in an experience of profound worship and spiritual adoration.” 252. Käsemann, Römer, 204. 253. Balz, Heilsvertrauen, 125. 254. Franz J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary (Cleveland, OH/New York: World Publishing, 1957), 200. The connection between chapters 7 and 8 complete the thought brought on by Paul. See also Schreiner, Romans, 395-396. 255. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 412. 256. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 322. He notes that the emphasis in person in chapter 8, where Paul uses first and second person to “speak again of the experience of those who are ‘in Christ Jesus.’”

THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS

95

Second, the inclusion of Spirit language in the chapter pulls the discussion into Paul’s other letters (particularly 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) regarding his understanding of that term.257 An overview of Romans 8 with Spirit in mind shows how developed Paul’s views had become in comparison to earlier letters.258 The developing thought of the Spirit in Romans 8 shows its importance in the community.259 Additionally, Paul structures the chapter around the work of the Spirit, which will be considered in greater detail in subsequent chapters. Third, Rom 8,26a provides a unique example of how the apostle understood the mission of believers in tandem with God’s response. It additionally allows Paul to self-identify with the weakness of others in accomplishing their mission. The structure of the entire pericope260 exhibits missional language as creation itself is ensared in some sort of bondage that can only be ameliorated with the unveiling of the children of God, believers themselves are in a groaning state that will be overcome with the Spirit working thus pointing to hope, and finally, due to weakness prayer is hampered in some way only to be overcome by the Spirit’s intercession. The mission of God stands within the context of the entire pericope as will be explored.

2.4. CONCLUSION As has been shown Paul wrote the letter of Romans for missional purposes, in that he wrote it out of the passion that he had within him to communicate the message of Jesus Christ to all who would hear. His purpose was to draw the Romans into community with one another as well as establish a location for the gospel’s presentation to the western world, which would ultimately take Paul to Spain. The letter then typifies Paul’s missionary strategy, 257. The following chapters consider the role of πνεῦμα in Rom 8,26a in detail. Cf. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI/Leicester: Eerdmans/IVP, 1988), 299. Morris notes, “This is one of the great chapters in the Bible, and its teaching about the way the Holy Spirit operates in enabling the believer to defeat the forces of evil has always been recognized as of the utmost importance.” 258. It is beyond the scope of the argument to consider the dating of Paul’s letters. Suffice it to say that a consensus exists around the dating of Romans either at 56 or 57 CE with 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians, his main dialogical partners so to speak on the Spirit occurring prior to that date. 259. Cf. Ernst Fuchs, “Der Anteil des Geistes am Glauben des Paulus: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Römer 8,” ZTK 72 (1975): 202-302, particularly 294-295, 300-302. 260. As will be discussed in the following chapters, one can delimit the pericope from 8,14-30, 8,17-30, 8,18-27, or 8,18-30.

96

CHAPTER TWO

but also acts as an exercise in Paul’s self-performance, as he could not divorce himself from the task before him. Thus, the purpose of Romans is built into Paul’s own rationale for existence. This becomes markedly pointed when one considers the eighth chapter of the letter and in particular Paul’s understanding of the Spirit and its ramifications for mission.

PART TWO

EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

CHAPTER THREE

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

This chapter offers a survey of how Rom 8,26a functions within the pericope Rom 8,18-30 and the letter as a whole. First, there will be a consideration of the text-critical issues found in v. 26a. The second part introduces delimitation questions pertinent to the passage. The third section deals with how the verses work within the overall argument of the letter.

3.1. TRANSLATION

OF

ROM 8,26-27 AND TEXT-CRITICAL ISSUES IN ROM 8,26A

This section contains two elements: a translation of Rom 8,26-27 and a consideration of the issues related to the text of Rom 8,26a. 3.1.1. The Text of Rom 8,26-27 with Translation The following translation is used as the guide for the discussion on textcritical issues as well as pericope delimitation in the next section. 26a ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα συναντι- Likewise indeed also the Spirit helps our λαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν. weakness. 26b τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα,

For what to pray for,

26c καθὸ δεῖ,

as it is necessary,

26d οὐκ οἴδαμεν.

we do not know.

26e ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει But the Spirit itself intercedes with στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις. unutterable groans. 27a ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν,

But the one who searches the hearts knows,

27b τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος,

what is the mind of the Spirit,

27c ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. because according to God it intercedes for the saints.

100

CHAPTER THREE

3.1.2. Textual Issues in Rom 8,26a The text of Rom 8,18-30 is preserved with few text-critical issues.1 There are three variants listed, which are listed in the tables below. The first variant pertains to τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ. Two problems ensue with the term. In the first instance, a number of manuscripts read the term in the plural form ταῖς ἀσθενείαις. In the second instance, F and G have τῆς δεήσεως (“of prayer”). The information in the graph below follows NA28. τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ‫ א‬A B C D* 69 81 104 218 330 451 459 630 1563 1718 1739 1838 1852 1881 1908 2110 2200 pc vg syp cop

ταῖς ἀσθενείαις

τῆς δεήσεως

FG K L P Ψ 5 6 33 61 88 181 256 263 323 326 424 441 467 614 621 623 629 720 915 917 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1398 1505 1573 1678 1735 1751 1836 1845 1846 1874 1875 1877 1912 1942 1959 1962 2127 2138 2197 2344 2464 2492 2495 2516 2544 2718 Maj syh

Dunn argues that the use of τῆς δεήσεως is dubious and seems to be an attempt to clarify the relation between weakness and prayer.2 Support for such a reading lacks evidence for one and additionally adds redundancy to Paul’s statement later when detailing prayer in 8,26b. The issue around ἀσθένεια concerns whether or not it is used in the singular or in the plural. One notes the weight of external evidence ultimately favors τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ and therefore is accepted as the weakness. While the manuscript evidence favors the singular, the point of whether singular or plural in context does not dramatically impact the meaning of the text. Because the weight of evidence sides with the singular, Paul nuances the weakness, a point that will be discussed in later chapters. In the second variant, some manuscripts have ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν after ὑπερεντυγχάνει in v. 26. Again, this is illustrated with the graph below based on NA28. 1. For a discussion on some of the issues see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 517-518. 2. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 466, aptly states that witnesses “particularlize and narrow the reference of weakness to that of weakness in praying.”

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

ὑπερεντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ‫א‬2 C K L P Ψ 33 69 88 104 181 323 326 330 424* 436 451 459 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1505 1735 1836 1852 1874 1877 1912 1962 2464 2492 2495 Maj Lect ar d2 f mon o vg syh sa bo eth geo slav Orlat Eus (Diodore) Didlat Diddub (Macarius/Symeon) (Severian) Epiph3/4 Chr (Theodore) (Cyr) (John-Damascus) Nov Hil Ambst Gregory-Elvira Ambr Hier Pel Maximinus Aug3/17

101

ὑπερεντυγχάνει ‫ *א‬A B D F G 6 81 256 263 424c 945 1319 1506 1573 1739 1881 2127 pc b d* g arm (Or) Epiph1/4 Aug14/17

Metzger posits that the use of ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν adopted by the Textus Receptus was an attempt to make “explicit what was is implicit in the compound ὑπερεντυγχάνει.”3 Roger Omanson points out that the “variant reading has little significance for translation since the prefix ὑπὲρ in the verb implies the words ‘for us.’”4 Jewett concludes that ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν was inserted to improve the text.5 The reading makes most sense given both its internal and external evidence. The final variant consists of the fact that 33 pc replace ἁγίων with ἡμῶν. It is noted that the external attestations to ἁγίων is strong and with this it can be accepted as correct. 3.2. PERICOPE DELIMITATION When speaking of the structure of Rom 8,18-30, there are two primary considerations to be investigated. First, there is the matter of where to delimit the passage, which will be considered below. Scholars tend to delimit the passage at 8,14-30,6 8,18-27,7 or 8,18-30.8 Second, how does the pericope fit 3. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 518. 4. Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2006), 305. 5. Jewett, Romans, 505. 6. Cf. Ignace de la Potterie, “Le chrétien conduit par l’Esprit dans son cheminement eschatolique (Rom 8,14),” in The Law of the Spirit in Rom 7 and 8 (Lorenzo De Lorenzi (ed.); Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1976), 209-241, 229-235; Matthew Vellanickal, The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings (AnBib 72; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1977), 84; Sylvia C. Keesmaat, “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8.14-30,” JSNT 54 (1994): 29-56. 7. Paulsen, Überlieferung und Auslegung, 107-109. 8. Harry A. Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8.1922 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (JSNTS SS 336; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006),

102

CHAPTER THREE

into the rest of the letter? This question expands the discussion into the interconnections of Paul’s argument throughout the first eight chapters and whether or not the letter was systematically constructed to weave together a full argument, or it was a patchwork of teachings. Additionally, how does the passage fit into the remaining chapters of the letter, particularly chapters 911? Finally, what connections exist between the pericope and the rest of the letter? 3.2.1. Rom 8,14-30 Matthew Vellanickal and Ignace de la Potterie approach the delimitation from a literary perspective, constructing an ABCB’A’ pattern that takes into consideration the entire chapter (A – vv. 1-13, B – vv. 14-18, C – vv. 19-25, B’ – 26-30, A’ – vv. 31-39).9 The BCB’ pattern forms the central structure of the chapter in a micro-unit that works around the eschatological hope of the children of God (C), and the present sonship that moves toward glorification (B B’).10 De la Potterie subdivides the center section into several concentric units (a – v. 19, b – v. 20, c – vv. 21-22, c’ – v. 23, b’ v. 24, a’ – v. 25).11 The overall structure is established as follows: A 1-13

Life in Christ Jesus – through the Spirit The Redemptive Work of Christ

B 14-18  

a

(14-15) πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται υἱοθεσίας … κράζομεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ b

(16-17) αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα … τέκνα θεοῦ συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν

c

(18) δόξαν

171. For further discussion on the structural aspects see Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer (HzNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974), 220; Christofferson, Earnest Expectation, 141. 9. De la Potterie, “Le chrétien conduit par l’Esprit,” 229; Vellanickal, Divine Sonship, 84. 10. Vellanickal, Divine Sonship, 84. 11. Potterie, “Le chrétien conduit par l’Esprit,” 229, commenting, “dans le premier mouvement (a et a’: vv. 14-16 et 26-27), il est question de l”Esprit qui aide le croyant dans sa prière; le deuxième mouvement (b, b’) présente le théme de la filiation des chrètiens; nous sommes enfants de Dieu, avec le Christ (vv. 16-17), predédestinés à être conformes à l’image du Fils (vv. 28-29); le dernier mouvement enfin (C et C’) ouvre la perspective sur la vie future: en vertu de notre adoption filiale, nous sommes appelés à l’héritage eschatologique, c’est-à-dire à la glorification, à la révélation en nous de la gloire des enfants de Dieu (v. 18 et v. 30).”

103

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

C 19-25 a

(19) ἀποκαραδοκία … ἀπεκδέχεται b

(20) ἐφ᾿ ἑλπίδι c

c’ b’

(21) δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ d

(22) συστενάζει

d’

(23a) στενάζομεν

(23b) υἱοθεσίαν

(24) ἐλπὶς (4 times)

a’

(25) δι᾿ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα

a’

(26-27) τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται

B’ (26-30) προσευξώμεθα … αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα στεναγμοῖς τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος b’

(28-29) συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς c’

A’ 31-39

(30) ἐδόξασεν

Love of Christ – Love of God in Christ Jesus The Redemptive Work of Christ12

While there are corresponding terms throughout, especially in the central section, the limits of a literary approach need to be realized. First, the parallels found in vv. 14-15 with the other texts hinge on πνεῦμα, which is deficient in and of itself given the incidence of πνεῦμα in the chapter (vv. 2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-16, 23, 26, 27). The lack of blocks of parallels makes it difficult to substantiate the claim, though δόξα occurs at several points (vv. 18, 21, 30). At the same time, δόξα does not validate the point. Second, as Gieniusz points out, there are more omissions than parallels.13 A number of words central to the argument are left out, including πάθημα, συστενάζω, συνωδίνω, ὑπομονή. The selective choice of parallels undermines the validity of the thesis. Third, the proposal does not account for λογίζομαι γάρ, which signals a transition from one topic to another. Factored into the discussion, λογίζομαι 12. Vellanickal, Divine Sonship, 84. 13. Andrez Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30: ‘Suffering Does Not Thwart Future Glory’ (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999), 65-66.

104

CHAPTER THREE

γάρ represents a new approach to the argument, though Paul does answer the issue of v. 17 in v. 18 that sharing in suffering equates to sharing in glory (v. 17) with the additional point that sufferings do not compare to the glory coming (v. 18). Instead of continuing the argument however, the transition marks a new development of material that considers the role of creation, ourselves, and Spirit into attaining the hope of v. 18.14 In conclusion, the proposal to delimit the passage at 8,14-30 is too selective on parallels and does not respect the exegetical nuances of the text. Paul concludes a thought in vv. 14-17 that segues into a new thought in vv. 1830. 3.2.2. Rom 8,18-27 Henning Paulsen advocated a delimitation of vv. 18-27.15 He sums up his view with the following statement: “Röm 8,18-27 bildet eine in sich geschlossene Einheit, die Verse lassen sich vom Kontext abgrenzen. Das ergibt die Analyse der Verse 12-17 bzw. 28-39.”16 He structures the text in four units (18, 19-22, 23-25, 26-27)17 with v. 18 as the thesis.18 He maintains v. 18 in particular continues the thought of vv. 12-17, but begins to expand on the material, thus should be separated from the others. The second main point for Paulsen is aligning vv. 28-30 with 31-39. His primary argument is: “Die Terminologie dieses Abschnitts ergibt unterscheidet sich von der Sprache, die Paulus in den Versen 18-27 führt.”19 This is 14. Cf. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 570. 15. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 107-132. See also Gerhard O. Forde, “Romans 8:18-27,” Int 38 (1984): 281-285; Bolt, “Relation Between Creation and Redemption,” 34-51. Ulrich Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (BEvT 49; München: Kaiser, 1968), 377 is ambiguous. He states that “Dieser Vers gibt m. E. das Thema des ganzen folgenden Abschnittes (V. 19-27),” but then seems to include vv. 28-30, “Dies zeigt Paulus in zwei parallelen Gedankengängen, nämlich für die Schöpfung in V. 19-21, für die Christen, die durch Gott den Geist als Erstling besitzen, in V. 22-30. Für die Schöpfung zeigt Paulus die Zukunft Gottes in V. 21, für die Christen, die Gott lieben, in v. 28-30. Es ist deshalb wohl untunlich, v. 18-27 oder V. 28-30 zu isolieren.” 16. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 107. 17. The delimitation of the units are standard among commenators, readily seen in the text. The circumstances surrounding “creation” (vv. 19-22), “ourselves” (vv. 23-25), and “Spirit” (vv. 26-27) form natural degrees of separation, but hold the argument together overall under the limitations of the present order. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 108-109, expands on this noting the parallels in the units. 18. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 107. Important is the separation between vv. 12-17 and v. 18: “V. 18 hat im Blick auf das Folgende die Funktion einer These. Es handelt sich also nicht nur um eine Überleitung zu V. 17 (bzw. den Versen 12-17), sondern um eine Aussage, die in den sich anschließenden Versen gestützt werden soll. 19. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 133.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

105

wrapped around the Wortfeld of ἀγάπη, something Paulsen sees mapped out in detail in vv. 28-39.20 Paulsen also maintains that οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι signals a break between vv. 18-27 and vv. 28-39 seeing it as “dabei klingt das Leitmotiv des Folgenden in dem ἀγαπᾶν von V. 28 schon an.” As such, Paul begins a new section that centers attention on ἀγάπη as it relates to vv. 28-39.21 However, Paulsen’s assertion that vv. 31-39 be included with vv. 28-30 becomes problematic. The main problem with this view is that it does not take into account the close relationship between vv. 28-30 and vv. 23.2627.22 Additionally, focusing on οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι becomes problematic given that it also occurs in v. 22. It would seem necessary under Paulsen’s argument to make different units between vv. 19-21 and v. 22, but this does not work.23 This undermines the validity of the thesis that separates it from vv. 18-27. As others point out, vv. 28-30 form a natural conclusion to the preceding material.24 Two particular points arise linking vv. 28-30 with 18-27, the use of δόξα/δοξάζω (vv. 18.21.30) missing in vv. 31-39, and the reference to sonship (vv. 19.21.23.29), which also is not dealt with in vv. 31-39. Again, this shows that the connections between vv. 18-27 and 28-30 suggest that Paul’s argument continues in the verses 28-30, setting the stage for concluding material in vv. 31-39. Considerable attention has been given to the role 8,31-39 has in the first chapters of Romans. Cranfield considers it the conclusion of the first eight chapters.25 Others note the rhetorical elements it portrays, acting as the peroratio of the material begun in 8,1, but also points back to 5,1.26 The rhetorical nature of the text’s beginning disassociates it from vv. 28-30 in that it forms a new section, answering to the issues related to the previous pericope and as suggested, into the earlier chapters of the letter. While vv. 3139 begin a new pericope, they do work with the preceding material, as Balz notes: “Die Doxologie von Röm 8,31 ff geht organisch aus den bekenntnishaften Aussagen von V. 28-30 hervor.”27 That Paul continues the thought 20. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 133. 21. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 134-177. 22. This will be considered more below. 23. For more on this see Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 66. 24. Cf. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 587. “With these words Paul concludes the argument that began in 6:1, and more especially the part of the argument first expressed in 7:6 and picked up again in 8:1. There remains only the application, in vv. 31-39.” 25. Cranfield, Romans, 434. See also Dunn, Romans 1-8, 497; Moo, Romans, 537-538; Byrne, Romans, 247-275. 26. Andreas H. Snyman, “Style and Meaning in Romans 8:31-39,” Neot 18 (1984): 218231, 227. Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 49-51. 27. Balz, Heilsvertrauen, 116.

106

CHAPTER THREE

makes sense, as he wants to finish the overall thesis he began earlier, but it does not mean that vv. 28-30 are part of that conclusion; rather, their location in the previous pericope sets the stage for a series of application statements that he lists in vv. 31-39, which becomes a new section. 3.2.3. Rom 8,17-30 Peter von der Osten-Sacken proposes that Rom 8,17 forms the beginning of the pericope, though he isolates it to 8,17c (εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν). He sums up his position with the following: Mit dem Bedingungssatz V. 17c nennt Paulus nun zwar die Voraussetzung, von der her er die Glaubenden Miterben Christi nennt. Aber diese Voraussetzung ist weniger entfaltet, als vielmehr in Form einer Bedingung angeführt. Diese Bedingung bedarf durchaus einer Begründung, und wie das γάρ sowie die Aufnahme der Begriffe συμπάσχειν und συνδοξάζεσθαι durch παθήματα und δόξα zeigen, erhält sie diese Begründung zumindest formal auch mit V. 18.28

The formal connection considers v. 17c as not completing the previous thought and thus in need of explication. This would occur by detailing the suffering/glory contrast (v. 18-30). Paul advances the idea that those who share suffering with Christ and subsequently share in glory with Christ (v. 17c) find the present reality of their condition wanting (vv. 18-30), but have the hope that the reality will be realized at some point (vv. 23-25).29 For Osten-Sacken, v. 17 acts as the theme of the section, linking the material Paul set forth in vv. 14-17 with that of vv. 18-30. In many respects, it acts as the lynchpin linking them.30 Von der Osten-Sacken’s proposal has merit, as one recognizes the continuation of thought between vv. 17-18, especially given that sharing in suffering and glory (v. 17) are addressed in v. 18 with the notion that those who suffer will do so for a short time and it will not compare to the glory 28. Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 138. 29. Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 138. “Die eine kommt in der Präposition συν- zum Ausdruck, die – συγκληρονομοι entsprechend – die Christusgebundenheit von Leiden und Verherrlichtwerden festhält. Der zweite bestehlt im Aufweis der eschatologischen Finalität des Mitleidens. Die Durchsicht der folgenden Ausführungen lehrt, daß der durch die Präposition angezeigte Aspekt erneut ausdrücklich in dem Abschnitt Röm. 8,28-30 (V. 29: συμμορφος) zur Geltung gebracht wird.” 30. Von der Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 139. “Mit diesem Satz bezeichnet Paulus in V. 17 die Voraussetzung, von der her er die Glaubenden Miterben Christi nennt. Auf ihre Miterbschaft als Ziel der Gleichgestaltung kommt er in V. 29 wieder zurück. Man wird deshalb als Thema des ganzen Abschnittes Röm 8,14-30 formulieren können: Die vom Geist bestimmten Gottessöhne sind Miterben Christi.”

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

107

coming. At the same time, including v. 17c in the pericope is rather awkward given the construction of v. 18 where λογίζομαι γὰρ ὅτι signals a development of the previous comment. One could argue that Paul builds a rhetorical base in v. 17c that expands into v. 18, but that fails to account for the relationship of 17c with the previous material (vv. 14-17b). V. 17c more naturally completes the thought of vv. 14-17b, and points to the application of sharing in the suffering and glory of Christ as it would be elucidated in v. 18. Then, Paul expands on the material of v. 18 in the examples found in vv. 19-30. 3.2.4. Rom 8,18-30 The final option to be considered is a delimitation of vv. 18-30.31 While other schematizations have been posited,32 this is the most plausible delimitation for the following reasons. First, λογίζομαι γὰρ ὅτι signals a new beginning, for the transition from second to first person is significant.33 In 8,1-8, Paul moves from third person (vv. 1-3), to first person plural (v. 4) and back to third person (vv. 5-8). In vv. 9-17 the main focus is on the second person with some references to the first person (vv. 12.16-17). While there are third person references in vv. 18-30 (“creation,” “sons of God,” “God”) the predominant focus is on the first person, both singular (v. 18) and plural (vv. 18.22-26.28). The use of the first person continues into vv. 31-39 with additional references to the third person. The point though, is that with λογίζομαι γὰρ ὅτι one sees a marked transition from the previous section. Paul answers the statement from v. 17c, where the sharing in suffering and glory is realized in the momentary suffering of the present world, but ameliorated by the glory that is to come (v. 18). Paul refers to λογίζομαι in other texts in Romans (Rom 2,23.26; 3,28; 4,3.4.5.6.8.9.10.11.22.23.24; 6,11; 8,36; 9,8; 14,14) but only as first person singular in 8,18 (cf. 2 Cor 10,2; 1 Pet 5,12). Cranfield sees it as indicating firm convictions,34 while Hans-Wolfgang Heidland considers it along 31. The delimitation is by far the most common. See for example, Theodor Zahn, “Die seufzende Creatur, Röm 8,18-23: mit Rücksicht auf neuere Auffassungen,” JDTh 10 (1865): 511-542, 515; Jan Lambrecht, “Present World and Christian Hope: A Consideration of Rom. 8:18-30,” Jeev 8 (1978): 29-30; Christofferson, Earnest Expectation, 141; Dunn, Romans, 464-467. 32. See for instance, Bolt, “Between Creation and Redemption,” 34-51, 42; Christofferson, Earnest Expectation, 143. 33. For more on Paul’s use of person see Karl Dick, Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1900); W. F. Lofthouse, “Singular and Plural in St. Paul’s Letters,” ExpT 58 (1953): 241-245. 34. Cranfield, Romans, 408.

108

CHAPTER THREE

the lines of sound judgment adjudicated by faith/faithfulness.35 Paulsen considers λογίζομαι introducing the thesis of the section.36 Therefore, Paul begins this new section in answer to the previous, but concerned with different issues affecting creation (vv. 19-22), ourselves (vv. 23-25), and the Spirit’s aid in overcoming weakness (vv. 26-27) with the knowledge that God’s work has a purpose (vv. 28-30). Second, as mentioned above, the unit vv. 31-39 moves into a new direction and therefore vv. 28-30 complete the pericope. Paul began with suffering giving way to glory (v. 18), moves through present trouble with eschatological dimensions of glorification (vv. 19-27), and ends with a summary statement that gives the context for God’s acts in the world (vv. 28-30). As far as the theme and thesis of the section are concerned, it divides into five main sections (v. 18, vv. 19-22, vv. 23-25, vv. 26-27, and vv. 28-30).37 Within this scheme, Harry Hahne has developed the following model: 0. Transition: believers share in the present suffering of Christ and will share in the future glory of Christ (v. 17). 1. Thesis: the present suffering is insignificant compared with the future glory of believers (v. 18). 2. Hope of future amidst present sufferings: a. All creation groans in suffering, yet looks forward with hope to future glory (v. 19-22). b. Believers groan as they await in hope the future redemption of their bodies (v.v. 23-25). c. The Spirit’s groaning in intercession helps believers in this age of suffering (vv. 26-27). 3. Confident assurance of the coming glory (vv. 28-30).38

Hahne provides several convincing points of contact with the text. First, there is the connection between vv. 17 and 18. Verse 17 acts as a bridge into the pericope and forms the underlying basis for the suffering and coming glory.39 Second, his thesis focuses on the present condition of the world as 35. Hans-Wolfgang Heidland, “λογίζομαι, λογισμός,” in TDNT (Vol IV; Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 284-292, 284. 36. Paulsen, Überlieferung, 112. 37. This breakdown of what Gieniusz calls micro-units is accepted by a majority of scholars. Cf. Balz, Heilsvertrauen, 36-91; Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 87-88; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 570-571; Hahne, Corruption and Redemption, 170; Jewett, Romans, 506507. 38. Hahne, Corruption and Redemption, 175. 39. The language connects the two verses together. First of all, Paul connects the passage with λογίζομαι γὰρ ὅτι. This pulls the discussion from the previous pericope into the current one. Additionally, suffering/glory language permeates both texts with συμπάσχω and συνδοξάζω in v. 17, and πάθημα and δόξα in v. 18.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

109

Paul sees it, but also projects it toward a glorified state. Third, the subsets of κτίσις, ἑαυτοῦ, and πνεῦμα under the rubric of future glory in the midst of sufferings play a central role in the interconnectivity of the passage. Finally, the culmination of the passage finds hope for the future in the coming glory of vv. 28-30. The use of eight ἀπο-compounds, nine συν-compounds, and the five προ-compounds suggests that the text is a unified whole. Important for the discussion is σύν itself, for it has the meaning of “with.”40 The compounds come out in a number of contexts and Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd point out: For example, συμμαρτυρεῖ (witness together with) in 16; συγκληρονόμοι (suffer together with), συνδοξασθῶμεν (glorify together with) in 17; συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει (groan and travail together with) in 22; συναντιλαμβάνεται (help together with) in 26; συνεργεῖ (works together with) in 28; and συμμόρφους (conformed together with) in 29. In verses 16-17 as well as 29, human persons are “together with” the Spirit and Christ. In verses 22 and 28, the pairings are more generic, i.e., “creation” and “all things.” If humanity can be together with divinity, it would seem that humanity could also be together with creation. If the Spirit can witness together with “our spirit,” it would seem the Spirit could also witness together with the spirit of all creation.41

Therefore, “Paul makes use of the verbs compounded with the preposition συν- to designate the harmony of the groaning of creation together with humanity in its longing for a glorious destiny.”42 The ἀπο-compounds not only tie the pericope together but also point to a future direction. Paul uses ἀπεκδέχομαι three times (vv. 19.23.25) and uses the ἀποκαραδοκία (v. 19) to highlight the idea of hopeful waiting. Phil 1,20 uses ἀποκαραδοκία with ἐλπίς, which is similar to how Paul uses the term in Romans 8. Thus, it is concluded that “the word expressed confident expectation: ἐλπίς denotes the well-founded hope in and ἀποκαραδοκία unreserved waiting.”43 The interplay between expectation and hope in Romans 8 expresses itself fully in the notion that the consequences of the fall will be overturned in 40. Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Biblical Languages: Greek; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 174. He writes, “σύν seems to imply at least in its fundamental sense the idea of like things being ‘with’ each other.” 41. Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, “The Voice of the New Creation: A FutureOriented Biblical Ecological Hermeneutics,” paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Washington (18 November 2006), abstracts, 274. 42. Fitzmyer, Romans, 509. 43. G. Delling, ἀποκαραδοκία, in TDNT (Vol I; G. Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI/London: Eerdmans, 1964), 393.

110

CHAPTER THREE

the future and both creation and believers will share in the coming hope. In addition, the future ἀποκάλυψις (v. 19) is used to further drive the hopeful expectation to a longed for future reality. What creation longs for is described in τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται, since when this happens creation will be liberated from its bondage to corruption (ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς).44 In the end, the compounds using ἀπο further augment the thread of inquiry Paul uses to integrate the entire passage into a single argument, and envelops the passage around a future orientation where at some point in the future the present distress inflicted upon both creation and believer will be transformed into glory. In conclusion, the most natural textual delimitation for the pericope consists of vv. 8,18-30. The use of λογίζομαι καὶ ὅτι evidences a new line of thought, albeit connected to the previous one. The verbs connect the passage together and show continuity therein. Finally, a new line of thought commences once again in 8,31 where Paul moves the discussion forward (τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα). While building upon what he said previously, Paul does take the direction into a discussion of God acting for those who are his own against those who oppose them.

3.3. ROM 8,26-27 IN

THE

CONTEXT OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Regardless of the delimitation, the unit is set within the greater chapter of Romans 8 and connects the passage to Rom 5,1-11.45 A number of parallels exist between 5,1-11 and Romans 8 including ἀγάπη (5,5.8; 8,35.39), δικαιόω (5,1.9; 8,30.33), δόξα / δοξάζω (5,2; 8,18.21.30), ἐλπίς / ἐλπίζω (5,2.4-5; 8,20.24), θλῖψις (5,3; 8,35), σῴζω (5,9-10; 8,24), and ὑπομονή (5,3-4; 8,25).46 Proponents of the exodus motif underlying the pericope also find connections between Romans 4 and 8.47 Paul develops a thought line that began in 1,18-20 that extends throughout the letter that in some ways culminates in 8,18-30 with 8,31-39 acting as a sort of benedictory statement 44. For a detailed analysis of the revealing of the sons of God see Hahne, Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 183-186. He engages with the question of who the sons of God are and concludes they are glorified believers with Christ (186). 45. Jewett, Romans, 506. 46. Cf. Harvey, Listening to the Text, 125-126. 47. See Wright, “New Exodus, New Inheritance,” 26-35. Wright contends that the exodus event is behind Paul’s writing in Romans and connects the Abrahamic sequence to the latter chapters via this trajectory. For a more sustained argument on the exodus connection see Keesmaat, Paul and his Story.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

111

before he begins a new section in chapter 9.48 This section considers how Rom 8,26-27 works within the greater letter, breaking it into four sections: Romans 1-4, 5-8, 9-11, and 12-16. The structural breaks are rather artificial, but in order to examine the material one has to decide on sections.49 3.3.1. Romans 1-4 Longenecker subdivides the chapters into several units: 1,1-17.18-3,20 and 3,21-4,25.50 J. Paul Sampley takes 1,18-4,25 together, and considers it the body of the chapters following the introduction (1,1-17).51 Sampley sets forth that the Roman believers, constituting both Jews and gentiles faced the same problem of sin.52 To counter this problem, God bestowed grace upon them resulting in his acceptance of them.53 Paul uses the story of Abraham to reinforce his point, showing that Abraham did not find justification through works (Rom 4,2 – εἰ γὰρ Ἀβραὰμ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη), but through belief in God (Rom 4,3 – ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ), and as a result ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (Rom 4,3).54 Sampley concludes that in 1:18-4:25 Paul “lays out a two-sided portrayal of how Roman Jews and Roman Gentiles, equally under the power of sin, were also equally dependent on God’s grace in Jesus Christ for their resulting peace with God.”55 When considering how Rom 8,26-27 fits into Romans 1-4, a number of factors arise. First, the question of the identity of the community becomes important because Paul speaks of the Spirit helping our weakness (v. 26), which becomes a question of who he refers to with the reference. Additionally, Paul mentions that the Spirit intercedes ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, which again raises the question of who this refers to more than simply stating that it was the ones to whom he wrote.56 The identity of the audience of the letter has 48. The complexities of the interplay in the letter are considerable. For a survey of thought lines, epistle arrangement, and stylistic structural elements, see Jewett, Romans, 1-39. 49. There is no intention here to provide a structural analysis of the letter. 50. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 355-367. 51. J. Paul Sampley, “Romans in a Different Light: A Response to Robert Jewett,” in Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans (SBLSymS 23; David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds.; Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2002), 109-129, 121-122. 52. Sampley, “Romans in a Different Light,” 121. 53. Sampley, “Romans in a Different Light,” 121. 54. Sampley, “Romans in a Different Light,” 121. 55. Sampley, “Romans in a Different Light,” 121. 56. This issue will be treated in later chapters. Cf. Michael Paul Middendorf, The “I” in the Storm: A Study of Romans 7 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1997), 120-129. Middendorf deals with the topic in particular with the first-person usages, but also delves into the identity

112

CHAPTER THREE

been one of importance through the years.57 In Rom 1,7 Paul writes πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις. Dunn points to the importance of πᾶσ as it either shows that factionalism or some tension had encompassed the Roman community, or that the church in Rome was too large to meet together.58 Important for Rom 8,26-27 is that Paul calls them ἅγιος, a word that comes back several times speaking of God’s holy ones (Rom 1,7; 8,27; 12,13; 15,25-26.31; 16,2.15; cf. 1 Thess 3,13; 1 Cor 1,2; 6,1-2; 14,33; 16,1.15; 2 Cor 1,1; 8,4; 9,1.12; 13,12; Phil 1,1; 4,21-22; Phlm 5.7).59 The allusions in 1,7 and 8,27 along with 16,15 point to the church in Rome. It stands to reason then that Paul’s statement in 8,27 is directly tied to 1,7 as far as the identity of being ἅγιος. This does not suggest that 8,28 was dependent upon 1,7 as the distance between the two texts would stretch the memory of the most versed person, but what can be derived is that the identity of the Roman believers was considered as ἅγιος. The constant interplay of Jew and gentile comes out through the chapters as well, causing much discussion on what Paul means by the terms.60 The Roman Christ community would have related to the message Paul brought, and as the called ones made up of different ethnicity they would have seen the point Paul was making in showing the inability of either the Jews (Rom 2,17-3,8) or the gentiles (Rom 1,18-32; 2,8-9) to obtain the favor of God apart from Christ and faith in him or faithfulness to him (Rom 1,4-6.16-17; 3,21-24; 4,24-25). Leon Morris shows that Paul turns his attention to the example laid out by Abraham to ultimately prove his point, that even the great patriarch did not find favor in his own righteousness, but through faith/faithfulness in God (Rom 4,3.16-18).61 Thus, Paul speaks to the identity of the Roman community by use of the examples of the greater Jewish and gentile worlds. of the first plural in Romans 8 (127-129). See also David Alan Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and its Cognates in the Pauline Literature (American University Studies; New York et al.: Peter Lang, 1984), 190-191; Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 212-214; Jan Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation (Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 14; Louvain: Peeters/Eerdmans, 1992), 115-124. 57. Cf. Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 53-113. 58. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 19. 59. This does not take into consideration when ἅγιος is linked with πνεῦμα. Also, it should be noted that the only time ἅγιος specifically refers to the people in Rome is 1,7; 8,27; 16,15, and possibly 12,13 and 16,2 though those cases could be more broadly construed. 60. See the discussion in Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “ἔθνος in the NT,” in TDNT (Vol II; Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 369-372; Walter Gutbrod, “Ἰουδαῖος,” in TDNT (Vol III; Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 369-383, 380-383. Cf. also the previous chapter’s discussion on the Romans Debate. 61. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 193.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

113

Paul’s self-identification comes out in the first chapters in similar fashion as what we see in Romans 8. The first person is prominent in 1,1-17, switches to third person in 1,18-32, then moves to second person in 2,1-29 with intermittent third person uses in places (2,12-16). Paul then contrasts first person and second/third persons in chapter 3, and ends it up with the third person in the character of Abraham in chapter 4. The first person returns in chapters 5-8. While Paul allies himself with the Romans in 8,26, his introduction focuses on him more, thus the prominence of first person singular throughout 1,1-7. The use of the first person plural in 3,1-8.19-20.27-31 puts the Roman community in solidarity with Paul, at least on the surface. Second, divine intervention comes out in several places in Romans 1-4, including God’s wrath being revealed against ungodliness and unrighteousness (Rom 1,18), and the power of God being revealed (Rom 1,16-17). John Murray points out that the word ἀποκαλύπτω occurs in both vv. 17 and 18 linking them together, but the distinct emphasis on each contrasts their uses.62 The nuances of meaning come through when considering that a positive revealing occurs in v. 17 where God’s righteousness is revealed; while a negative revealing occurs in v. 18 where the wrath of God is the result. God acts through the revealing in a way that Paul sees as a divine intervention into the natural order of life. Morris points out that the onus of responsibility is upon God, not only to act to bring salvation (v. 16), but also to reveal what cannot be found outside of him (v. 17), and extends wrath to ungodliness (ἀσέβεια) and unrighteousness (ἀδικία).63 While not discounting the place of the Law, Paul emphasizes that God is the one who works in the world judging it and redeeming it (Rom 1,34.16-17.18-20.28; 3,5.19.21-23.30-21; 4,17.21). Through Christ, God has put in place a plan to redeem the world that neither the Law nor circumcision could realize alone (Rom 2.25-29; 3,21-26). In discussing 3,26, Jewett contends that the καί separating δίκαιον and δικαιοῦντα is explicative, “where the main theme is God’s righteousness that establishes a new, inclusive system of atonement.64 Paul continues the idea of God intervening in the world in Rom 8,26-27 where weakness has affected believers in such a way that the only way forward is through divine intervention. God at work in the community forms an important element in Paul’s unfolding of the letter (Rom 1,8-10). 62. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 35. 63. Morris, Romans, 66-72, 75-77. 64. Jewett, Romans, 292. He holds that the explicative sense works best in 3,26 while showing that other possibilities do exist with good support; namely, 1) copulative, 2) intensive, ascensive, or concessive, and 3) instrumental.

114

CHAPTER THREE

Third, τὸ πνεῦμα comes out in several places in Romans 1-4, but not nearly as prominent as in Romans 8. The purpose here is not to discuss those uses that refer to an anthropological spirit (Rom 1,9),65 but to focus attention on where Paul uses it similarly to Romans 8. In Rom 1,4 Paul states with regard to Jesus Christ τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. It is by no means certain that the phrase κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης has the same meaning as τὸ πνεῦμα in other places as the divine Spirit or human spirit, but one sees the same sort of spirit at work in the passage. The identity of the true Jew is the focus of Rom 2,29 where Paul maintains that circumcision of the heart is the mark of true faith/faithfulness. This contrasts with the view that outward manifestations are limited in their ability to change the person. Instead, Paul posits that the true work occurs in the heart via the Spirit. He uses ἐν πνεύματι as the antithesis of in γράμματι (cf. Rom 7,6), an allusion that points to the Jewish ideal of the circumcised heart (Deut 10,16; Jer 4,4; 9,25-26; 31,31-34; Ezek 26,26-27; 1QS 5.5; 1QH 2.18; 18.20; Jub 1.23), the fulfillment of which Paul saw realized in Christ (Rom 5,1.5; 7,6; Phil 3,3; cf. Col 2,8-15).66 In 2,29, Paul points to the detailed analysis he provides on the topic in 2 Corinthians 3.67 Paul saw the Corinthians as ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν … ἐγγεγραμμένη οὐ μέλανι ἀλλὰ πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος, οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶν λιθίναις ἀλλ᾿ ἐν πλαξὶν καρδίαις σαρκίναις (3,2-3). He goes further in v. 6 where he discusses the new covenant (καινός διαθήκη)68 and the letter/Spirit contrast (οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος) where the letter kills (τὸ γὰρ γράμμα 65 Cf. Peter Wick, Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste: Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel, Synagogen, und Hausfrömmigkeit (BWANT 150; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 175-176. See also Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 485 who argues that while Paul refers to an anthropological spirit in 1,9, it must be understood that the Spirit of God is the one working in Paul’s own spirit. 66. Cf. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 123-125, 127-128. 67. By no means is it posited that the Roman community would have known of that letter or his argument there. Paul brought this out from his previous thinking without elaborating on the topic. From this perspective, one sees the topic more in line with Paul’s own thinking rather than in the Roman community’s knowledge of the same, though they would have understood if a Jewish contingent was in the community. For a detailed analysis of the connection between Romans and 2 Corinthians see Dennis, “The Letter and the Spirit,” 109129. 68. Cf. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 270-271. Harris points out that καινός̀ διαθήκη occurs only here and 1 Cor 11,25 in Paul (cf. Lk 22,20; Mt 26,28 without καινός; Mk 14,24 without καινός) and that Paul took his idea on 2 Cor 3,6 from the Lord’s Supper tradition of 1 Cor 11,25. At the same time, Paul took the expression originally from Jer 38,31 LXX.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

115

ἀποκτέννει) but the Spirit brings life (τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ). It is not Paul’s intention to completely denigrate and disregard the Law since it came with glory (2 Cor 3,7); rather to show how much more the ministry of the Spirit comes with more glory (2 Cor 3,8-11).69 The articulation of the Spirit and the letter in 2 Corinthians 3 is an important element of Paul’s understanding of the new covenant in Christ,70 a point that he refers to in Rom 2,29 and develops further in Romans 8. Back to Rom 2,29: Paul develops a thought to show that true faith/ faithfulness occurs in the Spirit and not of the letter, a point that would be reinforced especially in Romans 5-8, particularly the new life of the Spirit found in Christ (Rom 8,2). Fee sums it up by stating: “All of this suggests, then, that the Spirit is mentioned here as the way God now creates a people for his name, who will walk in his paths in fulfillment of the promised new covenant.”71 Paul understands God’s working in the midst of his people through the work of the Spirit. He does not negate the Law instead he accentuates the Law by adding the Spirit’s work into the equation. The Law served its purpose in Pauline understanding and now the Spirit works in harmony with the will of God revealed in Christ (cf., Gal 3,1-5). Though specific allusions to the Spirit in Romans 1-4 are limited, what arises particularly from 2,29 is that Paul had in mind a new life found in Christ, which was mediated by the Spirit; a point that he will address again in 7,6. Paul tackles a number of issues in the first chapters of the letter that interface with chapter 8 as shown. He would only expand on this as he moved forward into Romans 5-8, points that will be addressed next. 3.3.2. Romans 5-8 The transition from Romans 1-4 to 5-8 is marked by οὖν linking the material to the previous section, but also signaling the beginning of a new section. Murray points out that the opening infers that what had been unfolded (3,21-4,25) now shows the results of being emancipated (5,1-11 in particular).72 Some commentators maintain that chapters 5-8 continues Paul’s thought but in a new direction, with the first part of chapters 1-4 69. For more on this see Reimund Bieringer and Emmanuel Nathan, “Paul, Moses, and the Veil: Paul’s Perspective on Judaism in Light of 2 Corinthians 3,” in Paul’s Jewish Matrix (Bible in Dialogue 2; Thomas G. Casey – Justin Taylor, eds.; Roma: G&BP, 2011), 201228. 70. For more on this see Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), 170-178; Harris, 2 Corinthians, 270-275. 71. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 492. 72. Murray, Romans, 158. See also Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 158-159.

116

CHAPTER THREE

addressing sin and justification, while chapters 5-8 deals specifically with sanctification.73 Romans 5-8 relates to Rom 8,26-27 in a number of ways. First, there are connections between Rom 5,1-11 and Rom 8,18-30.74 The most poignant example is the use of hope and Spirit in both passages. As a result of being justified by faith/faithfulness (5,1 – δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως), Paul states that εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.75 This completes the thought of the previous verses (4,23-25) and in effect addresses the issues raised with the Jews and gentiles in Romans 23. Abraham’s example of finding justification through belief in God is the same experience for Paul and the believers in Rome with the additional caveat of the action mediated διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.76 This point shows that Jesus Christ is the means by which a believer accesses the faith/ faithfulness.77 While a believer will face trials those trials serve the purpose of bringing hope to the believer, which in turn validates God’s victory over adversaries (5,2.4-5).78 The use of hope in 5,2.4-5 continues the line of inquiry begun in 4,18, which Paul builds upon throughout various sections of the letter (Rom 8,20.24-25; 12,12; 15,4.13.24). Hope coupled with glory in 5,2 reminds the reader of what Paul does with glory in 8,18; although suffering exists (5,3-4; 8,18-30.35-39) the future to come for believers is promising (5,5-10; 8,1.6.24-25.37; cf. 4,16-25). Along with hope in chapter 5 the holy Spirit comes to the fore (5,5). Paul uses διά three times in Rom 5,1-5, each time in the form of an agency relationship to the passage. In 5,1, Jesus Christ is the agent used by God to bring justification, a point that continues in 5,2 where he is seen as the agent that gives believers access to the faith/faithfulness. The other use of διά is found in 5,5 where the holy Spirit is the agent (διά πνεύματος ἁγίου)79 God uses to pour his love into believers’ hearts (ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν 73. Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 367. 74. Jewett, Romans, 521. Jewett notes that Paul “had already established in 5:3-5 that the Spirit sustains perseverance in response to persecution, thus producing a firm ‘character’ that remains hopeful because it is certain of God’s love in the most adverse of circumstances.” 75. NA28 is followed here noting the discussion between the indicative and subjunctive of ἔχω. It is not necessary here to investigate the issues related to this, but note that the subjunctive does have support. Cf. Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 158 n. 1. 76. Cf. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 124-154. 77. From this perspective, 5,2 refers to Jesus Christ as the one who gives access to the faith/faithfulness and therefore δι᾿ οὗ refers to him. 78. Cf. Bernard Weiss, Der Brief an die Römer (9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899); Schlier, Römerbrief, 149; Dunn, Romans 1-8, 252. 79. The διά here with the genitive is instrumental.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

117

ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν). This places Jesus Christ and the Spirit in authoritative proximity as the means God uses to accomplish his goals. Also, the love being poured into the hearts80 is an important motif in Romans as the heart plays a part in the overall flow of the letter (cf. Rom 1,21.24; 2,5.15.29; 5,5; 6,17; 8,27; 9,2; 10,6.8-10; 16,18). J. Christiaan Beker provides an overview of how Rom 8,17-30 works in context by emphasizing the role of suffering and triumph in the passage.81 In order to understand the passage one must consider the effects of 7,7-25 where bondage to sin and the flesh become pronounced, but where the effects of the same are overcome in 8,1-17a.82 Beker calls the material in 8,1-17a a representative new order that Paul announces, namely, the Christian Church marked by the work of the Spirit in life and peace.83 The new order wraps around the concept of the Spirit, impacting social realities that turn suffering into triumph.84 It also reformulates the language of family-intimacy (8,15) where God is seen as Father. This moves people from the dominating power structures of their culture into a community of sons and daughters (8,14.16).85 For Beker, an antithesis exists between old and new age, and 8,1-17a forms a crucible element in the transition from the old age of suffering into the new age of triumph.86 At the same time, Beker contends that when one moves into 8,17b-30 the signs of peaceful existence erode, seeming to contradict 8,1-17a, and instead of the triumph envisioned one experiences suffering yet again.87 Beker points out though that the emphasis is on the world in 8,17b-30 whereas the emphasis in 8,1-17a is directed to the Christ follower; therefore, the church becomes aware of the suffering now inflicted upon the world.88 The problems associated with suffering laid out in 8,17b-30 are set within the way forward, its eventual triumph and the tension existing between the old and new age once 80. One can maintain that καρδία refers to the inner recesses of the person, the place of understanding and knowledge, and not the actual physical organ. For more on καρδία see Jewett, Romans, 356. 81. J. Christiaan Beker, “Suffering and Triumph in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” HBT 7 (1985): 105-117, 109-110. 82. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 109. Beker includes 8,17b with vv. 18-30. 83. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 109. 84. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 109-110. 85. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 110. 86. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 110. He notes that “the picture is that of the church against the world, and separated from the world, removed as well – it seems – from the suffering of the world” (it. orig.). 87. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 110. 88. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 110. “Suddenly the windows of the church are opened up to the world and its suffering.”

118

CHAPTER THREE

again.89 The church in its separated and distinct situation from the world “is here juxtaposed by a picture of the church for the world, i.e., by a Church in solidarity with the world and its suffering.”90 Hope becomes the important concept, for while suffering exists presently in the created world, and thereby also impacting those who follow Christ, the hope that will come envisions a world where the suffering of creation will end (v. 21), and the triumph of God will be realized (vv. 18-19.21.25.30).91 The connection between the purpose and function of 8,1-17a and that of 8,17b-30 surfaces instead of a contradiction in terms. Rom 8,1-17a serves as an answer to the problems associated with 7,7-25, and 8,17b-30 as further enhancement of the triumph inaugurated by the Spirit through those following Christ. The idea of having something “within the believer” forms an element in Rom 8,9 where the Spirit of God dwells “within the believer” (εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν). Barrett maintains that Paul redefines what it means to be part of God’s people, that the Spirit as an invisible force of God works outside of the person to make them a Christ follower.92 The concept of the Spirit working within the believer permeates Romans 8 and culminates in the Spirit’s work via prayer and intercession in 8,26-27. While this will be considered more in subsequent chapters the point is that Romans 5 begins a series of thoughts that would accentuate the argumentation of Romans 8. Even though a believer has found access to God in Christ, this does not exempt him or her from facing suffering in the present world. The theme of weakness, suffering, and trial permeates Romans 5-8.93 Problems surrounded the people of the first century CE, and how to cope with such issues concerned the writers of the day. They would face trials and tribulations (5,3; 6,19, 7,5; 8,18-27.35-39), they would be lacking in some way (5,6; 6,16; 89. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 110. While not Beker’s terminology, one can see that the tension exists between the already and the not yet. That present suffering has already been overcome (8,1-17a) and the suffering that is to be overcome (8,17b-30). 90. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 110. 91. Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 110. 92. Barrett, Romans, 149. “Paul is in process of developing a new definition of the Christian life. When he speaks of dying and rising with Christ, and of justification, he is using terms eschatological in origin; now he speaks of the Spirit, contrasting the invisible activity of God himself with the visible word of the flesh. Christians are men whose lives are directed from a source outside themselves.” 93. A number of studies have commented on the issue of suffering and weakness in the ancient world and in Paul. In part, see Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 129-172; idem. “Paulus Infirmus: The Pauline Concept of Weakness,” Grace Theological Journal 5 (1984): 77-93; Beker, “Suffering and Triumph,” 105-119; Erwin Ochsenmeier, Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1-3: Étude, exégétique et théologique (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007); idem., “Romans 1:11-12: A Clue to the Purpose of Romans?” ETL 83 (2007): 395406.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

119

8,5.26-27.35-39), they were opposing God (5,10; 6,19; 8,8), death was rampant (5,12-14.17; 6,21.23; 7,5.10.13; 8,2.6.36), and condemnation occurred through transgression/sin (5,13.15-21; 6,1-3.6-7.12-16.19-20.23; 7,5.8.13-24; 8,2). In 8,26-27 “we”94 face a weakness that causes problems in knowing how to pray. The weakness found in 8,26-27 is similar to what Paul lays out in 8,35 where many problems face believers as they navigate the world around them and follow Christ. While problems exist, God has promised to help and bring comfort. While weakness and suffering surround the world around them, believers take heart in knowing that God acts on their behalf and is on their side (Rom 8,28). Though Paul does not argue that suffering will be eliminated he maintains that in spite of problems believers overcome (8,37). The hope given to believers is found in Christ, a wellspring for the faithful (8,39), and this points to how Paul relates to the broader world of his “brethren” (9,3-5).95 The role Israel plays concerns the following section. 3.3.3. Romans 9-11 In Rom 9,1 Paul writes that he is telling the truth ἐν Χριστῷ, a point that he reemphasizes by stating συμμαρτυρούσης μοι τῆς συνειδήσεώς μου ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. Given its location, it is possible that the Roman readers and listeners would have heard this phrase in the context of Rom 8, 18-39 and that a trigger of sorts would have them pickup a commonality between Rom 8,26-27 and 9,1.96 This derives from the following arguments: First, the συν- compounds συμμαρτυρέω and συνείδησις would remind the audience of the συν- compounds found in 8,22.26.28. Second, coupled with the first idea, the use of πνεύματι ἁγίῳ in 9,1 would remind them of the last time they heard τὸ πνεῦμα, namely, Rom 8,26; consequently the way Paul structured the Spirit working in 8,26 would remind them of the same type of activity in 9,1 given that the Spirit aiding in prayers would cause them to think that activity occurs internally.97 Paul’s appeal to his conscience and specifically in the holy Spirit would cause them to reflect on the internal 94. This will be discussed more in later chapters, but agreement exists with those who take the first person singular pronoun in the verses to include both Paul and the Roman audience (i.e., believers). 95. These and other issues remarked upon this section will be developed in more detail with the exegesis of Rom 8,26a. 96. Consider how Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 251-272, argues that Romans 8-11 is not a separate unit, but forms a continuing argument throughout. 97. Jewett, Romans, 558, points out that a “unique feature of this reference to conscience, when compared with other Pauline passages, is the link with the Holy Spirit.”

120

CHAPTER THREE

dimensions of the activity. Thus, a continuation of thought exists from Romans 8 into 9. Murray shows that the conscience is confirmed by the inward work of the Spirit;98 a point that further emphasizes the connection between the Spirit in 8,26-27 and 9,1. While Paul is moving into another direction here, at the same time Romans 9 is not completely separated from the thought of the previous section. Paul’s continuation of the first-person singular is not unanticipated either, for he does the same in 8,38. This is tied to his frequent use of first person plural throughout Romans 8. It is noted therefore that in 9,4 he moves to the third person where he is reflecting on the Israelite condition.99 The example of Abraham returns in chapter nine though expanded to include Isaac, Sarah, Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh, Isaiah and Hosea interspersed with a number of biblical citations (Gen 18,10; 21,12; 25,23; Exod 4,21; 7,3; 9,12; 10,20; 11,10; 14;4.17; 33,19; Deut 2,30; Is 1,9; 8,14; 13,19; 28,16; Hos 1,10; 2,23).100 Paul’s dependence on the Torah is noted throughout Romans and is pointed in chapters 9-11. Moses’ example is prominent in chapter 10 along with a number of citations from Isaiah (28,16; 52,7; 65,1-2). In chapter 11, Paul moves from Abraham (11,1) to Elijah (11,2-4) then proceeds to exegete a number of biblical texts to support his position (Deut 29,4; 2 Kgs 19,4; Ps 69,22-23; Job 35,7; 41,11; Is 29,10; 40,13; 59,20-21; Jer 31,33). One cannot help but notice the similarities between Rom 8,26-27 and 10,1-13 though there are deep differences as well. Rom 10,1-13 is not dependent on 8,26-27, but connections between the thought lines exist. First, both passages deal with a prayer being offered due to some lack of knowledge on the part of someone. The first person plural aorist middle subjunctive προσευξώμεθα occurs in 8,26, while the nominative singular δέησις is used to speak about Paul’s prayer ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν in 10,1.101 A lack of knowledge is seen 98. Murray, Romans Vol II, 2, “It is to the approval of the conscience that Paul here appeals. He states this, however, in terms of the confirmatory witness borne by conscience. It is most significant that he regards this witness as borne ‘in the Holy Spirit.’ Just as the certification of his earlier assertion is derived from union with Christ, so the veracity of the witness of his conscience is certified by the Holy Spirit. It is only as we are indwelt by the Spirit, and live by the Spirit, only as our minds are governed by the Spirit may we be assured that the voice of conscience is in conformity with truth and right. ‘In Christ’ and ‘in the Holy Spirit’ are correlative and mutually dependant in Paul’s thinking and they are introduced in these consecutive clauses for the purposes indicated and in appropriate connections.” 99. For more on the use of grammatical persons in Romans 8-11 see Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 302-319. 100. Cf. Johann D. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9-11 (SBLDS 176: Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2000). 101. A poorly attested text variant occurs in 10,1 with the insertion of τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἐστιν in place of ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν with the verb. The weight of evidence clearly leans toward ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

121

in both too. Whereas, “we ourselves” in 8,26, do not know how to pray, they have a zeal for God κατ᾿ ἐπίγνωσιν resulting in them not knowing ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην (10,3).102 The contrast between the two is poignant: whereas 8,26-27 alludes to the people submitting to the Spirit who intercedes for them, those in 10,1-3 do not submit to God but instead seek to establish their own. Those who believe are those who have believed that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness (10,4).103 One extrapolates that this line of inquiry in Christ has happened to those in 8,26-27. Second, καρδία forms an important part of both passages (8,27; 10,1.6.810). Paul expresses that it is his heart’s desire to see them saved (ἡ μὲν εὐδοκία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας … ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν εἰς σωτηρίαν). This idea of a prayer expressed through the depth of the hearts runs in line with what happens in 8,27 where the one who searches the hearts knows the mind of the Spirit. That Paul prayed in accordance with God’s will seems to be a given for he seems to treat the issue as one and the same in Rom 8,27 and 10,1. Citing Deut 30,12-14, Paul maintains that a person speaks from the heart (10,6.8-10). In the same way, in 8,27 the heart is the place where the content of prayer exists, for there is one, presumably God, who searches the heart, presumably the believer. The same one also knows the mind of the Spirit, but it seems that the mind of the Spirit works in a complementary fashion with the heart of the person. Therefore, the Spirit knows what is needed at that moment for the person. This is set according to God. Romans 10 brings this out in the salvific context, where the heart and mouth work together in confession and belief resulting in salvation. Thus, the heart aligns itself with the plan of God (10,24), which is similar to what happens in Rom 8,26-27.

with the copyist attempting to clarify the identity of the ones to whom Paul refers. Given the context of chapters 9-11 it is most likely Israel whom Paul has in mind. This is only made clearer when taking into consideration the language of 9,30-33 that contasts ἔθνος (9,30) and Ἰσραήλ (9,31). Additionally, 10,2-4 points to Israel as the ones of whom Paul speaks. Paul speaks of Ἰσραήλ in chs. 9-11 (11×) while using Ἰουδαῖος in chs. 1-3 (9×), though he also uses Ἰουδαῖος in 9,24 and 10,12, but in different contexts than those of Israel. 102. For more on this specific to Romans 9, see Dunn, Romans 9-11, 586. 103. What Paul means by τέλος in 10,4 has been debated. Primarily it can mean termination, fulfillment or end. For a discussion of the issues see Dodd, Romans, 165; Murray, Romans, 49-50; Peter Stuhlmacher, “Das Ende des Gesetzes: Über Ursprung und Ansatz der paulinischen Theologie,” ZTK 67 (1970): 14-39; Morris, Romans, 381; Moo, Romans, 639; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 589-590; Alain Gignac, “Le Christ, τέλος de la Loi (Rom 10,4), une lecture en termes de continuité et de discontinuité, dans le cadre du paradigme paulinien de l’élection,” ScE 46 (1994): 55-81.

122

CHAPTER THREE

3.3.4. Romans 12-16 Paul provides a number of topics relevant to the Roman church in chapters 12-16. The first issue relates to ἅγιος and the identity of the Roman community. First, Moo points out that Paul switches from instruction (chapters 1-11) to exhortation (12,1-15,13), from indicative to imperative.104 Others have shown the importance of ethics to the section,105 culminating in practicing hospitality (12,13) and participating in the Jerusalem collection (15,2529.31; cf. 2 Cor 8,1-5.14-15; 9,2-13).106 It is an open question as to the identity of τοῖς ἁγίοις in 15,31 as they do not appear to be the saints in Jerusalem given that Paul mentions that he hopes that ἡ διακονία μου ἡ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ εὐπρόσδεκτος τοῖς ἁγίοις γένηται. Paul’s references to the saints in Jerusalem 104. Moo, Romans, 744. Cf. Michael Parsons, “Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing,” EvQ 88 (1988): 99-127. 105. The issue of Pauline ethics has a long history. At the same time it is not a topic that has received the same amount of consideration as other Pauline topics (justification, law, and righteousness). For a thorough treatment of the history of interpretation to the 1960s see Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009, originally published 1968). For other treatments of ethics in Paul see Woflgang Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (NTD 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 156-161; Hays, Echoes of Scripture; Brian S. Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 57 (AGaJU 22; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1994); Brian S. Rosner, ed., Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches (Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1995); Douglas Harink, Paul Among the Postliberals (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2003); and David G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics (London/ New York: T&T Clark, 2005). 106. The Jerusalem collection and how it relates to the letters of Paul particularly Romans and 2 Corinthians has been the subject of many studies. Among the many works see Charles H. Buck, Jr., “The Collection for the Saints,” HTR 43 (1950): 1-29; Keith F. Nickle, The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy (SBT 48; London: SCM Press, 1966); Klaus Berger, “Almosen für Israel: Zum historischen Kontext der paulinischen Kollekte,” NTS 23 (1976-1977): 180204; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Vol III; EKKNT; Zurich: Benziger, 1982), 129; C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 Corinthians 8:1-9,” CV 32 (1989): 105-109; Charles H. Talbert, “Money Management in Early Mediterranean Christianity: 2 Corinthians 8 and 9,” RExp 86 (1989): 359-370; Dieter Georgi, Der Armen zu gedenken: Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1994); Burkhard Beckheuer, Paulus und Jerusalem: Kollekte und Mission im theologischen Denken des Heidenapostels (EHS.T 611; Frankfurt et al.: Lang, 1997); Stephan Joubert, Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection (WUNT 124: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Paul’s Collection: Chronology and History,” NTS 48 (2002): 95-110; David Downs, The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts (WUNT 2.248; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008); Julien Ogereau, “The Jerusalem Collection as κοινωνία: Paul’s Global Politics of Socio-Economic Equality and Solidarity,” NTS 58 (2012): 364-365; Larry Welborn, “‘That There May Be Equality’: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal,” NTS 59 (2013): 73-90; J. Brian Tucker, “The Jerusalem Collection, Economic Inequality, and Human Flourishing: Is Paul’s Concern the Redistribution of Wealth, or a Relationship of Mutuality (or Both)?” Canadian Theological Review 3 (2014): 52-70.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

123

illustrate that the Roman community would have understood that designation, and would have counted themselves in that number, a point verified by Paul’s references in other parts of the letter (1,7; 8,27; 12,13; 16,2.15). The self-identification of the community as ἅγιος becomes explicit in Rom 16,2.15.107 In 16,2, Paul encourages the Romans to accept Phoebe, whose ministry at the church of Cenchrae (16,1) is noted, and she is to be received in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints.108 To treat her in such a way was to partner with her and help her in the task she was sent to perform in their midst. Paul uses ἅγιος in this passage to identify the Roman community with those separated for God’s purpose.109 In this way, it functions in similar fashion as that in Rom 8,27, and while not being dependent upon each other, each passage serves as an identity marker for the community in its self-identification. Romans 16,15 continues the theme as Paul sends greetings to Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, Olympas and the saints with them. Jewett sees the references to the saints here as a possible reference to Jewish Christianity as Paul uses this reference on other occasions to refer to Jewish Christ followers (Rom 15:25; 1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:12).110 The difficulty in such an interpretation though is put forward by Jewett as the names in the verse show no indication of being Jewish; rather, they are more of Greek in origin.111 What Jewett does draw out with the names and the association with ἅγιος is that the people named were part of the Roman church, probably a 107. While the authenticity of Romans 16 has been the subject of protracted debate, those who hold that Romans 16 was part of the original letter to the Romans and not sent as a letter of greetings to the Ephesians carry the most weight in their arguments. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 57. 108. Cf. Peter Trummer, “ἄξιος, ἀξίως,” EDNT 1 (Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 114. Trummer notes that in this context the word means appropriately, worthily, or suitably so that the church should treat Phoebe in a manner that would support her work. 109. Cf. Murray, Romans, 226; Jewett, Romans, 945. 110. Jewett, Romans, 971. “The congregation greeted in this verse is identified with the sobriquet ‘the saints,’ indicating a possible affinity with the moral agency of conservative Jewish Christianity.” 111. Jewett, Romans, 971-972. Philologos is a Greek name given to either slaves or freedmen, Julia is found in Romans records typically designated to slaves and members of Julian households who were given Roman citizenship, Nereus, also found in Roman records, typically was given to slaves or freedmen, and Olympas points to an origin outside of Rome given its paucity of uses, and most likely also referred to someone who was not free. The mention of Nereus’ sister shows that Paul knew of her and the Roman community knew her at a recognizable level, but Paul might not have known her name. See also Fitzmyer, Romans, 728-752; Gesila Nneka Uzukwu, “The Oneness of Believers: Studying Rom 16,1-16 in the Light of Gal 3,28,” in The Letter to the Romans (BETL 226; Udo Schnelle, ed.; Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009), 779-788.

124

CHAPTER THREE

tenement church.112 Morris sides with Jewett on the idea and mentions that Paul might be referring to an additional house church other than the ones that he has mentioned.113 Second, the role of τὸ πνεῦμα while not as pervasive as in Romans 8 does surface (14,17; 15,13.16.19.30). In the section on clean and unclean, Paul states emphatically that οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (14,17). This is the only time in Romans that Paul refers to ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, a somewhat surprising point given that he does make reference to it in other letters (1 Cor 4,20; 6,9-10; 15,24.50; Gal 5,21; cf. Col 4,11; 2 Thes 1,5). The context of the passage calls for unity in the community, for Paul desires they work for peace and build each other up instead of tearing one another down (14,19-20). Murray points out that the kingdom of God is the place where true believers belong,114 a point that Fee broadens to include both Jew and gentile Christians.115 Murray emphasizes that while the believers have identified themselves with the kingdom of God, and thus became members of it, the focus on the kingdom of God is on the rule of God and following his will: “Thus the mention of God’s kingdom should always have the effect of summoning believers to that frame of mind that will make them amenable to the paramount demand of their calling, the will of God.”116 Paul argues that the kingdom of God is comprised of more than eating and drinking, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, because the holy Spirit is the one who brings righteousness, peace, and joy.117 Fee argues that the preposition ἐν is a locative of sphere, and thus Paul’s point is not so much on the empowering aspect of the Spirit, but the Spirit serves “as the sphere of existence wherein these find expression.”118 Cranfield, however, prefers the instrumental sense that the Spirit is the one bringing righteousness, peace, and joy to fruition.119 At the same time, Paul could have both the instrumental and locative aspects

112. Jewett, Romans, 972. 113. Morris, Romans, 537. 114. Murray, Romans 2, 193. 115. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 618-619. 116. Murray, Romans 2, 193. 117. While it could be argued that ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ could point only to χαρά given its place in the sentence; it is preferred to connect it also to δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη. Hans Conzelmann, “χαίρω,” in TDNT (Vol IX; Gerhard Kittel, ed. and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed.: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 369 n. 90, points out: “The addition of ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ characterises righteousness, peace and joy as blessings of eschatological salvation; there is no reason to relate it to joy alone.” 118. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 620 n. 447. 119. Cranfield, Romans 1, 318 n. 5.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

125

in mind, so argue both Dodd and Dunn.120 The work of the Spirit as the one who produces the righteousness, peace, and joy that enables the community to move beyond food categories and build each other up all the while being the sphere of influence that allows for a unique identity to arise within the community beyond divisive categories underlies the passage. This idea of the Spirit acting as an instrument to bring something about is similar to how Paul constructs Rom 8,26-27 where the Spirit intercedes for the believers in accord with what God wants for the saints. The Spirit is instrumental in bringing about the desired result in both cases. In Rom 15,13, hope, joy, and peace stand in relationship to the power of the holy Spirit. This verse concludes the previous section begun in 14,1, and according to Fee, it “rings off the ‘argument’ of the letter that began in 1:18.”121 Paul continues the Spirit language in vv. 16 and 19. Paul points out that the God of hope is the one that brings joy and peace in believing, in order that the believing will abound in hope in the power of the holy Spirit (15,13). Further, he states in v. 16 that he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, in order that his offering of the gentiles would be sanctified by the holy Spirit. Finally, as an attestation that he has fully preached the gospel of Christ, he points out in v. 19 that power and signs and wonders were part of the mix and were brought about by the power of the Spirit. Parallel ideas between Romans 15, Rom 5,5, and 8,23-26 occur. In 5,5, Paul couples hope and the holy Spirit together, showing that hope does not disappoint and the holy Spirit has been poured into our hearts. Hope stands in 5,5 after a number of trials ensued in 5,3-4. The theme of tribulation wraps itself in the passage, but does not exhaust hope for the believer, since hope is constantly in play. The love of God is expressed through the giving of the holy Spirit and thus hope is actualized in God’s work. Continuing to 8,23-26, hope exists in spite of the problems afflicting the believer. Those who have the first fruits of the Spirit groan within themselves (8,23), but also realize that in hope they have been saved (8,24). The hope is a future oriented one as expressed by v. 24 and seen that its fulfillment has not been accomplished. Paul summarizes it in v. 25 by stating that we hope for what we do not see, but wait for it with a level of perseverance. This is similar to how Paul works the argument in 15,13-19. The bottomline is that the Spirit is the one who works on behalf of the believer and brings to fruition that which is being sought. 120. Dodd, Romans, 218 and Dunn, Romans 9-16, 824. 121. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 622.

126

CHAPTER THREE

3.3.5. Conclusion Through this brief survey of themes one notices how Rom 8,26-27 fits within the broader context of the letter. A number of pertinent themes run in tandem with Paul’s argument in 8,26-27. The identity of the people of the Roman community is an important one to consider with the additional interest in ἅγιος. To whom Paul wrote is an important factor to consider when speaking of how his argument fits into his broader purpose. Additionally, weakness comes in a number of sections in the letters. Linked with suffering and tribulation it helps the weakness felt in 8,26 fit into Paul’s broad strategy, as writing to a corporate body facing unique struggles. Whatever weakness faced the community, it impacted its ability to pray. Finally, the Spirit, while not as prominent as in chapter 8, does come up in significant passages throughout the letter. What the Spirit is and what the Spirit does is an important issue. Rom 14,17 states that the Spirit brings about righteousness, peace, and joy, which helps with understanding what the Spirit aiding in weakness means and how the Spirit intercedes for the saints.

3.4. ROM 8,26A IN ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT The following sections consider how Rom 8,26a fits within the context of the other clauses in 8,26-27.The analysis proceeds with exegesis of each clause in order to understand Paul’s meaning in context. 3.4.1. An Exegetical Analysis of τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν In v. 26a, as a result of “our weakness” (8,26a) we find “ourselves” in the predicament of not knowing how to pray. A number of issues come to the forefront when considering the phrase including the meaning of τί, how προσεύχομαι works, how Paul understands καθὸ δεῖ, and finally what is meant by οὐκ οἴδαμεν? The driving question is how 8,26b-d impacts understanding of 8,26a for one, and for another, how 8,26a impacts the meaning of 8,26b-d, particularly in how the weakness mentioned in 8,26a affects the person’s not knowing how to pray or what to pray for. Cranfield points out the most pressing issue relative to τί προσευξώμεθα in the passage; namely, whether to translate it as what to pray or what to pray for?122 The determining factor concerns how one translates the accusative, 122. Cranfield, Romans, 421.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

127

either as the content of prayer, the actual thing for which one prays,123 or the manner of prayer.124 LaGrange takes the approach that τί functions in the same manner as πῶς in the passage, so the emphasis is on the how over the what of prayer.125 Contradicting Lagrange, Schreiner points out that if Paul wanted to emphasize the how of prayer then he would have used πῶς directly, thus, the importation of how onto τί forces a meaning onto the text Paul did not intend.126 Most scholars hold that τί refers to the content of prayer and not the manner of prayer.127 Therefore, τί προσευξώμεθα in this verse has to do with the actual content of the prayer, so the weakness that inflicted itself upon the believers impacted knowledge of the content of prayer. This reinforces the need to have a detailed understanding of 1) what the Spirit aiding means in v. 26a, and 2) what the weakness entails in v. 26a. Turning attention to prayer itself brings us into contact with a diversity of uses for prayer in the ancient world.128 Samuel Balentine posits that the overall thrust of prayer is a “primary means of communication that binds together God and humankind in an intimate and reciprocal relationship.”129 Balentine traces the development of prayer through the Hebrew Bible and concludes that it started in local social contexts of people and burgeoned into more cultic forms during the monarchy especially as the cult was established in Jerusalem, effectively formalizing religious practice, of which prayer played a primary role.130 Daniel Falk attends to the anthropological nature of prayer when he examines the Prayer of Manasseh, a pentitential individualistic prayer encompassing an invocation, confidence in God, confession, request for forgiveness, a statement of confidence being God will forgive, a vow, and a doxology.131 The anthropological nature of prayers was not limited to individuals however, and Falk shows that this also arose in communal prayers (4Q393 1-2.ii.2-4; 1QS 1.18-2.18; CD 2.27-30).132 123. Cranfield, Romans, 421. 124. Schreiner, Romans, 443. 125. Lagrange, Saint Paul, 211-213. 126. Schreiner, Romans, 443. 127. Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 421; Schreiner, Romans, 443. 128. Cf. Daniel Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 1 – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.); Grand Rapids, MI/Tübingen: Baker/Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 7-56. 129. Samuel E. Balentine, “Prayer,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (David Noel Freedman, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000), 1077. Further, he links prayer to creational design: “Its foundational assumption is the belief that the Creator of the world is both available for human address and committed to a divine-human partnership that sustains, and when necessary restores, the world in accordance with God’s creational design.” 130. Balentine, “Prayer,” 1077. 131. Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 13-14. 132. Falk, “Psalms and Prayers,” 12-16.

128

CHAPTER THREE

As mentioned above the formalization of the cult in Jerusalem ritualized prayer in a more narrow sense, which one picks up when reading the Psalter.133 By 70 CE, set prayers were the normal practice in Judaism, though some rabbis preferred spontaneous prayers.134 James Charlesworth points out that unlike the cultures surrounding them,135 Jewish prayers were not focused on the self-interest of the individual or as he puts it, “pleas for material possessions or rewards, or magical manipulations of a deity who could be controlled by special deeds or words.”136 This can be seen in the prayer of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who resigned themselves to their fate, aligned themselves with God, and would not compromise their belief system in the face of pressure from the king (Dan 3,16-18). At the same time, there is the sense that God does indeed intervene and hear the prayers of his people (3 Baruch 11,3-4; 4 Ezra 8,40; 1 Enoch 83-90; Ps 116,1). The word προσεύχομαι is strongly attested in the NT, but is not the only word used for prayer. In his article on προσεύχομαι, Heinrich Greeven differentiates προσεύχομαι and προσευχή from δέομαι and δέησις.137 While they are closely aligned, the primary meaning of δέομαι and δέησις refers to real asking while προσεύχομαι refers to prayer in the more general sense without need of further qualification.138 While there can be overlaps, the NT bears out that δέομαι and δέησις pertain to concrete requests (cf. Lk 1,13). 133. It is not intended to delve into the exegetical components of assigning time frames for when the Psalter was completed. It is possible that its final form was not finished even at 70 CE with multiple additions being considered. For an analysis of the issues see Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB16; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), xxix-xxx. He concludes that evidence supports an early date of composition, especially when the discoveries of the Ras Shamra texts of the ancient city of Ugarit are factored in and compared to the Psalms as much of the phraseology parallels that found earlier. Dahood contends that the language used shows that the Psalter was composed prior to the prophets. The difficulty lies in the Greek translation though, and Dahood contends that a lengthy gap occurred before the Psalter was translated into Greek. Pointing to the Hodayot’s borrowing of phrases, imagery, and themes of the Psalms, he argues that even the later poems would have been written prior to the third century BCE. He concludes that a pre-exilic date is likely for most of the Psalms with the possibility that some find their original composition during the Davidic period (xxx). 134. For more on this see James H. Charlesworth, “Prayer in Early Judaism,” in ABD (Vol 5; David Noel Freedman, ed.; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992), 449. 135. For more on prayer in Greco-Roman religions see Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 2009), 33, 45-46, 55-56, 71, 88. Prayer in Greco-Roman religion incorporate various elements including petitions, offerings to the the gods, veneration of gods and emperors, and petitions to gods to bring rain and provide fertility to the land. 136. Charlesworth, “Prayer in Early Judaism,” 449. 137. Heinrich Greeven, προσεύχομαι, προσευχή, in TDNT (Vol II; Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 807-808. 138. Greeven, προσεύχομαι, προσευχή ́, 807.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

129

Greeven cautiously concludes that the difference between them pertains to προσεύχομαι being more comprehensive prayer, while δέομαι and δέησις serve in the more limited range of petitionary prayer.139 What did Paul specifically mean by prayer in Rom 8,26, especially in light of the believer’s inability to function properly in it due to a weakness affecting them? The NT has 85 occurrences of προσεύχομαι, and when προσευχή is added the count has an additional 37 uses recorded. Romans 8,26 is the only time Paul uses the word in Romans, but there is incidence in other Pauline literature, particularly 1 Corinthians (11,4.5.13; 14,13-15).140 The word group becomes much stronger in the NT with large incidence rates in the Synoptic Gospels,141 John,142 Acts,143 the General Epistles,144 and the Apocalypse.145 Prayer in the NT runs in tandem with the direction it took in the OT,146 and was modeled on the prayers of Jesus. A number of studies have been undertaken on the role of prayer in Paul.147 Krister Stendahl points out that Paul’s take on prayer is more of prayerful language than actual prayer since Paul’s letters do not contain specific prayers, just gratitude, greetings, hopes, challenges, and his anxieties.148 He cautions against reading Paul’s 139. Greeven, προσεύχομαι, προσευχή, 807. His caution is duly noted when considering 1 Tim 2,1 where the whole range of prayer is being considered and not specific requests. 140. The other occurrences are as follows: in the undisputed Paulines (1 Thes 5,17.25; Phil 1,9) and in the disputed Paulines (Eph 6,18; Col 1,3.9; 4,3; 2 Thes 1,11; 3,1; 1 Tim 2,8). 141. Cf. Matt 16,21; 17,10; 18,33; 24,6; 25,27; 26,35.54; Mk 8,31; 9,11; 13,7.10.14; 14,31; Lk 2,49; 4,43; 9,22; 11,42; 12,12; 13,14.16.33; 15,32; 17,25; 18,1; 19,5; 21,9; 22,7.37; 24,7.26.44. 142. Jn 3,7.14.30; 4,4.20.24; 9,4; 10,16; 12,34; 20,9. 143. Ac 1,16.21; 3,21; 4,12; 5,29; 9,6.16; 14,22; 15,5; 16,30; 17,3; 18,21; 19,21.36; 20,35; 21,22; 23,11; 24,19; 25,10.24; 26,9; 27,21.24.26. 144. Heb 2,1; 9,26; 11,6; 1 Pet 1,6; 2 Pet 3,11. 145. Rev 1,1; 4,1; 10,11; 11,5; 13,10; 17,10; 20,3; 22,6. 146. For helpful treatments of prayer in the OT with subsequent developments through the DSS, early Judaism, and the NT see Judith H. Newman, “Prayer,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Me-R (Vol 4; Katharine D. Sakenfeld, ed.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2009), 579-589. 147. Cf. Armin Dietzel, “Beten im Geist: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Parallele aus den Hodajot zum paulinischen Gebet im Geist,” TZ 13 (1957): 12-32; Oscar Cullmann, “La prière selon les Epîtres pauliniennes,” TZ 35 (1979): 90-101; Krister Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” Int 34 (1980): 240-249; Peter T. O’Brien, “Romans 8:26, 27: A Revolutionary Approach to Prayer?” RTR 46 (1987): 65-73; Donald A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992); W. Bingham Hunter, “Prayer,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 1993), 725-734; Reidar Hvalvik and Karl Olav Sandnes, eds., Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation (WUNT 1.336; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 148. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 240.

130

CHAPTER THREE

understanding of prayer against the anthropomorphic dominance of nineteenth and twentieth century pietism that considered prayer as dialogical.149 Going against this retrojection of dialogical prayer, Stendahl maintains that the center of Paul’s prayer theology was less about the Abba-Father dialogical convention (i.e., Gal 4,6; Rom 8,15), and more akin to the formulation of a unique Christian identity, particularly gentile Christian, that places Christians into the realm of being heirs of God through the activating work of the Spirit on their behalf.150 For Stendahl, standing behind Paul’s solicitation of prayer support is his apostolic mission, the real focal point for his life.151 As the backdrop of a missional strategy, prayer was asked for on various occasions, from dealing with the struggles of life (2 Cor 1,8-11; Phil 1,19) to joining him in struggling for the advancement of his gospel (Rom 15,3032). As a result of the missional context, Paul’s travels become highly significant, and are the hub of where his prayer strategy surfaces, given that during his travels he experienced success, struggle, and illness (1 Thes 2,18; 3,10-11; Gal 4,12-14; 2 Cor 12,1-9; Rom 1,10; 15,23). Commenting on 2 Cor 12,19, Stendahl observes that Paul’s most dramatic prayer stands in relation to his apostolic mission.152 Paul prays three times for the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί to be removed, which Stendahl translates as some sort of handicap resulting from a medical condition.153 Paul accepts his condition, a point that brings prayer into contact with weakness as “now he has learned to accept his handicap as a divine lesson about how his weakness bars him from self-glory. Thus, this insight, won through prayer, becomes a key to his whole theology. Here in the very prayer life of Paul is the root of his famous theology of the cross (cf. II Cor 13:4).” The apostolic mission, driven by the theology of the cross, sets the paradigm of prayer into one that continually works from the mission Paul felt compelled to accomplish. Stendahl also maintains that the problems associated with glossolalia in Corinth (i.e., 1 Corinthians 14) relate to his missional context, and his prayers revolved around his apostolic mission.154 The prayer in chapter 14 149. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 240. 150. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 241. 151. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 242. 152. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 243. “It even seems as if it was exactly in connection with his frustrated effectiveness as a traveling apostle that we find the most intensive and extensive evidence of Paul’s own life of prayer, both in terms of the highest experiences and the most intensive prayer-struggle, that is concerning his heavenly revelations and concerning the thorn in the flesh, the angel of Satan (II Cor 12:1-9).” 153. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 242. Cf. Idem., Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, 42. 154. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 244.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

131

(προσεύχομαι) pertains to rightly ordering the gathering of believers, mentioning that glossolalia should be used when an interpretation is present so that confusion will be averted. The place of glossolalia correlates to the missional strategy for Paul, given that it serves as a sign to those who do not believe (v. 22, ὥστε αἱ γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις). Stendahl’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14 serves as the trajectory he uses to enter into dialogue with Romans 8. Pertinent to the overall concern here, Stendahl links glossolalia with Rom 8,26-27 as the στεναγμός ἀλάλητος.155 He connects Paul’s suffering and hardships with the overall tenor of the chapter, building upon the indwelling of the Spirit of God and of Christ (8,1-9), the Spirit as witness to the sons of God being heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ (8,12-17), to the present difficulty facing creation and believers (8,18-30), ultimately to the pointed language of suffering and weakness (Rom 8,35-39) all the while set within the context that God’s power avails itself to the believers for them to overcome the present distress (8,28-30).156 Paul’s life of prayer is seen within the context of God’s mission to the world that ultimately compels Paul to serve as his emissary to the world, even though hardship and weakness constantly prevail upon him. His hope stands in the prayer given that even in weakness he can trust God.157 Stendahl takes seriously the situational context of Paul’s letter, and his missional motif finds merit in that Paul’s apostolic mission was ever set before him. Viewing prayer from a missional lens sees where Paul delineates its main trajectories and shows it worked out in real practice. He sums up his position: But we must remember that Paul’s epistles are closely tied to this mission and and it would be stifling and wrong to say that Paul taught us what it is proper for a Christian to pray about. It could perhaps even be argued that Paul was ‘too caught up in his work’ and his prayers were also. They are the prayers of an apostle, a missionary with eschatological urgency (Rom. 15). They have in them the signs of joy and gratitude for the great new act of God in Jesus Christ.158

Stendahl’s assertion that Paul’s meaning of Rom 8,26b works from the standpoint of his missional strategy reinforces the idea argued in the previous 155. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 244. “Here Paul understands glossolalia as he Spirit praying in us. In a typically Pauline manner he sees this phenomenon not as a sign of high spiritual achievement, but as God’s antidote to human weakness.” 156. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 244-245. 157. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 244. “Thus this whole chapter is theological reflection at the heart of Paul’s life of prayer, full of exuberant language, mingled with hard-learned realism as to weakness and trust in God in the midst of suffering.” 158. Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” 249.

132

CHAPTER THREE

chapter that Paul had a missional context in mind when writing Romans. Stendahl speaks in terms of Paul’s apostolic mission in relation to the sufferings and weakness garnered by preaching his gospel, which in turn connects to the theology of the cross as brought out in 2 Corinthians 13. This runs in tandem with Schnabel’s assertions that Paul’s use of mission underlies his theology and ethics where the community of faith, convinced of the truthfulness of its beliefs, extends the gospel outward.159 Paul develops his understanding of prayer in line with his earlier letters (cf. 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Cor 12,1-8) and nuances it to a useful end in Romans 8. It forms an essential part of his missional strategy, and while people can be limited in their prayers for whatever reason, the point of prayer is to reinforce Paul’s message of Jesus Christ. This understanding builds into the next section where Paul develops the theme of not knowing in more detail. Paul uses οἶδα in the negative to express the lack of knowledge relative to prayer. The word οἶδα has a large occurrence rate in the New Testament.160 In their semantic study, Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida categorize it in five domains: know, know how to, understand, remember, and honor.161 Using their paradigm as a guide, one can eliminate several possibilities of meaning for the passage in Romans. First, Paul does not have the idea of honor in mind for that refers to respect given to another, which is not a component of the thought.162 The idea of rememberance can also be eliminated for Paul is not maintaining that the lack of knowledge in prayer is due to a lack of recollection of the past like what he does in 1 Cor 1:16.163 The problem occurs when comparing the meaning of know, know how to, and understand as there are legitimate reasons why each could work in the context. One can see how that knowledge is not what Paul means here, for the idea is not that the believers simply do not know how to pray, but there is more to it, which ties in more with the second meaning of not knowing 159. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 11. 160. Cf. Heinrich Seesemann, “οἶδα,” in TDNT (Vol V; Gerhard Friedrich, ed.; Geoffrey W Bromiley, trans. and ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 116-119, 117, who places the number of verses in which the word appears at 300. 161. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (Second Ed.; Vol 1 Introduction and Domains; New York: UBS, 1989), 334-335.347.380.735. 162. Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 734. 163. ἐβάπτισα δὲ καὶ τὸν Στεφανᾶ οἶκον, λοιπὸν οὐκ οἶδα εἴ τινα ἄλλον ἐβάπτισα. Cf. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2000), 142. “Although οἶδα generally means I know, in the present context the nuance of the ‘resultant’ knowledge carries the force of I do not recall.”

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

133

how to do something, in this case not knowing how to pray.164 The question becomes then one of content versus performance. Do the believers not know how to pray as they should because of a lack of content related knowledge, or are they simply not praying correctly? Louw and Nida define the understanding as comprehending “the meaning of something, with focus upon resulting knowledge.”165 However, in 8,26a, Paul specifically states that the Spirit aids in some form of weakness, and as will be shown later, that weakness does not result from lack of understanding. This returns one to the question of whether or not the lack of knowledge was content or performance based. In order to get to the answer, the verb δεῖ becomes important. As has been pointed out in this passage δεῖ refers to following the will of God,166 therefore, the lack of prayer knowledge stands in tension with the will of God (cf. 8,27). A number of factors obstruct one’s ability to conform to God’s will including sufferings (v. 18) that impact creation (vv. 19-22) ourselves (v. 23), and weakness (v. 26). Given the inclusion of δεῖ, one concludes that the lack of knowledge here is not content based, but points to the difficulty in being able to perform prayer in a manner that coheres with God’s will. The weakness to which Paul alludes to in 26a then impacts the believer’s ability to perform a basic function of prayer in a manner that connects them to the divine. The Spirit’s involvement in prayer then vitally connects 8,26c to both 8,26a and 8,26b as the means to properly performing prayer. Paul Achtemeier sums up the matter by stating: “Without the Spirit, we are simply at a loss to know how to communicate with God. That is the legacy of human rebellion and sin. If that communication is to be restored, God will have to do it.”167 To the question of the Spirit’s intercession and how that connects to the previous discussion is the focus of the next section.

164. Admittedly, the nuance between knowing and knowing how to is slight, but the nuance does help in this case. Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 334-335, point out that the idea of knowing relates to possessing information about a certain topic. They place this lack of knowledge in a similar field as γινώσκω, which is also how Seesemann, “οἶδα,” 117, sees it. The second idea relates to a more performative one where the believers, for whatever reason are not praying the way they should. 165. Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 380. They reference Jn 16,18, 1 Cor 2,12, and 1 Cor 14,16 as examples of this type of meaning. 166. Greathouse, Romans 1-8, 267. “The impersonal verb dei, ought, here as almost always in the NT refers to what must be done to conform to the will of God.” 167. Paul Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1985), 143. While one might dispute the connection he makes to human and rebellion being the cause for suffering and weakness, the point that God establishes proper communication is noted.

134

CHAPTER THREE

3.4.2. An Exegetical Analysis of ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις In Rom 8,26e a number of exegetical issues surface that further define and refine Paul’s argument pertaining to overcoming the weakness of 8,26a. As has been mentioned before, most scholarly attention has focused on the meaning of στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις. As Stendahl mentioned above, there are advocates who hold that the reference is to glossolalia and Paul’s response and reaction to it. The majority of scholars take the reference to στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις as a groaning that is audible, but inarticulate, as a gasp or some other intense emotion caused by the Spirit within the believer. The reference to τὸ πνεῦμα once again shows the importance of the concept in the pericope. Finally, the reference to ὑπερεντυγχάνει illustrates the problem of the verse, as this is the only occurrence of the word in the Greek Bible.168 Paul begins 8,26e with the adversative conjunction ἀλλά translated as “but” to reinforce the idea that the Spirit is available to God’s people. Due to some weakness “we do not know how to pray,” but divine aid comes to help via the Spirit. The more pressing issue relative to στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις is the relationship that exists between the groaning in 8,26e and the groanings of 8,22-23. There exists a running theme that creation, ourselves and the Spirit connect in some manner, but Paul differentiates the way the groaning occurs to highlight the work of the Spirit over the effects of groaning. Paul separates, albeit subtly, the way creation, we in ourselves, and the Spirit groan for he mentions that ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει and αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν in 8,22-23, while τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις in 8,26. The slight change is significant, given that the Spirit’s groaning stands in relationship with its intercession instead of an outright groaning resulting in some suffering inflicted upon it. Creation and we groaning in ourselves directly relate to not achieving a hoped-for end, in creation’s case it is being subjected to frustration and for ourselves it results from a desire for the redemption of our bodies. The Spirit, on the other, stands unencumbered with weakness, instead serving as the intermediary to help us overcome the weakness continuing to convict us of not knowing what to pray for. In this way, the Spirit serves in a managerial role acting on behalf of believers and charged to intercede for them. Paul does not incidentally add ὑπερεντυγχάνω, which becomes all the more pronounced 168. For more on this see Cranfield, Romans, 423.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

135

when factoring in ἐντυγχάνω in 8,27b and 34 (cf. 11,2). Paul intentionally differentiates the Spirit from creation and believers, showing them that the one who brings to pass the longed-for hope (8,23-25) is the Spirit who acts on behalf of believers (8,26-27). The idea of the Spirit as an intercessor in the NT is rather new to Paul, but as E. Obeng has shown in no way represents an innovation on his part, given the propensity of others to use similar motifs.169 Obeng searches for the origination of the concept in Paul, arguing that it occurs outside of Paul and prior to his period. He sees the intercession motif strong in the OT with many of its central characters, Abraham, Moses, priests, and angels, but not the Spirit.170 In similar fashion, he shows that intercession in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings focused on angels and righteous people in heaven, but again no direct reference to the Spirit as intercessor.171 Three noteworthy passages occur in Test Jud 20,1-5, Wis Sol 1,6-9, and Wis Sol 9,17-18. There are references to the intercession of the spirit, but the question arises as to what these refer to in the passage above; points that force Obeng to conclude that none of them refer to the Spirit interceding, rather, they pertain to the spirit of truth referring to the ethical dimension of a person (Test Jud 20,1-5) and the correlation between spirit and wisdom in Wis Sol 1, 6-9 that signifies both watching over the ideas of humanity, rather than an actual interceding of the Spirit.172 Finally, Obeng considers rabbinical writings that reference the holy Spirit as an intercessor (Lev r. 6,1; Deut r. 3,12; Cant r. 8,11), but finds them hard to compare to Rom 8,26 given that both Lev r. 6,1 and Deut r. 3,12 interpret Prov 24,28, which makes the idea of spirit intercession in line with that interpretation.173 Problems exist in Cant r. 8,11 as well, for the spirit listed is not the actual spirit, but an echo of the same; therefore, the spirit was an agent of revelation and did not possess the same idea as the Spirit we find in Rom 8,26.174 169. E. A. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif in Romans 8.26,” NTS 32 (1986): 621-632. Also, idem., “The Spirit Intercession Motif in Paul,” ET 95 (1983-1984): 361-364. See also, John R. Levison, Spirit in First-Century Judaism, 27-55 who shows that the spirit appears in the form of an angel, and thus participate in the life of the prophet so much so that Balaam’s oracles are deemed valid due “to an angelic spirit’s manipulation of Balaam’s vocal organs” (54). In similar manner, Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses (SVC 95; Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2009), 115-119, considers the issue of the spirit as an angel in the Shepherd of Hermas, and how that angel intercedes to God (115-116). 170. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 621. 171. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 621. 172. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 621. 173. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 622. 174. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 622.

136

CHAPTER THREE

Obeng concludes that no direct evidence exists of the Spirit interceding prior to that of Paul’s assertion in Rom 8,26. He summarizes his findings by stating: Thus, there is no direct root of the Spirit intercession in the OT and the Jewish writings. But the Jewish doctrine of intercession is relevant to the emergence of the Spirit intercession motif in two ways. First, Paul would have been aware of the need for an intercession from his OT background – in fact a deep sense of intercession lay behind Paul’s preaching, teaching and personal work; a sense which was cultivated from Jewish traditions. Thus, by speaking of the Spirit’s intercession, Paul was possibly merely adding a new dimension to an already known doctrine of intercession. Second, and this is the most important, in the Jewish concept of intercession, heavenly beings were being considered effective intercessors. Angels interceded because they are in the presence of God. Dead righteous men were intercessors because they were thought to be in heaven.175

Obeng takes this line of inquiry and places it squarely on the NT, by focusing on the idea that the NT presents the Spirit as a heavenly being.176 Paul innovates to an extent in his pronunciation that the Spirit intercedes for believers, but does so within the matrix of growing thought that meshes with the Spirit existing as a heavenly being. Obeng concludes that while the Jewish tradition did not contain the idea of the Spirit interceding, it did lay the groundwork for growing development in the area by presenting both angelic beings and human acting in intercessory roles.177 In order to discern Paul’s meaning for the intercession of the Spirit, Obeng points to the NT as the guide, especially the context of Romans 8. Paul uses ἐντυγχάνω three times in Romans (Rom 8,27.34; 11,2), and once with the prefix ὑπέρ (Rom 8,26). In 11,2, Elijah intercedes (ἐντυγχάνει) for the people whom Paul identifies as God’s people (τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, 11,1.2), the Israelites from whom Paul also drew his personal identity (καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Ἰσραηλίτης, 11,1). Paul uses Elijah as a counter to the divine plan God establishes for Israel; namely, as the one to whom God responds that even though Elijah feels abandoned and isolated due to the people killing the prophets (11,3), God kept to himself seven thousand men who stand in solidarity with Elijah (11,4). Paul uses χρηματισμός as the divine answer (11,4), a word that is known from Plato onward, but developed in meaning from the Platonic idea of moneymaking to an official decree or answer to ultimately a religious sense of a divine answer.178 The LXX has the meaning of dispatch (2 Macc 11,17) 175. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 622. 176. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 622. 177. Obeng, “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 622. 178. Cf. Bo Reicke, “χρῆμα, χρηματίζω, χρηματισμός” in TDNT (Vol IX; Gerhard Friedrich, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 480-482, 482.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

137

and also oracle (Prov 31,1) and divine direction (2 Macc 2,4).179 The NT usage is restricted to this one time by Paul, and it stands to reason that Paul uses it as divine direction. With Elijah’s intercession, the divine will has to be accomplished, in spite of Elijah’s protestations. In this way, the plan God had for Israel remains (11,1-2) and as such their status remains as his people (11,1). Paul flips Elijah’s interlocution against him and instead makes it stand in the plan of God, a plan that continues for the people of God. While different in form and character, Rom 8,26-27 considers the intercessions in a similar vein of following in the plan of God. While Elijah serves as an antitype of going against the divine will, the Spirit and Jesus stand in line with the divine plan and act in accordance with God’s will (Rom 8,27). The other two uses of ἐντυγχάνω in the NT occur in Ac 25,24 and Heb 7,25. The occurrence in Acts is unhelpful, for it relates to Festus’ comment to Agrippa concerning the people’s appeal to him that Paul “ought not to live any longer.” The people’s request directly relates to the authority exercised by Festus as they could not take matters into their own hands, but had to submit to the authority of Festus and appeal to him to end Paul’s life. Heb 7,25 relates in a more systematic manner with the texts in Romans, for they all pertain to the way Christ or the Spirit relates to the matter of intercession. A comparison on Rom 8,26 and Heb 7,25 also shows solidarity between the thought process of intercession. Rom 8,26b-e: τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις Heb 7,25: ὅθεν καὶ σῴζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ, πάντοτε ζῶν εἰς τὸ ἐντυγχάνειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν

While the situations are obviously different, one notices the relation to prayer and intercession. The agent of intercession is Jesus (cf. Heb 7,24)180 while the agent in Rom 8,26 would be τὸ πνεῦμα. What is noticeable though is that the means for intercession is beyond human persons. The intercession also mediates between God and humanity, which shows that in each there is the view that a gap exists between God and humanity.181 In Rom 8,26, 179. Reicke, “ χρῆμα, χρηματίζω, χρηματισμός,” 482. 180. See for example the discussion of the literary relation in Hebrews and its chiastic structure in William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8 (WBC 47A; Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 188-189. 181. Cf. Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Apollos, 2010), 274-275. In writing about those drawing near to God O’Brien notes: Now they are described as those who ‘approach’, or ‘draw near’ to God, a motif that is prominent in Hebrews. Fundamentally, it expresses the idea of a new relationship with God which has been effected through Christ’s high-priestly mediation in his death and exaltation.

138

CHAPTER THREE

the gap of knowing what to pray for exists, and thus the Spirit necessistates intervention in order to pray in accordance with God in some way. In Heb 7,25, the gap for direct access to God exists so that the intercession of Jesus is necessary for one to draw near to God. The question of what the intercession entails in Heb 7,25 provides the primary problem. David Peterson notes that the nature of the intercession does not have a consensus in scholarship.182 Discussion tends to focus on the relation of Christ’s work on earth with what interecession entails in heaven,183 a noteworthy distinction, but not one that disavows the relation between divine mediation in Rom 8,26-27 and Heb 7,25. What does surface however, is that in both an intercession occurs outside the purview of human ability. Both Christ and the Spirit are seen as representatives or agents for access to God. Paul Ellingworth sums this up by stating: “Here and in Rom. 8:27, 34 ἐντυγχάνω is used (like ἔντευξις in 1 Tim. 2:1; 4:5) of action on behalf of another; only here and in Rom 8:34 with Jesus as subject.”184 In conclusion, in Rom 8,26e Paul shows the complexity of the action of intercession related to the Spirit. While the outflow of how that occurs in unutterable groanings escapes full understanding, what does result is that the Spirit works for believers in a way that is beyond human ability. As noted, this type of divine mediation serves as a foundational element for Paul’s understanding of the relationship between prayer and God. He continues the theme into v. 27 to whose consideration commences in the next section. 3.4.3. An Exegetical Analysis of ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος Paul sets forth a statement in Rom 8,27a-b that sets the intercession of the Spirit (8,26) in the context of the purpose of God. The δέ continues the thought of the previous verse so it connects to the Spirit motif. The first question arises as to what ὁ ἐραυνῶν refers. George MacRae’s proposal that it refers to the Spirit remains a minority view,185 and one extrapolates that Paul has God in mind given the context and how Paul This definitive, ‘drawing near’ to God, which is presented in transformed cultic terms, finds expression in persistent, confident prayer (4:16; 10:22).” 182. David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’ (Cambridge et al.: CUP, 1982), 114. 183. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 114. 184. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster Press, 1993), 392. 185. George W. MacRae, “A Short Note on Romans 8:26-27,” HTR 73 (1980): 227-230.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

139

argues from the LXX. One could argue in favor of MacRae’s proposal, when one takes into consideration 1 Cor 2,10 where τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ. This connection though is tenuous for the following reason: whereas 1 Cor 2,10-12 pertains to the Spirit knowing τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ (v, 10), and τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδεὶς ἔγνωκεν εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 11). Paul juxtaposes the Spirit’s knowledge with that of the anthropological spirit (v. 11, τίς γὰρ οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ) in order that we can know the things of God (v. 12, ἵνα εἰδῶμεν τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ χαρισθέντα ἡμῖν) because we have received the Spirit of God (v. 12, ἐλάβομεν ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ). While there are connections between 1 Corinthians 2 and Rom 8,26-27, Paul is not using the same argument for the Spirit in Rom 8,27. The context in 1 Cor 2,1012 revolves around the Spirit’s knowledge, but Rom 8,26-27 works more from the perspective of God’s knowledge. Further, if the Spirit were the referent of ὁ ἐραυνῶν in 8,27 it would be rather awkward given the language of the verse. Inserting πνεῦμα as the subject of ὁ ἐραυνῶν would make it along the lines of the Spirit searching the Spirit’s mind and this does not seem likely. The most likely referent for ὁ ἐραυνῶν remains God (see NRSV)186 though a case can be made for Jesus as well. Gerald Bray points out that a case can be made for both God and Jesus, but posits that Paul leaves the referent open so that the work of both in the verse can be seen; therefore, God the Father and Jesus are involved with the action.187 Whether Bray is correct or not that both the Father and Jesus are involved in the process, what one does notice is that the idea of God knowing the “hearts” surfaces numerous times in the LXX (1 Sam 16,7; 1 Kgs 8,39; 1 Chr 28,9; 29,17; Ps 7,10; 17,3; 26,6; 44,21; 139,1-2.23; Prov 15,11; 20, 27; 26,2; Jer 11,20; 12,3; 17,10; 20,12; Wis 1,6; Sir 42,18).188 While a case can be made that Paul holds the overall Jewish tradition in mind when using the phrase, Dunn’s point is convincing that Paul may have had 186. “And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit …” 187. Gerald Bray, “The Love of God (Romans 8:18-39),” Evangel 20.1 (2002): 5-8, 6-7. “It is not clear here whether it is the Father or the Son whom Paul is referring to, and it may well be that the ambigiuity is deliberate, reminding us that searching men’s hearts is a work of both the Father and the Son, in the Spirit. The fact that God is referred to in this roundabout way makes us think primarily of the Father, and reveals to us the hiddenness of the transcendent majesty of God. But we are also told, elsewhere in Scripture, that Jesus knows what is in the heart of man, and so we learn that he too is involved in the process. Once again, we see that the Holy Spirit serves both the other two Persons, that he is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” 188. Zeller, Juden und Heiden, 163.

140

CHAPTER THREE

LXX Ps 43,20 in mind given that he refers to LXX Ps 43,21 in 8,36.189 The connection between Rom 8,26a, 8,27a, and 8,36 would have been noticed by the audience given that the context in each is weakness (8,26a) and suffering (8,36-37).190 At the same time, it is rather difficult to show with certainty as a comparative analysis points out: LXX Ps 43,22

Rom 8,27

οὐχὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐκζητήσει ταῦτα; αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν τί τὸ γινώσκει τὰ κρύφια τῆς καρδίας. φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων.

The connecting point between both is καρδία, but is this a strong enough connection to make the verse the thought that Paul had in mind? The differences, ἐκζητέω instead of ἐραυνάω, γινώσκω in the psalm and οἶδα in Romans, and κρυφαῖος rather than φρόνημα, while having similar meanings do show a significant difference making it difficult to prove with absolute certainty that Paul had it in mind. The question of τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος expands the view of the Spirit from earlier verses and connects it and draws the reader’s attention to the early part of the chapter. The noun occurs four times in Romans 8 (vv. 6, 7, 27). The earlier uses concern the difference between the flesh and the Spirit, but differ in orientation from that of 8,27.191 The verb φρονέω occurs frequently in Pauline literature (Rom 8,5; 11,20; 12,3.16; 14,6; 15,5; 1 Cor 13,11; 2 Cor 13,11; Gal 5,10; Phil 1,7; 2,2.5; 3,15.19; 4,2.10; cf. Col 3,2; 1 Tim 6,17) and occasionally in other New Testament writings (Mt 16,23; Mk 8,33; Ac 28,22). BDAG defines the noun as a “way of thinking,” “mindset,” “aim,” or “striving,”192 to which Craig Keener adds “frame of mind,”193 and Jewett “the spirit’s intention,” “the spirit’s thinking,” or “the spirit’s aspiration.”194 189. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 479. Dunn leaves the certainty open as finding an exact parallel is difficult. The argument here is not that Paul’s audience would have seen the allusion to LXX Ps 43,20 specifically in the verse because it is embedded, but that Paul had it in mind with the verse. 190. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 512; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 563. 191. Cf. Jörg Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinischjüdische Weisheitstradition,” ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77, who provides a detailed examination of the contrast between flesh and Spirit/spirit. 192. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Frederick W. Danker; William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds.; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 866. 193. Craig S. Keener, “‘Fleshly’ Versus Spirit Perspectives in Romans 8:5-8,” in Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (Pauline Studies 5; Stanley E. Porter, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 211229, 211. Keener notes that “it suggests not every individual thought but a settled way of thinking, a pervasive conviction or direction of thought.” 194. Jewett, Romans, 525.

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

141

In Rom 8,27, the Spirit takes on this activity that pertains to more than being a presence of God or even having God’s knowledge, but also has the knowledge held with human hearts. Otto Michel posits that the relationship between God and the Spirit has the idea of God communicating with himself,195 a point that is further reinforced when one takes into account the Spirit interceding with groans (8,26) and for the saints (8,27). Michel’s point, however, is weakened given the lack of direct citation that God communicates with himself, for v. 27 states that 1) he searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit, 2) the Spirit intercedes for the saints, and 3) according to God’s will. The notion of self-communication does not arise, so to state thusly presupposes a concept not directly alluded to in the text. One could become sidetracked into a Trinitarian discussion at this point, but from Michel we do get the reality that the Spirit is the one interceding for the saints, and thus the Spirit’s role becomes of primary importance. The Spirit’s work in 8,27a resembles that of activity, not content of mind, like seen in 8,26. Jewett pulls the discussion into the beginning of the pericope (v. 18) where the issue of suffering inflicted upon humanity surfaces, and he concludes that “even the ‘sufferings’ that cause human groaning are being drawn by the Spirit into ‘the future glory revealed to us,’ the glory of a dialogue within the deity itself.”196 While Jewett might push the point, he does show the connection between suffering and weakness in the previous parts of the pericope with the Spirit’s knowledge in 8,27a. In conclusion, the connection between weakness and the Spirit’s activity in Rom 8,27a is important for considerations of 8,26a. The Spirit interceding with inexpressible groans (8,26) results in the Spirit aiding in our weakness (8,26a) and therefore God involves himself in the process by searching the hearts and knowing the mind of the Spirit (8,27a). Paul continues to build this theme in the next clause. 3.4.4. An Exegetical Analysis of ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων The final phrase to consider draws the argument to a close, though admittedly anticipating the flow of thought in 8,28-30. The ὅτι is either 195. Otto Michel, Der Brief und die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 273. 196. Jewett, Romans, 525. See also, Dunn, Romans 1-8, 480, “The fact that Jewish monotheism could encompass such a stretching of its twofold assertion of divine immanence and divine transcendence suggest that it had more room for the Christian reexpression in a Trinitarian direction than is usually recognized.” Dunn sees Jewish monotheism in a reworking state and therefore open to the Christian conception Paul puts forth.

142

CHAPTER THREE

causative (“because”)197 showing how God knows what the Spirit intends, or explicative (“that”) showing what the Spirit’s intercession entails.198 How one views it depends on the translation of κατὰ θεόν, which can either be “according to God” or “before God.”199 If “according to God,” ὅτι would be causative given that God would have knowledge of the content of the Spirit’s intercession, but if “before God” then ὅτι would be explicative meaning that the Spirit’s intecession occurs between God and the saints.200 This view connects ὑπερεντυγχάνω (v. 26) with ἐντυγχάνω (v. 27) in direct relationship with the Spirit’s role in intercession. Jewett maintains that Paul clarifies the meaning of v. 26 and therefore ὅτι is explicative.201 While Jewett’s argument makes sense in light of the passage, Dunn shows that either reading is plausible, and the ambiguity within the phrase is seen in the difficulty in interpreting it.202 Schreiner’s point is correct when he submits that the mind of the Spirit in v. 27 directly connects to the intercession of the same Spirit in v. 26.203 This ultimately points the passage into the broader category of God’s oversight and concern for his people. Hultgren builds on this theme, focusing on the general paradigm of God’s concern and activity in the life of the believers.204 While God’s will to an extent concerns itself with the passage, the medium for that will to be accomplished revolves around ἐντυγχάνω, particularly in its referent once again. Context rules out that the referent would be God for the referent works in tandem with God. The likely referent remains to be 197. Cf. Wilckens, Der Brief und die Römer, 3.161. 198. Cf. Sanday and Headlam, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 214; E. Gaugler, “Der Geist und das Gebet der schwachen Gemeinde: Eine Auslegung von Römer 8,26-27” IKZ 51 (1961): 67-94, 90; and Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 1.214; 199. Cf. BAGD, 406-407. 200. Jewett, Romans, 525 holds to the latter point. He maintains that ἅγιος without the article refers to believers in general, whereas with the article to a more limited audience (Jewish Christians with Palenstinian background). “The holiness of believers thus entails an ongoing intervention of the Spirit, maintaining their relationship as children of God through the inarticulate groans they utter as well as their ‘Abba’ acclamations as described in vv. 15-16.” 201. Jewett, Romans, 525. 202. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 480. “God himself can be expressed as the norm for what is best for his people; or we can translate ‘in accordance with God’s will,’ since, by implication, God’s will is simply an expression of God, God himself in action.” See also Schreiner, Romans, 446 who maintains that either reading draws out the same meaning. 203. Schreiner, Romans, 446. 204. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 325-326. “None of this activity of the Spirit need be heard, for it takes place in the larger life of God. God, ‘who searches hearts,’ answers the prayer of the Spirit. The entire emphasis is on God, the life of God, from start to finish. God the Spirit helps those in Christ in their earthly suffering and consequent groaning, and God the Father responds. That the Spirit intercedes for the saints is affirmed only here by Paul. Later on he says that Christ also intercedes for them (8:34).

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

143

the Spirit, particularly due to the relation between vv. 26-27.205 The Spirit intercedes in v. 26 and something else intercedes in v. 27. Given the proximity to the verses, one concludes that the Spirit is the referent so that it intercedes in tandem with God in some manner. At the same time, Christ Jesus is also seen as an intercessor (8,34) in similar language (ὃς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν). As far as context, though, there is little reason to believe that Paul does not have the Spirit in mind in v. 27 as the subject of the intercession.206 The Spirit serves as the medium by which intercession is made according to God in some manner. Fitzmyer points out that in v. 27, the intercession of the Spirit completes the process begun in v. 26 where the weakness of “praying Christians” first surfaced.207 Murray positions his argument in similar terms as Fitzmyer, but adds to the issue by connecting the inarticulate groans of v. 26 and the intercession as located in the consciousness of the person praying.208 God reads the mind of the person praying and the Spirit actually intercedes on her behalf.209 Schreiner’s contention that the “deepest longing (groaning) of our heart to accomplish the will of God,”210 captures the essence of the verse and helps one understand how the weakness of v. 26a relates to the inability to pray, a point to be taken up in subsequent chapters. The final element to consider in v. 27 concerns the meaning of ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. Discussion around the issue tends to be concerned with whether Paul means believers in general or ones in a more restricted sense, such as Jewish or Gentile believers.211 Some argue that Paul makes qualitative claims with 205. Rom 8,26: τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις Rom 8,27: ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων 206. Cf. Otto Bauernfeind, “τυγχάνω, ἐντυγχάνω, ὑπερεντυγχάνω, ἔντευξις,” in TDNT (Vol VIII; Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 238-245, 243. 207. Fitzmyer, Romans, 520. 208. Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 313. 209. Cf. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 527. 210. Schreiner, Romans, 447. While not a concern of this thesis, Schreiner anticipates how this idea works out in the final sections in Romans 8. “The Spirit, Paul teaches, is carrying out these desires via his intercessory ministry. We can see how nicely this fits with the next verses, where Paul teaches that all things work together for good and that God has designed all things so that we are conformed to the image of his Son. No wonder all things are working out for our good – the Spirit is effectively praying for us so that the will of God will be accomplished in our lives.” 211. Schlier, Römerbrief, 270; Fitzmyer, Romans, 520. Murray, Epistle to the Romans, 313, places the language in the context of the children of God, though referring to similar points made by Schlier and Fitzmyer. Jewett, Romans, 525, uses believers in similar fashion as those above and notes: “The holiness of believers thus entails an ongoing intervention of the Spirit,

144

CHAPTER THREE

his use of ἅγιος,212 noting that the qualities involved relate to the holiness of God based on the foundation of Christ.213 Paul addresses believers in general and shows that the work of the Spirit through intercession helps them with praying.

3.5. CONCLUSION This chapter considered issues relative to the context of Rom 8,26a in light of textual issues and the greater argument of Romans. The final section explored an initial exegesis of the text in light of its immediate surroundings. The text itself exhibits strong support among the textual witnesses and the reading proposed finds solid support. A number of themes in 8,26-27 arise throughout the Letter to the Romans in addition, showing the continuity of thought Paul maintains throughout. Finally, 8,26-27 also shows deep continuity of thought within its immediate context. This preliminary work sets the stage for the more integrated exegesis of 8,26a, which will be discussed in the following chapters. The chapter noted the stability of the text with little variants therein. While the variants are limited in the text, the delimitation of the text has been debated. A survey of the options was provided and it was concluded that the delimitation of the pericope was vv. 18-30. This delimitation reflects the most natural reading of the text along with the grammatical and contextual flow of the argumentation. V. 17 concludes a thought, but builds into the section to follow so v. 18 picks up where it leaves off. In similar fashion v. 30 concludes the overall thought of the pericope and vv. 31-39 take the argument further and into a more nuanced direction. A survey of how the verses fit into the overall letter commenced following the delimitation section and it was shown that Paul treats a number of topics throughout the letter that in turn form important elements of vv. 26-27. Included in this are the way he deals with the Spirit, heart, divine intervention, weakness, and the identity of those deemed as believers. This section

maintaining their relationship as children of God through the inarticulate groans they offer as their ‘Abba’ acclamations as described in vv. 15-16.” 212. One notes that 33 reads ἡμῶν, though this does not hold the weight of support for the reading. The use of ἅγιος has strong attestation. For brief discussion see Fitzmyer, Romans, 520. 213. Cf. Morris, Epistle to the Romans, 329. See also R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1936), 549, who underlines the importance of these being the ones “made holy by the atoning merits of Christ.”

ROMANS 8,26A IN CONTEXT

145

showed the continuity of Paul’s overall argumentation and shows how vv. 2627 relate to Paul’s purpose in writing the letter. The final section is an exegetical analysis of related material to 8,26a. The section showed how the Spirit aiding weakness fits into the frame of the Spirit’s work in believers and how the challenges facing those people could be overcome. God’s continued work in the midst of the people was evidenced and forms an aspect of the missional nature of the letter. This was particularly evident when prayer was considered and the role it played in the verses. Prayer serves a missiological purpose and the people’s inability to pray was seen as impacting their ability to realize fully God’s will. This section invites readers into understanding more how this inability to pray relates to the weakness Paul details in v. 26a. The following chapters consider that question in more detail undertaking a study of the adverbial phrase and its relation to the Spirit’s work followed by a study of the Spirit, aiding, and weakness.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως δὲ καί

The following four chapters analyze Rom 8,26a. This chapter provides an overview of issues relative to the clause. Second, an analysis commences of the phrase ὡσαύτως δὲ καί with particular interest to its referent. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the connections between Rom 5,5 and 8,26a. There is the suggestion that the referent of the adverb ties into vv. 23-25, and on this basis Paul continues his connection between hope and Spirit. From this one infers that ή ἐλπίς (vv. 24-25) and τὸ πνεῦμα (vv.2627) are linked together by ὡσαύτως δὲ καί, which interfaces with the two concepts of hope and Spirit in Rom 5,5.1 4.1. GRAMMATICAL ISSUES A cursory study of the text in Rom 8,26-27 shows a number of grammatical and syntactical elements arising as investigated in the previous chapter. A short survey of how 8,26a fits into the overall verses will be provided below. First, Paul begins the verse with ὡσαύτως δὲ καί. One could anticipate Paul starting with τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα or even ὅτι δὲ καί, as he does not use ὡσαύτως δὲ καί often given that he only uses ὡσαύτως here and in 1 Cor 11,25 (cf. 1 Tim 2,9; 3,8.11; 5,25; Tit 2,3.6). As an adverb, ὡσαύτως links vv. 26-27 with the preceding verses, but which ones has been a matter of dispute.2 The most likely referent connects vv. 26-27 with vv. 23-25. Part of the reason for this is the connection between ὡσαύτως δὲ καί and the conditional clause in v. 25 (protasis – εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν ἐλπίζομεν; apodosis – δι᾿ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα), a realizable condition. In the same way, the Spirit aiding Paul and others is an assured point, which is construed as a sort of extension to the assured conditional clause in v. 25. 1. This does not argue that Paul depends on Rom 5,5 for his material in 8,23-27, rather, that the argumentation connects the two in similar fashion. 2. A point discussed in the next section.

148

CHAPTER FOUR

Additionally, in 8,26a τὸ πνεῦμα serves as the subject of the sentence with the present middle indicative συναντιλαμβάνεται as the main verb. As Schreiner points out the middle voice of the verb is intensive “indicating not merely that the Spirit joins in helping but also that the Spirit himself alone renders the assistance believers need.”3 This is followed by the dative τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ and the genitive ἡμῶν. The genitive is possessive showing that the weakness is our weakness as a possession or something “we are experiencing.” The question becomes what to make of the dative τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ? The larger question arises to the meaning of the dative, either as a) external problems, 4 b) the inability to pray,5 or c) the total condition of weakness affecting humanity.6 Additionally, does it point back to the previous context (vv. 1-5; 18-25), forward to the following context (vv. 28-39), or its immediate context (v. 26 and the inability to pray)? In 8,26b Paul further refines his argument. The conjunction γάρ nuances the point Paul makes, namely, the weakness that has impacted us has also impacted our ability to pray. Schreiner maintains that the use of γάρ makes the weakness previously mentioned more specific.7 The conjunction explains the implications of the weakness affecting the believers. The interrogative pronoun τί refers to the actual item prayed for, and thus modifies the aorist subjunctive προσευξώμεθα. The subjunctive mood emphasizes the uncertainty facing the believers in their current prayer lives, which is expressed in the not knowing. Some weakness has produced in them an obstacle, which in turn impacts their prayer lives. Paul’s use of καθὸ δεῖ has been the subject of consideration. One infers that the subordinating conjunction καθό (“as,” “according as,” “in so far as”) and the present indicative δεῖ (“we must,” “we should”) relate to the subjunctive προσευξώμεθα in that “we should” know what to be praying about.8 This is important because Paul is not saying the weakness impacting them has made them completely unable to pray.9 In 8,26d, οὐκ οἴδαμεν becomes prominent. The particle οὐκ negates the knowledge of the perfect indicative οἴδαμεν. The use of the perfect tense aptly illustrates Paul’s point, for its emphasis on an event (in this context the weakness) that while completed in the past continues to have results in the 3. Schreiner, Romans, 442. 4. Käsemann, Römer, 233. 5. Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 214. 6. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 477; Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 191. 7. Schreiner, Romans, 442. 8. Cf. Jewett, Romans, 522. See also Balz, Heilsvertrauen, 75-67 for Paul’s coinage of the word. 9. Jewett, Romans, 522, “It is not that believers are fundamentally incapable of praying, are too ignorant to pray as particular exigencies demand, or lack the visionary capacity to see into the eschatological future.”

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

149

present. This “not knowing how to pray” stands syntactically in relationship to the weakness found in 8,26a. Thus, to understand 8,26a and the Spirit’s aid in helping our weakness is of paramount importance because it provides the window into how the believers are to know how to pray as they should. Paul continues to build on what he means by the Spirit aiding our weakness in 8,26d. Paul begins with the emphatic conjunction ἀλλά, which points to the intercessory work of τὸ πνεῦμα. He makes it more explicit by emphasizing τὸ πνεῦμα with the emphasizing pronoun acting as a reflexive, so the idea “but the spirit itself,” a point of emphasis showing the connection between 8,26d and 8,26a, all the while answering the problem confronted by 8,26b. The inability to pray surfaces as a result of a weakness inherently barring this from happening, but the Spirit who aids in our weakness itself intercedes for us. The use of the present indicative ὑπερεντυγχάνω does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. Syntactically it is the predicate of τὸ πνεῦμα, and one cannot help but notice similarities between clauses a and d. Rom 8,26a Rom 8,26d

τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις

The relationship between the two clauses is important for several reasons. First, τὸ πνεῦμα in both has to be taken into consideration in what Paul is saying in the verse. What constitutes this divine agent? The way Paul uses πνεῦμα in the entire chapter is complex, a point that will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter, and one wonders how the use in v. 26 relates to the greater context of the chapter and the letter? Second, the use of the verbs συναντιλαμβάνομαι and ὑπερεντυγχάνω provide unique challenges to interpreters because both are rare. While συναντιλαμβάνομαι does occur elsewhere (Lk 10,40; LXX Gen 30,8; Exod 18,22; Num 11,17; Ps 88(89),21), this is the only use of ὑπερεντυγχάνω in the biblical text, though its use without the prefix ὑπερ- is common (cf. Rom 8,27).10 Does Paul intentionally use a rather rare construction to highlight the tension at this point?11 Both of them are present tenses. The first is a middle voice while the second is active. The Spirit is the one driving the process, from aiding believers in their weakness to interceding for believers. Paul ends the clause with a dative noun and adjective that have caused considerable debate.12 The intercession he spoke of occurs with στεναγμός 10. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 478. 11. This makes all the more sense with his use of στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις at the end of the clause. 12. Gaugler, “Der Geist und das Gebet,” 77; Jean N. Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interpreter l’épître aux Romains (Paris: 1991), 251; Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 220.

150

CHAPTER FOUR

ἀλάλητος. The adjective ἀλάλητος modifies στεναγμός, but it is particularly difficult to know what the word means, either unutterable, inexpressible, beyond human comprehension among others. Grammatically, one reckons with what type of dative στεναγμός is, for unlike the direct object τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ, στεναγμός seems to be more instrumental in its use, either as a dative of association, manner, means, or agency. While debatable as to what the exact meaning is, Paul solidifies his argument that the Spirit resolves the problem of weakness we face in being unable to pray. The Spirit intercedes in a way that draws God into the resolution, which Paul details more in v. 27. Three clauses are found in v. 27. The first clause (8,27a) begins with δέ connecting the clause back to v. 26. The nominative article ὁ works with the nominative active participle ἐραυνῶν (“one who searches”). The perfect active indicative οἶδεν completes the thought with “the one who searches knows.” The perfect tense of οἶδεν shows the completed action of the event in the past with continuing results like a normal perfect. A reader would naturally associate this type of knowledge to God while the exact reference might be difficult for them to pinpoint.13 It has been advanced that the one whom Paul refers is the Spirit, but this seems counterproductive to the thought given.14 More likely, Paul speaks of God as the one who searches the hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit. This moves to the next section in v. 8,27b where the pronoun τί describes what is to come. The genitive τοῦ πνεύματος could be possessive, objective, source, subjective, or genitive of origin. It is probably not epexegetical since the Spirit is not describing the mind. One rules out the subjective genitive for the Spirit is not initiating anything inherent pertaining to the mind, nor is it indicating the source given that the Spirit’s actions are not referenced. Finally, an objective genitive is doubtful because the idea that the Spirit serves as the object of the mind proves problematic. Ultimately, the possessive genitive idea fits best in the context, given that Paul is stating whose mind it is, namely the Spirit’s. Therefore, what he projects is that God searches the hearts of people and he knows the Spirit’s mind in such a way that it interacts with how the Spirit has been interceding for believers, a point that connects vv. 26 and 27. This provides a window into what the Spirit’s intercession looks like, given 13. As an example, Dunn, Romans 1-8, 479, illustrates the problem for he cites possible references to God knowing the hearts (1 Sam 16,7; 1 Kgs 8,39; Pss 4,21; 139,1-2.23; Prov 15,11; and he mentions there might be others). It is easier to consider some of the parallels given contemporary access to biblical materials, but how would the reader of the first century know specifically what Paul referred to in the passage? It is probably a moot point, though, for while they might not have had the exact reference in mind, they would have seen the connection between what Paul states and God knowing what is in the heart. 14. Macrae, “A Note on Romans 8:26-27,” 228.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

151

that the syntactical relationship between the two verses is highlighted. While through some weakness we are incapable of praying as we should, the Spirit who aids us in our time of weakness also intercedes for us in a language that in some way cannot be understood. God is able to understand the cause of our weakness as he searches our hearts and discerns the prayer of the Spirit given that he knows its mind. In this way, v. 27 projects the solution to the believer’s weakness and provides information to understand what that weakness entails. The syntax of v. 27b taken into consideration with that of 26a shows that the two texts are connected to one another. The final grammatical and syntactical investigation considers v. 27c. The conjunction ὅτι serves causally, with the meaning of “because” so that it shows the rationale for what Paul has already written. What function does κατὰ θεόν play in the verse? Most translations render it as “according to God,” and while this makes sense, the presence of the verb ἐντυγχάνω defies simple interpretation. A literal interpretation makes this solidly clear as it would be along the lines of “because according to God he intercedes on behalf of the saints.” The key to understanding the verse revolves around the present indicative verb ἐντυγχάνει. The compound ὑπερεντυγχάνω is used in v. 26, a further point that establishes the connection between the two verses. The question arises as to the subject of the verb, and most likely given its proximity to v. 26, it refers to the Spirit as the one making the appeal in v. 27. The final element in the verse is the prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ ἁγίων. The preposition takes the genitive and has the sense of “on behalf of the saints,” but could also mean “on account of the saints.” The question arises concerning who these saints are and whether they are the ones to whom Paul refers in v. 26, particularly being the ones that are weak and unable to pray? If Paul has the same people in mind, are the “we” of v. 26 included in the saints of v. 27? Is Paul also one of those encountering trouble or is he rhetorically stating that the saints are the ones? While a grammatical and syntactical analysis helps frame the understanding of what is happening in the verse, by no means does it answer all the questions. In order to gain understanding of Paul’s meaning, one needs to exegete the text in more detail. This task sets the stage for the next section. 4.2. SEMANTICAL ISSUES Rom 8,26-27 begins with the phrase ὡσαύτως δὲ καί ́ (“similarly also,” “likewise also,” “also in the same way”).15 While scholarly attention focuses 15. For these interpretive decisions see BAGD, 899. The translation is from the original German that translated ὡσαύτως as “auf ebendieselbe Art, in gleicher Weise” (Walter Bauer,

152

CHAPTER FOUR

on what is to follow in vv. 26-27, attention has not been placed heavily on the role of the comparative adverb ὡσαύτως and in particular its referent.16 An overview of the following sections includes: an investigation into the attention placed upon the phrase by scholars to see their interpretations, the role it plays in the context of Romans 8 in general and Rom 8,26-27 in particular, and the question as to the referent of ὡσαύτως. 4.2.1. Interpretation of ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in Rom 8,26 In Rom 8,26-27, the Spirit helps the believer overcome weakness, which directly affects prayer ability.17 A number of positions have been advanced to interpret the adverbial phrase. It has been pointed out that ὡσαύτως δὲ καί only occurs in the Pauline corpus a limited number of times.18 First, there are those who posit that ὡσαύτως δὲ καί links vv. 25-26 together.19 Douglas Moo writes, “in the same way (as this hope sustains us), the Spirit also comes to our aid.”20 This position is attractive for it continues the theme of hope into the work of the Spirit and as John Murray summarizes, “As hope sustains us in suffering, so the Spirit helps our infirmity.”21 The view is not without criticism however. Geoffrey Smith points out the awkwardness of the comparison, as it does not seem likely that the hope of believers as a sustaining hope (v. 25) would be the referent of the active intercessory role of the Spirit (v. 26).22 Smith points out that ὡσαύτως most likely compares the same object, and for v. 26 that primary object would be the Spirit.23 The use of ὡσαύτως δὲ καί does require an understanding of Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch: zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur [New York: Wm. De Gruyter, 1988], 1777). 16. See the discussion in Geoffrey Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’ (ΩΣΑΥΤΩΣ) in Romans 8:26,” TynBul 49 (1998): 29-38. 17. On the weakness of the believer in the verses see in part Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 135; Barrett, Commentary to the Romans, 167-168; Walther Bindemann, Die Hoffnung der Schöpfung: Römer 8,18-27 und die Frage einer Theologie der Befreiung von Mensch und Natur (Neukirchen/Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 76; O’Brien, “Romans 8:26, 27,” 65-67; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 576; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 264; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts, 292; and Jewett, Romans, 521-522. 18. 1 Cor 11,25; 1 Tim 2,9; 3,8.11. For more on this see Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 576. 19. Cf. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 310-311; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 523; Jewett, Romans, 521. They note the connections between hope and Spirit. 20. Moo, Romans, 523. 21. Murray, Romans, 311. 22. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 31. 23. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 31. See also Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 576, who similarly critiques those holding to vv. 24-25 as the referent in a similar vein. “Since

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

153

the referent in relationship to the argument in v. 26, and namely τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν, which seemingly makes the comparison with hope difficult to substantiate. Second, others focus on the relationship between v. 26 and vv. 22-23 and the role of στεναγμός (“groaning”). Cranfield espouses this view but anticipates a problem. He states that ὡσαύτως “must surely be between the creation’s and our groaning (8:22, 23) and the Spirit’s groaning, in spite of the fact that the keyword στεναγμός is not introduced in the first part of the verse, but only at the very end.”24 This is also an attractive proposal for it links the groaning of the Spirit to the groaning of “creation” (κτίσις) and “ourselves” (ἑαυτοῦ) and as the groaning made by the latter call upon God to intervene on their behalf, so the groaning of the former causes the liberation of the latter to come to pass. Samuel Bénétreau sees the connection to v. 23 from a literary standpoint where the vocabulary of groanings brings them into alignment and as a result the Spirit “dans l’expression de frustration et d’attente dans le coeur des fidéles.”25 As with the first proposal, this is one is not without its difficulties, chiefly in that the connection between the groaning of the Spirit and that of “creation” and “ourselves” is problematic when the adverb ὡσαύτως is taken into consideration. Another problem with this view centers on the anticipation Cranfield addressed, but did not fully explain, namely, the distance of στεναγμός. Heinrich Schlier proposes that στενάζω should be placed within the context of thought and therefore, the Spirit would be groaning in similar manner to creation (vv. 22-23).26 Jewett points out that this is a problematic approach since “the awkwardness of placing the divine spirit under the curse of futility renders this option implausible.”27 Subjecting the Spirit to futility does cause problems to ensue, which undermines the validity that Paul compares the action of the Spirit (v. 26) with the groaning of creation and ourselves (vv. 22-23). this adverb placed the second matter on the same terms as the earlier one, and since vv. 24-25 reflect none of the content of this passage and v. 23 says nothing about what the Spirit does …” He continues the line, but this will be taken up more directly below. It should be noted that that Fee takes the referent to v. 16. 24. Cranfield, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1.421. See also his shorter commentary, Romans: A Shorter Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 200, where he writes, “The point of ‘in like manner’ is that Paul is setting alongside the groaning of creation and the groaning of believers a third groaning, that of the Spirit, though the word ‘groanings’ only occurs at the end of this verse and the thought of what the Spirit accomplishes for believers becomes more important than the comparison with the two other groanings.” 25. Samuel Bénétreau, L’Epitre de Paul aux Romains: tome 1 (Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 1996), 238. 26. Schlier, Der Römerbrief, 476. 27. Jewett, Romans, 521 (n. 131).

154

CHAPTER FOUR

A third option projects ὡσαύτως δὲ καί back to v. 23, but from a different angle. Dunn maintains that the “reference back is clearly to v. 23, πνεῦμα being the immediate link word.”28 He admits that there exists a difference between the two notions and the working of the Spirit in each, and therefore translates ὡσαύτως as ‘similar, likewise.’ What does come through for him is that “the construction does imply that in v. 23 the groanings are part of the expression of the Spirit’s presence (that is, a fundamental feature of the eschatological tension) and not simply a regrettable or accidental byproduct.”29 This places the linkage within somewhat close proximity, a feature of the comparative adverb,30 and addresses πνεῦμα as the source of inquiry. Therefore, Dunn aligns the passage around πνεῦμα and thus one sees τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες (v. 23) with ὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν. When one examines the two together however, it is at this juncture that problems begin to surface. One major problem with this proposal pertains to the use of πνεῦμα in each verse. In v. 23, it is in the genitive case and modifies ἀπαρχή (“firstfruits”) while it is in the nominative case in v. 26 and helps believers in an active manner.31 Since πνεῦμα functions in a different way in vv. 23 and 26, it is difficult to prove that Paul has the comparison between the two in mind. If Paul had placed the noun in v. 23 in the nominative, and given it an active role in creating the firstfruits in the community, one could see the connection more readily. As it stands, the firstfruits simply form a characteristic of the Spirit, an attribute one could say of the Spirit itself, whereas in v. 26, the Spirit is the agent behind the help believers need. A fourth option, considered by many a minority view links v. 26 with v. 16.32 Fee points out, “It is fair to say that if v. 16 were closer to v. 26, everyone would go this way.”33 While Fee asserts that v. 26 is connected to v. 16 as part of Paul’s larger argument,34 Smith takes great pains to prove that Paul indeed links the two together in comparison.35 The primary justification for this concerns the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer.36 Smith’s 28. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 476. 29. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 476. 30. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), 99-102; James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Vol III Syntax; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 29-32. 31. See the critique of Dunn’s position in Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 32. 32. Representatives of this view are Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 576 and Smith, “The Function of ‘likewise’,” 32-38. 33. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 576. 34. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 576. 35. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 32-38. 36. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 32.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

155

argument revolves around (1) the function of ὡσαύτως can link a single subject “to the performance of two different actions,”37 (2) the common syntactical structure between Rom 8,16.26,38 and (3) the way the adverbs ὡσαύτως and ὁμοίως relate to one another.39 The consideration of ὁμοίως is important for Smith, for it answers one of the primary problems with connecting vv. 16 and 26 together; chiefly, the distance and the exegetical stretching required to connect the verses. He admits there are no biblical precedents where ὡσαύτως connects another object of such distance, but an example exists in 1 Pet 3,1 where ὁμοίως acts in a way to connect the argument of 1 Pet 2,18.40 If it can be established that ὁμοίως is synonymous with ὡσαύτως and therefore can be used as an example where the adverb points back through a series of verses and arguments, then Smith does have merit to his point. The connection between vv. 16 and 26 is not without its problems. One of the immediate problems pertains to why Paul used ὡσαύτως in 37. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 33. For this justification, Smith points out that this type of comparison occurs in Tob 12,12 where the adverb “connects two related but not identical works of assistance performed by a single subject, Raphael,” and Ecclesiasticus 49,7 where “Once again we observe a single subject, Jeremiah, performing two related but not identical activities” (33). As with other suppositions, Smith agrees that ὡσαύτως does function in other ways where “it connects one subject performing an identical action on two separate objects (e.g., Deut 15:17) or two subjects performing a similar action on the same object (Ep. Jer. 28)” (33). His point is to simply notice that a precedent can be verified “connecting two similar actions to a single subject” (33). 38. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 33. One can readily see Fee’s point above at this juncture for when the two constructions are considered next to one another, they are very close in structure. Rom 8,16, τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν Rom 8,26, τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν 39. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 34-36. Smith points out that BAGD considers the two synonymously. See BDAG, 567, 899. 40. Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’,” 35. Smith’s view that ὁμοίως connects 1 Pet 3,1 to chapter 2 is confirmed by a number of commentators on Peter, however, they differ in that many see the connection going further than Smith advocates and actually argue that it goes back to 2,13. See for example Karl Hermann Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe der Judasbrief (Freiburg/ Basel/Wien: Herder, 1961), 88 who sees connections back to 2,13.18; John N. D. Kelly A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1969), 127 who connects it to 2,13; A. M. Stibbs and A. F. Walls, 1 Peter (TNTC; Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press/Eerdmans, 1987), 123 who connect it to 2,13.17.18; J. Ramsay Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988), who argues for it to point back to 2,13; and Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 209 who connects it to 2,18. While they might not all agree on the connection, whether 3,1 with 2,13 or 2,18, what is important is that the comparative adverb ὁμοίως does stretch back through a series of verses. The problem of course is whether or not one can compare ὁμοίως with ὡσαύτως with complete certainty and make a case that the distance one can stretch can be compared to the distance in the other.

156

CHAPTER FOUR

8,26 and not ὁμοίως, especially since he used the latter in Rom 1,27 and other variants of it several times (1,23; 5,14; 6,5; 8,3; 9,29). The closest usage to Rom 8,26 occurs in 1,27 where ὁμοίως is translated as “likewise.”41 It connects the argument of 1,26 with that of 1,27.42 The interpretation of the passage has proven difficult and many scholars attribute it to some form of female homoerotic activity.43 Joseph Fitzmyer suggests that the adverb ὁμοίως confirms the link between vv. 26-27 and the reference to homosexuality.44 In an extensive study of the term, Jamie Banister cautions against a narrow view that refers specifically to female homosexual activity, this could have been Paul’s intention, but other activities could also have directed Paul’s attention.45 While the exact interpretation is debatable, what we do derive from various studies is that the adverb does connect vv. 26 and 27. It shows that Paul does not stretch this adverb far either and uses it in similar fashion as ὡσαύτως. Dunn has shown that ὁμοίως functions specifically in Romans and that “signifies neither complete identity (‘that which is’) nor mere similarity (‘that which is similar to’) but a very close likeness (‘that which is precisely like’).”46 Paul uses it in a specific manner and speaks of likeness rather than a comparison as found in Rom 8,26. This is consistently how Paul uses it in Romans, changing the “glory of the incorruptible God to the likeness 41. Considerable debate has arisen over ὁμοίως in 1,27, primarily on whether or not it links the verse to v. 26 and serves as an argument for female homoerotic behavior. For more on the issues see James B. De Young, “The Meaning of ‘Nature’ in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Proscription of Homosexual Behavior,” JETS 31 (1988): 429-441; Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 250; Jamie A. Banister, “Όμοίως and the Use of Parellelism in Romans 1:26-27,” JBL 128 (2009): 569590. 42. For a recent treatment on ὁμοίως see Banister, “Όμοίως and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27,” 569-590. 43. See for example the statement by Ben Witherington with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 69, “Vv. 26-27 are about as clear a condemnation of homosexual and lesbian behavior as exists in the NT. Paul speaks of actions, not inclinations, attitudes, or genetics. He says quite literally that those who practice such behavior have exchanged the natural function of intercourse for that which is against nature.” For more on this see Lagrange, Saint Paul Épitre Aux Romans, 29-30; Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 28; Cranfield, Commentary on Romans, 125-126; Byrne, Romans, 64-70, 76-77; Schreiner, Romans, 92-100; Jewett, Romans, 173179. 44. Fitzmyer, Romans, 285. 45. Banister, “ὅμοιως,” 588-589. Paul could have focused on the use of olisboi “by which Greek and Roman women would be able to ‘exchange’ their ‘natural’ passive role in the sexual act to an active, more masculine one” (588, n. 38). 46. James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (SBT 2/15; London: SCM Press, 1970), 142.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

157

of an image of the corruptible man” (Rom 1,23), those in the “likeness of Adam’s transgression” (Rom 5,14), if “we have become joined together with him in the likeness of his death” (Rom 6,5), God “sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8,3), and becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah (Rom 9,29). It is also noteworthy that ὁμοίως in Romans does not stretch in the way it does in 1 Peter and therefore, it seems tenuous at best to bring it into discussion and try to argue that ὡσαύτως works in similar fashion. At the end of this survey, the problem pertaining to how ὡσαύτως δὲ καί works in Rom 8,26-27 and to what or whom it refers remains. A certain ambiguity arises over the issue and how Paul uses it. In the next section, the phrase in other texts is traced to see how it compares with Paul’s use in 8,26a. 4.2.2. Considerations on ὡσαύτως and ὡσαύτως δὲ καί The adverb ὡσαύτως does not occur frequently in the New Testament and as such can be examined in how it works throughout. On the other hand, it does appear often in the LXX. The uses of it in the LXX and NT brings into consideration the addition of δὲ καί that Paul pulls into Rom 8,26. The approach here begins with the Pauline corpus and then open it to the LXX and New Testament. In addition, it occurs one time in Josephus (Ant 10,79) and a handful of times in Philo (Opif 54, Leg 1,8; 3,99; Cher 23, 51; Gig 50; Plant 49; Conf 106; Her 87, 149; Mut 87; Somn 2,220; Praem 15, 29; Hypoth 7,11; 7,15). 4.2.2.1. Pauline Considerations Other than Rom 8,26a, Paul uses ὡσαύτως only one other time in the undisputed Paulines (1 Cor 11,25). When the disputed Paulines are considered, the usages increase, but not significantly (1 Tim 2,9; 3,8.11; 5,25; Tit 2,3.6). 4.2.2.1.1. 1 Cor 11,25 Paul deals with the meal of the Lord in 1 Cor 11,25 and ὡσαύτως καί plays a pivotal role in connecting the cup in v. 25 to the bread in vv. 2324. Paul castigates the Corinthians for their misuse of the meal of the Lord (v. 20) and delineates how one should partake of the meal properly. In this way, Paul casts himself as a prophet of Jesus for he says ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (“for I received from the Lord”) and ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν

158

CHAPTER FOUR

(“what also I give to you”). What Paul received was the knowledge of the night of Jesus’ betrayal and subsequent inauguration of the meal and therefore, he lays out to the Corinthians the proper way to commemorate the meal (vv. 24-25). Grosheide claims that the absence of a verb in v. 25 connects it to v. 23 where Jesus took the bread,47 therefore, one extrapolates that he also took the cup in v. 25.48 Anthony Thiselton argues the same and states that ὡσαύτως “urges the parallelism of meaning and action with that associated with the bread.”49 At the same time, he sees the ambiguity in the verse and the grammatical difficulties with the cup. Depending on whether one takes it as an accusative acting as a direct object to “he took,” an adverbial accusative or an accusative of respect determines the force of ὡσαύτως.50 If Paul intended the latter two, then the parallelism between Jesus taking the bread and cup is not so evident. Another issue arises when a comparison between Lk 22,20a and 1 Cor 11,25a occurs.51 Joseph Fitzmyer asks whether the phrase in 1 Cor 11,25a should be viewed temporally in an adverbial sense or adjectivally and thus in relation to the cup?52 This becomes an important issue, for as Peter Stuhlmacher argued if it is adjectival the cup would be taken after the main meal.53 While an interesting topic as it accounts for liturgical considerations and argues for whether the cup in 1 Corinthians 11 was a third cup of the meal or not, the exegetical nuances of the passage do not form a concern here.54 Of importance is that Paul uses ὡσαύτως in the passage to connect the bread and cup in close proximity to one another. The adverb works specifically to enfold an argument around the meal. 47. While not connected to v. 25, Jesus also broke the bread in v. 24. 48. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), 270-271. 49. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 882. 50. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 882. 51. At the same time, it is significant that Luke and Paul follow one another more closely than that of Matthew and Mark especially in placing the cup after the bread. For more on this see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 546; and Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1989), 198. It has been noted that the word order differs between the two accounts: Lk 22,20a καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων 1 Cor 11,25a ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων 52. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; 2008), 442. 53. Peter Stuhlmacher, “Das neutestamentliche Zeugnis von Herrenmahl,” ZTK 84 (1987): 1-35, esp. 9-11. 54. For more on the discussion see Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 883.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

159

4.2.2.1.2. The Pastoral Epistles An important use of ὡσαύτως occurs in the Pastoral Epistles. The writer of the letters55 uses the adverb in a particular way. In 1 Tim 2,9, the writer uses ὡσαύτως rhetorically. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann place the context of the passage in church order and in particular the role of prayer for both men and women.56 Dibelius points out that this “enthält den ersten Teil der Kirchenordnungen des Briefes s. die Inhaltsübersicht.”57 As such the Kirchenordnungen tie the passage together in a unified whole, which highlights the rhetorical strategy of ὡσαύτως. While 2,1-15 speaks of church rules and order, there has been disagreement over how to delimit the verses. In a study on cohesion and structure, Ray Neste argues that 1 Tim 2,8-15 forms a new delimited unit,58 and as Lorenz Oberlinner has shown, the connection to v. 8 cannot be diminished59 as the adverb links the two together. This is not without dispute, however, as a number of commentators delimit the passage with vv. 1-8 and see vv. 9-15 as a new unit. It must be noted, though that this is a minority view and even proponents of such delimitation agree that a connection exists between vv. 8 and 9.60 Of importance for the connection is the way βούλομαι connects the passage together and the theme of prayer is pronounced throughout.61

55. Whether or not Paul wrote the Pastorals has been debated for some time, but the question of authorship becomes a moot point for the argument here. The interest confines itself to the way the adverb functions to see if any grammatical similarity occurs between its use here and in Rom 8,26. This does not mean the authorship question is unimportant. For a somewhat recent treatment of the issues involved see Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 1-36. 56. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Helmut Koester, ed.; Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, trans.; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1972), 44. 57. Martin Dibelius, Die Pastoralbriefe (HzNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955), 28. 58. Ray Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (JSNTSS 280; London/ New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 36-40. 59. Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum Ersten Timotheusbrief (Freiburg/ Basel/Wien: Herder, 1994), 87. He writes, “Mit v 9 die umfangreiche Mahnung an die Frauen engeleitet. Als Bezugswort ist das von v 8 zu beachten. Obwohl vom Kontext her eindeutig auf das Verhalten im Gottesdienst Bezug genommen wird, sind die Einzelheiten in den Verhaltensforderungen nicht spezifisch aus der gottesdienstlichen Praxis erwachsen, sondern sie sind aus einer pauschalen Übernahme aus den Pflichtenkatalogen zu erklären.” 60. For example, while he puts v. 8 with 1-7, Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Rev Ed.; TNTC; Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/Eerdmans, 1990), 84, does agree that the passage speaks of public prayer and as such, “Grammatically this section continues the injunction in verse 8, i.e., it gives observations on women’s conduct in public prayer.” 61. Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 45. “Likewise the women (ὡσαύτως) should be supplemented with ‘I wish them to pray’ (προσεύχεσθαι βούλομαι).”

160

CHAPTER FOUR

The writer’s argument revolves around what William Mounce calls both disruptive men and women.62 While the men in v. 8 are told to pray without anger and arguing, the women are told to “likewise” (ὡσαύτως) adorn themselves in a proper manner. In this way, ὡσαύτως serves a greater purpose than simple comparison (as in 1 Cor 11,25), but (1) acts rhetorically to link vv. 8 and 9 together to highlight the roles of ἀνήρ (v. 8) and γυνή (v. 9), and (2) acts as a bridge to bring βούλομαι into v. 9 as the action where women should also be engaged. As Robert Towner notes the “likewise” in v. 9 “requires that the previous verb of command (‘I wish’), or possibly the larger verbal idea including ‘prayer,’ be carried over.”63 The writer’s wish for both the men and women is central, and ὡσαύτως acts as a critical link to the connection of the wish. In this way, it solidifies an argument made by the writer and serves as a rhetorical bridge for a polemical argument. In a similar way, ὡσαύτως connects an argument in 1 Tim 3,8. The pericope is set within the context of church order where vv. 1-7 deal with regulations and requirements of an elder, and vv. 8-13 with that of deacons. After going through the qualifications of leadership for the elder, the writer changes directions and turns attention to the leadership qualities of deacons. The adverb ὡσαύτως plays an important role in the passage and again acts as a rhetorical bridge between the previous and current argumentation. Admittedly, this is a new unit,64 but as Mounce argues, the writer connects the requirements for the deacon to those of the elder/overseer.65 This tends to be a feature of ὡσαύτως in the Pastorals and is shown again in 1 Tim 3,11 with γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς (“women must be dignified”). In chapter 3, the writer uses the adverb to connect the argumentation of the qualification of the person under consideration and thus works it rhetorically to underscore the argument. The use of overseer, deacons, and women with their qualifications can be seen clearly in comparison. 1 Tim 3,2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι

1 Tim 3,8 διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς

1 Tim 3,11 γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς

62. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), 108. 63. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 204. 64. This is a feature of ὡσαύτως where it “serves to introduce a new but related case” (Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 266, n. 28). See also Van Neste, Cohesion and Structure, 42. 65. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 197.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

161

Wile v. 2 uses ἀνεπίλημπτος and vv. 8 and 11 use σεμνός, it should be noted that each refers to a quality of the person being described.66 The overlap of attributes between the ἐπίσκοπος and the διάκονος shows cohesion to the parenesis used by the writer.67 Additionally, ὡσαύτως works in conjunction with the verb of v. 2 (δεῖ … εἶναι) to solidify the writer’s point concerning qualifications for leaders. Mounce shows that it must be assumed that δεῖ … εἶναι verbally fits into v. 8,68 and the same can be said for v. 11. In this way, the writer’s argument connects the work of the overseer to that of the deacons. What is important is that ὡσαύτως works in tandem with a greater argumentation and therefore connects v. 8 with that of vv. 1-2. It stretches the argument back and provides evidence that it can work in greater distance than some postulate it does in Rom 8,26. Therefore, it works rhetorically to connect arguments and thus, what can be derived is that in these rhetorical moments, one needs to find the rhetorical argument or rhetorical parenthesis wherein the argument lies.69 4.2.2.1.3. Conclusion A preliminary conclusion from the research on how ὡσαύτως works in the Pauline corpus shows that it depends on the context in which it is used. It can act as a comparative device to connect a passage like in 1 Cor 11,25, but can also connect larger units where the argument bridges a number of verses. While admitting the problems of comparing the Pastorals to Romans, it does show the possibility exists for a further stretching of the adverb. At the same time, the close proximity in the way it was used in 1 Cor 11,25 cannot be underestimated. 4.2.2.2. Outside of the Pauline Corpus In this section, a consideration of how the adverb is used in other texts will be added. What will be seen in the course of the investigation is that ὡσαύτως 66. For more on this see Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe, 116, 135. “Was beim Episkopos einleitend und grundsätzlich der Begriff ‘untadelig’ (ἀνεπίλημπτος) beschrieb (3,2) das wird jetzt bei den Diakonen ähnlich programmatisch und umfassend ausgedrücht durch das Adjektiv ‘ehrbar’ (σεμνός); darin ist eine Lebensführung angesprochen, die als dem Willem Gottes entsprechend und zugleich für die Menschen innerhalb und außerhalb der Gemeinde vorbildlich gelten kann” (135). 67. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 156-158, provides a helpful table showing where the lists converge and diverge from one another. 68. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 197. 69. For more on how this works in Tit 2,3.6 see Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 409-412 and Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 730 for more on how it works.

162

CHAPTER FOUR

works in a comparative fashion and normally connects arguments in close proximity to one another. However, it also continues the stream of arguments that can span back a number of verses. Therefore, it has an immediate context or referent, but also helps to formulate overall arguments. 4.2.2.2.1. ὡσαύτως in the Septuagint In the LXX, ὡσαύτως occurs in a number of texts and additionally the phrase ὡσαύτως δὲ καί is common.70 Ex 7,11.22 relates the story of Moses’ confrontation with the sorcerers of Egypt. In both texts, Moses and Aaron perform an act (7,10, Moses turns his rod into a serpent; 7,22, Aaron strikes the water turning it to blood) to which Pharaoh’s charmers do the same (7.11.22).71 The LXX refers to “likewise” with ὡσαύτως in both occasions. Thomas Dozeman points out that the text ties neatly into an argument based on literary strucures in the P history, and contends that “Aaron, not Moses, executes the plague with his staff (7:20aa, 21b) and the Egyptian magicians respond with similar action (7:22a).”72 From this, it becomes clear that the referent to ὡσαύτως immediately precedes the context of the verse (cf. Exod 30,32.33.38 for proximity of location). Deut 15,17.22 both cast ὡσαύτως in close proximity to its referents.73 15,17 speaks of a servant becoming part of the master’s house for eternity, and the manner in which that happens, via the piercing of the male servant’s ear is ὡσαύτως as the maid servant.74 Verse 22 places the language in similar 70. Ex 7,11.22; 30.32.33.38; Lev 24,19; Deut 12,22; 15,17.22; Job 6,7(8); 11,15; 14,1; Jd 8,8; 1 Chr 28,16; Tob 7,10; 12,12; Judith 15,5; Es 9,13; Prov 20,4; 27,15.20; Sir 49,7; Is 10,15; 43,8; Ep Jer 22,28.35.61.71; Ezek 40,16; 42,5; 1 Macc 12,43; 2 Macc 2,12.14; 7,13; 15,39; 3 Macc 6,33; 7,19. 71. Cf. Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ECC; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 215. Noting that the text comes from P history, Dozeman comments on the literary structure of the passage. See also Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1974), 138, who discusses the text in terms of P and shows the marked contrast between the work of Moses and Aaron and the Egyptian magicians. 72. Dozeman, Exodus, 215. 73. It has been noted that the abrupt change between vv. 17 and 18 indicate that vv. 1617 were added later. This does not impact the issue related to ὡσαύτως however, for the word is contained within the actual verse. For more on the interpolation possibility see Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 198. Nelson notes though that even if vv. 16-17 were an interpolation they were still indebted to the Exodus tradition. 74. The issue of Hebrew slaves has been studied in-depth. In part see Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 192-194; Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2001), 168-171

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

163

context as well, with the referent of ὡσαύτως being in the same verse. Therefore, in v. 17 one notes that the male servant willingly goes through the process of becoming a perpetual servant by having his ear pierced. In the same way, or using the same ritual, the female also has the ear pierced and thus becomes a perpetual servant. The importance for the purposes here again is that the adverb’s referent is in proximity to the overall discussion.75 As with the texts above, the other texts in the LXX consistently link ὡσαύτως within close contact with arguments. Judg 8,8 relates the story of when Gideon went to Zebee and Salmana (v. 7) to speak judgment on them, and in the same way he spoke to Phanuel (v. 8). In the verses ὡσαύτως is used to connect Gideon’s speeches to Zebee, Salmana, and Phanuel. It connects the argument once again in close proximity to its referent.76 1 Chronicles 28,16 uses ὁμοίως and ὡσαύτως together, but the referent of each is understood to be in the context of the verse. In the same way (ὁμοίως, v. 16) the weight of the tables and lamps were given to workers (v. 15), the weight of the tables of shewbread, each table and ὡσαύτως the silver. This time, ὁμοίως connects the broader context of vv. 15-16, while ὡσαύτως connects gold and silver, with gold being the referent.77 Prov 20,4 compares the sluggard to the borrower of corn.78 As the sluggard is not ashamed when confronted, ὡσαύτως the borrower is inferred as not being ashamed. The construction connects the two, and the referent of ὡσαύτως is the comparison between the sluggard and borrower. Tremper 75. Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 168, sees the reference to the female servant’s option for voluntary servitude as intention in the literary structure. He contends that this linking with the male servant was an advancement of “Israel’s social vision.” From this perspective, the link between the ritual of male/female would be necessary. 76. Cf. Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (NAC 6; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 290; Tammi J. Schneider, Judges (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 120; Trent C. Butler, Judges (WBC 8; Nashville, TN et al.: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 219; who show the passages are linked together. 77. Remarking on the connection between gold and silver, Roddy Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 275, notes that the use of the gold and silver are connected and reinforce the role of the tabernacle narrative. Paul Hooker, First and Second Chronicles (Louisville, KY/London/Leiden; Westminster John Knox, 2001), 110, reinforces the interconnectivity of the passage when he writes: “One is struck by the detail and specificity of David’s planning. Not only are the architectural plans handed over, determining the size and shape of the building and its various courts and porticos, but concrete details concerning the design and weight of the gold and silver furnishings are described as well. Indeed, it seems that the gold and silver lampstands and showbread tables, utensils, and incense altars are of greater importance to the Chronicler than the structure that housed them.” See also Gary N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10-29 (AB12A; New York et al.: Doubleday, 2006), 933; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Thomas Krüger, ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 526. 78. For consideration of the structure of 20,1-5 see Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005) 129-130.

164

CHAPTER FOUR

Longman points out that “actions – or in this case a lack of actions – have consequences.”79 The same type of use is found in Prov 27,15.2080 where the stormy rain drives a man from his house (v. 16); and as sheol and destruction are not filled up, ὡσαύτως the man who cannot be satisfied is not filled.81 Again, the referent of ὡσαύτως stands in close proximity. Is 43,8 speaks of the blind having eyes but unable to see. The use of ὡσαύτως in this verse works similarly to as in other places in the LXX, with its referent in the same location as the rest of the statement.82 Ezek 40,16 and 42,5 are concerned with the temple. In 40,16, the windows of the chambers and the porches in the gates are compared (ὡσαύτως) to the windows to the porches within.83 The comparison occurs in the same context. This is similar to 42,5 where the length of the peristyle is considered. Again, what one sees is that the referent of ὡσαύτως is located in close proximity to the text. 2 Maccabees 2,12.14 contain ὡσαύτως and each time the referent is in close proximity.84 2 Maccabees 2,12 relates to Solomon following Moses’ commandents (vv. 11-12), and Judas followed the decrees of the kings (v. 13) in like manner (v. 14). In 2 Macc 7,13, ὡσαύτως is used in the same way, after the death of the third man, the fourth is tormented in the same manner (vv. 12-13). In conclusion, the LXX consistently uses ὡσαύτως in the same way, focusing attention back to its immediate context and not stretching arguments further back. This is the case whether using ὡσαύτως alone, with ὡσαύτως καί, or with ὡσαύτως δὲ καί. From this one concludes that the writers of the text were using ὡσαύτως in this manner intentionally, and therefore we can begin to see the intention behind the adverb is to connect arguments that are closely tied to the ones that follow. This is not definitive relative to Paul of course and one needs to consider how ὡσαύτως functions in the NT. 79. Tremper Longman III, Proverbs (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 377. Longman points out that the lazy one’s inactions are directly connected to not reaping any type of reward. 80. On the function of the couplets, see Roland E. Murphy, Proverbs (WBC 22; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 208, 210. 81. Cf. Longman, Proverbs, 480, 481-482 82. Cf. John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 53-54; John D. Watts, Isaiah 34-66 (Rev. ed.; WBC 25; Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2005), 668. 83. For more on the text and its structure see Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 522-523. 84. For discussion see Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 184.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

165

4.2.2.2.2. The New Testament It is noted that outside the Paulines the phrase does not occur often in the New Testament,85 and normally contains just ὡσαύτως with the exception of Mk 14,31 and Lk 20,31. Mark uses ὡσαύτως δὲ καί to emphasize the disciples’ devotion to Jesus in proximity to a statement made by Peter that death would not force him to disown Jesus. The other disciples chimed in that they would do the same. Though Peter’s emphatic affirmation of fidelity would fall short of his claims in 14,31 (cf. Peter’s denial of Jesus three times, Mk 14,66-72) he was not alone in this affirmation as all the disciples agreed with him that to the end they would remain faithful to Jesus.86 The delimitation of the pericope is most likely from vv. 26-31,87 singling out Peter as the primary dialogical partner with Jesus.88 While Jesus and Peter serve as the main characters in this brief episode, the remaining disciples inject themselves into the tension of the section through the use of ὡσαύτως δὲ καί. The author of Mark emphasizes that Peter is not alone in his betrayal, but all the disciples who loudly proclaim their loyalty to Jesus will fall away.89 Clearly, ὡσαύτως δὲ καί connects Peter with the disciples and thus serves in immediate proximity to its referent. Luke’s use of ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in 20,31 adapts that of Mark 14,31.90 Marshall argues that ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in this instance pertains to the argument 85. Mt 20,5; 21,30.36; 25,27; Mk 12,21; 14,31; Lk 13,5; 20,31; 22,20. 86. Robert H. Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 655. Stein points out the solidarity between the other disciples and Peter in the statement of loyalty. 87. Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Marc (Études Bibliques; Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1920), 358-361; R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2002), 573-579; Stein, Mark, 653-655. Contra. delimitation from vv. 26-31 see William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 509-513, who marks the delimitation at vv. 27-31. There are a number of pertinent issues in the exegesis of the text, and Lane rightly points out that a natural flow exists when one reads Mk 14,26.32, thus for some reason the Markan author inserted the material in vv. 27-31 (Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, 510), but this does not preclude the possibility that v. 26 begins a new section that details the events of the betrayal (vv. 26-31) and sets the stage for the next narrative sequence occurring at Gethsemene (vv. 32-42). Stein remarks that this is natural for Mark who introduces new sequences with geographical and chronological changes (Stein, Mark, 653). 88. France, The Gospel of Mark, 578. 89. Stein, Mark, 655. Peter’s “boasting makes his denial all the more sad and tragic. But Peter is not alone. All the other disciples also profess a willingness to die rather than deny Jesus, and they too will fall away.” 90. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 740.

166

CHAPTER FOUR

begun in 20,29 in response to a question posed by the Sadducees (v. 27) brought forth regarding levirate marriage (Lk 20,28; cf. Gen 38,8; Deut 25,5). The Sadducees put forth a hypothetical example of a woman being married to a man who died, and subsequently was remarried by the first brothers, but through a succession of deaths, she ended up being married to seven brothers. They all died with the caveat that they left her no children in the process. After the seventh, the woman mercifully91 died also (v. 32). After the death of the third brother, Luke inserts ὡσαύτως δὲ καί to link the previous comment made by the Sadducees with what would happen to the rest of the seven brothers. Robert Stein points out that if any of the brothers would have sired a child then the obligations of levirate marriage would be fulfilled and the question of whose husband the wife would have in the resurrection would be moot; instead, due to none of the brothers having a child made the question who the woman would be betrothed to in the resurrection one of no clear advantage.92 The hypothetical scenario lodged by the Sadducees focuses attention on the first three brothers, but links the outcome with the other four brothers with the use of ὡσαύτως δὲ καί.93 Clearly then, ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in Lk 20,31 is limited to close proximity with its referent. Again, this is consistent with its use overall. By way of conclusion, we remind the reader that what one notices in the NT is that the use of the adverb is in proximity with its referent. This comes out in each of the passages studied. We gather from this that the normal use of ὡσαύτως is to connect arguments closely related to one another. From the study of Paul’s writings, the LXX, and NT the use of ὡσαύτως is closely connected to its referent. The arguments to see the referent further back in the context do not take into consideration how the adverb works regularly and thus one is inclined to conclude that the referent to ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in Rom 8,26 is found in 8,25 and more specifically in ἐλπίς.

91. As Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: The English Text with Introduction Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 510-511, notes the Sadducees spurned belief in the resurrection, but Jesus held to such belief in tandem with the Pharisees. Asking Jesus who the woman would be married to the resurrection after the death of seven husbands was no doubt an assault on the belief of the resurrection and an attempt to undermine Jesus’ legitimacy. “Evidently their object in asking the question is to make the belief in the resurrection look ridiculous and in this manner also to make the Master, who believes in the resurrection, look ridiculous in the sight of the multitude.” 92. Robert H. Stein, Luke (NAC 24; Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 502. 93. For discussion on this see Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (BECNT 3B; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996), 1621.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

167

4.2.2.3. ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in Light of Paul’s Mission: The Relationship Between Hope and Spirit Exegetes tend to point to one referent when discussing the issue as was investigated above. The referent argued here is that ὡσαύτως δὲ καί connects vv. 25 and 26 and more to the point draws a comparison between hope and Spirit.94 This works within the larger trajectory of Paul’s purpose in writing the letter, for the mission of the Spirit and hope work in tandem with Paul’s overall mission in life. The concepts of hope and Spirit directly relate to the idea of overcoming weakness as evidenced in Romans 8. In Romans, ἐλπίς occurs in locations where it is directly connected to either hope in the midst of suffering, weakness, or perseverance; or in connection with the Spirit.95 In 4,18, Paul appeals to the example of Abraham whose hope was tied to belief, but also points to him not being weak in faith/ faithfulness in v. 19. One notes the connection between hope and weakness, something similar to what happens in 8,24-26. In 5,2.4-5, hope connects to faith, grace, tribulation, and the holy Spirit. In similar fashion, 8,20.24-25 ties hope to the difficulty facing creation as well as hope for those who believe in God. The connection between hope and some sort of struggle continues in 12,12 where Paul urges his readers to rejoice in hope, persevere in tribulation, and to be focused on prayer. This theme continues in 15,4 where readers are instructed to persevere and be encouraged by the scriptures so that we have hope. Paul finishes the usage of hope in 15,13 with a connection once again between hope and the holy Spirit. As can be preliminarily be seen, in Romans Paul has hope and Spirit in mind and this come out more fully in Romans 5 and 8. The relationship between hope and Spirit in Romans 8 has a precedent in Romans found in chapter 5. In his study on hope in Romans, John Paul Heil traces the development of hope in Romans 5-8, noting that a crescendo exists in Paul’s understanding.96 Heil argues structurally that Paul uses a rhetorical gradatio in 5,1-3 that filters through the dichotomy of suffering 94. From this point, one observes the connection between Rom 8,25-26 and Rom 5,5. Paul develops the argument of Rom 5,1-11 through the intervening chapters and culminates it in Romans 8 and specifically Rom 8,18-27. The way hope and the Spirit work to counter weakness becomes an important motif throughout and thus Rom 5,1-11 and Rom 8,18-27 form a parenthesis around the material presented between. 95. Rom 4,18; 5,2.4-5; 8,20.24-25; 12,12; 15,4.13. 96. John Paul Heil, Romans: Paul’s Letter of Hope (AnBib 112; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987), 35-62. Heil notes that hope develops throughout the chapters from the realistic hope found in 5,1-11 to the assured hope of 8,18-39 with points in between.

168

CHAPTER FOUR

and steadfastness, which forms the essence of hope.97 Hope then works in the context of suffering, making it possible to be patient and persevere with resultant endurance in those who keep hope.98 The climax of hope occurs in v. 4 where all the testing and approving results in “a renewal of hope.”99 Heil points out that suffering does not eliminate hope, rather, it “revives and nourishes our hope.”100 While one might see the existence of suffering as an argument against hope, Paul in effect turns that argument around and shows that in spite of suffering, hope persists. Even more to the point, suffering actually heightens the strength of hope, which seems to be a paradox at first glance. Heil concludes: “That the inevitable sufferings of human living instigate and incite us to hope all the more (5:3b-4) assures the reliability, growth and strength of our Christian hope. This vibrant hope, then, never stagnates but subsists as a dynamic phenomenon always open to a new and greater growth.”101 Undergirding the ability for hope to grow in the midst of suffering is the work of God expressed in the form of love (ἡ ἀγάπη) poured into our hearts (ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν). The medium by which this love is poured into the hearts occurs through the Spirit (διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου). Continuing with Heil’s argument, God then guarantees the hope with his love (Rom 5,68) that has been infused into the innerbeing of the believer.102 God comes to those who are hopeless and Christ dies on their behalf. All of this occurs through the holy Spirit, which in addition is a gift given to those who believe.103 As a result, the holy Spirit is in effect the missiological agent by which God enables those suffering to maintain and increase hope. Paul’s purpose relates to the mission of God to all people, a mission that adds the dimension of the Spirit as the missiological agent by which the mission can be realized. This comes out in addition when hope and Spirit are connected in Rom 8,2426. While the hope seen in 8,24-25 differs from that of 5,1-5, the hope continues to be working within a context of suffering of some sort, which is augmented by the groaning of creation (vv. 19-22) and ourselves (vv. 23-25). Paul argues in v. 24 that in hope we are saved, but it is a hope that is not 97. Heil, Romans, 37. 98. Heil, Romans, 37. “For us Christians who have hope, then, our suffering causes not a loss or destruction of hope but a transformation from hope to patient steadfastness. In other words, our suffering effectively brings about the steadfast, enduring or persevering aspect in out attitude of hope.” 99. Heil, Romans, 38. 100. Heil, Romans, 38. 101. Heil, Romans, 38. 102. Heil, Romans, 38. 103. Heil, Romans, 38.

THE REFERENT OF ὡσαύτως

δὲ καί

169

currently seen.104 Important also is that hope is again tied with perseverance as in 5,1-5. The one who perseveres eagerly will receive the longed-for hope. Paul connects the hope to which he has been speaking in v. 26 with the use of ὡσαύτως δὲ καί, thus, linking the aspect of hope with the Spirit in a realizable standpoint. Again, the existence of suffering, in this case weakness (v. 26) forms an essential ingredient in how hope intensifies in the midst of some form of trial or struggle. The missiological agent resurfaces as well, for one overcomes weakness through the Spirit’s intercession and alignment with God (vv. 26-27). Heil maps the role of hope and Spirit throughout the pericope, showing that the future hope to come while unseen speaks to the future glory to come (v. 18) and anticipates the inability of knowing what to pray for (v. 26), which necessitates the need for an external source to align with God’s desires (vv. 26-27), namely the Spirit.105 The inability to pray, while a result of weakness, concerns itself with the Spirit’s role in helping overcome that ability, but in the context of a future hope that is anticipated.106 What one sees then is that the argument of vv. 26-27 builds upon the proposition of hope found in vv. 24-25. The connection between hope and Spirit, in similar fashion to Rom 5,1-5 becomes part of Paul’s overall purpose in understanding how the Spirit works in tandem with God’s will. 4.3. CONCLUSION It has been argued in this chapter that the referent to ὡσαύτως δὲ καί in Rom 8,26 is found in vv. 24-25 and more specifically to the relation between hope and Spirit. While arguments have surfaced to tie the passage back to various points in the pericope, the most likely referent given to Paul’s overall argument and the way in which the adverbial clause has been used in other contexts suggest that it links thoughts in close proximity. That the referent is vv. 24-25 contextually makes the most sense as well, for Paul tends to use hope in specific ways in Romans, and the similarity between the construction in chapter 8 and 5 cannot be dismissed. This is particularly pointed when the triangular thoughts of suffering, hope, and Spirit are considered. It becomes clear that Paul sees hope increasing in times of suffering and the Spirit is the missiological medium God uses to help believers overcome. 104. Heil, Romans, 54. 105. Heil, Romans, 55-56. He also interacts with the role στεναγμός ἀλάλητος plays in v. 26, noting that “these groanings are worldless and inexpressible renders them appropriate intercessions for the ‘unseen’ future of God.” 106. Heil, Romans, 56.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

In 8,26a Paul uses τὸ πνεῦμα as the subject of the present middle indicative verb form συναντιλαμβάνεται. The Spirit aids τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν, a dative Fee considers as distributive.1 A number of questions arise to the phrase, which deserve attention. The next three chapters will analyze the phrase, focusing on τὸ πνεῦμα in this chapter, συναντιλαμβάνομαι in chapter 6 and ἡ ἀσθένεια in chapter 7. This chapter considers Paul’s understanding of τὸ πνεῦμα. A brief survey of the research on the topic commences first followed by an analysis of τὸ πνεῦμα in three directions: theological, Jewish, and Pauline. Finally, an analysis of other Pauline texts of τὸ πνεῦμα commences in order to understand Paul’s use of the term and in particular how it functions in Rom 8,26-27. 5.1. PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF τὸ πνεῦμα In this section, the concept of τὸ πνεῦμα in the biblical texts will be explored, especially in Paul’s letters.2 The primary interest is to know what Paul means 1. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 578. 2. Studies on “spirit/the Spirit” are plentiful. A full-blown treatment on τὸ πνεῦμα is beyond the scope of this chapter. For treatments on the topic see in part Hermann Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und der Lehre des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888); C. Briggs, “The Use of ‫ רוח‬in the Old Testament,” JBL 19 (1900): 132-145; W. R. Schoemaker, “The Use of Ruach in the Old Testament and πνεῦμα in the New Testament,” JBL 23 (1904): 13-67; P. Volz, Der Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheinungen im Alten Testament und im anschliessenden Judentum (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1910); E. F. Scott, The Spirit in the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923); F. Büschel, Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1926); R. B. Hoyle, The Holy Spirit in Paul (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928); F. J. Babcock, “‘The Spirit’ and Spirit in the New Testament,” ExpT 45 (1933-1934): 218-222; C. Armerding, “The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament,” BSac 92 (1935): 277-291; Gérard Verbeke, L’Evolution de la Doctrine du Pneuma du Stoicism a S. Augustin (Paris/Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer/L’Institut Superior de Philosophie, 1945); B. Ahern, “The Indwelling Spirit, Pledge of Our Inheritance – Eph 1.14,” CBQ 9 (1947): 179-189; J. Schniewind, “Das Seufzen des Geistes: Röm 8.26, 27,” in Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952), 81-103; William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5.19-23 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962); S. D. Currie, “‘Speaking in

172

CHAPTER FIVE

by τὸ πνεῦμα and more to the point how that concept works in Rom 8,2627. Additionally, the interest revolves around where Paul developed this idea whether from a source prior to him or an innovative concept. 5.2. CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION OF τὸ πνεῦμα In 1888 Hermann Gunkel published a work on the holy Spirit that would prove instrumental in framing research questions into the holy Spirit in the Tongues’: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament Bearing on ‘Glossais Lalein,’” Int 19 (1965): 174-194; M.-A. Chevallier, Esprit de Dieu: paroles d’hommes (Delachaux & Niestlé, 1966); R. Scroggs, “Paul: ΣΟΦΟΣ and ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ,” NTS 14 (1967-1968): 33-55; James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1970); D. Greenwood, “The Lord is the Spirit:’ Some Considerations of 2 Cor 3:17,” CBQ 34 (1972): 467-472; J. Hanimann, “‘Nous avons été abreuvés d’un seul Esprit:’ Note sur 1 Co 12,13b,” NouvRT 94 (1972): 400-405; James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus-Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans i:3-4,” JTS 24 (1973): 40-68; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975); Fuchs, “Der Anteil des Geistes am Glauben des Paulus,” 293-302; Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament (Heythrop Monographs 1; London: Heythrop College, 1976); George Montague, The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition (New York: Paulist, 1976); H. Räisänen, “Das ‘Gesetz des Glauben’ (Röm 3:27) und das ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Röm 8:2),” NTS 26 (1979-1980): 101-117; C. F. D. Moule, The Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978); Eduard Schweizer, The Holy Spirit (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980); F. F. Bruce, “The Study of the Holy Spirit in the Letter to the Galatians,” in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin (P. Elbert, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985), 36-48; Obeng, “The Origin of the Spirit Intercession Motif,” 621-632; Arthur E. Sekki, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLDS 110: Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989); Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and the Ministry in the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in 2 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990); Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie (FRLANT 154; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992); Michael E. Lodahl, Shekinah Spirit: Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion (New York: Paulist, 1992); Fee, God’s Empowering Presence; Wilf Hildebrandt, An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996); Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998); John A. Bertone, “The Function of the Spirit in the Dialectic Between God’s Soteriological Plan Enacted But Not Yet Culminated: Romans 8:1-27,” JPT 15 (1999): 75-97; Troels EngbergPedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh/Louisville, KY: T&T Clark/Westminster John Knox, 2000); idem. “Stoicism in the Apostle Paul: A Philosophical Reading,” in Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations (S. K. Strange and J. Zupko, eds.; Cambridge: CUP, 2004), 52-75; idem. “The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences Between Paul and Stoicism” ZNW 96 (2005): 35-60; John A. Bertone, “The Law of the Spirit”: Experience of the Spirit and Displacement of the Law in Romans 8:1-16 (StBL 86: New York: Peter Lang, 2005; “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις and Its Human Response,” HTR 101 (2008): 15-44; Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul; Levison, Filled with the Spirit; and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: OUP, 2010); Jörg Frey and John R. Levison (eds.), The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Berlin/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter, 2014).

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

173

nineteenth and twentieth centuries.3 One of Gunkel’s primary contributions was to appropriate the Spirit to the community’s experience, seeing the Spirit in dynamic fashion.4 Additionally, Gunkel maintained that Christian pneumatology needed to be read in light of early Judaism, with the additional nuances that Pauline pneumatolgy exhibited both continuity and discontinuity between early Christianity and Judaism. Gunkel’s work precipitated a wave of interest in the Spirit. Paul Volz considered the influences of inspired speech on the Spirit, comparing how the Spirit was presented in ancient writings.5 Friedrich Büchsel continued the emphasis of Spirit effects made by Gunkel and how the Spirit worked in the ancient world.6 Friedrich Wilhelm Horn focused on Paul’s letters, going against Gunkel in that Pauline pneumatology was found in early Christian formulations and Jewish tradition not based on experience, rather through a more logical approach.7 The crux of the issue is how one reads Pauline pneumatology, whether from a theological direction, from the Jewish angle, or even from the Hellenistic background.8 One can approach the study of the holy Spirit in myriad directions, but the purpose here is to set the idea of the interceding Spirit in the context of other literature. The following investigation is threefold: First, an examination into the theological directions some have taken will be considered. Second, the issue will be viewed in relation to other Jewish texts. Finally, an overview of how Paul understands the Spirit will be considered in his other writings. Dunn’s work on the Spirit highlights the experiential aspect of the Spirit in Paul, an experience that Paul projects from his own experience.9 The Spirit works within the heart of humans, transforming them from inside out, ultimately 3. Cf. Levinson, Filled with the Spirit, 3-7. Levinson sums up Gunkel’s importance when he writes: “This uncanny ability, at such a young age, to lay aside his own nineteenth-century assumptions in order to unearth first-century points of view – the transference of the spirit from the realm of the known to the mysterious, from the arena of human potential to that of an overwhelming force – had so much intellectual purchase that it effected an overhaul of pneumatology during the twentieth century. 4. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen, 100. 5. Volz, Der Geist Gottes, 78-145. 6. Büchsel, Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament, 5-14. 7. Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes, 10-24. 8. Cf. Emil Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihren Beziehungen zu einander (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 222. He maintains Paul’s indebtedness to Judaism and Hellenism in formulating his pneumatology. 9. Cf. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 201. “The Spirit is that power which operates on the heart of man – the ‘heart’ being the centre of thought, feeling, and willing, the centre of person consciousness, what we might call ‘the experiencing I’. The Spirit is that power of inner life which leaves far behind all the merely ritual and outward and makes a faith in God and worship of God existentially real.”

174

CHAPTER FIVE

impacting their daily activities.10 The Spirit is the one that frees people from regulations, causing ethical decisions to be based on “inward conviction and spontaneous love, of walking by the Spirit, rather than of unquestioning obedience to a law.”11 The Spirit is cast as a power from God, but has attributes beyond just a manifestation of God’s presence.12 For Dunn, being “in Christ” is the essential aspect to living a life in the Spirit. Additionally, the Spirit operates in domains that manifest in miracles, revelation, inspired utterance, and service.13 A proponent of the idea that Paul was using the Spirit in a theological and experiential sense is Fee. In his work dedicated to the Spirit, Fee summarizes his belief on the Spirit by stating: “For Paul the Spirit, as an experience and living reality, was the absolute crucial matter for Christian life, from beginning to end.”14 Fee concentrates his work solely on Paul, thus his concern wraps around Pauline pneumatology.15 While Fee agrees that Paul does not resemble the type of reflective theology that one ordinarily thinks of when discussing theology; he does contend that Paul sets forth an agenda of theological thinking that is more akin to task theology.16 Paul stands in the tradition of what God is doing in the history of the Jewish people, but injects how Christ and the Spirit fit into God’s plan.17 The connection between Christ and Spirit are paramount for Fee’s understanding, and he sees the Spirit work in the orbit of christocentricity.18 Contrary 10. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 201. 11. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 201. 12. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 202. One sees this when reading Dunn’s enuciation of the Spirit with the pronoun “he” (202). The personal nature of the Spirit becomes clear, “He is that baptismal water into which the whole person is publicly plunged …”. 13. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 209-258. 14. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 1. As such, Fee’s work is centered on Pauline theology in general, and Pauline pneumatology in particular. The approach toward theology sets the work apart from more historical treatments. See also his “Christology and Pneumatology in Romans 8:9-11 – and Elsewhere: Some Reflections on Paul as a Trinitarian,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (Joel B. Green and Max Turner, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1994), 312-331. 15. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 2, anticipates the problem with going down a theological direction, but does so in an unyielding manner. “For some a book on the Spirit as ‘theology’ is the kiss of death: and in many ways I am in that camp.” 16. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 2. This places Paul beyond the bounds of philosophical theology and more in tune with “the theologizing that takes place in the marketplace, where belief and the experience of God run head-on into the thought systems, religions, and everyday life of people in the Greco-Roman world at the beginning of the second half of the first century CE.” 17. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 2. 18. Fee, “Christology and Pneumatology,” 313-314. He states: “That Paul perceived the closest kind of ties between the exalted Christ and the Holy Spirit can scarcely be gainsaid.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

175

to Dunn, who tends to collapse the distinction between Christ and the Spirit,19 Fee focuses on the personal nature of the Spirit.20 Fee’s exegesis leads him to conclude that Paul, while a monotheist, did espouse a trinitarian language wrapped around Father, Son, and Spirit.21 The point around this view for Fee unfolds in its appropriation to the community whereby God saves a people through Christ and the Spirit.22 Given that the Spirit works in such close proximity to the believer, for Fee it is necessary to see how the Spirit works within the community. The crucible element for Fee is: how the early church came to appropriate the salvation that Christ had brought; and here was how believers came to understand their own existence as essentially eschatological, with the Spirit as both the evidence that God’s great future for the people of God had already made its way into the present and the guarantee that God would conclude what he had begun in Christ. Thus, the Spirit is absolutely presuppositional to their entire experience and understanding of their present life in Christ.23

How the early Christ followers formed an identity is of utmost concern, with Christ and the Spirit being the ones that brought about a unique Christian identity.24 Just as the coming of Christ forever marked Paul’s understanding of God, so also the coming of Christ forever marked his understanding of the Spirit” (313). He concludes: “Thus it is fair to say that Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit moves toward christocentricity, in the sense that Christ and his work often give definition and focus to the Spirit and his work in the Christian life” (314). 19. For example, Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 324-325. See also, Ingo Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma: Studien zur Christologie der paulinischen Hauptbriefe (SzANT; München: Kösel-Verlag, 1961). 20. Fee, “Christology and Pneumatology,” 314. 21. Fee, “Christology and Pneumatology,” 327. 22. Fee, “Christology and Pneumatology,” 327. 23. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 2-3. 24. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 3, discusses how identity formulation occurs with the main contours of its derivation being continuity/discontinuity and coherence/contingency. Fee’s concern on continuity/discontinuity relates to the relationship between the old covenant and the new, how God’s word is sent to Israel, and what God’s word through Christ meant. What is continuous with the Jewish tradition in place, and what are the discontinuous lines of early Christian formulation? As far as coherence/contingency, the point is whether or not there is a core to Pauline theology and how to approach setting out an agenda of theological reflection; albeit, from a “coherent” setting up of Paul’s main thought lines, or siphoning through the disparate elements as they are articulated in his various letters, thus making them “contingent” upon one another in some fashion? Fee’s take on coherence/contingency is based upon the arguments set forth by the work of J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980), 11-36. Beker’s analysis of the issue is highly significant especially related to questions pertaining to the core of Pauline theology and the contingency of his letters.

176

CHAPTER FIVE

Fee’s project is to analyze all the texts in Paul that refer to τὸ πνεῦμα. His overall conclusions indicate where his exegesis has taken him. First, he sees the Spirit as a person, and as such Fee takes this idea into Trinitarian thinking, a point he admits is not taken by all scholars, but one he advances with certainty.25 Second, the Spirit acts as God’s presence and is the fulfillment of Old Testament promises found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, being the indwelling presence of God in those who believe in God.26 This is embodied in the temple language found in Exodus (cf. Book of Covenant in 20-24 and instructions to construct temple in 25-31). Paul takes the ideas found in Exodus and reshapes them to fit the Christian community (1 Cor 3,16-17; 6,19), making the church the place where God’s presence (which is the Spirit) resides.27 Third, the Spirit acts as God’s empowering presence, a point that solidifies Paul’s understanding of the Old Testament, and where God exhibits his concern for believers by sending the Spirit to act in his stead.28 Fee asserts that Paul’s use of power is not simply that of the miraculous, but must be understood from a broader and more eschatological framework since the Spirit works from a future orientation on one hand, but also helps people through adversity in the present, allowing God’s people to persevere as they await their final glory.29 The basic contour for Fee’s thought on Paul’s understanding of the Spirit then can be summarized in the words person, presence, and power.30 It is from this paradigm that Fee builds upon Paul’s theology. 5.3. JEWISH BACKGROUNDS The second area of investigation regarding the Spirit includes considerations of Jewish backgrounds. These include the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other Second Temple Jewish writings. 25. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 5-6, 14-36. “The Spirit of Christ is not lightly called the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Christ has put a human face on the Spirit as well. If we are to truly understand Paul, and to capture the crucial role of the Spirit in his theology, we must begin with his thoroughly Trinitarian presuppositions.” 26. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 6. 27. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 8. 28. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 8. 29. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 8. “On the one hand, the future had broken in so powerfully that signs and wonders and miracles are simply matter-of-fact (1 Cor 12:8-11; Gal 3:5); on the other hand, the Spirit also empowers for endurance in the midst of adversity (Col 1:11; 2 Cor 12:9-10) – and for everything else as we endure, awaiting the final glory, of which the Spirit is the guarantee.” As one can no doubt see, this statement interfaces with what Paul has constructed in Rom 8,18-30 where the Spirit works in the already and the not yet. 30. Cf. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 803-895, where he unpacks the theological significance of the three in great detail.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

177

5.3.1. Old Testament “The Spirit of God in the Old Testament (hereafter OT) appears to be the energizing force in the lives of people to accomplish God’s mission on earth,” so begins the introduction of Presence, Power, and Promised edited by David Firth and Paul Wegner.31 The volume considers questions related to the presentation of the spirit of God in the OT.32 Their work concentrates on a number of areas, including how the spirit in the OT relates to the ANE, the spirit and creation, the spirit and wisdom, the spirit and creativity, the spirit and prophecy, the spirit and leadership, the spirit and the future, and the spirit at Qumran. The Hebrew ‫רוּח‬ ַ occurs in excess of 387 times,33 but Firth and Wegner’s volume narrows the focus to the 39 times they consider specifically in connection to God.34 Even narrowed, the broad range of meanings readily is detected, which they reflect in the themes undertaken in the book. What the writings in the volume set forth is a view of the Spirit of God that is dynamic and active, whether as the agent behind creation (Gen 1,2),35 the giver of wisdom (Wis Sol 7,22-25),36 the agent of divine empowerment (Zech 4,6),37 or as a leader in the community (Num 11,4-35).38 31. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds., “Introduction,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011), 15. 32. Firth and Wegner, “Introduction,” 15. “The Spirit of God is an important topic in the OT, and yet there is surprisingly little scholarly work on this issue.” Their purpose in the volume is to address the supposed paucity of material in the subject area. 33. Cf. M. V. Van Pelt, W. C. Kaiser, and D. I. Block, “‫רוַּח‬,” in NIDOTTE 3 (William A. VanGemeren, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 3.1073. 34. Firth and Wegner, “Introduction,” 16. They narrow it as 11 times “spirit of God,” 25 times “spirit of the Lord,” 3 times “Holy Spirit or spirit of holiness.” 35. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., “The Spirit and Creation,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (eds.); Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011), 71-91. Hubbard contends that Gen 1,2 represents a serious problem encountering creation, and in dire need of rescue to which the spirit fills an important role. The spirit overcomes the problems of creation (Gen 1,2), breathes life into humans (Gen 2,7), and works in accord with God’s plan. “The spirit compares to an active player warming up on the field for a game, not a spectator seated passively in the stands. God is about to do something important – and perhaps even to speak. The reader knows that, whether stirring humans or nature, the rûaḥ always shows up decisively to intervene or effect change” (89). 36. Cf. Tremper Longman III, “Spirit and Wisdom,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011), 95-110, 109. 37. Daniel I. Block, “The View from the Top: The Holy Spirit in the Prophets,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011), 175-207, 188. 38. David G. Firth, “The Spirit and Leadership: Testimony, Empowerment and Purpose,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011), 259-280, 263-265.

178

CHAPTER FIVE

M. V. Pelt, W. C. Kaiser, and D. I Block focus on the creative aspects of the spirit of God noting its work in connection to creation (Gen 1,2; 8,1; Ps 104,29; Job 33,5) and the formation of the people of God (Exod 14,1920; 15,10; cf. Ac 2,1-4).39 Additionally, they maintain the spirit exhibits qualities of omnipresence (Ps 139,7), omniscience (Is 40,13), and divine glory (Hag 2,5).40 The spirit of God acts in accordance with God’s will, serving as an intermediary of divine action, either disruptive (Judg 9,23; 1 Sam 16,1416.23; 18,10; 19,9), or on behalf of God’s people (2 Kgs 2,16; Ezek 2,2; 3,12.14; 8,3; 11,24; 37,1).41 Of vital importance was the spirit of God’s role in prophecy where people were inspired to speak under God’s control (Num 11,17.25; 24,2; 1 Sam 10,6.10; 2 Sam 23,2; Neh 9,20.30; Ezek 11,5; 13,3; Zech 7,12).42 Lastly, the Spirit works eschatologically, being an important element in God’s plan for the future, including being poured out on people (Joel 2,28-29), and actively working to restore the covenant (Is 32,15; 44,3-4; Ezek 39,29).43 For Pelt, Kaiser, and Block the Spirit of God is a marker of identity whereby the people of God know their identity is secure.44 In his dissertation on the spirit of God, Alphonsus Benson concentrates attention on the life-giving aspects of the spirit, ‫רוּח‬ ַ in relation to πνεῦμα, 45 and the divine attributes of the spirit of God. He asserts that the presence of the spirit is essential from the beginning of life (cf. Gen 2,7; 6,17; 7,15; Ps 103(104),29-30), the perpetuation of life (Job 27,3), and when life ends (Job 17,1; Ps 134(135),17; 145(146),4; Eccl 3,19-21; 12,7; Wis 16,14).46 His investigation of πνεῦμα causes him to conclude that ‫רוּח‬ ַ and πνεῦμα are equivalent in biblical usage, focusing on the role πνεῦμα plays in the Book of Wisdom.47 Wisdom uses πνεῦμα 20 times in a variety of contexts. First, it is seen as the “spirit of instruction” (1,5; cf. 7,7).48 Wisdom is considered a loving/benevolent spirit (1,6).49 Important for Benson is also “the spirit of the Lord” (1,7) that ties the expression to other texts (Judg 3,10; 6,34; 11,39; 1 Kgs 10,6; 11,6; 16,13-15) as well as the omnipresence of God 39. Pelt, Kaiser, Block, “‫רוּח‬,” ַ 1075. 40. Pelt, Kaiser, Block, “‫רוּח‬,” ַ 1075. 41. Pelt, Kaiser, Block, “‫רוּח‬,” ַ 1075-1076. 42. Pelt, Kaiser, Block, “‫רוּח‬,” ַ 1076. 43. Pelt, Kaiser, Block, “‫רוּח‬,” ַ 1077. 44. Pelt, Kaiser, Block, “‫רוּח‬,” ַ 1077 45. Alphonsus Benson, The Spirit of God in the Didactic Books of the Old Testament (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949). 46. Benson, The Spirit of God, 9-11. 47. Benson, The Spirit of God, 12-17. 48. Benson, The Spirit of God, 13. 49. Benson, The Spirit of God, 13.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

179

(cf. Ps 138(139),7).50 In each of the cases where πνεῦμα is found in the Book of Wisdom, it directly correlates to the way the Hebrew bible understands ‫רוּח‬. ַ 51 Wilf Hildebrandt shows similar themes as those of Firth and Wegner. Like them he is interested in the spirit of God in creation (cf. Is 40,3; Job 26,13; Ps 33,6; Prov 1,23), the way the spirit forms the people of God (cf. Gen 6,3), the leadership and management dimensions of the spirit (cf. Gen 41,38), and how the spirit works in areas of prophecy (cf. Num 22,1-24.,25; 2 Sam 23,2; 1 Kings 22).52 Daniel Block examines the spirit in Ezekiel, noting at the time of his writing that a serious lack of attention to the doctrine of the spirit in the Old Testament exists.53 He considers Ezekiel as the prophet of the Spirit because of the instances of its usage; though, he does qualify the prophet of the Spirit idea since Ezekiel’s use of spirit is multifaceted not monolithic.54 Ezekiel presents a number of images of the spirit throughout the book including that of wind, direction, agency of conveyance, agency of animation, agency of inspiration, mind, and sign of divine ownership.55 While the initial term means wind or breath, what Block shows is that the Old Testament writers, particularly Ezekiel nuanced the meaning by broadening its scope. The chief concern would be that of divine presence on the earth (Ps 139,7). The spirit serves as “the agency through which God’s will is exercised, whether it be in creation, his dispensing of life, his guidance and providential care, the revelation of his will, his salvation (Isaiah 63), his renewal of unregenerate hearts and minds, or his sealing of his covenant people as his own.”56 From this perspective, the spirit emanates from Yahweh and is directly linked to Yahweh’s actions and concerns for the world. John Levison undertakes a study of the principle of being filled with the Spirit.57 Levinson’s interest in the Spirit has been ongoing for a number of 50. Benson, The Spirit of God, 14. 51. Benson, The Spirit of God, 17. For Benson “it is legitimate to conclude that πνευμα in the Book of Wisdom is equivalent to the Hebrew term ruah.” 52. Hildenbrandt, Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God, 28-66.69-72.105-110.157160. 53. Daniel I. Block, “The Prophet of the Spirit: The Use of RWH in the Book of Ezekiel,” JETS 32 (1989): 27-49, 27. 54. Block, “The Prophet of the Spirit,” 28-29. ‫ רוח‬occurs 52 times in Ezekiel, 51 times in Isaiah, and 18 times in Jeremiah. Block points out that it does not occur a single time in Leviticus, and given Ezekiel’s borrowing of both themes and stylistic features from Leviticus, it shows that Ezekiel moves into a new direction than Leviticus. 55. Block, “The Prophet of the Spirit, 29. 56. Block, “The Prophet of the Spirit,” 48. 57. Cf. Levison, Filled with the Spirit.

180

CHAPTER FIVE

years.58 He seeks to reframe and redraw the discussion of ancient pneumatology. His driving question is: “What is the relationship between the spirit that human beings possess by dint of birth – the life principle of breath within – and the spirit that exhibits awesome effects?”59 Where Levison departs from others is his insistence that both the life principle and the spirit of God are the same and that the initial endowment one receives of God’s spirit at birth is not inferior to the charismatic endowment received later, but has supernatural effects in and of itself.60 The first relevant connection is between Ezekiel 36-37 and Rom 5,3-5. Levison connects the idea that as a result of sufferings in life, God’s love has been expressed by the pouring out of the holy Spirit, who has been given (Rom 5,3-5) to the context of Ezekiel 36-37 for the hope brought to national Israel was prompted by a culture of despair. In 2 Corinthians, Paul details that his afflictions caused despair to arise in his life, even to the point of death, albeit, this despair and threat of death did not take away his hope given that his reliance was not on himself, but upon God who raises the dead (2 Cor 1,8-10). For Levison, the motifs of hope and despair, and being raised from death to life point to Ezekiel 36-37 where the afflictions and sufferings of national Israel were erased by the spirit’s intervention in the world.61

58. Cf. John R. Levison, “The Debut of the Divine Spirit in Josephus’ Antiquities,” HTR 87 (1994): 123-138; “Josephus’ Interpretation of the Divine Spirit,” JJS 47 (1996): 234-255; “Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus,” JSJ 26 (1995): 271-323; “The Prophetic Spirit as an Angel According to Philo,” HTR 88 (1995): 189-207; “Prophetic Inspiration in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” JQR 85 (1995): 297-329; The Spirit in First Century Judaism (AGJU 29; Leiden: Brill, 1997; “Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data,” NTS 43 (1997): 35-57; “The Pluriform Foundation of Early Christian Pneumatology,” in Advents of Pneumatology: An Introduction to the Current Study of Pneumatology (B. E. Hinze and L. Dabney, eds.; Marquette: WI: Marquette University Press, 2001), 66-85; “The Spirit and the Temple in Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians,” in Paul and His Theology (Stanley Porter, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 189-215; “The Two Spirits in Qumran Theology,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol 2; James H. Charlesworth, ed.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 169-264; “The Promise of the Spirit of Life in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity (Donald Capes, April DeConick, Helen Bond, and T. Miller, eds.; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 247-259; “Holy Spirit,” in Dictionary of the Historical Jesus (Craig Evans, ed.; New York/London: Routledge, 2008), 291293. 59. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 11, it. orig. His point is to also go against much of scholarship in the 20th century. He writes, “It is time to supplant Gerlemann’s distinction between the anthropological-psychological spirit and the charismatic spirit, between Lampe’s soul and actual spirit of God, and between Horn’s essentially physical breath and the charismatic spirit that inspires judges and prophets.” 60. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 12. 61. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 260.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

181

It does not stop there, though, for the Spirit as pledge (2 Cor 5,5) builds upon Ezekiel for its origination, a point substantiated by a life filled with the confidence received and lived by faith/faithfulness (2 Cor 5,6-7) in the “earthly tent” (2 Cor 5,1.6).62 In 5,2 Paul writes that we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling. Levison points to the importance of ἐπί as it relates to “upon” and how this intersects with Ezek 37,5-6 where the writer uses “upon” three times to emphasize that sinews, flesh and skin will stretch across the dry bones.63 Levison argues this provides the backdrop to Paul’s use of the passage in 2 Corinthians 5 and further substantiates that Paul continually referred to Ezekiel and the ideas of new creation and renewed embodiment (cf. Ezek 36,26; 37,5-6.10.14; 1 Thes 4,8). The crux of the matter for Levison is the idea of absorption: “As in the literature of the Qumran sectarians, the language of Ezekiel is absorbed into the concerns of a particular literary moment.”64 Throughout Paul’s letters, the idea of absorption occurs, whereby Paul takes the arguments from the prophet Ezekiel and its language and applies it to various texts (1 Thes 4,3-8; Gal 6,15; Rom 8,15; 1 Cor 2,12; 2 Cor 11,4; Gal 3,2). Ultimately, Levison begins the comparison between the Qumran community and Pauline communities. Speaking of Gal 3,13-14 and the promise of the Spirit, he comments that while “the Galatians, tucked somewhere in Asia Minor, may not have known of them, certainly Paul was at least acquainted with the community alongside the Dead Sea that avidly embraced the coexistence of life in the spirit and rigid adherence to the Torah.”65 The Qumran community enjoyed a robust view of the spirit (cf. 4Q504 4 4-5; 1Q28b[1QSb] II 24; 1QSVII 9-10.13-14; 1QHII 19-24; 1QHV 24-25; 1QHVIII 19-20; 1QHXX 11-12; 1QHXXI 14).66 Due to the Qumran communities perception as spirit-filled and covenant fulfilling, Paul reacted against this type of linking of the Spirit and Torah, therefore, while on one hand he could be seen as continuous with his tradition, on the other he was thoroughly discontinuous putting forth ideas in opposition to the tradition.67 Therefore, 62. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 261. 63. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 261. 64. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 264. 65. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 271. 66. Cf. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 202-217. The chapter on Ezekiel and the vision of purity, which takes into consideration how the spirit works in the DSS is pertinent. 67. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 271. Writing on the Qumran community, Levison observes: “Although the community at Qumran regarded itself as spirit-filled, covenant-fulfilling, favored and blessed, such claims did not lead away from Torah but toward it, to an ultrarigorous application of Torah in the to and fro of daily life. Theirs was the ultimate interpretation of Torah (4Q266 11) which demanded of the sectarians a scrupulous and inexorable adherence to Torah.

182

CHAPTER FIVE

the Qumran community saw the spirit-filled life as one that is dependent upon Torah observance, which Paul opposed. For Paul, the Spirit filled life was one that was not bound to the complete devotion to Torah and was open to all (Gal 3,26-29).68 5.3.2. Dead Sea Scrolls A number of works in the past few decades have focused on how the spirit is characterized in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hermann Lichtenberger points out that those studying the concept in the NT should carefully consider the role spirits and demons played in the ancient world, particularly in how they influenced people’s actions.69 The Qumran literature reinforces this idea as seen in a number of texts (1QS 3.7,13-4.26; 1QH 14.25; 16.9; 4Q506.131132; 11QMelch 3.2.18). The use of spirit is particularly pronounced in the Community Rule and the Hodayot. Attention to ‫ רוח‬in the DSS has formed the attention of scholars from the beginning of DSS scholarship.70 In the following sections, two groups of texts will be considered briefly, The Rule of the Community (1QS) and the Hodayot (1QH). 5.3.2.1. The Rule of the Community (1QS) In 1QS, two topic areas arise: the so-called Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Holy Spirit (1QS III 13-IV 26).71 The two spirits material has been According to their charter document, departure from the strict adherence was penalized severely: ten day’s banishment from the community for interrupting a companion (1QS VII 9-10); thirty days for spitting or ‘giggling inanely’ during a meeting (1QS VII 13-14); one year for lying about possessions (1QS VI 24-25); and two years for betraying the truth and walking in a manner that Jeremiah and Ezekiel detested, in the stubbornness of the heart (1QS VII 18-19).” 68. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 271. 69. Hermann Lichtenberger, “Spirits and Demons in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 14-20, 14. 70. For a helpful review of the literature from 1950-1989 see Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, 7-69. Sekki sees the interpretation as occurring in stages: 1950-1955 as initial questions offered (7-26), 1956-1961 where growing debates were underway over various solutions offered (26-51), and 1962 to 1989 that reflects on the trends in the period relative to spirit in the DSS (51-69). See also Jörg Frey, “Paul’s View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature (STDJ 102; Jean-Sébastian Rey, ed.; Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2014), 237-260. Frey provides a detailed study of the scholarship on the issue in recent years. 71. Of considerable interest to scholars concerns the lack of two spirits material in the cave 4 Rule of the Community manuscripts. Current discussions relate to compositional issues.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

183

ascribed to the theology of the community, though this has not gone unchallenged.72 Considerable discussion has focused on the meaning of the two spirits.73 The possible anthropological dimensions of the two spirits material goes beyond the scope of the interest here, for the topic of concern relates to the holy spirit idea espoused by the texts.74 The term holy spirit occurs a number of times in 1QS (III 7; IV 21; VIII 16; IX 3). In 1QS III 7, the issue at hand refers to defilement and overcoming it. In order for one to be purified, he needs to take on the counsel of the community (1QS III 6). The means by which the individual is cleansed is through the “holy spirit of the community” (III 7, ‫)ובוח קדושה ליחד‬. One notes that the means by which the cleansing occurs is the yahad, a community that has a holy spirit to it. The holy spirit referred to is ambiguous in 1QS III 7, but what does surface concerns the means by which the cleansing occurs. In other words, the writer casts the holy spirit as the instrument by which the community can establish the way in which people can be cleansed. This theme continues in 1QS IV 21 where God cleanses a person from wickedness with a “spirit of holiness.”75 The spirit of holiness exhibits See Charlotte Hempel, “The Treatise of the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community,” in Dualism in Qumran (LSTS 76; Géza Xeravits, ed.; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 102-120. Hempel notes, “The publication of the Cave 4 manuscripts of the Rule has revealed that not all manuscripts contained the Treatise of the Two Spirits. Thus, some Rule manuscripts circulated without the equivalent to the four columns of 1QS. Scholars are debating whether this indicates that the original text of the Rule was shorter than 1QS or whether these shorter manuscripts are abbreviations of an originally longer text” (104). 72. For an overview of the issues see Florentino García-Martínez, Qumranic Minora I. Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism (STDJ 63; Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 227-241. 73. The background to the two spirits is not the concern here. For an overview of the issues see Levison, “The Two Spirits in Qumran Theology,” 169-194, 172-182. Levison notes three streams of interpretation have arisen: External parallels with Zoroastrianism where the two spirits were in cosmic battle with one another, internal grounds where the two spirits were inside individuals, and creative exegesis of 1 Sam 16:14. For additional overview see Sekki, Meaning of Ruaḥ, 193-219. 74. For more on the discussion see in part P. Wernberg-Moller, “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community,” RevQ 3 (1961): 413-442. Wernberg-Moller notes that this passage deals “with the idea that man was created by God with two ‘spirits’ – the Old Testament term for ‘mood’ or ‘disposition,’” (422). This is not the only understanding however, as Bertone, “The Law of the Spirit:” 107-109, points out. Matthias Wenk, CommunityForming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (JPT Supp 19; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 100-101, argues that the spirit in 1QS refers to the spirits concerns the work of God’s spirit in his people. 75. Cf. Florentino García-Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition: Volume 1 (1Q1-4Q273) (Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill/Eerdmans, 1997), 79, who translate it “spirit of holiness” rather than holy spirit in this case. When one considers the context

184

CHAPTER FIVE

salvific qualities for the individual via the spirit of holiness receives cleansing from wicked deeds. The writer builds this theme into the next clause, for the “spirit of truth” is poured over the recipient like water so as to bring cleansing. This spirit of holiness and spirit of truth works under the auspices of God’s action to cleanse the one in need of cleansing. The spirit reinforces the idea that it works within the mission of God to accomplish the needed freedom from defilement, an important element for the DSS community. 1QS VIII 16 sets the holy spirit within a context of prophetic utterance, for the prophets reveal information via the holy spirit. Following a quotation from Is 40,3 (VIII 14), the writer emphasizes that the study of the law arose from Moses to continue within the stream of tradition in God’s activity in the world. The statement about the prophets surfaces after showing that the holy spirit effects the revealed knowledge presented by the prophets. The importance of the prophetic tradition cannot be overstated, for the writer of 1QS exhorts the community to keep in the right path and not shun the commandments. Important for our purposes here, once again, is the activity of the holy spirit in establishing the mission of God. The holy spirit is tied to God for it is his holy spirit, while at the same time being the agent by which the revelation occurred to the prophets. The final text to consider is 1QS IX 3 where the ‫ רוח קודש‬can also again be translated as either “holy spirit” or “spirit of holiness.” Given that it is tied to truth, one can see it as spirit of holiness in context. The point of this passage is that the community will be holy, set apart, and walking in perfection (IX 6). Regarding the spirit of holiness here, the text focuses less on the role of the spirit of holiness and more on the creation of a community established in truth. The instructor anticipates the day when sacrifices will no longer be needed (IX 4) and where justice will rise like a fragrant aroma (IX 5). The eschatological vision of the text longs for a day when the community will walk in perfection, where justice will prevail, and where a spirit of holiness in truth will be the reigning paradigm. While the idea of holy spirit or spirit of holiness in this text does not carry the full weight of the others, it still reinforces the idea that the medium by which truth comes is through this spirit of holiness. In no way does it precipitate an emanation from God as his spirit like in VIII 16, for it could be an attitude existing within the community, but it still does show that the community pursues the mission of God in the world of a just and holy community. of the passage, this translation underscores the overall sense of the text, for in IV 20 there is a “spirit of injustice” and in IV 21 with the “spirit of holiness” arises the phrase “spirit of truth.”

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

185

5.3.2.2. The Hodayot (1QH) The Thanksgiving Hymn, or Hodayot plays an essential role in the thought of the DSS community.76 Von der Osten-Sacken demonstrated a continuity between OT traditions and the Hodayot,77 a point developed by Bertone who points out that this was fully seen in the “eschatological promises made in the book of Ezekiel.”78 The writer of the hymn seems to be the one to whom the spirit directs attention (Ezek 36,27; 37,14; 1QH V19; VIII11; XX11.12).79 The role of the spirit shows “that the Essenes believed the future promise spoken through the prophet was actualized in their own community; they possessed the eschatological Spirit and were consequently empowered to abide by the Law.”80 Studies point out that ‫ רוח‬occurs in excess of 80 times in 1QH showing its importance to the document.81 While the term occurs often, Frey notes its meaning is not limited; rather, it exhibits a wide range of meaning in the text.82 A number of texts in the Hodayot deal with the idea of holy spirit or God’s spirit that broadens the understanding of the spirit in the document (1QHa V 25; VI 13; VII 25; VIII 10.15.20; XV 7; XVII 32; XX 11-20; XXIII 13). The most integrated of the ones listed is XX 11-20 so it will be considered. 76. The Hodayot can be found in both caves 1 and 4. For an overview of the introductory issues involved in it see in part André Dupont-Sommer, “”Le Livre des Hymnes découvert prés de la Mer Morte (1QH), Traduction intégral avec introduction et notes,” Sem 7 (1957): 5-120. For the reconstruction of the text and critical issues see Hartmut Stegemann and Eileen Schuller, 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f (Qumran Cave 1 III; DJD 40; Oxford: Clarendon, 2009). 77. Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 165169. 78. Bertone, “The Law of the Spirit,” 101. 79. While beyond the scope of interest here, this brings up the element of authorship of the Hodayot. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, 67, entertains the idea that the Righteous Teacher authored the hymn, though he does not argue it forcefully. He translates the phrase ‫ מורה הצדק‬as Righteous Teacher against the more commonly used Teacher of Righteousness, in order to emphasize the identity of the teacher over the content of the teaching (66, n. 12). He points out that early interpretation saw the Righteous Teacher as the author of the Hodayot, but recent scholarship has been more skeptical of that view. See Bertone, “Law of the Spirit,” 101 n. 236 who opts for a more cautious view of authorship, concluding that the Teacher of Righteousness is one option, but cannot be confirmed conclusively. Bertone notes the syntactical parallels between the Ezekiel texts and the Hodayot. 80. Bertone, “Law of the Spirit,” 101-102. 81. Martin G. Abegg, Jr. with James E. Bowley and Edward M. Cook in consultation with Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance: Volume One: The Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran (Part Two; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 674. The high incidence rate prompts Frey to remark: “This text, therefore, uses the term ‫ רוח‬even more densely than Paul does in his letters (“Paul’s View of the Spirit,” 253). 82. Frey, “Paul’s View of the Spirit,” 253.

186

CHAPTER FIVE

1QHa XX 11-20 highlights the relation between the instructor and God, particularly in how the spirit was given to the instructor (XX 11-12) and how the instructor has received some information from ‫( ברוח קדשכה‬XX 12).83 God’s holy spirit becomes the medium by which the instructor receives knowledge of wisdom and power (XX 13). God places the spirit within the individual, and that spirit brings about a knowledge necessary for the instructor to stand in right relationship with God (cf. 1QHa V25).84 What one sees is an understanding of the spirit as missional by which God accomplishes his plan, or as Frey aptly states: “The divine spirit is further described as the power that draws the individual closer to God, changes the fundamental orientation of life, or elevates the human from dust into the community of angels. It motivates prayer and strengthens for the struggle against evil and causes joy.”85 1QHa VII 25 carries the same sentiment, for God uses the spirit in a way to accomplish his desires. While not the same as the missiological approach argued in previous chapters, what does come through here is that the Hodayot understood the holy spirit from God as a missional agent working in tandem with God’s mission. In the case of 1QHa XX 11-20, that missional agent serves to provide the instructor with knowledge and the mystery of wisdom and stands as the source of power. 5.3.2.3. Conclusion The preliminary sketch of spirit in the DSS shows that those texts dealing with a form of divine type spirit align with a missiological approach to the spirit. There is no argument put forth here that the spirit in the DSS material resembles that in Paul, but one cannot help but notice the similarities between the spirit as mediator for divine purpose. God’s spirit in these texts 83. In similar fashion, 1QHa V25 has the spirit being placed within a person. 84. Frey, “Paul’s View of the Spirit,” 255, makes some pertinent remarks here: “Apart from purity, the spirit primarily grants knowledge, as was expected for the future in the pre-sectarian Treatise on the Two Spirits. Here, the knowledge and revelation about God’s mysteries or even about God himself is considered a present gift, obtainable within the community.” 85. Frey, “Paul’s View of the Spirit,” 255. For Frey, the connection between Paul and Qumran cannot be dismissed: “With such a concept of the ‘holy spirit’ we are quite close to many of the early Christian and, especially, Pauline views. See also Scott J. Hafemann, “The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law, and the Temple of God’s Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul’s Thought,” in Evangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag (Jostein Ådna, Scott J. Hafemann, Otfried Hofius, eds.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 172-189. Hafemann states: “Both Paul and Qumran were convinced that the obedience to the Law made possible under the new covenant is brought about by the power of the divine Spirit” (180). See also 1QHa VIII 10.15.20 where the spirit acts as an aid in strengthening and purifying a person.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

187

aligns with God’s mission and helps the people of God synchronize their actions and beliefs in harmony with God. 5.3.3. Josephus Josephus does not use the term πνεῦμα a great deal. Its incidence resembles that of other writings in ancient literature (wind, breath, spirit, evil spirit, spirit of God). He does use the term thirty-four times, though it has been pointed out that he does not use it in relation to the human spirit.86 Of interest here concerns the way Josephus presents the divine spirit and this comes up more often as τὸ θεῖον πνεῦμα instead of τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ.87 Noteworthy for this study is the way in which God’s spirit presents itself in Josephus, for as Bertone points out Josephus always uses it along with prophecy and prophets.88 An example of this occurs in Ant. IV 108, 119-120 where the story of Balaam introduces the reader to the divine spirit as being the one blocking Balaam’s path (108), and the one who inspired Balaam’s speech. Balak’s protestations against the prophetic utterance were met with Balaam’s recognition that the spirit of God was responsible for alighting upon him89 and placing the words in his mouth (118-119).90 Bertone’s interest in the matter relates to the Law and seeing the spirit working in the prophets in line with a Torah based ethic,91 but the point here simply shows that the spirit is the agent by which God works among the prophets. In similar fashion, one sees the work of the divine spirit in VI 166 where the divine spirit left Saul and went to David instead, causing him to prophesy (ὁ μὲν προφητεύειν ἤρξατο τοῦ θείου πνεύματος), and VI 222 where other prophets prophesied under the guidance of the divine spirit (τοῦ θείου μεταλαμβάνουσι πνεύματος καὶ προφητεύειν ἤρξαντο). This shows again that the idea of God’s spirit, in Josephus, revolved around the spirit as a medium of divine power of sorts. Moreoever, for Josephus, the divine spirit worked with the prophet producing the message that aligned with God’s mission. 86. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (Vol III: Λ – Π; Leiden: Brill, 1979). 433-434. 87. Cf. Ant. IV 108, 118; VI 166, 222; VIII 408; X 239 for the former and IV 119 for the latter. 88. Bertone, “The Law of the Spirit,” 80. 89. The actual thought of Josephus is more acute, thinking in terms of spirit possession of the prophet. 90. Josephus (LCL I-IV; T. E. Page, ed., H. St. J. Thackeray, trans.; London/New York: William Heinemann /Putnam, 1930), 532, καὶ ὁ μὲν τοιαῦτα ἐπεθείαζεν οὐκ ὢν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τῷ δὲ θείῳ πνεύματι πρὸς αὐτὰ νενικημένος. 91. Bertone, “The Law of the Spirit,” 80.

188

CHAPTER FIVE

It also served as the authenticating mark of the prophet and his message (cf. Ant VIII 408). The final text concerns Daniel and his interactions with Baltasar. Josephus considers Daniel’s wisdom as initiated by God, and more to the point, to the divine spirit with him (Ant X 239). Daniel was able to discern knowledge that was inaccessible to others. The medium for this knowledge was the divine spirit. Daniel worked faithfully for God and was rewarded with access to wisdom to which others were not privy. As a result, he was able to decipher the meaning of the writing. In conclusion, while Josephus does not refer to πνεῦμα in quantity, he does provide readers with a view of the divine spirit that helps see its role in the life and ministry of prophets. The divine spirit accentuates the ministry of the prophet by providing access to information not known by others, by possessing the prophet and giving voice to prophetic messages, and by authenticating the prophet to others. By way of contrast, the departure of the spirit from Saul shows the rejection of a prophet no longer in proper standing with God. All along, the spirit acts on behalf of God, aligning the mission of the prophet with that of the mission of God. 5.3.4. Philo Philo was from Alexandria and lived from 15BCE to 50CE, putting him into the time period of nascent Christianity and the historical Jesus.92 Philo provides an interesting perspective to πνεῦμα given his acceptance of Hellenism all the while maintaining a Jewish identity.93 The influence of Platonic thought on Philo cannot be overstated in addition.94 It was important for it to be included in the thought of Moses (Spec. Leg. 1.345).95 Bertone notes that Philo’s understanding of πνεῦμα relates to the conscience, in particular in how he constructs ethics (Decal. 87; Virt. 124; Spec. Leg. II, 49; Det. 23; Op. 128; Leg. All. I, 39).96 Important here concerns the 92. For a brief overview on the life of Philo see Ronald Williamson, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo (Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200; Cambridge et al.; CUP, 1989), 1-27; David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (CRINT; Assen/Minneapolis, MN: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1993), 3-43. 93. Cf. Bertone, ‘The Law of the Spirit’, 71. 94. Cf. Erkki Koskenniemi, “Philo and Classical Education,” in Reading Philo: A Handbook of Philo of Alexandria (Torrey Seland, ed.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2014), 102-128. 95. Philo (LCL VII; F. H. Colson, ed., Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press/ William Heinemann Ltd, 1968), 303. ἀλλ᾿ ἡμεῖς γε οἱ φοιτηταί καί γνώριμοι τοῦ προφήτου Μωϋσέως τὴν τοῦ ὄντος ζήτησιν οὐ μεθησόμεθα. 96. Bertone, ‘The Law of the Spirit’, 74.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

189

conclusion Bertone draws from these texts: “Therefore, πνεῦμα and conscience appear to be identical in function; both are instrumental in the formation of morals within human beings in general.”97 While the individual nuances of the texts relate to evil, love, misdeeds, and goodness, what does come out pertains to the role πνεῦμα plays in helping people achieve these ethical mores. Levison’s study on πνεῦμα in the ancient world, particularly the first century continues to exercise influence of understanding on how Philo perceived the concept.98 He notes the complexity of πνεῦμα in the ancient world and his book attempts to paint a comprehensive picture of the concept in first century Judaism.99 Of importance for this study relates to Levison’s investigation into the spirit and inspired exegesis. In Plant 18-26 Philo projects an image of πνεῦμα as the divine one who in effect enables the mind to understand. This external source of inspiration continues in Som. 2.252, where the πνεῦμα serves as a voice.100 In this text, πνεῦμα becomes the one responsible for helping Moses achieve the knowledge he needs.101 Philo however, adds details to the story beyond the pale of Moses’ knowledge, for the knowledge attained pertains to the name of the city Jerusalem. For Philo, Moses’ words represent more than they seem on the surface, so a river of God is not an actual river, but represents the divine word (Som 2.237). Even with the nuances Philo places on the interpretation of Moses, his understanding of πνεῦμα remains; namely, that the πνεῦμα enables one to have knowledge and verbalizes this through the divine voice. Therefore, the activating agent needed once again is the πνεῦμα.102 The work of the πνεῦμα as activating agent in Philo continues in his work on Abraham.103 Philo considered Abraham an exemplar of monotheistic 97. Bertone, ‘The Law of the Spirit’, 74. 98. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism. 99. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism, 1. “The range of meanings by the single word, πνεῦμα, is itself bewildering, encompassing entities as diverse as subterranean vapors, heavenly winds, human attitudes, unpredictable ghosts, and a holy spirit.” 100. Philo (LCL V; F. H. Colson and G. A. Whitaker, eds., Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann, 1968), 554, 556. 101. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism, 191. Levison highlights the essential role played by πνεῦμα here in discerning knowledge that without external help would be impossible to attain alone. 102. While one notes the allegorization process whereby Philo constructs his argument and therefore one could discount the πνεῦμα as the empowering agent in the process, it is equally noted that he does indeed consider the πνεῦμα as the medium by which this knowledge comes to the recipient. 103. For an overview of spirit in Philo see Levison, “Inspiration and the Divine Spirit,” 271-323. Levison points out the unique nature of the work of the divine spirit in the life of Abraham: “Philo regards Abraham as the ideal orator, the ideal king, the ideal sage, and the

190

CHAPTER FIVE

worship, noting how he kept God’s law, which he builds off an interpretation of Gen 26,5.104 If others were to desire to be followers of the law, then Abraham serves as the one to model, but the question becomes how Abraham himself accomplishes this goal? Philo makes this clear in Virt 212-219, for there, one finds that the πνεῦμα inspires Abraham to go beyond his natural reason. The πνεῦμα becomes the agent by which Abraham is able to keep the law and please God, for he sets aside the limitations of human reason in favor of the limitless inspiration of the divine spirit. Philo introduces his readers to two ideas in Virt 217: First, Abraham’s appearance (eyes, face, size, and voice) was completely changed as a result of his encounter with God; and second, the spirit breathed into him enabling him to be able to persuade others and bring them to understanding. This dual emphasis shows that the πνεῦμα empowers Abraham to act beyond his natural physical abilities. This short survey into Philo’s work on the spirit simply reinforces the idea that the spirit is seen as an activating agent sent by God to accomplish activity beyond the natural abilities of God’s people. Whether this works in the conscience, in prophetic activity, or enablement to follow God’s commands forms only part of the point for Philo, for he emphasizes that the divine spirit becomes a necessary ingredient in the accomplishment of God’s plan in the lives of his people. Again, the spirit serves in a missional type of role in these texts, for without its intervention, God’s people would not have access to the knowledge needed to accomplish his purpose for their lives. Philo provides a bridge into Pauline thought, for the element of inspiration and mission become prominent in Paul’s understanding of the role of the πνεῦμα in the lives of those who follow Christ. 5.4. τὸ πνεῦμα IN PAULINE LITERATURE In light of previous sections, this one deals with how τὸ πνεῦμα fits into the Pauline corpus. In the Pauline literature, πνεῦμα occurs 101 times in reference to the Spirit,105 which shows Paul’s preoccupation with the concept. ideal prophet … The divine spirit inspires Abraham’s skill of persuasion as a public orator (314). He goes on to conclude: “The unique characteristic of Philo’s description of Abraham, then, is the attribution of his virtues to the divine spirit. His beauty is not natural, his rhetorical skill not learned through practice, and his kingship not his by birth or social class. It is rather the divine spirit, which causes Abraham to become the ideal Greco-Roman ruler” (315). 104. Abr 275. For discussion on the connections between Gen 26,5 and Philo see Bertone, “The Law of the Spirit,” 75-76. 105. Linda Belleville, “Paul’s Polemic and Theology of the Spirit in Second Corinthians,” CBQ 58 (1996): 281-304, 281. As one can see, Belleville does count the entire corpus but comes up with a significantly lower number than Fee’s 145 instances.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

191

The question becomes whether or not a traceable view of πνεῦμα can be realized.106 The question further relates to the chronology of the Pauline literature.107 While the complexity of the debate remains, a composite picture of πνεῦμα language in Paul can be formulated since the letters were in somewhat close proximity of one another chronologically. The question revolves around what role Paul considered πνεῦμα to play in the lives of Christ followers. Additionally, what was Paul’s concept of πνεῦμα? Did he portray a personified πνεῦμα or an emanation of the divine source as is seen in the Old Testament and Second Temple literature? In other words, was the πνεῦμα more than a missiological agent from God and did it evolve into a more personal agent by which God’s will in earth would be accomplished? 5.4.1. 1 Thessalonians In 1 Thessalonians, written sometime between 43-50 CE,108 Paul mentions πνεῦμα five times (1 Thes 1,5.6; 4,8; 5,19.23). Other than 5,19, he 106. Admittedly, this is beset with problems. One pervasive problem pertains to the chronology of the proto-Pauline letters. Cf. Wedderburn, “Paul’s Collection: Chronology and History,” 95-110. “The chronology of Paul’s life and letters is a notoriously vexed question, but nevertheless a surprisingly central problem, indeed an irritatingly central question for those too vexed by its difficulty: On the one hand this chronology provides the basic framework upon which our understanding of the course of the history of the earliest church must depend … and on the other a relative chronology of the various letters is a prerequisite for any attempts to trace developments or changes in Paul’s theology” (95). 107. How one situates the chronology of the Pauline letters will in some ways determine the results of subsequent readings. For example, if Galatians precedes the Corinthian correspondence it will influence the reading in the same way if Galatians is seen to follow the Corinthians correspondence. Wedderburn, “Paul’s Collection,” argues for Galatians earlier than 1 Corinthians. See also his article, “Pauline Pneumatology and Pauline Theology,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker and Stephen C. Barton, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 144-156. He does so largely for the reasons of the developing christological redefinition of the Spirit in alignment. He notes that his christological redefinition is missing 1 Thessalonians and Galatians and that Paul addressed this reformulation because of the abuses of the ecstatic experiences engendered by the Corinthian community (“Pauline Pneumatology,” 147-149). In this way, Wedderburn agrees with the christological reformulation posited by Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 320; and Käsemann, An die Römer, 202-203. Contra. Wedderburn stands Horn, Das Angeld des Geistes; and Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 368-369. An important contention from those advocating a later date for Galatians stems from the development of the Spirit: “There is in fact a much greater explication of the Spirit in the life of the believer in Galatians than in the earlier letters” (Fee, 368). Equally important is the proximity of theological concerns between Romans and Galatians. 108. Cf. Karl P. Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002), 76, who places the date of the writing at 43 CE; and Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986), 60, who puts both 1 and 2 Thessalonians at 50 CE.

192

CHAPTER FIVE

does not articulate a developed view of πνεῦμα in this letter,109 though one could argue that Paul’s injunction to not quench the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε) in 5,19 does provide a growing layer of pneumatology. In the letter, this concept does not preoccupy Paul’s thoughts and only serves as passing reference to the Jesus followers. 1 Thes 1,5-6 refers to πνεῦμα in the context of ministry and finds its source in 1,4 as he writes to the ἀδελφοὶ … τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν. In 1 Thes 4,8, Paul encourages the Thessalonians to avoid sexual immorality and exhorts them to holy living. To reject his instruction casts the person in opposition to God, who διδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς. One can conclude that Paul’s use of πνεῦμα in 4,8 refers to the presence of God, but it is not entirely clear as to its role. One notes that it is tied into the discussion on holy living versus an impure lifestyle with the conclusion that one who does not follow Paul’s admonitions is rejecting God with the additional caveat that the rejection of God includes the rejection of τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. One could then make the case that the holy Spirit is the means by which a holy life is achieved, but admittedly Paul does not explicitly spell this out. In 1 Thes 5,19, in short summary fashion Paul writes, τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε. This statement coincides with that of 5,20, προφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε, and could function as a charismatic statement Paul would develop in other letters. Paul asserts that the Spirit should not be hindered, whatever that spirit might entail. As in the case with 4,8, Paul simply does not expand on what he means with the use of πνεῦμα in the passage. At best, 1 Thessalonians provides only a beginning sketch of πνεῦμα and no definitive statement can be derived from it alone. It does seem his thinking on the concept is developing, but his expansion of it would come later particularly in Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. 5.4.2. 1 Corinthians Moving to the Corinthian correspondence opens the language of πνεῦμα a great deal. As Anthony Thiselton points out: “In practice the term πνεῦμα and its cognate adjective and adverb πνευματικός occur here more frequently than in any other Epistle: some 52 times, as against 35 in Romans, less than half 109. See Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 40. Fee makes the statement, “First, apart from possibly corrective passages in 1 Thes 5:19-22, most of them are quite incidental, in the sense that Paul is not trying to say something about the Spirit as such. Rather, he refers in passing to the Christian life of these very recent converts, and in a matter-of-fact way he describes the life in terms of the Spirit.”

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

193

that number in 2 Corinthians and in Galatians, and less than half-a-dozen times each in Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians.”110 Before analyzing specific texts related to πνεῦμα one needs to briefly mention the significant work on the rhetorical aims of the letter itself. Margaret Mitchell provides an in-depth analysis of the rhetorical function of the letter, noting that “1 Corinthians is a single letter of unitary composition which contains a deliberative argument persuading the Christian community at Corinth to become reunified.”111 She structures the argument of the letter around that of deliberative rhetoric,112 and then outlines the letter around the problem of factionalism and the pursuit of reconciliation.113 Working from an ideological angle, Dale Martin proposes that the rhetoric of 1 Corinthians can be seen through the lens of ancient constructions of the body.114 As such, the letter deals with conflicting notions of how the body should be understood.115 These competing claims would erupt into a power struggle in the church, which Paul addressed.116 Martin argues that part of the problem in the Corinthian church concerns how the body should be understood related to factors dividing the church, such as socio-economic ones, how one understands the individual and social body, so in many ways it was related to class struggle.117 As a result, Martin places the πνεῦμα in similar frame, as it relates to the body and the understanding of how the spiritual becomes enmeshed into the life of the church. 110. Anthony C. Thiselton, “The Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians: Exegesis and Reception History in the Patristic Era,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker and Stephen C. Barton, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 207-228, 209. 111. Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 1. 112. Mitchell, Paul the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 20-60. 113. Mitchell, Paul the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 65-179. 114. Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 1995). He works this ideological frame out in the preface of the work. 115. Martin, The Corinthian Body, xv. 116. Martin, The Corinthian Body, xv. “Whereas Paul and (probably) the majority of the Corinthian Christians saw the body as a dangerously permeable entity threatened by polluting agents, a minority in the Corinthian church … stressed the hierarchical arrangement of the body and the proper balance of its constituents, without evincing much concern over the body boundaries or pollution.” 117. Martin, The Corinthian Body, xv. Of importance for this argument is how Paul deals with various topics of relevance, such as meat “sacrificed to idols, prostitution, sexual desire, marriage, speaking in tongues, the resurrection of the body, and the veiling of women during prophecy.” Additionally, Martin contends that Paul’s understanding of the body would have resonated with the lower classes represented in the church, while those of a more educated class and therefore from a higher socio-economic class would have conflicted with this more rigid take on the body.

194

CHAPTER FIVE

Paul expands the notion of πνεῦμα into several trajectories. He corrects problems as he saw them in the Corinthian community. One of the misunderstandings propounded by the community was in regards to πνεῦμα. It has been noted that in 1 Corinthians, πνεῦμα articulates a particular view of religious experience and knowledge including the impact it makes on the Jesus follower, the person of πνεῦμα, its influence on the church’s existence, and its place in the church’s worship.118 First, 1 Cor 2,1-16 gives a composite picture of what πνεῦμα meant for Paul. Thiselton remarks, “Paul takes pains to underline the ‘otherness’ and transcendence of the person and work of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10-16).”119 While it could be argued that Thiselton overstates the case for the otherness and transcendence of πνεῦμα, the language Paul uses is telling for he remarks that revelation comes from God through πνεῦμα (v. 10),120 that the πνεῦμα searches all things, that knowledge of the thoughts of God cannot be gained apart from τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 11), that τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 12), and others. While this does not personify πνεῦμα in the sense that Thiselton maintains, for it could simply be an emanation from God, it does show the growing development of the concept in Paul’s thinking. What strikes the reader though is how the Spirit actualizes the work of God in the life of the Christ follower. This actualization works in tandem with God’s mission, and while a heightened view of the Spirit’s person is an element of Paul’s developing pneumatology, what underlies that pneumatology is the missiological aspect of the Spirit’s work. This continues throughout 1 Corinthians and it is noted that πνεῦμα inhabits the Jesus followers (1 Cor 3,16-17; 6,19-20) and as a result holy living is expected due to the residential aspects of πνεῦμα. 1 Corinthians 12 expands the notion of the holiness aspect and places πνεῦμα in conjunction with πνευματικός, Ἰησοῦς, and χάρισμα. Related to χάρισμα, πνεῦμα effectively determines who receives what gift and manifests the gifts. Significant is the rationale for the gifts; namely, the common good (v. 7) of the community. The good of the community takes precedence, and it seems that Paul’s concern is for the gifts to be used to bring about a unified communal 118. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 82. 119. Thiselton, “Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians,” 209. 120. This idea returns in Rom 8,18-27 where creation eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God. The revealing of the sons of God is set within the context of πνεῦμα in the same way as evidenced in Rom 8,26-27, where prayer on the part of the Jesus followers cannot be accomplished without help. An expansion of the flow of thought in 1 Corinthians 2 and that of Romans 9 in reference to πνεῦμα occurs. How that quantifies into specificity remains to be seen.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

195

existence. The trigger for this unity is the work of πνεῦμα as it manifests the gifts into operation within the community. Therefore, what one notes throughout is the missional aspect of the Spirit throughout 1 Corinthians, whereby the empowerment of the believers through various gifts comes from the Spirit, where the knowledge of God also originates from the Spirit. 5.4.3. 2 Corinthians Turning attention to 2 Corinthians, πνεῦμα continues its growing role in the life of the Jesus follower.121 A brief overview of passages shows πνεῦμα as a gift and a seal for followers (1,21-22), the Spirit of the living God (3,18), the life-giving potential of the Spirit (3,4-11), the Spirit that brings freedom (3,17-18), the guarantee of the Spirit (5,5), and another Spirit (11,4). Linda Belleville maintains that the “Spirit is intimately linked with the preaching of the gospel (3:18; 6:6-7; 11:4), with the activities of enlightenment (3:17), regeneration (3:6-11, 18), and resurrection-transformation (5:5), with the formation (1:22; 3:2-3), and the credentialing of the minister of the gospel and the confirmation of the gospel (3:1-3; 6:6; 11:4).”122 For sake of brevity, only several passages will be considered in 2 Corinthians. 2 Cor 3,3 argues that the Jesus follower is a letter of Christ, and as that letter they are written not with ink but the πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος.123 Paul continues the contrasts with “not written on tablets of stone” but on the “human heart,” a reference to Ex 31,18. Murray Harris argues that both μέλανι and πνεύματι are instrumental datives in this passage, but seems to overstate the case by stating “but the transition from inanimate (‘not with ink’) to the animate (‘but by the Spirit’) is unexpected and therefore dramatic.”124 Is this the correct reading, though, as Paul could simply lump the inanimate μέλας with an equally inanimate πνεῦμα with the caveat that this πνεῦμα had as its source the living God? At the same time, when one considers the next clause, Harris’ contention gains footing. The letter was not written on tablets of stone, an inanimate object, but on tablets of the heart, an animated living entity 121. For work on Spirit in 2 Corinthians see in part James D. G. Dunn, “2 Corinthians III.17 – ‘The Lord is the Spirit,’” JTS 21 (1970): 309-320; Helmut Saake, “Paulus als Ekstatiker: Pneumatologische Beobachtungen 2 Cor xii 1-10,” NovT 15 (1973): 153-160; Kurt Erlemann, “Der Geist als ἀρραβών (2 Kor 5,5) im Kontext der paulinischen Eschatologie,” ZNW 83 (1992): 202-223; Peter Gräbe, “The All-Surpassing Power of God Through the Holy Spirit in the Midst of Our Broken Earthly Existence: Perspectives on Paul’s Use of δύναμις in 2 Corinthians,” Neot 28 (1994): 147-156. 122. Belleville, “Spirit in Second Corinthians,” 282-283. 123. Cf. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 302-304. 124. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 264.

196

CHAPTER FIVE

within the person. Taken to its logical end, Paul could argue that both the Spirit and heart are where God writes the letter; namely, his people, and thus both terms are metaphors of God’s work within the Jesus follower. Fortunately, Paul continues his line of reasoning in v. 6 where new covenant language surfaces.125 God (v. 5) enables the follower to be a competent minister of a new covenant, one that rivals the written code as it is set in the Spirit, which at the end of the verse is life-giving.126 There are those who hold that γράμμα and πνεῦμα are adjectival genitives related to διαθήκη, but acknowledge that they could depend upon διάκονος and at least πνεῦμα could be an objective genitive.127 In the last part, πνεῦμα stands alone as the life-giver. This ties into the argument Paul used previously of an inanimate and animate contrast. As in v. 3, Paul uses an inanimate object (in this case the written Law) in relationship to an animate one (the Spirit). What arises from the above material then is that Paul’s understanding of the Spirit has developed. Straddling this development is the consistent theme that the Spirit acts in accordance with God’s will and becomes the ultimate missional agent whereby God’s mission in the world becomes realized. The contrast between the tablets of stone and the heart shows the reader that the Spirit has now become the agent by which God’s plan through Jesus Christ extends to the entire world. The missiological impulse of the Spirit drives the argument. 2 Cor 3,17 has been the subject of numerous studies and to thoroughly understand it one has to keep in mind the passage’s context.128 Delimiting the text to v. 17 does not work exegetically, though as it seems likely to be tied to v. 16. Paul points to the removal of the veil as one turns to the Lord. Coupled with the phrase καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος in v. 18, one could argue that Paul’s concept of Spirit was that of an emanating presence from 125. For new covenant see Scott Hafemann, “The ‘Temple of the Spirit’ as the Inaugural Fulfillment of the Covenant within the Corinthian Correspondence,” Ex Auditu 12 (1996): 29-42. Hafemann concludes that Paul works from a prophetic background in the text, coupling Jeremiah and Ezekiel together and applying it to himself. “The flow of Paul’s argument from 2 Corinthians 3:3 to 3:6 demonstrates, therefore, that Paul understood the promise of the new covenant from Jeremiah to be equated with the coming of the Spirit as promised by Ezekiel … In bringing these two texts together, the framework that emerges for understanding Paul’s thought is that, as a servant of the new covenant, Paul’s role involves mediating the work of the Spirit, which in turn brings about the transformation of the heart that makes obedience to the law possible” (37). Hafemann brings Jeremiah and Ezekiel together by arguing that the lack of spirit language in Jeremiah is offset by its inclusion in Ezekiel. 126. Hafemann, “The ‘Temple of the Spirit,’” 39. 127. See Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 264. 128. Dunn, 2 Corinthians III.17; David Greenwood, “The Lord is the Spirit: Some Considerations of 2 Cor 3:17,” CBQ 34 (1972): 467-472.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

197

the Lord. Other alternatives exist, however and much depends on how the verb εἰμί in v. 17 is viewed. If it is an exegetical significat, it could be translated as represents rather than is.129 Thus, “Now the Lord represents the Spirit.” This would place the context within Ex 34,34, which Paul has been developing since 2 Cor 3,7. If one views this passage from a salvation-historical perspective, then “the meaning that the Spirit in Christian experience applies the saving acts of Christ and brings Christ within the reach of faith, so that his benefits may be received and shared.”130 This separates Christ from the Spirit and sees both as working in salvation history. Either way, Paul links Lord and Spirit together in a functionary role, for the point he tries to get across to the reader is that the result of the Spirit’s arrival is freedom. The removal of the veil (vv. 13-16) through Christ points to the work of the Spirit who is the one that sets the stage for true freedom to be experienced in Christ. Again, the point for Paul regarding the Spirit relates to its role in accomplishing the overarching mission of God. Continually, what one sees when Paul injects the Spirit into the conversation relates to a missional impulse standing behind its use. One of the most important texts relative to πνεῦμα in 2 Corinthians is found in 13,13 where Paul closes the letter using a triadic statement connecting Jesus Christ, God and holy Spirit together.131 The challenges posed by opponents have been addressed and Paul enters into the final components of the letter.132 In v. 13, Paul introduces a benedictory sequence he has not used before.133 Three genitives follow three nominatives; namely, Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, and ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. The sequence is connected by καί two times. It augments the apostle’s desire for the entire community to be unified by God in some form or another; 129. Cf. Ralph P. Martin, “The Spirit in 2 Corinthians in Light of the ‘Fellowship of the Holy Spirit’ in 2 Corinthians 13:14,” in Eschatology and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of George Raymond Beasley-Murray (W. H. Gloer, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), 113128, 125. 130. Martin, “Spirit in 2 Corinthians,” 125. 131. This section has been developed more in the following: Thomas A. Vollmer, “‘The Fellowship of the Spirit:’ An Evolution of a Theological Concept in 2 Corinthians 13.13(14)?” in Studies in Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians (BiTS; Reimund Bieringer, Ma. Marilou S. Ibita, Dominika Kurek-Chomycz, and Thomas A. Vollmer, eds.; Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 427-444. 132. The issue of the literary unity of 2 Corinthians is not settled. For an overview of the issues see Cf. Harris, 2 Corinthians, 42-51, 930-931. 133. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 362 and Belleville, “Paul’s Polemic and Theology of the Spirit,” 288. It has been noted that in 2 Cor 13,13, the usual benedictory formula used by Paul in other letters of Χριστός has been expanded to include both ὁ θεὸς and τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.

198

CHAPTER FIVE

thus, the prepositional phrase μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. It contains a realizable wish for the community to unify as they receive χάρις, ἀγάπη and κοινωνία from Ἰησοῦς, θεὸς and ἅγιος πνεῦμα.134 The genitives precipitate the question of whether they are objective or subjective. While a majority of scholars agree that the first two are subjective genitives, debate continues over the final one; whether objective,135 subjective,136 or objective-subjective.137 The issue at hand concerns the manner in which the Spirit effects the fellowship in the Corinthian church. This has been argued elsewhere and concluded that Paul has in mind a subjective genitive throughout the three points in 13,13.138 The complexities of the situational context in Corinth precipitated a more engaged Spirit to be the driving force for the creation of the fellowship needed.139 134. For an expansion on the connections between the three terms see Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 937. 135. Those who hold to an objective genitive include Hans Windisch, Der Zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924), 428-429, see also the helpful discussion on Trinitarian formulations Windisch provides on 429-431; Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 135-140; Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 587588 who cautions against the leap to trinitarian formulations, but does see Paul’s argument as more than just rhetorical; Christian Wolff, Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther (THNT 8; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989), 269; Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 937. 136. Proponents of a subjective genitive reading include Ceslas Spicq, Agapè: Dans Le Nouveau Testament: Analyse Des Textes (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1959), 163-166; Philip E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 488-490; Adolf Schlatter, Paulus der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1962), 682; Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1970); F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 255, 383-384; Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993), 563; Joseph Maleparampil, The “Trinitarian” Formulae in St. Paul (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995), 94-95; and Belleville, “Paul’s Polemic,” 288-290. One implication to this line is brought by several of the interpretaters; namely, with this type of genitive one could move toward at least an early form of trinitarian thought or a trinitarian formula in Paul. Cf. Spicq, Agapè, 164; Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 255; Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 488-489; and Maleparampil, The “Trinitarian” Formula, 110-112. 137. Eduard Schweizer, “πνεῦμα, πνευματικός,” in TDNT (Vol VI; Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey Bromiley, trans. and ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 332-455, 434; James M. McDermott, “The Biblical Doctrine of ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ,” BZ 19 (1975): 219-233, 223-224; and Maleparampil, The “Trinitarian” Formulae, 110-112, who makes room for the objectivesubjective while primarily holding to the subjective view. 138. Cf. Vollmer, “The Fellowship of the Spirit,” 432-436. 139. One notes the lack of consensus on the unified nature of the letter. A number of partition theories have been proposed. Cf. Walter Schmithals, Die Briefe des Paulus ihrer ursprünglichen Form (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984), 69-76. Schmithals places 13,13 within Letter L (10,1-13,13) and if correct, this would mean that the material written in 13,13 concerned a separate matter from that earlier in the epistle, much of which showed the tension still existing in the Corinthian community. At the same time, even if correct, this does not

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

199

Therefore, Paul understands the Spirit to act in a manner that fulfills God’s mission for unity in the church, and it becomes the agent by which fellowship is created and maintained.140 In 2 Corinthians, the image that Paul projects of the Spirit is a dynamic agent working in tandem with God’s mission in the world, a point reinforced by the way he closes the letter. 5.4.4. Galatians Galatians has a number of uses focused on life in the Spirit, which surfaces from the situational context unique to the letter. One noteworthy item is the way Paul uses the Spirit language in relationship to the believer. It deviates from the Corinthians correspondence in that Corinthians dealt with community issues, whereas Galatians explicates a notion of the spirit life resident within the believer. It moves the discussion of the Spirit into the experiential realm and thereby expands the Pauline understanding of what the Spirit does. The word πνεῦμα occurs sixteen times in Galatians. Gal 3,1-5 contains a highly-developed view of πνεῦμα and as such stands in relationship to Christ working in the believer. In the passage, the Spirit had a role not only in conversion, but also in the identity of the one following Jesus.141 Paul makes the case that the Spirit is the one who forms identity in the believers. This identity construction works into the conversation of Abraham in vv. 4-9. Belief in God marked Abraham apart, which is how Paul viewed any son of God, and this marked the occasion where God would extend justification to the gentiles. The work of the Spirit then stands in full step with the overall plan of God (cf., Gal 4,4-7). The other noteworthy passage in Galatians relative to πνεῦμα is 5,136,10.142 The πνεῦμα stands in opposition to σάρξ, a contrast so great that disavow the legitimacy of a reading that the Spirit was the one bringing the fellowship into existence, for one could easily argue that the Corinthian situational context consistently showed the need for fellowship due to its problematic history. At the same time, contra Schmithals, Jan Lambrecht, “Paul’s Appeal and the Obedience to Christ: The Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 10,1-6,” Bib 77 (1996): 398-416, shows a continuing thread in the letter that continues in the thought of the final chapters. 140. Cf. Belleville, “Spirit in Second Corinthians,” 289-290. She argues that Paul points “to the divine resources available to the Corinthians as they seek to cultivate the relational unity and harmony they currently lack.” 141. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 383. 142. For more on the overall frame of the passage see Frank J. Matera, “The Culmination of Paul’s Argument to the Galatians: Gal 5:1-6:17,” JSNT 32 (1988): 79-91; Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Wandel im Geist: zur pneumatologischen Begründung der Ethik bei Paulus,” KD 38 (1992): 149-170; Philip F. Esler, Family Imagery and Christian Identity in Gal 5:13 to 6:10 (London: Routledge, 1997); Todd A. Wilson, “The Leading of the Spirit and the Curse of the Law: Reassessing Paul’s Response to the Galatian Crisis,” TynBul 57 (2006): 157-160; Bernard

200

CHAPTER FIVE

Paul concludes that those who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law.143 This verse relates to v. 16 where the imperative is used to express the absolute necessity of walking in the Spirit. The contrasts with the flesh continue in vv. 19-23 where the fruit of the Spirit is a list of virtuous attributes. What is important is the reminiscent way the Spirit manifests the fruits, in line with that of 1 Cor 12,7. The imagery of ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός paints an indelible image to its hearers. The Spirit is set as the one working these attributes into the framework of the believer’s life. 5.4.5. Romans Romans provides a detailed picture of πνεῦμα and it contains what can arguably be called the most developed pneumatic material in the Paulines in chapter 8. Next to 1 Corinthians, Romans contains the most uses of πνεῦμα in Paul, referring to it at least 31 times while some argue for 33 usages (1,4.9;144 2,29; 5,5; 7,6; 8,2.4-6.9-11.13-16.23.26-27; 9,1; 12,11;145 14,17; 15,13.16.19.30).146 Of the times Paul uses πνεῦμα in Romans, it is noted that he uses it twenty-one times in Romans 8 alone. What is striking about Romans 8 is what might be called the possession of the believer by the Spirit.147 The O. Ukwuegbu, “Paraenesis, Identity-defining Norms, or Both? Galatians 5:13-6:10 in the Light of Social Identity Theory,” CBQ 70 (2008): 538-559. 143. For an overview of the issues related to flesh and spirit see Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’,” 45-77. 144. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 472 acknowledges that the reference to 1,9 is “indirect,” a point that the NIV takes into consideration when it translates πνεῦμα as “heart,” while the NRSV keeps it at “spirit,” but referring to Paul’s spirit. 145. Some see the reference in 12,11 to an anthropological spirit. See for example the discussion in Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 769 who speaks of the fervency of the context of τῷ πνεύματι ζέοντες, and Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 130-131. Murray’s comments are insightful: “The ‘spirit’ has been taken to refer to the Holy Spirit and so the thought would be ‘fervent in the Holy Spirit.’ This meaning is appropriate, particularly in view of service to the Lord in the clause that follows. It is also true that only as our spirits are quickened by the Holy Spirit can we be fervent in our spirits. Although the term ‘spirit’ is the personal name of the Holy Spirit and occurs frequently with this denotation, it also designates the human spirit and occurs in Paul’s epistles in this sense.” He concludes: “Since this reference to the human spirit is appropriate here, it is not necessary to refer it to the Holy Spirit.” Contra. the human spirit idea, see Keck, Romans, 304, who maintains that “it is likely that pneuma refers to the divine Spirit …” 146. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 472. 147. For a working out of this in detail see Robert Jewett, “The Question of the ‘Apportioned Spirit’ in Paul’s Letters: Romans as a Case Study,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker and Stephen C. Barton, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), 193-206. See also Jewett Romans, 479-503.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

201

chapter begins with being in Christ and then focuses on the law of the spirit (vv. 1-2). Romans 8,9 contains a debated and instructive note when Paul writes εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν.148 Some see this idea of God’s dwelling place as a reference to Ex 29,45-46 where God’s presence dwells among his people; a concept taken up by other writings including the Testament of Levi 5.2 and Testament of Zebulun 8.2.149 In the latter part of the verse, Paul states the antithesis of being dwelt by God by stating that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ are not part of him. Further, the Spirit stands in relation to God (9a-b) and Christ (9c-d). Not pursuing the negative antithesis here, it stands to reason that Paul develops a presencing idea that can be taken from the Spirit activity found in such passages as 1 Corinthians 12-14 and more still to the ideas generated from 1 Cor 3,16-17 and 6,19-20 (“Spirit dwells in you”), as well as 2 Cor 6,14-18, though it is admitted that the Spirit language is not in 2 Corinthians 6. Thus, Romans 8 culminates the thought articulated by Paul in other letters and expresses his ideas of divine presencing where the πνεῦμα dwells within the believer. 5.4.6. Philippians Although πνεῦμα occurs only five times in Philippians, it does contain a reference that it has in common with 2 Cor 13,13; namely Phil 2,1, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, which makes it a passage worth considering.150 While the situations differ between the epistles to the Corinthians and the Philippians, they both deal with questions of consolation151 and unity at some level.152 Phil 2,1 sets itself within the context of 1,27-30 where Paul appeals to the Philippians to be of one mind and spirit working together to promote the gospel message (1,27). Within the framework of unity, Paul writes a series of statements to augment this claim; namely, the encouragement in Christ, incentive of love, fellowship of the Spirit and tenderness and compassion (2,1).153 In 148. Cf. Bertone, “The Function of the Spirit, 75-97. 149. Jewett, Romans, 490. 150. On the overall literary structure of Phil 2,1-4 see in part Ernst Lohmeyer, Der Brief an die Philipper (Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1954), 80-82; David Alan Black, “Paul and Christian Unity: A Formal Analysis of Philippians 2:1-4,” JETS 28 (1985): 299-308, 299-304; Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995). 151. Cf. Paul A. Holloway, Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112; Cambridge: CUP, 2001), 74. Holloway discusses the verse in the context of ancient consolation theories (Cleanthes, Peripatetic, Epicurean, Cyrenaic, Chrysippus). 152. For a treatment of unity in Philippians see Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians (WBC: Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 64. 153. Hawthorne, Philippians, 64. “Unity, then dominates the thinking of the apostle in this section, and he makes full use of his skill as a writer to convey to the Philippians its consummate

202

CHAPTER FIVE

regards to the phrase τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, the same question as raised in 2 Cor 13,13 comes to the surface: whether it is an objective or subjective genitive. At first glance, one could surmise that Paul uses a series of objectives in this passage, but all is not simple here either. As has been posited, the encouragement, incentive, and participation could also be brought about by Christ, love, and spirit and do not necessarily need to be simply in or of Christ, love and spirit.154 In his study on εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, John Reumann argues that the idea of fellowship has both a sharing in the Spirit and fellowship brought about by the Spirit idea behind it.155 He points out: “Reception of God’s greatest charism, the Spirit, and the resulting ecclesial solidarity ground the call to ‘live worthy of the gospel.’”156 From this perspective, one notices that the Spirit serves as the medium by which the mission of God is accomplished.157 Similarly, Witherington points out that the Spirit drives the process by which fellowship occurs between believers.158 Peter O’Brien interprets the passage as participation in the Spirit,159 noting that Paul speaks of the inward work of the Spirit in the Philippians’ community enabling them to partake of the longed for fellowship.160 The noteworthy feature is the missional nature in which the Spirit works in accordance with the fellowship of the community of believers. Paul sees the Spirit as the agent in which fellowship can be realized, a feature consistent with his understanding of Spirit in his letters.

importance. He use words big in meaning, compacted into brief verbless phrases; rare words; and words never found anywhere else in the NT. He piles clause on top of clause, beginning each clause with the same word. He does all this as if searching for ways to make his readers both think and feel deeply about the essential nature of harmony and its necessity within the Christian community.” 154. Belleville, “Spirit in Second Corinthians,” 289. 155. John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 2008), 322. 156. Reumann, Philippians, 322. 157. Cf. Moisés Silva, Philippians (2nd Ed.; BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 90, who intereprets it as the fellowship “brought about by” the Spirit. 158. Ben Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011), 120. 159. Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 172. O’Brien notes the issues related to whether πνεῦμα refers to spirits or Spirit and shows that the majority of scholars opt for it being a reference to the Holy Spirit. Opposing the majority view see Bonnie B. Thurston and Judith M. Ryan, Philippians and Philemon (SPS 10; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2005), 73, who consider spirit as the “shared life of the community.” 160. O’Brien, Epistle to the Philippians, 172, 174.

THE SPIRIT IN ROM 8,26A

203

5.5. CONCLUSION This chapter considered the way in which πνεῦμα can be read in ancient literature. What becomes prominent throughout is that the word continually relates to God’s mission in the world. Whether as the divine source for knowledge or specific action, the πνεῦμα serves as the mediating agent by which God accomplishes his mission in the world. This becomes particularly acute for Paul, for he elevates the Spirit’s role continually through his letters. While there have been arguments positing that his understanding of πνεῦμα flows into that of a personified character, this point has not been completely established. This seems to be only part of the issue in Paul, though, for his main aim in presenting πνεῦμα revolves around the mediating role it serves. For Paul, the Spirit acts on behalf of God accomplishing the task by which it was chosen to serve.

CHAPTER SIX

THE SPIRIT HELPS

The previous chapter analyzed Paul’s understanding of τὸ πνεῦμα in the context of Rom 8,26a and other literature. Paul specifies the Spirit’s work in 8,26a as work that aids or helps in our weakness. This chapter sets out to explore what Paul meant with the phrase τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται. What is meant by συναντιλαμβάνομαι will be investigated. What does it mean when Paul writes that τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται? These questions preoccupy the attention of this chapter.

6.1. THE SPIRIT HELPS: THE BACKGROUND OF τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται Within the corpus of ancient Greek literature, συναντιλαμβάνομαι and its derivatives are scarce. Assigning meaning to συναντιλαμβάνομαι as intended by the original authors becomes a particularly difficult task due to the scarcity of the term. Since συναντιλαμβάνομαι is a compound verb, it may be helpful to look first at each part of the term, in order to establish the sum of the parts.1 Συναντιλαμβάνομαι consists of two prepositons (σύν and ἀντί) and a verb (λαμβάνω) in the middle voice. The most basic meaning of σύν is with, the most basic meaning of ἀντί is instead of, and the most basic meaning of λαμβάνω is take, receive. The term ἀντιλαμβάνω, which is a much more common term than συναντιλαμβάνομαι, combines the meanings of ἀντί and λαμβάνω to convey the basic idea: take or receive instead of. Although this basic meaning of ἀντιλαμβάνω is derived through the sum-of-the-parts method, the variety of way that 1. This method is pursued, knowing the risk of committing the root-fallacy. Since compound verbs can establish meaning either through (1) the sum of its parts, (2) intensification of the stem verb, or (3) an unpredictable change in overall meaning, it is most economic to attempt this method first. And in this particular situation, it seems to be the most correct method of interpreting the meaning.

206

CHAPTER SIX

the term is practically utilized within their context is quite diverse. In Narationes Amatoriae, Parthenius uses ἀντιλαμβάνω with the sense of keep hold of, hold captive (8.9), but In On the Accession of Alexander, Demosthenes uses ἀντιλαμβάνω to convey the idea of lay claim (17.9), and Euripides uses it simply as receive in Andromache (741, 743). Even a single author might use ἀντιλαμβάνω several unique ways, depending on the context. Plato uses ἀντιλαμβάνω several different ways, including: grasp, understand (Sophist 251b); take advantage of (239d); resume, discuss (Theaetetus 169d); interrupt, break in (Republic 1.336b); receive (4.424a); and stop, halt (Cratylus 427b). Some additional uses, suggested in LSJ, include: “take hold of,” and “help, take part with, assist.” This is only a small sampling of the ways that ἀντιλαμβάνω can be used, but with a little imagination, it is not difficult to see how many of these uses utilize the sum of the parts.2 In order to understand συναντιλαμβάνομαι, it is necessary to add the meaning of σύν to the meaning of ἀντιλαμβάνω. With this in mind, one would expect συναντιλαμβάνομαι to mean something along the lines of receive with, take/keep hold with, or help with. Each of these possible meanings convey the idea that someone or something is taking part in some sort of burdensome task in conjunction with someone or something else, which can be simplified to the basic meaning help. LSJ verifies this working definition in its brief entry for συναντιλαμβάνομαι, proposing only the following definitions: “help in gaining a thing,” “assist in supporting,” “render assistance,” and “take part with, help.” Central to each of these definitions, and thus συναντιλαμβάνομαι, is the idea of helping or assisting. Furthermore, it is important to understand the grammatical nature of συναντιλαμβάνομαι in order to fully appreciate its meaning. It assumes the middle-voice ending, indicating that the subject did not necessarily cause the action to happen but nonetheless is directly and actively involved in the action. The middle voice naturally works well with words such as help, because the person helping is not generally the person who caused the action indicated by help3 (i.e., although most people would prefer to think of their own moral and good-hearted disposition to treat others well as the cause of their helpfulness, the more direct cause is the thing needing help, or the actions leading up to the help being needed).

2. e.g., Plato’s use of ἀντιλαμβάνω in Republic 1.336b as interrupt in the context of converstation makes sense, because someone who interrupts takes up the conversation instead of the person or persons originally speaking. 3. Even if the subject did cause the action, the middle voice would still make sense. It would just need to be used reflexively.

THE SPIRIT HELPS

207

A deeper look at the use of συναντιλαμβάνομαι within extant ancient Greek manuscripts, will further attest to the previously proposed meaning of the term. In his Library, Diodorus Siculus uses συναντιλαμβάνομαι to mean join in with, with reference to the military (14.8.2). Elsewhere, the term is used to mean join, help (SIG 412.7), render assistance (OGI 267.26), help oneself in its reflexive form (Phil. Lib. P. 19 O), take matters into one’s own hands (P. Tebt. 3.1.777), and cooperation in a substantival form (P. Hib. 1.82.18). Each of these uses could be simplified into some form of help, but their specific nuances form the term to the context within which it was used. As can be seen in these examples, the addition of the preposition σύν to ἀντιλαμβάνω, as well as the shift to the middle voice, takes the basic meaning conveyed by ἀντιλαμβάνω and adds in another actor, who is directly involved in the action. Considering within Rom 8,26, one notes the discussion on τὸ πνεῦμα connected to the Spirit aiding in our weakness. Obviously, συναντιλαμβάνομαι connects to τὸ πνεῦμα given its present middle position. The question arises as to how the divine Spirit aids the believer in weakness? What constitutes this help and what is Paul driving at when he uses this infrequently used term? It only occurs one other time in the NT (Lk 10,40) and only four times in the LXX (Gen 30,8; Ex 18,22; Num 11,17; Pss 88(89),22). Jewett argues that Paul uses this word to demonstrate that the Spirit works with saints as they persevere in the world, a perseverance ultimately expressed through their prayers.4 Moo takes it a bit further as he sees the Spirit bearing with the burdens of the saints that have resulted from weakness.5 Greathouse and Lyons see the Spirit as a participant in the sufferings of the saints and as a result gives strength to help them persevere.6 Gieniusz attends to the double compound nature of the verb, noting that wherever it is used the idea of helping one who can no longer carry a burden underlies its meaning.7 Balz contends that weakness is not what the aid is directed to, rather the Spirit’s aid is directed to “us.”8 As can be seen, how one views συναντιλαμβάνομαι in the verse becomes an important interpretive key. Additionally, it helps illuminate what the primary 4. Jewett, Romans, 521. 5. Moo, Romans 1-8, 560. 6. Greathouse and Lyons, Romans 1-8, 266. 7. Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 218. 8. Balz, Heilsvertrauen, 71. His analysis of the dative is helpful. He concludes, “Schwieriger ist es in Röm 8,26, denn der Dativ τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ kann hier nicht direct Objekt sein. Der Geist kann nicht mit der Schwachheit zusammen etwas tun. Vielmehr ist hier das Objekt des Handelns des Geistes in ἡμῶν verborgen, das ein vorangehendes ἡμίν unmöglich macht.”

208

CHAPTER SIX

focus of the text is, whether on τὸ πνεῦμα, ἡ ἀσθένεια, or προσευξώμεθα? As will be argued below more, it seems likely that the emphasis is on the Spirit.9 As Dunn points out, συναντιλαμβάνομαι does exhibit unique qualities in the ancient world, and has the basic idea of assisting, or taking part, or lending a hand to another.10 Since it is not used a great deal in the NT or LXX, it can be examined in each of its contexts to see how it is used to help derive with a certain degree where Paul developed this idea and show his basic concern. 6.1.1. Torah Uses Aiding another comes up several times in the Torah. In this section, the meaning of συναντιλαμβάνομαι in Genesis 30,8; Exod 18,22; and Num 11,17 will be explored. 6.1.1.1. Gen 30,8 In the Torah, Gen 30,8 tells the story of Rachel’s naming of Napthali. She comments that it was with “great wrestlings” she wrestled with her sister, but prevailed. The verse constructed a word play on the name Naphtali (Νεφθαλίμ – ‫)נַ ְפ ָתּ ִלי‬. As Victor Hamilton notes, the wrestling that Rachel undertakes in 30,8 foreshadows the wrestling Jacob would experience in 32,22-32.11 As such the wrestlings could be the wrestling of God,12 Rachel’s wrestling,13 God providing aid to Rachel in her fight with Leah,14 or as a wrestling with God and Leah.15 One notices the rhetoric of the author in the verse and the 9. From this perspective, the Spirit is the one who connects the hope of vv. 23-25 with the overcoming of the saints in vv. 26-27. The force of the Spirit’s work in these verses cannot be underestimated. Not only is Romans 8 loaded with pneumatic language, the reference to Spirit in vv. 26-27 is pronounced. 10. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 477. 11. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 271-272. 12. Albert Clamer, La Genése: Traduite et Commentée (La Sainte Bible; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1953), 375. “J’ai combattu les combats de Dieu: naphtûlê … naphtalti. Les combats de Dieu, dans le cas present, désignent la lutte avec Lia pour la benediction de Dieu en vue de la procreation d’enfants.” 13. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 271 n. 16. Hamilton sees ELOHIM “not as ‘God’ but as an intensifying epithet.” In this way, it is seen more as some sort of fateful contest. 14. Cf. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 135. He considers it the “twists of God I have twisted (in the fight) with Leah, but I have prevailed.” 15. Frances I. Andersen, “Note on Genesis 30:8,” JBL 88 (1969): 200. This short note reflects an attempt by the author to show that Gen 32,29 forms a stylistic bicolon, and in order to get to that point Gen 30,8 is referred to as an example. In so doing, Andersen sees that the

THE SPIRIT HELPS

209

irony given that Rachel is vindicated by her maid Bilhah conceiving two children (Gen 30,6 – Dan; 30,8 – Napthali).16 As John Wevers points out, the LXX writer nuances the text in a different way than what we see in the Hebrew, for it has been rewritten as συνελάβετό μοι ὁ θεός (“God gave me help”), running the exegesis into the direction of God being the one fighting for Rachel.17 In the LXX, God is the participant of the wrestling, aiding Rachel in her fight against her sister. 6.1.1.2. Exod 18,22 Exodus 18,22 relates the story when Moses enlists leaders to help him administer the affairs of Israel.18 Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law chastises him for trying to do too many tasks, and in effect shows that the burden is too heavy for Moses (Exod 18,17-18). This passage connects the aid given to leadership and management. Moses’ inability to lead wholly prompted Jethro to challenge him to put into place a leadership structure that would help with the day to day administrative duties of overseeing the gathered community. Thomas Dozeman argues that Jethro advised Moses to choose men of justice and truth who would exhibit charismatic leadership (cf. Num 11,4-35), thus, the emphasis was on their inherent leadership ability and not on an inherited position.19 Terence Fretheim takes it a step further, wrestling of Gen 32,29 encompasses two wrestlings, one with God and one with other men. In similar fashion, Gen 30,8 shows the same wrestlings, one with God and one with Rachel’s sister. 16. Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis (2. Genesis 12-36; Düsseldorf: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 579; John E. Hartley, Genesis (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 265. 17. John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (SCS 35; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993), 478. 18. The unity and place of Exodus 18 within the wilderness (Exod 15,22-18,27) has been generally agreed upon. For a thorough overview of the issues see Dozeman, Exodus, 347-364. The unity of Exodus 18 has been generally agreed upon as well, and while Hugo Gressman, Die Anfänge Israels (Göttingen, 1922), saw two strands of development, his views would not convince others. For more on the literary history of Exodus 18 see Childs The Book of Exodus, 321-326. An additional point that needs to be commented on is the original placement of the chapter. John van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisiville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 208-209, holds that the editor of Exodus took material directly from Numbers and transferred it into Exodus. Contra. van Seters, William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York et al.: Doubleday, 1999), 628, who holds that internal evidence shows that the original placement is correct. Propp ponders what the purpose would be for transferring the story if not original. Propp’s arguments are strong and the original placement of Exodus 18 should be where it is and viewed as a product of editorial interpolation. 19. Dozeman, Exodus, 409. Cf. Thomas B. Dozeman, “The Book of Numbers,” in New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol 2; L. E. Keck, ed.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1998). 1-268, 103-108.

210

CHAPTER SIX

maintaining that the crux of Moses’ problem related to an inability to delegate; therefore, Jethro’s advice to have others aid Moses was a clarion call to not only delegate daily matters to others, but also an appeal to decentralize authority, leaving Moses to focus on the most pressing issues of representing the community before God and matters of hearing the will of God, and only adjudicating those cases that were beyond the judges’ ability.20 Wevers points out that the LXX, by its use of συναντιλήμψονταί σοι adds weight to the point that the judges enlisted by Moses would shoulder the burdens of leading the people.21 This point is reinforced by the use of ‫ מן‬in the Hebrew as the point was for the men to make Moses’ job easier.22 What comes out clearly in considering Exod 18,22 is that Jethro implored Moses to share the burden of leading the people with others who were charismatic leaders, gifted to judge, of high moral character, and committed to Yahweh. The sense of συναντιλαμβάνομαι acting in a leadership and management role serves to remind readers that the shouldering of responsibility separates them from the other people as judges. 6.1.1.3. Num 11,17 When considering Num 11,17, one has to take seriously that this could indeed have impacted Paul’s thinking in Rom 8,26.23 Num 11,17 also relates to Exod 18,22, for again Moses is soliciting help, this time gathering seventy elders from Israel, to lead the people.24 This is similar to what happens in Exodus, for Moses extends the leadership circle to others, thus, making his impact that much greater.25 Arguing that prophetic groups pointed to the story Cf. James K. Bruckner, Exodus (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 168. Bruckner adds that the men were to be “men who fear God (respect and trust), trustworthy men (publicly acknowledged), who hate dishonest gain (would not take a bribe)” (bold orig.). This accentuates the point made by Dozeman that the men were to be of high quality along with charismatic ability. 20. Fretheim, Exodus, 199. 21. John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Septuagint and Cognate Studies 30; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990), 288. 22. Wevers, Greek Text of Exodus, 288. 23. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 476-477, without much comment notes the connection between Moses appointment of the seventy elders (Exod 18,22; Num 11,17) with the work of the Spirit in Rom 8,26. 24. For leadership in Numbers see Jeffrey M. Cohen, “Leadership in the Book of Numbers,” JBQ 28 (2000): 125-129. 25. Dozeman, “Numbers,” 106. “God responds to both the problems of leadership and the Israelites’ demand for meat in this section. The complaint by Moses about leadership is countered with instruction in vv. 16-17 on how to select seventy elders who will share his spirit. The inner-biblical connections between Num 11:16-17 and Exodus 33 are again present. As was the

THE SPIRIT HELPS

211

to legitimize their status concerns the work of Martin Noth, who also put forth the idea that Eldad and Medad (vv. 26-27) were fictional characters inserted into the story to elevate the status of prophetic utterance.26 Taking Noth’s thesis further, J. de Vaux maintains that Eldad and Medad served an important function for the independence of “la prophétie par rapport à l’institution aurait été finalement sauvegardée par l’épisode relatant l’inspiration d’Eldad et de Médad, constetée par Josué, mais approuvée par Moïse.”27 The point is that in spreading the oversight burden to the elders and people like Eldad and Medad, Moses exhibited a determination to allow others to come alongside him and work to alleviate the burdens represented by the people. The overwhelming task necessitated that others aid him in leading the people. The difference between Exodus 33 and Numbers 11 concerns the addition of the spirit (‫רוּח‬, ַ πνεῦμα) in Num 11,17.28 Timothy Ashley posits that the additional emphasis on spirit in Numbers 11 shows that the leadership offered was not just administrative in nature, but was spiritual given that the elders were to share in the burden of leading the people.29 Philip Budd shows that the possession of the spirit was of utmost concern for the elders and argues that the giving of the spirit was divine endowment to legitimize the elders’ status and enable them to carry out their duties.30 The issue of the apportioned spirit is difficult, though, for it is not clear whether that spirit is Moses’ spirit or Yahweh’s.31 Even if it was Moses’ spirit, the endowment of that spirit was from Yahweh, and thus can be seen as a gift from him.

case in Exodus 33, the tent of meeting is situated outside the camp, where it signifies a more prophetic encounter with God. Both Exodus 33 and Numbers 11 contrast the priestly writers’ view that the tent of meeting is at the center of the camp and is equated with the priestly cult of the tabernacle.” 26. Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (OTL; J. D. Martin, trans.; London: SCM, 1968), 90. 27. J. De Vaux, Les Nombres (Sources Bibliques; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1972), 155. 28. For discussion on the spirit in Numbers see Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Vol 2; J. A. Baker, trans.; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1967), 131-134. 29. Timothy R. Ahsley, The Book of Numbers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 210. In the same way see David L. Stubbs, Numbers (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2009), 119. 30. Philip J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 127-128. 31. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, 211. As far as it being Moses’ spirit, the reality comes out that the spirit already on him and a special endowment was not needed. On the side that it was God’s Spirit, there are numerous examples of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament (cf. Gen 1,2; Num 11,29; Judg 3,10; Ezek 11,5). Ashley sides with the view that it is Moses’ spirit, although admits the difficulty in differentiating between the two given that Moses would have considered it the Spirit of God, and even if it was Moses’ spirit the giving of that spirit was from God.

212

CHAPTER SIX

While the parallel is not complete several points of contact exist between Num 11,17 and Rom 8,26. Setting the texts together shows how they work together. Num 11,17

Rom 8,26

καὶ καταβήσομαι καὶ λαλήσω ἐκεῖ μετὰ σοῦ

ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ

καὶ ἀφελῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐπὶ σοὶ καὶ ἐπιθήσω ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς

τὸ πνεῦμα

καὶ συναντιλήμψονται μετὰ σοῦ τὴν συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ὁρμὴν τοῦ λαοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ οὐκ οἴσεις αὐτοὺς σὺ μόνος τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις

A number of common points arise, but admittedly they are limited and do not answer fully to whether or not Paul based his use of συναντιλαμβάνομαι on Numbers. What strikes the reader immediately though is the use of πνεῦμα in both. In Numbers, part of the πνεῦμα on Moses (τοῦ ἐπὶ σοὶ) would be taken and placed upon the leaders (ἐπιθήσω ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς).32 This in turn would help the leaders shoulder the burden with Moses (συναντιλήμψονται μετὰ σοῦ) of taking care of the people (τοῦ λαοῦ). Additionally, the Lord (v. 16) was the one initiating this plan and he would come down (v. 17) and speak with Moses (v. 17).33 In order to get at what caused this pericope to ensue, one considers the previous pericope as it contains the burden, which the Lord refers to in v. 17. In v. 10, Moses hears the people weeping in their doorposts, which has the additional background material placed in it from vv. 1-9.34 The anger of the Lord burned against them (cf. Num 11,1.33) prompting Moses 32. Budd, Numbers, 128. 33. For more on the dialogue between Yahweh and Moses see George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 107-111. “Moses expostulates with Yahweh for placing on him the whole trouble and burden of the people” (107). 34. Cf. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, 206-207. Ashley’s breakdown of 11,4-12,1-15 is helpful in understanding the overall flow of thought in the section. He sets out three themes that are interwoven in the section (A = Food Theme, B = Leadership Theme, T = Transition). A – 11,4-13 A – 11,18-30 A – 11,31-34 T – 11,14-15 T – 11,21-23 T – 11,35 B – 11,16-17 B – 11,24-30 B – 12,1-15

THE SPIRIT HELPS

213

to come to their aid (vv. 11-15). The burden of caring for the people had become too great and Moses could no longer handle the pressure.35 His question in v. 13 is a pointed and poignant one: πόθεν μοι κρέα δοῦναι παντὶ τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ? He follows this pointed question with a pointed accusation in a way in v. 14: οὐ δυνήσομαι ἐγὼ μόνος φέρειν τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, ὅτι βαρύτερόν μοί ἐστιν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο. Moses’ solution to the problem shows the exasperation he was feeling, for he states emphatically in v. 15: εἰ δὲ οὕτως σὺ ποιεῖς μοι, ἀπόκτεινόν με ἀναιρέσει, εἰ εὕρηκα ἔλεος παρὰ σοί, ἵνα μὴ ἴδω μου τὴν κάκωσιν. This highly provocative statement, structured with two conditional clauses and an emphatic ἵνα clause gets the desired result for the Lord answers Moses in vv. 16-20.36 Comparing Num 11,17 to Rom 8,26 shows a number of connections worthy of inspection. First, Paul points out that some sort of burden exists that keeps people from doing what one would naturally think should be possible. To help shoulder the burden, Paul shows that τὸ πνεῦμα has been enlisted for this very purpose. In another parallel, τὸ πνεῦμα is the one actually doing the work, given that the people were unable to pray; consequently, τὸ πνεῦμα enters the scene to ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις, a point that should not be missed, for ἀλάλητος relates to λαλέω, another point of similarity between Num 11,17 and Rom 8,26. The one speaking in Num 11,17 is the Lord, while the one expressing itself in Rom 8,26 is τὸ πνεῦμα. This is not an insurmountable point though, for this parallel is correct, then taken in context, Rom 8,26 could be seen in similar light. While this does not settle on whether Paul depended upon Numbers for his thought in Romans, it does show that one aspect of the Spirit’s work is to lead people to a desired end (cf. 1 Cor 12,7). 6.1.1.4. Conclusion In the texts under consideration a common trend surfaces when συναντιλαμβάνομαι enters into discussion, namely, that the term is used in the context of administration. These concepts were important and specifically urgent 35. For discussion on Moses and his response see R. K. Harrison, Numbers (WEC; Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1990), 185-190; R. Dennis Cole, Numbers (Vol 3b; NAC; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 187-190; Iain M. Duguid, Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 151-152. 36. The construction of the sentence is quite striking with the two conditional statements that build upon each other while at the same time providing a contrast. εἰ δὲ οὕτως σὺ ποιεῖς μοι (protasis), ἀπόκτεινόν με ἀναιρέσει (apodosis) εἰ εὕρηκα ἔλεος παρὰ σοί (protasis), ἵνα μὴ ἴδω μου τὴν κάκωσιν (apodosis)

214

CHAPTER SIX

when related to God’s intervention or the spirit acting as divine helper. This becomes pronounced throughout and underlies the idea that Paul could have held. 6.1.2. Psalm 88LXX The final use of συναντιλαμβάνομαι in the LXX is Ps 88,21.37 Hermann Gunkel and Bernhard Duhm held that the psalm was a collection of poems written at different times,38 however recent work argues for its unity. Taking a literary approach, Jean-Bernhard Dumortier showed that the two sections normally thought to be separate (poème royal – 2-5, 20-38; hymne cosmique – 6-19) are in reality from the same composition.39 Richard Clifford builds on Dumortier but projects the Psalm as a communal lament.40 The communal events were grounded in the memory of the community, whether in history or cosmogony.41 John Goldingay places it in the royal psalm category 37. For a structural and symmetrical investigation of the psalm see Konrad Schaefer, Psalms (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001), 217-222. 4QPsx is one of the oldest Psalm fragments from the DSS. Cf. J. T. Milik, “Fragment d’une source du Psautier (4Q Ps 89),” RB 73 (1966): 94-106. 38. Bernhard Duhm, Die Psalmen (KHCAT 14; Freiburg: Mohr, 1899), 244; Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen (4th ed.; HKAT 2.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 384396. 39. Jean-Bernhard Dumortier, “Un rituel d’intronisation: Le Ps LXXXIX:2-38,” VT 22 (1972): 176-196. “Le prèsent article a pour objet de montrer la fragilité de ces deux conclusions; nous espérons montrer 1) que l’articulation entre le “poème royal” et l’hymne cosmique n’a rien de secondaire. 2) que l’ordre des versets 20-38 suivi par le T. M. n’est en aucune façon l’effet du hasard. Pour cela, nous nous attacherons à situer les deux unités formelles consituées par l’hymne cosmique (Ps. lxxxix 6-19) et le poème royal (Ps. lxxxix 20-38) dans un “Sitz im Leben” commun, à savoir un rituel d’intronisation.” 40. Richard J. Clifford, “Psalm 89: A Lament Over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure,” HTR 73 (1980): 35-47, esp. 37-40. 41. Clifford, “Psalm 89,” 37-40. The collection of psalms includes Pss 44, 74, 77, 80, 83, and 89. “From the examination of the relevant community lament psalms, two observations follow which are important for understanding Psalm 89. First, the psalmist chooses to recall that particular powerful event in the past appropriate to the present crisis. If it is desecration of the temple, he appeals to the creation and procession to the shrine (Psalm 74). If it is a national disaster, appeal can be made to the cosmogony which issued in the formation of the people (Psalm 77). If it is a military defeat that is experienced, the people can remember God’s original planting of them in the land (Psalms 44 and 80) or the classic battles celebrated in the national epic (Psalm 83). Second, the specific language of lament and the recall of the primal event can occur in different places within a psalm. In Psalm 44 the remembrance of divine planting of the people comes first and the lament language last. In Psalm 77 it is just the reverse. In Psalms 74, 80, and 83, the saving event is in the middle of the psalm, framed by lament vocabulary. Psalm 89 therefore with its retelling of the creation and appointment of David at the beginning of the psalm and the lament at the end, fits perfectly within the canons of this type of communal lament psalm” (40).

THE SPIRIT HELPS

215

where YHWH commits himself to David, thus projecting a unified composition.42 Accordingly, he outlines it around the themes of praise, divine word, and protest.43 James Ward argues for the unity of the psalm based on it being a lamentation psalm, and subdivides it as a hymn (vv. 2,6-19), an oracle (vv. 20-38), and a lament (vv. 39-52).44 Michael Floyd, in line with Clifford,45 argues that the psalm is a reflection on the fall of Jerusalem therefore exhibited liturgical elements along with lamentations.46 As a reflective psalm, its origin would be later and the king referred to might be Jehoiachin, Rehoboam, Ahaz, Hezekiah, or even Josiah.47 Ps 88,21LXX states that David the servant of the Lord will be established by the Lord’s hand,48 with the additional feature that the Lord’s arm will strengthen him.49 The psalmist remarks that at one time the Lord spoke in a vision (v. 19LXX) to his godly ones (v. 19LXX) that he chose one from the people (v. 19LXX), who the psalmist points out is David (v. 20LXX), who would be established by the Lord’s hand (v. 21LXX), and strengthened by his arm (v. 21LXX).50

42. John Goldingay, Psalms: Volume 2 Psalms 42-89 (BCOTWP; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 664. 43. Goldingay, Psalms, 664. 44. James M. Ward, “The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm LXXXIX,” VT 11 (1961): 321-339, 321. He goes against it being a royal psalm for “Ps. Lxxxix is no mere pre-battle plea for divine aid. Such pleas (e.g., Pss. xx and cxliv 1-11) are couched in very general terms that denote no more than the warrior’s grim anticipation of pitched battle. In Ps. Lxxxix the disaster is already past (though its consequences carry over into the present), and the picture is vivid and concrete. Again, Ps. lxxxix is not simply a post-battle lament over a royal defeat. More than a battle has been lost. The dynasty itself is in jeopardy. The crisis is far more severe than any extremity contemplated in the other royal psalms (e.g., xviii, lxxii, xxii, cxliv 1-11)” (336). 45. Michael H. Floyd, “Psalm lxxxix,” VT 42 (1992): 442-457, 444. “It can scarcely be denied that Ps. lxxxix associates the founding of the Davidic dynasty with the commemoration of Yahweh’s cosmogonic victory over the chaos monster, or that it predicates its prayer for the defeated Davidic heir on an association of the founding of the dynansty with the creation of the world” (444). 46. Floyd, “Psalm lxxxix,” 442-457, esp. 452-457. 47. For discusson cf. Ward, “Psalm lxxxix,” 337-339; Goldingay, Psalm, 665-666. 48. J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms: A New Translation with Introductions and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 150-151. Perowne maintains that the language in the psalm validates David’s exaltation to the throne and its establishment via the continual aid of God. 49. The background to the psalm has been traced to 2 Sam 7,8-16. See A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (Vol II; NCB; Grand Rapids, MI/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 639-640; H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981), 637-638. 50. Schaefer, Psalms, 220. “God is complete strength, arm and hand ready for action.” He goes on to say: “God’s mighty arm and hand acts in creation and history (vv. 10, 13, 21);

216

CHAPTER SIX

The psalmist defines the purpose of the establishment and strengthening as a safeguard against an enemy’s attack, who will try to deceive David (v. 22LXX) and a son of wickedness who will try to afflict him (v. 22LXX). The preparation given by God in v. 21 extends to defeating the enemies of the king in v. 22, but also points to the Lord crushing those who conspire against the king in v. 23 (v. 23LXX).51 The pericope extends to v. 29LXX and continually interfaces with the idea that the Lord would be with the leader David culminating with the promise that his line would be established forever and his throne would extend through the ages (v. 29LXX).52 What surfaces in the verse is that God acts on behalf of the king, and thus aids in his success. Divine aid is necessary to overcome the enemies poised on destroying the king.53 With the use of συναντιλαμβάνομαι the help of someone, in this case, la force divine equates to success.54 6.1.3. Concluding Remarks on LXX Use As has been noted in this section, when the LXX uses συναντιλαμβάνομαι its usage normally relates specifically to administration. This becomes particulary clear in Ex 18,22 where Jethro counsels Moses to establish an organizational network to help with overseeing the management of the people. The use of συναντιλαμβάνομαι reinforces the administrative aspect, where others would shoulder the burden with Moses, making his leadership more effective. Jethro’s counsel establishes the basis for effective leadership for the Hebrew people. This usage of συναντιλαμβάνομαι continues with Num 11,17, where effective leadership is found in a plurality of leaders over just a singular person leading. Eldad and Medad are representative of the type of leaders needed to run the nation effectively. The appeal to spirit in Numbers 11 reinforces the idea that leadership required more than administrative ability, but also had to be spiritual in nature. Dialoguing Num 11,17 with Rom 8,26 opens up angles for discussion including whether or not the spirit acts in Romans 8 in a similar administrative manner. While similarities exist between the two the spread of the king’s hands embraces the territory (v. 25); the hands (‘power’) of Sheol and the enemy threaten the king’s life (vv. 42, 48)” (220, n. 28). 51. For a discussion of this point see James Luther Mays, Psalms (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994), 285-287. 52. Cf. Allan Harman, Psalms (Ross-shire, UK: Mentor, 1998), 304. “Repeatedly the Old Testament reminds readers that God will not go back on his covenant word to David (see Ps. 132:11-18). Part of the promise is that his family will continue, and that possession of the throne by them is just as certain as the enduring nature of the heavens.” 53. Cf. Dumortier, “Psaume LXXXXIX,” 187-188. 54. Cf. Goldingay, Psalms, 679.

THE SPIRIT HELPS

217

texts, it was noted that there are differences so that no assertion of Pauline dependence was noted. What strikes the reader, however, is the manner in which the spirit acts in both texts. In Numbers, the spirit of Moses would be placed upon the leaders, and they in turn would be equipped to help with the management of the people. In the same manner, the spirit in Rom 8,26 aids the believers in Rome with the weakness afflicting them, and hindering their ability to pray. The spirit then equips people in both texts to accomplish something that was currently beyond their ability to accomplish. The final text considered was Psalm 88LXX and and there συναντιλαμβάνομαι was used in a manner to help the leader against enemy attack. God acts on behalf of the king, aiding him in his success against his enemies. This aid continues the emphasis on the administrative role συναντιλαμβάνομαι plays in the texts.

6.2. NEW TESTAMENT USAGE The only other use of συναντιλαμβάνομαι in the NT occurs in Lk 10,40.55 In the pericope (vv. 38-42), Jesus was on one of his travels and entered a village.56 Building upon Rudolf Bultmann57 and taking a form-critical approach, Joseph 55. Considerable discussion has concentrated on this text in Lukan studies. For more on the pericope see Anne-Marie La Bonnardière, “Marthe et Marie, figures de l’église d’après S. Augstin,” VSpir 86 (1952): 404-427; E. Leland, “Die Martha-Maria Perikope Lukas 10,3842,” ST 13 (1959): 70-85; A. Kemmer, “Maria und Martha: Zur Deutungsgeschichte von Lk 10,38ff. im alten Mönchtum,” Erbe und Auftrag 40 (1964): 355-367; A. George, “L’Accueil du Seigneur: Lc 10,38-42,” AsSeign 47 (1970): 75-85; Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 450-454; Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 315-317; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 891-895; Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/Eerdmans, 1989), 209-210; Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 25-66, 62; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SPS Vol 3; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 171-176; Heinrich Baarlink, “Die zyklische Struktur von Lukas 9:43b-19:28,” NTS 38 (1992): 481-506; John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 (WBC 35B; Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 598-606; Bock, Luke: Volume 2, 1037-1044; Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), 433-437; Arthur A. Just Jr., Luke 9:51-24:53 (CC; St. Louis, MO: Concorida, 1997), 456-459; Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 131-132; C. Kavin Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 142-151; and Allison A. Trites, The Gospel of Luke (CBC; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006), 172-174. 56. The account given here is only present in Luke, although the appearance of Mary and Martha is not limited to Luke (cf. Jn 11,1-12,8). 57. Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (J. Marsh, trans.; New York/Oxford: Harper & Row/Blackwell, 1963), 33. Bultmann speaks of it as a biographical apophthegm. On

218

CHAPTER SIX

Fitzmyer sees the episode as a pronouncement-story since the focus is on Jesus’ final pronouncement.58 Vincent Taylor saw in it a story about Jesus,59 John Nolland as an example story,60 and Robert Tannehill as an objectioncommendation story.61 Given Jesus’ instruction at the end, one extrapolates that a pronouncement story is the most likely form in this, but one could see the commendation story could also be applied. Jesus entered the village and a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home (v. 38).62 Martha had a sister named Mary (v. 39) who decided to sit at Jesus’ feet and listen to his teachings,63 a point that caused much consternation in Martha, especially since she was busy taking care of all the details incumbent with a visit by her guest (v. 40).64 Martha approaches Jesus and points out the errant ways of her sister, requesting that Jesus ask Mary to help her with preparations (ἵνα μοι συναντιλάβηται).65 Darrell Bock argues the apophthegm see also Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984), 81-82. 58. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 891-892. 59. Vincent Taylor, Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1957), 75. 60. Nolland, Luke 9:21-8:34, 601. 61. Robert C. Tannehill, “The Pronouncement Story and Its Types, Semeia 20 (1981): 1-23; and idem. “Varieties of the Synoptic Pronouncement Stories,” Semeia 20 (1981): 101119. 62. On the setting of the story see Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34, 600-601; Bock, Luke, 10391040. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 434-435 remarks that the journey motif was used to draw the reader’s attention to the continuation of the narrative with the previous one “to tie this scene formally to the preceding concern with extending or refusing hospitality to those on the road. Luke uses a virtual technical term for hospitality to describe Martha’s reception of Jesus into her home, and otherwise presents her as a patron: prosperous, independent, ready to host this traveler.” 63. By listening to the word, Mary was entering into a discipleship relationship with Jesus, and normally women were normally not cast in this role. Rather, they were to be doing what Martha was doing, working in a domestic role supporting men as they engaged in study. For more on this see Ben Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Early Life (SNTSMS 51; Cambridge: CUP, 1984), 101. See also Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (2nd ed.; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 271. “Since a woman’s honor and reputation depended upon her ability to manage a household, Martha’s complaint would be read by the culture as legitimate. Furthermore, by sitting and listening to the teacher, Mary was acting like a male!” 64. Just, Luke 9:51-24:53, 457-458. “As the reader moves through the narrative, he sees the two perspectives. First is Martha’s generous hospitality as she receives Jesus into her home (10:38). Mary shows a different priority by sitting at the feet of Jesus to hear his word (10:39). Then the evangelist reports that Martha is burdened with serving, a probably reference to the meal preparation (10:40a). The dialog begins with Martha doing the unconscionable: she draws Jesus into a family dispute over the preparation, and the focus of her attack is Mary, ‘my sister,’ who is not assisting (1040b).” 65. Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke, 291. Plummer defines the help as “take hold along with me, help me.”

THE SPIRIT HELPS

219

that the ἵνα clause is purpose due to the fact that Martha’s anger directs itself toward Mary, specifically because Mary is not helping her, a point that Martha feels should be happening.66 Jesus responds that Martha has too many cares and is bothered by too many details, and instead of requesting Mary to help Martha with the preparations, Jesus lauds Mary for doing what is truly important. Jesus however, does not downplay the issue, for the double vocative Μάρθα Μάρθα, signifies an emotional response (cf. Lk 6,46; 8,24; 13;34; 22,31).67 Jesus inverts the social process here, by commending Mary for not working, and encourages Martha to do the same. Jesus was not focused on the vestments of the social world where guests are catered to and are waited on hand and foot. Instead, he would rather be the center of a person’s attention, where his words would be met with an open heart and where he could invest something into the person. Thus, in hospitable terms, he was the patron and those living in the house as well as the guests that day were the clients in effect. Of course, the request for aid is not initiated nor made by Jesus, but originates with Martha, who under duress asks for help. This is situated in the Haustafeln where the members of the household take responsibility for invited guests.68 Martha worked in an administrative capacity, fulfilling a duty dictated to her by her social world.69 When she asked for help, she in effect was putting into motion the social convention of the day that spoke to the responsibility of those living in the household to fulfill certain duties. Therefore, Mary, in effect, was not meeting the demands of the duties required of her. With that said, Jesus subverts this process and casts it aside, but the point remains that συναντιλαμβάνομαι, when taken with the context of the verses, works similarly as in the LXX. With the household idea in mind, Gen 30,8 comes to mind, for Rachel, in her wrestlings was in effect pointing to the necessity for children in the household.

66. Bock, Luke, 1041. 67. Bock, Luke, 1042. “Jesus paints a picture of a woman overwhelmed, using descriptive words that confirm what the reader was told in 10:40 about Martha’s being distracted. She is anxious and troubled by many things . . . The result was that she risked running over others with her poor attitude. Jesus intends to correct her misperception.” 68. Cf. James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 1999), 237-258; David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 157-197. 69. Warren Carter, “Getting Martha out of the Kitchen: Luke 10:38-42,” CBQ 58 (1996): 264-280; John N. Collins, “Did Luke Intend a Disservice to Women in the Martha and Mary Story,” BTB 28 (1998): 104-111.

220

CHAPTER SIX

6.3. CONCLUSION A preliminary reading of the biblical materials pertaining to συναντιλαμβάνομαι shows that it functions best in either an administrative/management or leadership category. As such, one wonders how or if this type of reading arises in other texts?

6.4. EXTRA-BIBLICAL USES Outside the biblical text, συναντιλαμβάνομαι is not used often, and to a certain extent continues the theme of an administrative basis behind it. In Ant 4.198,70 Josephus applies it to himself, stating that he would set out to write about the governmental structure established by Moses. To aid in the writing of this history, Josephus comments that God would be the one helping him (the aid would come from God). This passage is set within the context of an administrative function for one, and its context places it within the Mosaic governmental matrix, which aligns itself again with the way the LXX uses the term. Moses is about to depart from the midst of the assembly and charges them to follow their commanders (Ant 4.184) as well as God who is their ultimate leader (Ant 4.185). The polity set forth by Moses continues through the entire section (Ant 4.177-198) and centers the attention of the reader on the governmental aspects being set forth. Josephus’ ultimate goal is to expand this treatise to incorporate the constitution and laws of the political state. While Josephus’ rhetoric does seem to flow here, it is interesting that in order to complete the task of writing down the ancient polity, he solicits God’s help in accomplishing the task, thus, God bears the burden for him, which is in line with how the LXX understands συναντιλαμβάνομαι. Finally, in the Letter to Aristeas 123,71 συναντιλαμβάνομαι occurs again in an administrative context.72 The writer of the letter is providing Philocrates brief information of the composition of the translation, which he would expand 70. ἔχει δὲ οὕτως ἡ διάταξις ἡμῶν τῶν νόμων τῶν ἀνηκόντωνεἰς τὴν πολιτείαν. οὓς δὲ κοινοὺς ἡμῖν καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους κατέλιπε τούτους ὑπερεθέμην εἰςτὴν περὶ ἐθῶν καὶ αἰτιῶν ἀπόδοσιν, ἣν συλλαμβανομένου τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ ταύτην ἡμῖν τὴνπραγματείαν συντάξασθαι πρόκειται. 71. χωρὶς καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα γεγραφέναι περὶ τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως αὐτῶν πολλὰ παρεκάλεσε τὸν Ἀνδρέαν ποιῆσαι, συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι παρακαλῶν, καθ᾿ ὃ ἂν δυνώμεθα. 72. Regarding connections between The Letter of Aristeas and the Exodus accounts see Hacham Noah, “The Letter of Aristeas: A New Exodus Story?” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 36 (2005): 1-20.

THE SPIRIT HELPS

221

in more detail later (120-121). The High Priest selected men of high character who were proficient in both Jewish and Greek literature. The writer speaks of Eleazer who writes to the king asking for safe return of people, and admonishes Andreas to do the same.73 The assistance given would help with the cause and request the king to extend his favor to the project at hand. What comes up is the way that συναντιλαμβάνομαι is used, again, in the context of an administrative task being undertaken. This continues to be the context from which the word is used throughout this investigation. How this interacts with Paul’s use in Romans will be considered more, but a preliminary assertion can be drawn that Paul might be speaking of the aid given in Rom 8,26 in the realm of help with an inability related to the functioning of the community at large.

6.5. THE SPIRIT HELPS: AN ANALYSIS OF ROM 8,26A IN LIGHT OF PAUL’S MISSION A study of συναντιλαμβάνομαι itself, while enlightening does not solve the issue, for Paul places it in proximity of the Spirit’s work. Paul uses it specifically in 8,26a. The Spirit comes up numerous times in chapter 8 and next follows a short synthesis of how Paul presents the concept in the chapter. One notices that up to this point the verb pertains to an administrative context in many texts, and it has to be considered whether Paul has this in mind in 8,26a. The following question will be discussed: Is Paul’s argument over the inability to pray wrapped around the Spirit helping overcome that limitation in believers due to some sort of issue undermining the Roman church’s ability to effectively complete their mission? By injecting the Spirit into the conversation here, Paul argues that the way forward in overcoming stems from the Spirit itself bringing the aid necessary.74 This relates to the identity of the audience at the present time, as well as, the weakness experienced, but for now the consideration of the aid itself will be investigated. Tobin persuasively shows how the letter works overall rhetorically, but for the purposes here he connects chapters 8-11 together, which forms the latter part of chapter 8 in a bridge into the question of Israel in 9-11, particularly since he sees 8:1-30 as part of the exposition and 8:31-11:36 as the controversy/ 73. Text use for the Greek Letter of Aristeas is from H. St. J. Thackeray, “Appendix: The Letter of Aristeas,” in An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (H. B. Swete, ed.; Cambridge, CUP, 1914), 531-606. 74. In the next chapter, the issue of who “we” are will be broached briefly, but one can see readily how this point interacts with the identity of the community.

222

CHAPTER SIX

refutation.75 Others have seen how chapters 9-11 perpetuate the argument of Romans, so Tobin’s connection makes sense in light of the overall project of Romans.76 Important here is how he weaves 8:31-11:36 into a unit, for this opens the question of how 8:26-30 ends the exposition and how 8:31-39 begins the controversy/refutation. What comes out throughout chapters 8-11 is a thread of connected material ensconced in the frame of the Spirit’s work in chapter 8 and the beginning of chapter 9. The Spirit serves as the missiological agent whereby God’s plan for the present and future becomes realized. This is not limited to chapters 8-11 as the working out occurs in previous chapters as well, but what Tobin offers for readers is a chance to see how the missiological agency of the Spirit works in chapters 8 and 9-11, particularly when 8,31-39 are developed in light of 9-11.77 Applying the idea to 8,26a, one sees how Paul emphasizes the missiological role of the Spirit in light of our weakness. Given that συναντιλαμβάνομαι normally works in an administrative context, what Paul does in 8,26a is show how the Spirit leads the process of overcoming both weakness and 75. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 251-272. The normal pattern has been to connect Romans 1-8 together with 9-11 and then 12-16 in some form or another. Contra. Tobin see for example Wilkens, Römer, 2:2-5 and Matera, Romans, 12-20. While most put Romans 1-8 together as a cohesive unit, their point is not to say that Romans was a separate document, rather the apogee of the argument in Romans 1-8 ends with chapter 8 and Paul begins a new line of thought in chapter 9. Tobin argues that the flow of thought does not end in chapter 8, but continues into chapter 9, thus connecting the final argumentation of chapter 8 with the next section. The end result is that his structure links the work of the Spirit in chapter 8 with the Spirit in chapter 9 and opens up the question of the relation between the Roman Christ community and Israel. Tobin structures the letter to the end of chapter 11 around the following diagram, which connects the argument of chapter 8 to 9-11: Exposition: 1:18-32 3:21-26 5:1-21 8:1-30 Controversy/refutation 2:1-3:20 3:27-4:25 6:1-7:25 8:31-11:36 76. See for example, Keck, Romans, 223 who shows how the climatic element of the first eight chapters manifest in chapter 8, but then shows how the overall argument builds into 9-11. “Paul has insisted that in the Christ event, and through the import of the gospel, God has kept the promise made in scripture (1:2). And while the gospel is God’s power for salvation of all who believe, it is so “for the Jew first” (1:16). Indeed, the insistence is that by obeying the law does not destroy the law but actually upholds it (3:30-31), because God’s rectifying rectitude apart from the law is attested in scripture (3:21-26). Moreover, Abraham himself is the prototype of the sort of faith Paul is talking about (chap. 4). Nonetheless, there is a problem, made acute by precisely these positive links between the gospel and the Jewish people and their scripture: Already in Paul’s day, it was apparent that most Jews were refusing to believe the gospel while more and more Gentiles were accepting it and enjoying its power to save.” He goes on to detail how 9-11 function to elicit support that Jews should accept the gospel, and more to the point, how God’s righteousness remains intact even if Jews do not follow it. 77. An integrated study of this goes beyond the constraints of the present work. For more, see Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 251-272, especially 256-262.

THE SPIRIT HELPS

223

blocked prayer. The Spirit aids the believing community by leading them to God’s will (v. 27), and therefore holds an important role in the overall mission of God. Paul brings this out and reinforces the missiological nature of the text throughout. The way forward for the community in the present and future is a dependency upon the Spirit to overcome weakness. What the weakness is, of course, is another matter to which the next chapter will address.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

In the two previous chapters an analysis commenced on Paul’s understanding of the Spirit and the Spirit aiding others. From this perspective, it was argued that Paul sets the phrase in the context of the Spirit helping the Roman Christ follower community. In this section, an investigation commences into what Paul meant by weakness. An analysis of ἡ ἀσθένεια is essential in understanding how the Spirit helps the person Paul refers to in the verse. Additionally, the question of ἐγώ becomes a central issue given that it defines who Paul refers to with the Spirit providing aid. As was set forth in the last chapter, συναντιλαμβάνομαι relates to ἐγώ, therefore, it is important to consider who Paul means when using the word.

7.1. AN ANALYSIS

OF

ἡ ἀσθένεια IN LIGHT OF PAUL’S ARGUMENTATION ROM 8,26-27

IN

The word ἀσθένεια and its cognates occur over forty times in Paul’s letters representing more than fifty percent of the total uses in the New Testament.1 The word ἀσθένεια without the inclusion of its cognates occurs ten times in the Pauline corpus,2 twelve times in the New Testament excluding Paul,3 and seven times in the LXX.4 Typically, the word has been translated as weakness, infirmity, or some type of sickness.5 As noted in chapter one, Barré takes the approach that the word finds its roots in the LXX and has a meaning of stumbling as in the context of persecution; and when applied to Paul it refers to 1. Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 212. 2. With the Pauline corpus consideration includes both the deutero and trito Paulines. The places ἀσθένεια occurs in Paul are Rom 6,19; 8,26; 1 Cor 2,3; 15,43; 2 Cor 11,30; 12,5.9.10; 13,4; Gal 4,13. 3. Matt 8,17; Lk 5,15; 8,2; 13,11-12; Jn 5,5; 11,4; Ac 28,9; Heb 4,5; 5,2; 7,28; 11,34. 4. Jub 37,7; Ps 15(16),4; Eccl 12,4; Jer 6,21; 18,23; 2 Macc 9,21-22. 5. For an in-depth study of the term and its cognates in Paul see Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness.

226

CHAPTER SEVEN

a concrete situation where some type of opposition reigns, rather than a general term of weakness.6 Keesmaat builds upon Barré’s findings, suggesting that in Rom 8,26 Paul has sufferings in mind when using ἀσθένεια.7 One of the problems facing Keesmaat’s thesis though is why Paul would use ἀσθένεια in 8,26, when he already spoke of sufferings in 8,18 by stating λογίζομαι γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς. Why the shift from πάθος in 8,18 to ἀσθένεια in 8,26? It would seem more likely that Paul would have preferred one term over the other if he was seeing both in similar terms. Instead, it seems Paul draws a clear distinction between suffering and weakness in 8,18.26 for specific reasons. David Black prefers to interpret ἀσθένεια in 8,26 more comprehensively “covering the whole range of weakness which is characteristic of the present life.”8 Gieniusz observes that while the comprehensive nature of the weakness is shown in 8,26, the overall context of the pericope (vv. 18-30) pertains to general suffering inflicted upon the entire world, which puts ἀσθένεια into the realm of suffering, and thus back into the interpretation Keesmaat suggests.9 The difference between the two though is pronounced, for while Gieniusz argues that ἀσθένεια contextually rests within the greater suffering passage, Keesmaat seems to collapse the distinction of the terms making weakness and suffering one and the same. The above arguments take for granted that Paul is speaking of believers in general and that the weakness impacting them in some way restricts their ability to pray. R. F. Boyd’s thesis that the weakness here refers to sinners and their spiritual inability or some type of sin inflicting itself upon the believers does not seem likely given the context and Paul’s self-identification with the group.10 Dunn points to the solidarity of weakness felt by all believers arguing against the issue of sinfulness in the passage;11 and C. C. Mitchell maintains that the believers in 8,26 exhibit an element of innocence in their weakness.12 It does seem likely given the context of 8,26 that the weakness experienced

6. Barré, “Paul as ‘Eschatologic Person’,” 510-512. 7. Keesmaat, Paul and his Story, 120-121. “This would mean that the Spirit does not merely help believers in their weakness, which is the result of their human condition, but that the Spirit helps believers very specifically in their stumbling as a result of persecution, persecutions which are seen to be part of the struggles of the eschatological age.” 8. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 191. See also Dunn, Romans 1-8, 477. 9. Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 213. 10. R. F. Boyd, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer: An Exposition of Romans 8:2627,” Int 8 (1954): 35-42, 39, 41. 11. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 477. 12. C. C. Mitchell, “The Holy Spirit’s Intercessory Ministry,” BSac 139 (1982): 230-242, 231.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

227

by believers pertains to some sort of weakness inflicted upon the people, rather than on their sinfulness or the sinfulness of unbelievers. At the same time, one has to ask whether or not the generalizing of all Christians in 8,26 does not impose a reading upon the text? Is it possible that Paul limits the discussion to a certain group in the Roman community, or does he specifically apply this verse to all believers?

7.2. WHO IS REFERRED TO WITH THE FIRST-PERSON PLURAL IN ROM 8,26? Paul uses pronouns in different ways in his letters, and as one reads through Romans it becomes evident that Paul uses person in rather specific and loose ways throughout, shifting from the first person to the second person to third person for the purpose of undergirding his arguments, differentiating himself from others, injecting himself into the discussion, and identifying with others. In 8,18, Paul transitions the discussion from primarily second person (8,117) to first person (8,18-30).13 The transitional marker in the pericope is λογίζομαι,14 emphasizing Paul’s ruminations on present suffering versus future glory. The shift from the second person to the first person emphasizes the solidarity believers have for one another, and for creation (8,22). While a third person interlude exists (the role of creation in 8,19-22), the driving motif concerns the first person in the pericope. Glory will be revealed to us (8,18), we know creation groans and suffers (8,22),15 we ourselves groan (8,23),16 in hope we have been saved (8,24),17 if we hope for those things we do not see (8,25), we eagerly wait (8,25), the Spirit helps in our 13. Cf. Jewett, Romans, 508. See also Matera, Romans, 199. 14. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 511, demonstrates that λογίζομαι has the meaning of realizing “from the standpoint of faith” (cf. Rom 2,3; 3,28; 6,11; 14,14; 1 Cor 4,1; 2 Cor 10,7.11; 11,5; Phil 3,13; 4,8). 15. When Paul uses οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι he generally takes it to mean a truth that does not need explaining (cf. 2,2; 3,19; 7,14; 8,28). For discussion on the issue see Moo, Romans, 518. 16. In 8,23, a structure set up by Paul arises whereby he emphasizes that even though “we have the firstfruits of the Spirit,” “we also ourselves groan for adoption as sons.” D F G see the connection with the we in this verse and add ἡμεῖς after καί in 8,23b to emphasize the solidarity, but the text as given shows the same principle. While we have the firstfruits we also groan in anticipation for what is to come. 17. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1864), 277. “We are saved in hope, i. e., in prospect. The dative (ἐλπίδι) does not in this case express the means by which anything is done, but the condition or circumstances in which it is, or the way and manner in which it occurs. It is therefore analogous to our forms of expression, we have a thing in expectation or prospect. Salvation is a blessing we have in hope, not in possession.”

228

CHAPTER SEVEN

weakness (8,26), we do not know how to pray as we should (8,26), the Spirit intercedes for us (8,26), and we know that God causes things to work for the good of his own (8,28). While the use of the first person singular and plural shows a particular direction to which Paul takes his argumentation, it does not define the identity of those to whom he refers. 7.2.1. The Use of First Person Singular in Rom 8,18-30 Paul uses the first person singular one time in the pericope, but at a critical point, the transitional statement found in 8,18 (λογίζομαι). When the verb is used in the first person in Paul’s writings, whether singular or plural, it serves a specific function; namely to introduce “a personal conviction of Paul or/ and of Christians as opposed to a common way of thinking” (cf. Rom 3,28; 2 Cor 11,5; Phil 3,13).18 As far as the identity of the person, 2 Cor 11,5 and Phil 3,13 clearly refer to Paul as they are given within a particular context where he identifies himself.19 Rom 3,28 is by no means as clear as the others,20 since it has an argumentation that can be viewed as polemical, but still one detects that Paul is the one driving the conversation, maintaining that his view of faith is the correct one over against those who hold to Law. The issue has arisen as to how the “I” factors into the discussion of Romans 7, but this seems removed from the way it is used in the rest of the letter.21 When applied to Rom 8,18, Paul clearly is in mind as the one opening this new sequence, and it can be argued that Paul at this point injects himself into the flow of discussion.22

18. Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 79. 19. 2 Cor 11,5: λογίζομαι γὰρ μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων; Phil 3,13: ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι. 20. Rom 3,28: λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου. 21. For more on this see Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation, 40-42, 52-57, 59-91. 22. For more on the discussion of first person see Lofthouse, “Singular and Plural in St. Paul’s Letters,” 179-182. He concludes: “The above passages do not attempt to provide a complete enumeration. They will perhaps show, however, that there is no reason to attribute either caprice or carelessness to St. Paul in his use of sing. or pl.; on the contrary, that his choice now of one and now of the other, whether deliberate or not, followed what we may call the rapid focussing of his mind, or the passionate sympathy in which he habitually sank his individuality in that of the group of which he was the life and soul, took on his own shoulders duties of expostulations or warning from which the best of them might have shrunk, laid bare his own inmost heart, and upheld before his hesitating and unsatisfactory followers an ideal which he insisted that they should think of as already shared by them with him” (182).

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

229

7.2.2. The Use of First Person Plural in Rom 8,18-30 While the use of first person singular was limited to one occasion, Paul uses the plural ten times in the pericope (8,18.22-26.28). The question becomes who Paul refers to in these verses (Paul himself, Paul and the Roman community, an isolated group of people, all believers). W. F. Lofthouse contends that when Paul used the first person plural “he was thinking of himself as one of a number, either the little band of his companions, his readers, or the whole company of believers in the background of his mind.”23 He maintains that in Romans 8 Paul refers to himself and all those who believe and thus are sharing in Christian experience.24 This is consistent with what he does elsewhere (cf., 1 Cor 6,1-11; 10,33-11,1; 12,2; 2 Cor 1,1-14; 2,11.1417; Gal 4,26-5,1; 1 Thess 1,6; 2,7.18; 3,5.27). Gieniusz argues convincingly that the we in 8,26a needs to be confined to an audience comprised of believers, including Paul. He goes against the idea of weakness being related moral inadequacy or something from the past, as Paul injects himself into the conversation.25 Moo restricts the conversation to believers arguing that the weakness Paul speaks of pertains to the child of God.26 Black holds that the we should be set aside for “Christians” and suggests that the frame of reference concerns how these believers interact with weakness and the lack of ability to pray.27 Throughout the pericope Paul weaves an argument of how we are impacted by the negative consequences of something broken around us. The suffering of the present time at some point will give way to a glory to those who believe (v. 18).28 As we observe the world around us we recognize something amiss in the creation (v. 22) that affects us as well as causes us to groan and long for redemption (v. 23).29 At the same time, the longed for salvation comes to us in hope (v. 24) and causes us to wait in patience for its realization (v. 25).30 Finally, we recognize the Spirit’s work comes to our aid when we are weak 23. W. F. Lofthouse, “‘I’ and ‘We’ in the Pauline Letters,” BiTr 6 (1955): 72-80, 73. 24. Lofthouse, “‘I’ and ‘We’ in Pauline Letters,” 78. 25. Gieniusz, Romans 8:18-30, 212-213. 26. Moo, Epistle to the Romans, 523. 27. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 191. 28. Jewett, Romans, 509. Jewett points out that the “Roman believers who had already experienced harassment and deportation and whose everyday life as members of the Roman underclass was anything but idyllic.” He points out that from Paul’s perspective, the supposed ideal world projected by the Caesars was an illusion, and something else and something better was to come for those who believe (509-510). 29. For more on the connection between groaning of creation and ourselves see Horrell, Hunt, and Southgate, Greening Paul, 71-85. 30. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 292-294.

230

CHAPTER SEVEN

and it also injects itself into our world by groaning with inarticulate sounds (v. 26).31 What Paul provides readers then is the grounds by which those who believe will receive satisfaction. 7.2.3. Conclusion Paul’s use of pronouns opens up the identity of Paul himself for one, but also for those being written to in a given letter. In Romans 8 Paul writes in the first person singular and injects himself into the dialogue, which is typical for other parts of the letter except for possibly Romans 7. When he uses the first person plural, he consistently broadens the net of people to include himself and others. In Rom 8,26a, Paul, in line with what he does throughout the entire pericope, includes himself with the Roman believers as recipients of the work of the Spirit to aid our weakness. Now that the context of the weakness has been established, it is important to understand what Paul meant by weakness in the passage and in his context.

7.3. THE USE OF ἀσθένεια IN

THE

LXX

There are 83 occurrences of the word group in the LXX, with much diversity in its definitions.32 Gustav Stählin shows that in the LXX ἀσθενέω is used for ‫( כשׁל‬Dan 11,41), while ἀσθένεια is used for ‫( מכשׁול‬Jer 6,21; 18,23).33 Overall, the various ways in which the LXX uses the terms relate to a general sense of weakness (Gen 29,17; 2 Sam 3,1) or to stumble or fall (Zeph 1,3).34 The usage of ἀσθένεια in the LXX, while at times can mean stumble of fall, generally has the idea of weakness around it. This is the predominant theme found in Eccl 12,4; Ps 15(16),4; Jer 18,23 even though there are occasions 31. For the supposed question of eschatological timing in the verse see Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 249-265. 32. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 13. 33. Cf. Gustav Stählin, “ἀσθενής, ἀσθένεια, ἀσθενέω, ἀσθένημα,” in TDNT (Vol I; Gerhard Kittel, ed.; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. and ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 490. 34. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 15. Related to the idea of fall, R. H. Charles and O. S. Wintermute translate the verb in Jub 37,7 as “to fall” showing the idea that the stumbling element is primary. Cf. O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in 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 (James H. Charlesworth, ed.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 125; R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005), 180.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

231

where it can mean sickness (Jer 6,21) or a stumbling block (2 Macc 9,21).35 What one notes is that the nuances of the word is limited in the LXX, but continually has the idea of some problematic issue, whether illness, weakness, or suffering facing a person or group. 7.4. THE USE OF ἀσθένεια

IN

EXTRA-BIBLICAL LITERATURE

The noun ἀσθένεια, as well as its adjectival (ἀσθενής), adverbial (ἀσθενικός), and verbal (ἀσθενέω) forms, is well attested in ancient Greek literature, with uses dating at least as early as the writings of Herodotus and Euripides in the fifth century B.C.E. The word group consisting of ἀσθενής, ἀσθένεια, and ἀσθενέω are formed with ἀ privativum and come from σθέ́νος, with the meaning of weakness or impotence that manifests in various forms.36 In Classical Greek the general idea was that weakness was used in broad categories, including bodily weakness in some form with the possibility of illness (Herod. 4:135, Thuc. 7:47); as antonymns for δύναμις, ἰσχυρός, and ἱκανός (Thuc. 1:35); a lack of wisdom (Thuc. 1:32; Aeschylus Pr: 1011); old age (Antiphon 4:3); economic distress (Herod 2:88; Aristophanes Peace 636); ethical weakness (Arist. Rhetoric 1419a, 18).37 The broad usage shows the elasticity of the term, and a complete understanding of the NT use of the term cannot be derived completely from the Greek usage. As Black summarizes: “It does seem clear, however, that the dominant sense of ἀσθένεια and its cognates in Classical Greek is non-ethical, the words being used primarily in terms of their physical or social connotations, while at the same time being capable of denoting the inward nature of man.”38 The most general definition of ἀσθένεια is weakness. This could describe any variety of weaknesses, but it is most frequently used to describe physical weakness, whether caused by a poor diet or malnutrition (Hippocrates, De Prisca Medicina 12), illness (Strabo, Geography 1.2), age (Antiphon, Third Tetralogy 4.3.2), injury (OGI 24), exertion (Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.2.32), or the general mortality of mankind (Diodorus Siculus 1.2.3). When utilizing ἀσθένεια as physical weakness, an author would often couple it with a form of σῶμα to make explicit the connection that ἀσθένεια had with the body. 35. Johan Lust and Erik Eynikel, “ἀσθένεια,” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003), 88. 36. Stählin, “ἀσθενής,”490. 37. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 12. 38. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 13.

232

CHAPTER SEVEN

General weakness, as opposed to strength (δύναμις, or adjectivally ἰσχυρός), is another, less nuanced, definition of ἀσθένεια. Often, if the author intends ἀσθένεια to be understood as general weakness, he will explicitly juxtapose the term with its antithesis (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 3.62). The philosophers applied this method to speak about the philosophical implications of the differences between the two terms (Plato, Republic 618 d). Merely being a woman or widow classified a person as being weak, inferior (P. Amh. 141, P. Flor. 1.58). Women were thought to be weak simply by nature of being women. This is less of a commentary on the lack of strength that specific women possessed, and more of an overall opinion within this culture that gender was prerequisite for strength of any sort. This can be seen with the common pairing of ἀσθένεια with φύσις (nature) when speaking about women (P. Oxy. 1.71; 34.2713). Women are considered inherently weak due to their nature. Alternatively, ἀσθένεια can refer to moral or spiritual weakness. Plutarch uses ἀσθένεια to show moral failing, often combining it with θυμός to mean weakness of will or lack of self-control (De Cohibenda Ira 8). Plato uses ἀσθένεια to describe both moral and spiritual weakness in Republic (4.444 e). And Aristotle describes ἀσθένεια as one of the two forms of moral unrestraint (Nichomachean Ethics 1150 b). Several alternate definitions for ἀσθένεια are also utilized in ancient Greek literature. One alternate definition of ἀσθένεια is poverty, or poor economic standing (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 10.7.2). Poverty was likely seen as a type of physical weakness, as the lack of means usually results in a high possibility of illness, injury, and malnutrition, but it also tends to weaken a person’s mind and morals. Herodotus uses the phrase “ἀσθενείης βίου,” meaning weakness of livelihood, when he refers to poverty (Histories 8.51; 2.47). Other alternates include ineptitude (Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 1.3), mediocrity (Strabo, Geography 1.2), imperfection (Plato, Leges 6.769 c), impotence or ineffectiveness (Plutarch, Questiones Convivales 1.9), weak in appearance (Plutarch Questionnes Convivales 3.4) or incomplete understanding (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1419a). Each of these examples show some sort of weakness not otherwise described above, whether in competency, appearance, understanding, effectiveness, or perfection. In addition to these definitions of ἀσθένεια, it is important to note that ἀσθένεια is frequently the object of the prepositions διά and ὑπό. These common grammatical relationships indicate cause, meaning that the ancient Greek authors often considered ἀσθένεια to be an explanation various phenomena. Ἀσθένεια is said to have caused strange behavior (Plutarch, Cicero 5.4), yielding

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

233

(Questiones Convivales 8.4), pain and suffering (De Cohibenda Ira 8), the adoption of a child (Demosthenes, Against Neaera 59.59, 63), deficiency (Plato, Leges 6.769 c), the search for new diversions (Strabo, Geography 17.1), the impossibility to ask various questions (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1419 a), and soldiers to be left behind (Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.2.32). From the abundance of definitions given above, it should be clear that ἀσθένεια does not have one clear English equivalent, but a variety of nuanced options. Ἀσθένεια is an incredibly nuanced term that requires a careful consideration of context in order to appropriately translate into the English language. 7.5. THE USE OF ἀσθένεια

IN THE

NEW TESTAMENT

The use of the word occurs in a number of contexts in the New Testament. The gospels generally refer to it in the context of illness or some sort of bodily weakness, in the context of Jesus’ healing activity (Jn 2,23; 6,14), the commission accounts of the apostles who are sent to heal the sick (Matt 10,8; Lk 9,2; 10,9), and specific reports of healings (Jn 4,46-54).39 The New Testament occurrences of ἀσθένεια happen in the gospels (Matt 8,17; Lk 5,15; 8,2; 13,11-12; Jn 5,5; 11,4), Acts 28,9, and Heb 4,15; 5,2; 7,28; 11,34). 7.5.1. The Gospels Matt 8,17 inserts a detail about Jesus’ ministry to authenticate it via a reference to Is 53,4.40 Craig Keener argues that the context of Isaiah 53 “suggests that the servant’s death would heal the nation of its sin (53:4-6, 8-9; cf. 39. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 16-17. 40. Cf. αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν. Matthew follows the Hebrew text in quoting Is 53,4, departing significantly from the LXX. οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται, καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλογισάμεθα αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν πόνῳ καὶ ἐν πληγῇ καὶ ἐν κακώσει. ַ ‫ָא ֵכ֤ן חֳ ָ יֵ֙ל ֙נוּ ֣הוּא נָ ָ֔שׂא‬ ‫וּמ ֻע ֶנּֽה׃‬ ְ ‫ֹלהים‬ ֖ ִ ‫וּמ ְכא ֵ ֹ֖בינוּ ְס ָב ָל֑ם וַ ֲא ַנ ְ֣חנוּ ֲח ַשׁ ְב ֻ֔נהוּ נָ ג֛ ַוּע ֻמ ֵ ֥כּה ֱא‬ For discussion on the relationship between Matthew, the Hebrew text of Isaiah, and the Greek see John P. Meier, Matthew (NTM 3; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980), 85; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (WBC 33A; Dallas, TX: Word, 1993), 210-211; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999), 273; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2005), 361. R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI/Leicester: Eerdmans/IVP, 1985), 158, discusses the way the LXX theologizes the text by moving the meaning toward sins, rather than weakness or sickness. That is why Matthew follows the Hebrew, for his concern is less to focus on the sin issue and on the genuine sickness being confronted by the people.

234

CHAPTER SEVEN

1 Pet 2:22-25).”41 At the same time, the healing would not be achieved only in the elimination of sin, but would also apply to “complete wellness.”42 The writer of Matthew places ἀσθένεια in the passage as a remedy for illness of some sort, and that Jesus works as a healer sent to alleviate illness and carry away disease. Daniel Harrington maintains that Matthew’s presentation of Jesus in light of Is 53,4 sets him up as the quintessential Suffering Servant who fills the double role of healing people and taking upon himself the sins of people.43 In this way, the miracles performed by Jesus stand within the passion and consistently remind readers that the point of Jesus’ life was not just to alleviate temporary illnesses, but to show the suffering and death he was to face as the Suffering Servant.44 V. 17 follows the healing of Peter’s motherin-law (vv. 14-15) who was in bed due to a fever;45 the demon-possessed who had spirits cast out of them (v. 16);46 and also in v. 16 the healing of all those who were ill.47 As can be seen, in Matt 8,17 the use of ἀσθένεια refers to illness, which places it in proximity with the way the LXX uses the word. Lk 5,15 resembles the overall tenor of Matt 8,17 in so far as the meaning of ἀσθένεια revolves around the healing (θεραπεία) of sicknesses. François Bovon speaks to the text in Lk 8,15 affirming the wonder working nature of Jesus’ ministry.48 As John Nolland points out, “The publicly certified healing leads to an even greater dissemination of an awareness of Jesus.”49 Lk 8,2 is in the context of healing, but broadens the reach to the spiritual realm, given that those healed were afflicted by evil spirits (τεθεραπευμέναι ἀπὸ πνευμάτων πονηρῶν καὶ ἀσθενειῶν).50 The connection between healing and exorcism in 41. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 273. 42. Keener, Gospel of Matthew, 273. The existence of a double pronged healing of sin and body is substantiated by the prophets (Is 6,10; 13,15; 29,18; 32,3-4; 35,5-6; 57,18; Jer 3,22; 6,14; 8,11; Hos 14,4). This is also pointed to in later literature (1QH 2,8-9; Sir 28,3). 43. Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SPS 1; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 117. 44. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, 117. 45. For an analysis of the role Peter’s mother-in-law plays to the narrative, see Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 359-360. 46. The matter of demonic exorcism is a complicated one in the first century. For an overview see Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 272. 47. Matthew chooses κακῶς in v. 16 to represent those who are ill, but uses ἀσθένεια in v. 17 when quoting Is 53,4. 48. François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (Helmut Koester, ed.; Christine M. Thomas, trans.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002). 176-177. 49. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas, TX: Word, 1989), 228. 50. Cf. William H. Van Doren, The Gospel of Luke: Expository and Homiletical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1981), 248.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

235

this capacity are noted, but the point is that Jesus performed an action that freed people from spirits of wickedness and sickness.51 From this verse Luke broadens the scope to include those sick by means of evil spirits.52 This view of ἀσθένεια continues for Luke in 13,11-12 where a woman had been affected by a sickness caused by a spirit (γυνὴ πνεῦμα ἔχουσα ἀσθενείας) and was subsequently freed from the sickness (γύναι ἀπολέλυσαι τῆς ἀσθενείας σου).53 Norval Geldenhuys notes that the woman’s need was healing, but it was influenced by an evil spirit, though Jesus did not recognize the spirit just healed the woman directly.54 Luke Timothy Johnson points out the importance of the pericope, for it occupies significant narrative development (unlike the demoniac in 11,14), is found only in Luke, and sets up the conflict over Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath.55 Lastly, Jn 5,5 continues the illness motif as the man of Bethesda56 was afflicted by an illness that had impacted him for thirty-eight years (ἦν δέ τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ τριάκοντα [καὶ] ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ αὐτοῦ).57 The symbolic nature of the story has been discussed, primarily focusing on the man being afflicted with the condition facing him 38 years, a point that some tie to the wilderness wanderings of Deut 2,14 (cf. Acts of Pilate 6.1; Mk 2,112).58 One of the most debatable aspects of the text concerns its location, 51. Cf. Ben Witherington, “On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples – Luke 8,1-3,” ZNW 70 (1979): 243-248, 245. 52. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX). Fitzmyer points out that this is the second reference to women being cured in Luke. “So far only one woman has been cured in the Lucan story of Jesus’ ministry, Simon’s mother-in-law (4:38-39); presumably she has remained at home. The others must have been included in such notices as 4:40-41; 6:17-19. The ‘some’ become ‘many others’ in v. 3.” 53. Cf. Morris, Luke, 244. 54. Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 374. 55. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 214. “In this case, the deflected charge of hypocrisy: the allowances made for the ‘loosing’ of animals on the Sabbath to give them relief is a light thing, compared to the heavy matter of ‘loosing’ a human persona (and a ‘daughter of Abraham’) from the bondage of Satan. Indeed, faced with such a human need, it is necessary to heal on the Sabbath!” 56. The difficulties of Bethesda are acknowledged. For discussion of the textual issues related to the place in John 5 see David J. Wieland, “John v. 2 and the Pool of Bethesda,” NTS 12 (1965-1966): 392-404. He maps out the possibilities and variant readings, from Bethesda, Bethsaida, Bethzatha, the sheep-pool, and the sheep-gate. 57. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1972), 209. Lindars sees two distinct stories brought together in the story. 58. For a leaning toward the connection that is representative of the approach see Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11 (NAC Vol 25A; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 232. “The same apparent feeling of an eternity seems to have been present in Israel’s almost endless wilderness wandering experiences (thirty-eight years) from Kadesh to the brook of Zared (cf. Deut 2:14). It would be difficult to argue for certain that John intended such an immediate comparison of the two time periods because there is no direct textual reference made here in

236

CHAPTER SEVEN

with a number of scholars proposing that it more naturally follows John 6 as the driving argument of 6,1 links with the conclusion of c. 4,59 while those arguing such a hypothesis lacks any specific textual validity to it.60 Jesus addresses the man (v. 6) asking him if he wants to be well to which in v. 7 the sick man (ὁ ἀσθενῶν) replies that he has no one to place him in the water.61 Jesus tells him to get up and when he does the man finds himself completely healed of the affliction (vv. 8-9). As D. Moody Smith and D. A. Carson point out, the healing story serves to mark a transition in the way the author of John presents the relationship between Jesus and the religious leaders, from a reserved relationship to complete opposition.62 Jerome Neyrey points out the importance of the narrative as the third sign of a total of seven in John, and the story resembles that of healing stories in the Hellenistic world and synoptic Gospels.63 Focusing attention on the role ἀσθένεια plays in Jn 5,5 shows that while the nature of the illness is not completely known, it does revolve around sickness of some sort. Ridderbos maintains that the problem was some sort of paralysis, though the exact nature cannot be discerned.64 Borchert points out the passage. But it is suggestive. All who experience hopelessness understand how time seems to hang like eternity.” Contra. the view see C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1967), 211, who points out that the approach is too subjective. The appeal to Acts of Pilate is tenuous as well, for its composition at the earliest would be 4th century CE, making it more dependent upon the Johannine text than anything else; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester/ Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/Eerdmans, 1991), 242, who like Barrett sees no interlocking symbolism in the text that would draw the reader’s attention to the wilderness wanderings. 59. Cf. J. H. Bernard, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to John (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), 171; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1971), 209; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (New York; Crossroads, 1982), 5-9; Gerard S. Sloyan, John (Interpretation; Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1988), 61. 60. Herman Ridderbos, Het Evangelie naar Johannes: Proeve van een theologische Exegese (Kampen: Kok, 1992), 170-172, who articulates the main arguments that proponents of the theory in a systematic fashion, but does not feel the arguments merit enough consideration to move John 5 behind 6. See also Carson, The Gospel According to John, 240; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Rev. ed. 2nd pr. NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 263; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), 286. 61. On characterization in John 5 see Jeffrey L. Staley, “Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9,” Semeia 53 (1991): 55-80. 62. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 242; D. Moody Smith, John (ANTC; Nashville, TN” Abingdon, 1999), 129. 63. Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (Cambridge: CUP, 2007), 102. The features Neyrey points to in typical stories like John 5 include five elements: confrontation, severity of disease, cure, proof of healing, and honor to the healer. On healing in the New Testament see John J. Pilch, Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000). 64. Ridderbos, Het Evangelie naar Johannes, 171.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

237

that the man was very weak, a weakness expressed in some sort of paralysis.65 Carson echoes Borchert’s sentiment, emphasizing that the man suffered from a paralysis but would have been just “exceedingly weak.”66 What arises from this discussion is that the weakness encountered is of a physical nature, so in keeping with the sickness and illness motifs found in the synoptics. The point is to bestow honor upon Jesus in keeping with the honor given to a healer (cf. Jos Ant 8.45-48), and the man’s weakness served the role of elevating the status of Jesus.67 In conclusion, when ἀσθένεια is considered in the gospels, what arises is that the context of each surrounds the healing of sick people. Luke broadens the perspective by saying the sickness was caused by evil spirits, but nonetheless the context still is around those who are sick. John limits the discussion to a person suffering from a sickness, but once again the length of that illness, 38 years, shows the severity to the affliction. Thus, ἀσθένεια in the gospels pertains to a specific and tangible effect upon a person(s). 7.5.2. Acts The reference to ἀσθένεια in Acts 28,9 stands in line with those found in the gospels.68 Susan Marie Praeder and Beverly Roberts Gaventa set the context of the story within that of hospitality in that the Maltese extend hospitality to Paul and the others, and in return Paul exhibits hospitality by praying for healing.69 65. Borchert, John 1-11, 231. 66. Carson, Gospel According to John, 242. 67. Cf. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, 103-104. 68. For those advocating that ἀσθένεια in Acts pertains to sickness see Hans Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte (HzNT; Tübingen; Mohr Siebeck, 1963), 147; Susan Marie Praeder, “Acts 27:1-28:16: Sea Voyages in Ancient Literature and the Theology of Luke-Acts,” CBQ 46 (1984): 701-703; F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 499; David J. Williams, Acts (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 444; Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, 463; John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC Vol 26; Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 533-534; C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles (ICC Vol II; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 1225-1226; James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (NC; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996), 348; Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Acts (ANTC; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2003), 359-360; Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, Social Science Commentary on the Book of Acts (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008), 176; Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (PCNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008); David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Apollos, 2009), 702; 69. Praeder, “Acts 27:1-28:16,” 702; Gaventa, Acts, 359-360, who states: “The introduction of Publius in v. 7 creates the occasion for reciprocal ‘hospitality; using the word in an extended sense to include the healings as well as the feeding and sheltering of Paul and others,” and “Publius and other residents have acted hospitably to Paul and his companions, and in return Paul has served as an agent of healing;” and Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 702, who remarks that the “experience of such hospitality provided Paul with the opportunity to demonstrate the

238

CHAPTER SEVEN

In v. 8 Publius’ father suffers from a fever70 and dysentery, prompting Paul to pray for him, lay hands on him, and heal him. Prayer with laying on of hands happens only in this verse in Acts (cf. Jas 5,13; 1QapGen 20.28-29), but the action occurs when people were commissioned (Ac 6,6; 13,13), and for healing without the mention of prayer (9,12.17), and to where prayer is alluded (8,18-19; 19,6). Responding to what happened, in v. 9 the rest of the people came to Paul so that their diseases could be cured.71 Once again in Acts is that the reference to ἀσθένεια in Acts revolves around sickness and the alleviation of the same. Malina and Pilch point out that sickness is behind the use of the term when they write: “‘Diseases’ (NRSV) is an anachronistic and ethnocentric rendition of the Greek word, which literally means ‘lack of strength.’ It is therefore best described as debilitating sicknesses.”72 The healing of Publius’ father, along with the surge of people flocking to Paul in order to have him heal their sicknesses,73 brings the story full circle74 as an authentication of Paul as healer,75 and as Barrett maintains as a man “who believes in the power and benevolence of the true God.”76 The healing of the sicknesses served to show that God was the one who brought about the cure and not medical attention.77 What we do see here, though is that ἀσθένεια in Acts provides a similar meaning as seen in the Gospels; namely, sickness of some sort. 7.5.3. Hebrews Hebrews contains four places where ἀσθένεια occurs (Heb 4,15; 5,2; 7,28; 11,34). A marked difference surfaces between the way the author of grace of God toward this family of unbelievers. Luke is showing how the giving and receiving of acts of kindness built bridges for the gospel with good-living pagans.” 70. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 499 n. 17, sees the fever as gastric fever, known in the area as Malta fever that was caused by a microbe in goats’ milk. 71. Cf. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 499-500. 72. Malina and Pilch, Social Science Commentary on Acts, 176. 73. Cf. Williams, Acts, 444. 74. See Gaventa, Acts, 359, on the narrative structuring of the story. “Verses 9-10 round out the story by returning to the larger population of Malta. They now bring their sick to be healed through Paul. And, when the party is ready to depart, they grant them ‘many honors’ and supply provisions for the last part of the voyage.” 75. Dunn, Acts of the Apostles, 348. Dunn sees in the story a recollection by Luke of Jesus’ success (Lk 4,40; 5,15; 6,18) in light of Paul’s own statements on healing (Rom 15,19, Gal 3,5) with Luke recalling episodes of Jesus’ and Paul’s life in construing Paul as healer. 76. C. K. Barrett, Acts: A Shorter Commentary (London/New York: T&T Clark, 2002), 416. 77. Conzelmann, Die Apostelgeschichte, 147, is emphatic in this point: “Die Heilungen erfolgten nicht durch ärztliche Behandlung, sondern durch Wunderkraft. Es soll ein letzter Eindruck von Paulus vor dem Betreten Roms geboten werden. Die Stelle ist instruktiv für die Beurteilung des WirBerichts: Er ist kein Augenzeugenbericht.”

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

239

Hebrews presents the term and how it was used in the gospels and Acts. The author of Hebrews presents a much more complicated view of ἀσθένεια that moves it into a more “theological” direction. In Heb 4,15, the high priest sympathizes with our weaknesses because he has been tempted in the same ways we have, yet has not sinned. The author places the high priest, Jesus the son of God (v. 14)78 in solidarity with believers79 in a way that brings comfort to those suffering some form of weakness. What that weakness entails is not mapped out directly, but given that the last part of the verse brings out that the high priest while tempted does not sin. Alan Mitchell maintains that weakness can mean illness, physical limitation, or some sort of inadequacy; in 4,15 it signifies helplessness related to resisting sin.80 Narrowing the focus, Paul Ellingworth places the context within OT priests and Levitical Law (cf. 5,2; 7,28; 11,34), thus maintaining that the weakness related in 4,15 is not a physical weakness, but an intellectual or moral weakness that directly limits one’s ability to fulfill God’s will.81 Peter O’Brien broadens the view arguing that the problem of weakness, while it might be addressed to sin might speak more to the struggles facing the author himself, with the emphasis placed on “us” that then expands the definition to a broader category of weaknesses.82 David Peterson goes against the idea of sin being the cause of the weakness, and takes it into a more general direction, maintaining that Christ relates to all weaknesses, no matter their cause.83 Harold Attridge brings a mediating definition to the discussion, for he admits 78. Cf. Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews (SPS 13; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 106. “The double negative strengthens the force of the affirmation about the nature of Jesus’ high priesthood.” 79. The salient feature of the group is seen in Heb 4,15 where Hebrew’s author means that those following Christ are the ones being related to in this passage. Cf. A. Vanhoye, “Situation et Signification de Hébreux V. 1-10,” NTS 23 (1976-1977): 445-456, esp. 448, “Le theme de la solidarité ave les homes apparaît en filigrane, si on veut bien ouvrir les yeux sur les rapports entre cette description el le contexte antériuer: l’humilité du Christ, en effet, consiste à accepter d’être ‘éprouvé en tout à notre resemblance (iv. 15; cf ii.17) de façon à devenir un ‘grand prêtre capable de compatir à nos faiblesses.” Mitchell, Hebrews, 106, “It may be that in light of v. 14, where Jesus’ high priesthood is described in exalted terms, the author wants to reassure his readers that Jesus, as High Priest, is not remote or unaware of the human condition.” 80. Mitchell, Hebrews, 106. See also George H. Guthrie, Hebrews (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 175. Guthrie points out that while ἀσθένεια encompasses a broad range of definitions, the context of the passage necessitates that one considers the propensity to sin as the grounding of the definition of weakness. 81. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNTC; Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1993), 268. Ellingworth focuses on the use of the plural in the text, and posits that this refers “more specifically to unintentional transgressions of the Mosaic Law.” 82. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, 183. 83. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 77.

240

CHAPTER SEVEN

that it could relate to general physical or moral weakness, but also that could be a weakness resulting in sin.84 Christ serves as the High Priest, who relates to the conditions of weakness affecting humanity, yet remains sinless himself.85 Luke Timothy Johnson emphasizes that while Jesus identified with the weaknesses of humanity, and even understands the feeling of failure, these did not “extend to a participation in human sin.”86 James Moffatt turns the lack of sinning on Jesus’ part into a positive thought, for it serves as “the real ground for encouragement, for the best help is that afforded by those who have stood where we slip and faced the onset of temptation without yielding to it.”87 The crux of the matter therefore is that Jesus relates to people when they are tempted, but also provides an alternative to a person sinning, thus showing them that sin is not a necessary result of the temptation being suffered. Given the context, the weakness infringing itself upon the believer is somehow related to sin, but does not necessarily have to be only related to sin, for general physical weakness including illness or moral weakness could be the thought the writer had in mind. If O’Brien correctly interprets the passage in light of the author’s own experience, then either that experience was a wrestling of some sin condition or more likely a general weakness impacting him, which is more consistent when the rest of the letter factors into the discussion. With that said, the context of the passage does necessitate that sin factored into the weaknesses at some fundamental level, even if the weakness incorporated a more general understanding. This builds into Heb 5,2. Heb 5,2 continues the argument in general terms, relating that a high priest understands those who are ignorant and misguided (τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις) given that the high priest also is impacted by weakness (περίκειται ἀσθένειαν). Scholars note the complexity of the passage from the beginning when trying to understand μετριοπαθέω. It has been interpreted in light of the Jewish and Greek writers as moderating one’s feelings or controlling 84. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1989), 140. 85. Mitchell, Hebrews, 106, makes a good point: “The assertion that Jesus as human and knew human weakness without giving in to temptation is common in the NT. The tradition is invoked here to draw a distinction between any other high priest and Jesus as High Priest. The former was acquainted with human weakness that leads to sin, whereas Jesus knows the human condition without succumbing to the temptation to sin.” 86. Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (Lousiville, KY/London: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 141. 87. James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (ICC: Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1948), 59.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

241

oneself from passions,88 ethical philosophy,89 and as gentleness and forbearance.90 Attridge points out that the verb only occurs in 5,2 in scripture, and while having the general meaning to moderate emotion, “the word group is particularly used in cases where the emotion involved is anger.”91 For a high priest to moderate anger disposes him to treat a person in a manner worthy of respect.92 William Lane places the entire context of the verse in Jewish thought, emphasizing the dependency upon Leviticus (Lev 16,17).93 O’Brien agrees with the trajectory but broadens it to include other texts in Leviticus (Leviticus 21; 22,14).94 Standing in the priestly tradition, the text brings to bear the responsibility of the high priest in ministering to the people. The high priest “needs to be able to moderate his emotions, and deal gently with those whom he represents before God, because he too is beset with weakness.”95 The human high priest identifies closely with the situation of the people around him. Turning attention to ἀσθένεια in the verse causes one to consider how the phrase περίκειται ἀσθένειαν works. The writer emphasizes that the high priest is also clothed in weakness, a point that drives home the overall problem inflicting humanity. To be clothed in weakness is a point familiar in the ancient world (Herodotus 1.171; 4 Macc 12,2; Acts 28,20), and causes the high priest to deal in a manner that is gentle to those whom he ministers, given his own predisposition to weakness. The key to understanding weakness in v. 2 depends on v. 3 and the allusion to sin once again, but mainly whether or not δι᾿ αὐτήν refers back to weakness. Since v. 3 continues the argument from v. 2 and that the weakness is the motivating factor for the obligation to offer sacrifices (cf. Lev 9,9; 16,16; 88. Mitchell, Hebrews, 108, who sees it as moderating one’s feelings and points to Philo (Allegorical Interpretation, 3,129.132.134.144; On Abraham 257, On Joseph 26; On Virtues 195), Josephus (Ant 12,128), the Peripatetics (Diogenes Laertius, The Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, 5,31), and the Cynics and Stoics (Epictetus, 4.6.34; Crates, To Metrocles; Diogenes, To Crates, To Amynander). 89. Cf. Moffatt, Hebrews, 62. Speaking of μετριοπαθέω (v. 2) it “is a term coined by ethical philosophy. It is used by Philo to describe the mean between extravagant grief and stoic apathy, in the case of Abraham’s sorrow for the death of his wife (τὸ δὲ μέσον τρὸ τῶν ἄκρων ἐλόμενον μετριοπαθεῖν, De Abrah 44).” 90. So Moffat, Hebrews, 62, who sees the corollary to Josephus (Ant 12,3.2). He notes that Josephus “praises this quality in Vespasian and Titus (μετριοπαθησάτων), acted magnanimously and generously towards the unruly Jews.” 91. Attridge, Hebrews, 143-144. 92. Attridge, Hebrews, 144. “One who moderates anger toward others treats them with consideration and that is what the human high priest is supposed to do.” 93. Lane, Hebrews, 116. 94. O’Brien, Hebrews, 190-192. 95. O’Brien, Hebrews, 190.

242

CHAPTER SEVEN

Heb 9,7),96 then it stands to reason that sacrifices are offered to ameliorate the people from sins.97 What can be extrapolated from these two verses (4,15; 5,2) is that the weakness spoken of relates in some form to sin(s). Moving to Heb 7,28, the weakness continues to be understood under the rubric of priesthood, similar to 5,2. The writer of the epistle places this conversation within that of Melchizedek, who Jesus resembles.98 F. F. Bruce reads the text in a supersessionist manner, seeing the weakness of the high priest (5,2) as a foregrounding to the replacement of the same by the priest of Melchizedek’s order, who supersedes the Law and established the priesthood.99 In agreement with Bruce, Mitchell sees an abrogation of the priesthood in effect in the passage, as the priesthood contrasts with Jesus in significant ways; including that of the priests’ sin (7,27) where Christ remains sinless (4,15), and the priests are mortal (7,23) while Christ lives forever (7,24-25).100 He claims that abrogation (cf. Heb 9,26; 10,28) is a setting aside of the Law due to its weakness and inability to be effective to bring about God’s desire; therefore, ἀσθένεια points out the limitations of the Law in order to set Christ up as an alternative to what the writer perceived as an incomplete model.101 Therefore the weakness projected in 7,28 serves as a contrast to the eternality and perfection of Christ (υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον). Attridge centers attention on the weakness of the Law and perceives it as being material and fleshly, thus, not able to serve in a role of perfection and therefore the Levitical priesthood was inevitably unable to last forever.102 96. On the role of the high priest as it relates to Heb 5,2 see Johnson, Hebrews, 143-144. 97. Cf. O’Brien, Hebrews, 192. 98. For a study of Melchizedek tradition see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “‘Now This Melchizedek …’ (Heb 7,1),” CBQ 25 (1963): 305-321; Richard A. Longenecker, “The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstantial Expression of New Testament Thought,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd (Robert A. Guelich, ed.: Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 161-185; Deborah W. Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7,” Bib 81 (2000): 80-94; T. K. Thomas, “Melchizedek, King and Priest: An Ecumenical Paradigm,” EcumRev 52 (2000): 403-409. 99. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Rev. ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 179. “This supersession came into effect when the Messiah appeared and vindicated his high-priestly title on the basis of a perfect sacrifice. Fully equipped to discharge an intercessory ministry at the right hand of God, this is no high priest subject to the conditions of earthly frailty; this is the one whom God addresses as Son, whose high priesthood is absolutely efficacious and eternally suited to meet his people’s need.” 100. Mitchell, Hebrews, 148. From his perspective, “The noun ‘abrogation,’ athetesis, is a technical legal term for the annulment or cancellation of a decree or contract.” 101. Mitchell, Hebrews, 148. 102. Attridge, Hebrews, 215.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

243

While much more could be said of the transition from the finite Levitical priesthood to the eternal priesthood of Christ, the main interest here is how ἀσθένεια functions in the verse. O’Brien sums it up as being the limitations inherent within the priest, manifested by imperfections and sins, and consequently, the need for a high priest unencumbered by the limitations inflicting themselves upon humanity could only be fulfilled in Christ.103 Moving into 11,34 one finds ἀσθένεια within a group of other words related to overcoming some obstacle. Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets (11,32)104 are the referent of actions described in 11,33-34. V. 35 transitions to women who received back their dead so ἀσθένεια is tied directly with becoming strong in weakness. Craig Koester isolates the context in 11,33 to that of persecution and conflict, therefore ἀσθένεια has a different meaning here than in other parts of Hebrews.105 Attridge goes against Koester, tying the term more to 4,15; 5,2; 7,28, where ἀσθένεια means “the human condition generally.”106 By referring to the men in 11,32, the writer of Hebrews considers δυναμόω as an equipping for a task.107 Donald Guthrie treats it similarly to Koester, though confining it to finding strength in battle, thus the weakness is tied to military success.108 O’Brien emphasizes the passive voice used, and extrapolates “so as to focus on God’s power by which the faithful were made strong.”109 He concurs with others that weakness here does not refer to sickness and sees it as general weakness, but weakness found in times of extreme trial where strength 103. O’Brien, Hebrews, 283. 104. Craig R. Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; New York et al.: Doubleday, 2001), 511-512 provides a succinct overview of the characters named in Hebrews. 105. Koester, Hebrews, 513. “Captive and blind, Samson was given strength to pull down a house (Judg 16:19-30). Gideon defeated an army with a small band (Judg 7). I Clement 55:3-6 recalls how Esther and Judith were given power out of weakness to defeat Israel’s adversaries (cf. Jdt 13:7). Since the context mentions persecution and conflict, it seems less likely that this refers to Israel’s return from exile (Chrysostom) or Hezekiah’s recovery from illness (Calvin).” 106. Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 348-349. He notes that there is a shift in how it is used. “A shift in the voice of the verb, to aorist passive, markes the transition to the third triplet. A concomitant shift in subject matter focuses attention on military valor, in a passage unique in the New Testament” (348). 107. Attridge, Epistle to the Hebrews, 349. He also distinguishes the way the writer of Hebrews uses the term and the way Paul does: “There is no appeal, as in Paul, to the paradox of strength that goes in and through weakness.” Contra. Attridge, Donald Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 15; Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/Eerdmans, 1993), 244, “A New Testament example may be seen in the revelation to the apostle Paul that his strength matures in weakness (2 Cor 12:9).” 108. Guthrie, Letter to the Hebrews, 244. Cf. Mitchell, Hebrews, 258. 109. O’Brien, Letter to the Hebrews, 441.

244

CHAPTER SEVEN

is needed to defeat an enemy.110 Though there is a question of the actual type of weakness, what we do see is that the weakness is attributed to finding strength in the context of military struggles. In conclusion, ἀσθένεια in Hebrews cannot be isolated to one particular meaning. Depending upon its context, it can relate to a weakness precipated by temptation, but in the case of Jesus the temptation does not result in sin. It can also refer to general weakness, particularly a weakness that impacts a priest’s ability to perform sacramental duties. It can also refer to the flaws in a priest manifested in imperfections and even sin. Finally, it relates to the weakness encountered as a result of persecution and conflict. In this way, the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews uses the term to cover a range of meanings. 7.6. THE ROLE OF ἡ ἀσθένεια IN PAULINE LITERATURE In his in-depth study on ἀσθένεια, Black demonstrates that the noun occurs 44 times in the Pauline corpus, which is more than it occurs in the remainder of the New Testament.111 On the whole, the number of incidences are most prominent in Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians. Paul’s heightened use of the term is intentional and as a result he “has made the word-group the vehicle of a profoundly important element in his teaching and parenesis.”112 Black argues that Paul establishes himself as an apostle of weakness, providing readers with a theology of weakness, though he sees the problems endemic with using theology that identifies Christ with weakness.113 The reason why the incidences of weakness are so high in Romans, and 1 and 2 Corinthians directly correlates to Paul’s sustained theological reflection on the matter, and are based on his real experiences personally, the opposition he faced by opponents, and the plight of others, expressed directly in the references he makes to the collection for the poor.114 The elevation of the term in Pauline thinking occurred as a direct result of Paul’s personal reflection on what it meant to be weak. When the word group is restricted to the noun there are 11 incidences, two in Romans, two in 1 Corinthians, five in 2 Corinthians, one in Galatians, and one in 1 Timothy.115 110. O’Brien, Letter to the Hebrews, 441. Cf. Gareth Lee Cockerell, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012), 590. 111. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 1. 112. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 2. 113. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 2. 114. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 2-3. 115. As a point of clarification, it is not the intention here to go into detail on the issues of Pauline authorship of the so-called Disputed Epistles.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

245

7.6.1. Galatians The only occurrence of ἀσθένεια in Galatians occurs in 4,13.116 Prior to this verse, Paul assures the Galatians that they have not harmed him (v. 12) as he appeals for them to model his life (v. 12). This appeal branches into the statement that some sort of ἀσθένεια117 impeded him from coming to them.118 Paul mentions that something kept him from coming to the Galatians that he details more in vv. 14-15. From the connection between vv. 13-15, Edward Mangan concludes that ἀσθένεια means that Paul was afflicted by an ailment that affected him on a temporary basis.119 He does not take the reference to plucking out the eyes (τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἐδώκατέ μοι) as literal, but proverbial or hyperbolic.120 Agreeing with Mangan that ἀσθένεια refers to a real illness in the text, Betz takes it further by connecting it to a friendship motif in general. 121 He refers to it as a “real illness” that Paul was dealing with and that “he was suffering from at the time he first came to the Galatians.”122 While not pushing this point emphatically, he does imply that the illness became a point whereby 116. For studies on the focused aspect of weakness in the text see Edward A. Mangan, “Was Saint Paul an Invalid?” CBQ 5 (1943): 68-72; Ulrich Heckel, “Der Dorn im Fleisch: Die Krankheit des Paulus in 2Kor 12,7 und Gal 4,13f,” ZNW 84 (1993): 65-92; Scott J. Hafemann, “‘Because of Weakness’ (Galatians 4:13): The Role of Suffering in the Mission of Paul,” in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Pauls’s Mission in Honour of Peter T. O’Brien (Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson, eds.; Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP/Apollos, 2000), 131-146. 117. Cf. Ronald K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 196-197. Fung provides an overview of the scenarios put forth regarding what weakness or illness Paul refers to in the text, whether malaria, epilepsy, opthalmia, neuralgia or hysteria related to depression, or the thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12,7). See also Douglas Moo, Galatians (BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013, who adds to the list the possibility of opposition being the weakness. 118. On the overall dimensions of the text see Betz, Galatians, 221-237. Betz places the context in the realm of friendship (224) whereby the Galatians were to accept Paul’s message without reservation due to their past relationship with him. 119. Mangan, “Was Paul an Invalid,” 71. 120. Mangan, “Was Paul an Invalid,” 70-71. He goes into a detailed discussion of the issues of whether or not Paul suffered from perpetual epilepsy or malaria, a point to which he disagrees. For more on those issues see his discussion (70-72). He concludes that the text in Galatians stands alone and is not related to the issue in 2 Cor 12,7-9: “Our opinion, however, is that Gal. 4:13 is to be taken by itself and that it means that St. Paul was affected by come real physical illness at the time he first labored among the Galatians. But this affliction was temporary” (71). 121. Betz, Galatians, 224. See also J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York et al.: Doubleday, 1998), 420-421; Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 277279. 122. Betz, Galatians, 224.

246

CHAPTER SEVEN

Paul advanced his mission.123 Why the illness became important is that Paul was able to effectively ask for help when he needed, so Betz concludes, “It is the sign of real friendship to provide unlimited help at the moment of great need, in particular in illness.”124 Agreeing with Betz on the illness referenced to in Gal 4,13, but going against him on the friendship angle, Bruce Longenecker ties the text to v, 12 where the Galatians were absolved of any wrongdoing toward Paul, and then Paul comes to them with some sort of physical weakness (vv. 13-14).125 He contends that Paul’s argument is not tied to friendship; rather, it becomes a discussion of the demonic and superhuman influences so prevalent in ancient thinking. He states that “despite this physical condition and the dangers it might have been thought to pose to their own well-being, the Galatians failed to take the course of action thought to be prudent in such cases. That is, they did not spit in order to protect themselves (4,14), thereby warding off illness and its demonic manufacturers.”126 The Galatians as a result did not accept Paul on the basis of their friendship with him, but more pointedly accepted him on the basis of a the “theological conviction about the nature of Christian social behaviour.”127 It has been posited that Paul’s reference to ἀσθένεια in the verse refers to the opposition he faced from opponents (cf. 2 Corinthians 10-13). Susan Eastman contends that the language in chapter 4 goes against a reading of illness, but instead speaks to the sufferings experienced by the apostle in performance of his ministry. She claims that “life in this ‘new creation’ inevitably runs up against opposition from the structures and relational patterns of the old cosmos, and therefore entails suffering and persecution.”128 While agreeing with those who hold that the weakness relates to some sort of physical problem in Paul,129 Eastman goes against the majority when she argues that the physical condition to which Paul refers pertains to the marks he received from opponents.130 She holds that underlying much of Galatians is the consequences 123. Betz, Galatians, 224. 124. Betz, Galatians, 224. 125. Longenecker, Triumph of Abraham’s God, 159. 126. Longenecker, Triumph of Abraham’s God, 159. 127. Longenecker, Triumph of Abraham’s God, 159. 128. Susan Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 109. 129. Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue, 100. She points to the phrase δι᾿ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν and argues that διά in the accusative refers to occasion or cause, and not means. She envelops the idea around the occasion or cause of Paul’s preaching. In this way, the weakness refers to some sort of physical limitation experienced by Paul. 130. Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue, 102-104.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

247

of preaching the gospel whereby opposition arises and inflicts physical pain on the preacher; therefore, she reads that weakness in this sense relates specifically to the persecution expected by the Christ follower in administering her duties.131 In the end, she ties vv. 13-14 together with v. 12 so that the Galatian believers see that the physical scars experienced by Paul ground their suffering in the hope of being in the will of the crucified Christ (Gal. 2,20). To hear the gospel from a man who is visibly disfigured and weakened by the experience of being tortured would surely test the Galatians’ faith and tempt them to reject his message. Nonetheless, they “received [him] as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus,” implicitly because they saw the message – that is, Christ Jesus – displayed in the messenger. The apostle cannot proclaim his message without enacting it in a concrete way, just as the prophets enacted their message.132

From this brief overview, one notices a number of possibilities exist for what Paul means by using ἀσθένεια in 4,13. What continues to show through in this text though is that the weakness being described relates to some sort of physical issue affecting Paul. This puts Paul’s understanding of ἀσθένεια in line with the gospels and Acts. Regardless of whether it was a temporary illness, a perpetual ailment or condition in the likes of the thorn in the flesh, or the physical scars received from persecution, the meaning of it relates to a physical condition. 7.6.2. 1 Corinthians The concept of weakness permeates the thought of 1 Corinthians (cf. 1,25.27; 2,3; 4,10; 8,7.9; 9,22; 12,22; 15,43), and it plays an instrumental role in understanding how the Corinthian conflict impacted the apostle and the letter itself.133 Paul’s use of weakness in 1 Corinthians shows a number of iterations of the same, including highlighting that God chose the weak things of the world to confound the strong (1,25.27); Paul’s own weakness is highlighted when he comes to them in weakness, fear, and trembling (2,3); his own example of weakness serves the interest of those being ministered to, for he is happy to become weak so others might become strong, and so that 131. Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue, 102-104. 132. Eastman, Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue, 105. 133. For treatments of weakness in 1 Corinthians see in part Ilaria L. E Ramelli, “Spiritual Weakness, Illness, and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30,” JBL 1 (2011): 145-163. See also Black, Paul, the Apostle of Weakness, 84. The controversy directly impacted Paul’s apostolic authority, so weakness became “a central motif in these letters because he had no choice: the concept had become an element of the serious disturbances at Corinth and demanded redress.”

248

CHAPTER SEVEN

he might save some (4,10; 9,22); the strong should not use their strength as an occasion for advantage, but should think of those weaker than them (8,7.9); the body of Christ is made up of all types of people, from the strong to the weak, but each member is vital to the body (12,22); and resurrection exemplifies how one is sown in weakness, but raised in power (15,43). Paul consistently ruptures the barrier between the supposed strong and weak in the Corinthian context, and argues for an equality for all. God stands above all, yet he chose the weak, Paul included, to confound the strong. The illusion of the opponents’ strength is on full display, as Paul inverts the strong/ weak dichotomy, showing that those like him who are weak, are actually the ones who are strong. Framed in this way, weakness serves as a gateway into the real power of Paul’s message, one that refuses to be caught up in speculation and words of wisdom, but one that manifestly demonstrates the power of God through the Spirit (2,4-5). As an entryway into the thought of 1 Corinthians on weakness for Paul, 1 Cor 2,3 continues the reflections begun in 1,18 around the preaching of the crucified Christ (1,18.21.23-24). Paul inverts typical thought by highlighting foolishness, downgrading worldly wisdom (1,18.20-21.25-30), emphasizing the wisdom of God as superior to human wisdom (1,21), and effectively maintaining in v. 25 that God’s foolishness (τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) is much wiser the man’s wisdom (σοφώτερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶν).134 Weakness surrounds the entire pericope as one could argue that foolishness is a form of weakness, but Paul’s point needs to be taken into consideration. Kenneth Bailey shows that Paul’s rhetoric in presenting his weakness aligns itself with Paul’s overall mission in writing the letter.135 The foolish and weak things (v. 27) have been chosen by God to shame the wise and strong things.136 In effect, Paul sets the stage for his entrance into the discussion, which he turns to himself in 2,3. 134. Cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 153-159. Thiselton’s extended study reinforces the centrality of God’s backing to the message; otherwise, it would be devoid of substance. “The proclamation is folly unless God, not human wisdom, stands behind it to validate and to underwrite it” (155). 135. Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011), 102-106. For Bailey, the use of weakness plays into the rhetorical strategy of not coming to them in his power, but in humility and need (105). 136. This is a typical pattern in other texts in 1 Corinthians. See for example 1 Cor 4,10 where Paul works the interplay around foolishness and wisdom, and weakness and strength. In similar fashion, Paul works the argumentation of 9,22 around the contrast of weakness, and Paul becoming weak to identify with the weak. The contrast between opposites continues in 12,22 and 15,43 where for example the weak member has value (12,22) and the weak will be eventually replaced with strength (15,43). For the rhetoric behind these statements in light of the growing influence politically and civically in Corinth see Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth, 5-11.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

249

In 2,1-2 Paul turns attention to the way he presented himself to the Corinthians, effectively, casting his model of presentation to the way in which God did in 1,18-30. He did not come to them in lofty speech or wisdom (ἦλθον οὐ καθ᾿ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας). Instead, he came to them with the message of Jesus Christ crucified (οὐ γὰρ ἔκρινά τι εἰδέναι ἐν ὑμῖν εἰ μὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον). The means by which Paul’s message came to them was via the Spirit and the power of God (2,4, ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως, 2,5, ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ). Thiselton notes the deliberate strategy employed by Paul as he works through the contrasting elements of Paul’s approach and those who do the opposite.137 In the middle of the discourse Paul lays out his weakness as part of his missional strategy. He points out that he was with the church in weakness, fear, and trembling (2,3, κἀγὼ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἐν τρόμῳ πολλῷ ἐγενόμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς). Collins asserts that Paul’s use of weakness relates to the “locus of the revelation of God.”138 Paul aligns himself with the mission and strategy of God; whereas the gospel is seen as foolish by the world (1,18) then Paul does not use wisdom in his message (2,1.4), whereas the gospel was considered the weakness of God (2,25) then Paul highlights his weakness (2,3), and whereas the gospel is the power of God (1,18) then Paul’s message is validated by a demonstration of the Spirit and power (2,4).139 Paul’s elucidation of his weakness serves the rhetorical goal of validating his message in alignment with God’s mission. As Black summarizes, “Paul’s method of preaching corresponded in a remarkable fashion to the message which he proclaimed.”140 What then does ἀσθένεια mean in the passage? Raymond Collins puts forth the option of a real situation in similar fashion to Gal 4,13.141 Another approach is to consider this as a rhetorical device used by Paul that deviated from his philosophical approach in Athens (cf. Acts 17).142 Bailey posits 137. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 210-223. 138. Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SPS 7; Collegeville, MN: Glazier Liturgical Press, 1999), 119. He notes the rhetoric Paul uses highlights the message he has exemplifying the power of God. “Fear” and “trembling” are hapax in 1 Corinthians and run in tandem with the rhetorical strategy of the apostle. Collins notes that the LXX uses the two terms in the context of “someone who is faced with the threat of an enemy’s hostile and perhaps deadly assault (Exod 15:6; Deut 2:25; 11:25; Jdt 2:28; 4 Macc 4:10; Ps 54:6; Isa 19:16; cf. Gen 12:9)” (119). 139. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 214. “Paul’s ‘authority’ lay not in smooth, competent, impressive, powers of articulation, but in a faithful and sensitive proclaiming rendered operative not by the applause of the audience, but by the activity of God. Self-promotion, too, is alien to proclaiming the gospel.” 140. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 101. 141. Collins, First Corinthians, 116. 142. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 104-105, as a flawed approach focused too much on the “anti-intellectual” understanding on the text.

250

CHAPTER SEVEN

that one should consider Paul’s method here from a mission standpoint particularly when weakness is linked to fear and trembling, and thus as a selfidentification within Paul that considers his own weakness as a positive because it presupposes God’s strength underlying Paul’s mission.143 Bailey’s point has merit and one notices that Paul’s mission hovers around the texts where his weakness is highlighted in tandem with God’s power, whether it relates to Paul’s argument for the legitimacy of his apostleship (1 Cor 4,617); to become weak in order to save others (1 Cor 9,22), the argument that in the body of Christ all members, even the weak ones are essential (1 Cor 12,22); or how at the resurrection that weakness of the present body will be changed to the power of the resurrected body (1 Cor 15,43). Paul personalizes weakness in 4,10, pitting his approach against his opponents.144 Unlike their selfish orientation (4,7-8), Paul stands without accusation given his role as an apostle. A true apostle is one that has “become a spectacle to the world” (4,9) and a “fool for Christ’s sake” (4,10). The bifurcation between the two approaches, one set on self-aggrandizement and the other on self-effacement, cannot be starker. The opponents are selfsufficient in their own accomplishments, while Paul and other true apostles are self-sacrificial.145 The contrast continues with his opponents being rich, while he and other true apostles are hungry, thirsty, lacking adequate clothing, treated poorly, homeless, working hard with their hands, persecuted, slandered, and the lowest of the low in the world (4,11-13). As Black notes, Paul’s use of weakness illustrates that the gospel “conceals itself in weakness, so also the weakness and mortality of Paul, rather than hindering his apostolic ministry, afford the best platform from which to display the glory of Christ.”146 Weakness in 1 Corinthians does not just relate to Paul however, for in 1 Cor 8,7-12, the question of the strong and weak become the focus of attention. Set within the topic of food and idol worship, Paul concentrates attention to the relationship between members of the Christ community. Maintaining fellowship is at stake, and Paul encourages those considered stronger to not use the occasion of their liberty to undermine the unity of 143. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, 105. He states that “Paul approached every person and place ‘in weakness,’ not in power. This was central to his theology of mission in the early church. There was no attempt to establish a power base, raise an army and conquer territory as a first step to evangelization … For Paul ‘fear and trembling’ meant that he went in humility, trusting in the grace of God, not in earthly power or in his own abilities or good works … Paul continues by reminding his readers of his weakness and God’s power.” 144. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 104. 145. Collins, First Corinthians, 189. 146. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 106.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

251

the church (8,9).147 What concerns us, though, relates to the meaning of the weak in the text. As Black notes, the weak are those who regard eating meat sacrificed to idols as being idolatrous.148 They are not inferior to the strong in the text, just in a separate category.149 The difference then is that one group saw no problem eating meat sacrificed to idols, while another group found this as incompatible to their faith. The solution for Paul, writing to the so-called strong, was to put aside personal preferences for the benefit of the community. Paul considers both to be part of the community, for he mentions in vv. 12-13 that it is a matter between brothers. The question becomes would those who feel they have the liberty to eat anything be willing to give up that liberty for a brother who feels that eating meat sacrificed to idols is wrong. For Paul, the conclusion of the matter relates to maintaining fellowship; therefore, those who are strong should consider the issue within the context of keeping fellowship. Paul himself, at times would put aside personal preferences for the greater good, and thus, in line with the Spirit’s work for the common good of the church (1 Cor 12,7), Paul asks those who are strong to give up their preference. Concluding the section on 1 Corinthians, what surfaces in reading ἀσθένεια in 1 Corinthians is how it presents weakness in a different light from Galatians, and for that matter the gospels and Acts. It also does not align with the view found in Hebrews, for it becomes a missiological category whereby the apostle uses it in a rhetorical manner to offset the weakness of humanity against the power of God. There is the matter of the strong and weak of 1 Corinthians 8, which concerns maintaining the unity of faith, but overall, what one notices is that Paul embraces weakness as the means by which God’s power can be manifested through himself and others. Paul occasions the use of weakness against his opponents, who strive for comfort and personal gain. The weakness that Paul exhibits, and argues that God accepts, is one of humility and sacrifice. Weakness typifies the attitude of the apostle, who seeks only to serve God, proclaim the message of Christ fully, and to serve others in a manner consistent with how Christ served. The power 147. For the overarching concerns of the text, see Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 107109. As he notes, the question of the “eating of meat offered to heathen idols would arise in two situations: (a) at religious festivals help in the temple of the pagan deity, and (b) in social settings where such food was being served or at the marketplace where sacrificial meat was being sold. Could Christians eat meat which had been part of an animal sacrifice to a pagan god?” (107). 148. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 110. 149. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 110. Paul “neither denounces, defends nor defines the weak Corinthians, nor does he deal with them as a separatistic party but as certain ones (τινες) who consider freedom dangerous and whose consciousness (συνείδησις) is overscrupulous.”

252

CHAPTER SEVEN

of God, demonstrated in the manifestation of the Spirit, becomes the true litmus test between those who are true apostles against those who only act as if they are. 7.6.3. 2 Corinthians As in 1 Corinthians, the theme of weakness occurs frequently in 2 Corinthians, particularly in the final section (cs. 11-13).150 Sze-kar Wan notes that the final section of 2 Corinthians takes on a different tone than the earlier part of the letter.151 The prior parts reflect a more conciliatory tone, but Paul’s charged rhetoric in this section directly confronts his opponents.152 He calls them super apostles in the context of the fools speech (11,1-12,10) with the “intent of forcing the Corinthians to choose sides.”153 Because the transition from the tone of chapters 1-9 and that of 10-13 is so marked, scholarly discussion has focused whether or not this section is part of the same document as chapters 1-9.154 Within this rather combative section, Paul brings out the concept of weakness as a rhetorical strategy to offset the claims of his opponents. Weakness serves as a strategy for Paul in the section, whereby he builds an argument based on his weakness (10,10) that ends in solidarity with Christ Jesus, who was also weak, but now lives in the power of God (13,3-4).155 Along the way, Paul sets his example of weakness against the false opponents who pretend to be strong. His opponents argue that while his letters seem weighty, Paul in person is actually rather unimpressive or weak (10,10); whereas, they were not weak at all.156 As Black points out, the difficulty was felt by the Corinthians themselves, for they had Paul on one side and

150. For an overview of the issues see Michael L. Barré, “Qumran and the Weakness of Paul,” CBQ 42 (1980): 216-227; Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness; Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians (SNTSMS 86; Cambridge: CUP, 1996), 164-186; Calvin J. Roetzel, “The Language of War (2 Cor. 10:1-6) and the Language of Weakness (2 Cor. 11:21b-13:10),” Bib Int 17 (2009): 77-99; C. Andrew Ballard, “Tongue-tied and Taunted: Paul, Poor Rhetoric and Paltry Leadership in 2 Corinthians 5.13,” JSNT 37.1 (2014): 50-70. 151. Sze-kar Wan, Power in Weakness: The Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (The New Testament in Context; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000), 125-127. 152. Wan, Power in Weakness, 127. 153. Wan, Power in Weakness, 127. 154. For more on Partition Theories in relation to chapters 10-13, see Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 450-456; Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 661-662. 155. Cf. Barnett, Second Epistles to the Corinthians, 452-456, for an overview of the central elements of the chapters. 156. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 135.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

253

the opponents on the other, and each proclaiming that they were servants of Christ” (11,23).157 His opponents point to his letters as being formidable, but his personal appearance being lackluster (10,10).158 Barnett sees the first part of the verse as being complimentary, given that Paul’s letters had the desired effect, but the compliment was filled with sarcastic undertones.159 In reality, the tone of the letters and their argumentation becomes meaningless in light of the lackluster and unimpressive nature of Paul in person. “In their eyes, he is a total failure, a man of ‘flesh.’”160 Paul’s response to them is to discount that argument and to show that his letters, and the boldness therein, are in actuality the same as he is in person (10,11-18). The point for him revolves around what one should boast about, and while those who oppose him boast about their own accomplishments, any boasting points to the Lord, for the Lord is the one who commends him (10,17-18).161 In a back and forth interplay set within his sufferings, Paul contends that while others would call him foolish, that folly turns toward boasting and while he could be considered weak, rather, he is the one strong (11,16-22).162 To prove his point, he highlights the manner in which he exemplifies being a servant of Christ, through labors, imprisonments, danger of death, beatings, being stoned, and shipwrecked (11,23-25).163 He further proves his point by emphasizing the dangers he has faced (rivers, robbers, countrymen, Gentiles, city, wilderness, sea) while being a servant of Christ (11,26). Sleepless nights, hunger, thirst, cold, and all sorts of trials have been his lot in life, which stands in stark contrast to the charge of him being foolish and weak (11,27). His conclusion drives home the point as he boasts not in his strength gained 157. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 135. He points out that the matter boiled down to one of criteria, where the “opponents base their claim on the outward, visible manifestations of strength and wisdom, including visions (12:1ff.) and mighty works (12:12). Paul, on the other hand, bases his claim on his participation in the sufferings, or “weakness,” of Christ (11:23ff.; 12:10). To his adversaries, this weakness is a sign that Paul cannot wield apostolic authority.” 158. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 475-476. 159. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 476. 160. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 476. 161. Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 727-728; Wan, Power in Weakness, 131. 162. Black, Paul: Apostle of Weakness, 138-140; Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 777-778. For a helpful and integrated study on 2 Cor 11,22, see Dennis Duling, “2 Corinthians 11:22: Historical context, rhetoric, and ethnicity,” HTS 64 (2008): 819-843, esp., 836838. 163. Cf. Jennifer A. Glancy, “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23-25),” JBL 123 (2004): 99-135. Glancy concludes that “Paul boasts of beatings for strategic reasons – his abused body is already the subject of discussion and derision in Corinth – and for theological reasons – he believes the story of Jesus’ death is legible in the scar tissue that has formed over welts and lacerations inflicted by rod and whip” (135).

254

CHAPTER SEVEN

in the trials of his life, but in his weakness (11,28-30).164 In so doing, Paul casts himself as the consummate servant of Christ, in contradistinction to the false apostles who are deceitful and disguise themselves as true servants of Christ, but negate that description with their selfish deeds (11,13). While they espouse to be servants of righteousness (11,15), Paul places them in the same category as Satan, who casts himself as an angel of light (11,14). In 12,1-10, the so-called ascension motif,165 Paul speaks of a man who was called up into paradise, and in the telling he mentions that boasting is not the goal here, rather μὴ ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις. Because of the nature of the argument, Betz contends that this is a parody in that Paul in mocking fashion undermines the argument of his opponents.166 Against Betz, a majority view considers this as an autobiographical statement by Paul in defense of himself against opponents.167 Paul does not limit the language of weakness to v. 5, though, for it comes back in vv. 9-10, where Paul struggles with some condition that causes him to be weak.168 After praying for the σκόλοψ to be removed three times (vv. 7-8), Paul contents himself with his condition with words from God telling him ἡ χάρις μου ἡ γὰρ δύναμις ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελεῖται. This prompts the apostle to not only accept weakness, but welcome and boast about it (vv. 9-10;).169 To the question of what the weakness means, Barnett sees weakness in terms of Paul’s overall mission and ties the weakness to his preaching of Christ.170 He contends that the “‘weaknesses’ result from being the ‘minister of Christ’ who suffers as a consequence of his preaching, as the catalogues of suffering make clear.”171 If correct, the weakness stands in tandem with the mission of God, which would make it similar to what Paul does in 1 Corinthians. In order to show this reading has validity, Barnett emphasizes the contrast 164. Barré, “Paul as Eschatologic Person,” 500-526, 509-512. 165. Cf. Jeremy Barrier, “Visions of Weakness: Apocalyptic Genre and the Identification of Paul’s Opponents in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6,” ResQ 47 (2005): 33-42. 166. Hans Dieter Betz, Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu seiner “Apologie” 2 Kor 10-13 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1973), 84. 167. For more on the overall positions see Barrier, “Visions of Weakness,” 34-36. 168. For discussion on the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί passage (v. 7) see Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 860-866. 169. Cf. The argumentation of 13,4 resembles this for Christ was crucified due to weakness, but now lives, so too we also are weak, but in him we live. Paul concerns himself with the condition one finds himself in Christ so that weakness is a temporary condition resolved by Christ’s death. For an in-depth study of the issues see David E. Garland, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority: The Power of Christ Sustaining Weakness (2 Corinthians 10-13),” RExp 86 (1989): 371-389, esp. 371-372.382. 170. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 565. 171. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 565. From this, he connects the preaching of Christ (1,19; 4,5; 5,11; 11,3-4) with the suffering of the preacher (4,5.8-12; 6,3-10; 11,23-29).

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

255

between ὑπέρ and ὑστέρ, showing that Paul’s opponents tried to minimize his influence, but his counter argument was that he was no way inferior to others (11,5; 12,11).172 The ascension journey reinforced the idea that while Paul would rather not boast in his abilities, unlike what his opponents would do (cf. 1 Cor 11,13-15), he had to resort to defending himself and showing his credentials far superseded those of his opponents.173 The context of the text relates to Paul’s mission and aligning himself and the Corinthian church with God’s work in the world. From 1 Corinthians, Paul uses weakness to show the contrast between the true and false preacher, which is consistent with the view that God’s mission is extended through people dependent upon him. Paul’s overall strategy in cs. 10-13 becomes clear in chapter 13, when he places himself in solidarity with Christ. The proof that Paul was a servant of Christ was based on Christ speaking in Paul (13,3). This validates Paul’s ministry for one, and justifies the way in which weakness becomes strength for another. Christ serves as the foundation for weakness in his crucifixion (13,4),174 and the resurrection transfers that weakness into the power of God (13,4). This model translates to those who believe in Christ, for they too are weak in him, but the power of God will help them live with him (13,4).175 Ultimately, one overcomes weakness, not based on her own merit, but on the power of God. All the boasting of the false apostles becomes meaningless in light of the reality that they have not received the life-giving power of God. Christ, as example of the weakness of the crucifixion translated to the power of the resurrection stands in solidarity with those who live within the weakness of their current situations, but live in the power of God. In conclusion, Paul’s use of ἀσθένεια relates directly to his rhetorical strategy in chapters 10-13. His opponents have leveled accusations against him, and he takes a direct approach against them. He uses the language of foolishness and weakness in a way to circumvent his opponents’ arguments, and turned their arguments against themselves. The opponents are actually false apostles who are bent on personal gain, while Paul is the consummate apostle, whose weakness has been turned to strength by the power of God. Weakness in 2 Corinthians directly relates to Paul’s admission of his own frailties and limitations, all the while recognizing that Christ provides him with the strength he needs. 172. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 565. See also Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 847. 173. Cf. Garland, “Paul’s Apostolic Authority, 380. 174. Barnett, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 604. 175. Cf. Harris, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 915, who notes the connection between life and the power of God.

256

CHAPTER SEVEN

7.6.4. Romans The final texts to be considered regarding ἀσθένεια include Rom 6,19 and 8,26. In 6,19, Paul has been detailing the impact of sin upon humanity and ties ἀσθένεια into the discussion, noting that he speaks in human terms (ἀνθρώπινος) because of the weakness or your flesh (τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν). Kruse tries to capture the humanity of the passage by translating it, “because of your human limitations.”176 He also points out that Paul makes a comparison to slavery in the text (vv. 17-20) to reinforce the “fear and degredation” brought about by slavery in the ancient world, for the weakness of the Roman community was evident as “Paul apparently had doubts about his audience’s ability to understand what he was saying without some such analogy.”177 The weakness referred to does not refer to the problem of sin in the Roman community itself, but the lack of ability on the part of the Roman community to understand the dimensions of Paul’s argument. In order for them to fully appreciate the effects of sin, Paul likens it to slavery and thus, to overcome weakness is to realize Paul’s rhetoric in the text. J. Albert Harrill places Romans 6-8 in the context of a rhetorical argument Paul has that sets slavery and sin in context.178 Harrill’s argument builds upon the themes found in Romans 6-8, primarily where one sees the discussion of baptism in Rom 6,6-14, building into the “speech-in-character” treatment of Rom 7,14-25, and culminates in the freedom of creation from decay in Rom 8,21.179 He contends that along the way, Paul conceives of redemption and sin as being part of the weakness affecting people. “In this context, sin is not something the self does (as in a ‘crime’), but a personalized demonic power that victimizes the self by residing in the self’s fleshly ‘members’ (where sinful passions are located) when the self hears the holy law.”180 The problem arises when the self continues to be devoted to God, but powerlessness ensues disallowing the self to do what it wants (Rom 7,18-19). The argumentation of slavery factors in not so much as physical slavery, but a spiritual slavery where one is bound to the wrong master, namely sin.181 From the perspective introduced by Harrill, one can contend that Paul in Rom 6,19 refers to ἀσθένεια as a weakness resulting from sin. Black considers whether this approach has a moral dimension to it or is just typical of 176. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 283. 177. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 283. 178. J. Albert Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 27-33. 179. Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, 27-28. 180. Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, 28. 181. Harrill, Slaves in the New Testament, 29.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

257

one comprehending a problem, but shows that Paul does not clearly outline his meaning of weakness in the context of the slavery imagery.182 He considers the phrase τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς problematic, for Paul does not indicate the weakness of the flesh is sinful. Rather, Black maintains that Paul links σάρξ to weakness in order to express to his readers that the weakness maintained is a general weakness.183 Black concludes that Paul actually shows his readers that any weakness becomes part of the human condition. He concludes that the “extension of ἀσθένεια to denote moral weakness (i.e., sinfulness) is not made by Paul,” and continues to argue that Paul “expresses himself, not because of the sinfulness of his readers but because the figure of slavery, humiliating and degrading though it is, ironically can best express the obligations of being under grace despite the Menschlichkeit even of Christians.”184 This interpretation broadens the perspective beyond Harrill and moves toward a general perception of weakness impacting humanity. Matera, in similar fashion to Black, argues that Paul’s intention in Rom 6,19 is to point the readers to a familiar image in order to show the limitation of living apart from Christ.185 He maintains the example of slavery would be offensive to the Roman community, but an apt example made by Paul to get his point across, given that they had moved into the domain and lordship of Christ.186 Going against Black, though, Matera contends that the move to Christ was a transfer of loyalties from sin to Christ, thus, the weakness entailed draws from the weakness of living in sin.187 At the same time, the point is not to be preoccupied with the weakness of the flesh, but to understand how one’s identity has been changed as a result of “living in and for Christ.”188 Hultgren pushes the matter further and argues that σάρξ, when used theologically, “refers to the realm of human existence that is hospitable to sin, the world, and any other forces opposed to God.189 While the weakness of the flesh exhibits traits that move it beyond just a sinful condition, Hultgren 182. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 185. 183. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 185. In “this context specifically the dullness of human understanding which necessitates truth be taught in metaphors drawn from everyday experience and knowledge.” 184. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 186. 185. Matera, Romans, 156. 186. Matera, Romans, 156. 187. Matera, Romans, 156. 188. Matera, Romans, 156. For similar understanding see Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 233-235; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 403-405. 189. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 263. He notes that σάρξ is a vital concept for Paul with incidences of 72 times in his letters, and 27 times in Romans. He notes that it is used first in 6,19.

258

CHAPTER SEVEN

shows that in this text one reckons with the contrast between being a slave to sin and a slave to righteousness.190 While the thesis that ἀσθένεια in Rom 6,19 as general human weakness makes sense, when one analyzes the text in context it becomes clear that Paul indeed has the sinful condition in mind when using it in light of the slavery metaphor. He pointedly makes reference to sin on several occasions in the text, and the inference can be made that the reason for their weakness arises from the sinful condition of the past. This limitation is set within the contrast to presenting themselves in righteousness. While the sinful condition is not defined, one sees that Paul’s driving concern is the contrast between righteousness and sin, and is thus a very specific usage of ἀσθένεια in the text. Turning attention to Rom 8,26a then forces readers to consider whether Paul is consistent with the use of sin for ἀσθένεια or if something else concerns his attention in chapter 8. Morris asserts that the weakness of 8,26a does not refer to sin or suffering, but that which results in a person’s inability to pray.191 Hultgren also points to the weakness of the human condition, thereby the weakness in the text does not refer to sin, but a weakness resulting in earthly existence.192 Similarly, Matera moves the discussion away from sin and notes that in the text there is the dynamic being played out of believers being “caught between two ages.”193 For him, the weakness has more to do with the content of prayer over the ability to pray.194 The content of prayer is in the context of the overall argumentation, where God’s will and getting to that will is at stake (vv. 26-27). Moo summarizes the problem as a weakness that exemplifies the general overall human condition of not being able to pray in alignment with God’s will.195 If the weakness expressed by Paul arises from the believer’s inability to pray in accord with God’s will, then how does that interact with the rest of the clause, particularly with the understanding that the Spirit helps in overcoming the weakness? The contention here is that the Spirit, acting in a administrative capacity, leads the believer toward God’s will, and that the weakness can be anything that separates them from achieving God’s will.

190. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 263. 191. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 326. 192. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 325. 193. Matera, Romans, 202. Cf. Jewett, Romans, 522. 194. Matera, Romans, 203. “To be more precise, although they know how to pray, they do not know what fully conforms to God’s plan.” 195. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 523. Cf. Black, Paul, Apostle of Weakness, 191.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

259

When one sets weakness in the context of the sentence then it becomes clear that Paul desires for his readers to see the Spirit as the one that helps fill the lacking currently being experienced in their lives. By taking the pericope to a crescendo at this point, Paul prepares the readers for the reality of weakness that can impede ability to pray for one, but also to accomplish what God desires. He would take this appeal further in Romans 8, for he mentions in 8,35 that tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, or the sword cannot separate us from the love of Christ. Romans 8,31-39 ramps up the intensity of the argument, for the believer faces seemingly insurmountable odds against their continued success for God.196 At the same time, Paul encourages them to remain steadfast and to expect trials and pressure from cosmic and human forces (v. 38).197 He reminds them that life in Christ is not exempt from pressure, rather, it affirms that trials exist as a result of being in Christ. At the same time, while struggle exists so does the promise that God, through Christ, will help them overcome (vv. 35.37-39).198 Seeing that the struggle would be so great, in addition to the Spirit’s work in vv. 26-27, Paul injects Christ Jesus into the discussion, and one sees how Christ’s work enables them to overcome.199 The final pericope of Romans 8 reinforces the ideas already established in the chapter and exhorts his readers to remain faithful in the face of trial. Romans 8,26a forms an essential element in the overall discussion, for it prepares the reader that weakness attempts to keep them from doing the will of God, and in context of Romans 8,26, the initial obstacle to overcome is prayer. The Spirit, as the leading agent, helps them pray in a manner that aligns with God’s will. This then, establishes the foundation for overcoming the pressures of life that Paul elucidates in more detail in vv. 31-39. The weakness referred to does not relate to the sinful condition of humanity nor is it limited to sickness encumbered by the believer, rather, it directly relates to the believer’s ability to propel God’s mission forward in an unimpeded

196. The pericope has been studied in relation to Greco-Roman and Jewish tribulation lists. For more see in part Wolfgang Schrage, “Leid, Kreuz, und Eschaton: Die Peristasenkataloge als Merkmale paulinischer theologia crucis und Eschatologie,” EvTh 34 (1974): 142-150; Robert Hodgson, “Paul the Apostle and First Century Tribulation Lists,” ZNW (1983): 59-80. 197. Cf. Judith M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 57; Jewett, Romans, 550. 198. For more on overcoming and the heightened sense of ὑπερνικάω see Fitzmyer, Romans, 534. 199. Discussion has centered on the role Christ Jesus plays in the pericope. One can extrapolate from the way that Paul discusses the issue using the aorist participle ἀγαπήσαντος that he refers to the crucifixion as a single act rather than a series of acts. For discussion of the issues see Volf, Paul and Perseverance, 63.

260

CHAPTER SEVEN

maner. As Paul finishes his argumentation, it allows for a natural progression into the question of Israel he deals with in Romans 9-11.200 Paul models for the community in Rome that his mission is not exclusive to gentiles, but as a result of the holy Spirit his interests reverberate toward his people (Rom 9,1), a point that extends the mission to the Israelites in chs. 9-11.

7.7. CONCLUSION This chapter examined the word ἀσθένεια and how it has been used in biblical and extra-biblical literature. What arose from this study is that it is rather flexible in meaning and contextual to its interpretation. The LXX consistently relates its meaning to a general weakness of some sort (Gen 29,17; 2 Sam 3,1), but also nuances the meaning to stumbling or falling (2 Macc 9,21). As is the case in the Gospels and Acts, there are times that it can mean sickness (Jer 6,21), but the theme of general weakness is the prominent usage. The illness or sickness theme becomes the prominent usage in the Gospels and Acts. Matthew casts the net widely with both spiritual and physical healing, attending to the broader category of total wellness. Jesus acts as both spiritual and physical healer, thus enacting the Kingdom of God in a manner that takes on the sins of people, thus from a redemptive angle, as well as removes the actual physical sickness of those suffering. Luke continues similar themes as Matthew, focusing on the wonder aspect of Jesus’ ministry where he has power over evil spirits and illnesses. Jesus as liberator of those afflicted serves as a prominent theme for the Lukan writer. In similar fashion, the Johannine writer shows how the healing liberates a person. Jn 5,5 serves as a helpful example, for Jesus goes beyond just physically healing the man of Bethesda, but interacts with him through speech. This interaction results in opposition between Jesus and the religious leaders, casting him as an alternative to the religious system of the day. Underlining all the rhetoric of the text is the actual removal of the physical illness, which is what ἀσθένεια means in the text. The Book of Acts continues the theme of physical illness related to ἀσθένεια. Ac 28,9 relates it to healing in Malta. The text itself authenticates the ministry of Paul, and uses the healing of Publius’ father to establish the mission of Jesus on the island. As such, its rhetorical value places a high priority on the power of Paul’s gospel, and the healing of not only the leader’s father, 200. Cf. John D. Moores, Wrestling with Rationality in Paul: Romans 1-8 in a New Perspective (SNTSMS 82; Cambridge: CUP, 1995), 118.

THE SPIRIT HELPS OUR WEAKNESS

261

but others makes that power become clear. The apostle is capable of healing the sick, which serves to elevate his status among those around him. As its usage in Hebrews shows, ἀσθένεια means more than just physical sickness or illness in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews takes it into a different direction entirely, defining it in the realm of limitation or some sort of obstacle in the sense of sinfulness or even moral deficiency. The great high priest is tempted, yet does not sin (Heb 4,15). Those who suffer are in solidarity with Jesus, the high priest, because he has been touched with weakness as well. Equating weakness with temptation and sin diverts the understanding of ἀσθένεια away from physical sickness or illness and moves it into a more spiritual definition. Hebrews consistently defines it in this manner (Heb 7,28). At the same time, there are times where it means more general weakness (Heb 5,2) and receiving the dead back to life (Heb 11,34). The broad scope of ἀσθένεια in Hebrews is noted, but what is also noteworthy is how it relates to more general and spiritual weakness than physical weakness. As has been shown, ἀσθένεια can also mean some sort of weakness that affects a person from effectiveness in a capacity of sorts. Even in Romans there is room for flexibility, for in Rom 6,19 one understands it in relation to the sinful condition of humanity. However, in Rom 8,26a one sees that it relates to a weakness in relation to prayer, but more than just simply prayer, it relates to accomplishing God’s will in the world. As such, Paul uses it in a missiological manner consistent with the way he structures the Spirit’s work in the sentence. Weakness becomes something that keeps the believer from doing what God desires. The Spirit is the necessary agent to help the believer get beyond the impasse of the weakness and to live in accord with God’s design. Paul includes himself in those struggling and fulfilling the mission of God, and one draws the conclusion that Paul has established the Spirit as missiological agent, in order to help the Christ follower succeed in expanding God’s mission to the world. Paul cannot separate himself from the mission that God gave him, and as an apostle he considers it his obligation to encourage other Christ followers to follow his example of service.

CONCLUSION

In the introduction, the work of Schnelle was referenced and served as the undergirding structure for the remainder of the thesis, striving to maintain as much as possible an objective approach to a topic in Pauline theology. Along the way, a narrowing of the field occurred whereby a proposition was offered that Paul’s purpose in Romans surrounded his overwhelming sense of mission, which then was considered in light of his presentation of the Spirit in Rom 8,26a. Schnelle’s proposal to consider Paul from the sevenfold criteria1 he developed in many ways underscored the approach of the thesis. The struggle of locating Paul and his letters historically and chronologically formed an element of the thesis throughout with the contention that Romans was written after he had already written Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians in particular where the seeds of his theological thought were germinating. The contention was that Romans develops many of the thoughts he had earlier, which was expressed most poignantly in the robust presentation of Spirit in c. 8 that ran in tandem with the Spirit as God’s mediating agent to accomplish God’s mission in Paul and others. Chapter 1 presented thematic approaches to the text of Rom 8,26. Schnelle’s point of investigating Paul’s letters in light of textual and historical situation, whether representing constant principles or individual situations formed the backdrop to this work.2 Scholarly attention has focused in large part on the later clauses in Rom 8,26 and over what Paul meant by στεναγμός ἀλάλητος. Attention has been given to the social situation Paul was writing to, the religious experience of either the entire community or individuals, and even the potential background to the passage either the Flood or Exodus tradition or with the prophet Ezekiel. Growing concern over ecological and imperial criticisms in Romans 8 were noted with the assertion that these methods would be fruitful conversation partners with the Spirit material in 8,26-27. It was concluded that not enough attention has been placed upon 8,26a and therefore we would examine that clause in detail. 1. Cf. Schnelle, Paulus, 18. The criteria are listed in the thesis on p. 5. 2. Schnelle, Paulus, 18.

264

CONCLUSION

From the results of the thematic study in chapter 1 it was determined that Paul’s mission could not be divorced from the purpose of his writing. Chapter 2 examined this issue in greater detail and while it was not maintained that a missional purpose was the only purpose for the letter, it was argued that a missional purpose stood firmly behind Paul’s rationale for writing and sending the letter to the church in Rome. Chapter 2 explored in-depth various approaches to understanding Paul’s purpose for writing the Letter to the Romans. Scholarship in the 20th century considered the issue of Paul’s purpose heavily with a number of significant publications. These were discussed in the chapter and it was shown that many different reasons for the letter have been advanced including Romans being a summary of Pauline theology, as a letter asking for help with the Jerusalem trip he had planned, in response to historical situations like the Edict of Claudius or the identity question of Jews or Gentile Christ followers, or as an advance appeal to Paul’s planned missionary trip to Spain. In the end, as mentioned above, our contention was that Paul wrote the text from the underflowing current of his overall mission for Christ in mind. The final section of the chapter investigated the missiological elements that arise throughout the letter. Chapters 3 and 4 served as the exegetical base for the reading of Rom 8,26a in light of Paul’s purpose for the letter, and from this a number of points raised by Schnelle were covered including the historical and theological situation of Paul as complex and unique, the influence of Paul’s past tradition, Paul’s unique identity as a Christ follower, and the multifactorial view of Paul’s life and thought coupled with the multidimensionality of his first century world.3 From this perspective, chapter 3 considered how Paul’s thought in 8,26 interfaced with the rest of the letter and how the components of the letter run in dialogue with his work in 8,18-30 in general and 8,26 in particular. It was shown that elements in the pericope permeate the other parts of the letter and it was argued that a level of continuity runs throughout the entirety of the letter, even though natural divisions arise in chapters 1-4, 5-8, 9-11, and 12-16. The final section considered the elements of Rom 8,26-27 in more detail with exegetical analyses of individual clauses and how Paul structured his argument within those clauses. Chapter 4 focused on the adverbial phrase ὡσαύτως δὲ καί, and how Paul weaves the hope of 8,23-25 with the Spirit’s work in 8,26-27. It was argued that the referent to the adverb in 8,26a was found in 8,23-25 and in particular the relationship between hope and Spirit. Justifying this read, an analysis of the adverb commenced in a number of texts in the Pauline corpus, 3. Schnelle, Paulus, 18.

CONCLUSION

265

the LXX, and the New Testament. While some maintain that the adverb stretches back further in Romans 8, it was shown that the adverb consistently in all texts relates more closely to a previous section. Coupled with the relation between hope and Spirit in Romans 5, it was maintained that the hope of vv. 23-25 continues into the clause of 8,26a whereby the Spirit becomes the missiological agent who brings that hope to God’s people. Chapters 5-7 analyzed the phrase τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν, concluding that Paul, in line with his Jewish background, used that phrase in a particular manner to emphasize the missiological agency of the Spirit in helping believers overcome anything that keeps them from accomplishing the will of God in their lives. Paul crafts the Spirit as God’s mediating agent in a unique manner that elevates the role of the Spirit in the early Christ following community and calls for absolute dependence of the people of God. This was developed through the LXX as well as extra-biblical literature, but also in consideration of Paul’s developing thought of Spirit primarily in Galatians as well as 1 and 2 Corinthians. As a result of the Spirit leading the way in helping believers, those same believers then were able to overcome the problems affecting them to the root of their religious experience, including the inability to pray as they should. The Spirit becomes the helper in their prayer lives because it ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις. Paul completes the Spirit’s missiological work in v. 27 by tying God’s work to the Spirit’s. With this overall picture presented, we explored various elements to the Spirit in the Pauline corpus and other Jewish literature in chapter 5. The texts considered in the “Old Testament,” the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and Philo consistently cast the spirit as an agent of sorts, used by God to accomplish his purpose. This missiological component of the Spirit’s understanding was consistent within the Pauline corpus. What one sees then is that the understanding Paul has for the Spirit relates to his Jewish background and the outgrowth of a missiological understanding of the Spirit’s work. The Spirit acts as God’s agent in the accomplishment of his will. The Spirit works in tandem with God’s agenda in Romans 8 and helps people achieve the goal God has for them. Chapter 6 pushed the exploration further by discussing the rarely attested word συναντιλαμβάνομαι. In line with the previous chapter, we considered texts in both Jewish and extra-biblical literature noting that in each case some type of administrative or leadership context was involved. Given the argument of Rom 8,26a, we posited that a similar understanding was occurring whereby Paul was casting the Spirit in a leadership and management context to help lead the people of the community to where they needed to be. The

266

CONCLUSION

way to overcome their weakness then could not be accomplished on their own, but they needed to be helped by the Spirit. Paul was telling them that what they needed was a submission to the Spirit’s guidance. Chapter 7 wrapped up the examination of the clause with an investigation of ἡ ἀσθένεια. One of the introductory matters to the word however was the meaning of the use of first person in the text. A discussion of how Paul uses first person singular and plural was discussed in 8,18-30. The move to first person plural shows that Paul was now speaking of the Roman community and himself in the discussion. This builds out his understanding of weakness in the passage. Considerations from the LXX, extra-biblical literature, and the NT showed a prominence of the word with multiple meanings. Some usages relate to weakness overall while others refer to the effects of sin. Still others relate to physical infirmities. It was concluded that Paul’s usage tends to be different from those usages in the Gospels and Acts where infirmity is the root meaning. Also, he goes in a different but related route than Hebrews, for Paul focuses more on actual weakness over against some of the more theologically developed appropriations in Hebrews. Paul tends to either relate it to a weakness related to his own weakness versus being strong, as sin, or just general weakness. Unlike what he does in the Corinthian correspondence, Romans either has it related to sin or general weakness. It was maintained that Rom 8,26a does not work like Rom 6,19 that specifically relates to the weakness of the flesh, rather, 8,26a refers to a more generalized understanding of weakness. The weakness of 8,26a relates more to the missiological character of the text in general resulting in the community being limited in its prayer ability. The Spirit steps in and aids the community in overcoming the weakness and allowing it to align with God’s will (vv. 26-27). As general weakness, Paul posits that the obstacles being confronted by the community can only be overcome with the missiological agency of the Spirit.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Texts and Tools ABEGG, Martin G. Jr. with James E. BOWLEY and Edward M. COOK, in consultation with Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance: Volume One: The NonBiblical Texts from Qumran. Part Two. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ALAND, Kurt, Barbara ALAND, Johannes KARAVIDOPOULOS, Carlo M. MARTINI, and Bruce M. METZGER, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. NA27. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Rev. ed. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research. NA28. Münster/Westphalia: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. ALAND, Kurt, Matthew BLACK, Carlo M. MARTINI, Bruce M. METZGER, and Allen WIKGREN, eds. The Greek New Testament. GNT4. New York: ABS, 2001. BALZ, Horst, and Gerhard SCHNEIDER, eds. EDNT. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990-1993. BAUER, Walter, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin, 41952, 61988 (ed., K. & B. Aland). The 4th ed. was translated into English and adapted by W.F. Arndt & F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Cambridge-Chicago IL, 1957 (= BAG). The 2nd ed. was revised and augmented on the basis of the 5th German ed. by F.W. Gingrich & F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago IL-London, 1972, 4th rev. ed. 1999 (= BAGD). The 3rd ed. was revised and edited on the basis of the 6th German ed. and the previous English editions by F.W. Danker, 32000 (= BDAG). BOWMAN, Alan K., Edward CHAMPLIN, Andrew LINTOTT, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History: The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C. – A.D. 69. 2nd ed. Vol X. Cambridge: CUP, 2005. BROWN, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. AB Reference Library. New York et al.: Doubleday, 1997. Dio Cassius. Roman History. 9 vols. LCL. Trans. Earnest Cary and Herbert B. Foster. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914-1927. EVANS, Craig, ed. The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. New York/London: Routledge, 2010. FREEDMAN, David Noel, ed. ABD. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. —. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ, Florentino and Eibert J. C. TIGCHELAAR. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill/Eerdmans, 1997/1998.

268

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HAHN, Scott, ed. Catholic Bible Dictionary. New York et al.: Doubleday, 2009. HAWTHORNE, Gerald and Ralph P. MARTIN, ed. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 1993. Josephus. Trans. H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926-1965. KITTEL, Gerhard and Gerhard FRIEDRICH, eds. TWNT. 11 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932-1979. Eng. trans. TDNT. 10 vols. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19641976. LOUW, Johannes P. and Eugene A. NIDA, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Second ed. Vol 1: Introduction and Domains. New York: UBS, 1989. LUST, Johan, and Erik EYNIKEL. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. METZGER, Bruce M. Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd rev ed. New York: Hendrickson, 2005. MOULTON, James H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol III: Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. OMANSON, Roger L. A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Philo. LCL. 9 vols. Trans. F. H. Colson and G. A. Whitaker. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann, 1968. PORTER, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Second ed. Biblical Languages: Greek. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. RAHLFS, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935, repr. 1979. RENGSTORF, Karl Heinrich, ed. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus. Vol III: Λ – Π. Leiden: Brill, 1979. SAKENFELD, Katharine D. The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006-2009. Seneca. Epistles 1-65. Vol IV. LCL 75. Richard M. Gummere, trans. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1917. SMYTH, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. STEGEMANN, Hartmut and Eileen SCHULLER. “1QHodayota with Incoporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f. Qumran Cave 1.” DJD 40. Oxford: Clarendon, 2009. SUETONIUS. Lives of the Caesars. 2 vols. LCL. Trans. J. C. Rolf. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914. SWETE, H. B, ed. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: CUP, 1914. Tacitus. The Histories and the Annals. Trans. C. H. Moore and J. Jackson. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

269

VANGEMEREN, Willem A, ed. NIDOTTE. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. WEVERS, John William. LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. SCS 30. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990. —. LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. SCS 35. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993. ZERWICK, Max and Mary GROSVENOR, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993.

Commentaries on Romans ACHTEMEIER, Paul J. Romans. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1985. ALETTI, Jean N. Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interpreter l’épître aux Romains. Paris: Seuil, 1991. BARDENHEWER, Otto. Der Römerbrief des Heiligen Paulus. Freiburg: Herder, 1926. BARRETT, C. K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1957. BARTH, Karl. Der Römerbrief. Ed. 10. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1967. Eng. Trans. The Epistle to the Romans. Trans. from 6th ed. Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London, New York, Toronto: OUP, 1967. BÉNÉTREAU, Samuel. L’Épitre de Paul aux Romains: tome 1. Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac, 1996. BLACK, Matthew. Romans. NCC. London: Oliphants, 1977. BYRNE, Brendan. Reckoning with Romans: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Gospel. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1986. —. Romans. SPS 6. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996. CRANFIELD, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. 2 Vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975-1979. —. Romans: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. DODD, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. New York/Evanston, IL/ London: Harper & Row, 1932. DUNN, James D. G. Romans 1-8. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1988. —. Romans 9-16. WBC. Waco, TX, 1988. ESLER, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. FITZMYER, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993. GREATHOUSE, William M. with George Lyons. Romans 1-8. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 2008. HODGE, Charles. A Commentary on Romans. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1864. HUBY, P. Joseph. Saint Paul: Épître aux Romains. Paris: Beauchesne, 1957. HULTGREN, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011.

270

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JEWETT, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. KÄSEMANN, Ernst. An die Römer. HzNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974. KECK, Leander E. Romans. ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005. KRUSE, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012. KUSS, Otto. Der Römerbrief übersetzt und erklärt. Regensburg: Pustet, 1978. LAGRANGE, M. J. Saint Paul Épitre aux Romains. Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1931. LEENHARDT, Franz J. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary. Cleveland, OH/New York: World Publishing, 1957. LENSKI, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1960. LIETZMANN, D. H. An Die Römer: Einführung in die Textgeschichte der Paulusbriefe an die Römer. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933. MATERA, Frank J. Romans. PCNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010. MICHEL, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. MOO, Douglas. Romans 1-8. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991. —. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996. MOORES, John D. Wrestling with Rationality in Paul: Romans 1-8 in a New Perspective. SNTSMS 82. Cambridge: CUP, 1995. MORRIS, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI/Leicester: Eerdmans/IVP, 1988. MOUNCE, Robert H. Romans. NAC 27. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. MURRAY, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Vol 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. NYGREN, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1949. OSBORNE, Grant R. Romans. IVPNTCS. Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 2004. SANDAY, William and Arthur C. HEADLAM. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895. SCHLIER, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief . HtKNT 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1977. SCHREINER, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998. STOWERS, Stanley K. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994. WEISS, Bernard. Der Brief an die Römer. 9th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899. WILCKENS, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol 3. EKKNT. Zurich: Benziger, 1982. WITHERINGTON, Ben III. with Darlene HYATT. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A SocioRhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

271

Commentaries on Biblical Books ACHTEMEIER, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996. ANDERSON, A. A. The Book of Psalms. Vol II. NCBC. Grand Rapids, MI/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972. ASHLEY, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993. ATTRIDGE, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1989. BALLARD, C. Andrew. “Tongue-tied and Taunted: Paul, Poor Rhetoric and Paltry Leadership in 2 Corinthians 5.13.” CBQ 37.1 (2014): 50-70. BARNETT, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997. BARRETT, C. K. Acts: A Shorter Commentary. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2002. —. The Acts of the Apostles. ICC II. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. —. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. London: SPCK, 1967. BERNARD, J. H. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to John. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. BETZ, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia: Fortress, 1979. BLOCK, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. NAC 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999. —. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. BOCK, Darrell L. Luke 9:51-24:53. BECNT 3B. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996. BORCHERT, Gerald L. John 1-11. NAC 25A. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996. BOVON, François. Luke: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50. Helmut Koester. ed. Kristine M. Thomas, trans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002. BRAUN, Roddy. 1 Chronicles. WBC 14. Waco, TX: Word, 1986. BRUCE, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1971. —. The Book of Acts. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. —. The Epistle to the Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. —. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. BRUCKNER, James K. Exodus. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. BRUEGGEMANN, Walter. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2001. BUDD, Philip J. Numbers. WBC 5. Waco, TX: Word, 1984. BULTMANN, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1971. BUTLER, Trent C. Judges. WBC 8. Nashville, TN et al.: Thomas Nelson, 2009. CARSON, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/Eerdmans, 1991.

272

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHILDS, Brevard. The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1974. CLAMER, Albert. La Genése: Traduite et commentée. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1953. COCKERELL, Gareth Lee. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012. COLE, R. Dennis. Numbers. NAC 3b. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2000. COLLINS, Raymond F. First Corinthians. SPS 7. Collegeville, MN: Glazier Liturgical Press, 1999. DAHOOD, Mitchell. Psalms I: 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB 16. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. DE BOER, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. DE VAUX, J. Les Nombres. Sources Bibliques. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1972. DIBELIUS, Martin. Die Pastoralbriefe. HzNT. Tübingen. Mohr Siebeck, 1955. DIBELIUS, Martin and Hans CONZELMANN. The Pastoral Epistles. Helmut Koester, ed. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, trans. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1972. DOZEMAN, Thomas B. Exodus. ECC. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “The Book of Numbers.” In New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol 2. L. E. Keck, ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1998. DUHM, Bernhard. Die Psalmen. KHCAT 14. Freiburg: Mohr, 1899. DUNN, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles. NC. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1996. ELLINGWORTH, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGNTC. Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1993. FEE, Gordon D. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. —. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. FITZMYER, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2008. —. The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation and Notes. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. FRANCE, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2002. —. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI/Leicester: Eerdmans/IVP, 1985. FRETHEIM, Terence E. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991. FUNG, Ronald K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. FURNISH, Victor P. II Corinthians. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984. GAVENTA, Beverly Roberts. Acts. ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2003.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

273

GELDENHUYS, Norval. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. GEORGE, Timothy. Galatians. NAC 30. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994. GOLDINGAY, John. Psalms: Volume 2. Psalms 42-89. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007. GOLDSTEIN, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. GRAY, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912. GREEN Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997. GROSHEIDE, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953. GUNKEL, Hermann. Die Psalmen. 4th ed. HKAT 2.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926. GUTHRIE, Donald. The Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 15: Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993. —. The Pastoral Epistles. Rev ed. TNTC. Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/Eerdmans, 1990. GUTHRIE, George H. Hebrews. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. HAGNER, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. WBC 33A. Dallas, TX: Word, 1993. HAMILTON, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. HARMAN, Allan. Psalms: A Mentor Commentary. Ross-shire: Mentor, 1998. HARRINGTON, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew. SPS 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. HARRIS, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. HARRISON, R. K. Numbers. WEC. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1990. HAWTHORNE, Gerald F. Philippians. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1983. HAYS, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1989. HOOKER, Paul. First and Second Chronicles. Louisville, KY/London/Leiden: Westminster John Knox, 2001. HUGHES, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962. JOHNSON, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. Louisville, KY/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. —. The Acts of the Apostles. SPS 5. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. —. The Gospel of Luke. SPS 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991. JUST, Arthur A. Jr. Luke 9:51-24:53. CC. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1997. KEENER, Craig S. Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1-2:47. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012.

274

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Vol. 3: 15:1-23:35. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014. —. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999. KELLY, John N. D. A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1969. KLEIN, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Thomas Krüger, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006. KNOPPERS, Gary N. 1 Chronicles 10-29. AB 12A. New York et al.: Doubleday, 2006. KOESTER, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 36. New York et al.: Doubleday, 2001. LAGRANGE, M. J. Évangile selon Saint Marc. Études Bibliques. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1920. LANE, William L. Hebrews 1-8. WBC 47A. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991. —. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. LEUPOLD, H. C. Exposition of the Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981. LINDARS, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. NCB. London: Oliphant, 1972. LOHMEYER, Ernst. Der Brief an die Philipper. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1954. LONGENECKER, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. LONGMAN, Tremper III. Proverbs. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006. MALINA, Bruce J. and John J. PILCH. Social Science Commentary on the Book of Acts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008. MALINA, Bruce J. and Richard L. ROHRBAUGH, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 2nd Ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. MARSHALL, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. MARTYN, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 33A. New York et al.: Doubleday, 1998. MATERA, Frank J. Galatians. SPS 9. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992. MAYS, James Luther. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1994. MCKENZIE, John L. Second Isaiah. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968. MEIER, John P. Matthew. NTM 3. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1980. MICHAELS, J. Ramsay. 1 Peter. WBC 49. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1988. —. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010. MITCHELL, Alan C. Hebrews. SPS 13. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007. MOFFATT, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1948. MOO, Douglas. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013. MORRIS, Leon. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/Eerdmans, 1989. —. The Gospel According to John. NICNT. Rev. ed. 2nd pr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

275

MOUNCE, William D. Pastoral Epistles. WBC 46. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000. MURPHY, Roland E. Proverbs. WBC 22. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998. NELSON, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. NEYREY, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. Cambridge: CUP, 2007. NOLLAND, John. Luke 1-9:20. WBC 35A. Dallas, TX: Word, 1989. —. Luke 9:21-18:34. WBC 35B. Dallas, TX: Word, 1993. —. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 2005. NOTH, Martin. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL. J. D. Martin, trans. London: SCM, 1968. O’BRIEN, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. —. The Letter to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Apollos, 2010. OBERLINNER, Lorenz. Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum Ersten Timotheusbrief. Freiburg/ Basel/Wien. Herder, 1994. PARSONS, Mikeal C. Acts. PCNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008. PEROWNE, J. J. Stewart. The Book of Psalms: A New Translation with Introductions and Notes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976. PETERSON, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans/Apollos, 2009. PLUMMER, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1970. —. The Gospel According to S. Luke. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981. POLHILL, John B. Acts. NAC 26. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992. PROPP, William H. C. Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York et al.: Doubelday, 1999. REUMANN, John. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 2008. RIDDERBOS, Herman. Het Evangelie naar Johannes: Proeve van een theologische Exegese. Kampen: Kok, 1992. SCHAEFER, Konrad. Psalms. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001. SCHELKLE, Karl Hermann. Die Petrusbriefe der Judasbrief. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder, 1961. SCHLATTER, Adolf. Paulus der Bote Jesu: Eine Deutung seiner Briefe an die Korinther. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1962. SCHNACKENBURG, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St. John. New York: Crossroads, 1982. SCHNEIDER, Tammi J. Judges. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. SILVA, Moisés. Philippians. 2nd ed. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005. SLOYAN, Gerard S. John. Interpretation. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1988.

276

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SMITH, D. Moody. John. ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999. STEIN, Robert H. Luke. NAC 24. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992. —. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008. STIBBS, A. M. and A. F. WALLS, 1 Peter. TNTC. Leicester/Grand Rapids, MI: IVP/ Eerdmans, 1987. STUBBS, David L. Numbers. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2009. TALBERT, Charles H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. THISELTON, Anthony. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. THURSTON, Bonnie B. and Judith M. Ryan. Philippians and Philemon. SPS 10. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2005. TOWNER, Phlip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006. TRITES, Alison A. The Gospel of Luke. CBC. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006. VAN DOREN, William H. The Gospel of Luke: Expository and Homiletical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1981. WALTKE, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005. WATTS, John D. Isaiah 34-66. Rev. ed. WBC 25. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2005. WESTERMANN, Claus. Genesis. 2: Genesis 12-36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. WILLIAMS, David J. Acts. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990. WINDISCH, Hans. Der Zweite Korintherbrief. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924. WITHERINGTON, Ben, III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. —. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. —. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011. WOLFF, Christian. Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. THNT 8. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989. WRIGHT, Christopher. Deuteronomy. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. ZAHN, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. KNT 9. Leipzig: Deichert, 1905. Studies ABASCIANO, Brian J. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis. LNTS 301. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006. AGNEW, F. “On the Origin of the Term Apostolos.” CBQ 38 (1976): 49-53. —. “The Origin of the NT Apostle-Concept: A Review of Research.” JBL 105 (1986): 75-96.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

AHERN, B. “The Indwelling Spirit: Pledge of Our Inheritance – Eph 1.14.” CBQ 8 (1947): 179-189. ALAND, Kurt. Neutestamentliche Entwürfe. ThBü. München: Kaiser Verlag, 1979. ALETTI, Jean N. Justification by Faith in the Letters of Saint Paul: Keys to Interpretation. Trans. Peggy Manning Meyer. Rome: G&BP, 2015. —. “Romains 4 et Genèse 17: Quelle énigme et quelle solution?” Bib 84 (2003): 305-325. ALLEN, Roland. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? A Study of the Church in Four Provinces. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. ANDERSEN, Frances I. “Note on Genesis 30:8.” JBL 88 (1969): 200. ARMERDING, C. “The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.” BSac 92 (1935): 277-291. BAARLINK, Heinrich. “Die zyklische Struktur von Lukas 9:43b-19:28.” NTS 38 (1992): 481-506. BABCOCK, F. J. “‘The Spirit’ and the Spirit in the New Testament.” ExpT 45 (19331934): 218-222. BACHMANN, Michael, ed. Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive. Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion. WUNT 182. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. BAILEY, Kenneth E. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011. BALENTINE, Samuel E. “Prayer.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. David Noel Freedman, ed. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. BALZ, Horst. Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung: Strukturen der paulinischen Eschatologie nach Römer 8,18-39. München: Kaiser Verlag, 1971. BANISTER, Jamie A. “Όμοίως and the Use of Parellelism in Romans 1:26-27.” JBL 128 (2009): 569-590. BARCLAY, William. Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5.19-23. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962. BARNETT, P. W. “Apostle.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. 45-51. Gerald Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 1993. BARRÉ, Michael. “Paul as ‘Eschatologic Person’: A New Look at 2 Cor 11.29.” CBQ 37 (1975): 500-526. —. “Qumran and the Weakness of Paul.” CBQ 42 (1980): 216-227. BARRIER, Jeremy. “Visions of Weakness: Apocalyptic Genre and the Identification of Paul’s Opponents in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6.” ResQ (2005): 33-42. BARTON, Stephen C. “Historical Criticism and Social-Scientific Perspectives in New Testament Study.” In Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. 2nd ed. 34-64. Joel B. Green, ed. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010. BAUERNFEIND, Otto. “τυγχάνω, ἐντυγχάνω, ὑπερεντυγχάνω, ἔντευξις.” In TDNT. Vol VIII. 238-245. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. BAUR, Ferdinand C. Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben. 5 Vols. Klaus Scholder, ed. Stuttgart: Frommann, 1963-1975.

278

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Über Zweck und Veranlassung des Römerbriefs und die damit zusammenhängenden Verhältnisse der römischen Gemeinde.” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 3 (1836): 59-178. BECKHEUER, Burkhard. Paulus und Jerusalem: Kollekte und Mission in theologischen Denken des Heidenapostels. EHS.T 611. Frankfurt et al.: Lang, 1997. BEKER, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980. —. “Suffering and Triumph in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” HBT 7 (1985): 105-119. BELL, Richard H. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9-11. WUNT 2.63. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. —. The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel. WUNT 184: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. BELLEVILLE, Linda. “Ἰουνίαν … ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials.” NTS 51 (2005): 231-249. —. “Paul’s Polemic and Theology of the Spirit in Second Corinthians.” CBQ 58 (1996): 281-304. BENSON, Alphonsus. The Spirit of God in the Didactic Books of the Old Testament. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949. BERGER, Klaus. “Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen.” MTZ 17 (1966): 47-89. —. “Almosen für Israel: Zum historischen Kontext der paulinischen Kollekte.” NTS 23 (1976-1977): 180-204. —. Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984. BERTONE, John A. “The Function of the Spirit in the Dialectic Between God’s Soteriological Plan Enacted But Not Yet Culminated: Romans 8:1-27.” JPT 15 (1999): 75-97. —. “The Law of the Spirit’: Experience of the Spirit and Displacement of the Law in Romans 8:1-16. StBL 86. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. BETZ, Hans Dieter. “Apostle.” In ABD. Vol 1: A-C. 309-311. David Noel Freedman, ed. New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992. —. Der Apostel Paulus und die sokratische Tradition Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu suiner “Apologie” 2 Kor 10-13. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1973. BIERINGER Reimund. “Texts That Create a Future: The Authority of the Bible for Theology.” In Normativity of the Future: Reading Biblical and Other Authoritative Texts in an Eschatological Perpsective. ANL LXI. 91-116. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2010. BIERINGER, Reimund and Mary ELSBERND. Normativity of the Future: Reading Biblical and Other Authoritative Texts in an Eschatological Perspective. ANL LXI. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2010. —. “The Voice of the New Creation: A Future-Oriented Biblical Ecological Hermeneutics.” SBL Paper. 274. Annual Meeting Abstracts, 2006. BIERINGER, Reimund and Emmanuel NATHAN. “Paul, Moses, and the Veil: Paul’s Perspective on Judaism in Light of 2 Corinthians 3.” In Paul’s Jewish Matrix. 201-228. Bible in Dialogue 2. Thomas G. Casey – Justin Taylor, eds. Roma: G&BP, 2011.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

BIERINGER, Reimund, Didier POLLEFEYT and Frederique VANDECASTEELE-VANNEUVILLE, “Wrestling with Johanning Anti-Judaism: A Hermeneutical Framework for the Analysis of the Current Debate.” In Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. 3-44. Jewish Christian Heritage 1: Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, & Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001. BINDEMANN, Walther. Die Hoffnung der Schöpfung: Römer 8,18-27 und die Frage einer Theologie der Befreiung von Mensch und Natur. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. BIRD, Michael F. “‘Raised for Our Justification’: A Fresh Look at Romans 4:25.” Colloquium 35 (2003): 31-46. —. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective. PBM. London: Paternoster, 2007. BLACK, David A. Paul, Apostle of Weakness: Astheneia and Its Cognates in the Pauline Literature. American University Studies VII/3. New York et al.: Lang, 1984. —. “Paul and Christian Unity: A Formal Analysis of Philippians 2:1-4.” JETS 28 (1985): 299-308. —. “Paulus Infirmus: The Pauline Concept of Weakness.” GTJ 5 (1984): 77-93. BLACK, David A. and David S. DOCKERY, eds. Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Nashville, TN: Broadman Holman, 2001. BLOCK, Daniel I. “The Prophet of the Spirit: The Use of RWH in the Book of Ezekiel.” JETS 32 (1989): 27-49. —. “The View from the Top: The Holy Spirit in the Prophets.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. 175-207. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011. BOLT, John. “The Relation Between Creation and Redemption in Romans 8:18-27.” CTJ 30 (1995): 34-51. BORNKAMM, Günther. “The Letter to Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament.” In The Romans Debate. 17-31. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. BOWERS, Paul W. “Church and Mission in Paul.” JSNT 44 (1991): 89-111. BOYD, R. F. “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer: An Exposition of Romans 8:2627.” Int 8 (1954): 35-42. BRAATEN, Laurie J. “All Creation Groans: Romans 8:22 in Light of the Biblical Sources.” HBT 28 (2006): 131-159. BRAY, Gerald. “The Love of God (Romans 8:18-39).” Evangel 20.1 (2002): 5-8. BRIGGS, C. “The Use of ‫ רוח‬in the Old Testament.” JBL 19 (1990): 132-145. BROOTEN, Bernadette J. Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996. BRUCE, F. F. “The Study of the Holy Spirit in the Letter to the Galatians.” In Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin. 36-48. P. Elbert, ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1985. BUCK, Charles H. Jr. “The Collection for the Saints.” HTR (1950): 1-29.

280

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BUCUR, Bogdan Gabriel. Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses. SVC 95. Leiden/Boston, MA: Brill, 2009. BÜHNER, J.-A. “ἀπόστολος.” In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament: Vol 1. 142-146. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978-1980. BULTMANN, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. J. Marsh, trans. New York/ Oxford: Harper & Row/Blackwell, 1963. BURER, Michael H. and Daniel B. WALLACE. “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Rom 16.7.” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91. BURK, Denny. “Is Paul’s Gospel Counterimperial? Evaluating the Prospects of the ‘Fresh Perspective’ for Evangelical Theology.” JETS 51 (2008): 309-337. BÜSCHEL, F. Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1926. BUSS, Matthäus F.-J. Die Missionpredigt des Apostels Paulus im Pisidischen Antiochien: Analyse von Apg:13.16-41. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1980. BYRNE, Brendan. “An Ecological Reading of Rom 8.19-22. In Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives. 83-93. David G. Horrell et al., eds. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. —. “Creation Groaning: An Earth Bible Reading of Romans 8.18-22. In Readings from the Perspective of the Earth. Vol 1. 38-53. Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. —. “Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-‘New Perspective’ Perspective.” HTR 94.3 (2001): 227-241. CAMPBELL, Douglas. “Determining the Gospel Through Rhetorical Analysis in Paul’s Letter to the Roman Christians.” In Gospel and Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker. JSNTSSup 108. 320-331. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, eds. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. CAMPBELL, William S. “‘All God’s Beloved in Rome!’ Jewish Roots and Christian Identity.” In Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology. 67-81. Sheila E. McGinn, ed. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2005. —. “Paul’s Missionary Practice and Policy in Romans.” IBS 12 (1990): 2-25. —. “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of God in House Churches and Synagogues.” In Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9-11. 171-195. Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner, eds. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. —. “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1-15:13: The Obligation of Humble Obedience as the Only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God.” In Pauline Theology III: Romans. 259-286. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. —. “Why Did Paul Write Romans.” ExpT 85 (1973-1974): 265. CARSON, Donald A. A Call to Spirit Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992. CARSON, D. A., Douglas J. MOO, and Leon MORRIS. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

281

CARTER, Warren. “Getting Martha out of the Kitchen: Luke 10:38-42.” CBQ 58 (1996): 264-280. —. John and Empire: Initial Explorations. New York/London: T&T Clark, 2008. CHAE, Daniel J.-S. Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and its Influence on the Soteriological Argument in Romans. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. CHAMPLIN, Edward. Nero. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. —. “Nero Reconsidered.” New England Review 19 (1998): 97-108. CHARLES, R. H. The Book of Jubilees. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. CHARLESWORTH, James H. “Prayer in Early Judaism.” In ABD. Vol 5. 449-450. David Noel Freedman, ed. New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992. CHEVALIER, M.-A. Esprit de Dieu: paroles d’hommes. Delachaux & Niestlé, 1966. CHOW, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. CHRISTOFFERSON, Olle. The Earnest Expectation of the Creature: The Flood Tradition as Matrix of Romans 8:18-27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990. CLIFFORD, Richard J. “Psalm 89: A Lament Over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure.” HTR 73 (1980): 35-47. COHEN, Jeffrey M. “Leadership in the Book of Numbers.” JBQ 28 (2000): 125-129. COLLINS, John N. “Did Luke Intend a Disservice to Women in the Martha and Mary Story.” BTB 28 (1998): 104-111. CONRADIE, Ernst. “Interpreting the Bible Amidst Ecological Degradation.” Theology 112 (2009): 199-207. —. “The Road Towards an Ecological and Biblical Theological Hermeneutic.” Scriptura 93 (2006): 305-314. —. “What on Earth Is an Ecological Hermeneutics? Some Broad Parameters.” In Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives. 295313. David G. Horrell, Cherryl Hunt, Christopher Southgate, and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, eds. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. CONZELMANN, Hans. Die Apostelgeschichte. HzNT. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963. —. “χαίρω.” In TDNT. Vol IX. 359-415. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. CRANFIELD, C. E. B. “The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 Corinthians 8:1-9.” CV 32 (1989): 105-109. CRANFORD, Michael. “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe.” NTS 41 (1995): 71-88. CROSSAN, John Dominic and Jonathan L. REED. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom: A New Vision of Paul’s Words and World. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 2004. CULLMANN, Oscar. “La prière selon les épîtres pauliniennes.” TZ 35 (1979): 90101. CURRIE, S. D. “‘Speaking in Tongues’: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament Bearing on ‘Glossais Lalein’.” Int 19 (1965): 174-194. DAHL, Nils A. Das Volk Gottes: Eine Untersuchung zum Kirchenbewusstsein des Urchristentums. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963.

282

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DAS, A. Andrew. Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007. DE LA POTTERIE, Ignace. “Le chrétien conduit par l’Esprit dans son cheminement eschatologique (Rom 8,14).” In The Law of the Spirit in Rom 7 and 8. 209-241. Lorenzo De Lorenzi, ed. Rome: St. Paul’s Abbey, 1976. DELLING, G. “ἀποκαραδοκία.” TDNT. Vol I. 393. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI/London: Eerdmans, 1964. DENNIS, John. “The Letter and the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3,6 and Romans 2,29: An Exercise in Pauline Theologizing.” In Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians. 109-129. BiTS 16. Leuven/ Paris/Walpole, MA: 2013. DESILVA, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2000. DICKSON, John P. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities. WUNT 2.159. Tübingen: Mohr, 2003. DICK, Karl. Der schriftstellerische Plural bei Paulus. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1990. DIETZEL, Armin. “Beten im Geist: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Parallele aus den Hodajot zum paulinischen Gebet im Geist.” TZ 13 (1957): 12-32. DOEVE, Jan W. “Paulus der Pharisäer und Galater 1:13-15.” NovT 6 (1963): 170-181. DONFRIED, Karl P. “A Short Note on Romans 16.” In The Romans Debate. 50-60. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. —. “False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans.” In The Romans Debate. 120148. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. —. Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002. —, ed. The Romans Debate. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. —, ed. The Romans Debate. Rev. and exp. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. DOWNS, David. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts. WUNT 2.248. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. DUGUID, Iain M. Numbers: God’s Presence in the Wilderness. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006. DULING, Dennis, “2 Corinthians 11:22: Historical context, rhetoric, and ethnicity.” HTS 64 (2008): 819-843. DUMORTIER, Jean-Bernhard. “Un rituel d’intronisation: Le Ps LXXXIX:2-38.” VT 22 (1972): 176-196. DUNN, James D. G. “2 Corinthians III.17: The Lord Is the Spirit.” JTS 21 (1970): 309-320. —. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. SBT 2/15. London: SCM Press, 1970. —. Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-Examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1970. —. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians Reflected in the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1975.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

283

—. “Jesus-Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans i:3-4.” JTS 24 (1973): 4068. —. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. —. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. DUPONT-SOMMER, Andre. “Le Livre des Hymnes découvert prés de la Mer Morte (1QH). Traduction, integral avec introduction et notes.” Sem 7 (1957): 5-120. EARTH BIBLE TEAM. “Guiding Ecojustice Principles,” In Readings from the Perspective of the Earth. 38-52. Norman C. Habel, ed. Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press/Pilgrim Press, 2000. EASTMAN, Susan. Recovering Paul’s Mother Tongue: Language and Theology in Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007. EICHRODT, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Vol 2. J. A. Baker, trans. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1967. EISENBAUM, Pamela. “Paul as the New Abraham.” In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. 130-145. Richard A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000. ELLIOTT, Neil. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. —. “Paul the Politics of Empire: Problems and Prospects.” In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. 17-39. Richard A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000. —. “The Apostle Paul’s Self-Presentation as Anti-Imperial Performance.” In Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. 67-88. Richard A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg, PA/ London/New York: Trinity Press, 2004. ELSBERND, Mary and Reimund BIERINGER. When Love Is Not Enough: A Theo-Ethic of Justice. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Troels. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: OUP, 2010. —. “Gift-Giving and Friendship: Seneca and Paul in Romans 1-8 on the Logic of God’s Χάρις and Its Human Response.” HTR 101 (2008): 15-44. —. Paul and the Stoics. Edinburgh/Louisville, KY: T&T Clark/Westminster John Knox, 2000. —. “Stoicism in the Apostle Paul: A Philosophical Reading.” In Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. 52-75. S. K. Strange and J. Zupko, eds. Cambridge: CUP, 2004. —. “The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences Between Paul and Stoicism. ZNW 96 (2005): 35-60. EPP, Eldon Jay. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005. —. “Text-critical, Exegetical, and Socio-cultural Factors Affecting the Junia/Junias Variation in Romans 16,8.” In New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Fetschrift J. Delobel. 227-291. BETL 161. Albert Denaux, ed. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.

284

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ERLEMANN, Kurt. “Der Geist als ἀρραβών (2 Kor 5,5) im Kontext der paulinischen Eschatologie.” ZNW 83 (1992): 202-223. ESLER, Philip F. Family Imagery and Christian Identity in Gal 5:13 to 6:10. London: Routledge, 1997. FALK, Daniel. “Psalms and Prayers.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 1 – The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. 7-56. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.). Grand Rapids, MI: Tübingen: Baker/ Mohr Siebeck, 2001. FEE, Gordon D. “Christology and Pneumatology in Romans 8:9-11 – and Elsewhere: Some Reflections on Paul as a Trinitarian.” In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. 312-331. Joel B. Green and Max Turner, eds. Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle: Eerdmans/ Paternoster, 1994. —. God’s Empowering Presence. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. FIRTH, David G. “The Spirit and Leadership: Testimony, Empowerment and Purpose.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. 259-280. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011. FIRTH, David G. and Paul D. WEGNER. “Introduction.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. 15-24. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011. FITZMYER, Joseph A. “‘Now This Melchizedek …’ (Heb 7,1).” CBQ 25 (1963): 305321. FLEMING, Dean E. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. —. “Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Aeropagus Address as a Paradigm for Missionary Communication.” Missiology 30 (2002): 199-214. FLOYD, Michael H. “Psalm lxxxix.” VT 42 (1992): 442-457. FOKKELMAN, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. FORDE, Gerhard O. “Romans 8:18-27.” Int 38 (1984): 281-285. FRETHEIM, Terrence. E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. Philadelphia: PA: Fortress Press, 1984. FREY, Jörg. “Die paulinische Antithese von ‘Fleisch’ und ‘Geist’ und die palästinischjüdische Weisheitstradition.” ZNW 90 (1999): 45-77. —. “Paul’s View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature. STDJ 102. 237-260. Jean-Sébastian Rey, ed. Leiden/ Boston, MA: Brill, 2014. FREY, Jörg and John R. LEVISON (eds.). The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. FUCHS, E. “Der Anteil des Geistes am Glauben des Paulus: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Römer 8.” ZTK 72 (1975): 293-302. FÜHRER, Werner. “‘Herr ist Jesus’: Die Rezeption der urchristlichen Kyrios-Akklamation durch Paulus Römer 10,9. KD 33 (1987): 137-149.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

285

FURNISH, Victor P. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. GAGNON, Robert A. “Why the ‘Weak’ at Rome Cannot Be Non-Christian Jews.” CBQ 62 (2000): 64-82. GAMBLE, Harry Jr. The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. SD 42. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977. GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ, Florentino. Qumranic Minora I: Qumran Origins and Apolcalypticism. STDJ 63. Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2007. GARLAND, David E. “Paul’s Apostolic Authority: The Power of Christ Sustaining Weakness (2 Corinthians 10-13).” RExp 86 (1989): 371-389. GARTHWAITE, Susan M. “Foot-washing Slaves, a Sick Child, and Signs of God’s Dream: A Normativity of the Future Perspective on John 4:43-54.” In Normativity of the Future: Reading Biblical and Other Authoritative Texts in an Eschatological Perspective. 135-166. Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, eds. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. GAUGLER, E. “Der Geist und das Gebet der schwachen Gemeinde: Eine Auslegung von Röm 8,26-27.” IKZ 51 (1961): 67-94. GEHRING, Roger W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. GEORGE, A. “L’Accueil du Seigneur: Lc 10,38-42.” AsSeign 47 (1970): 75-85. GEORGI, Dieter. Der Armen zu gedenken: Die Geschichte der Kollekte des Paulus für Jerusalem. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1994. GIENIUSZ, Andrzej. Romans 8:18-30: ‘Suffering Does not Thwart the Future Glory.’ Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999. GIGNAC, Alain. “Le Christ, τέλος de la Loi (Rom 10,4), une lecture en termes de continuité et de discontinuité, dans le cadre du paradigme paulinien de l’élection.” ScE 46 (1994): 55-81. GLANCY, Jennifer A. “Boasting of Beatings (2 Corinthians 11:23-25).” JBL 123 (2004): 99-135. —. Slavery in Early Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006. GOODMAN, Martin. Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. —. The Roman World: 44BC-AD180. 55-57. Routledge History of the Ancient World. London/New York: Routledge, 1997. GRÄBE, Peter J. “The All-Surpassing Power of God Through the Holy Spirit in the Midst of Our Broken Earthly Existence: Perspectives on Paul’s Use of δύναμις in 2 Corinthians.” Neot 28 (1994): 147-156. GRANT, Michael. Nero. New York: Dorset Press, 1970. GREEN, Joel B. “The Challenge of Hearing the New Testament.” In Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. 1-14. 2nd Ed. Joel B. Green, ed. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010. GREENWAY, Roger S. “Success in the City: Paul’s Urban Mission Strategy: Acts 14:128.” In Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context. 183-195. ASM Series 34. R. L. Gallagher and Paul P. Herig, eds. Maryknoll, MD: Orbis, 2004.

286

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GREENWOOD, David. “‘The Lord is the Spirit:’ Some Considerations of 2 Cor 3:17.” CBQ 34 (1972): 467-472. GREEVEN, Heinrich. “προσεύχομαι, προσευχή.” In TDNT. Vol II. 775-808. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. GRESSMAN, Hugo. Die Anfänge Israels. Göttingen, 1922. GRIFFIN, Miriam T. “Nero.” In ABD 4. 1076-1081. David Noel Freedman (ed.). New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992. —. Nero: The End of a Dynasty. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 1984. GUERRA, Anthony J. “Romans 4 as Apologetic Theology.” HTR 81 (1988): 251-270. GUNKEL, Hermann. Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und der Lehre des Apostels Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888. GUNDRY VOLF, Judith M. Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1990. GUTBROD, Walter. “Ἰουδαῖος.” In TDNT. Vol III. 369-383. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. HAACKER, Klauss. “Urchristliche Mission und kulturelle Identität. Beobachtungen zu Strategie und Homiletik des Apostels Paulus. Theologische Beiträge 19 (1988): 61-72. HAAS, Otto. Paulus der Missionar. Ziel, Grundsätze und Methoden der Missionstätigkeit des Apostels Paulus nach seinen eigenen Aussagen. Münsterschwarzach: VierTürme-Verlag, 1971. HABEL, Norman C. Readings from the Perspective of the Earth. Vol 1. Sheffield/ Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press/Pilgrim Press, 2000. —. The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets. Vol 4. Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. HABEL, Norman C. and Vicky BALABANSKI. The Earth Story in the New Testament. Vol 5. Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2005. HABEL, Norman C. and Peter TRUDINGER. Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics. SBLSymS 46. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008. HABEL, Norman C. and Shirley WURST (eds.). The Earth Story in Genesis. Vol 2. Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. —. The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions. Vol 3. Sheffield/Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. HAFEMANN, Scott J. “‘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 in Honour of Peter T. O’Brien. 131-146. Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP/Apollos, 2000. —. Suffering and the Ministry of the Spirit: Paul’s Defense of His Ministry in 2 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. —. “The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law, and the Temple of God’s Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul’s Thought.” Evangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche: Fetschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag. 172-189. Jostein Ådna, Scott J. Hafemann, Otfried Hofius, eds. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

—. “The ‘Temple of the Spirit’ as the Inaugural Fulfillment of the New Covenant within the Corinthian Correspondence.” Ex Auditu 12 (1996): 29-42. HAHNE, Harry A. The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8.1922 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. JSNTSS 336. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2006. HANIMANN, J. “‘Nous avons été abreuvés d’un seul Esprit.’ Note sur 1 Co 12,13b.” NouvRT 94 (1972): 400-405. HARDIN, Justin K. Galatians and the Imperial Cult. WUNT 2.237. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. HARINK, Douglas. Paul Among the Postliberals. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2003. HARNACK, Adolf von. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. 2 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1924. HARRILL, J. Albert. The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. —. “Paul and Empire: Studying Roman Identity After the Cultural Turn.” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 281-311. —. “The Psychology of Slaves in the Gospel Parables: A Case Study in Social History.” BZ 55 (2011): 63-74. —. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006. —. “The Slave Self: Paul and the Discursive ‘I’.” In The English Bible, King James Version, Volume 2: The New Testament and Apocrypha. Norton Critical Editions. 1448-1459. Gerald Hammond and Austin Busch, eds. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. —. “Slavery and Inhumanity: Keith Bradley’s Legacy on Slavery in New Testament Studies.” BI 21 (2013): 506-514. HARRISON, James R. “Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki.” JSNT 25.1 (2002): 71-96. HARVEY, John D. Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul’s Letters. ETS. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998. HAYS, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 1989. —. “Have We Found Abraham to Be our Forefather According to the Flesh? A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1.” NovT 27 (1985): 76-98. HECKEL, Ulrich. “Der Dorn im Fleisch: Die Krankheit des Paulus in 2Kor 12,7 und Gal 4,13f.” ZNW 84 (1993): 65-92. HEIDLAND, Hans-Wolfgang. “λογίζομαι, λογισμός.” In TDNT. Vol IV. 284-291. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. HEIL, John Paul. Romans: Paul’s Letter of Hope. AnBib 112. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1987. HEILIG, Christoph J., Thomas Hewitt, and Michael F. Bird (eds.). God and the Faithfulness of Paul. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2017.

288

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HEMPEL, Charlotte. “The Treatise of the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community. In Dualism in Qumran. LSTS 76. 102-220. Géza Xeravits, ed. London: T&T Clark, 2010. HENGEL, Martin. Judentum, Griechen und Barbaren: Aspekte der Hellenisieruing des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit. SBS 76: Stuttgart: KBW, 1989. HERMANN, Ingo. Kyrios und Pneuma: Studien zur Christologie der paulinischen Hauptbriefe. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1961. HILDENBRANDT, Wilf. An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. HODGSON, Robert. “Paul the Apostle and First Century Tribulation Lists.” ZNW 74 (1983): 59-80. HOLDSWORTH, Ben. “The Other Intercessor: The Holy Spirit as Familia-Petitioner for the Father’s Filiusfamilia in Romans 8:26-27.” AUSS 42 (2004): 325-346. HOLLOWAY, Paul A. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy. SNTSMS 112. Cambridge: CUP, 2001. HORN, Friedrich Wilhelm. Das Angeld des Geistes: Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie. FRLANT 154. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. —. “Wandel im Geist: zur pneumatologischen Begründung der Ethik bei Paulus.” KD 38 (1992): 149-170. HORRELL, David G. “A New Perspective on Paul? Rereading Paul in a Time of Ecological Crisis.” JSNT 33.1 (2010): 3-30. —. The Bible and the Environment: Towards a Critical Ecological Biblical Theology. Biblical Challenges in the Contemporary World. Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2010. —. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. London/ New York: T&T Clark, 2005. HORRELL, David G., Cherryl HUNT, and Christopher SOUTHGATE. Greening Paul: Rereading the Apostle in a Time of Ecological Crisis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. HORRELL, David G., Cherryl HUNT, Christopher SOUTHGATE, and Francesca STAVRAKOPOULOU, eds. Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. HORSLEY, Richard A. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003. —, ed. Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000. —, ed. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, PA/London/New York: Trinity Press, 2004. —. “The Slave Systems of Classical Antiquity and Their Recognition by Modern Scholars.” In Slavery in Text and Interpretation. Semeia 83/84. 19-66. Allen Dwight Callahan, Richard A. Horsley, and Abraham Smith, eds. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 1998. HOYLE, R. B. The Holy Spirit in Paul. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928. HVALVIK, Reidar and Karl Olav SANDNES, eds. Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation. WUNT 1.336. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

HUBBARD, Robert L., Jr. “The Spirit and Creation.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. 71-91. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011. HUNTER, W. Bingham. “Prayer.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. 725-734. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 1993. IBITA, Ma Marilou. “In Search for a Vision of an Inclusive Future for a Hungry and Thirsty World: Rom 14:17 in a Normativity of the Future Perspective.” In Normativity of the Future: Reading Biblical and Other Authoritative Texts in an Eschatological Perspective. 197-238. Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, eds. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. —. “Re-Reading the Lord’s Supper in Corinth (1 Cor 11:17-34): A Normativity of the Future Perspective.” In Normativity of the Future: Reading Biblical and Other Authoritative Texts in an Eschatological Perspective. 239-277. Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, eds. Leuven, Peeters, 2010. ISAACS, Marie E. The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament. Heythrop Monographs 1. London: Heythrop College, 1976. JEFFERS, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 1999. JERVELL, Jacob. “The Letter to the Romans.” In The Romans Debate. 61-74. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. JEWETT, Robert. “Ecumenical Theology for the Sake of Mission: Romans 1:1-17 + 15:14-16:24.” In Pauline Theology: Romans. Vol 3. 89-108. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. —. “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission.” In The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. 142-161. Jacob Neusner, Peter Borgen, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Richard Horsley, eds. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1988. —. “The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Reading Rom 8:18-23 Within the Imperial Context.” In Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. 26-46. Richard A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg, PA/London/New York: Trinity Press, 2004. —. “Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter.” Int 36 (1982): 5-20. —. “The Question of the ‘Apportioned Spirit’ in Paul’s Letters: Romans as a Case Study.” In The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. 193-206. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker and Stephen C. Barton, eds. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004. —. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986. JOHNSON, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven, CT: London: Yale University Press, 2009. —. “Proselytism and Witness in Earliest Christianity: An Essay in Origins.” In Sharing the Book. 145-157. John Witte Jr. and Richard C. Martin, eds. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999.

290

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOHNSON Hodge, Caroline. “The Question of Identity: Gentiles as Gentiles – but also Not – in Pauline Communities.” In Paul Within Judaism: Restoring the FirstCentury Context to the Apostle. 153-173. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, eds. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. JONES, Brian W. “Claudius.” In ABD 1. 1054. David Noel Freedman, ed. New York et al.: Doubleday, 1992. JOUBERT, Stephan. Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Reflection in Paul’s Collection. WUNT 124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. KARRIS, Robert J. “Romans 14,1-15,13 and the Occasion of Romans.” In The Romans Debate. 75-99. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. KÄSEMANN, Ernst. Paulinische Perspektiven. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1969. Eng. trans. Perspectives on Paul. 1st ed. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971. KECK, Leander E. “What Makes Romans Tick?” In Pauline Theology III: Romans. Num. 23. 3-29. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2002. KEENER, Craig S. “‘Fleshly’ Versus Spirit Perspectives in Romans 8:5-8.” In Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman. 211-229. Pauline Studies 5. Stanley E. Porter, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. “Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius’ Biography and Tacitus’ History, with Implications for the Gospels’ Historical Reliability.” BBR 21.3 (2011): 331-356. KEESMAAT, Sylvia C. “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8.14-20.” JSNT 54 (1994): 29-56. —. Paul and his Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition. JSNTSS 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. KEMMER, A. “Maria und Martha: Zur Deutungsgeschichte von Lk 10,38ff. im alten Mönchtum.” Erbe und Auftrag (1964): 355-367. KIM, Johann D. God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9-11. SBLDS 176. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 2000. KIM, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. WUNT 140. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. KLEIN, Günter. “Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes.” In Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. BevT 50. 129-144. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969. —. “Paul’s Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans.” In The Romans Debate. 32-49. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. KLUMBIES, Paul Gerhard. “Der Eine Gott des Paulus: Röm 3,21-23 als Brennpunkt paulinischer Theo-logie.” ZNW 85 (1994): 192-206. KNOX, John. “Romans 15:14-33 and Paul’s Conception of His Apostolic Mission.” JBL 83 (1964): 1-11. KOESTERMANN, Erich. “Ein folgenschwerer Irrtum des Tacitus (Annals 15.44f)?” Historia 16 (1967): 456-469. KOSKENNIEMI, Erkki. “Philo and Classical Education.” In Reading Philo: A Handbook on Philo of Alexandria. 102-128. Torrey Seland, ed. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

KRÜGER, Julian. Nero: Der römische Kaiser und seine Zeit. Köln/Weimar/Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2012. KÜMMEL, Werner G. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965. KUSS, Otto. Paulus: Die Rolle des Apostels in der theologischen Entwicklung der Urkirche. 2nd ed. Auslegung und Verkündigung 3. Regensburg: Pustet, 1976. LA BONNARDIÈRE, Anne-Marie. “Marthe et Marie, figures de l’Église d’après S. Augustin.” VSpir 86 (1952): 404-427. LAMBRECHT, Jan. “Paul’s Appeal and the Obedience to Christ: The Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 10-16. Bib 77 (1996): 398-416. —. “Paul’s Logic in Romans 3:29-30.” JBL 119 (2000): 526-528. —. “Present World and Christian Hope: A Consideration of Rom 8:18-30.” Jeev 8 (1978): 29-30. —. The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation. Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs 14. Louvain: Peeters/Eerdmans, 1992. LAMPE, Peter. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte. WUNT 2.18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. LANE, William L. “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity During the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement.” In Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. 196-244. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1988. LELAND, E. “Die Martha-Maria Perikope Lukas 10,38-42.” ST 13 (1959): 70-85. LEVISON, John R. “Did the Spirit Withdraw from Israel? An Evaluation of the Earliest Jewish Data.” NTS 43 (1997): 35-57. —. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009. —. “Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus.” JSJ 26 (1995): 271-323. —. “Josephus’ Interpretation of the Divine Spirit. JJS 47 (1996): 234-255. —. “Prophetic Inspiration in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” JQR 85 (1995): 297-329. —. “The Debut of the Divine Spirit in Josephus’ Antiquities.” HTR 87 (1994): 123138. —. “The Pluriform Foundation of Early Christian Pneumatology.” In Advents of Pneumatology: An Introduction to the Current Study of Pneumatology. 66-85. B. E. Hinze and L. Dabney, eds. Marquette, WI: Marquette University Press, 2001. —. “The Promise of the Spirit of Life in the Book of Ezekiel.” In Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity. 247-259. Donald Capes et al., eds. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. —. “The Prophetic Spirit as an Angel According to Philo.” HTR 88 (1995): 189207. —. “Holy Spirit.” In The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. 291-293. Craig Evans, ed. New York/London: Routledge, 2010.

292

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “The Spirit and the Temple in Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians.” In Paul and His Theology. 189-215. Stanley Porter, ed. Leiden: Brill, 2006. —. The Spirit in First Century Judaism. AGAJU 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. “The Two Spirits in Qumran Theology.” In The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol 2. 169-264. James H. Charlesworth, ed. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. LICHTENBERGER, Hermann. “Spirits and Demons in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. 14-20. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton, eds. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004. LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, L. J. Paul the Missionary. CBET 34. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. LITTLE, Christopher R. Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the Twentieth-First Century. SBL 80. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. LODAHL, Michael E. Shekinah Spirit: Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion. New York: Paulist, 1992. LOFTHOUSE, W. F. “‘I’ and ‘We’ in the Pauline Letters.” BiTr 6 (1955): 72-80. —. “Singular and Plural in St. Paul’s Letters.” ExpT 58 (1953): 241-245. LONGENECKER, Bruce W. The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. LONGENECKER, Richard N. Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s Most Famous Letter. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011. —. “The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstantial Expression of New Testament Thought.” In Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd. 161-185. Robert A. Guelich, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. LONGMAN, Tremper III. “Spirit and Wisdom.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. 95-110. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, eds. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2011. LUST, Johan and Erik EYNIKEL. “ἀσθένεια.” In A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2nd ed. 88. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. LUZ, Ulrich. Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus. BEvT 49: München: Kaiser, 1968. MACRAE, George W. “A Short Note on Romans 8:26-27.” HTR 73 (1980): 227-230. MALEPARAMPIL, Joseph. The “Trinitarian” Formulae in St. Paul. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995. MALINA, Bruce J. and Jerome H. NEYREY, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World.” In The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. 25-62. Jerome H. Neyrey, ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. MANGAN, Edward A. “Was Saint Paul an Invalid?” CBQ 5 (1943): 68-72. MANSON, T. W. “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans – And Others.” In The Romans Debate. 1-16. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977. MARTIN, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

MARTIN, Ralph P. “The Spirit in 2 Corinthians in Light of the ‘Fellowship of the Holy Spirit’ in 2 Corinthians 13:14.” In Eschatology and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of George Raymond Beasley-Murray. 113-128. W. H. Gloer ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988. MATERA, Frank J. “The Culmination of Paul’s Argument to the Galatians: Gal 5:16:17. JSNT 32. MCDERMOTT, James M. “The Biblical Doctrine of ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ.” BZ 19 (1975): 219-233. MEEK, James A. “The New Perspective on Paul.” ExpT 114 (2003): 383-385. MEEKS, Wayne A. “Judgment and Brother: Romans 14:1-15:13.” In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. 290-300. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. MIDDENDORF, Michael Paul. The “I” in the Storm: A Study of Romans 7. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1997. MILIK, J. T. “Fragment d’une source du Psautier (4Q Ps 89). RB 73 (1966): 94-106. MITCHELL, C. C. “The Holy Spirit’s Intercessory Ministry.” BSac 139 (1982): 230-242. MITCHELL, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991. MONTAGUE, George. The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition. New York: Paulist, 1976. MONTEFIORE, Claude G. “Rabbinic Judaism and the Epistles of Paul.” JQR 13 (19001901): 161-217. MOORE, George F. “Christian Writers on Judaism.” HTR 14 (1921): 197-254. MOSER, Paul K. “Apostle.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. 78-79. David Noel Freedman, ed. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. MOULE, C. F. D. The Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. MURARIU, Cosmin-Constantin. “Impermissibility or Impossibility? A Re-Examination of 2 Cor 12:4.” In Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians. BiTS 16. 379-398. Reimund Bieringer et al., eds. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. NANOS, Mark. “The Jewish Context of the Gentile Audience Addressed in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” CBQ 61 (1999): 283-304. —. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996. NESTE, Ray Van. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles. JSNTSS 280. London/ New York: T&T Clark, 2004. NEUSNER, Jacob. “Other Readings of Judaism in Tannaite Times: Sander’s Paul and Judaism.” In Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah. 405-419. Jacob Neusner, ed. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988. NEWMAN, Judith H. “Prayer.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Me-R. Vol 4. Katharine D. Sakenfeld, ed. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2009. NICKLE, Keith F. The Collection: A Study in Paul’s Strategy. SBT 48. London: SCM Press, 1966.

294

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NOAH, Hacham. “The Letter of Aristeas: A New Exodus Story?” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistics and Roman Period 36 (2005): 1-20. O’BRIEN, Peter T. Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995. —. “Romans 8:26,27. A Revolutionary Approach to Prayer?” RTR 46 (1986): 6573. OBENG, E. A. “The Origins of the Spirit Intercession Motif in Romans 8.26.” NTS 32 (1986): 621-632. —. “The Spirit Intercession Motif in Paul.” ET 95 (1983-1984): 361-364. OCHSENMEIER, Erwin. Mal, souffrance et justice de Dieu selon Romains 1-3: Étude, exégétique et théologique. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. —. “Romans 1:11-12: A Clue to the Purpose of Romans?” ETL 83 (2007): 395-406. OEPKE, Albrecht. Die Missionspredigt des Apostels Paulus. Eine biblisch-theologische und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. MF 2. Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1920. OGEREAU, Julien. “The Jerusalem Collection as κοινωνία: Paul’s Global Politics of Socio-Economic Equality and Solidarity.” NTS 58 (2012): 364-365. OLLROG, Walter Henning. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zu Theorie und Praxis der paulinischen Mission. WMANT 50. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. OSTEN-SACKEN, Peter von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. —. Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. PARK, Eung Chun. Either Jew or Gentile: Paul’s Unfolding Theology of Inclusivity. Lousville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. PARSONS, Michael. “Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing.” EvQ 88 (1988): 99-127. PAULSEN, Henning. Überlieferung und Auslegang in Römer 8. WMANT 43: Düsseldorf: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. PEDERSEN, Sigfred. “Theologische Überlegungen zur Isagogik des Römerbriefes.” ZNW 76 (1985): 47-67. PELT, M. V., Walter C. KAISER, and D. I. BLOCK. “‫רוּח‬.” ַ In NIDOTTE 3. 3.1073. William A. VanGemeren, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. PETERSON, David G. Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’. Cambridge et al.: CUP, 1993. PILCH, John J. Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000. PIÑERO, Antonio and Jesús PELÁEZ. El Nuevo Testamento: Introducción al studio de los primeros escritos cristianos. Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1995. —. The Study of the New Testament: A Comprehensive Introduction. TBS. David E. Orton and Paul Ellingworth, trans. Leiderdorp: Deo Publishing, 2003. PLUMMER, Robert L. Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission. PBM: Bletchley: Paternoster, 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

PORTER, Stanley E. and Sean A. ADAMS. Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Leiden/ Boston, MA: Brill, 2010. PRAEDER, Susan Marie. “Acts 27:1-28:16: Sea Voyages in Ancient Literature and the Theology of Luke-Acts.” CBQ 46 (1984): 701-703. RABENS, Volker. “Paul’s Rhetoric of Demarcation: Separation from ‘Unbelievers’ (2 Cor 6:14-7:1) in the Corinthian Conflict.” In Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians. 229-253. BiTS 16. Reimund Bieringer et al., eds. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2012. RÄISÄNEN, H. “Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm 3:28) und das ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Röm 8:2).” NTS 26 (1979-1980): 101-117. RAMELLI, Ilaria L. E. “Spiritual Weakness, Illness and Death in 1 Corinthians 11:30.” JBL 1 (2011): 145-163. REICHERT, Angela. Der Römerbrief als Gratwanderung: Eine Untersuchung zur Abfassungsproblematik. FRLANT 194. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. REICKE, Bo. “ χρῆμα, χρηματίζω, χρηματισμός.” In TDNT. Vol IX. 480-482. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. RENGSTORF, Karl Heinrich. “ ἀποστέλλω κτλ.” In TDNT. Vol I. 398-447. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. RICŒUR, Paul. From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics II. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1991. ROETZEL, Calvin J. “The Language of War (2 Cor. 10:1-6) and the Language of Weakness (2 Cor. 11:21b-13:10).” BibInt 17 (2009): 77-99. ROOKE, Deborah W. “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7.” Bib 81 (2000): 80-94. ROSNER, Brian S. Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5-7. AGaJU 22. Leiden/New York: Brill, 1994. —. “The Missionary Character of 1 Corinthians.” In New Testament Theology in Light of the Church’s Mission: Essays in Honor of I. Howard Marshall. 181-196. Jon C. Laansma, Grant Osborne, and Ray Van Neste, eds. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011. —, ed. Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches. Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1995. ROWE, C. Kavin. Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke. CBC. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2006. RUNIA, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. CRINT. Assen/Minneapolis, MN: Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1993. RUTGERS, Leonard Victor. “Roman Policy Toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome During the First Century C.E.” In Judaism and Christianity in FirstCentury Rome. 93-116. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson, eds. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1988. SAAKE, Helmut. “Paulus als Ekstatiker: Pneumatologische Beobachtungen 2 Cor. xii 110.” NovT 15 (1973): 153-160.

296

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SAMPLEY, J. Paul. “Romans in a Different Light: Responding to Robert Jewett.” In Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans. SBLSymS 23. 109-129. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2002. —. “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1-15:13.” In The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. 40-52. L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough, eds. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. SANDERS, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM Press, 1977. —. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983. SASSE, Hermann. “γῆ, ἐπίγειος.” In TDNT. Vol I. 677-681. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. SAVAGE, Timothy B. Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. SNTSMS 86. Cambridge: CUP, 1996. SCHMIDT, Karl Ludwig. “ἔθνος in the NT.” In TDNT. Vol II. 369-372. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. SCHMITHALS, Walter. Die Briefe des Paulus ihrer ursprünglichen Form. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986. —. Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem. SNT 9: Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1975. SCHNABEL, Eckhard J. “Apostle.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2nd ed. 34-45. Downer’s Grove, IL/Nottingham: IVP, 2013. —. Early Christian Mission: Volume One: Jesus and the Twelve. Downer’s Grove, IL/ Leicester: IVP/Apollos, 2004. —. Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2008. SCHNEIDERS, Sandra M. “Feminist Ideology Criticism and Biblical Hermeneutics.” BTB 19 (1989): 3-10. —. The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Literature. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1991. SCHNELLE, Udo. Paulus: Leben und Denken. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. SCHNIEWIND, J. “Das Seufzen des Geistes: Röm 8.26,27.” In Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze. 81-103. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1952. SCHOEMAKER, W. R. “The Use of Ruach in the Old Testament and pneùma in the New Testament.” JBL 23 (1904): 13-67. SCHRAGE, Wolfgang. Ethik des Neuen Testaments. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. —. “Leud, Kreuz und Eschaton. Die Peristasenkataloge als Merkmale paulinischer theologia crucis und Eschatologie.” EvTh 34 (1974): 142-150. SCHRENK, Gottlob. “Der Römerbrief als Missionsdokument.” In Studien zu Paulus. 81106. AThANT 26. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1954. SCHÜRER, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A. D. 135). Vol III: Part 1. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, eds. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

SCHWEIZER, Eduard. “πνεῦμα, πνευματικός.” In TDNT. Vol VI. 392. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley, trans. and ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968. —. The Holy Spirit. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980. SCOTT, E. F. The Spirit in the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923. SCROGGS, Robin. “Paul: ΣΟΦΟΣ and ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ.” NTS 14 (1967-1968): 33-55. SEESEMANN, Heinrich. “οἶδα.” In TDNT. Vol V. 116-119. Gerhard Friedrich, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed. and trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. SEKKI, Arthur E. The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989. SENIOR, Donald and Carroll STUHLMUELLER. The Biblical Foundation for Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983. SETERS, John van. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. SHANTZ, Colleen. Paul in Ecstasy: The Neurobiology of the Apostle’s Life and Thought. Cambridge: CUP, 2009. SKRESLET, Stanley K. Comprehending Mission: The Questions, Methods, Themes, Problems, and Prospects of Missiology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2012. SMALLWOOD, E. M. The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden: Brill, 1976. SMITH, Geoffrey. “The Function of ‘Likewise’ (ΩΣΑΥΤΩΣ) in Romans 8:26.” TB 49 (1998): 29-38. SNYMAN, Andreas H. “Style and Meaning in Romans 8:31-39.” Neot 18 (1984): 218231. SOKOLOWSKI, Emil. Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihren Bezeihungen zu einander. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. SPICQ, Ceslas. Agapé: dans le Nouveau Testament: Analyse des textes. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1959. —. “ἀπόστολος.” In Theological Lexicon of the New Testament: Vol 1. 186-194. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. STÄHLIN, Gustav. “ἀσθενής, ἀσθένεια, ἀσθενέω, ἀσθένημα.” TDNT. Vol I. 490-493. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. STALEY, Jeffrey L. “Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9.” Semeia 53 (1991): 55-80. STENDAHL, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976. —. “Paul at Prayer.” Int 34 (1980): 240-249. STRATHMANN, H. “λειτουργέω, λειτουργία, λειτουργός, λειτουργικός.” In TDNT. Vol IV. 215-231. Gerhard Kittel, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967. STUHLMACHER, Peter. “Das Ende des Gesetzes: Über Ursprung und Ansatz der paulinischen Theologie.” ZThK 67 (1970): 14-39. —. “Das neutestamentliche Zeugnis von Herrenmahl,” ZThK 84 (1987): 1-35.

298

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—. “Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes.” ZNW 77 (1986): 180-193. —. “The Purpose of Romans.” In The Romans Debate. 231-242. Karl P. Donfried, ed. Reginald and Ilse Fuller, trans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. SUGGS, M. Jack. “‘The Word is Near You’: Romans 10:6-10 Within the Purpose of the Letter.” In Christian History and Interpretation. 289-312. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. TAJFEL, Henri. Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press, 1978. TALBERT, Charles H. “Money Management in Early Mediterranean Christianity: 2 Corinthians 8 and 9.” RExp 86 (1989): 359-370. TANNEHILL, Robert C. “Varieties of the Synoptic Pronouncement Stories.” Semeia 20 (1981): 101-119. —. “The Pronouncement Story and Its Types.” Semeia 20 (1981): 1-23. TAYLOR, Vincent. Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: MacMillan, 1957. THACKERAY, H. St. J. “Appendix: The Letter of Aristeas.” In An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 531-606. H. B. Swete, ed. Cambridge: CUP, 1914. THATCHER, Tom. Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2010. THEOBALD, Michael. Der Römerbrief. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000. THISELTON, Anthony. “The Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians: Exegesis and Reception History in the Patristic Era.” In The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. 207-228. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton, eds. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004. THOMAS, T. K. “Melchizedek, King and Priest: An Ecumenical Paradigm.” EcumRev 52 (2000): 403-409. THOMPSON, Richard W. “The Inclusion of the Gentiles in Rom 3,27-30.” Bib 69 (1988): 543-546. THORSTEINSSON, Runar M. Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography. ConBNT 40. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003. —. “Paul’s Missionary Duty Toward Gentiles in Rome: A Note on the Punctuation and Syntax of Rom 1.13-15.” NTS 48 (2002): 531-547. TOBIN, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. TONSTAD, Sigve. “Creation Groaning in Labor Pains.” In Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics. SBLSymS 46. 141-149. Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger, eds. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008. TREBILCO, Paul. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. TRUMMER, Peter. “ἄξιος, ἀξίως.” In EDNT 1. 114. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

TUCKER, J. Brian. “The Jerusalem Collection, Economic Inequality, and Human Flourishing: Is Paul’s Concern the Redistribution of Wealth, or a Relationship of Mutuality (or Both)?” Canadian Theological Review 3 (2014): 52-70. TURNER, John C. with Michael A. HOGG et al. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. TURNER, Marie. “God’s Design: The Death of Creation? An Ecojustice Reading of Romans 8.18-30 in the Light of Wisdom 1-2.” In The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions. Vol 3. 168-178. Norman C. Habel and Vicky Balabanski, eds. Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. TURNER, Max. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. UKWUEGBU, Bernard O. “Paraenesis, Identity-forming Norms, or Both? Galatians 5:136:10 in the Light of Social Identity Theory.” CBQ 70 (2008): 538-559. UZUKWU, Gesila Nneka. “The Oneness of Believers: Studying Rom 16,1-16 in the Light of Gal 3,28.” In The Letter to the Romans. BETL 226. 779-788. Udo Schnelle, ed. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009. VANHOYE, A. “Situation et Signification de Hébreux V. 1-10.” NTS 23 (1976-1977): 445-456. VELLANICKAL, Matthew. The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings. AnBib 72. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1977. VERBEKE, Gérard. L’Évolution de la Doctrine du Pneuma du Stoicism à S. Augustin. Paris/Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer/L’Institut Superior de Philosophie, 1945. VOLLMER, Thomas A. “Creation and God’s Dream: Reading Rom 8:18-27 in a Normativity of the Future Perspective.” In Normativity of the Future: Reading Biblical and Other Authoritative Texts in an Eschatological Perspective. 167-196. Reimund Bieringer and Mary Elsbernd, eds. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2010. —. “‘The Fellowship of the Spirit:’ An Evolution of a Theological Concept in 2 Corinthians 13:13(14)?” In Studies in Exegesis and Theology of 2 Corinthians. 427-444. BiTS. Reimund Bieringer, Ma. Marilou Ibita, Dominika Kurek-Chomycz, and Thomas A. Vollmer, eds. Leuven: Peeters, 2013. —. “The Hermeneutics of Imperial Criticism.” In Provoked to Speech: Biblical Hermeneutics as Conversation. 275-291. Reimund Bieringer, Roger Burggraeve, Emmanuel Nathan, and Martijn Steegen, eds. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. VOLZ, P. Der Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheinungen im Alten Testament und im anschliessenden Judentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1910 WARD, James M. “The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm LXXXIX.” VT 11 (1961): 321-339. WARE, James P. The Mission of the Church in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism. NovTSup 120. Leiden: Brill, 2005. WATERS, Guy Prentiss. Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response. Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004. WATSON, Francis. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. SNTSMS 56. Cambridge: CUP, 94-105.

300

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEDDERBURN, Alexander J. M. “Paul’s Collection: Chronology and History.” NTS 48 (2002): 95-110. —. “Pauline Pneumatology and Pauline Theology. In The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn. 144-156. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton, eds. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004. —. The Reasons for Romans. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. WELBORN, Larry. “‘That There May Be Equality’: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal.” NTS 59 (2013): 73-90. WENK, Matthias. Community-Forming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. JPT Supp 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. WERNBERG-MOLLER, P. “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community.” RevQ 3 (1961): 413-442. WESTERHOLM, Stephen. Perspectives on the Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. WICK, Peter. Die urchristlichen Gottesdienste: Entstehung und Entwicklung im Rahmen der frühjüdischen Tempel-, Synagogen-, und Hausfrömmigkeit. BWANT 150. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002. WIELAND, David J. “John 2 and the Pool of Bethesda.” NTS 12 (1965-1966): 392404. WILLIAMSON, Ronald. Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200BC to AD 200. Cambridge et al.: CUP, 1989. WILSON, Todd A. “The Leading of the Spirit and the Curse of the Law: Reassessing Paul’s Response to the Galatian Crisis.” TynBul 57 (2006): 157-160. WINDISCH, Hans. “ βάρβαρος.” In TDNT 1. 547-548, 1964. WINTERMUTE, O. S. “Jubilees.” In 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. 125. James H. Charlesworth, ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. WITHERINGTON, Ben III. “On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples – Luke 8,1-3.” ZNW 70 (1979): 243-248. —. Women in Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and Their Roles as Reflected in His Early Life. SNTSMS 51. Cambridge: CUP, 1984. WRIGHT, Christopher. The Mission of God. Leicester: IVP Academic, 2006. WRIGHT, N. T. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP, 2009. —. “New Exodus: New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3-8.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. 26-35. S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. —. “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire.” In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation. 160-183. Richard A. Horsley, ed. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

—. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. —. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God Vol 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992. YATES, John W. The Spirit and Creation in Paul. WUNT 2.251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. YOUNG, James B. De. “The Meaning of ‘Nature’ in Romans 1 and Its Implications for Biblical Proscription of Homosexual Behavior.” JETS 31 (1988): 429-441. ZAHN, Theodor. “Die seufzende Creatur, Röm 8,18-23: mit Rücksicht auf neuere Auffassungen.” JDTh 10 (1865): 511-542. ZELLER, Dieter. Juden und Heiden in der Mission des Paulus: Studien zum Römerbrief. FB 1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1973.

INDEXES

AUTHORS ABASCIANO, Brian 85 ABEGG, Martin 185 ACHTEMEIER, Paul 132, 155 ADAMS, Sean 40 AGNEW, F. 73-74 AHERN, B. 171 ALAND, Kurt 63 ALETTI, Jean 81, 88, 149 ALLEN, Roland 68 ANDERSEN, Frances 208 ANDERSON, A. 215 ARMERDING, C. 171 ASHLEY, Timothy 211-212 ATTRIDGE, Harold 240-243 BAARLINK, Heinrich 217 BABCOCK, F. 171 BACHMANN, Michael 66 BAILEY, Kenneth 248-250 BALABANSKI, Vicky 31 BALENTINE, Samuel 127 BALLARD, C. 252 BALZ, Horst 13-14, 94, 105, 108, 148, 207 BANISTER, Jamie 156 BARCLAY, William 171 BARDENHEWER, Otto 79 BARNETT, Paul 74, 115, 252-255 BARRÉ, Michael 26, 226, 252, 254 BARRETT, C. K. 15-16, 29, 81, 84, 118, 152, 236-238 BARRIER, Jeremy 254 BARTON, Stephen 2 BAUER, Walter 140, 142, 151 BAUERNFEIND, Otto 143 BAUR, Ferdinand 42 BECKHEUER, Burkhard 122

BEKER, J. 117-118, 175 BELL, Richard 85 BELLEVILLE, Linda 79, 190, 195, 197-199, 202 BÉNÉTREAU, Samuel 153 BENSON, Alphonsus 178-179 BERGER, Klaus 88, 122, 218 BERNARD, J. 236 BERTONE, John 172, 183, 185, 187-189, 201 BETZ, Hans 73, 76, 87, 245-246, 254 Bieringer Reimund, ii 109, 115 BINDEMANN, Walther 152 BIRD, Michael 65, 80 BLACK, David 2, 112, 118, 148, 201, 225, 229-231, 233, 244, 247, 249-253, 257258 BLACK, Matthew 16 BLOCK, Daniel 163-164, 177-179 BOCK, Darrell 166, 217-219 BOLT, John 33, 104, 107 BORCHERT, Gerald 235, 237 BORNKAMM, Günther 43 BOVON, François 234 BOWERS, Paul 68 BOWLEY, James 185 BOWMAN, Alan 58 BOYD, R. 226 BRAATEN, Laurie 22 BRAUN, Roddy 163 BRAY, Gerald 139 BRIGGS, C. 171 BROOTEN, Bernadette 156 BROWN, Raymond 63 BRUCE, F. 76, 172, 198, 237-238, 242 BRUCKNER, James 210 BRUEGGEMANN, Walter 162-163

304

INDEXES

BUCK, Charles 122 BUCUR, Bogdan 135 BUDD, Philip 211-212 BÜHNER, J.-A. 74 BULTMANN, Rudolf 217, 236 BURER, Michael 79 BURK, Denny 35 BÜSCHEL, F. 171, 173 BUSS, Matthäus 68 BUTLER, Trent 163 BYRNE, Brendan 14, 31, 33, 66, 77-79, 85, 91, 105, 156 CAMPBELL, Douglas 56 CAMPBELL, William, ii 22, 44, 57, 68 CARSON, D. A. 44, 129, 236-237 CARTER, Warren 35, 219 CHAE, Daniel 68 CHAMPLIN, Edward 58, 62 CHARLES, R. 230 CHARLESWORTH, James 128 CHEVALLIER, M.-A. 172 CHILDS, Brevard 162, 209 CHOW, John 34 CHRISTOFFERSON, Olle 22-25, 102, 107 CLAMER, Albert 208 CLIFFORD, Richard 214 COCKERELL, Gareth 224 COHEN, Jeffrey 210 COLE, R. 213 COLLINS, John 219 COLLINS, Raymond 249-250 CONRADIE, Ernst 32 CONZELMANN, Hans 124, 159, 237-238 COOK, Edward 185 CRANFIELD, C. E. B. 63, 74, 86-87, 105, 107, 122, 124, 126-127, 134, 142, 153, 156 CRANFORD, Michael 88 CROSSAN, John 34-35 CULLMANN, Oscar 129 CURRIE, S. 171 DAHL, Nils 69 DAHOOD, Mitchell 128 DAS, Andrew 41, 43, 47, 52-54, 58, 63, 112 DE BOER, Martinus 245 DE LA POTTERIE, Ignace 101-102

DELLING, Gerhard 109 DENNIS, John 82, 114 DESILVA, David 219 DE VAUX, J. 211 DE YOUNG, James 156 DIBELIUS, Martin 159 DICK, Karl 107 DICKSON, John 68 DIETZEL, Armin 129 DOCKERY, David 2 DODD, C. H. 78, 121, 125, 152, 156 DOEVE, Jan 75 DONFRIED, Karl 41-42, 53, 55-56, 191 DOWNS, David 122 DOZEMAN, Thomas 162, 209-210 DUGUID, Iain 213 DUHM, Bernhard 214 DULING, Dennis 253 DUMORTIER, Jean-Bernhard 216 DUNN, James 14-15, 21, 57, 65-66, 80, 89, 94, 100, 105, 107, 112, 114, 121, 140, 142, 148-150, 154, 156, 158, 172175, 195-196, 208, 210, 226, 237-238 DUPONT-SOMMER, Andre 185 EASTMAN, Susan 246-247 EICHRODT, Walther 211 EISENBAUM, Pamela 84 ELLINGWORTH, Paul 138, 239 ELLIOTT, Neil 36-37, 63 ELSBERND, Mary 109 ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Troels 172 EPP, Eldon 79 ERLEMANN, Kurt 195 ESLER, Philip 10, 60, 81, 152, 199, 230 EYNIKEL, Erik 231 FALK, Daniel 127 FEE, Gordon 15, 20-21, 41, 104-105, 108, 114-115, 124-125, 152, 154, 158, 171172, 174-176, 191-192, 194-195, 197, 199-200 FIRTH, David 177 FITZMYER, Joseph 13, 73, 87, 109, 123, 143-144, 156, 217, 218, 235, 242, 259 FLEMING, Dean 68 FLOYD, Michael 215 FOKKELMAN, Jan 208

INDEXES

FORDE, Gerhard 104 FRANCE, R. T. 165, 233 FRETHEIM, Terence 210 FREY, Jörg 140, 172, 182, 185-186, 200 FUCHS, Ernst 95, 172 FÜHRER, Werner 85, 91 FUNG, Ronald 245 FURNISH, Victor 122, 198 GAGNON, Robert 63 GAMBLE, Harry 63 GARCÍA-MARTÍNEZ, Florentino 183 GARLAND, David 254-255 GAUGLER, E. 142, 149 GAVENTA, Beverly 237-238 GEHRING, Roger 68 GELDENHUYS, Norval 166, 217, 235 GEORGE, A. 217 GEORGE, Timothy 76 GEORGI, Dieter 122 GIENIUSZ, Andrzej 103, 105, 112, 148149, 207, 225-226, 228-229 GIGNAC, Alain 121 GLANCY, Jennifer 11, 253 GOLDINGAY, John 215-216 GOLDSTEIN, Jonathan 164 GOODMAN, Martin 62, 70 GRÄBE, Peter 195 GRANT, Michael 62 GRAY, George 212 GREATHOUSE, William 48, 132, 207 GREEN, Joel 217-218 GREENWAY, Roger 68 GREENWOOD, David 172, 196 GREEVEN, Heinrich 128-129 GRESSMAN, Hugo 209 GRIFFIN, Miriam 62 GROSHEIDE, F. 158 GROSVENOR, Mary 198 GUERRA, Anthony 88 GUNDRY VOLF, Judith 259 GUNKEL, Hermann 171, 173 GUTBROD, Walter 112 GUTHRIE, Donald 159, 243 GUTHRIE, George 239 HAACKER, Klauss 68 HAAS, Otto 68

305

HABEL, Norman 31 HAFEMANN, Scott 172, 186, 196, 245 HAGNER, Donald 233 HAHN, Scott 73 HAHNE, Harry 101, 108, 110 HAMILTON, Victor 208 HANIMANN, J. 172 HARDIN, Justin 35 HARINK, Douglas 122 HARMAN, Allan 216 HARNACK, Adolf 69 HARRILL, J. 11, 35, 256 HARRINGTON, Daniel 234 HARRIS, Murray 114-115, 195-198, 252253, 255 HARRISON, James 34, 37 HARRISON, R. K. 213 HARVEY, John 39, 110 HAYS, Richard 22, 25, 88, 158 HAWTHORNE, Gerald 201 HEADLAM, Arthur 78, 142 HECKEL, Ulrich 245 HEIDLAND, Hans-Wolfgang 108 HEIL, John 167-169 HEILIG, Christoph 80 HEMPEL, Charlotte 183 HENGEL, Martin 85 HERMANN, Ingo 175 HEWITT, J. 80 HILDENBRANDT, Wilf 179 HODGE, Charles 227 HODGSON, Robert 259 HOGG, Michael 2 HOLDSWORTH, Ben 10-13 HOLLOWAY, Paul 201 HOOKER, Paul 163 HORN, Friedrich 172-173, 191, 199 HORRELL, David 31-32, 122, 229 HORSLEY, Richard 11, 34-35 HOYLE, R. 171 HUBBARD, Robert 177 HUBY, P. 79 HUGHES, Philip 198 HULTGREN, Arland 75, 83, 85-86, 142, 257-258 HUNT, Cherryl 31-32, 229 HUNTER, W. 129 HVALVIK, Reidar 129

306

INDEXES

HYATT, Darlene 156 ISAACS, Marie 172 JEFFERS, James 219 JERVELL, Jacob 44-46 JEWETT, Robert 35, 37-39, 49, 53, 78, 85-86, 89-90, 101, 108, 110-111, 113, 116-117, 119, 123-124, 140-143, 148, 152-153, 156, 191, 200-201, 207, 227, 229 JOHNSON, L.T. 69, 128, 217, 235, 237, 240, 242 JOHNSON HODGE, Caroline 83 JONES, Brian 62 JOUBERT, Stephan 122 JUST, Arthur 217-218 KAISER, Walter 177-178 KARAVIDOPOULOS, Johannes KARRIS, Robert 54-55 KÄSEMANN, Ernst 17-20, 79, 94, 102, 148, 191 KECK, Leander 47, 77, 222 KEENER, Craig 60-61, 140, 233-234 KEESMAAT, Sylvia 25-27, 101, 110, 226 KELLY, John 155 KEMMER, A. 217 KIM, Johann 120 KIM, Seyoon 66 KLEIN, Günter 50-52 KLEIN, Ralph 163 KLUMBIES, Paul 82 KNOPPERS, Gary 163 KNOX, John 69 KOESTER, Craig 243 KOESTERMANN, Erich 61 KOSKENNIEMI, Erkki 188 KRÜGER, Julian 62 KRUSE, Colin 80, 89, 94, 256 KÜMMEL, Werner 2 KUSS, Otto 41 LA BONNARDIÈRE, Anne-Marie 217 LAGRANGE, M. 82, 127, 156, 165 LAMBRECHT, Jan 83, 107, 112, 199, 228 LAMPE, Peter 57, 61 LANE, William 34, 137, 165, 241 LEENHARDT, Franz 94

LELAND, E. 217 LENSKI, R. 144, 200 LEUPOLD, H. 215 LEVISON, John 27-28, 135, 172-173, 179182, 189 LICHTENBERGER, Hermann 182 LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, B.J. 68-69 LIETZMANN, Hans 17 LINDARS, Barnabas 235 LINTOTT, Andrew 58 LITTLE, Christopher 68 LODAHL, Michael 172 LOFTHOUSE, W. 228-229 LOHMEYER, Ernst 201 LONGENECKER, Bruce 67, 246 LONGENECKER, Richard 41, 49-50, 65, 76, 111, 116, 242 LONGMAN, Tremper 164, 177 LOUW, Johannes 132-133 LUST, Johan 231 LUZ, Ulrich 104 LYONS, George 48, 107 MACRAE, George 138, 150 MALEPARAMPIL, Joseph 198 MALINA, Bruce 217-218, 237-238 MANGAN, Edward 245 MARSHALL, I. Howard 165, 217 MANSON, T. 43 MARTIN, Dale 193 MARTIN, Ralph 197 MATERA, Frank 76-77, 199, 222,227, 257258 MARTYN, J. Louis 245 MAYS, James 216 MCDERMOTT, James 198 MCKENZIE, John 164 MEEK, James 66 MEEKS, Wayne 53 MEIER, John 233 METZGER, Bruce 54, 87, 100-101 MIDDENDORF, Michael 111 MICHAELS, J. Ramsay 155, 236 MICHEL, Otto 141 MILIK, Joseph 214 MITCHELL, Alan 239-242 MITCHELL, C. 226 MITCHELL, Margaret 193, 226

INDEXES

MOFFATT, James 240-241 MONTAGUE, George 172 MONTEFIORE, Claude 65 MOO, Douglas 13, 44, 47-48, 64, 78, 85-86, 88-89, 105, 121-122, 143, 152, 207, 227, 229, 245, 257-258 MOORE, George 65 MOORES, John 260 MORRIS, Leon 44, 95, 112-113, 121, 124, 144, 217, 235-236, 258 MOSER, Paul 73 MOULE, C. F. D. 172 MOULTON, James 154 MOUNCE, Robert 94 MOUNCE, William 160-161 MURARIU, Cosmin-Constantin 20 MURPHY, Roland 164 MURRAY, John 14, 81, 113, 115-116, 120, 123, 124, 143, 152, 200 NANOS, Mark 63 NATHAN, Emmanuel 115 NELSON, Richard 162 NEUSNER, Jacob 65 NEWMAN, Judith 129 NEYREY, Jerome 217, 236-237 NICKLE, Keith 122 NIDA, Eugene 132-133 NOAH, Hacham 220 NOLLAND, John 217-218, 233-234 NOTH, Martin 211 NYGREN, Anders 42 O’BRIEN, Peter 129, 137, 152, 202, 239, 241-244 OBENG, E. 135-136, 172 OBERLINNER, Lorenz 159, 161 OCHSENMEIER, Erwin 118 OEPKE, Albrecht 68 OGEREAU, Julien 122 OLLROG, Walter 79 OMANSON, Roger 101 OSBORNE, Grant 73, 88 OSTEN-SACKEN, Peter von der 94, 106, 185, 191 PARK, Eung 83 PARSONS, Michael 122

307

PARSONS, Mikeal 237 PAULSEN, Henning 17, 101, 104-105, 108 PEDERSEN, Sigfred 85, 90 PELÁEZ, Jesús 2 PEROWNE, J. J. Scott 215 PETERSON, David 138, 237, 239 PILCH, John 236-238 PIÑERO, Antonio 2 PLUMMER, Alfred 218 PLUMMER, Robert 68 POLHILL, John 237 PORTER, Stanley 39, 109 PRAEDER, Susan 237 PROPP, William 209 RABENS, Volker 67 RÄISÄNEN, Heikki 172 RAMELLI, Ilaria 247 REED, Jonathan 34 REICHERT, Angela 56 REICKE, Bo 136-137 RENGSTORF, Karl 73, 187 REUMANN, John 202 RIDDERBOS, Herman 236 ROETZEL, Calvin 252 ROOKE, Deborah 242 ROHRBAUGH, Richard 218 ROSNER, Brian 68, 122 ROWE, C. 217 RUNIA, David 188 RUTGERS, Leonard 59 RYAN, Judith 202 SAAKE, Helmut 195 SAMPLEY, J. 53, 111 SANDAY, William 78, 142 SANDERS, E. P. 65-66, 82 SANDNES, Karl-Olav 129 SASSE, Hermann 85 SAVAGE, Timothy 252 SCHAEFER, Konrad 214-215 SCHELKLE, Karl 155 SCHLATTER, Adolf 198 SCHLIER, Heinrich 74, 78, 115-116, 143, 153 SCHMIDT, Karl 112 SCHMITHALS, Walter 41, 198 SCHNABEL, Eckhard 68, 71-72-73, 84-85, 90, 132

308

INDEXES

SCHNACKENBURG, Rudolf 236 SCHNEIDER, Tammi 163 SCHNELLE, Udo 2-4, 48, 50, 52, 263-264 SCHNIEWIND, J. 171 SCHOEMAKER, W. 171 SCHRAGE, Wolfgang 122, 259 SCHREINER, Thomas 82, 86, 89, 94, 127, 142-143, 148, 156 SCHRENK, Gottlob 68 SCHULLER, Eileen 185 SCHÜRER, Emil 58-60 SCHWEIZER, Eduard 172, 198 SCOTT, E. 171 SCROGGS, Robin 172 SEESEMANN, Heinrich 132 SEKKI, Arthur 172, 182-183 SENIOR, Donald 68 SHANTZ, Colleen 16-17 SILVA, Moisés 202 SKRESLET, Stanley 72 SLOYAN, Gerard 236 SMALLWOOD, E. 59 SMITH, D. 236 SMITH, Geoffrey 152, 155 SMYTH, Herbert 154 SNYMAN, Andreas 105 SOKOLOWSKI, Emil 173 SOUTHGATE, Christopher 31-32, 229 SPICQ, Ceslas 74, 198 STÄHLIN, Gustav 230-231 STALEY, Jeffrey 236 STEGEMANN, Hartmut 185 STEIN, Robert 165-166 STENDAHL, Krister 65, 129-131 STIBBS, A. 155 STOWERS, Stanley 63 STRATHMANN, H. 53 STUBBS, David 211 STUHLMACHER, Peter 56, 121, 158 STUHLMUELLER, Carroll 68 SUGGS, M. 44-45 TAJFEL, Henri 2 TALBERT, Charles 122, 217 TANNEHILL, Robert 218 TAYLOR, Vincent 218 TIGCHELAAR, Eibert 183

THACKERAY, H. 221 THATCHER, Tom 35 THEOBALD, Michael 42 THISELTON, Anthony 132, 158, 193, 194, 248-249 THOMAS, T. 242 THOMPSON, Richard 83 THORSTEINSSON, Runar 63 THURSTON, Bonnie 202 TOBIN, Thomas 29-30, 60-61, 64, 116, 119-120, 222, 229 TONSTAD, Sigve 31 TOWNER, Philip 159-161 TREBILCO, Paul 35 TRITES, Alison 217 TRUDINGER, Peter 31 TRUMMER, Peter 123 TUCKER, J. 122 TURNER, John 2 TURNER, Marie 33-34 TURNER, Max 172 UKWUEGBU, Bernard 200 UZUKWU, Gesila 123 VAN DOREN, William 234 VANHOYE, A. 239 VAN NESTE, Ray 159-160 VAN PELT, M. 177-178 VAN SETERS, John 209 VELLANICKAL, Matthew 101-103 VERBEKE, Gérard 171 VOLLMER, Thomas 35, 197-198 VOLZ, P. 171, 173 WALLACE, Daniel 79 WALLS, A. 155 WALTKE, Bruce 163 WAN, Sze-kar 252 WARD, James 215 WARE, James 68-70 WATERS, Guy 80 WATSON, Francis 57 WATTS, John 164 WEDDERBURN, Alexander 41-42, 65-66, 122, 191 WEGNER, Paul 177

309

INDEXES

WEISS, Bernard 116 WELBORN, Larry 122 WENK, Matthias WERNBERG-MOLLER, P. 183 WESTERHOLM STEPHEN 66, 80 WESTERMANN, Claus 209 WEVERS, John 209-210 WICK, Peter 114 WIELAND, David 235 WILCKENS, Ulrich 122, 142, 222 WILLIAMS, David 237-238 WILLIAMSON, Ronald 188 WILSON, Todd 199 WINDISCH, Hans 85, 198

WINTERMUTE, O. 230 WITHERINGTON, Ben 34, 75, 86-87, 156, 202, 218, 235, 248 WOLFF, Christian 198 WRIGHT, Christopher 68, 162 WRIGHT, N. T. 25, 37, 80, 85, 110 WURST, Shirley 31 YATES, John 27-28, 172 YOUNG, James 156 ZAHN, Theodor 76, 107 ZELLER, Dieter 49, 139 ZERWICK, Max 198

BIBLICAL REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1,2 1,28 3,16 6,9 6,11 8,1 12,1-7 13,14-17 15,1-6 17,1-8 18,10 21,12 25,23 26,5 29,17 30,6 30,8 32,29 32,22-32 38,8 Exodus 2,23 2,24 2,25 3,7-8

177-178 32 22 22 26 178 88 88 88 88 120 120 120 190 230, 260 208 149, 207-209, 219 209 208 166

25 22, 25 25 25

6,5 7,11 7,22 14,17 14,18 15,10 18,17 18,18 18,22 24,9-10 30,32-33 30,38 31,18 34,34

22 162 162 178 178 178 209 209 13, 149, 207-210, 216 38 162 162 195 197

Leviticus 9,9 16,16 16,17 22,14

241 241 241 241

Numbers 11,1 11,4 11,13 11,14 11,16

212 177, 209 213 213 211

310

INDEXES

Ezra 8,40

128

11,26 11,27 11,33

13, 149, 207-208, 212-213, 216 211 211 212

Job 33,5 38,14

178 21

Deuteronomy 2,14 6,4 10,16 15,17 15,22 25,5 30,12 30,13 30,14

235 82 114 162 162 166 121 121 91, 121

Judges 2,18 8,7 8,8 9,23 16,19-30

22 163 163 178 243

Psalms 4,21 7,10 15,4 17,3 18,5 26,6 43,21 44,21 89,19 89,20 89,21 89,22 89,29 104,29 116,11 139,7 139,1-2.23

150 139 230 139 86 139 140 139 215 215 13-14, 149, 207, 214-217 216 216 178 128 178 10, 139, 150

1 Samuel 16,7 16,14 16,15 16,16 16,23 18,10 19,9

10, 139, 150 178 178 178 178 178 178

Proverbs 15,11 20,4 20,27 26,2 27,15 27,20 31,1

139, 150 163 139 139 164 164 137

2 Samuel 3,1

230, 260

Ecclesiastes 12,4

230

Isaiah 21 24,23 40,3 40,5 40,13 40,16 42,5 43,8 44,3

22 38 184 38 178 164 164 164 81, 178

11,17

1 Kings 8,39

10, 139, 150

2 Kings 2,16

178

1 Chronicles 28,9 28,16 29,17

139 163 139

311

INDEXES

52,7 53,4 53,5 53,6 53,8 53,9

89 233-234 233 233 233 233

Jeremiah 3,19 3,20 4,4 6,21 9,25-26 11,20 17,10 18,23 20,12 24,23-28 31,31-34 38,20

25 25 114 230-231, 260 114 139 139 230 139 22 114 25

Ezekiel 2,2 3,12 3,14 8,3 11,10 11,24 26,26 26,27 36-37 36,26-38

178 178 178 178 81 178 114, 181 114, 181 28-29, 179-180 28, 81

37,1 37,5 37,6 37,14 37,1-14 39,29

178 181 181 185 28 178

Daniel 3,16 3,17 3,18 11,41

128 128 128 230

Hosea 11,8 11,10 11,11

25 25 25

Joel 2,28 2,29

81, 178 81, 178

Nahum 1,15

89

Zephaniah 1,3

230

Haggai 2,5

178

Zechariah 4,6

177

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 5,16 8,14 8,15 8,16 8,17 10,8 11,19 28,28-20

70 234 234 234 233-234 233 84 70

Mark 2,15 2,16

84 84

12,29 12,30 12,31 14,31

82 82 82 165

Luke 1,13 5,5 6,46 7,34 8,2 8,24 9,2

128 233 219 84 233-234 219 233

312

INDEXES

10,9 10,38 10,39 10,40 11,14 13,11 13,12 13,34 20,28 20,29 20,31 22,20 22,31

233 217-218 217-218 13, 149, 207, 217-218 235 233-235 233-235 219 166 166 165 158 219

John 2,23 5,5 5,6 5,7 5,7 5,8 5,8 5,9 6,1 6,14 11,4 13,16

233 233, 235-236, 260 236 236 236 236 236 236 236 233 233 73

Acts 6,6 8,18 8,19 9,12 9,17 9,20 9,21 9,22 11,19 11,20 13,13 14,14 14,46 14,47 18,1 18,2 18,2 19,6 20,30

238 238 238 238 238 90 90 90 70 70 238 73 70 70 61 61 88 238 67

25,24 28,8 28,9 28,17-28 28,20

137 238 233-237, 260 60 241

Romans 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,10 1,11 1,12 1,13 1,14 1,15 1,16 1,17 1,18 1,23 1,25 2,4 2,8 2,12-16 2,16 2,20 2,17-29 2,25-29 2,29 3,1 3,2-3 3,7 3,8 3,28 3,30 4,9-12 4,13 4,18 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4

73, 76-77, 92 75 78, 114 78, 114, 200 50, 77 77 52, 77, 123 47, 52, 113 47, 92, 114, 200 47, 130 47, 50 47, 50, 52 47, 50, 47 47, 50 47, 50, 90 46, 113 46, 113 91, 118, 125 156-157 91 93 91 113 92 91 47 80, 82, 114 114-115, 200 80 114 91 56 228 80, 82 80, 83 88 167 110, 115-116 92, 110, 115-116, 124, 167 92, 110, 115-116, 124, 180 92, 110, 115-116, 124, 167, 180

INDEXES

5,5 5,8 5,9 5,10 5,11 5,12 5,14 5,19 6,3 6,4 6,5 6,13 6,17 6,18 6,19 6,20 7,5 7,6 7,13 7,7-13 7,18 7,19 7,23 7,24 7,7-25 8,2 8,3 8,4 8,5 8,6 8,7 8,8 8,9 8,10 8,11 8,12 8,13 8,14 8,15 8,16 8,17 8,18 8,18 8,19

110, 115-116, 125, 147-167, 180, 200 84, 110, 115-116 93, 110, 115-116 92-93, 110, 115-116 92, 110, 115-116 33, 92 156-157 84 93 93 13, 156-157 36 256 256 256-258, 261, 266 256 94 200 84 11 256 256 11 11 11, 94, 118 12, 28, 115, 131, 200 12, 14, 115 156-157, 168 12, 131, 168, 200 12, 131, 140, 200 12, 131, 140, 200 12, 131, 140 12, 131 12, 118, 131, 200-201 12, 200 12, 28, 200 12 12, 200 102-104, 200 17, 19, 102-104, 117, 130, 181, 200 102-104, 155, 200 25, 102-104 23, 33, 38, 102-106 30, 33-34, 106-110, 117, 130, 226-229 10, 18, 24, 26, 29-31, 33-34, 106-110, 117, 133 167

8,20 8,21

8,22

8,23 8,24 8,25 8,26

8,27

8,28 8,29 8,30 8,34 8,35 8,36 8,37 8,38 8,39 9,1 9,2 9,3 9,4 9,5 9,17 9,28 9,29 10,1

313 10, 18, 24, 26, 29-31, 33-34, 106-110, 117, 133 167 10, 18, 24, 26, 29-31, 33-34, 106-110, 117-118, 133, 167, 256 10, 18, 21, 24, 26, 29-31, 33-34, 106-110, 117, 133-134, 153, 167, 227, 229 21, 125, 133-134, 153-154, 200, 227, 229, 264-265 21, 134, 167-168, 153, 227, 229, 264-265 21, 134, 147, 152-153, 166168, 227, 229, 264-265 1, 5, 9, 12-14, 17-18, 20-22, 23, 25-27, 29-30, 33, 39-42, 67, 94-95, 99-100, 110, 116, 118, 120-121, 125-127, 129, 131, 133-145, 147-150, 153155, 166-167, 169, 200, 205, 207, 210, 213, 216, 221-222, 225-230, 256, 258-259, 261, 263-266 1, 9, 12-14, 17-18, 23, 25-26, 29, 30, 33, 39-41, 94, 99, 110, 116, 118, 120-121, 123, 125126, 131, 133, 135-145, 147, 149-152, 156-157, 169, 171172, 200, 222, 225, 258-259, 263-266 77, 119, 141, 222, 228 141, 222 141, 222 136, 143 35-39, 119 35-39, 140 35-39, 119, 259 35-39, 120, 259 35-39, 119, 259 85, 119-120, 200, 260 85 30, 85, 119 85 85 85-86 85 156 121

314 10,2 10,3 10,4 10,5-13 10,6 10,7 10,8 10,9 10,10 10,15 10,16 10,17 10,18 11,1 11,2 11,3 11,4 11,12 11,13 11,36 12,11 12,12 12,13 13,1-7 14,1 14,17 14,19-20 14,1-15,13 15,4 15,8 15,13 15,13 15,14 15,15 15,16 15,17 15,18 15,19 15,20 15,22 15,23 15,24 15,25 15,26 15,27 15,28 15,29 15,30

INDEXES

121 121 121 85 121 85 85, 121 85, 91-92, 121 85, 91-92, 121 89-90 92 92 85 136-137 136-137 136-137 136-137 78 73, 78-79 46 200 167 122-123 35 57, 125 124, 200 124 54-56 167 80, 91 124-125, 167, 200 125 52, 125 50-51, 125 53, 124-125, 200 125 53, 125 124-125, 200 50-51 47 47, 87, 130 47-48, 93 47, 122-123 47, 122 44, 47, 93, 122 47, 122 122 44-45, 47, 124, 130, 200

15,31 15,32 16,1 16,2 16,3 16,4 16,5 16,7 16,9 16,15 16,16 16,17 16,18 16,19 16,20 16,21

44-45, 47, 122, 130 45, 47, 130 52, 123 123 62, 79 52, 62 52, 62 73, 79 79 123 52 56 56 56 56 79

1 Corinthians 1,1 1,2 1,16 1,18 1,19 1,20 1,21 1,22 1,23 1,24 1,25 1,27 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,10 2,11 2,12 2,14 2,25 3,9 3,16 3,17 4,7 4,8 4,10 4,11

73 91 132 13, 90, 248 90 90 90, 248 90 90, 248 90, 248 90, 247 247 249 249 247-249 248-249 248-249 13 139, 194 139, 194 139, 181, 194 13 249 80 176, 194, 201 176, 194, 201 250 250 247-248, 250 250

315

INDEXES

4,12 4,13 4,20 6,9 6,10 6,14 6,15 6,16 6,17 6,18 6,19 6,20 8,4 8,6 8,7 8,9 8,10 8,13 8,23 9,1 9,2 9,22 9,16-23 10,31-11,1 11,4 11,5 11,13 11,14 11,15 11,23 11,24 11,25 11,2-14,40 12,7 12,22 13,13 14,7-12 14,13-15 14,20 14,21 14,22 14,23 15,24 15,24 15,32 15,43 15,44 15,45

250 250 124 124 124 201 201 201 201 201 15, 176, 194, 201 194, 201 82 82 247-248 247-248, 251 54 54 73 77 77 247-248, 250 70 70 129 129 129, 255 255 255 158 158 147, 157-158, 160-161 70 194, 200, 213, 251 247-248, 250 201 20 129 70 70 20, 70, 131 70 70, 124 70 36 30, 247-248, 250 30 30

15,46 15,50

30 124

2 Corinthians 1,1 1,8 1,9 1,10 1,11 1,21 1,22 3,1-11 3,2 3,3 3,5 3,6 3,7 3,16 3,17 3,18 5,1 5,5 5,6 6,6 8,1-5 8,14 8,15 8,23 9,2 9,12 9,13 9,12 10,1-6 10,10 10,11 10,12 10,17 10,18 11,4 11,5 11,13 11,14 11,15 11,12-16 11,23 11,26 11,27 11,29

44, 73 130, 180 130, 180 130, 180 130 195 195 81 195 195-196 196 196 115, 197 196 195-197 195-196 181 181, 195 181 195 122 122 122 80 122 44, 123 44 44 36 14, 252-253 14 14 253 253 181, 195 77, 228, 255 77, 254 254 254 67 253 253 253 26

316

INDEXES

12,1-8 12,1-9 12,2 12,5 12,9 12,10 12,11 12,12 13,3 13,4 13,13

132 130 13 13 13, 254 254 77, 255 77 13, 252, 255 13, 130, 252, 255 197-198, 202

Galatians 1,1 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,15 2,4 2,15 2,17 2,20 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,13 3,14 3,20 3,26 3,27 3,28 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7 4,12 4,13 4,14 4,15 5,16 5,19 5,20 5,21 5,22 5,23

73, 75-76 67 67 67 67 75, 77 67 84 84 247 115, 199 115, 181, 199 115, 199 115,119 115, 119 181 181 82 182 182 182 199 199 130, 199 199 130, 245-246 130, 245-247, 249 130, 245-246 245 200 200 200 124, 200 200 200

6,15

181

Ephesians 1,1 4,6

73 82

Philippians 1,15 1,19 1,27 1,28 1,29 1,30 2,1 2,11 2,25 3,2 3,3 3,13 4,15

67 130 201 201 201 201 201 91 73, 80 67 70 228 52

Colossians 1,1 1,15-20 4,11

73 31 124

1 Thessalonians 1,4 192 1,5 70, 191-192 1,6 70, 191-192 1,7 70 1,8 70 2,18 130 3,10 130 3,11 130 4,8 181, 191-192 5,19 191-192 5,20 192 5,23 191 2 Thessalonians 1,5 124 1 Timothy 1,1 2,5 2,9 3,2 3,8

73 82 147, 157, 159 160 147, 157, 160-161

317

INDEXES

3,11 5,25

147, 157, 160-161 147, 157

2 Timothy 1,1

73

Titus 1,10-16 2,3 2,6

67 147, 157 147, 157

Philemon 24 Hebrews 4,14 4,15 5,2 7,23 7,24 7,25

7,27 7,28 9,7 9,26 10,28 11,32 11,33 11,34

242 233, 238-239, 243, 261 241 242 242 243 243 233, 238-239, 243, 261

James 2,19 5,13

82 238

1 Peter 1,8 2,2 2,22 2,23 2,24 2,25

20 70 233 233 233 233

80

239 233, 238-239, 242-243, 261 233, 238-241-243, 261 242 137, 242 137-138, 242

OTHER REFERENCES Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 2 Maccabees 2,4 2,12 2,14 7,13 9,21 11,17 4 Maccabees 12,2

137 164 164 164 231, 260 136

241

Wisdom of Solomon 1,6 139 1,6 33, 135 1,7 33, 135 1,8 33, 135 1,9 33, 135 1,9 135 1,13 33 1,14 33

2,23 2,24 7,22 7,23 7,24 7,25 9,17 9,18

33 33 176 176 176 176 135 135

Sirach 42,18

139

1 Enoch 6-11 9,6 10,4.8-9 10,18-19 83-90

22 24 24 25 128

3 Baruch 11,3-4

128

318

INDEXES

Testament of Judah 20,1-5

135

Testament of Levi 5,2

201

Testament of Zebulun 8,2 201 Letter to Aristeas 120 121 123

221 221 220

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QapGen 20.28-29 238 1QS I.18-II.18 127 1QS III 7 183 1QS IV 21 183 1QS IV.2-8,20-22 12 1QS VII 9-10.13-14 181 1QS VII 16 183 1QS VIII 14 183 1QS VIII 16 184 1QS IX 3 183-184 1QH II 19-24 181 1QH V 19 185 1QH V 24-25 181 1QH VIII 11 185 1QH VIII 19-20 181 1QH XX 11-12 181, 185 1QJ XXI 14 181 1Q28b II.22-25 12 1Q28b II 24 181 4Q266 11 181 4Q504 4 4-5 181 4Q506.131 182 4Q521 II.6 12 4Q393 1-2.ii.2-4 127 11QMelch 3.2.18 182 CD 2.27-30 127 Jewish and Rabbinic Writings Josephus Ant 4.108 Ant 4.119-120

187 187

Ant Ant Ant Ant Ant Ant Ant Ant Ant Ant Ant

4.184 4.185 4.198 6.166 6.222 8.45-48 8.408 10.79 10.239 12.128 18.63

220 220 220 187 187 237 188 157 188 241 59

Philo Ag Flac 1 AllegInt 3,129 AllegInt 3,132 AllegInt 3,134 AllegInt 3,144 Cher 23, 51 Conf 106 Decal 87 Det Emb 159-161 Her 87, 149 Hypoth 7,1 Legat 155 Legat 1.8 Legat 1.345 Legat 3.99 Mut 87 On Abr 257 On Jos 26 On Virt 124 On Virt 195 On Virt 212 Opif 54 Opif 128 Plant 18-26 Praem 15, 29 Somn 2.220 Somn 2.237 Somn 2.252

59 241 241 241 241 157 157 188 188 59 157 157 59 157 188 157 157 241 241 188 241 190 157 188 189 157 157 189 189

Leviticus Rabbah 6,1

135

Deuteronomy Rabbah 3,12 135

319

INDEXES

Canticles Rabbah 8,11

Other Ancient Writings

Herodotus 1.171 2.88 4.135

241 231 231

Antiphon Tetra 4.3.2

231

Hippocrates Medi 12

231

Aristophanes Peace 636

231

Parthenius Nara Amat

206

Aristotle Rhet 1419a

231

1 Clement 5,7 55,3-6

70 243

Plato Crat Repub Soph Thae

206 206, 232 206 206

Plutarch Cohi Ira 8

232

Polycarp Phil 1.3

21

12 12

Crates To Metro Demosthenes Acc Alex

135

241

206

Dio Cassius Epit 51.2-4

62

Seneca Epistles 83 Epistles 41

Dio Chrysostom Orat 3.62

232

Strabo Geog 1.2

231

Diodorus Siculus Library

207

Suetonius Claud 25.4 Nero 33.1 Tib 36.1

60 62 59

Tacitus Ann 2.85.4-5 Ann 12.52

59 60

Thucydides 1.32 1.35 7.47

231 231 231

Xenophon Memo 4.2.32

231

Diogenes Laertius Lives 241 Dionysius of Halicarnassus RomAnt 10.7.2 232 Epictetus 4.6.34

241

Euripides Andro

206

Eusebius Eccl 1.2.17

70